15-0202 v2.1/Living Aleutian Home/Aleutian Islands Agricultural Viability (Part II)

QUESTION

It is my understanding that FAR is a tool to help classify a project, but not necessarily the only factor when considering what Transect a project would be in. While the Floor Area Ratio would put this in the Agricultural transect, we don’t believe this is an appropriate classification for the site. It is clearly within the village footprint of Sand Point. Small houses built on relatively large lots is common in Rural Alaskan villages because villages tend naturally to spread out (considering they are tiny dots of humanity in vast wilderness and people need the land area to store gear, boats, etc.) and houses are almost always small because of the costs of building and heating. Because this is not an agriculturally productive area, it only makes sense to classify the site as being in a Village zone. This would mean 30% of the project area to agriculture.

On the site, there is a patch of edible and ethnobotanically important plants naturally growing. This would cover about 75% of the area required by Urban Agriculture (under Transect 3). The plants have already been photographed, researched and confirmed to have edible and medicinal uses. This site will be preserved during construction with fences and notices to all workers.

For the rest of the requirement, we are considering a combination of raised beds for experimental gardening and native berry plantings.

Please advise if our strategy and our classification of the project as being in Transect 3 rather than 2 is acceptable.

ANSWER

Part II Yes, your strategy and classification that the project is in Transect 3 is acceptable. The google map and site plan had previously been reviewed and approved as Transect L3 by ILFI.


Post ID 2113

Still need help? Contact Us Contact Us