1) The City has a very poor 2 year track record of managing the area of
impact for rural values and rural residents. Furthermore, the policies outlined
in this initial draft may not even be beneficial for city residents to the
extent that such residents experience a decrease in quality of life
(traffic, taxes, loss of open space) owing to further annexation
and development.
2) This draft formalizes pro-development policies on the part of the City for
the area of impact. It does not appear that the County is even a player or that
the City even cares about what county residents want. This draft document
constitutes a development "manifest destiny" for the city of Moscow. The
"administering" of the Area of Impact as per the Area of Impact Agreement
becomes the "controlling" of the Area of Impact by the City. There *IS* a
difference. County residents will be impacted without representation.
3) The draft is not creative and therefore does not distinguish itself from a
typical development plan.
a) A creative and innovative approach would be to require designation of
open space preserves in the Area of Impact *first* before considering any
further development in the area of impact.
b) The draft does not formally recognize non-development land use in the Area
of Impact as legitimate in perpetuity.
c) While recognizing the potential effects of county actions on the city, it
does not describe how internal city policies will affect the area of impact.
For example, does the City encourage or discourage infill?
d) There is no recognition of "special places" in the Area of Impact such as
Paradise Ridge that should be protected and buffered from development.
4) There is no discussion of the potential fiscal impacts to City residents
should these policies be adopted.
5) It does not discuss at all the *process* by which decisions will
be rendered for the Area of Impact.
MOSCOW AREA OF CITY IMPACT
> Under Idaho law, cities and counties can enter into an "area of
> city impact agreements" to jointly administer planning and
> development activities in the area immediately outside the city limits.
> The city of Moscow and Latah County reached such an agreement in
> 1993, and designated the area indicated in the accompanying map as
> Moscow's area of impact.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The area was drawn to include those areas
> around Moscow with potential for urban-type development in the next
> 20 years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This statement is not factually correct. The boundaries of the impact
area were drawn-up based more on administrative convenience rather than
the "potential for urban-type development." The impact area was created
based on section lines rather than any meaningful analysis of the potential for
development/open space. Furthermore, the agreement was the result of a legal
requirement (state law) to have such a document in place rather than any
proactive planning on the part of the city and county.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Because land in the area of city impact is in the proximity
> of the City of Moscow, it is an area in which growth and development
> may be expected to occur.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Growth and development is but one alternative. Some of the impact area
could just
as easily serve as a permanent greenbelt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Thus the area of city impact is a transition
>area, including some areas that will be annexed into the growing city,
> other areas where scattered residential development will intensify, and
> still other areas where agricultural uses will continue for some time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, a rather narrow perspective set of options is presented here.
Agriculture and open space are not considered viable alternatives for the Area
of Impact. Why must development in the area of impact be considered
inevitable?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Procedurally, changes to the comprehensive plan map land use
> designations for the area of city impact (which control what uses are
> allowed in various areas) must be jointly approved by the Moscow
> City Council and the Latah County Commission. The City of
> Moscow zoning ordinance applies in the impact area and is
> administered by the city.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is the County P&Z involved with the drafting of this document?
How will they be included in this planning process? Idaho state law provides
for the Area of Impact to be governed by either the City or County or both.
Individuals in the Area of Impact or especially those just outside the Area of
Impact lack representation in the planning decisions that affect them. There
are numerous examples in the past 2 years to demonstrate that the City does not
adequately understand nor appreciate the lifestyle qualities that rural
residents desire. If the City manages the Area the Impact and the County
acquiesces, development is a foregone conclusion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> City of Moscow zone designations can be applied within the
> area of impact if they are consistent with the land use designations
> shown on the comprehensive plan map. Since the usual agricultural
> activities are uses-of-right within the Agriculture/Forestry zone,
> provisions outlined in this section have little practical effect for most
> existing farm uses.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Provisions for the area of impact agreement greatly effect most existing farm
uses. There is an inherent conflict between agriculture and urban lifestyles that
is not easily reconciled. Agriculture is less viable with urban encroachment
(e.g., movement of machinery, pesticides/herbicides). Thus, the statement that
these provisions "have little practical effect" is not factually correct.
>GOALS OF THE AREA OF CITY IMPACT:
> 1. Promote the orderly development of land near the city of
>Moscow.
Why? Why not promote the orderly preservation of open space through
promotion of agriculture and/or permanent greenbelts for recreation/wildlife/
aesthetics/conservation? Isn't this what some of planning professionals
reported in Coeur d'Alene? One could just as easily make the argument to
preserve the land in the area of impact: 1) The land within the area of impact
is highly productive farmland based on soil productivity indices 2) attitudes of
Latah County residents, measured in 1994 by the U. of Idaho, indicate that
population growth and development should be moderate at best 3) there
are elevated areas in area of impact that provide important scenic viewsheds.
Development should be considered neither certain nor inevitable.
Revised Goal: Promote the preservation of open-space and conservation of
rural lifestyles.
> 2. Provide for a single comprehensive plan and one set of
>development regulations that apply to land in the area of city
>impact.
Is it realistic to expect that all values can be represented in a planning
document developed by the City? A single comprehensive plan
probably translates into a single set of values. Why not have the County plan
provide a check and balance to the City comprehensive plan? The City's
attitude that one size fits all doesn't make sense to me.
> 3. Simplify planning and development by having a single
>jurisdiction (the city) be responsible for administering the
>development and approval process in the area of city impact.
See #2 above. We have a brief and unflattering history of city
administration of the Area of Impact. What have we learned? Commissioners
Solomon and Greene had to appear before the City Council to encourage them
to adopt zoning regulations consistent with the County's based on at least 2
examples where County residents *weren't even notified* about proposed
developments that impacted their living areas. Even after the City adoption
of Ag/Forestry zones consistent with the county, the City has granted
exceptions to the 40 acre rule in every case that I'm aware of. The City
has never really bought into the Ag/Forestry zone and we can't expect them to
preserve this zone in the future. The City' view of the Ag/Forestry zone is
simply as a zone that is best described as "pending development" zone. There
is no recognition, in this document, or otherwise, that Ag/Forestry practices
may provide the highest and best use of some lands in the impact area.
> 4. Allow for the expansion of the city boundaries through orderly
> subdivision and annexation.
With #3 above, this is fait accompli. The city recently had to suspend an
ordinance requiring it to provide services to annexed areas because the City
Council (specifically, the boys on the City Council) voted for a north Polk
annexation which is not contiguous to the city (by any reasonable interpretation
of the term "contiguous"). If the City shows such poor annexation judgement
now, what will happen when they have free reign in the Area of Impact?
> 5. Provide for the cost-effective and well planned delivery of city
>services (water, sewer, streets, etc.) within these expanding
>boundaries.
This goal can be achieved by not making poor annexation decisions in the
first place.
> 6. Preserve and enhance the function of state and federal highways
>and county roads in the area of city impact as safe and efficient
>transportation corridors.
I read "widen" here. This goal might be acceptable if "enhance" meant
to improve for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Otherwise, more lanes =
more development = more congestion = lower quality of life. This is a basic
axiom.
> 7. Protect the interim viability of agriculture in areas more distant
>from the city and not yet ready for urban development by
>minimizing conflict with scattered development.
What constitutes "more distant"? "More distant" one year is "very close"
the next year, especially after a subdivision pushes a half mile into the
Ag areas.
> 8. Minimize the water, sewer, and access problems common to
>scattered rural residential developments, and assure that the
>layout of any such developments will be compatible with urban
>standards when eventually annexed.
If this means to limit the new installation of new wells and septic
systems within the area of impact, then this is a good goal.
> 9. Identify, protect, and where possible acquire lands in the area of
>city impact that will in the future be appropriate for parkland,
>including possible linear parks along the railroad corridors and
> Paradise Creek.
Any further expansion of the city should be contingent
on the protection of special open space preserves (not necessarily
parks). Parkland dedication, as currently
practiced in the city, is inadequate to preserve the larger greenbelt
areas that should be provided in the area of impact. These open-space
preserves should be identified *first* in the planning process.
>POLICIES FOR THE AREA OF CITY IMPACT:
> 1. Encourage development to occur contiguous with present city
>limits and aggressively annex such developments -- so that city
>services (water, sewer, streets) can be provided.
Contiguous would be a nice change (grin). The words
"aggressively annex" are a bit puzzling to me. Why would Moscow
residents be eager to increase their taxes? A recent posting to
this list highlighted research at Boise State showing that development does
not pay its own way. If I were an existing Moscow resident, I would
be bent. If I were a newcomer, I would thank existing residents
for subsidizing my new home and services.
> 2. Moscow city sewer and water services will not be extended
>beyond the city limits, except in cases where the failure of
>existing systems have caused a public health and safety hazard,
>and where users so served agree to fully bear all costs of such
>service and not to oppose future annexation.
Reasonable.
> 3. Development of multi-user sewer systems in the area of city
>impact is discouraged, except as provided in #2, above.
>Evaluate proposed subdivisions, where individual private
>systems are proposed, to assure that functional sewage systems
>can be developed for all parcels without undue off-site impact.
> 4.5.6.7
Reasonable.
> 8. Within the area of city impact, parkland dedication (or fee in
>lieu of dedication) may be deferred until the parcel is rezoned to
>a higher density than the Agriculture/Forestry zone unless the
>proposed subdivision includes land previously identified as a
>preferred location for parkland.
No. No. No. Parks and open-space preserves first. Development later
and/or contingent on the preserves.
> 9. Because land policies in the county beyond the area of city
>impact significantly impact development pressures closer to the
>city of Moscow, it is the policy of the city to consider Latah
>County development regulations in setting regulations for the
>area of city impact.
This is reasonable but could be interpreted to support a
pro-development position. For example, if the City believes that the
County is being too restrictive in allowing development, the City could justify
poor development decisions in order to provide "necessary"
housing that it perceives the County is failing to provide. There
is always a housing shortage--just ask any developer (grin).
> 10. The area of city impact should be regularly re-evaluated by the
> city and county to identify areas which should be added because
>there is a reasonable chance they might experience significant
>residential development or be annexed in the subsequent 20
>years, and areas which have little chance of such development
>in 20 years and might better be administered solely by the
>county.
Who is the "they" referred to in the first clause?
APPLICABILITY OF ZONES WITHIN THE AREA OF CITY
IMPACT:
>1. Within the area of city impact, land initially zoned
>Agriculture/Forestry can be rezoned to any of the city of
>Moscow residential zones subject to the following.
I don't understand this. Does this mean such zoning
would be "automatic" without public notice and hearing?
What is the difference between this provision and the current
possibilities?
-- Greg Brown (gregb@uidaho.edu) Computer Services and College of Forestry,Wildlife,& Range Sciences University of Idaho Moscow, ID 83843 (208) 885-2126 Fax: (208) 885-7539