tom has some valid comments here... especially regarding the
desireability of retail/light commercial areas in neighborhoodsnodes vs
strip centers.
the comment regarding water and sewer service not crossing state or
county lines conerns me as it can really impact infrastructure
efficiencies. just as your electrical infrastructure crosses state and
national lines, there are several circumstances readily apparent whereby
it might be most efficient, and in the best interest of the community as a
whole, to cross state and county lines with water and sewer
infrastructures.
already.... city of moscow and ui water systems are physically tied to
each other, but separated with closed valves. one can back up the
other if necessary. it is a terrific back-up capacity. to not make such
ties at "arbitary" political lines is a lost opportunity.
moscow and pullman share the same aquifer, so our water
infrastructure is already "tied."
other than the water the univeristy of idaho takes from the outfall of the
city treatment plant to irrigate fields, etc, all of the downstream users of
paradise creek are in washington. so our sewer infrastructure is
already tied.
IF some sort of development were to happen on the washington side of
the state line, immediatley adjacent to the state line, (residential or
otherwise) and it were of such a nature that it was positive for the area,
would it not be better to provide protection to the aquifer by routing
sewer to the moscow plant rather than having another septic system?
(provided, of course, that the plant had capacity, etc)
i guess my point is this: tom starts out his comments with a wholistic
view questioning arbitrary "lines" vs "natural" systems, yet in this one
comment regarding water and sewer systems, he seems to be
supporting arbitary lines.
>>> Tom Lamar <tlamar@moscow.com> 06/28/95 03:22pm >>>
Here are some of my initial comments upon reading the discussion draft
on the Area of City Impact. I have a few initial comments and then have
addressed a few specific points.
My general comments:
1. I question the borders of this area as seeming arbitrary. Is there any
consideration of slope, topography, or other natural features in defining
these lines?
2. How do residents living in this area voice their concerns toward
elected or appointed officials representing the citizens and city of
Moscow?
3. I would like to see this discussion present itself as an opportunity for
Moscow and Latah County to excercise what was presented and what
we learned at the Coeur d'Alene conference. The model presented there
allows for mutual preservation of open space AND development of a
viable community. We shouldn't let this opportunity pass.
My specific comments:
GOALS OF THE AREA OF CITY IMPACT
6. This seems to be the only goal addressing transportation issues.
Some goal language should be dedicated to maintaining a high level of
residential density so that fixed route transit can be made to be more
economically feasible and school bus systems can continue to function
efficiently.
Secondly we must have recognition of the need for accomodating
pedestrian travel (mention not just "roads" and "highways", but actively
recognize
"sidewalks" and "pedestrian pathways" also.)
9. "...and Paradise Creek." should be changed to "...and waterways
including Paradise Creek, South Fork of the Palouse River and their
tributaries."
A goal should include the identification of land as environmentally
sensitive or special places and therefore not suitable for development.
We may want to identify such open space areas without necessarily
converting that space to "parkland". There may be land not suitable for
either use.
Of course, this begs the question of, "What is parkland?" Do we want all
of Moscow's Parks to be the mowed grass variety? Is there room for
park diversity?
A second point on this thread of discussion is that not all of this land
need be "acquired" by the City. It is certainly possible for conservation
easements to be established to protect and preserve uses of land. The
new
Palouse Land Trust is being developed in our area specifically to address
this need, for example.
POLICIES FOR THE AREA OF CITY IMPACT
2. Re: providing city sewer and water services, add "...and in no cases
across County or State Borders".
6. Does "primary transportation" refer to any particular mode of
transportation, or are you simply saying that transporation is the primary
use for the highway and therefore it should be maintained by limiting
access? (Very different.) This Policy should allow for transit and bicycle
transporation as well.
8. This Policy is confusing. It does bring up some discussion, though,
about the concept of fee in lieu of dedication. It seems that this fee
policy is presently not providing parks fast enough in Moscow. Look for
example at the complete lack of parks in the Southeast quadrant of the
City. Is the problem here: a lack of land for sale?, not enough money
collected from developers?, a narrow focus of what a park "should be"?
...
This fee in lieu of policy is currently unclear and needs to be redressed.
Again there should be a policy to identify environmentally sensitive
areas.
Lets get this established now so we don't have to do it on a piece by
piece basis.
APPLICABILITY OF ZONES WITHIN THE AREA OF CITY IMPACT
2. add: - discourage such development amongst of adjacent to
environmentally sensitive areas.
I have a question about the desireability of zoning commercial areas
away from residiential areas. This makes sense for heavy industrial
sites, but it is rather appealing to have places of commerce and places of
business close to residential areas. I like the idea of commercial centers
being planned as neighborhood centers and not like strip developments.