[Vision2020] Moscow City Council Monday Agenda

[Steven Basoa]

When I first read the City Council agenda I laughed when I saw item 6  
(pasted below).  Oh my, I said, how sad.  It looks like someone is  
planning a gated community.  How insecure these people must be to  
want a gated community here in Moscow.  Why?  When I read Ms. Bafus'  
post (also below), I laughed some more and said, I should have  
known.  But my concern isn't so much about a gated community but the  
proposed bending of the rules for it.   The lot sizes have been  
changed, that doesn't seem to be so much of a problem but the last  
line of #6 bothers me.  The "public street standards have been waived  
due to the fact that the internal roadways are to be private."  This  
seems wrong on several levels.  The city of Moscow, Latah County and  
the state of Idaho all have their building and planning codes and  
regulations for a reason.  I may not agree with all of them, but they  
are our standards.   All roadways within the city should be built to  
the current standards.  This allows for greater traffic control and  
movement of safety vehicles (ambulances, fire trucks, etc).  What if  
the current owners decide to pack it in and move elsewhere?  What if  
they decide to break up the gated community and allow it to become a  
'normal' part of the community?  Then we would have yet another  
section of town with narrow and inefficient streets.   Where else  
will the building codes and rules be altered to ease someone else's  
burden?  Sidewalks?  Plumbing?  Electric?   And when the next  
developer comes along and says, "Well, you changed the rules for  
them, why not for me?"  Where does it stop?  I urge the city council  
to not waive the public street standards.  I urge the city leaders  
(including, and maybe especially, the city managers) to stop playing  
fast and loose with the city codes and zoning issues.   Consistency  
and fair, unbiased enforcement of the building codes should be the  
order of the day.  Instead it appears that spot zoning and the  
waiving of building standards have become the norm.

It has been hard to write this post and not digress into a tirade  
about the lack of intelligent planning on the part of Moscow's city  
leaders of the past two decades.  I think the city desperately needs  
some sort of master plan for growth and development.  Otherwise we  
will continue to grow in the sprawling and disconnected manner of the  
recent past.   And that ain't good for anyone except maybe a few  
developers and contractors.

SB

6.       Public Hearing – Greensides Hill Preliminary Plat – Andrew  
Ackerman
On January 10, 2007, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended  
approval of a Preliminary Plat for division of approximately 8.2  
acres of land into 37 single family lots on the west side of N. Polk  
Extension called Greensides Hill.  The land currently consists of  
three parcels, each developed with a single family residence and  
zoned medium density, single family residential (R-2).  The proposal  
Preliminary Plat has associated with it an approved Preliminary  
Planned Unit Development.  The R-2 Zoning District has a 7,000 square  
foot minimum lot size for single-family residential lots. Via the PUD  
process the lots have been permitted to be reduced from the minimum  
standard. Additionally, public street standards have been waived due  
to the fact that the internal roadways are to be private.

On Feb 2, 2007, at 10:28 PM, Bev Bafus wrote:

For anyone concerned about the direction of growth in the City of  
Moscow.....

And especially concerned about the way we allow growth in infill  
areas (lots surrounded by city that are undeveloped or  
underdeveloped).......

And concerned about the capricious and inconsistent treatment of  
proposals by City of Moscow Planning & Development........

Please attend this meeting on Monday.

Pay attention to the public hearing - item #6.

This is land on North Polk Street.

These parcels are owned by Mike & Linda Hoffman, Doug & Nancy Wilson,  
and Matt & Laura Gray.

Thanks
Bev Bafus


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070205/8428a533/attachment-0001.html