A Three-Hearing Night at Moscow City Hall

Three public hearings drew a crowd this past week at the Moscow City Council meeting. Let’s take a look at what they were about!

Read the full transcript of the video below:

How’s it going y’all? Aiden Anderson here with the Moscow Minutes. The Moscow city council heard not one, not two, but three public hearings this past week. How did they all turn out?

The short version is that the items in each of these public hearings were ultimately approved as they were presented. The process to get there, however, was not so straightforward, as the three-action-item meeting turned into well over three hours of public input and deliberation.

Let’s start at the beginning. The first public hearing was easily the most straightforward of the three. Alisa Anderson of city staff explained the details of a funding request for $220,000 under the Idaho Community Development Block Grant Program. The city is seeking to use these funds for a new public restroom structure at Lola Clyde Park, with the total cost of the project being about $297,000.

The portion of the funds for which the city would be responsible hasn’t been planned for in this year’s budget, but the opportunity to apply for this grant funding is right now, and time is of the essence, according to city staff. Alisa walked through the details of the project and the grant application before turning things over to the council. Only one person gave public testimony, speaking in favor of using grants for city projects. Then, with brief deliberation, the council approved the funding request unanimously.

Now for public hearing number two: a rezone and preliminary plat for the Harvest Hills Second Addition. The applicant, Phil Rheingans was requesting a rezone for a 2.68 acre property from R2 to R3 zoning, as well as a preliminary plat for a 17.2 acre property, with lots averaging 9,080 sq ft in size. Mike Ray walked through the details of the plans, and mentioned that planning and zoning had recommended approval of both these items, with the condition that the council consider what to do about the future development of the neighboring Janson Street.

Council asked questions about the streets and development plans, particularly about the nature of the rezone. Rheingans explained that the reasoning behind a partial rather than full rezone of the property had to do with market demand for housing types and consistency with the surrounding neighborhood.

Public testimony was more substantial with this hearing. Most folks who got up to speak spoke in opposition to the proposal, citing concerns about traffic and safety, and regional water supply shortages. One person spoke in favor, citing Moscow’s housing needs. And one person spoke neutrally, citing concerns about stormwater detention proficiency in the area, and what might be needed in the event of hostile weather for new housing in the region. For the full details of these comments, I highly recommend you watch this portion of the meeting in full.

When it came time for council deliberation, the comments were largely consistent. Sandra Kelly expressed that she was concerned both about water and about density, but that density was presently the greater priority, a sentiment which seemed to be shared by other councilors as well. There was some discussion about the long term plans for Janson Street — whether it should become a full street, or a pedestrian structure, or something else — but no action needed to be taken directly on that issue at this meeting. Ultimately, both the rezone and the preliminary plat were approved unanimously by the Moscow city council.

Public hearing number 3: an annex, a comp plan land use designation, and a zoning ordinance. As Mike Ray explained, the applicant Gerard Marineau was looking at having a 43.02 acre area along North Orchard Road annexed into the city of Moscow, accompanied by a land use designation and a zoning designation. The parcel had already been eyed by the city as eventually having an auto-urban residential designation, and the applicant was interested in an R2 zoning designation, perhaps for future development on the land.

One thing to keep in mind with hearings like this is that the council could only take into account the present state of the land and the actions set before them when making their decision. As Mayor Lewis stated, future development or surrounding development could not play a part in their decision-making for this particular hearing, though conversation could be had about those subjects separately.

Public testimony for this hearing was the most extensive of the night, with significant opposition to the proposal. The owners of the farm neighboring the property in question spoke about the potential destruction of topsoil, the steep hills on the Orchard property, the changes in water flow through their farm as a result of construction on the Orchard property, and the overall negative impact to their farm which has existed in Moscow for over a century. 

Others spoke again about traffic and water concerns, noting the area’s steep topography, blind hills, and unknowns regarding water supply stability. Some asked that a traffic study be done before any changes were made on the Orchard property, to which the applicant responded that such studies would be conducted in conjunction with an annexation. Again, for the full details I recommend watching this portion of the meeting yourself.

Council deliberation was somewhat split. Some councilors were generally more pro-annexation, considering such an action separate from questions associated with development. Evan Holmes explained that while he was in favor of the annexation, he was less convinced that the land use designation or the requested R2 zoning was appropriate for the area. Sandra Kelly, in her concern for the roads and the heritage farm nearby, said that while torn, she could not vote yes for the proposal.

The council then moved to vote on the proposal, bit by bit. The annexation was approved 5 to 1, with Sandra Kelly being the dissenting vote. Next, came the comp plan land use designation, which passed 4 to 2, with Sandra Kelly and Evan Holmes dissenting. Lastly, the zoning ordinance, which also passed 4 to 2, with Sandra and Evan dissenting once more.

As the city of Moscow grows, so do pressures for housing and development, and I expect that questions and concerns about changing neighborhoods, traffic, water supplies, and the like will continue to be present at City Hall.  As always, we’ll have the relevant links posted with this video, and if you have any questions, please reach out. I’m Aiden Anderson with the Moscow Minutes. See you next time!