Analysis 1: Alternative Dwelling Units ("ADU") are often referred to as mother-in-law apartments. Currently Sandpoint residents cannot build a small detached living area on their property for use by others. Despite this, there are many ADUs in Sandpoint - all of them illegal. ADUs provide affordable living and provide people with more flexible ways to use their property. Despite the number of illegal ADUs in the City, this was the fourth time that the ordinance had come before City Council.
Conclusion 1: I voted in favor of the ordinance allowing ADUs. The ordinance passed. This will provide more rental units, give families greater flexibility and recognize what already occurs in Sandpoint.
Issue 2: Whether to approve a 20 unit PUD along Boyer, Moon Ridge Estates.
Analysis 2: A PUD allows uses of a property where it would ordinarily be prohibited. In exchange, the City can attach additional requirements to a property. In this case, the developer wanted smaller lot sizes. He expects to build 20 single family homes on approximately 20 acres. The space will have a small common area for use by the neighborhood.
The new comp plan provides that development is to occur on a traditional street grid pattern in order to increase connectivity between developments. In this case, the development was on a cul-de-sac. I personally would have liked improvements and design changes (i.e. through street connectivity, larger paths, parking behind the lots, etc.) however, the developer satisfied the conditions of the PUD and met what has typically been imposed on development in the past. The new comp plan plays no part in the decision as it has not been adopted yet.
Conclusion 2: The developer met the requirements of the law and as such, I voted for approval of the Moon Ridge Estates PUD.
Issue 3: Milltown Park (LP Mill Site) Vacation of right of way
Analysis 3: LP Mill site is a large (20 acre) parcel located near the downtown. It is owned by Renova. Renova seeks to divide the parcel and sell it to different developers. Maple Street is a city road running through the parcel. It has City utilities. Renova requested vacation of Maple street and return of the property to Renova.
Vacation can be given when it is in the public good. Renova argued that vacation improved the marketability of the property. That's it. There wasn't any other factor that was really stated in support of vacation except for the future economic benefits to Renova and secondarily then to the City by the creation of constructions jobs, etc.
Conclusion 3: I voted against vacation. Renova seeks to sell the property but has no clear use for the vacated right of way right except that it improves the ability to sell the property. I stated that I'm not opposed to vacating this street if I knew the use of the lots. The importance of the road for future connectivity is determined by its future use.
In my opinion, the vacation was unnecessary. The two arguments for vacation were (1) that it improves the marketability of the property and (2) the development will someday provide future jobs. A vacation is always going to provide an economic benefit to a property owner because the owner is receiving land (the abandoned street) from the City at no charge. Basing vacation on some future benefit to the economy is equally dubious. Under these conditions every vacation request should be approved because it will then be developed and therefore provide jobs.
The vacation passed when the Mayor broke the tie and approved vacation.
