I'm not prone to use this platform much to pontificate but I thought that I'd write a little about a general view that I've been forming. I sense that this perspective is the type that you begin to make fundamental to your outlook. This view is directly in regards to city planning. And its development has been slow. Very slow, in fact. But I've seen more and more evidence supporting this theory and I find myself viewing City business with these factors more and more. For that reason, I thought that I'd blog about it on here.
Smart growth. New urbanism. Modern planning. Call it what you'd like. The ideas are fundamentally the same - the construction of the urban environment. Even that phrase sounds trendy. But in reality the concept is a return to our roots. It's about building cities like they used to be built many decades ago. So let me describe events briefly for you.
Cities didn't use to have zoning regulations. Everyone used to just understand how to build a city. There was a main street where people would stroll and shops were built right to the sidewalk. Homes were built on the traditional street grid pattern. The lot sizes were small. The streets were fairly narrow.
After World War II, things changed dramatically. GIs returned accustomed to a military planning style. Automobiles became the prime consideration in city planning. Consequently, lot sizes were increased, roads were widened and the look and feel of our traditional cities changed dramatically.
Malls replaced our Downtown. The trend of wider streets and larger lots is still popular today. But it's interesting to note the early 80's trend of malls. I believe that malls provided us with the downtown that we wanted. Malls replaced the traditional downtown. They provided lots of stores with opportunities to stroll. As compared to our normal land use patterns, malls provide incredible density. If you were to consider the stores as lot sizes, the lots are also very, very small. Yet, this is what we enjoy. So even though our attraction with the automobile increased, our desire for traditional land use patterns did not waiver. Malls effectively sought to replace the traditional downtown but with a twist- large parking lots for our cars.
Now I don't believe that the automobile is evil. I use mine all the time and it's a great tool. However, I don't think that we should be afraid of some of these traditional land use patterns. So what I take from malls and historical downtowns is that small lot sizes are potentially good and density is appealing to people.
While I think that we might prefer the look and feel of traditional downtowns with small lot sizes, density and lots of walking, I don't think that we should necessarily mandate all of those things. We should just be working to encourage them for the benefit of our downtown. However, more and more I am realizing the importance of traditional land use patterns as a cost measure.
Traditional Land Use Patterns Cut Costs Let me just be clear here so that you understand what I mean by traditional land use patterns. I mean smaller lot sizes, higher density, smaller streets, traditional street grid pattern development (as opposed to cul-de-sacs). So let me take each of these and tell you why I think they're important.
1. Smaller lot sizes are critical for affordable housing. The cost of construction rises with supply and demand but in Sandpoint, the largest cost of any housing project is typically the land. By allowing smaller lot sizes such as we traditionally did, land costs are less and housing costs are less.
2. Density is important for affordability as well. For the past several decades we have built one building with one use per lot. Now as our land and construction costs have increased we need to be more efficient with how we use our land. This means placing multiple buildings with multiple uses on a lot. Ideally, these uses should even each other out. For example, by placing a house over a business you can share resources and minimize the impact of both uses. Businesses primarily operate from 9-5. During this time, a typical homeowner is away from their residence. However when a resident returns home, the business users are typically gone. It has been shown that sharing uses like this decreases crime and is a great benefit for the economy.
3. Smaller streets are a difficult issue. I think that the size of streets should be balanced with safety concerns. However, too often I believe that we build streets not for the majority of vehicles but to accommodate a minority of large vehicles. Smaller streets are more secure structurally and cost much less. In addition, smaller streets provide a sense of neighborhood to an area. Have you ever visited downtown Boise? There are two four-lane highways running through the downtown. Despite the City's best attempts, it doesn't have the look and feel of a downtown. Instead it feels like you're by the side of a freeway.
4. Traditional street grid pattern development is perhaps one of the most important things that we can do in a city. For the last several years, cul-de-sac neighborhoods have become popular. These are a terrible long-term decision for a couple of reasons:
Cul-de-sac neighborhoods increase traffic be decreasing connectivity. Have you ever wanted to avoid Pine cutting through a side street? This is connectivity. However, cul-de-sacs push all traffic to arterial routes thereby increasing traffic.
Cul-de-sac neighborhoods increase costs. It costs six times as much to snow plow a cul-de-sac than it does to plow a neighborhood. Six times!
Smart growth is cheaper. Finally this brings me to the most important and ultimately the most influential factor in my adoption of smart growth principles - it is cheaper. Not just slightly but dramatically.
As stated before, traditional street grid patterns cost less to maintain. But there is more to it than that. It is estimated in the City of Sandpoint that the City breaks even on sewer and water hookups when there are four units per acre. This means that for less than four units per acre, those units are actually subsidized by the other rate payers. It costs more to install and maintain half acre lots than the City will ever recover.
Secondly, density is cheaper. It costs almost twice as much to serve homes with sewer and water 5 - 10 miles away from the sewer and water plants than 1-4 miles away. So for a single family residence home on a one acre lot, the City is dramatically subsidizing that use. But sadly, that's not the use that we want to be subsidizing as a city. Those types of uses have a heavy reliance on automobiles which break down the roads more quickly. They have higher costs for public safety service with lower response times.
Conclusion. I don't believe that anyone should be prevented from living on a one acre lot in the country! I loved growing up in the country and I would consider raising my own kids there (if I ever have any). However, the fact is that for decades, we have been underestimating the costs of service for these uses. We consider these uses to be low-impact when in reality they are the most expensive and highest impact in terms of municipal costs.
It's time that we start correcting this imbalance. We should move to charge what the services cost for low-density developments. We should also find ways to encourage lower cost of service developments (i.e. high-density mixed use). These are going to keep our taxes lower. Finally, I will note that these are generally the areas that we naturally enjoy anyway. Take 6th Avenue for example. It has very small lot sizes on a traditional street grid pattern. Yet, it's one of my favorite neighborhoods in Sandpoint. I would also suggest South Sandpoint which actually has a surprising number of multi-family houses combined with traditional neighborhoods. These uses aren't inherently incompatible. They just need to be carefully implemented so that we encourage quality design and density that fits with a neighborhood.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
November 2009 Council Mtg.
I was absent for the November 2009 Council meeting due to the fact that I was attending a conference in New Orleans, LA for the entire week. It is the first Council meeting that I have missed in approximately two years.
October 2009 Council Mtg.
Issue 1: Whether to approve payment for the tree booklet.
Rule 1: The Council must approve payments for all bills monthly.
Analysis 1: Each budget year, the Council approves a budget for each department. As part of the urban forestry budget, the Council approved last year more than $4,000 for urban forestry education.
Near the end of the fiscal year, the Tree Committee decided to create and order a tree booklet from the urban forestry educational line item. These tree booklets cost more than $4,000. Further, it appears that some members or family members of the Tree Committee were paid nominal amounts for their work on the booklet.
This is a terrible situation and I was initially angry. In a year when the Council worked extremely hard to pare down the budget, it is incomprehensible to me that the City would spend $4,000 on a tree booklet to be given away. Further the process was riddled with errors. Payments were made to members of the committee - something which should not have occurred. Secondly, delivery of the booklets was made on the last day of the fiscal year meaning that it must be paid for with the past fiscal year's funds.
My anger at this situation was squelched by the department head's response. It was handled quickly and appropriately in my opinion. Mistakes happen. On this matter, I am satisfied that sufficient controls are in place to prevent this situation from occurring again. For that reason, I voted to approve the bills without further discussion.
Rule 1: The Council must approve payments for all bills monthly.
Analysis 1: Each budget year, the Council approves a budget for each department. As part of the urban forestry budget, the Council approved last year more than $4,000 for urban forestry education.
Near the end of the fiscal year, the Tree Committee decided to create and order a tree booklet from the urban forestry educational line item. These tree booklets cost more than $4,000. Further, it appears that some members or family members of the Tree Committee were paid nominal amounts for their work on the booklet.
This is a terrible situation and I was initially angry. In a year when the Council worked extremely hard to pare down the budget, it is incomprehensible to me that the City would spend $4,000 on a tree booklet to be given away. Further the process was riddled with errors. Payments were made to members of the committee - something which should not have occurred. Secondly, delivery of the booklets was made on the last day of the fiscal year meaning that it must be paid for with the past fiscal year's funds.
My anger at this situation was squelched by the department head's response. It was handled quickly and appropriately in my opinion. Mistakes happen. On this matter, I am satisfied that sufficient controls are in place to prevent this situation from occurring again. For that reason, I voted to approve the bills without further discussion.
Friday, October 9, 2009
September 2009 Council Mtg.
Issue 1: Whether to purchase property for the future expansion of the City's sewer services.
Rule 1: The City is entitled to purchase property through Idaho Code for its needs.
Analysis 1: This property is offered at an incredible price. It is larger than 20 acres for a total of approximately $800,000. It is located right outside the City. I voted for this because it is a great deal for the City. EPA standards for point of discharge permits (the type of permit that the City has for sewer discharge into lake Pend d'Oreille) will continue to grow more stringent. It is likely that the City will need to move to some land application
Issue 2: Whether to remove fluoride from the drinking water.
Rule 2: The City is permitted by federal regulations to add fluoride to the water in certain amounts.
Analysis 2: I support taking fluoride out of the water but it’s a difficult issue. My grandfather was a dentist in town and the person who asked the Council originally to put fluoride in the water. Dentists, including my Dad, overwhelmingly support fluoride in the water. In addition, fluoride – if it were effective by being ingested and not by topical application as we now know – is aimed at helping kids and specifically kids who don’t regularly seek dental treatment. So, if fluoride in the water works, it helps poor kids. These are compelling reasons.
The reason that I voted against fluoride is two-fold. I don’t think that the studies show such significant health benefits for children - through ingestion of the water- that it is worth medicating the entire population with possible harmful consequences. Secondly, it’s a freedom of choice issue. I should have the option to choose what medications go into my body. So those are the reasons that I am against fluoride.
Fundamentally, this is a public health issue. For that reason, I initially voted to place the measure on the ballot for a public vote. When that failed, I voted to remove fluoride from the water. This also failed and fluoride will remain in the water.
Issue 3: Whether to allow skateboard, horse-drawn carriages and other non-motorized multimodal transportation in the downtown.
Rule 3: In the 1980's the City passed an ordinance banning non-motorized multimodal transportation from 1st Avenue, 5th Avenue, Cedar and Pine.
Analysis 3: I voted to approve all forms of non-motorized multimodal transportation in the downtown. Practically, people are already doing this. I doubt that people will intuitively understand that they must carry or walk their non-motorized vehicle on these streets. Further, the City police have never issued a single citation for a violation of this ordinance. Finally, the streets listed above are public highways. Public highways have their own safety requirements under state law. Therefore, any nonmotorized user of the state highways would be required to abide by those state laws.
Issue 4: Whether to approve fire department user fees.
Rule 4: Under state law, the fire department is permitted to charge user fees.
Analysis 4: I don't approve of any type of fire fees. In my opinion fire fees are to be supported by property tax. We have always supported our fire department equitably. This last budget year, the Council approved payment of $40,000 for the fire department's volunteer program.
I also think that fire user fees have the largest impact on the people least prepared to pay them. By that I mean that it is difficult for me to understand how we will send a bill for payment of services to someone who just lost their home to fire.
Finally, I find that the user fee proposal was incomplete. A large part of the fire department's duties are in responding to medical emergencies. However, the user fees focus only on fire fees which don't make up the bulk of the fire department's use. There was no effort to address the emergency medical aspect of user fees.
I voted against the fire user fees because they don't attempt in good faith to implement user fees for the bulk of the fire department's responses. Most importantly however, the user fees are unnecessary. The fire department is well supplied each year by the City of Sandpoit.
Rule 1: The City is entitled to purchase property through Idaho Code for its needs.
Analysis 1: This property is offered at an incredible price. It is larger than 20 acres for a total of approximately $800,000. It is located right outside the City. I voted for this because it is a great deal for the City. EPA standards for point of discharge permits (the type of permit that the City has for sewer discharge into lake Pend d'Oreille) will continue to grow more stringent. It is likely that the City will need to move to some land application
Issue 2: Whether to remove fluoride from the drinking water.
Rule 2: The City is permitted by federal regulations to add fluoride to the water in certain amounts.
Analysis 2: I support taking fluoride out of the water but it’s a difficult issue. My grandfather was a dentist in town and the person who asked the Council originally to put fluoride in the water. Dentists, including my Dad, overwhelmingly support fluoride in the water. In addition, fluoride – if it were effective by being ingested and not by topical application as we now know – is aimed at helping kids and specifically kids who don’t regularly seek dental treatment. So, if fluoride in the water works, it helps poor kids. These are compelling reasons.
The reason that I voted against fluoride is two-fold. I don’t think that the studies show such significant health benefits for children - through ingestion of the water- that it is worth medicating the entire population with possible harmful consequences. Secondly, it’s a freedom of choice issue. I should have the option to choose what medications go into my body. So those are the reasons that I am against fluoride.
Fundamentally, this is a public health issue. For that reason, I initially voted to place the measure on the ballot for a public vote. When that failed, I voted to remove fluoride from the water. This also failed and fluoride will remain in the water.
Issue 3: Whether to allow skateboard, horse-drawn carriages and other non-motorized multimodal transportation in the downtown.
Rule 3: In the 1980's the City passed an ordinance banning non-motorized multimodal transportation from 1st Avenue, 5th Avenue, Cedar and Pine.
Analysis 3: I voted to approve all forms of non-motorized multimodal transportation in the downtown. Practically, people are already doing this. I doubt that people will intuitively understand that they must carry or walk their non-motorized vehicle on these streets. Further, the City police have never issued a single citation for a violation of this ordinance. Finally, the streets listed above are public highways. Public highways have their own safety requirements under state law. Therefore, any nonmotorized user of the state highways would be required to abide by those state laws.
Issue 4: Whether to approve fire department user fees.
Rule 4: Under state law, the fire department is permitted to charge user fees.
Analysis 4: I don't approve of any type of fire fees. In my opinion fire fees are to be supported by property tax. We have always supported our fire department equitably. This last budget year, the Council approved payment of $40,000 for the fire department's volunteer program.
I also think that fire user fees have the largest impact on the people least prepared to pay them. By that I mean that it is difficult for me to understand how we will send a bill for payment of services to someone who just lost their home to fire.
Finally, I find that the user fee proposal was incomplete. A large part of the fire department's duties are in responding to medical emergencies. However, the user fees focus only on fire fees which don't make up the bulk of the fire department's use. There was no effort to address the emergency medical aspect of user fees.
I voted against the fire user fees because they don't attempt in good faith to implement user fees for the bulk of the fire department's responses. Most importantly however, the user fees are unnecessary. The fire department is well supplied each year by the City of Sandpoit.
Friday, September 11, 2009
August 2009 Council Mtg.
Issue 1: Whether Litehouse Foods should be permitted a deferment to put in sidewalks.
Rule 1: The streetscape ordinance was recently re-done. Under the old code, deferments were granted liberally. Under the new code, a deferment is not available.
Analysis 1: Litehouse Foods submitted its application before the new streetscape ordinance was put into place. Therefore, the request should be considered under the old regulations.
Litehouse is a major employer in the City of Sandpoint. The company has stated multiple times that Sandpoint is not ideally geographically located for their operations. Despite this, Litehouse has a strong loyalty to Sandpoint and employs many people. Litehouse has stated that they wish to defer putting in sidewalks as part of their snow management program. The sidewalks are an issue due to the improvements that Litehouse intends to make to its parking lot facility.
Defering the requirement to put in sidewalks has been liberally granted for a variety of reasons in the past. In this instance, I support allowing Litehouse to defer the requirement. They are making improvements to their parking lot. If the section was paved, the snow would have to be plowed over the sidewalk curb. I believe this is a reasonable request and the City should be taking steps in this economy to aid a local employer.
Conclusion 1: I voted to approve the streetscape deferral for Litehouse Foods. The measure passed.
Issue 2: Whether to approve an ADA compliance plan for submittal to the Idaho Attorney General.
Rule 2: Mr. Lohman, a local resident, filed a formal complaint against the City for failing to comply with the ADA. The complaint had approximately 14 separate issues.
Analysis 2: After investigation, it was found that the City violated 2 to 3 of the issues. For example, in several instances, the City exceeded the thickness of asphalt that can be applied to a road without redoing some of the facilities. In another instance, the slope on some of the curb cuts installed exceeded regulation.
The City is proposing an amicable resolution to this matter. I support the resolution to this matter.
Conclusion 2: I approve the outlines for this settlement proposal.
Issue 3: Whether to impose fire fees for fire responses.
Rule 3: Fire response fees must be set by ordinance.
Analysis 3: I don't support the creation of fire response fees. Further, I believe that this approach is inadequate. Fire fees here are only being proposed for fire responses. However, the huge majority of fire calls are for emergency medical responses. Therefore these fees would be applicable to only a small portion of the City's fire responses. If having users pay fees is really the primary objective, then fees should be applied for medical calls. This is especially true as people are much more likely to expect response fees for medical emergencies rather than fire emergencies.
Conclusion 3: I don't support creating fire response fees. I believe that the payment of property taxes should support vital services like fire and police. This year, the fire department was funded for forty volunteers which were not funded last year. The City works hard to ensure that these operations are adequately funded. I don't believe there's the necessity now to impose these fees.
Rule 1: The streetscape ordinance was recently re-done. Under the old code, deferments were granted liberally. Under the new code, a deferment is not available.
Analysis 1: Litehouse Foods submitted its application before the new streetscape ordinance was put into place. Therefore, the request should be considered under the old regulations.
Litehouse is a major employer in the City of Sandpoint. The company has stated multiple times that Sandpoint is not ideally geographically located for their operations. Despite this, Litehouse has a strong loyalty to Sandpoint and employs many people. Litehouse has stated that they wish to defer putting in sidewalks as part of their snow management program. The sidewalks are an issue due to the improvements that Litehouse intends to make to its parking lot facility.
Defering the requirement to put in sidewalks has been liberally granted for a variety of reasons in the past. In this instance, I support allowing Litehouse to defer the requirement. They are making improvements to their parking lot. If the section was paved, the snow would have to be plowed over the sidewalk curb. I believe this is a reasonable request and the City should be taking steps in this economy to aid a local employer.
Conclusion 1: I voted to approve the streetscape deferral for Litehouse Foods. The measure passed.
Issue 2: Whether to approve an ADA compliance plan for submittal to the Idaho Attorney General.
Rule 2: Mr. Lohman, a local resident, filed a formal complaint against the City for failing to comply with the ADA. The complaint had approximately 14 separate issues.
Analysis 2: After investigation, it was found that the City violated 2 to 3 of the issues. For example, in several instances, the City exceeded the thickness of asphalt that can be applied to a road without redoing some of the facilities. In another instance, the slope on some of the curb cuts installed exceeded regulation.
The City is proposing an amicable resolution to this matter. I support the resolution to this matter.
Conclusion 2: I approve the outlines for this settlement proposal.
Issue 3: Whether to impose fire fees for fire responses.
Rule 3: Fire response fees must be set by ordinance.
Analysis 3: I don't support the creation of fire response fees. Further, I believe that this approach is inadequate. Fire fees here are only being proposed for fire responses. However, the huge majority of fire calls are for emergency medical responses. Therefore these fees would be applicable to only a small portion of the City's fire responses. If having users pay fees is really the primary objective, then fees should be applied for medical calls. This is especially true as people are much more likely to expect response fees for medical emergencies rather than fire emergencies.
Conclusion 3: I don't support creating fire response fees. I believe that the payment of property taxes should support vital services like fire and police. This year, the fire department was funded for forty volunteers which were not funded last year. The City works hard to ensure that these operations are adequately funded. I don't believe there's the necessity now to impose these fees.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
July 2009 Council Mtg.
Issue 1: Approval of the preliminary budget.
Rule 1: Each year by October 1st the City Council must pass a budget for the City. From the preliminary budget to adoption of the final budget, the amount cannot increase.
Analysis 1: I voted in favor of the preliminary budget because I think it's a step in the right direction. It decreases the budget over last year and puts more money towards roads. This is a good time to be constructing infrastructure because the costs are cheaper than we've experienced in recent history.
Conclusion 1: I voted to approve the preliminary budget.
Issue 2: Whether to vote to preserve the historic train depot.
Rule 2: The train depot was recently shut down by Amtrak. The City would like to make sure that the historic train depot is not demolished.
Conclusion 2: I voted to support the preservation of the historic train depot.
Rule 1: Each year by October 1st the City Council must pass a budget for the City. From the preliminary budget to adoption of the final budget, the amount cannot increase.
Analysis 1: I voted in favor of the preliminary budget because I think it's a step in the right direction. It decreases the budget over last year and puts more money towards roads. This is a good time to be constructing infrastructure because the costs are cheaper than we've experienced in recent history.
Conclusion 1: I voted to approve the preliminary budget.
Issue 2: Whether to vote to preserve the historic train depot.
Rule 2: The train depot was recently shut down by Amtrak. The City would like to make sure that the historic train depot is not demolished.
Conclusion 2: I voted to support the preservation of the historic train depot.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Cedar Street Bridge Land Exchange
Issue: Whether to exchange the Cedar Street Bridge for vacant land and 40 parking spaces.
Rule : A municipality may exchange land when it finds that two property values are equal and its in the best interests of the City.
Analysis: In the 80's, the City was going to have to pay for demolition of a bridge over Sand Creek. It was estimated that the demolition was going to cost approximately $100,000. Instead, a local developer offered to remove the scrap and build a structure on the previous right of way. The City agreed, vacated the right of way and leased the property to the developer for 99 years.
Under the lease, the first forty (40) years were leased for 1 dollar per year. The remaining 59 years were then according to a very vague equation for percentage of sales. In addition, the City guaranteed 40 parking spaces for the term of the lease in the City parking lot.
Clear Vision, LLC purchased the lease interest in the Bridge several years ago. Subsequently, they approached the City to condominiumize the Bridge for the remainder of the lease term, approximately 77 years. These negotiations were long and unsuccessful.
Clear Vision, LLC owns a small piece of property adjacent to City Hall. This property is zoned commercial. Clear Vision, LLC has requested to swap the City's interest in the Cedar Street Bridge in exchange for the 40 parking spaces and the parcel adjacent to City Hall.
The parcel of property adjacent to City Hall is assessed at $135,000. The City currently values parking spaces within the City at $10,000 each (for the purpose of in lieu fees). Therefore the consideration offered is approximately $535,000. In addition, the City has over-dedicated the parking spots in the City lot. If the City were ever to build a parking garage on the City lot or if Clear Vision, LLC were ever to request exclusive use of its spaces, the City would be in a very difficult situation.
It is extremely difficult to value the Cedar Street Bridge. The lease doesn't expire until 2086. There is no good way to determine the value of the City's current interest in the Bridge or the value of the Bridge in 2087, 77 years from now.
Conclusion: I voted for the property exchange and consider it a fair deal. It was important to me that the public retain the right to cross Sand Creek. This was done by an easement across the Cedar Street Bridge which will remain open to the public. The City doesn't have any right to the bridge until 2086. At that time, it is uncertain what condition the Bridge will be in. The City could have huge costs in repairing it. There is also additional value in eliminating the claim to parking spaces which will allow the City to build a parking structure in the future.
Rule : A municipality may exchange land when it finds that two property values are equal and its in the best interests of the City.
Analysis: In the 80's, the City was going to have to pay for demolition of a bridge over Sand Creek. It was estimated that the demolition was going to cost approximately $100,000. Instead, a local developer offered to remove the scrap and build a structure on the previous right of way. The City agreed, vacated the right of way and leased the property to the developer for 99 years.
Under the lease, the first forty (40) years were leased for 1 dollar per year. The remaining 59 years were then according to a very vague equation for percentage of sales. In addition, the City guaranteed 40 parking spaces for the term of the lease in the City parking lot.
Clear Vision, LLC purchased the lease interest in the Bridge several years ago. Subsequently, they approached the City to condominiumize the Bridge for the remainder of the lease term, approximately 77 years. These negotiations were long and unsuccessful.
Clear Vision, LLC owns a small piece of property adjacent to City Hall. This property is zoned commercial. Clear Vision, LLC has requested to swap the City's interest in the Cedar Street Bridge in exchange for the 40 parking spaces and the parcel adjacent to City Hall.
The parcel of property adjacent to City Hall is assessed at $135,000. The City currently values parking spaces within the City at $10,000 each (for the purpose of in lieu fees). Therefore the consideration offered is approximately $535,000. In addition, the City has over-dedicated the parking spots in the City lot. If the City were ever to build a parking garage on the City lot or if Clear Vision, LLC were ever to request exclusive use of its spaces, the City would be in a very difficult situation.
It is extremely difficult to value the Cedar Street Bridge. The lease doesn't expire until 2086. There is no good way to determine the value of the City's current interest in the Bridge or the value of the Bridge in 2087, 77 years from now.
Conclusion: I voted for the property exchange and consider it a fair deal. It was important to me that the public retain the right to cross Sand Creek. This was done by an easement across the Cedar Street Bridge which will remain open to the public. The City doesn't have any right to the bridge until 2086. At that time, it is uncertain what condition the Bridge will be in. The City could have huge costs in repairing it. There is also additional value in eliminating the claim to parking spaces which will allow the City to build a parking structure in the future.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
June 2009 Council Meeting.
Issue 1: Approval of John O'Hara to City Council.
Rule 1: New Council members are to be appointed by the Mayor and approved by a majorit vote of the Council.
Analysis 1: Doug Hawkins, Jr. resigned from the Council due to conflicts with work. John O'Hara served on the Planning and Zoning Commission for a number of years and for a time served as the Chair of the P&Z Commission. He has lived in the area for 10 years and Sandpoint for 7 years.
Conclusion 1: I voted for John O'Hara because I think his P&Z experience will serve him well on the Council. He is level-headed and logical and I think that he'll make decisions that are in the best interest of Sandpoint.
Issue 2: Whether to approve the zone change for the Pederson sports complex.
Rule: Zone changes are to be approved if they are in line with the Comprehensive Plan and meet criteria established in the Sandpoint City Code. However, a zone change cannot be tied to a specific proposal.
Analysis 2: Bruce Pedersen is a local developer. He has requested two zoning changes for a large-scale project. First, he has requested a change from Residence B to Residence C for approximately 1.2 acres near downtown Sandpoint. Second he has requested a zone change from Residence “B” to Professional Office “PO” for approximately 0.9 acres in the same area. Mr. Pedersen is proposing a large-scale ice rink and condominium project. The project has been named the Jamie Packer Center.
Conclusion 2: In this case, I approved the zone change. I believe that the changes are reasonable and in line with the Comprehensive Plan. The measure passed.
Issue 3: Whether to overturn the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision to deny the application permit for the Jamie Packer Center.
Rule 3: The P&Z decision to approve the Jamie Packer Center was challenged by two individuals impacted by the development. The Lysters opposed the decision based on specific points for approval of the application permit.
Analysis 3: In my opinion, the Jamie Packer Center is well-designed. It has multiple elements which are in line with the Comprehensive Plan. It provides for parking, a community recreation center, mixed use housing, retail and preservation of the historic sites in the area. In addition, the development includes modern elements such as a vegetative roof, and scaled design.
This is a major development for Sandpoint. I feel that it's been done in a way that's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It preserves historic elements on the site and builds facilities that people in the City of Sandpoint have requested - such as a recreation center. However, there is the definite possibility that the proposals and design could change dramatically. For that reason, I supported every condition that tied to the developer to the proposal. As part of the application, I supported measures that required the specific design elements of the project. These were to insure that approval wasn't granted and then the plan dramatically re-designed.
Conclusion 3: I voted in favor of upholding the decision however, only if the developer followed the plan exactly as proposed.
Issue 4: Whether to place a roundabout at Larch and Boyer.
Rule 4: The Super 1 Foods building is to be constructed at the corner of Larch and Boyer. As a result of this construction, Super 1 must make some traffic improvements through use of its impact dollars.
Analysis 4: Boyer will be increasingly trafficked as a result of development along Boyer. As a result of the increase, it will be necessary to put some sort of traffic control device on Boyer and Larch. The decision is between a roundabout and a traffic signal.
I am in favor of the traffic signal as I think the roundabout is overly expensive. However, installing a traffic signal requires nearly as much space as a roundabout. The construction cost for a traffic signal is slightly less. The annual maintenance for a traffic signal is much greater, approximately $40k - $60k per year. Unfortunately, the standards for traffic signals do not allow small, unobtrusive signals on the sides of the street but instead major signals supported by large infrastructure.
Conclusion 4: I voted to install the roundabout. Traffic modeling shows that the roundabout will be more effective. In addition, it will cost less over the long run.
Issue 5: Whether to place the water bond on the November ballot for approval by the voters of Sandpoint.
Rule 5: The Idaho Constitution does not permit a municipality to indebt itself for more than one year. Indebtedness for more than one year requires approval by the voters.
Analysis 5: The City of Sandpoint will soon exceed its water supply capacity. This will primarily occur during the months from July to October when people are watering their lawns. Conservation measures and rates will only do so much.
The voters of Sandpoint didn't approve the bond at a special election held earlier this year. The Mayor and staff feel that this should be returned to the November ballot in order to avoid a possible crisis of water within the next few years. It will take approximately 3 years to construct the plant and therefore to address problems, the City should begin construction soon.
I voted to place the bond on the November ballot because even as a Councilman, I underestimated the seriousness of the situation. In order for people to enjoy the supply of water withotu interruption, then it will be necessary to construct some improvements. I believe that this highlights the need to regionalize water and sewer services but this will be a long process.
Rule 1: New Council members are to be appointed by the Mayor and approved by a majorit vote of the Council.
Analysis 1: Doug Hawkins, Jr. resigned from the Council due to conflicts with work. John O'Hara served on the Planning and Zoning Commission for a number of years and for a time served as the Chair of the P&Z Commission. He has lived in the area for 10 years and Sandpoint for 7 years.
Conclusion 1: I voted for John O'Hara because I think his P&Z experience will serve him well on the Council. He is level-headed and logical and I think that he'll make decisions that are in the best interest of Sandpoint.
Issue 2: Whether to approve the zone change for the Pederson sports complex.
Rule: Zone changes are to be approved if they are in line with the Comprehensive Plan and meet criteria established in the Sandpoint City Code. However, a zone change cannot be tied to a specific proposal.
Analysis 2: Bruce Pedersen is a local developer. He has requested two zoning changes for a large-scale project. First, he has requested a change from Residence B to Residence C for approximately 1.2 acres near downtown Sandpoint. Second he has requested a zone change from Residence “B” to Professional Office “PO” for approximately 0.9 acres in the same area. Mr. Pedersen is proposing a large-scale ice rink and condominium project. The project has been named the Jamie Packer Center.
Conclusion 2: In this case, I approved the zone change. I believe that the changes are reasonable and in line with the Comprehensive Plan. The measure passed.
Issue 3: Whether to overturn the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision to deny the application permit for the Jamie Packer Center.
Rule 3: The P&Z decision to approve the Jamie Packer Center was challenged by two individuals impacted by the development. The Lysters opposed the decision based on specific points for approval of the application permit.
Analysis 3: In my opinion, the Jamie Packer Center is well-designed. It has multiple elements which are in line with the Comprehensive Plan. It provides for parking, a community recreation center, mixed use housing, retail and preservation of the historic sites in the area. In addition, the development includes modern elements such as a vegetative roof, and scaled design.
This is a major development for Sandpoint. I feel that it's been done in a way that's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It preserves historic elements on the site and builds facilities that people in the City of Sandpoint have requested - such as a recreation center. However, there is the definite possibility that the proposals and design could change dramatically. For that reason, I supported every condition that tied to the developer to the proposal. As part of the application, I supported measures that required the specific design elements of the project. These were to insure that approval wasn't granted and then the plan dramatically re-designed.
Conclusion 3: I voted in favor of upholding the decision however, only if the developer followed the plan exactly as proposed.
Issue 4: Whether to place a roundabout at Larch and Boyer.
Rule 4: The Super 1 Foods building is to be constructed at the corner of Larch and Boyer. As a result of this construction, Super 1 must make some traffic improvements through use of its impact dollars.
Analysis 4: Boyer will be increasingly trafficked as a result of development along Boyer. As a result of the increase, it will be necessary to put some sort of traffic control device on Boyer and Larch. The decision is between a roundabout and a traffic signal.
I am in favor of the traffic signal as I think the roundabout is overly expensive. However, installing a traffic signal requires nearly as much space as a roundabout. The construction cost for a traffic signal is slightly less. The annual maintenance for a traffic signal is much greater, approximately $40k - $60k per year. Unfortunately, the standards for traffic signals do not allow small, unobtrusive signals on the sides of the street but instead major signals supported by large infrastructure.
Conclusion 4: I voted to install the roundabout. Traffic modeling shows that the roundabout will be more effective. In addition, it will cost less over the long run.
Issue 5: Whether to place the water bond on the November ballot for approval by the voters of Sandpoint.
Rule 5: The Idaho Constitution does not permit a municipality to indebt itself for more than one year. Indebtedness for more than one year requires approval by the voters.
Analysis 5: The City of Sandpoint will soon exceed its water supply capacity. This will primarily occur during the months from July to October when people are watering their lawns. Conservation measures and rates will only do so much.
The voters of Sandpoint didn't approve the bond at a special election held earlier this year. The Mayor and staff feel that this should be returned to the November ballot in order to avoid a possible crisis of water within the next few years. It will take approximately 3 years to construct the plant and therefore to address problems, the City should begin construction soon.
I voted to place the bond on the November ballot because even as a Councilman, I underestimated the seriousness of the situation. In order for people to enjoy the supply of water withotu interruption, then it will be necessary to construct some improvements. I believe that this highlights the need to regionalize water and sewer services but this will be a long process.
June 2009 Council Mtg Proposals - Hiring Freeze and Aff. Housing
June 2009 Council Meeting - Snedden Proposals
Issue 1: Whether to put in place a City-wide hiring freeze.
Rule 1: Levels of service are within the purview of the City Council. The Council regularly has considered expanding or minimizing the scope of services within the City. This includes staffing levels. These decisions are regularly made by the Council at the time of approving the budget. The Mayor handles administrative decisions and the day-to-day operations of the City.
Analysis 1: I proposed a hiring freeze because I believe it's the responsible measure. The future revenues of the City are uncertain. People are cutting back across the County. Others are losing their jobs. I have proposed that each time the City loses an employee, the position is not refilled unless with the express permission of the Council.
This measure has caused consternation with the Mayor and staff. The Police Chief is especially concerned as the Police Department has the highest turnover in the City and is possibly impacted the most by this measure. The Mayor specifically argues that the measure encroaches on her authority as manager of the City. I have argued in response that the City Council clearly has this authority in the budget and the measure is responsible.
Conclusion 1: I proposed an amendment that exceptions to the hiring freeze are overseen by the Mayor, instead of the Council. The measure passed unanimously.
Issue 2: Whether to implement four new affordable housing measures.
Analysis 2: The City should work to make it easier for affordable housing to be constructed in the City. For this reason, I have proposed four measures; (1) to create affordable housing plans for sale at a discounted rate by the City, (2) to waiver certain impact fees, (3) to allow payments for some sewer and water hookup fees and (4) leap-frog queue with affordable housing applications.
Conclusion 2: I don't believe that the City should manipulate supply and demand or directly participate in the housing markets. However, I do want to the City to have policies that make it easy to construct quality, affordable housing. For this reason, I proposed these four measures and voted in favor of them.
Issue 1: Whether to put in place a City-wide hiring freeze.
Rule 1: Levels of service are within the purview of the City Council. The Council regularly has considered expanding or minimizing the scope of services within the City. This includes staffing levels. These decisions are regularly made by the Council at the time of approving the budget. The Mayor handles administrative decisions and the day-to-day operations of the City.
Analysis 1: I proposed a hiring freeze because I believe it's the responsible measure. The future revenues of the City are uncertain. People are cutting back across the County. Others are losing their jobs. I have proposed that each time the City loses an employee, the position is not refilled unless with the express permission of the Council.
This measure has caused consternation with the Mayor and staff. The Police Chief is especially concerned as the Police Department has the highest turnover in the City and is possibly impacted the most by this measure. The Mayor specifically argues that the measure encroaches on her authority as manager of the City. I have argued in response that the City Council clearly has this authority in the budget and the measure is responsible.
Conclusion 1: I proposed an amendment that exceptions to the hiring freeze are overseen by the Mayor, instead of the Council. The measure passed unanimously.
Issue 2: Whether to implement four new affordable housing measures.
Analysis 2: The City should work to make it easier for affordable housing to be constructed in the City. For this reason, I have proposed four measures; (1) to create affordable housing plans for sale at a discounted rate by the City, (2) to waiver certain impact fees, (3) to allow payments for some sewer and water hookup fees and (4) leap-frog queue with affordable housing applications.
Conclusion 2: I don't believe that the City should manipulate supply and demand or directly participate in the housing markets. However, I do want to the City to have policies that make it easy to construct quality, affordable housing. For this reason, I proposed these four measures and voted in favor of them.
Friday, June 19, 2009
May 2009 Council Meeting.
Issue 1: Interim Commercial Zoning
Analysis 1: Last year, the City Council voted to adopt a new comprehensive plan. This plan calls for dramatic changes to the zoning ordinances. Until the new zoning ordinances are adopted, there is a conflict between what we allow through zoning and what our plan calls for. You may think how can zoning affect the look of a city? It can be dramatic. In my opinion, few people realize how much a built environment dictates their behavior. We like certain environments but often we fail to notice why.
For example, in shopping areas people like to browse windows. Small windows discourage street activity and walking. Therefore, you can state by ordinance that you want 50% of the area of a building facing the main street to be windows.
We already have a lot of these measures in a special zone along 5th Avenue. This zone is called the 5th Avenue Overlay District. In my opinion, it is very successful. The new buildings along 5th Avenue fit well. Due to this, I recommended several months ago that the 5th Avenue Overlay zoning district be used as a model for interim zoning measures until our new comprehensive plan can be put into place.
Conclusion: I voted to approve the interim zoning because I think they are an improvement until new zoning can be developed and put into place pursuant to the comprehensive plan.
Analysis 1: Last year, the City Council voted to adopt a new comprehensive plan. This plan calls for dramatic changes to the zoning ordinances. Until the new zoning ordinances are adopted, there is a conflict between what we allow through zoning and what our plan calls for. You may think how can zoning affect the look of a city? It can be dramatic. In my opinion, few people realize how much a built environment dictates their behavior. We like certain environments but often we fail to notice why.
For example, in shopping areas people like to browse windows. Small windows discourage street activity and walking. Therefore, you can state by ordinance that you want 50% of the area of a building facing the main street to be windows.
We already have a lot of these measures in a special zone along 5th Avenue. This zone is called the 5th Avenue Overlay District. In my opinion, it is very successful. The new buildings along 5th Avenue fit well. Due to this, I recommended several months ago that the 5th Avenue Overlay zoning district be used as a model for interim zoning measures until our new comprehensive plan can be put into place.
Conclusion: I voted to approve the interim zoning because I think they are an improvement until new zoning can be developed and put into place pursuant to the comprehensive plan.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Higher Education Task Force.
Issue 1: How to bring higher education to Sandpoint.
Analysis 1: During the years of 2004 to 2006, the Wild Rose Foundation began to aggressively pursue the idea of higher education in Sandpoint. The work of the Wild Rose Foundation accomplished the following:
1. A partnership with the University of Idaho;
2. The use of University of Idaho property for a local campus in Sandpoint;
3. The development of a construction plan and curriculum for the Sandpoint campus; and
4. Community support and enthusiasm.
Due to the economic conditions, the Wild Rose Foundation placed the project on hold. However, the City of Sandpoint is picking the project back up to review how to bring higher education to Sandpoint. This is the goal of Sandpoint's Higher Education Task Force.
It will be extremely exciting to see what this group concludes. There is already a lot of ideas and interest to support this group. I will be very interested in establishing a plan for higher education in Sandpoint. See the article below in the Bonner County Daily Bee.
"College Task Force Planned"
Analysis 1: During the years of 2004 to 2006, the Wild Rose Foundation began to aggressively pursue the idea of higher education in Sandpoint. The work of the Wild Rose Foundation accomplished the following:
1. A partnership with the University of Idaho;
2. The use of University of Idaho property for a local campus in Sandpoint;
3. The development of a construction plan and curriculum for the Sandpoint campus; and
4. Community support and enthusiasm.
Due to the economic conditions, the Wild Rose Foundation placed the project on hold. However, the City of Sandpoint is picking the project back up to review how to bring higher education to Sandpoint. This is the goal of Sandpoint's Higher Education Task Force.
It will be extremely exciting to see what this group concludes. There is already a lot of ideas and interest to support this group. I will be very interested in establishing a plan for higher education in Sandpoint. See the article below in the Bonner County Daily Bee.
"College Task Force Planned"
April 2009 Council Meeting.
Issue 1: Whether to approve a resolution to Panhandle State Bank's Parking Memorandum of Understanding.
Analysis 1: In 2006, Mayor Miller inexplicably deferred parking requirements for Panhandle State Bank in the construction of their new bank building. The City and PSB signed an agreement of the parties' intentions to eventually create parking. PSB agreed to provide over two hundred parking spaces or pay $6,500 for each space not provided. To date PSB is approximately 118 parking spaces short or the requirements.
In February 2009, the City Council passed adoption of new parking regulations for downtown businesses. These regulations eliminate parking requirements for businesses in the downtown core. PSB is located in the downtown core but signed the MOU prior to the new parking regulations taking effect.
PSB owns several lots near its new building which are not improved. In addition, PSB has a parking lot attached to its old building which could be used to provide parking for its new building. By using these properties, PSB would be approximately 18 spaces short of fulfilling all the requirements. In addition, once the new properties were improved with paving and striping, PSB would have met the old parking requirements and would immediately be subject to the new parking requirements. What this means practically is that PSB could pave to lot on 4th and Oak (by Monarch Mountain Coffee) and then once the last of it was paved, PSB could immediately tear the paving out, build a building there, or sell the property.
Sandpoint does not suffer from a parking crisis in the western portion of our downtown. PSB and the City worked on resolving the problem by encouraging jobs and downtown activity. The parties agreed to five years of business incubator space in PSB's new building with all tenant improvements paid for by PSB. In addition, PSB agreed to payment of $50,000 for high-tech economic development.
Conclusion 1: I voted in favor of the resolution because I think that it is in the best interests of the City.
Issue 2: Whether to approve the proposals by the Sandpoint Growth Task Force.
Analysis 2: The Sandpoint Growth Task Force proposed 12 ideas to the City Council for how to improve our City. These 12 ideas were recommended to the Council. The majority of ideas were then sent to advisory committees for more work. I am especially excited about the Sandpoint Growth Task Force's idea to create a higher education task force.
Conclusion 2: I whole-heartedly supported the majority of the Sandpoint Growth Task Force's ideas.
Analysis 1: In 2006, Mayor Miller inexplicably deferred parking requirements for Panhandle State Bank in the construction of their new bank building. The City and PSB signed an agreement of the parties' intentions to eventually create parking. PSB agreed to provide over two hundred parking spaces or pay $6,500 for each space not provided. To date PSB is approximately 118 parking spaces short or the requirements.
In February 2009, the City Council passed adoption of new parking regulations for downtown businesses. These regulations eliminate parking requirements for businesses in the downtown core. PSB is located in the downtown core but signed the MOU prior to the new parking regulations taking effect.
PSB owns several lots near its new building which are not improved. In addition, PSB has a parking lot attached to its old building which could be used to provide parking for its new building. By using these properties, PSB would be approximately 18 spaces short of fulfilling all the requirements. In addition, once the new properties were improved with paving and striping, PSB would have met the old parking requirements and would immediately be subject to the new parking requirements. What this means practically is that PSB could pave to lot on 4th and Oak (by Monarch Mountain Coffee) and then once the last of it was paved, PSB could immediately tear the paving out, build a building there, or sell the property.
Sandpoint does not suffer from a parking crisis in the western portion of our downtown. PSB and the City worked on resolving the problem by encouraging jobs and downtown activity. The parties agreed to five years of business incubator space in PSB's new building with all tenant improvements paid for by PSB. In addition, PSB agreed to payment of $50,000 for high-tech economic development.
Conclusion 1: I voted in favor of the resolution because I think that it is in the best interests of the City.
Issue 2: Whether to approve the proposals by the Sandpoint Growth Task Force.
Analysis 2: The Sandpoint Growth Task Force proposed 12 ideas to the City Council for how to improve our City. These 12 ideas were recommended to the Council. The majority of ideas were then sent to advisory committees for more work. I am especially excited about the Sandpoint Growth Task Force's idea to create a higher education task force.
Conclusion 2: I whole-heartedly supported the majority of the Sandpoint Growth Task Force's ideas.
March 2009 Council Meeting.
Issue 1: Whether to approve a zone change for the old Catholic church property from Residence "B" to commercial "D".
Mr. Pedersen purchased the Catholic church property. The church is located in a neighborhood close to downtown. The neighborhood is zoned Residence "B". However, churches are permitted to locate anywhere in the City, regardless of the zoning.
At a previous Council meeting, Mr. Pedersen asked for the zone change. At that meeting, there was great support for saving the historic church building. There was also interest in working with Mr. Pedersen to change the zoning uses for the proeprty, if the historic building could be preserved.
This is a transition time for Sandpoint zoning regulations. The new comprehensive plan was recently adopted. However, the zoning regulations dictated by the comprehensive plan haven't been adopted. So while the area will eventually have a higher intensity use than Residence "B", the exact types of use for the area and the exact zoning haven't been written yet.
Analysis 1: During the Comprehensive Plan, the Council spent a large portion of time on the church property. The plan also incorporated several concepts, including transition zoning between commercial areas and neighborhoods.
Mr. Pedersen asked for the highest intensity use possible without explanation of what his use of the property would be. In addition, Mr. Pedersen asked for the entire area to be zoned commercial. This would place commercial buildings across the street from homes and neighborhoods. This has been a contentious arrangement for another neighborhood, 6th Avenue, behind the Jack in the Box.
Conclusion 1: Without a development agreement as to the use of the site, I didn't support this measure. I have great interest in preserving the historic church building but the zoning request was not in line with the vision outlined in the current comprehensive plan. During the meeting, I supported Councilman Reuter's motion to refer the matter to the P & Z Commission for the creation of a development agreement since I believe that we could meet some of Mr. Pedersen's interest. As the proposal didn't pass, I was forced to vote against the zone change.
Issue 2: I voted in favor of the agreement with US Metronets to bring high speed broad band to Sandpoint and the surrounding area.
Issue 3: Whether to approve the committee's recommendation for the MOU with Panhandle State Bank.
In 2006, the City signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Panhandle State Bank. Panhandle State Bank was allowed to defer its parking requirements in the construction of its new bank building. In 2008 or 2009, the City assembled an advisory committee to review the MOU. The advisory committee recommended waiver of all the requirements for PSB under the MOU except for payment of $25,000.
Analysis 3: The original MOU called for the creation of approximately two hundred parking spots or payment of $6,500 per space in "in lieu" parking fees. PSB was required to provide approximately 118 more spaces.
The PSB proposal to pay only $25,000 was not in the best interest of the City. While there are numerous questions about the best way to address this issue, it is evident that $25,000 is insufficient.
Conclusion 3: I voted against the recommendation for resolution with PSB.
Mr. Pedersen purchased the Catholic church property. The church is located in a neighborhood close to downtown. The neighborhood is zoned Residence "B". However, churches are permitted to locate anywhere in the City, regardless of the zoning.
At a previous Council meeting, Mr. Pedersen asked for the zone change. At that meeting, there was great support for saving the historic church building. There was also interest in working with Mr. Pedersen to change the zoning uses for the proeprty, if the historic building could be preserved.
This is a transition time for Sandpoint zoning regulations. The new comprehensive plan was recently adopted. However, the zoning regulations dictated by the comprehensive plan haven't been adopted. So while the area will eventually have a higher intensity use than Residence "B", the exact types of use for the area and the exact zoning haven't been written yet.
Analysis 1: During the Comprehensive Plan, the Council spent a large portion of time on the church property. The plan also incorporated several concepts, including transition zoning between commercial areas and neighborhoods.
Mr. Pedersen asked for the highest intensity use possible without explanation of what his use of the property would be. In addition, Mr. Pedersen asked for the entire area to be zoned commercial. This would place commercial buildings across the street from homes and neighborhoods. This has been a contentious arrangement for another neighborhood, 6th Avenue, behind the Jack in the Box.
Conclusion 1: Without a development agreement as to the use of the site, I didn't support this measure. I have great interest in preserving the historic church building but the zoning request was not in line with the vision outlined in the current comprehensive plan. During the meeting, I supported Councilman Reuter's motion to refer the matter to the P & Z Commission for the creation of a development agreement since I believe that we could meet some of Mr. Pedersen's interest. As the proposal didn't pass, I was forced to vote against the zone change.
Issue 2: I voted in favor of the agreement with US Metronets to bring high speed broad band to Sandpoint and the surrounding area.
Issue 3: Whether to approve the committee's recommendation for the MOU with Panhandle State Bank.
In 2006, the City signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Panhandle State Bank. Panhandle State Bank was allowed to defer its parking requirements in the construction of its new bank building. In 2008 or 2009, the City assembled an advisory committee to review the MOU. The advisory committee recommended waiver of all the requirements for PSB under the MOU except for payment of $25,000.
Analysis 3: The original MOU called for the creation of approximately two hundred parking spots or payment of $6,500 per space in "in lieu" parking fees. PSB was required to provide approximately 118 more spaces.
The PSB proposal to pay only $25,000 was not in the best interest of the City. While there are numerous questions about the best way to address this issue, it is evident that $25,000 is insufficient.
Conclusion 3: I voted against the recommendation for resolution with PSB.
February 2009 Council Meeting.
At the February 2009 Council meeting, I voted to approve new parking requirements for the downtown, maximum parking requirements for the entire City (to minimize the number of parking lots) and to approve the Comprehensive plan.
Parking Requirements
Issue 1: Whether to eliminate parking requirements in the downtown core.
The City of Sandpoint previously adopted parking requirements for Sandpoint businesses. Businesses were required to provide parking every time there was (1) new construction; or (2) a change in use to an existing building. If one of these two things occurred then businesses would be required to come into compliance with current parking regulations by (1) building parking according to a city formula; or (2) paying "in lieu" fees for each parking spot not built.
Several businesses in Sandpoint were not in compliance with current parking regulations. The Loading Dock, for example, changed uses (from a store to a restaurant) and therefore was required to provide multiple parking spots or pay the in lieu fees.
Analysis 1: We want to encourage businesses to build in our downtown. We also want to encourage the remodel and re-use of our historic buildings. Unfortunately, parking requirements are so stringent that new buildings often will have to demolish other buildings just to provide parking. Parking requirements discourage new construction, re-use of historic buildings and changes in use to current buildings.
The elimination of parking requirements allows for new construction in the downtown, frees up space for development, and creates infill as current parking lots can be built upon.
Conclusion 1: I supported elimination of parking requirements within our downtown only. This measure will only work if it is part of a larger process to address future parking needs. We need to continue to plan for a City parking garage so that people can work and shop downtown conveniently.
The City of Sandpoint previously adopted parking requirements for Sandpoint businesses. Businesses were required to provide parking every time there was (1) new construction; or (2) a change in use to an existing building. If one of these two things occurred then businesses would be required to come into compliance with current parking regulations by (1) building parking according to a city formula; or (2) paying "in lieu" fees for each parking spot not built.
Several businesses in Sandpoint were not in compliance with current parking regulations. The Loading Dock, for example, changed uses (from a store to a restaurant) and therefore was required to provide multiple parking spots or pay the in lieu fees.
Analysis 1: We want to encourage businesses to build in our downtown. We also want to encourage the remodel and re-use of our historic buildings. Unfortunately, parking requirements are so stringent that new buildings often will have to demolish other buildings just to provide parking. Parking requirements discourage new construction, re-use of historic buildings and changes in use to current buildings.
The elimination of parking requirements allows for new construction in the downtown, frees up space for development, and creates infill as current parking lots can be built upon.
Conclusion 1: I supported elimination of parking requirements within our downtown only. This measure will only work if it is part of a larger process to address future parking needs. We need to continue to plan for a City parking garage so that people can work and shop downtown conveniently.
Monday, February 9, 2009
January 2009 Council Meeting.
Issue 1: Whether to grant vacation of the unused public streets, Daisy and Monroe, to the Sandpoint Charter School.
Rule 1: Vacations are granted when they are in the best interest of the public.
Analysis 1: This was two separate requests. Both streets are unused and adjacent to property owned by the Sandpoint Charter School. The Sandpoint Charter School would like to expand their facilities. In order to preserve their field, the School requested that the City vacate these two streets.
Streets to the east and south are narrow rights of way. Problematically, one of the main streets accessing the Sandpoint Charter School is one way. This area is experiencing significant growth. Generally, I am hesitant to vacate public rights of way as it is impossible to determine how important those rights of way will be in the future.
Conclusion 1: I voted against both vacation requests because I don't believe that they are in the best interest of Sandpoint from a very long-term perspective. I sincerely hope that the Sandpoint Charter School continues to pursue options to expand as I think that they do an excellent job.
Issue 2: Whether to adopt an ordinance that requires backflow devices and testing.
Rule 2: Backflow prevention devices stop contaminated water from flowing back into the drinking water of the City. Since the City's water supply is a loop, any contaminated water would potentially effect the entire City of Sandpoint. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality requires municipalities to have measures to prevent backflow.
Analysis 2: This ordinance requires certain municipal water users to install backflow devices and test them regularly. For the most part, the ordinance affects businesses because business users are more likely to operate equipment with the potential to backflow. However, homes with radiant boilers and underground irrigation systems would also likely be affected by this ordinance.
Conclusion 2: I voted in favor of the ordinance as it is required by DEQ.
Rule 1: Vacations are granted when they are in the best interest of the public.
Analysis 1: This was two separate requests. Both streets are unused and adjacent to property owned by the Sandpoint Charter School. The Sandpoint Charter School would like to expand their facilities. In order to preserve their field, the School requested that the City vacate these two streets.
Streets to the east and south are narrow rights of way. Problematically, one of the main streets accessing the Sandpoint Charter School is one way. This area is experiencing significant growth. Generally, I am hesitant to vacate public rights of way as it is impossible to determine how important those rights of way will be in the future.
Conclusion 1: I voted against both vacation requests because I don't believe that they are in the best interest of Sandpoint from a very long-term perspective. I sincerely hope that the Sandpoint Charter School continues to pursue options to expand as I think that they do an excellent job.
Issue 2: Whether to adopt an ordinance that requires backflow devices and testing.
Rule 2: Backflow prevention devices stop contaminated water from flowing back into the drinking water of the City. Since the City's water supply is a loop, any contaminated water would potentially effect the entire City of Sandpoint. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality requires municipalities to have measures to prevent backflow.
Analysis 2: This ordinance requires certain municipal water users to install backflow devices and test them regularly. For the most part, the ordinance affects businesses because business users are more likely to operate equipment with the potential to backflow. However, homes with radiant boilers and underground irrigation systems would also likely be affected by this ordinance.
Conclusion 2: I voted in favor of the ordinance as it is required by DEQ.
December 2008 Council Meeting
Issue 1: Whether to change the commercial zoning within the City to resemble the zoning regulations already in effect on 5th Avenue as an interim zoning measure.
Rule 1: Current commercial zoning standards do not reflect the vision outlined in the draft Comprehensive Plan ("Comp Plan"). The City has a special commercial zone along 5th Avenue, the 5th Avenue Overlay, which contains stricter requirements for building within the 5th Avenue area.
Analysis 1: After completing work on the Sandpoint Comprehensive Plan ("Comp Plan"), it is apparent that crafting new zoning regulations will be a long process. It is possible that these regulations wouldn't go into effect for over a year. The City already has in place some regulations which more closely resemble the goals of the draft Comp Plan in the 5th Avenue Overlay.
The 5th Avenue Overlay zone was put into place to protect one of the main corridors in Sandpoint. It has special measures not contained in other zones such as increased window area, building orientation and varied roof pitches. As evidence of how the new commercial regulations are working, you can view the new construction projects along 5th Avenue.
It appears optimistic to me that the City Council will adopt new commercial zoning regulations this year. I believe that the 5th Avenue Overlay zone generally works fairly well without hindering construction too much.
Conclusion 1: I voted in favor of extending measures similar to the 5th Avenue Overlay to all commercial zoning within the City of Sandpoint. This was merely a vote to pursue the concept. The City Council will review the specific interim zoning measures in ordinance form after passage by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Rule 1: Current commercial zoning standards do not reflect the vision outlined in the draft Comprehensive Plan ("Comp Plan"). The City has a special commercial zone along 5th Avenue, the 5th Avenue Overlay, which contains stricter requirements for building within the 5th Avenue area.
Analysis 1: After completing work on the Sandpoint Comprehensive Plan ("Comp Plan"), it is apparent that crafting new zoning regulations will be a long process. It is possible that these regulations wouldn't go into effect for over a year. The City already has in place some regulations which more closely resemble the goals of the draft Comp Plan in the 5th Avenue Overlay.
The 5th Avenue Overlay zone was put into place to protect one of the main corridors in Sandpoint. It has special measures not contained in other zones such as increased window area, building orientation and varied roof pitches. As evidence of how the new commercial regulations are working, you can view the new construction projects along 5th Avenue.
It appears optimistic to me that the City Council will adopt new commercial zoning regulations this year. I believe that the 5th Avenue Overlay zone generally works fairly well without hindering construction too much.
Conclusion 1: I voted in favor of extending measures similar to the 5th Avenue Overlay to all commercial zoning within the City of Sandpoint. This was merely a vote to pursue the concept. The City Council will review the specific interim zoning measures in ordinance form after passage by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
