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"
Saturday, May 2, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
