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.