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.

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.

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.

November 2008 City Council Meeting

Issue 1: Alternative Dwelling Units

Analysis 1: Alternative Dwelling Units ("ADU") are often referred to as mother-in-law apartments. Currently Sandpoint residents cannot build a small detached living area on their property for use by others. Despite this, there are many ADUs in Sandpoint - all of them illegal. ADUs provide affordable living and provide people with more flexible ways to use their property. Despite the number of illegal ADUs in the City, this was the fourth time that the ordinance had come before City Council. 

Conclusion 1: I voted in favor of the ordinance allowing ADUs. The ordinance passed. This will provide more rental units, give families greater flexibility and recognize what already occurs in Sandpoint. 

Issue 2: Whether to approve a 20 unit PUD along Boyer, Moon Ridge Estates. 

Analysis 2: A PUD allows uses of a property where it would ordinarily be prohibited. In exchange, the City can attach additional requirements to a property. In this case, the developer wanted smaller lot sizes. He expects to build 20 single family homes on approximately 20 acres. The space will have a small common area for use by the neighborhood. 

The new comp plan provides that development is to occur on a traditional street grid pattern in order to increase connectivity between developments. In this case, the development was on a cul-de-sac. I personally would have liked improvements and design changes (i.e. through street connectivity, larger paths, parking behind the lots, etc.) however, the developer satisfied the conditions of the PUD and met what has typically been imposed on development in the past. The new comp plan plays no part in the decision as it has not been adopted yet. 

Conclusion 2: The developer met the requirements of the law and as such, I voted for approval of the Moon Ridge Estates PUD. 

Issue 3: Milltown Park (LP Mill Site) Vacation of right of way

Analysis 3: LP Mill site is a large (20 acre) parcel located near the downtown. It is owned by Renova. Renova seeks to divide the parcel and sell it to different developers. Maple Street is a city road running through the parcel. It has City utilities. Renova requested vacation of Maple street and return of the property to Renova. 

Vacation can be given when it is in the public good. Renova argued that vacation improved the marketability of the property. That's it. There wasn't any other factor that was really stated in support of vacation except for the future economic benefits to Renova and secondarily then to the City by the creation of constructions jobs, etc. 

Conclusion 3:  I voted against vacation. Renova seeks to sell the property but has no clear use for the vacated right of way right except that it improves the ability to sell the property. I stated that I'm not opposed to vacating this street if I knew the use of the lots. The importance of the road for future connectivity is determined by its future use. 

In my opinion, the vacation was unnecessary. The two arguments for vacation were (1) that it improves the marketability of the property and (2) the development will someday provide future jobs. A vacation is always going to provide an economic benefit to a property owner because the owner is receiving land (the abandoned street) from the City at no charge. Basing vacation on some future benefit to the economy is equally dubious. Under these conditions every vacation request should be approved because it will then be developed and therefore provide jobs. 

The vacation passed when the Mayor broke the tie and approved vacation. 

October 2008 City Council Meeting.

Issue 1: Whether a property owner should be granted a deferral for his sidewalk. 

Analysis 1: An owner had recently remodeled/rebuilt his home. On new construction and major remodels, owners are required to install a sidewalk in front of their property. In certain instances the owner may ask to defer (postpone) the installation of a sidewalk. A deferral is only granted in certain instances. Once granted a deferral, the City has never gone back and required an owner to install a sidewalk. There are over 50 deferrals in Sandpoint. 

Here, the owner did not qualify for a deferral. He stated that he did not want to install the sidewalk due to cost. The motion was made to grant the owner a temporary reprieve from the requirements until the ordinance was reviewed. 

Conclusion 1: I voted against granting the deferral because it couldn't be granted under our current law and there was no other sufficient reason put forth by the owner. 

September 2008 City Council Meeting.

Issue 1: Whether to allow reduced parking requirements for historic buildings. 

Analysis 1: City of Sandpoint has strict parking requirements which are triggered anytime a building changes use (i.e. from a restaurant to a retail space) or increases its use (expansion of a restaurant, etc. ).  What this means practically is that if a person desires to remodel an old building or start a new business, they must often time buy parking spots or pay the City 10,000 per spot, an "in lieu fee". 

This problem is especially prevalent with our historic buildings. Many of these are old. They require significant investment to improve them. However, if they are improved, then the parking requirements are triggered. Therefore, it is often easier to knock an old building down and build new than preserve it. The parking requirements act as a obstacle to using our old buildings.

Conclusion 1:  I voted to reduce parking requirements by 50% for buildings placed on the historic register within the City of Sandpoint.