Sandpoint planners review rules for housing downtown, raise questions on height, trees and parking

City Planner Bill Dean told the Sandpoint Planning and Zoning Commission on June 3 that the city's Commercial A zoning is explicitly intended to preserve a downtown storefront character and that the code currently limits most new housing to upper stories or behind street-front storefronts.

"Just to be clear, tonight, we're not talking about any particular proposed code change," Dean said at the start of the discussion, framing the session as an informal workshop to explain how the ordinance reads and what could be considered for future amendments.

The discussion centered on a short table of allowed uses in Commercial A and several specific development controls that, together, determine how much housing can be built and what it looks like. Dean pointed to several rules that shape downtown form: a 0-foot maximum front setback (build-to the sidewalk except for defined civic spaces), a rule allowing residential only on upper stories or behind ground-floor storefronts, and a set of height provisions that currently allow up to 65 feet under some conditions but set a 35-foot maximum within 50 feet of residential zones.

Why it matters: Commissioners, staff and residents said the existing wording can yield very different outcomes depending on interpretation. The code's mix of broad design language and discrete numeric limits has led residents and architects to ask whether the rules need more detail to protect the downtown character, while keeping redevelopment economically viable.

Key code points and questions raised

- Allowable residential forms: The zoning table lists dwellings inside commercial structures, accessory dwellings and restricted multifamily; detached single-family homes are not allowed in Commercial A. A footnote says residential is permitted on upper stories or behind storefronts "where design is consistent with a storefront character." Dean warned that the phrase requires interpretation when applications arrive.

- Setbacks and buffers: The code requires a 0-foot maximum front setback to create the traditional downtown edge, but also requires transition yards when a commercial parcel abuts a residential zone (a yard width "not less than 10 feet," and a rear yard depth "not less than 20 feet" where no alley exists).

- Heights and drafting gaps: Commercial A lists a 65-foot maximum height in some circumstances but also says "maximum height of any portion of a structure within 50 feet of a residential zoning district shall be 35 feet." Dean noted a drafting gap: the ordinance discusses step-backs after 35 feet but provides no explicit step-back standard for buildings between 35 and 45 feet.

- Thresholds and procedure: A building footprint of 15,000 square feet triggers review as a conditional use (CUP) by the commission; smaller footprints follow administrative site-plan review. Dean and staff reiterated that the combination of setbacks, heights and parking requirements effectively determine density on a given lot.

Public comments and concerns

Residents and stakeholders who spoke during the general-comments period urged several changes or clarifications:

- Urban trees: Pam Duquette asked planners to "address any and all existing trees in terms of their preservation with any development," citing the comp plan goal to maintain and increase tree canopy. Participants discussed the difference between street/right-of-way trees (which require forester approval for removal) and private-property trees, and the possibility of incentives or standards to preserve large trees.

- Alley setbacks, deliveries and parking: Christine Kester recommended creating alley setbacks behind buildings for loading, ADA spaces and trash/dumpster access, and suggested requiring off-street parking for residential developments above a small-unit threshold (she suggested a trigger such as more than six dwellings).

- Infrastructure capacity: Several speakers raised sewer capacity and the risk of litigation or public-health impacts if infrastructure cannot support more intense development. Dean deferred technical capacity questions to the city engineer and public works staff but agreed infrastructure is an input the commission should consider when setting rules.

- Historic character and overlay districts: Multiple commenters urged clearer historic-design guidance. Dean and commissioners discussed using an overlay district or a targeted set of historic-design standards (or a separate design-guideline document referenced by code) to preserve specific blocks or "nuggets" of historic buildings while allowing more flexible rules elsewhere in Commercial A.

Commissioner questions and staff direction

Commissioners pressed staff on how to reconcile a 65-foot maximum with the largely low-rise downtown and on whether the commission should begin with technical code cleanups, alignment with the recently adopted comp plan, or public-driven policy changes. Commissioner Scott Torpey and others said first priorities should be fixing inconsistencies and harmonizing the code with the comp plan before moving into value-based choices.

Dean said his next steps are outreach and research: review historic-preservation options with the Historic Preservation Commission, talk to property owners and technical experts (including geotechnical and engineering consultants where soils and pile costs affect feasible building heights), and return with a proposed work plan. He said the city expects to do more active code work in late summer after finishing the parking code updates and filling a planning staff vacancy.

Votes and formal actions

The meeting's formal action earlier in the agenda approved the consent calendar. The planning discussion itself was an informational workshop and did not include a code amendment vote.

What happens next

Dean and commissioners signaled they will bring more focused proposals and community workshops before drafting formal amendments. Staff recommended collecting technical studies (infrastructure and geotechnical), design guidance from the Historic Preservation Commission, and input on tree-preservation tools before preparing ordinance language for Planning Commission and subsequent City Council review.

Ending note

Commissioners thanked the public for attending and encouraged continued participation as staff develops a detailed plan for examining Commercial A, historic design standards and related code fixes over the coming months.