Sandpoint planning commission asks staff to revise proposed switch from building-footprint limits to single impervious-surface standard

The Sandpoint Planning and Zoning Commission on Oct. 21 held a public hearing on proposed amendments to Sandpoint City Code (Title 9) that would eliminate separate building-footprint maximums and replace them with a single impervious-surface standard, then voted to send the draft back to staff for revision and return to the commission.

Community Planning and Development Director Jason Welker presented the proposal, saying the draft would “go to a single impervious surface standard, eliminate the building footprint maximum, and adopt a unified standard for RS and RM of 70% lot coverage.” He and staff described an alternative of 60% that would still remove the building-footprint rule but limit overall impervious coverage less than the 70% option.

Welker and city planners told commissioners the change is intended to expand flexibility for redevelopment and infill — especially accessory dwelling units — and to reduce the code’s tendency to push small-lot development into taller, two‑story homes. Under current code, single-family building footprint limits in some zones are 35%; staff showed a 5,000-square-foot-lot example in which that footprint limit produces a maximum first-floor footprint near 1,700–1,750 square feet. Under a 70% impervious rule, staff said the maximum first-floor footprint could increase to roughly 2,600 square feet on a 5,000-square-foot lot if no other impervious surfaces are used, though they stressed actual sizes depend on driveways, patios and other hard surfaces.

Welker summarized staff rationale: higher footprints on small lots could allow more single-story living area (useful for aging in place), ease creation of ADUs, and simplify permit review. He said city engineers advised that the impervious-surface standard in the zoning code is not an engineering stormwater standard and that those impervious limits historically address bulk, scale and neighborhood character rather than drainage.

Three members of the public who identified themselves as local contractors or housing-industry professionals testified in favor of the amendment. Contractor Levi Snyder said the current code forces homeowners to “choose between living space, garages, carports, and patios,” and that the change would “allow current residents to better age in place” and make ADUs more feasible. Builder Luke Gonzales told commissioners the rule creates “a gap that we haven't quite been able to bridge with desirability versus what fits the code standard.” Realtor Tighe Mullen said allowing more options would help owners add income and adapt homes to current mortgage pressures.

Commissioners broadly endorsed the staff effort to give property owners more flexibility but pressed staff on likely effects on neighborhood scale and character. Several commissioners said larger lots in South Sandpoint could produce substantially larger homes under a single‑standard approach and asked whether height, setbacks or a tiered lot-size approach should limit that outcome. Commissioner Scott Torpey and others raised arithmetic questions about the illustrative examples; staff acknowledged some table figures needed clarification and said the graphics and examples better illustrate the policy tradeoffs than any single numeric table.

Commissioner Reed Weber and others suggested the commission might recommend different numeric limits for RS (single-family) and RM (multifamily) zones or prefer the 60% alternative for RS. City attorney Vonda (spelled several ways in the record) and staff cautioned against applying different standards to narrowly defined neighborhoods without a formal overlay, but said staff could return with refined alternatives for the commission to consider.

After deliberation the commission voted to amend the draft language and send it back to staff for further revision and review; the motion passed on a 5-0 roll call. Commissioners voting yes were Wayne Benner, Reed Weber, Grant Simmons, Scott Torpey and Chair Moe Dunkel; Commissioner Ivan Remar was absent. The commission indicated it expects staff to return with revised language and supporting analysis; staff estimated additional work and re-noticing could take about a month.

The hearing covered code sections referenced in the staff materials: proposed amendments to Sandpoint City Code Title 9 (including sections 9-1-3, 9-4-1-3, 9-4-2-3, 9-4-4 and 9-4-5). No final ordinance or numeric standard was adopted by the commission at the meeting; the commission’s action was procedural direction to staff to revise the draft for a future public hearing.

Next steps: staff will refine the draft language (including clarifying illustrative math and testing alternatives such as a 60% cap or different RS/RM approaches), incorporate public and commissioner feedback, and return to the planning commission and later to City Council for consideration.