Sandpoint planning commission holds workshop on residential uses, heights and tree protections in Commercial A zone

Sandpoint Planning and Zoning Commission members and city staff on June 3 held an educational workshop on what types of residential development are allowed in the city’s Commercial A zoning district and how the written rules shape downtown form and future projects.

City Planner Bill Dean opened the discussion by stressing the session was informational, not a formal proposed code amendment. “Tonight, we’re not talking about any particular proposed code change,” Dean said. He walked commissioners and members of the public through the Commercial A provisions of the Sandpoint City Code, explaining how the code’s purpose statement, allowable-use table, setback, height and design standards drive the look and intensity of new development.

The commission and staff highlighted several standing limits in the Commercial A rules. Dean noted the code generally allows residential dwelling units only within or above nonresidential structures and that new detached single-family homes are not permitted. The code prioritizes a “storefront character” along sidewalks, including a typical 0-foot front setback, and permits residential uses primarily above the ground floor or behind a street-facing storefront. Dean pointed to a 65-foot maximum height listed in the code, with a 35-foot maximum for any portion of a structure within 50 feet of a residential zoning district, and called attention to what he described as a drafting gap for buildings between 35 and 45 feet where stepback requirements are unclear.

Dean described how intensity in the Commercial A district is determined by setbacks, height, parking requirements and building massing rather than a fixed units-per-acre density number. He also noted a 15,000 square-foot building footprint threshold that triggers a conditional use permit (CUP) and Planning Commission review; smaller projects typically proceed via administrative site-plan review. “These bulk size, scale, and mass regulations are what guide what can happen on a given lot,” Dean said.

Commissioners and the public focused on three recurring policy topics: building height and massing downtown, preservation of existing trees and street canopy, and the adequacy of infrastructure and parking. Commissioner Scott Torpey asked how the commission should reconcile the code’s allowance for taller buildings with the prevailing low-rise character of downtown: “How would a commission like this consider a tall building in an area largely governed by two, maybe three‑story buildings… How do we reconcile these?” Dean and other commissioners said those tradeoffs are a community decision guided by the comprehensive plan and tools such as overlay districts that can apply different rules to subareas inside Commercial A.

Several residents urged stronger protections for trees and more precise tree-management rules in any code update. Pam Duquette, who identified herself as a Sandpoint resident, noted the comprehensive plan’s references to urban forests and called for tree preservation to be a code priority: “These benefits are reason that our comp plan realizes and includes them… We preserve and protect existing healthy trees to the greatest extent practical.” Commissioners and staff discussed using the city’s urban-forestry commission to develop best practices and incentives rather than embedding detailed private‑property tree rules directly into the zoning code.

Other public speakers raised practical items that emerged repeatedly in the workshop: a suggestion to require alley setbacks or loading/ADA spaces behind downtown buildings, calls for minimum off‑street parking for new multifamily proposals (for example when a building includes more than six units), and questions about whether sewer capacity and other infrastructure constraints should inform zoning decisions. Resident Kristen Steichen and others asked planning staff to coordinate with public works and the city engineer on capacity issues before finalizing any rules. Dean replied that infrastructure-capacity conversations are appropriate to conduct with the city engineer or public works but said the zoning workshop was focused on form and land-use rules.

Architect and resident Ethan Davis suggested changing a table heading from “residential zone” to “residential use” to avoid unintentionally excluding older, nonconforming residential buildings that sit inside the Commercial A zone. Several speakers recommended considering an overlay district to tailor historic-preservation standards or height rules to subareas rather than applying a single set of rules to the entire and geographically large Commercial A district.

No formal code amendments or votes on regulatory text were taken at the meeting. Commissioners and staff agreed to continue outreach and to return with more analysis: Dean told the commission he expects to begin a more concerted code-update schedule later in the summer after other planning priorities (including a parking ordinance) are advanced. “It’s gonna be late summer before I’m on this in a real concerted way,” Dean said. Commissioners encouraged community participation and staff outreach to property owners, the Historic Preservation and Urban Forestry commissions, and technical consultants (including geotechnical specialists) to better understand constraints such as soils and the cost of foundations when evaluating appropriate heights.

The meeting also included a routine consent-calendar vote at the outset. Vice Chair Wayne Benner moved to approve the consent calendar; Commissioner Grant Simmons seconded. The commission voted unanimously on the motion; the chair declared the consent calendar approved.

The commission will not accept new testimony on the Farm and Flats site plan review during general comments at future meetings because that public hearing was previously closed, staff said. Staff flagged that code drafting anomalies (for example the missing stepback requirement for 35–45 foot buildings) will require clean-up language and focused discussion as the commission moves from education to drafting.

The Commission closed the session after public comment and procedural items; staff and commissioners said they will plan deeper public workshops and targeted outreach before any formal code amendments are drafted or noticed for public hearings.