Sandpoint planners advance draft parking ordinance changes; staff proposes $25,000 per-space in-lieu fee

Planning staff on Tuesday presented a working draft amendment to Sandpoint City Code Title 9, Chapter 5 that would change how the city requires or charges for off‑street parking for downtown development.

The presentation and commission workshop, led by City Planner Bill Dean and Planning & Community Development Director Jason Welker, outlined several linked changes: expanding the downtown commercial parking‑exempt zone, removing the separate residential exemption inside that zone so that new residential projects would either provide parking or pay an in‑lieu fee, changing the way residential parking requirements are calculated (from bedrooms to square footage), and tightening procedures for parking demand analyses and shared‑parking agreements.

Why it matters: the draft aims to preserve downtown’s urban form while creating a funding mechanism for future public parking supply. Staff told the commission the working fee proposal is $25,000 per parking space for residential projects that opt to pay rather than provide required spaces; the code previously referenced a $10,000 figure set in 2009. Staff said the $25,000 figure was derived from a review of comparable studies (including a detailed Boise study) and other cities’ practices and would be set and updated via the city fee schedule rather than hard‑coded in the ordinance.

Key provisions and staff directions

- Residential parking metric: Under the draft, residential parking in the downtown area would be tied to dwelling square footage rather than bedrooms; staff said the baseline proposal is roughly 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet, with a cap of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit for larger units. Staff characterized that approach as “progressive,” requiring more parking for larger units and less for small efficiency units.

- In‑lieu fee: Planning staff described an initial working number of $25,000 per parking space for residential projects that pay into a parking improvement fund instead of building spaces. Staff recommended referencing the fee schedule (not a fixed figure in code) so the council can update the fee without re‑writing Title 9.

- Expanded commercial exemption / residential carve‑out: Staff proposed enlarging the geographic downtown area that is exempt for nonresidential projects while removing the current dashed residential exemption. Under the draft, nonresidential projects inside the expanded zone would remain exempt from providing parking; residential projects in that same zone would either provide parking or pay the in‑lieu fee.

- Parking demand analyses and approvals: The draft ties any parking demand analysis to the permit approval body for a project (staff director, Planning Commission or City Council) rather than leaving acceptance to the planning director alone. Staff said the aim is to “daylight” demand analyses by making them part of the noticed review so the public and decision‑makers see the full request.

- Shared‑parking agreements and recordation: Shared parking agreements would be reviewed by the project’s approval authority and, when used, would need to be recorded so the city’s land records show the arrangement. Staff said recorded documents (easements or agreements) are the mechanism the city uses to ensure off‑site parking arrangements remain in effect for future development reviews.

- Alley paving and surfacing: The draft would require paved, hard‑surfaced alleys between public streets when a development accesses parking from an alley, with exemptions for single‑family homes, duplexes and ADUs. Staff said this is a response to complaints and recent projects where frequent vehicle traffic on gravel alleys created maintenance and nuisance issues.

- Parking lot construction standards: The draft clarifies minimum surfacing (asphalt or concrete) and compaction standards for required parking facilities, clarifies how wheel stops count toward stall depth, and aligns aisle and stall dimensions with accepted engineering standards. Staff also noted ADA accessibility standards apply and cannot be waived by the Planning Commission.

Commission questions and concerns

Commissioners raised several policy and implementation concerns at the workshop. Commissioner Will Mitchell asked about how the fee was calculated; staff pointed commissioners to an Excel appendix in the packet showing how comparable cities and a Boise study informed the figure. Commissioner Reed Weber expressed concern that a high in‑lieu fee could encourage surface parking or land acquisition near downtown and change the urban form. Bill Dean said the fee is intended to reflect the public cost of providing parking and to create a fund that could support a future parking structure or other public parking improvements.

Commissioners also pressed staff on practical details: when a parking demand analysis would be required, how shared‑parking records would be tracked and enforced if ownership changes, whether the alley‑paving rule would create patchwork improvements, and how surfacing standards would apply to smaller single‑family projects versus multifamily developments. City Engineer Brandon Staglin and staff discussed engineering standards (pavement thickness, driveway apron profiles) and said staff will refine thresholds and definitions before formal hearings.

Next steps

Staff said the draft ordinance is a working document. The timeline presented to the commission called for a public hearing on the draft on June 17 before the Planning & Zoning Commission (for a recommendation) and potential council consideration later in the summer. Staff emphasized the draft will be revised following commission feedback and further internal review; the commission did not take a vote on the ordinance at Tuesday’s workshop.

Votes and formal actions at the May 6 meeting

The commission approved an amended agenda to remove a public hearing that had been posted in error and approved minutes from its April 15 meeting. Separately, the commission voted in roll call to convene an executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74‑206(1)(f) to consult with legal counsel on pending or imminent litigation. The workshop portion of the meeting ended after the executive session was called.

What remains unresolved

Staff and commissioners identified multiple topics that need follow‑up language or thresholds before a formal ordinance: precise triggers/thresholds for bringing in‑lieu payments to the commission (for example, whether a percentage or absolute stall count should trigger public review), alley paving scope and exemptions, surfacing standards for small residential projects, and how parking in‑lieu revenues could be programmed (staff said the proposed code limits those funds to public parking improvements but the commission discussed broader mobility investments as a policy question).

The presentation materials and the working draft ordinance remain available in the city’s packet; staff asked commissioners for additional feedback ahead of the June public hearing.