Sandpoint’s Planning and Zoning Commission on Nov. 4 heard a workshop from Community Planning and Development Director Jason Welker on a draft code amendment that would replace the city’s separate building‑footprint cap with a single impervious‑surface standard and adjust multifamily density rules in the RM zone.

Welker said the change is intended to allow more flexible use of existing lots and to support modest increases in density where infrastructure exists. He summarized the proposal as moving from the current 35% building‑footprint cap to an impervious‑surface standard that could be as high as 70% on the smallest qualifying lots and would step down toward roughly 35% on the largest lots. Welker noted staff used in‑house GIS tools for a preliminary lot‑size analysis and could not fully verify that dataset within tonight’s meeting.

Why it matters: staff and commissioners framed the amendment as a tool to increase housing options—particularly accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and slightly larger attached units—without changing setbacks or other controls that still limit building size on small lots. Welker quoted a councilman’s observation that “there are only 2 ways to get affordable housing, density or subsidy,” using that line to explain how modest increases in allowable building area could help produce more units on infill parcels.

Key elements and figures discussed:
- Proposed single impervious‑surface standard: up to 70% on small lots in the draft table, decreasing on larger lots so that very large lots would see limits similar to the existing character of rural lots.
- Current standard: staff noted an existing 35% building‑footprint cap that applies today across lot sizes for many zones.
- Lot minimum: staff reiterated the code’s 5,000‑square‑foot minimum for new lots; as a consequence the proposed impervious cap would not apply to creation of new sub‑5,000 lots.
- Local inventory: Welker told the commission an in‑house review found about 36% of single‑family platted lots are listed under 5,000 sq. ft., but he cautioned parcels and platted lots differ and the in‑house analysis is preliminary.
- Practical footprint: staff showed sample calculations indicating that building size tends to plateau beyond about 7,500 sq. ft. because setbacks and other impervious surfaces (driveways, patios) consume area; for the largest illustrative examples, realistic maximum building footprints were on the order of ~4,600 sq. ft. under the draft assumptions.

Commissioners pressed staff on administration and edge cases. Several members argued the stepped table (70% → 60% → 50% etc.) can create perverse margins—where a slightly larger lot could allow less buildable area than a slightly smaller one—and asked staff to present a smoother, continuous curve or a marginal increment approach that would be easier to interpret at the counter. Staff said a continuous formula is feasible but emphasized the need to keep the rule easy for counter staff and applicants to apply; one commissioner offered pro bono help to build an Excel tool to visualize and administer the curve.

Density question and RM zone tweak: staff proposed a companion amendment to RM development standards: for certain lot‑size bands, the modest increase in allowable building area would permit one additional dwelling unit on some parcels (described in the workshop as "another doorknob"). Welker cautioned that other constraints—parking, setbacks, building height and site‑plan review—would still limit actual unit counts.

Parking and other constraints: commissioners repeatedly raised parking as a limiting factor for new units. Staff read the current parking rules as applied in Sandpoint: attached units or apartments under 1,200 sq. ft. generally require 1 parking space per unit; detached single‑family dwellings with more than three bedrooms require 2 spaces; detached single‑family homes with three or fewer bedrooms require 1 space. Staff said site‑plan review addresses snow‑storage and parking for projects of four or more units but that the zoning code lacks a quantitative snow‑storage standard for smaller developments.

Frontage and infill complications: commissioners discussed whether road‑frontage thresholds and lot‑size tests are duplicative and raised scenarios—flag lots, lots accessed by easement, and parcels composed of multiple historic platted lots—where a strict frontage test might block otherwise feasible infill. Staff agreed to analyze exemptions or administrative paths that would avoid unintended consequences.

Next steps: Welker said this meeting was a workshop, not a public hearing, and asked for direction to refine the numbers and return the draft as an ordinance with a public hearing. Commission comments led staff to commit to: (1) developing a simpler, administrable curve or marginal formula for lot‑coverage; (2) vetting frontage rules and potential exemptions for deep or flag lots; (3) clarifying parking and snow‑storage implications; and (4) preparing a staff report and ordinance language for a future public hearing.

What the staff emphasized: the amendment aims to align zoning with the city’s comprehensive plan objectives to support a variety of lot sizes and housing types while maintaining neighborhood scale and encouraging infill.

What remains unresolved: the final percentage schedule (the numeric breakpoints), whether to retain or adjust frontage columns, and whether to describe the standard as a stepped table, marginal increments or a continuous formula. Staff intends to return with refined language and supporting figures.