Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Title9 Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sandpoint planning staff preview sweeping Title 9 zoning changes, schedules Dec. 16 public hearing
Summary
City planning staff told the Planning & Zoning Commission on Dec. 2 that a package of Title 9 amendments — including a single 70% impervious surface cap, a 35% two‑story footprint limit, smaller allowed townhouse lot sizes and modest RM density increases — will go to public hearing Dec. 16; staff said the changes aim to permit ADUs and legalize some historic small lots while limiting taller structures that could loom over neighbors.
City planning staff previewed a package of zoning amendments Dec. 2 that would revise how Sandpoint measures lot coverage and building footprint, modify minimum lot sizes for some housing types and slightly raise allowed multifamily density in RM zones. Staff scheduled a public hearing for Dec. 16 to accept testimony and recommended commissioners consider the changes at that hearing.
Jason Welker, community planning and development director, told the commission the administration has brought the amendments to the commission multiple times and believes the package is close to final. "We've come to you three times now... and I think we're getting close to the finish line here," Welker said, framing the changes as a set of relatively simple code clarifications and targeted relaxations intended to increase housing options.
The package summarizes three principal changes: adopt a single 70% maximum impervious‑surface standard; keep a 35% maximum building footprint for two‑story structures while allowing single‑story structures to consume more area (up to the 70% cap); and revise lot‑size rules to legalize smaller historic lots and permit common‑wall townhouse lots as small as 2,500 square feet. Staff also proposed increasing allowed density in the RM (residential multifamily) zone by one dwelling unit across range bands.
Staff argued the 35% two‑story footprint limitation, combined with a single‑story allowance to the 70% cap, would permit many homeowners to add rear accessory dwelling units while reducing the likelihood that tall two‑story structures would loom over adjacent yards. Welker used two South Sandpoint examples to show that identical footprints can produce very different street impressions depending on massing, and said the proposed approach balances additional development opportunity with neighborhood compatibility.
The packet and presentation included clarifications on measurement and exemptions: building height is measured from the front street profile, not the backyard; staff plans to publish a clear table of height limits in the draft amendment; and existing exemptions (flagpoles, satellite dishes, etc.) remain unchanged. Staff noted the draft includes a simple table of maximum heights measured from finished grade and that the definition of "single story" is tied to an 18‑foot height threshold in practice.
Staff emphasized the changes do not necessarily remove all design controls: the cottage‑housing ordinance and existing site‑plan review triggers (Section 9.14) remain in place, and they would still require discretionary review for larger developments. Welker said the cottage code was drafted to prevail over conflicting standards and would not be overridden by these amendments.
The staff presentation acknowledged tradeoffs and potential unintended consequences, including speculation, subdivision pressure and the short‑term rental market. Commissioner questions and staff answers covered parking for ADUs (driveways or a single garage space can often count as ADU parking), how pervious paving could affect impervious coverage, and how small lot height caps in RM (typically reduced on lots smaller than 5,000 sq ft) will constrain overly tall development on compact parcels.
Why it matters: The amendments would change how much of a lot can be covered by impervious surfaces and how two‑story and single‑story building footprints are limited. That affects homeowners' ability to add ADUs, the legal status of many historic small lots and the appearance and scale of residential neighborhoods.
What’s next: Staff will post the full packet ahead of the Dec. 16 public hearing. Commissioners requested staff circulate the 2018 Historic Preservation Commission master plan and supporting materials in advance so the public and the commission can consider overlay or design tools alongside the zoning changes.
Provenance: Topic introduced SEG 086; presentation and specific proposals discussed SEG 136–188, SEG 190–224, SEG 281–346; measurement, steep slopes and height discussion SEG 555–588; cottage code and overlay discussion SEG 420–481; public hearing scheduling and packet follow‑up SEG 1354–1356.
