Sandpoint planners preview Title 9 tweaks on lot coverage, building footprint and lot sizes ahead of Dec. 16 public hearing

Sandpoint planning staff on Tuesday previewed a set of proposed changes to Title 9 that would simplify lot‑coverage rules while preserving limits aimed at protecting neighborhood character.

Jason Welker, the city’s Community Planning and Development director, told the Planning and Zoning Commission that the package — scheduled for a public hearing on Dec. 16 — focuses on three areas: lot coverage (impervious surface and building footprint), minimum lot sizes in residential multifamily (RM) and residential single‑family (RS) zones, and a modest density increase in the RM zone.

Welker said the main change under consideration is keeping a single 70 percent maximum impervious surface standard while removing the separate 40 percent building‑footprint maximum in the RM zone. To address concerns about bulk and scale, staff proposed retaining the existing 35 percent maximum building footprint for two‑story structures but allowing single‑story buildings to use more of the lot up to the 70 percent impervious surface cap. "We're hopeful that people realize that we're dramatically extending their property rights through this," Welker said, adding the change is intended to enable backyard accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and other modest infill while still including practical limits on height and impervious area.

Staff also proposed recognizing historic small‑lot patterns: the city currently sets a 5,000‑square‑foot minimum lot size but many older Sandpoint lots are 3,500 square feet and are technically nonconforming. The draft would allow such historic patterns to be legal again and would permit common‑wall townhouse lots to be developed down to 2,500 square feet under existing performance standards.

Bill Dean, deputy CPD director and city planner, and other staff walked commissioners through visual examples of two neighboring houses that both use 35 percent of their lots but present very different street profiles. Staff argued that height and massing—rather than footprint alone—drive perceptions of bulk: building height in Sandpoint is measured from the front street profile, and staff said the draft will use clear numerical height limits (for example an 18‑foot benchmark tied to single‑story status) rather than ambiguous terms.

Commissioners and staff discussed ADU rules, parking and pervious surfaces. Staff noted ADUs require off‑street parking but in many cases existing driveways or garages can serve that requirement; they said pervious pavers and similar solutions would be treated consistently in impervious‑surface calculations. Staff also cited existing site plan review and open‑space requirements that apply to multiunit projects, saying those rules and proposed height limits on small lots (e.g., a 30‑foot cap on some small RM lots vs. 40 feet typical in RM) would constrain large, tower‑like infill projects.

At public comment, Sandpoint resident Chris Chambers said he supports upzoning in principle but warned of unintended consequences: "Some of these larger lots could potentially be bought by speculators ... Not necessarily gonna create more affordable housing, but they might just sit there," Chambers said, urging sensitivity to neighborhood character and to short‑term rental trends that can increase turnover.

Staff answered that some of the extreme buildouts Chambers described would be limited by existing standards — setbacks, open‑space minimums for cottage developments, and site plan review for projects of four or more units. Staff also said cottage‑housing regulations are a separate part of the code and generally prevail if there is a conflict.

No formal action was taken on the amendments at the Dec. 2 meeting; staff told the commission they will publish a final packet ahead of the Dec. 16 public hearing and will recheck the draft for any conflicts with the cottage ordinance. The commission closed the discussion and the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.