Sandpoint commission reviews draft commercial zoning, debates limits on downtown offices and building heights
Loading...
Summary
City staff walked the Planning Commission through a redlined commercial zoning update and a linked historic‑preservation code, focusing on which uses belong in a tightened downtown core, whether ground‑floor offices should be limited, and how tall new buildings should be. Commissioners asked staff to redraw core boundaries, prepare graphics, and return with stepped‑back height options.
Sandpoint’s Planning Commission spent the meeting reviewing a staff redline of commercial zoning and a companion historic‑preservation code, with detailed debate over allowable ground‑floor uses, the footprint of the downtown core, and where taller buildings should be permitted.
Deputy director of community planning and development (speaker 4) led the presentation, telling commissioners that staff intended a multi‑stage review: "This is not something we're gonna ask you to look at in 2 weeks," he said, asking the commission to focus first on commercial districts before historic‑preservation details. He framed three lenses for the review: create an identifiable downtown, avoid a purely tourist ‘Disneyland’ downtown, and not rely on big development as the community’s savior.
Why it matters: The zoning changes would concentrate retail and pedestrian‑oriented activity in a narrower downtown core while allowing more residential and office uses in an expanded outer core. That could change where developers target investment and how the city supports housing and daytime activity.
What staff proposed and what commissioners debated - Land‑use table and ground‑floor uses: Staff presented a table of permitted uses and proposed excluding stand‑alone commercial storage and certain manufacturing from the downtown core while allowing more flexibility for mixed uses nearby. Commissioners questioned whether first‑floor offices should be allowed in the downtown core; staff said offices could remain allowed above the first floor but recommended limits on ground‑floor office use to preserve street‑front activity.
- Residential on the ground floor: Staff noted a draft change to permit residential on ground floors in commercial zones outside the downtown core (with the downtown core kept more restrictive). Commissioners and staff emphasized design standards to prevent token storefronts and to ensure any ground‑floor residential still "demonstrates functional space and storefront character."
- Nonconforming uses: Staff said many existing downtown offices are nonconforming under the new table but can persist; the draft reduces the period a use can be dark before it must conform from two years to six months, a change staff proposed to speed transitions to conforming uses.
- Boundaries and scarcity: Commissioners generally agreed they wanted to 'shrink' the required retail footprint so retail is concentrated in a smaller core and peripheral commercial zones can redevelop into housing or mixed use, creating scarcity that could spur downtown activity. Multiple commissioners flagged large employers already downtown (the presentation cited Kochava as an example) as key generators of daytime demand.
- Building heights and step‑back rules: Staff proposed a 45‑foot maximum in the downtown core and up to 65 feet in outer commercial areas, with several "relational" standards that would curb heights near residential lots and limit tall buildings adjacent to single‑story neighbors unless a step‑back is provided. Commissioner/staff speaker 9 summarized the local history: "We do know for a fact is that the building height has been 65 feet for about 16, 20 years now, and there's not been an entitlement given or application completed for 65‑foot tall building along 1st Avenue," which commissioners used to question whether height limits alone would drive redevelopment.
Commissioners were split on the proposed relational height rules. Some favored keeping strict relation-to-neighbor limits to protect pedestrian scale; others said the rules could arbitrarily penalize early redevelopers and recommended graduated step‑backs, view‑angle planes, or other formulas. Several asked staff to produce visual graphics showing what 35, 45 and 65 feet look like from street level.
Decisions, directions and next steps The commission did not adopt any zoning changes at the meeting. Instead commissioners gave staff direction: redraw downtown core/outer‑core boundaries (including possible adjustments near the park/farm and hospital areas), test alternatives to the strict relational height rule (remove the specific "item 3" limit and modify "item 4" to apply stepbacks to new builds as well as additions), prepare street‑level graphics and renderings of differing heights and step‑back options, and return with revised redlines and design standards for further review.
Procedural note: The consent calendar was approved at the start of the meeting (motion, second, recorded ayes) and there were no public‑comment speakers signed up for the general comment period.
What’s next: Staff will revise the maps and language and present graphics and updated code options at a future commission meeting. No formal vote on the zoning or the historic‑preservation code occurred at this session.
