Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the City Beach Rv Park topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Designers show two City Beach RV‑park concepts; commission to seek public feedback

Sandpoint Parks and Recreation Commission · June 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Sandpoint officials reviewed two preliminary City Beach RV‑park layouts that would add 18 RV stalls and reconfigure parking and boat‑launch circulation; commissioners will take the concepts to a June 27 farmers‑market outreach and ask Council to select a basis of design on July 1.

Sandpoint Parks and Recreation commissioners reviewed two preliminary design concepts for a City Beach RV park and adjacent parking-lot improvements at their June 10 meeting and directed staff to take the concepts to public outreach before asking City Council to select a preferred basis of design.

Dan, the project lead, said the team’s goals were to reduce conflicts among boats, RVs, passenger vehicles and pedestrians while maintaining overall parking capacity. Jeff Stiltz of Mike Terrell Landscape Architecture (MTLA) presented two similar layouts. "By doing a layout this way, I was able to fit nine 70‑ft back‑in RV stalls and nine 55‑ft back‑in stalls," Stiltz said, describing an 18‑stall RV park in each concept and dedicated lanes for boat maneuvering.

Why it matters: staff said Phase 1 (the RV‑park portion) is funded and they want to build this fall; Phase 2 (a more extensive parking‑lot reconstruction) is not yet funded. Staff said they plan to use 35% design deliverables and community feedback to pursue state grant programs this winter and to ask council for authorization on July 1.

The two concepts differ mainly in traffic circulation and in where they gain or trade green space. Concept A routes most boat and RV traffic off a new roundabout that funnels vehicles to separate launch and parking areas; Concept B flips the RV orientation, creating a slightly larger amenity area south of the stalls that could host a dog area or tent sites without reducing the number of RV stalls. Stiltz also showed options for two van‑camping stalls and "flex" green spaces that could be configured for tents or small shared amenities.

Commissioners discussed trade‑offs in detail: converting parts of the lot to 90° parking could recover many lost spaces but would reduce some lawn areas along the park edge; designers proposed planted islands and a central storm‑water swale to offset canopy and environmental losses. Commissioners also asked staff to consider ADA access and dispersed accessible stalls for restrooms, snack‑shack and boat‑launch access.

Other items raised included EV charging capacity and reliability, trash‑enclosure siting, bus stops and how a future hotel drive might integrate with the roundabout and drop‑off area. Staff said there are two existing EV chargers at the site but they are unreliable and that the city is preparing an RFP for upgraded chargers; any EV infrastructure would be phased with the parking work.

What’s next: the commission agreed to display the two concepts at the downtown farmers market on Saturday, June 27, and collect public comments (poster boards, sticky‑note feedback). Staff will present the public input and ask City Council to select a basis of design on July 1 so consultants can advance to 35% design and pursue grants this winter.

"If we leave today with either of these two concepts or slight revisions, I would probably before Saturday print these out and set them up in City Hall," a staff speaker said, describing the outreach plan.

Funding and timeline: staff emphasized speed to preserve grant eligibility—"the grant has been extended for one year already. I don't want to extend it for another year," a staff speaker said—and asked the commission to finalize preference so the design team can proceed.

The commission did not take a formal binding vote on a preferred concept at the meeting; they agreed to public outreach and to return to council for the next decision.