Council approves final Waterfront Design report

SANDPOINT — The Sandpoint City Council spent over an hour Nov. 15 deliberating over the final Waterfront Design Competition report, ultimately deciding to accept the document in a 3-1 vote, stressing that it is a vision, not a carved-in-stone plan.

GGLO Bernardo Willis, selected as the finalist in the design competition, has been in the process of refining designs based on input provided during stage three of the competition. At Wednesday’s meeting, members of that team presented proposed changes based on that input.

The updated designs are more definitive about zoning recommendations, keep the Statue of Liberty in its current place, define more ADA parking, and include modest modifications to the Bridge Street bridge. The report  also includes refinements to next steps and implementation process.

GGLO principal Mark Sindell presented three points in next steps that can be considered and prioritized, including downtown building and design guidelines, historic preservation guidelines, and zoning in the First Avenue and Cedar Street downtown core. 

Among those first steps are consideration of building height limits. Council, city staff, and design team members participated in in depth discussion about building height codes and how they will relate to new developments. 

The current recommendation within the document defines a 55-foot height limit, a preserved 30-foot-wide by 20-foot-tall view corridor and a 20-foot-tall set back above 35 feet. 

Both councilors Joel Aispuro and Deb Ruehle asked for clarifications on what that would mean for the downtown core. 

“The vibe I’m getting from the citizens is they would probably rather see a hole there than anything larger than 65 feet so that’s something that we’re obviously going to have to talk about and deal with,” Aispuro said. 

The GGLO team explained that the reason for a higher height limit than some are expecting consideration for challenges created by soil that is more taxing to build upon. They said it would be difficult to encourage development the community wants to see when the investment and cost that is necessary for the foundation alone is more significant than other areas. With a 55-foot building height limit, property owners may see more potential for an investment in a project that is going to require significant funds to launch because they will have more space to utilize. 

“What we know about that stretch of buildings on First Avenue on the east side is, the foundation style would have to be driven pilings, it’s not a spread foundation like you would typically see for a building where it’s concrete,” Philip Boyd, GGLO principal, said. “When you get into driving pilings, just the effort of getting there is so expensive compared to a traditional concrete spread footing foundation. When you get to 55 feet, you’re trying to strike this balance between economics and the viewshed and all the urban corridor things that we’re all sensitive to. “

Mayor Shelby Rognstad clarified that the current code includes a 35-foot maximum height, with exceptions up to 65 feet when the structure allows for parking or residential areas above or behind existing commercial areas.

“I think that’s a really important distinction that we need to keep in mind because that was very intentionally put in the code back in 2012 as a result of the Comp Plan that was developed in 2009, and the reason is, we heard resoundingly from the public during that Comp Plan development in process in 2009 that we really wanted to encourage residences downtown because it’s good for businesses, it creates an active streetscape, it also is good for public safety when you’ve got more eyes on the street and more eyes on the sidewalks and businesses, and it creates a better living environment when you have residences in a highly walkable, highly amenitized area.”

He also said that the city has heard from the downtown businesses, residents and visitors that there is a need for more parking downtown. The additional 30 feet exception imbedded in the code was purposefully placed as an incentive to encourage developers and property owners to accomplish some of those goals, Rognstad said, 

“We’re not voting today on building heights, but we talk about incentivizing developers to build housing,” Aispuro said. “We get laughed at a lot when we talk about that  because the housing that is proposed even on the hole of the ground on the corner there … I find it hard to believe that any developer that is going to spend that much money on a building is going to be building condos or houses that are affordable, not that they have to in my worldview, but for the average citizen I think it’s important that we think about that as we move forward.”

During public comment, citizens brought up concerns regarding ideas within the document including the boating area near City Beach, and prioritization of projects. Most asked that the council table their approval of the final report until after recently elected officials take on their new roles. 

However, after discussion, most of the council determined that accepting the final report will actually make it possible to receive better funding for projects in the future, and encourage more public engagement as well as make room for adjustments to building codes sooner. 

“I want to reiterate to make sure that I understand, that we understand, that if we move forward with this report, we’re able to move forward leveraging this document that we have for our benefit, but not necessarily jumping the gun,” Aispuro said. “We’re able to have public engagement to see what’s best and what our needs are.”

Sandpoint City Administrator Jennifer Stapleton said moving forward will make engagement opportunities more possible. Accepting the document also would offer opportunities for the public to comment on steps like building codes, the bridge or the marina.

“If we don’t put forth a vision, we can’t begin a conversation,” Stapleton said.

Councilor Kate McAlister added that without moving forward, someone could also build a 65-foot building based on current codes. 

“We don’t need a visionary document to have any of these discussions,” Ruehle said. “We can have discussions about building heights and building codes — we’ve always had them … We can have discussions about anything we want in this town without a document, so I’m just trying to make sure everybody hears that. That’s not to say I’m saying, ‘bury your head in the sand,’ that there’s not good information in this document. But I think there is a lot of public perception here. I think that when things are accepted that actions start to happen a lot faster than the public is willing to accept them.”

Ruehle later said that she is willing to accept bits and pieces of the document, but not the report in entirety. 

However, Rognstad said if the council doesn’t accept the plan, “it would be a travesty considering the amount of money that was invested in it, the amount of effort that was put into this from the hundreds of community members that gave their feedback, their criticism, their insight,” he said. “We have a vision now that was not easily come to … This is a big dream, this is a big vision, and not everything in this plan is equally representative of Sandpoint’s identity, or an aspiration that Sandpoint wants, but it is a vision … To just throw it away because a few critical voices didn’t get everything they wanted - they will continue to have an opportunity to be heard and refine the plan going forward with each element of the plan as it comes before council again.”

Following his comments, Aispuro suggested that structure and intention are going to provide what the city needs to be the best it can be. 

“I feel like we’re literally in this position in Sandpoint … because there wasn’t a vision,” Aispuro said, referencing developments that went up with no structure or plan.

“We didn’t get to dictate what happened there, developers got to dictate what happened there,” he said. “Some may agree with it, some may not, but I think the point here is, we get to be in the driver’s seat … We’re not going to be changing City Beach tomorrow and we’re not going to be changing XYZ — it’s a visionary document. I don’t know any part of my life where if it’s not structured it works out good — there’s no vision. I don’t parent that way, I don’t do my marriage that way, we don’t do our business that way.”

Otherwise, without a vision he said downtown will become the exact thing those opposing the document are afraid will result from it. 

Following discussion Councilor Justin Dick made a motion to approve the plan with the recommendation that workshops for building height codes and historic preservation, land use, City Beach, and the carousel be put in motion. 

The approval passed with Ruehle dissenting.