From the Idaho Panhandle

Sandpoint’s Snedden Introduces Small Spaces Initiative

By Cate Huisman, 10-18-10

	This “accessory dwelling unit” under construction in south Sandpoint, which meets current code requirements and could be certified as a "small space," appears to be larger than both surrounding houses and the house to which it is an accessory. It has raised the ire of neighbors and threatens support for the idea of increasing density in residential neighborhoods.

Sandpoint city councilman Stephen Snedden recently held a public workshop to discuss, among other things, his “Small Spaces Initiative,” an approach to “affordable housing and inexpensive commercial spaces” in the city. [Details are included here in the packet of materials provided to council members for the meeting.]The workshop garnered the attention of most members of the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission as well as a good sampling of builders and at least one real estate sales agent, and this garrulous group suffered no shortage of ideas and opinions about the proposal.

Snedden’s original idea was to provide a group of incentives to developers who were willing to build homes or offices with a footprint of less than 1000 square feet. Such a project would be deemed a “Certified Small Space.” Its application would be put on a fast track for consideration, and it would receive waivers of some city fees and long-term payment plans for others, as well as reimbursement of fees for certification as a “green” structure by the U.S. Green Building Council (LEED) or the National Association of Home Builders.

The proposal also suggested liberalization of rules about the number of structures that may be built relative to the size of building lots. Scott Schriber, a local builder, indicated that such adjustments to allowable land use would make a difference, including allowing two structures on some larger lots and liberalizing the current rules for “accessory dwelling units”—granny flats, typically over garages, that are currently allowed with some restrictions.

Councilman Justin Schuck, himself a builder, indicated that remission of fees would make a big dent in new home construction costs. A reduction in fees for smaller homes was considered to make a certain amount of sense, since smaller homes, more to a block, are easier for the city to service than those that are further apart. But attendees noted that a small home that a family could afford might generate more sewer and park usage than a larger home that a retired couple could afford. And, as Mayor Gretchen Hellar pointed out, if the fees charged were less than what the services to the new structure actually cost, then current residents are in effect subsidizing new ones. This has not been a popular concept locally.

The idea of refunding fees for meeting “green” standards was even more controversial. Schuck pointed out that on a small scale, savings in energy ratings are harder to achieve, because there is a smaller pool of energy loss from which to save, and he felt that the cost of getting such certifications is so great that a rebate would not help. However, Schriber indicated that the NAHB system is less expensive than the LEED system, adding only 2% to the cost and generating amortizable benefits. He added that such certified homes put less burden on the city’s infrastructure, since they conserve water and energy, and therefore it made sense for the city to provide incentives for such construction. The mayor weighed in that such benefits need to be marketed more effectively if they are to work here: “They pay more for these homes in other places; just not here.”

Despite the concerns, there seemed to be general consensus that Snedden’s idea had merit. It’s a good fit with Sandpoint’s Comprehensive Plan, which aims to absorb anticipated growth over the next 20 years by concentrating building within current boundaries and avoiding sprawl onto surrounding mountainsides and rural land.

But it has yet to be judged in the court of public opinion, at which current landowners may question whether they want to effectively subsidize new users, and may take exception to the potential presence of more and larger structures around them in areas they had considered open space. And as the accompanying photo demonstrates, a footprint of 1000 square feet does not necessarily result in a small structure.

So the workshop generated plenty of food for thought, and it’s certain that the council, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and residents will all be chewing on it as zoning rules are rewritten over the next year to conform to the Comp Plan.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.