Commission reviews design for seven‑unit infill at 1331 Church Street, requests facade variation and porch/eave changes

The Sandpoint Planning and Zoning Commission on Oct. 21 conducted a design review of a proposed attached‑housing project at 1331 Church Street — a plan that would build contiguous units on six substandard lots of record — and provided advisory feedback to the applicant and staff.

Eric Brubaker, the city’s associate planner, and City Planner Bill summarized the application and explained why the commission was reviewing it: under Sandpoint’s substandard‑lots provisions, development of more than four units on contiguous substandard lots triggers design review by the commission (a review, not an approval). Brubaker said the project’s site plan re‑orients units toward Church Street, proposes rear alley access for ADUs/garages, and includes frontage improvements and sidewalk work along Church.

Brubaker read the relevant design guideline language to the commission, emphasizing the provision that “detached dwelling units shall provide a facade that substantially differs from the facade of adjacent structures” and that material changes alone are not always sufficient. He asked the commission to weigh in on the gray areas of the standard — how much variation is required and which elements would satisfy the code’s intent.

Applicants Ethan Azan and Lisa Hazon attended and confirmed the plans on file. Azan said the applicant team was “not opposed” to introducing facade variation and suggested they had based the submittal on what staff previously described as appropriate for substandard‑lot infill.

Commissioners and staff discussed specific design approaches that would meet the code’s requirement without requiring wholly distinct house types for every lot. Suggested changes the commission asked staff and the applicant to consider included:

- introducing an A/B pattern across the row (repeating noncontiguous facades rather than six identical houses), - modestly staggering front setbacks where the substandard‑lot standards allow to break up the visual rhythm, - increasing porch depth (to improve usable front porch space and street engagement), and - adding modest roof/eave articulation, dormers, or differing porch treatments (materials, column styles, small gables) to create a distinctive facade.

Commissioners noted existing local precedents for substandard‑lot infill and said thoughtful, small variations (porch depth, trim, gable returns, differing column or siding details) can satisfy the code’s aim without fundamentally altering the submitted plan. Several commissioners cautioned that certain changes (for example, deeper eaves) must still comply with fire‑safety offsets and that stormwater and parking requirements would be addressed in the administrative site‑plan review.

Brubaker told the commission staff will compile the suggestions into a formal staff report and conditions for the administrative site‑plan review. Because the city’s substandard‑lot design review is advisory, the commission’s comments will guide staff and the applicant (and will be reflected in any subsequent site‑plan or building‑permit materials) rather than constitute an approval or denial.

The commission did not reach a formal vote on the design review; commissioners indicated they were generally supportive of the project subject to the requested facade variation, porch and eave adjustments and asked staff to work with the applicant on revisions and clarifications as part of the site‑plan review process.