►
From YouTube: Historic Preservation Commission
Description
Wednesday, April 27,2022
A
So
number
one
on
east
mckinley
street.
We
will
hear
that
item
number
two
on
north
14th
street
we've
proposed
that
for
consent
there
were
some
conditions
of
approval
regarding
materials.
The
applicant
is
in
agreement.
They
actually
even
corrected
the
drawings
already
to
reflect
those
okay
number
three.
We
would
propose
for
consent.
A
B
C
F
C
G
C
C
F
C
H
H
H
H
C
C
C
C
F
C
A
So
on
february
10
2022,
we
were
made
aware
that
the
applicant
had
convinced
moving
the
building.
There
was
a
code
enforcement
case
opened
our
building
department
sent
inspectors
out
to
find
out
what
was
going
on.
That
was
determined
that
the
home
was
being
moved
without
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
approval
and
without
construction
permits,
and
immediately
a
stop
work
order
was
placed
on
the
property
until
the
applicant
could
go
through
the
correct
process
come
before
you
obtain
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
the
removal
of
the
house
from
the
property.
A
A
A
A
You
know
conditions
would
be
largely
based
around
how
to
return
that
home
to
its
original
condition,
where
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
remove
the
home
from
the
property.
If
that
certificate
of
appropriateness
is
approved
by
this
commission,
the
focus
of
the
remediation
will
really
be
returning
the
lot
to
a
satisfactory
condition
until
a
new
proposal.
A
At
such
time,
a
new
home
is
constructed
on
the
property.
The
applicant
didn't
submit
specific
plans
in
regards
to
that.
So
we
have
recommended
the
condition
of
approval
that
any
proposed
fencing
landscaping
shall
be
shown
on
a
detailed
remediation
plan.
There
shall
be
dust
and
weed
mitigation
measures
put
in
place
in
the
interim
before
this
property
is
developed
and
that
any
utilities
you
know
left
on
site
are
properly
secured
and
mitigated.
A
That
would
eliminate
the
need
for
new
public
noticing
a
new
sign
placed
on
the
property,
and
you
could
take
a
look
at
that
remediation
plan
at
next
month's
meeting
or
delegate
that
responsibility
to
staff,
whichever
you
felt,
was
appropriate.
So
with
that,
I
would
stand
for
any
questions,
and
I
believe
the
applicant
is
here
for
questions
and
a
presentation
as
well.
D
J
A
A
C
G
K
C
K
C
K
C
A
Madam
chair,
would
it
just
be
more
expedient
if
you
can,
if
you
deferred
this
item
tonight
to
next
month's
meeting,
and
we
can
look
at
the
plan-
approve
it
that
night?
If,
if
we
waited
and
we
had
to
provide
notice
and
all
those
things
it
could
be
another
month
out,
so
I
certainly
if
the
applicant
sounds
like
they're
willing.
I
would
put
this
on.
You
know
defer
this
to
next
month's
agenda.
A
C
K
Okay,
I
own
a
company
that
we
reclaim
and
resell
reusable
building
materials
from
property
set
for
demo.
When
I
came
across
this
project,
they
were
going
to
sell
all
the
internal
things
in
the
house
and
I
I
suggested
they
sell
the
whole
house
and
have
it
moved
because
it
could
be.
It
was
the
perfect
house
for
being
moved
and
the
gentleman
that
purchased
it
did
and
he
went
ahead
and
got
a
mover
to
move
it
unbeknownst
to
him.
K
He
didn't
know
he
had
to
have
permits
and
I
didn't
know
he
had
to
have
permits
either.
I
thought
he
was
taking
care
of
that
and
he
thought
I
was
taking
care
of
that
and
nobody
was
taken
care
of.
So
then,
when
this
came
about
everything
froze
and
we're
just
kind
of
waiting
on
you
guys
to
make
all
the
decisions
on
when
we
can
get
it
out
of
there.
C
M
N
Madam
share
commissioners,
my
name
is
david
thomas,
my
wife
and
I
reside
at
917
east
washington
street
we've
lived
in
the
east
end
for
more
than
25
years.
I'm
a
licensed
architect
and
a
former
member
of
the
historic
preservation
commission
from
2004
to
2007..
Thanks
for
taking
my
testimony,
we
were
pretty
astonished
that
this
was
even
being
considered
tonight,
because
clearly,
the
package
is
not
detailed
and
I
applaud
your
move
to
wait
for
the
remediation
plan.
N
It
is
a
little
bit
unusual
that
the
remediation
plan
isn't
there
and
then
also
it
lacks
any.
The
application
lacks
any
proposed
replacement
of
the
home,
which
obviously
we
in
the
neighborhood
association
with
association
would
like
to
see,
and
in
short,
the
the
the
applicant
addressed
a
number
of
my
comments.
So
I'm
kind
of
ad-libbing
here
a
little
bit
but.
C
E
I'm
shocked
by
that
and
that's
why
I'm
here
today
to
make
sure
my
voice
and
the
neighborhood's
voice
is
really
shared.
It's
it's
wrong
and
they
are.
They
are
truly
getting
away
with
it.
They
put
up
a
wrought
iron
fence,
never
asked
for
permission.
They
never
did
that
also
prior
to
this
event,
so
I
think
that
they
should
be
held
accountable
and
if
they
are
going
to
build
a
home-
and
I
would
say
there
probably
are
that
it
really
fits-
it
really
fits
the
neighborhood.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
C
O
O
Madam
chair
commissioners,
I
would
like
to
first
say
that
my
apologies.
We
did
not
know
that
this
was
the
correct
process
about
going
about
things.
This
was
actually
the
first
home
that
my
wife
and
I
purchased.
We
are
from
this
greater
treasure
valley,
I'm
born
and
raised
from
meridian,
and,
as
my
neighbor,
mrs
mary
hall
smith
spoke,
I
do
come
from
a
real
estate
background
family.
However,
we
did
not
know
of
the
proper
steps
to
be
taken.
O
As
the
applicant
mentioned
earlier,
we
were
getting
ready
to
sell
the
interior
fixtures
of
the
home,
such
as
washer
dryer,
hot
water
heater,
because
I
would
like
to
speak
about
the
home
for
a
little
while
it
sat
vacant
for
10
years.
It
is
also
a
non-contributing
home,
and
I
would
like
to
also
state
that
I
reached
out
to
former.
O
I
forgot
what
his
title
is.
I
do
apologize
but
ted
venegas
for
our
iron
fencing
and
that
is
allowed
in
the
historic
preservation
society.
We
do
pride
ourselves
on
making
sure
that
we
go
about
things
the
right
way,
so
I
will
like
to
say
I
apologize
for
dropping
the
ball
on
that
end.
We
did
have
an
employee
run
this
for
us
that
employee
is
no
longer
with
us.
However,
I
take
responsibility
as
my
home
and
my
personal
residence.
Our
plan
is
to
have
a
family
home.
O
My
wife
and
I
are
very
fortunate
that
we
just
welcomed
home
our
first
child
three
months
ago,
and
so
because
of
that
we
look
forward
to
growing
our
family
in
this
city.
I
grew
up
in
meridian,
my
father
built
many
homes
up
in
the
east
end
and
up
in
the
hills.
I've
looked
forward
to
living
and
calling
this
neighborhood
home,
and
we
worked
really
hard
to
be
able
to
afford
this,
and
I
think
individuals
who
have
walked
by
our
home
can
see
the
value
that
we
added.
O
We
made
sure
to
update
accordingly,
but
we
also
kept
the
home
intact,
and
because
of
that,
we
wanted
to
be
able
to
gift
our
first
home
to
someone
that
could
also
use
it,
because
we've
been
very
fortunate
that
we
are
going
to
be
able
to
build
with
the
council's
consent,
our
family
home,
on
this
law.
I
would
also
like
to
note
one
of
your
guys's
concerns
is
plans
we
had
have
our
architect
already
reached
out
to
the
east
end
neighborhood
society.
O
They
informed
us
that
no
first
we
submit
to
the
city,
and
then
we
move
forward.
Our
original
plan
was
to
demo
it
that's
where
we
got
the
opportunity
with
the
applicant's
company
to
be
able
to
try
and
repurpose
the
home.
So
that
is
how
we
went
about
it.
I
again
apologize
for
missing
the
steps
we
very
much
so
do
care
about
this
community.
O
O
O
We
did
have
to
cut
ties
with
that
company
as
of
late
due
to
just
some
differences
in
opinion
over
design,
but
I
do
believe
that
you
guys
will
like
our
design.
Our
design
is
something
that
I
take
pride
in
having
it
fit
into
the
city
and
into
the
historic
society,
because
I
also
do
being
in
real
estate
want
to
make
sure
that
great
places
like
the
very
first
developed
subdivision
in
the
city
of
boise
stays
that
way.
O
I've
never
moved
a
home
before
and
I
did
not
know
that
and
that's
where
we're
also
informed
by
josh
that
this
was
put
in
place
in
january
of
this
year
and
that's
where
we
had
the
miss
fisher's
company
with
the
reclaimed.
We
got
that
opportunity
and
I
am
not
trying
to
say
anything
incorrect,
but
we
did
have
a
contract
in
place
that
states
all
permits.
All
fees
will
be
that
responsibility
of
the
buyer,
and
so
that
is
where
I
step
back,
because
we
have
that
contract
in
place.
O
O
C
C
A
C
C
C
F
A
A
A
A
We
did
include
a
condition
of
approval
that
that
be
removed
or
be
reduced
down
to
35,
and
then
some
conditions
of
approval
regarding
materials
on
the
facade
of
the
home
here
are
the
elevations
of
the
structure
and
then
a
rendered
perspective.
So
steph.
I
think
the
applicant
is
in
agreement
with
the
certainly
the
material
changes
it
sounds
like
they
want
to
talk
about
that
lot
coverage
to
remain
at
the
38.
J
C
I
I
I
have
very
very
fond
memories
of
the
going
to
north
dances
as
a
kid
and
going
to
goodies
afterwards,
really
great,
experiencing
boise
high
and
everything
I
had
to
offer
being
able
to
go
off
campus
for
lunch
and
really
experience
not
only
the
north
end
but
downtown
boise
as
well.
It
gives
me
a
lot
of
inspiration
to
do
this
project.
I
You
know
this
is
the
second
time
we're
back
in
front
of
y'all.
It's
really
my
hope
that
we
can
provide
a
really
beautiful
home
to
fit
a
comfortable,
really
beautiful
family
that
will
have
children
that
can
have
that
same
experience
that
I
did
growing
up.
We
feel
the
38
lot
coverage
is
comfortable
for
the
family
that
we'd
like
to
be
in
there.
I
In
section
5.4
orientation,
lock
coverage,
5.44,
maintaining
proportional,
lock
coverage
is
down
on
the
neighboring
property
of
the
same
block.
1711
is
directly
next
to
us
and
is
about
a
40
lot
coverage,
so
we
would
ask
for
leniency
for
that
38
just
to
conform
to
that
section,
5.4
and
5.44
again.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
That's
all.
I
have.
I
I
Q
Thanks,
madam
chair,
this
is
kate
henwood
1116,
north
12th
street
yeah.
We
really
appreciate
that
the
applicant
heard
the
feedback
and
made
a
lot
of
changes,
we're
really
happy
with
the
new
design.
I
think
we
would
also
like
to
see
them
get
that
coverage
down
to
the
35,
but
beyond
that,
and
we
just
want
to
recommend
the
usual
permeable
paving
and
down
shielded
exterior
lighting,
but
otherwise
we
are
good
with
the
design.
C
C
C
G
Right
ahead,
so
I
really
appreciate
where
the
design
has
gone
since
the
the
last
iteration,
which
we
saw
was
really
overwhelming
the
entire
neighborhood
in
that
block,
and
we've
allowed
to
your
your
question,
commissioner
otter.
We
have
allowed
it
in
the
past
for
good
reason.
I
guess
like,
but
I
know
the
passive
house
on
this.
We
allowed
it
to
go
over
to
meet
those
energy
efficiency
requirements
and
things
like
that-
and
I
actually
would
be
fine
with
this
one
being
at
38,
because
they
have
really
changed
the
design.
D
This
is
tricky
and
it's
it's
hard
because
we
did
recently
adopt
the
five
percent
increase
to
accommodate
garages
and
main
level
bedrooms,
and
I
I
think,
as
a
commission,
we
anticipated.
We
were
going
to
see
just
a
continual,
gradual
increase
in
this,
and
it's
it's
a
hard.
No
for
me
that
three
percent
is
that
35
is
really
meant
to
maintain
open
space,
which
is
what
makes
our
historic
districts
so
special,
smaller
homes,
on
lots
where
they
have
beautiful
backyards
and
gardens.
D
C
P
Chair,
yes,
I
just
want
to
echo
commissioner
montoto.
I
feel
like
generally
when
we
make
these
accommodations
it's
for
homes
that
are,
you
know
already
at
that,
and
that's
not
starting
from
scratch.
I
feel
like
if
you're
starting
from
scratch,
it's
pretty
easy
to
meet
the
requirement,
and
so
I'd
like
to
keep
it
at
35.
G
C
L
A
A
If
you
remember
from
the
front
of
elevation
home
that
that
steeply
sloped
pitch
on
the
left
would
be
filled
in
to
match
the
clipped
gable
appearance
that
exists
on
the
east
side
of
the
home,
as
detailed
in
the
staff
report,
that
residential
guidelines
do
contain
language
about
additions,
overwhelming
the
massing
of
existing
homes,
changing
the
historic
character
of
the
home
as
well.
Due
to
that,
we
have
recommended
denial
of
the
proposal.
Now
we
feel
that
it
significantly
alters
the
massing
of
the
structure
and
is
not
appropriate
in
the
historic
district.
A
L
R
So
our
clients
currently
run
a
child
care
preschool
facility
out
of
their
live
work
unit
here
in
the
north
end.
During
and
after
the
covet
19
pandemic.
These
these
types
of
businesses
were
definitely
adversely
affected,
as
we
all
can
imagine,
many
were
forced
to
force
to
close
their
doors,
but
one
way
that
our
clients
were
able
to
keep
things
open
was
through
moving
into
the
unit
and
creating
a
live
work
space
where
they
live
upstairs
in
some
in
a
non-conforming
duplex
space
and
then
downstairs
being
their
business.
R
Upstairs
only
has
one
bedroom
downstairs.
The
other
bedroom
is
currently
used
as
an
office,
and
the
clients
have
two
young
daughters
who
just
recently
graduated
high
school,
and
so,
as
you
can
imagine,
they're
a
little
cramped
up
there.
So
that's
why
we
have
been
working
with
them
to
develop
a
plan
to
remodel
the
space,
to
make
it
more
usable
for
the
family.
R
R
We
worked
with
the
city
during
this
phase,
specifically
nathan,
alum
he
and
josh
wilson.
They
were
able
to
give
us
feedback
on
our
designs
and
we
came
in
and
talked
to
them
and
asked
them
what
their
opinions
were
from
here.
You
could
see
the
staircase
on
the
interior
of
the
home,
and
this
is
a
view
from
the
back
side
of
the
home
that
currently
faces
the
side
lot
of
another
property
and
the
addition
would
only
be
adding
about
137
square
feet,
which
is
about
the
size
of
a
standard
residential
bathroom.
R
R
The
first
floor
of
the
home
again
will
remain
largely
unchanged.
You
can
see
the
existing
structure.
It
has
that
staircase
kind
of
tucked
up
into
a
closet
in
the
middle
of
the
home
between
the
kitchen
and
the
living
room.
It
is
extremely
steep
and
definitely
not
up
to
code,
and
so
part
of
the
new
proposed
staircase
would
be
a
lot
safer
for
the
applicants
and
for
any
family
that
would
occupy
it
afterwards,
not
something
that
we're
particularly
excited
about,
and
then
the
current
staircase
would
be
removed
and
could
be
turned
into
a
storage
closet.
R
On
the
second
floor,
this
is
where
the
largest
changes
would
be
made.
The
back
bedroom
is
currently
within
that
non-conforming
space.
We
believe
this
home
was
once
the
attic
was
converted
essentially
to
add
more
living
space
than
what
did
exist
up
there,
and
so
that
we
believe.
That's
why
the
the
back
bedroom
is
such
has
such
a
dramatic
slant
on
the
ceiling
and
well.
You
can't
really
stand
up
in
the
bedroom
and
our
applicants.
R
Our
clients
currently
hit
their
head
when
they
stand
up
in
the
mornings
and
so
by
extending
the
roof,
and
we
would
be
mirroring
the
historic
front
side
of
the
house
so
kind
of
adding
some
symmetrical
feeling
there
and
then
within
that
addition,
that
would
be
going
over
the
single
story.
Previous
edition,
that's
where
we
would
be
able
to
fit
in
the
primary
suite
and
the
bathroom,
all
of
which,
being
within
137
square
feet,.
R
R
This
is
the
brumback
street
side
and
the
8th
street
side
with
the
scallop
and
the
decorative
trim,
and
we
would
be
carrying
those
over
onto
the
addition
on
the
side
facing
the
alley,
as
well
as
on
the
back,
even
though
on
the
back
faces
the
neighbor's
side
lot,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
carrying
those
throughout
and
the
clipped
gable
as
well.
That's
on
the
8th
street
side
would
be
mirrored
on
the
back.
R
R
R
R
R
A
little
bit
about
ethos
and
why
this
project
is
so
important
to
us.
We
love
our
historic
preservation
projects
because
we
love
preserving
the
history
of
boise,
especially
the
north
end.
A
lot
of
us
have
grown
up
in
the
valley.
I
think
all
of
us
have
actually
and
so
keeping
these
homes
functional
in
a
way
that
will
allow
them
to
continue
to
be
lived
in
for
generations
to
come
and
make
sure
that
they're,
not
one
of
these
homes
that
people
are
going
to
want
to
you
know,
tear
down
within
decade.
R
This
is
from
one
of
our
other
projects.
In
the
north
end,
we
replicated
some
exterior
molding
on
the
historic
windows
for
some
new
added
windows
and
brought
all
the
windows
up
to
match.
This
was
another
home
that
had,
I
think
it
was
two
or
three
additions,
and
none
of
them
matched
each
other
and
so
part
of
that
part
of
our
ethos
of
returning
the
home
to
its
historic
roots,
was
bringing
everything
to
match
and
making
it
all
look
historic
and
helping
the
home
to
fit
in
better
with
the
neighborhood.
R
In
summary,
we
were
able
to
develop
this
design
with
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
and
recommendations
from
the
historic
plan.
Reviewer
the
clients
worked
within
the
constraints
of
the
historic
district
to
maintain
the
historic
character
of
the
home
and
still
achieve
the
desired
results
of
their
project
with
making
it
livable
and
that's
something
we're
really
happy
to
have
accomplished
with
this
design,
and
we
do
believe
that
the
137
square
foot
addition
preserves
the
historic
character
of
the
building
and
also
keeps
it
within
the
existing
footprint
of
the
home.
C
G
R
R
We
think
that
the
home
might
have
been
classified
as
a
queen
anne
just
because
of
the
scalloped
trim,
and
so
we
don't
know
if
it
ever
had
a
front
porch,
especially
because
the
house,
the
house
footprint,
is
very,
you
know,
square
on
those
two
lot
sides
and
definitely
doesn't
have
a
lot
of
those
queen.
Anne
features,
like
the
you
know,
the
rounded
or
the
spires
or
the
architectural
details
like
that.
R
C
Q
Thanks,
madam
chair
kate,
henwood
1116
north
12th
street,
a
quick
note
on
the
photo
in
the
survey.
I
believe
it's
actually
the
photo
is
actually
the
east
elevation
from
the
8th
street
side.
So
I
don't
know
that
that
is
a
reliable
indication
of
porch
presence
or
not
porch
presence
at
that
time.
But
that's
maybe
neither
here
nor
there
just
wanted
to
mention
it
yeah.
So
we
have
traded
a
few
notes
back
and
forth
with
ethos.
So
I'll,
just
reiterate
the
feedback
that
we
shared
with
them.
You
know
we.
Q
They
obviously
do
beautiful
work
and
you
know
clearly
there
has
been
a
lot
of
attention
to
detail
in
their
design,
which
is
very
much
appreciated,
but
just
at
the
end
of
the
day
this
is
going
to
be
a
major
major
change
to
that
roofline
and
we
just
really
are
concerned
that
it
would
jeopardize
the
home's
contributing
status
if
we
were
to
approve
this
change.
So
we
do
support
staff's
recommendation
of
denial.
Q
C
L
Their
comments
were
in
conflict
conflict
with
that,
but
we
received
their
comments
after
we
did
submit
the
application,
so
we're
willing
to
work
with
folks
on
the
design.
If,
if
we
need
to
minimize
the
roof
to
get
this
project
through
that,
our
client
has
been
very
flexible.
Through
this
whole
entire
process
and
they've
really
scaled
back
the
project
from
their
original
expectations
and
are
willing
to
do
whatever
it
takes.
B
C
R
Currently,
we've
got
the
roof
line,
the
way
that
we
do
so
that
we
could
put
that
the
new
staircase
in
the
best
way
that
I
could
see
for
us,
because
we
have
talked
about
this-
to
reduce
that
roofline
would
be
to
either
shift
the
stairs
over
or
try
to
work
within
the
existing
location
of
the
stairs
again.
Those
stairs
are
very
unsafe,
and
so
we
would
have
to
cut
into
the
interior
living
space
if
we
wanted
to
update
them
and
bring
that
life,
safety
change
and
then
yeah,
which
is
also
a
load-bearing
wall.
R
R
Oh,
so
the
part
on
the
right,
yes
yeah,
we
could
lower
that
we
had
previously
looked
at.
I
believe
it's
called
a
shed
roof
where
it
just
kind
of
comes
out
at
a
slant.
We
thought
that
by
doing
the
roof
line
this
way
we
would
be
able
to
incorporate
more
of
the
historic
scallops
and
the
trim
and
the
cut
back
and
things
like
that,
but
we'd
definitely
be
open
to
that.
G
I
think
that
would
be
better.
I
mean
the
standards,
we
don't
want,
the
addition
to
totally
blend
in
with
the
historic
building.
That's
one
of
the
standards.
We
don't
want
to
create
a
false
sense
of
history,
and
we
do
that
by
differentiating
by
either
setting
things
back,
lowering
heights
changing
materials.
So,
like
you
said,
the
scalp
I'd
actually
recommend,
probably
not
putting
scallop
in
that
dormer
just
so
that
you
can
tell
the
difference
between
the
old
and
the
new.
C
J
I
guess
I'd
say
a
discussion.
Maybe
I'm
not
totally
opposed
to
the
plan
that
they
have
presented
in,
that
they've
worked
really
hard
to
get
this
to
work
and
they're,
not
adding
that
much
space,
and
I
understand
what
commissioner
boy
is
saying
about:
maybe
lowering
it
a
little
bit
and
differentiating
it,
but
I
also
feel
like
I
don't
know,
if
that's
going
to
give
them
the
headroom
that
they
need
on
those
stairs.
Maybe
it
is,
but
I'm
not
opposed
to
the
current
proposal
as
presented.
D
Manager-
I
am
almost
speechless
with
this
design.
I
think
it
was
so
well
done
and
it
is
such
a
tricky
situation
to
make
all
the
changes
that
you're
making
to
such
a
bizarre
footprint
and
doing
it
in
such
a
tasteful
way,
where
you're
truly
only
adding
137
square
feet.
I
mean
that
is
like
unheard
of.
I
would
be
really
open
to
conditioning
that
east
elevation,
as
mentioned
by
commissioner
molloy,
and
I
I
I
would
approve
that.
C
G
Based
on
the
following
conditions
of
approval,
one
is
that
we
lower
the
height
of
the
addition
by
is
affected.
Can
you
guys
lower
it
a
foot
one
foot
and
that
we
differentiate
the
materials
from
the
historic
materials
in
the
gable
and
that
we
also
have
a
full
side
gable
and
not
a
clipped
cable
on
that
on
that
section
I'll?
Second,
that.
C
C
A
A
A
So
staff
did
recommend
approval
of
the
application,
with
the
condition
to
reduce
the
size
of
the
front
porch.
So
the
guidelines
recommend
that
porches
should
be
replaced
or
repaired
in
similar
massing
and
materials
to
existing,
and
that
proposed
front
porch
is
a
pretty
significant
departure
from
the
massing
on
the
front
of
the
home.
So
we
would
look
to
this
commission
for
some
guidance
to
the
applicant
about
how
much
that
size
should
be
reduced
to
be
appropriate,
and
with
that
I
would
stand
for
any
questions.
A
C
S
I'm
chair,
commission,
thank
you.
My
name
is
seth
parks
reside
at
5557,
east
stageline
drive
in
boise
83716,
I'm
the
project
manager
for
the
general
contractor
doing
applying
for
the
proposed
porch,
the
applicant
or
the
homeowner,
is
a
his
retired
military
and
he
was
discharged
from
injury
in
the
line
of
duty
and
he
lost
the
use
of
his
most
of
his
eyesight.
He
has
a
lot
of
periphery
eyesight
and
the
main
reason
I
mean.
S
Besides
the
deteriorating
facade
and
the
you
know,
the
safety
issues
of
the
steps
is,
you
know
he's
the
house
has
been
in
the
family
for
quite
some
time
and
they
just
really
kind
of
want
to
update
it
and
they
think
that
and
we
think
aesthetically
it
would
really
add
to
the
neighborhood
and
just
the
aesthetics
of
the
home.
There
is
a
very
similar
home
three
houses
down
on
pueblo
street.
S
We
sent
pictures
in
to
mr
wilson,
I
believe-
and
it's
not
quite
as
large
as
what
we're
proposing,
but
it
has
the
same,
look
and
feel,
and
so
we
would
be
open
to
reducing
the
size
of
it.
It's
just
really
for
safety
and
lifestyle
of
the
homeowner,
and
so
other
than
that.
I
would
stand
for
any
questions
if
there
are
any.
Q
And
stay
sorry
thanks!
Madam
chair
kate,
henwood
1116,
north
12th
street.
We
were
surprised
to
see
staff's
approval
of
this
one
just
because
we
felt
you
know
this
home
really
does
does
not
have
a
porch.
It
has
a
little
stoop
and
it's
a
contributing
home,
and
this
you
know
the
addition
of
the
porch
thought
would
be
a
major
change.
The
facade.
Q
I
guess
we'd
we'd
love
to
maybe
think
about
other
options
to
make
the
entryway
safe
for
this
homeowner.
We
know
that
in
the
in
the
photo
from
the
survey
there
was
a
railing.
That's
that's
not
present.
Now
I
know
the
addition
of
a
railing
is
is
part
of
the
proposal
we
were
thinking.
Maybe
you
know
there
could
just
be
an
extension
of
this
stoop
cover.
Q
I
don't
know
what
the
right
answer
is,
but
again
our
concerns
just
really
stem
from
you
know,
just
the
the
loss
of
contributing
inventory,
we're
just
we're
really
concerned
that
these
changes
that
are
being
made
to
these
homes,
you
know,
would
render
these
homes
non-contributing
in
a
future
survey,
and
that's
that's
really
where
we're
coming
from,
but
again
definitely
want
to
make
this
home
safe
for
this
homeowner
and
just
would
love
to
brainstorm.
Maybe
some
other
options
that
are,
you
know
a
little
bit
more
within
the
constraints
of
the
guidelines.
Q
As
from
our
perspective,
the
current
proposal
falls
without
and
falls
outside
the
historic
guidelines,
and
I
guess
we
kind
of
had
a
similar
thought
process
to
the
last
home,
and
I
guess
I
would
just
like
to
better
understand
how
much
that
potential
impact
weighs
on
the
commission's
minds.
As
you
deliberate
these
applications.
You
know,
thinking
about
you
know.
Okay,
could
this
you
know
major
change
to
a
roofline.
You
know.
Is
this
going
to
impact
this
home's
contributing
status
in
a
future
survey,
because
we
just
that?
Q
C
G
To
have
discussion
so
it
is
minimal
traditional
and
they
are
practical,
functional,
really,
no
nonsense
in
their
design.
It's
really
it's
minimal.
It's
in
its
name.
Most
of
them
had
simple
stoops
like
this
one
that
we
have
here.
You
know,
after
after
the
post
war,
you
didn't
have
your
grand
a
lot
of
times
didn't
have
heavier
grand
porches
that
your
previous
revivals
did
so
thinking
of
ways
that
we
could
improve
this
project,
and
we
had
that
other
project
was
it
last
month
where
the
porch
extended.
F
G
I'd
be
open
to
sort
of
that
approach
where
we
have
either
just
the
just
the
porch,
with
like
the
current
cover,
rehabilitated
or
recreated,
and
then
with
a
really
simple
metal
railing.
I
don't
know
if
anybody
would
be
up
to
that.
I
think
that
would
kind
of
fit
its
style
if
they
wanted
to
keep
that
the
porch
that
size.
Otherwise
we
could
make
the
porch
much
much
smaller.
D
So
I
think
it's
a
modest
design
based
off
of
physical
need
and
safety,
and
I
don't
have
any
problem
proving
the
application,
as
is,
but
I
I
I
would
be
open
to
suggestions,
as
commissioner
malloy
mentioned,
as
long
as
there's
adequate
roof
covering
for
the
porch,
so
that
the
homeowner
doesn't
have
that
additional
fall
risk.
When
it's
icy.
P
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
want
to
kind
of
echo
what
commissioner
montoya's
saying
I
know
in
the
past,
we've
approved
expansion
of
covers
of
porches
because
of
icy
steps
and
elderly
homeowners,
or
whatever
the
circumstances
have
been
to
increase
the
safety
of
these
homes.
I
see
you
know
a
front
porch
as
a
way
to
give
the
homeowner
maybe
more
access
to
the
community.
P
G
G
Not
having
the
current
designed
approved,
as
is
like
ms
henwood,
said
you,
the
north
end
right
now
is
at
a
balancing
act
of
contributing
and
non-contributing,
and
it's
getting
close
so
this
design
as
it
is,
it's
gonna,
probably
tip
it
to
non-contributing.
It
does
not
meet
the
standards,
it
is
on
the
primary
facade.
G
P
Madam
chair
and
commissioner
molloy,
I
agree
with
what
you're
saying,
but
I
also
think
that,
as
a
city,
you
know
times
change.
We
want
to
accommodate
our
citizens.
We
want
to
make
an
accessible
neighborhood,
a
welcoming
neighborhood
for
all
different
types
of
people,
and
so
I
think
that
we
can
come
together
for
something,
but
I
think
adhering
strictly
to
the
guidelines.
D
I
would
concur
madam
chair
and
my
fellow
commissioners
and
furthermore,
every
time
we
hear
that
it
is
a
concern
of
how
much
contributing
inventory
we
are
losing.
It
is
really.
What
should
be
said
is
that
the
push
for
more
resurveying
needs
to
be
the
priority
of
the
city,
and
so
I
I
would
wholeheartedly
concur
with
commissioner
maroney
on
this
one,
and
with
that
I
would
like.
P
I
can
I
just
like:
oh
please
a
little
bit
more.
Oh
please!
Yes,
I
think,
maybe
a
happy
medium
would
be
to
keep
the
porch
the
size.
It
is,
but
maybe
have
the
roof
kind
of
mimic.
What
was
there
before,
but
extend
further,
so
that
it
it
covers
the
part
where
you're
walking
up
the
stairs
and
into
the
house.
J
G
Yeah,
I
think
we
can.
I
think,
commissioner
maroney's
sort
of
what
I
was
saying
that
you
have
sorry
you
have
your
porch,
but
you
could
also
have
that
cover
over
the
stairs
to
prevent
a
fall
risk
and
I'd
like
to
echo
your
concerns.
Like
we
come
up
every
single
month,
we
say
the
city
needs
to
resurvey,
so
josh,
please
tell
the
mayor,
please
tell
the
city
council,
please
tell
the
new
planning
director
tim
keane.
We
are
serious.
The
city
needs
to
resurvey,
we're
tired
of
saying
it.
C
So
it
does
in
my
mind,
change
it
quite
a
bit
and
I
would
like
to
see
an
option
where
the
roof
just
does
extend
out
over
the
you
know
the
porch
coming
out
of
maybe
over
the
stairs
too.
If
that
is
important,
but
at
least
oh,
you
know
come
out
as
far
as
it's
coming
up
but
be
a
lot
smaller.
So
it's
just
centered
over
the
door.
C
I
mean
my
preference
would
be
that
you
wouldn't
have
any
more
of
the
porch
on
there
at
all,
because
that
that
style
is,
is,
I
think,
just
distracting
from
the
actual,
very
simple
style
of
the
house.
But
if
I
probably
could
compromise,
if
we
just
did
the
roof
small
and
had
a
non-covered
porch
area
off
to
the
side
would
probably
be
acceptable.
I
would
think.