►
From YouTube: Historic Preservation Commission - 1/25/21
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Building
in
the
old
boise
historic
district,
so
we
will
hear
that
item
number
four.
Some
of
you
may
remember
this
one.
This
is
a
project
at
1901
north
harrison
boulevard.
When
you
reviewed
it,
the
it
was
for
an
a
small
addition
on
the
back,
a
garage
or
a
sorry,
a
basement,
the
addition
of
a
front
porch
and
then
a
very
large
two-story
garage
with
accessory
dwelling
unit.
A
I
would
say
the
main
issues
the
commission
had
were
with
the
garage,
the
large
garage
which
was
overwhelming
the
house,
and
then
there
is
a
lot
high,
lock
coverage
on
it,
and
then
the
plans
were
a
little
bit
unclear
because
there
were
plans
in
there
for
alternative
modifications
that
were
kind
of
confusing.
A
So
this
time
the
applicant
has
submitted
a
cleaner
set
of
plans
has
completely
removed.
The
plans
for
the
garage
does
not
plan
to
do
anything
with
the
garage
still
we'll
have
the
small
260
foot
addition
out
the
back
as
well
as
a
basement
and
front
porch,
so
we
have
not
heard
from
any
neighbors
on
this
one
and
the
north
end.
Neighborhood
association
has
sent
a
letter
saying
they
support
the
project.
A
C
A
Great
number:
five
drh20,
574
location,
1114
or
17th
street.
This
one
was
proposed
for
consent
as
well.
I
don't
know
if
let
me
check.
A
I
don't
think
we
had
anybody
sign
up
for
that
one.
So,
at
this
time
we
don't
have
any
public
comment
on
this
one,
so
we
can
keep
that
one
on
consent.
If
it's
the
wish
of
the
of
the
commission
as
well
and
item
number
six
drh2576
at
132
west
main
street
is
a
modification
to
a
project
that
was
previously
approved
by
this
commission
about
a
year
year
and
a
half
ago,
I
think
they're
modifying
some
of
the
materials.
E
Hey
ted:
this
is
commissioner
koski,
my
audio,
didn't
I
don't
know
about
the
rest
of
it.
My
audio
didn't
come
in
until
you
got
to
item
number
four,
so
I
didn't
know
what
you
said
about
the
first
three
items.
So
if
you
could
maybe.
D
B
A
A
D
F
Should
I
showed
up
ted
shared
the
link,
so
I
showed
up
as
ted.
Obviously
he's
he's
much
much
smarter
at
this
than
me,
but
it
is
really
me
mainly
today.
I
just
wanted
to
show
up
and
thank
all
of
you.
It's
been
a
it's
been
a
very
strange
almost
year
now
in
these
hearings,
where
you're
all
all
but
all,
but
one
of
you
I
believe
tonight
are
in
your
office
or
your
home
or
something
like
that,
and
we
appreciate
you
sticking
with
us
and
being
patient
as
we
work
through
these.
F
You
know
challenging
challenging
times
with
the
virtual
and
hybrid
format
does
look,
things
are
looking
better
and
hopefully,
as
we
as
we
ease
into
this
next
year,
we
can
meet.
You
know,
meet
more
in
person
and
and
perhaps
get
back
into
a
better
rhythm
of
of
regular
work
sessions.
Where
we
have
you
know,
training,
discuss,
discuss,
broader
topics
and,
and
not
just
you
know,
hashing
out
individual
applications
with
you.
Beyond
that
I
did.
F
You
know,
as
as
you
all
know,
there
have
been
had
a
couple
of
at
least
a
couple
challenging
applications
recently
that
involved
demolition,
perhaps
illegal
demolition,
and
you
know,
there's
there's
talk
about
the
need
for
better,
better
enforcement,
and
you
know
that's
that's
certainly
true.
You
know,
but
from
my
perspective-
and
I
think,
you'd
all
all
agree.
If
we
get
to
enforcement
for
the
most
part,
it's
too
late,
those
structures
are
gone,
and
you
know
no
fine
or
or
slap
on
the
hands
going
to
do
anything
about
that.
F
I
think
I
think,
as
a
staff
and
as
a
as
a
department
where
we've
prop,
we
can
do
a
much
better.
Job,
though,
is
through
outreach
and
education
and
again
ted
mckayla
been
working
on
a
lot
of
things
there.
We
recently
sent
an
attachment
in
a
utility
billing,
just
kind
of
the
do's
and
don'ts
or
links
to
to
work
in
the
historic
district.
F
Beyond
that
we're
we're
looking
or
considering
you
know,
just
how
we
can,
how
we
can
look
at
contractor,
training
or
or
certification
licensing
is
something
that
we
need
to
that.
You
know
goes
through
the
state,
but
certainly
we
have
the
option
locally
to
to
adopt
some
sort
of
training
program
for
contractors.
F
Maybe
it's
something
as
simple
as
simple
as
sitting
down
with
ted
mckayla
or
others
just
that
they've
walked
through
the
do's
and
don'ts
of
working
in
the
historic
districts
with
us.
The
hope
is
with
all
of
that.
You
know,
I
think
in
the
past,
with
enforcement
and
honestly,
some
of
that's
on
us,
it's
been
it's
been
pretty
easy
for
someone
to
stand
up,
whether
it
be
in
front
of
you
or
counsel
and-
and
I
guess
plead
ignorance
for
for
lack
of
a
better
term
that
I
didn't
know.
I
couldn't
do
that.
F
Our
hope
is
that
you
know
if
they've
been
told
in
in
six
or
seven
different
ways
in
different
formats
that
it's
pretty
hard
to
make
that
that
statement
and
then,
if
we
do
get
in
the
unfortunate
situation
of
of
enforcement,
which
we
are
working
on
with
with
city
leadership
that
that
any
sort
of
prosecution
sticks.
So
I
don't
know
how
many
of
these
materials
you've
seen
we'd
be
happy
to
share
those
with
the
group
in
the
in
the
future.
F
You
know,
I
guess
I
guess,
with
that,
I
would
mention
there
have
been
a
a
couple
applications
where
your
decisions
have
been
overturned
by
council
recently,
my
best
best
advice.
There
is,
you
know
it's
hard
and
I
understand
your
frustration.
F
You
know
just
just
be
careful
with
with
the
emotion
and
and
thinking
of
yourselves
as
an
enforcement
arm.
That's
that's
that's
really
on
us
and
if
you
do
make
those
kind
of
decisions
always
fall
back
to
those
findings
for
us.
So
when
we
take
that
forward
to
council,
there's
something
more
for
us
to
go
on
again
we're
working
with
city,
city,
leadership
and
hope
to
have
a
broader
discussion
on
just
what
we
can
do
enforcement
wise
in
those
unfortunate
situations.
F
But
beyond
that
again,
I
just
wanted
to
thank
you
for
for
working
in
what's
been
such
a
challenging,
challenging
environment
this
last
year,
and
you
know,
as
you
have
as
you
have
ideas
for
work
session
topics
and
things
like
that-
don't
hesitate
to
bring
them
to
our
attention.
If,
if
we
need
to
start
out
the
year
in
sort
of
a
virtual
hybrid
format,
we
can
and
then
as
we
get
into
the
year
and
then
things
continue
to
improve.
Hopefully
we
can
get
together
in
person.
E
Hey
cody,
commissioner
koski
here
I.
G
E
I
just
want
to
say
that
the
mailings
and
the
outreach
have
have
been
great.
I
live
in
historic
district,
so
I
got
one
of
the
mailings,
but
I've
also
had
numerous
other
people
from
other
districts
reach
out
to
me
saying
that
they've
also
received
them
so
and
they
were
pleased
you
know
they
were
surprised
to
see
them.
I
read
them.
I
think
it's
great.
I
think
it's
fantastic,
so
good
job
thought
it
was
great.
F
Like
you
said,
it's
largely
like
ted
mckaylan
community
engagement,
but
we
modeled
it
somewhat
after
work.
We
do
in
the
we
do
that
annually
for
people
that
own
property
in
the
flood
plain
and
honestly,
I
think
some
some
owners
don't
realize,
like
in
the
case
of
the
floodplain,
what
that
means
in
the
historic
district.
They
don't
realize
what
that
means.
F
So
as
ownership
changes,
we're
bringing
all
those
owners
along
and-
and
you
know
having
that-
that
initial
interaction
with
them
and
then
by
attaching
some
of
that
to
the
certificates
of
appropriateness,
we're
catching
the
contractors,
architects
and
everybody
as
well
again
really
trying
to
close
that
loop,
because
when
again,
when
we
get
down
to
enforcement,
it's
the
fines
that
we
can
impose
it.
Really.
I
don't
know
if
any
of
you
watched
that
recent
council
hearing,
I
believe
that
it
was
the
owner.
F
That
said,
they
would
have
just
paid
the
fine
gone
on
their
way,
and
that's
that's
disappointing,
so
we're
hoping
to
that
through
education
and
outreach.
We
can
avoid
that
sort
of
situation.
F
Okay,
well
with
that,
I
won't
keep
you
any
of
you
any
longer.
I
think
I
think
I
would
like
to
bring
to
your
attention,
though,
that
ted's
birthday
is
today,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
so
be
extra,
be
extra
nice
and
hopefully
he's
blushing.
There's
nobody
in
the
room
there
to
see
him
but
happy
birthday
to
ted.
H
F
E
I
C
A
Okay,
so
in
the
past,
when
we
used
to
be
able
to
meet
in
person,
we've
sat
and
talked
about
some
changes
that
we
need
to
make
with
the
program
or
some
throwing
out
some
ideas
of
what
we
need
to
make.
Maybe
changes
with
the
matrix,
maybe
changes
with
how
we
address
materials
in
the
historic
district
and
various
things,
so
I'd
kind
of
like
to
start
that
process
and
that
discussion
of
what
would
we
like
to
see?
A
You
know
as
far
as
changing
you
know
how
we,
how
the
matrix
is
laid
out
and
changing.
You
know
what
what
we
might
allow
in
the
historic
district.
So
I
I
just
have
a
very
basic
powerpoint
here
that
I'll
bring.
J
A
So
this
is
just
very
basic
and
again
this
is
kind
of
a
brainstorm.
You
know
we've
talked
about
some
of
this
before,
but
it's
been
a
while.
It's
been
well
before
on
some
of
the
on
some
of
these
things,
so
we'll
just
go
ahead
and
and
start
the
conversation.
A
A
So
changes
to
the
matrix
some
of
the
changes
that
you
know
and
there
may
be.
These
are
just
a
few
that
that
we've
talked
about
cody
and
I
have
talked
about
this,
and
this
is
from
some
feedback
that
we've
received
not
only
from
some
commissioners
but
from
the
east
end
neighborhood
association,
the
north
end,
neighborhood
association,.
A
A
You
know,
and-
and
you
know,
when
somebody's
got
a
contributing
house
and
they're
changing
the
sighting
of
the
windows,
even
if
they're
changing
out
non-original
sighting
in
windows,
which
is
the
case
a
lot
a
lot
of
the
time,
they're
pulling
off,
vinyl,
siding
or
metal,
siding,
metal
or
vinyl
windows
and
putting
stuff
back
in,
and
it's
always
been
a
little
bit
awkward
for
staff
to
review
these,
because
it
is
a
significant
change
and
especially
when
somebody
comes
in
and
says
yeah
I
want
to
change
out.
I
want
to
replace
my
windows.
A
I
want
to
replace
siding
and
then
they're
also
gutting,
the
interior
of
the
house,
so
that
looks
ugly
when
somebody
is
walking
by
and
looking
at
it,
because
the
sightings
pulled
off
the
house
and
the
house
is
gutted
so
essential
in
some
of
these
cases.
All
you
have
is
the
framing
of
the
house
left,
and
so
we've
decided
that
because
of
that,
because
it's
such
a
drastic,
drastic
change
again
and
in
a
lot
of
the
cases
they're
pulling
off
non-original
sighting
and
windows.
A
But
it's
it's
just
it's
just
a
very
disturbing
kind
of
impact
to
that
structure.
So
the
the
change
that
that
we're
looking
at
is
on
contributing
houses,
at
least
replacement
of
windows
and
siding
on
areas
visible
from
the
public
right
away.
So
you
know
if
you're
changing
windows
on
the
back
of
the
house
or
on
where
it's
not
really
readily
visible.
A
A
I've
already
kind
of
thrown
it
out
there
to
a
few
of
our
regular
customers
and,
just
to
be
frank,
the
feedback
is
not
good,
but
I
you
know
in
talking
to
cody
and
talking
to
others
it
it
would
make
it
it
kind
of
takes
a
really
a
burden
off
of
staff
to
to
not
have
to
to
make
these
decisions
or
to
look
at
what
they're
putting
back
on
on
our
own,
and
so
we
think
it's
a
good,
a
good
thing
for
the
commission
to
have
to
look
at
that
and
what
goes
back
on
the
house.
A
If
you
know,
if
a
house
you
know
somebody
will
now
have
and
then
and
then
what
is
that
process?
So
if
somebody
does
want
to
pull
off
the
original
wood
siding
on
a
house,
you
know
what
kind
of
proof
do
they
need
to
bring
that
the
siding
is
or
evidence
that
the
siding's
not
repairable.
A
A
We
had
these
discussions
and
I
you
know-
and
I
would
talk
to
her
about-
why
don't
we
require
people
to
repair
the
siding
or
why
don't
we,
especially
with
windows,
is
this
kind
of
the
real
big
one
is
why
don't
we
require
people
to
repair
those
original
wood
windows
rather
than
replay,
allow
it
just
allow
replacement
without
much
question,
and
you
know
the
response
to
that
was
that
it's
kind
of
it's.
A
You
know
the
idea
originally
was
that
that's
a
burden.
That's
too
too
much
of
a
burden,
it's
not
feasible,
and
so
we
just
didn't
didn't
we
just
kind
of
proceeded
along
without
requiring
without
looking
at
that
and
that
part
of
it.
You
know
if
you're
in
another
area
of
the
country,
you
know
where
you
know
like
on
the
east
coast,
where
you
could
you
know
you
could
throw
a
ball
and
hit
a
historic
preservation,
somebody
who
rehabilitates
houses
and
rehabilitates
windows-
it's
just
not
as
common
here
so
a
lot
of
times.
A
Somebody
might
have
to
send
the
windows
out
to
have
them
repaired
or
hire
somebody
to
come
into
town
from
out
of
state,
or
something
like
that,
so
it
was
seen
as
a
bit
of
a
burden,
but
I
think
we're
kind
of
I
hope
evolving
from
that
and
that
we're
more
we.
The
reason
we
want
to
bring
this
to
the
commission
is
to
put
more
scrutiny
behind
it.
A
You
know-
and
so
that's
that's
kind
of
the
idea
behind
behind
that
part
of
it
and
that's
kind
of
the
big
one
that
we're
doing,
and
this
is
something
we
also
need
to
run
by
the
mayor.
We
need
to
let
the
mayor
and
council
know,
because
this
will
create
some
some
serious
kickback,
I'm
sure
from
our
development
community
who's
not
used
to
having
to
do
this
and
probably
increase
our
appeals.
Maybe.
C
Yeah,
that
was
my
that
was
my
thought,
but
ted
didn't.
We
at
one
point
used
to
hear.
A
Yeah,
so
what
we've?
What
we've
done
in
the
past,
with
window
replacement
and
again
we
never
required
them
to
to
if
somebody
wants
to
replace
a
window,
what
we
require
on
a
contributing
house
that
was
visible
from
the
right-of-way.
A
Made
them
show
proof
of
the
material
they
were
putting
back
in
and
proof
of
the
style
and
and
if
the,
if
the
window
they're
pulling
out
is
the
original
window,
the
new
window
has
to
match
that
that
style
exactly,
but
it
could
be.
You
know
with
the
wood
metal,
clad
wood
fiberglass,
so
they
were
able
to.
You
know
you
want
to
replace
your
original
wood
windows.
A
Then
you
know
we.
We
didn't
do
that
with
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
questions,
so
we've
been
doing
it
that
way,
you
know
for
a
while.
I
yeah
I
mean
that's
the
way
I
was
instructed
to
to
do
it
when
I
started
here
and
I
think
that's
the
way
matt
you
know
when
matt
was
here
as
well.
I
think
that
that's,
how
it
kind
of
went
too
so.
C
A
Well,
we
do
get,
we
do
get
a
lot
of
people
trying
to
put
in
inappropriate
window
materials
right
and
so
in
those
cases
we
do
bring
them
to
the
commission,
because
if
somebody
wants
to
put
in
a
metal
or
a
vinyl
window,
you
know
we
say
no
thanks,
we're
not
going
to
approve
that
you'll
have
to
and
then
we'll
say,
you're
welcome
to
go
to
the
commission
and
ask,
but
it's
highly
unlikely.
But-
and
so
we
have,
you
know,
seen
a
lot
of
windows
come
through
over
time
of
people.
A
G
Ted
yeah,
if
somebody
wants
to
keep
their
historic
wood
windows,
do
we
allow
them
to
retrofit
them
with
insulated
glass,
take
out
the
original
glass
and
change
it
out
to
insulated
glass.
A
Yes,
we've
we
have
allowed
that
we
have
allowed
the
to
to
replace
more
energy.
Efficient.
Panes
is
what
your
commissioner
weaver
is.
What
you're
talking
about.
G
Well,
yeah,
I
mean
it:
it's
a
lot
of
work
to
the
window
itself,
but
basically
keeping
the
same
window,
but
you'd
have
to
kind
of
route
it
out
or
something.
So
you
could
get
a
yeah.
You
know
an
inch
piece
of
glass
in
there
right.
E
Yeah
and
ted,
and
for
the
commissioners
that
were
around
before
the
pandemic,
I
mean
we,
if
you
recall,
I
put
on
an
education
session
on
windows
at
least
part
one
of
two
parts.
We
never
got
the
part
two
because
the
pandemic
kit,
but
I
do
work
for
a
window
manufacturer
and
I've
been
in
the
window
business
for
30
years.
So
I'm.
E
On
any
further
kind
of
education
to
help
us
out
or
just
to
educate
us
as
much
as
possible
and
and
answer
any
questions,
at
least
because
windows
is
kind
of
a
big
thing
architecturally
and
it
can.
A
It
is
windows
are,
are
by
far
the
the
thing
we
deal
with,
probably
more
than
anything
else,
and
so
it
is
a
big
one
for
sure,
and
you
might
recall
that
I
think
it
was.
I
can't
remember
when
it
was,
but
I'd
sent
out
a
call
for
anybody
on
our
commission
or
anybody
else
that
knew
of
anybody
that
knew
how
to
restore
historic
wood
windows
and-
and
we
just
did
a
pretty
empty
on
that
anybody.
A
You
know
locally,
that
somebody
could
hire
to
restore
their
their
old
wood
windows
and-
and
that's
just
part
of
the
problem
here
and
that's
what
you
know:
that's
what's
going
to
make
it
a
little
more
difficult
on
people
if
we,
if
they
do
come
in
and
we
do
require
that
they
restore
those
windows.
I
think
we
need
to
find
some
resources,
and
you
know,
commissioner
brown
works
at
shippo
and
I
know
they
have
a
list
of
resources.
A
M
Commissioner
brown,
so
on
that,
like,
if
part
of
the
problem
is
no
one,
requires
you
to
repair
the
window,
so
there's
not
a
lot
of
people
that
actually
practice
that
kind
of
craftsmanship
anymore,
so
part
of
it's
like.
If
you
build
it,
they
will
come.
So
if
you
start
requiring
things,
I
mean
people
will
we'll
learn
it.
Another
thing
that
we
could
do
is
also
have
have
the
city
hire
somebody
to
do
a
workshop,
and
then
anybody
interested
in
learning
how
to
repair
themselves.
M
That's
part
of
the
problem
in
that
in
places
I've
lived
in
the
past
that
always
brings
up
people
because
they
want
to
learn
how
to
do
it
themselves.
They
don't
want
to
pay
somebody
to
do
it
because
it
does
cost,
possibly,
as
I'm
sure
devon
knows,
in
the
window,
business
to
repair
it.
So
I
think,
having
some
workshops
for
these
homeowners
might
be,
and
maybe
it's
not
just
windows,
maybe
it's
repairing
wood
siding
how
to
do
it
properly.
M
I
think
that's
something
that
we
should
be
considering.
The
city
should
be
making
an
effort
to
do,
and
that
could
be
something
we
do
with
the
state.
Historic
preservation.
A
A
I
A
He
he
knows
how
to
restore
homes
and
and
he's
somebody
that
I've
talked
to
about
potentially
doing
a
work
session
on
restoration.
I
he
seems
like
a
guy
that
can
do
anything
so.
J
A
As
well,
but
having
him
do
a
workshop
on
on
on
some,
some
of
that
kind
of
thing
is,
is
something
that's
been
on
my
radar
as
well
so-
and
we
can
talk
about
that-
definitely
some
more,
but
it's
definitely,
you
know
a
direction
that
that
we're
gonna
would
like
to
start
going.
A
A
So
if
somebody's
opposed
to
these
people
building
an
adu
that
they
don't
want
an
adu,
we
we
can't
really
deny
that
the
best
we
can
do
is
look
at
the
design
of
the
building,
and
is
it
appropriate,
is
the
dot
style
and
design
of
the
building
appropriate.
But
as
far
as
the
use
of
an
adu
can't
just
say,
no,
you
can't
have
an
adu
on
this
property
because
that's
kind
of
a
really
a
right
for
people
to
have
and
there's
a
whole
other
application
process.
A
So
if
they
get
approval
through
this
group
to
construct
an
adu
and
this
group
approves
of
the
design,
they
have
to
go
through
another
application
process
anyway
for
the
adu
and
they
have
to
notify
all
the
neighbors
and
and
go
through
a
different,
permitting
process
for
that.
So
what
we
have
proposed
is
that
all
accessory
structures
would
be
an
administrative
review
unless
they
exceed
the
height
of
the
house
on
the
property
or
exceed
lot
coverage.
The
lot
coverage
maximum.
M
Would
that
also
include
setbacks
that
aren't
met.
A
So
that's
not
been
included
in
this,
that's
something
we
can
talk
about.
Certainly
that,
if
they're
not
meeting
setbacks,
does
the
commission
want
to
review
a
garage
if
it's
not
meeting
setbacks.
E
Well,
I
think
I
think
that's
we've
been
doing
that
already,
of
course,
but
am
I
right
in
stating
that
the.
A
We
don't
we
don't
necessarily
do
that
now,
if
somebody's
coming
in
with
a
garage,
that's
just
a
basic
garage,
and
maybe
it's
on
a
weird
lot
or
it
can't
meet
setbacks
or
it
can't
meet
the
backup
space.
You
know:
we've
still
reviewed
that
as
a
staff,
if
it
wouldn't,
if
it
wouldn't
go
to
the
commission
for
any
other
reason
we
haven't
made
it
go
to
the
commission
because
it
doesn't
meet
setbacks
just
because
it
still
has
to
get
a
variance.
It
still
has
to
go
through
a
whole
nother
process.
I.
N
E
A
A
And
so
what
and
what
we
do,
if
the
variance
isn't
justifiable,
if
they
just
want
the
building
where
they
want
it,
because
they
want
it
there
and
there's
no
real
reason
that
they
can't
meet
the
setbacks.
We
tell
them
that,
and
it's
usually
not
approved,
so
it's
in
its
because
to
get
a
variance.
You
got
to
make
some
strict
findings
through
that
process.
A
So
if
there's
no
reason
for
them
to
need
the
variance,
then
a
lot
of
times
they're
encouraged
to
redesign
to
meet
the
setback
or
you
know
and
or
the
commission
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
will
just
deny
it.
Then
they
need
to
come
back
and
redesign
through
us
so
so
and
work.
I
think,
we're
through
our
new
zoning
process.
I
think
we're
starting
gonna.
You
know.
E
A
Right
and
the
other
one
is
a
minor
one
wrought
iron
fences
we
right
now
we
allow
wood
fences
without
a
review
at
all
and
wrought
iron.
Fences
are
something
that
you
know.
We
never
deny
you
know
if
somebody
wants
to
put
a
wrought
iron
fence
on
their
property
right
now.
They
have
to
apply
to
do
that
through
a
certificate
of
appropriateness.
It's
a
staff
review
and
usually
we'll
do
it
over
the
counter,
but
we
never
really
deny
as
long
as
it
meets
requirements.
A
Wrought
iron,
you
know
is
considered
a
quality
material
for
fences
in
a
historic
district,
and
so
we
usually
will
will
approve
that.
So
that's
one
that
we're
just
looking
to,
along
with
wood
fences,
that
we
just
don't
don't
review
those.
A
Some
material
changes
and
we're
probably
running
short
on
time
and
we'll
continue
this,
but
I
know
commissioner
koski
and
maybe
noah
when
he
was
on.
The
commission,
talked
about
not
having
fiberglass
as
a
allowed
material,
at
least
on
contributing
houses.
A
One
of
the
reasons
for
that
is
it's
just
one
of
the
reasons
you
know
for
staff.
It's
confusing,
sometimes
because
we'll
go
look
at
a
window,
that's
been
installed
and
it's
supposed
to
be
fiberglass.
But
sometimes
it's
really
hard
to
tell
you
know
if
it's
actually
fiberglass
or
maybe
it's
fibrex
or
maybe
it's
some
other
material
that
they
put
in
you
know
and
usually
we
require
documentation,
but
sometimes
we
don't
always
get
that,
and
so
we're
called
out
on
an
inspection,
and
you
know
and
I'll
go
look
at
a
fiberglass
window
and
go
okay.
A
You
know
I
you
know
and
I'm
sure
commissioner
koski
could
probably
look
at
it
and
determine
that
right
away,
but
the
layman's
eye
on
looking
at
that
is
a
little
bit
different
and
they're
making
you
know
like
I
said:
the
anderson
100
fibrex
windows
are
meant
to
kind
of
mimic
fiberglass
a
little
bit
and
even
some
of
the
more
modern
vinyl
windows
you
know,
are
a
little
higher
quality
and
kind
of
look
like
a
fiberglass.
A
Sometimes
so
that's
some
of
this
is
just
stuff
that
I
think
we
need
to
talk
about
and
and
maybe
on
contributing
houses.
We
only
allow
wood
and
metal
clad
wood.
A
That
would
be
another
big
change.
That's
that'll
upset
people
that
that
we'll
have
to
do
some
notification
and
let
people
know
that
this
is
a
change.
That's
occurring,
we've
allowed
fiberglass
for
forever.
I
think
clear
back
in
the
early
2000s
is
when
they
started,
allowing
that
so
shakes
and
shingles
and
shakes
do
not
come
in
smooth
hearty
and
so
the
past
practice
is
when
it
comes
to
those
we
kind
of
been
allowing.
A
You
know
faux
grain
shakes
just
because
they
don't
come
in
smooth,
but
you
know
the
thought
is:
maybe
we
don't
allow
shakes
and
shingles
to
be
hardy
or
fiber
cement
anymore,
and
then,
if
you
want
to
install
shakes,
they
have
to
be
wood
and
then
natural
wood,
grain.
A
So
and
again,
we'll
talk
more
about
this.
We
only
have
five
minutes
left
but
I'll
bring
all
this
back
and
and
we'll
continue
the
conversation,
and
I
think
you
guys
can
also
email
me.
Your
comments
and
ideas
on
this
as
well.
A
Another
idea
that
we've
talked
about
in
the
past
is
treating
non-contributing
buildings
differently
than
we
do
contributing
buildings.
So
we
do
have
material
requirements,
stricter
material
requirements
on
all
of
our
buildings,
really
whether
they're
contributing
or
not.
But
if
it's
a
non-contributing
building,
do
we
want
to
treat
that
building
differently
as
far
as
the
material
requirements-
and
I
give
a
few
examples,
do
we
you
know?
Do
we
want
to
allow
vinyl
or
metal
windows
on
non-contributing
houses?
A
And
it
has
been
brought
up
by
the
commission
in
the
past
that
especially
on
a
a
mid-century
house,
you
know
it
might
make
sense
or
it
does
make
sense
to
allow
them
to
have
a
metal
or
a
vinyl
window
or
to
to
have
some
alternative
materials.
That's
just
that's!
You
know
that
that
was
the
era
that
those
kind
of
materials
came
into
play,
alternative,
siding
right
now
we
do
not
allow
any
kind
of
composite
or
particle
board
siding.
A
Do
we
allow
that
on
non-contributing
houses
about
every
year?
We
have
people
approach
us
wanting
like
to
do
a
lp,
smart
side
and
trying
to
argue
with
us
that
those
are
quality
materials
but
we've
just
never
allowed
composite
materials
and
or
particle
board,
and
I
know
noah
a
former
commissioner
richter
was
a
big
opponent
of
particle
board
and
those
kind
of
composite
boards
being
used
for
siting
just
because
they
over
time
collect,
moisture
and
fall
apart
and
then
roof
materials.
A
You
know
we
generally,
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
have
allowed
metal
roofs
on
garages
and
some
non-contributing
houses.
Some
new
houses
get
approved
with
metal
roofs,
no
problem
artificial
slate
stuff,
like
that,
you
know
so
the
idea
there
for
you
to
think
about
is
do
we.
A
Do
we
want
to
go
down
that
road
where
we're
treating
contributing
houses
differently
or
treating
non-contributing
houses
less
strict
when
it
comes
to
materials
than
we
do
contributing
houses?
A
I
think
there's
an
argument
both
ways
to
do
that
and
then,
when
you're,
looking
at
non-contributing
houses,
you
know
you're
looking
at
a
full
slate
of
you're,
looking
at
a
non-contributing
house
that
maybe
was
constructed
within
the
period
of
significance
and
you
got
non-contributing
houses
that
are,
you
know,
mid-century
houses,
and
then
you
got
brand
new
houses
that
are
built.
You
know
so,
there's
you
know
kind
of
a
tiered
thing
going
on
there
and
and
we
tend
to
allow
more
alternative
stuff
on
brand
new
houses
than
we
do
other
older
non-contributing.
A
M
Hey
ted,
I
just
had
an
idea
for
that
tiered
structure,
so
I
always
bring
up
that.
Maybe
this
house,
if
the
district
was
re-surveyed,
would
be
contributing.
So
maybe
we
could
have
it
like
a
wedding
kind
of
like
the
national
register.
If
the
house
is
over
50
years
old,
it's
a
little
bit
more
strict
and
then,
if
it's
not
50
years
old,
then
it
could
be
a
little
bit
more
loose
in
those
guidelines.
M
A
Okay,
yeah:
that's
definitely
so
we're
running
up
against
our
regular
meeting,
so
I'll
bring
this
back
next
next
time
and
try
to
flesh
it
out
a
little
bit
more
and
and
we
can,
we
can
continue
this
conversation
a
little
bit
further
and
and
kind
of
work
through
it.
D
J
A
C
D
C
Here
all
present,
thank
you
now,
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
ted
for
our
introduction.
A
Thank
you,
madam
chair
good
evening,
and
welcome
to
the
boise
city,
historic
preservation,
commission
meeting
a
few
things
to
start
out
for
tonight's
proceedings.
Everyone
from
the
public
entering
the
hearing
has
been
automatically
muted
and
cannot
speak.
As
the
item
you're
interested
in
comes
up
for
discussion.
You
will
be
called
upon
and
unmuted
you
will
be
promoted
to
panelists
and
will
rejoin
the
meeting
after
a
slight
delay.
A
A
A
C
Thank
you,
ted.
Have
all
the
commission
members
had
a
chance
to
review
the
minutes
from
the
december
28
2020
meeting.
C
D
L
C
C
P
C
Oh,
thank
you
so
much.
Okay
with
that,
I
will
go
ahead
and
take
a
motion
on
the
deferral
for
item
number
drh20-00441.
G
Madam
chair,
commissioner
weaver
I
I
move
to
defer
drh
20-00441.
Thank
you.
I
D
I
C
C
Q
I'm
gonna
have
to
it
caught
me
off
guard.
I
didn't
realize
that
there
was
recommended
conditions
of
approval.
May
I
read
them
first
and
then
get
back
to
me.
A
A
So
I
guess
mary
mary
is
here:
we
can
either
just
hear
it
or
if
he,
if
the
applicant
doesn't
want
to,
it,
doesn't
agree
both
keeping
it
on
consent
agenda.
But
maybe
mary
has
some
more
detail
on
that.
R
C
Thank
you
mary,
mr
levich.
Is
that
amicable
to
you.
C
H
Again,
I
haven't
seen
the
recommended
conditions,
but
I
assume
they
are.
I
assume
they're
pretty
standard.
I
don't
I'm
not
we're
not
looking
for
any
variance
or.
H
I
guess
how
do
how
would
I
find
out
what
they
are?
I
mean
I,
I
can't
imagine
there's
anything,
but
I
guess.
H
A
Oh,
this
is
the
item
number
three.
No.
A
Yeah
this
one
there
just
pretty
standard
conditions
of
approval.
There
were
no
encroaches
into
setbacks
or
any
other
issues
staff
identified,
so
they
were
pretty
standard
conditions
pointing
to
materials
mostly.
D
C
Okay,
wonderful
staff:
was
there
any
written
opposition
to
this
matter.
C
C
C
O
C
D
I
D
C
Thank
you
to
the
applicants
for
the
items
that
were
approved
on
our
consent
agenda.
Your
items
have
been
approved
and
you're
free
to
go
unless
you'd
like
to
stay
and
hear
the
other
matters.
C
A
A
A
However,
the
it
appears
the
applicant
is
proposing
a
10-foot
front
setback
that,
however,
the
substandard
lot
ordinance
does
allow
for
reduced
setbacks,
front
setbacks
if
if
it
is
within
five
feet
of
the
adjacent
properties,
so
the
adjacent
properties
when
I
went
through
and
kind
of
just
measured
them
using
our
gis,
which
is
not
you
know,
100
accurate,
it's
very
general,
but
it
appears
the
adjacent
properties
have
about
a
20
foot
setback.
A
So
if
that's
the
case,
then
a
10-foot
setback
would
not
be
appropriate
or
allowed
through
code,
so
the
setback
would
have
to
be
actually
increased
to
to
15
feet
at
a
minimum
which
at
15
feet
is
our
standard
front
setback
plus
it
would
also
if
the
adjoining
properties
have
a
20-foot
setback.
It
would
be
in
general
compliance
with
that.
A
So
another
point
to
be
made
is
that
is
potentially,
and
this
is
a
condition
the
the
commission
may
include
on
this
application
if
it
does
indeed
have
a
10
foot
setback.
First
of
all,
it
might
not
be
allowed
to
have
a
10
foot
setback,
but
if
it
did
it
would,
you
know,
have
to
be
within
that
five
feet
of
those
adjacent
properties.
So
a
condition
could
be
added
on
to
require
it
to
hit
that
15-foot
mark.
A
A
A
A
We
did
receive
some
public
comment
on
this,
which
you
should
have
been
received
through
email
generally.
The
the
comments
are
around
that
the
house
is
not
congruous
with
the
neighborhood
due
to
the
narrow
substandard
lot
dimensions.
It
is
a
25
foot
wide
lot,
as
previously
mentioned,
which
is
the
minimum
width
for
a
buildable
lot
and
then
again
the
front
setback
would
be
too
close
and
there,
if
you
read
through
those
letters
there
are
some
other
general
comments
associated
with
some
adjacent
properties
as
well.
A
I
will
just
say
on
the
narrow,
25
foot
wide
substandard
lot.
If
we
go
back
to
the
aerial
you'll
note
that
there
are
several
other
25
foot
wide
lots
in
the
area,
specifically
behind
this
property
across
the
alley
and
down
here
or
some
25
foot
wide
lots.
A
This
lot
probably
isn't
buildable
here.
This
is
too
too
narrow,
but
we
get
these
narrow,
substandard
25
foot,
wide
lots
occasionally
throughout
the
north
end
and
the
east
end
just
due
to
the
fact
that
they
are
underlying
lots
of
record
that
were
originally
platted
when
the
city
was
platted,
and
so
we
still
honor
those
as
buildable
lots
with
some
restrictions.
A
So
with
that,
we
do
recommend
approval
of
the
application.
A
Other
requirements
of
the
substandard
lot
ordinance
are
that
the
height
of
the
house
or
the
actual
size
of
the
house
has
to
be
in
relation
to
the
adjoining
properties.
So,
for
instance,
you
can't
build
a
two-story,
a
full
two-story
house
unless
the
both
adjoining
properties
or
a
full
two-story
house,
so
this
house
we
would
consider
a
one
to
one
and
a
half.
E
Madam
chair
and
ted's
commissioner
koski
ted
have
we
got
any
other
additional
drawings
than
these
from
the
applicant?
Are
these
the
only
ones
we
have.
A
Just
what
is
in
the
packet,
the
site
plan,
the
the
house
plans
and
then
the
there's
also
garage
plans
which
I
can
bring
up
as
well.
It's
just
a
small
230
or
something
square
foot,
one-story
garage
as
well,
which
should
be
in
your
packet.
That's
these
drawings
are
what
was
provided
by
the
applicant.
C
S
S
The
gis
is
off
by
a
little
bit,
not
a
whole
bunch
but
yeah.
I
I
used
the
average
of
the
two
adjoining
properties
and
within
five
feet
of
that.
The
actual
property
pins
are
about
five
feet
inside
edge
of
sidewalk,
so
that
made
for
the
let's
see
the
existing
house
of
407
the
front
setback
on
that
one
is
about
12
feet
and
the
let's
see
the
411
o'farrell
street.
S
The
duplex
on
the
west
side
of
the
property
is
at
about
18
feet
so
taking
the
average
of
those
is
15
5
feet
within
the
average
of
that
would
be
10.
S
S
S
You
know
I
looked
at
the
neighboring
properties
and
by
my
calculation
there's
you
know,
22
houses
on
this
block
and
of
those
22
12
of
them
are
substandard,
so
you
know
there's
less
than
the
5
000
square
foot
type
lots
or
on
corner
lots
that
are
less
than
7
000
square
feet.
So
as
far
as
being
incongruous
to
the
neighborhood,
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
substandard
stuff
going
on
on
this
block.
J
S
Around
the
corner
from
this
property
at
1103
15th
street,
there
is
actually
they
did
a
on
a
substandard
lot.
A
one
and
a
half
story,
almost
pushing
two
stories
house,
was
approved
that
is
under
construction.
Now,
so
I
mean
there's
a
a
lot
of
yeah
kind
of
substandard
houses
going
on
just
in
this
neighborhood,
yeah
or
substandard
or
or
duplexes.
S
Isn't
super
congruent
to
the
neighborhood
there's
also
another
duplex
towards
the
end
of
the
street.
You
know
a
lot
of
see
at
four.
S
I
can't
quite
read
that
address,
but
three
houses
to
the
east
there's
actually
like
four
houses
on
one
lot.
So
there's
you
know
just
quite
a
bit
of
kind
of
yeah
creative
construction
going
on.
So
that's,
I
guess
the
the
gist
of
most
of
it.
I
want
to
you
know
some
of
the
neighbors
in
opposition.
S
Some
of
the
letters
received
most
of
them
were
kind
of
critiquing.
The
existing
house
that
I
live
in
at
407
and
the
the
garage
that
I
built.
Some
of
them
didn't,
like
my
paint
colors.
Sorry
I
like
them,
some
of
them
didn't
like
that.
I
have
black
drapes,
covering
my
windows.
I
I
have
a
15
year
old
son.
I
don't
necessarily
want
people
peeking
in
on
him.
Nor
do
I
like
feeling,
like
I'm
in
kind
of
a
fishbowl,
so
I
didn't
like
the
size
of
the
garage.
S
The
garage
is
not
an
adu,
it's
just.
I
use
it
as
a
garage
and
then
there's
a
kind
of
an
office
area
and
just
a
you
know,
storage
area
for
my
bikes
and
that
kind
of
stuff,
but
it
was
approved
through
the
historic
district.
I
guess
if
any
of
the
neighbors
wanted
to
have
complained
about
that,
they
were
definitely
given
the
opportunity
to
you
know
to
appeal
the
accessory
garage
structure
behind
the
house.
S
Let's
see
I
one
neighbor
was
questioning.
If
there's
enough
parking,
there
is
the
the
two
two
parking
spots
off
the
alley.
S
There's
also
some
there'd
be
room
for
one
car
on
street
parking,
the
existing
house
at
407
o'farrell,
I
mean
I've
got
you
know
parking
for
five
or
six
cars
there.
So
I'm
not
the
this,
wouldn't
be
the
source
of
any
sort
of
parking
parking
concerns.
It
would
be
kind
of
the
the
other.
S
You
know,
neighboring
properties,
most
of
them
are
most
neighboring
properties,
are
substandard
lots
or
multi-unit
lots
so,
unfortunately,
just
kind
of
the
nature
of
the
north
end
and
the
small
garages
that
the
a
lot
of
the
neighboring
properties
have.
They
have
a
tendency
to
park
on
the
street.
So
I
don't
have
too
much
control
over
that
yeah.
S
I
guess
beyond
that
yeah
the
the
structure
itself,
I
I
did
hand
draw
the
plans,
I'm
not
can
read,
but
I'm
I'm
getting
a
little
bit
better
at
designing
my
my
or
drawing
out
my
house
plans.
I
think,
for
the
most
part
I
tried
to
copy
some
other.
S
You
know:
substandard
25
foot,
wide
houses,
there's
two
over
on
13th
street
across
from
campbell's
back,
and
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
can
see
this,
but
this
is
kind
of
the
kind
of
a
similar
structure
that
was
you
know,
built
in
the
historic
district,
a
while
back
on
a
25
foot
wide
lot.
S
Yeah-
and
I
ted
had
mentioned
something
about
one
of
my
elevations.
I
guess
the
east
elevation
being
flipped
the
wrong
way
and
yeah,
I
kind
of
adjusted
that,
but
that
was
my
fault
I
kind
of
had
it
in
my
head
head
wrong.
So
but
anyways
all
the
materials
are
approved:
materials,
metal,
clad,
wood
windows,
smooth
cement
board,
siding
real
brick
on
the
front,
facade
and
yeah.
S
I
guess
yeah,
for
the
most
part
tried
to
make
something
that
would
fit
in
as
as
best
as
it
could.
It
is
a
25
foot
wide
lot.
So
there's
only
you
know
so
much
creativity
you
can
have
with
the
elevation
and
lock
coverage
and
substandard
lot
ordinance
regulations,
all
that
kind
of
plays
into
the
plays
into
the
mix
yeah.
And
then
I
guess
one
other
point
there.
S
The
plan
would
in
the
right
away
in
the
planner
strip
of
the
existing
house
at
407
to
we,
we
did
have
to
tear
out
some
trees
that
were
on
this,
this
property
and
to
kind
of
mitigate
that
in
that
planner
strip.
S
The
idea
would
be
to
put
a
couple
of
the
sunset
naples-
and
I
I
hadn't
relayed,
that
to
ted,
but
that
that
is
kind
of
the
intent
and
that
could
be
added
as
a
condition
of
approval
is
to
try
and
add
a
couple
more
trees
in
that
planter
strip
to
you
know
help
with
the
the
tree
scape
and
some
of
the
the
you
know,
trees
that.
J
S
Be
removed
in
order
to
to
to
build
the
the
accessory
garage
and
also
some
of
those
trees
had
some
dry
rot
in
them.
Where,
basically,
the
you
know
at
the
split
of
the
tree,
there
was
rot
down
the
middle,
and
because
of
that,
you
know
it
could
have
landed
on
either
my
house
or
the
the
the
duplex
to
the
the
west
so
yeah
over
on
15th
street.
S
I
know
a
couple
months
back:
they
had
a
couple
houses
or
a
couple:
trees
fall
on
houses,
and
so
that
was
a
concern
with
this
these
trees
as
well
so
anyways,
I
guess
for
the
most
part,
that's
my
ski
spiel.
For
today,
I
I
haven't
had
a
zoom
meeting
before
so
this
is
my
inaugural
zoom
meeting.
So
hopefully
I
didn't
come
across
too
silly.
C
Thank
you,
mr
benoit.
Are
there
any
questions
for
the
applicant.
E
E
Setbacks
and
lock
covers
and
stuff
like
that.
I
know
sometimes
that's
a
hard
thing
to
decipher
when
you're
putting
it
together
plan,
especially
on
a
new
what
an
old
substandard
lot
but
newly
developed.
The
question.
E
E
Some
neighbors
that
sent
in
a
couple
letters
did
you
take
your
plans
around
to.
C
S
I
I've
talked
to
some
of
the
neighbors,
but
yeah,
not
not
door-to-door.
I've
had
a
couple
run-ins
with
the
while
building
the
garage
with
the
with
one
of
the
neighbors
that
sent
in
the
sent
in
one
of
the
labor
one
of
the
letters
and
she
yeah.
She
was
complaining
about
noise
because
she
sleeps
during
the
day,
and
so
you
know
some
of
the
neighbors.
You
know
it's
just.
S
Unfortunately,
you
know
they
they
yeah
they,
you
know
just
don't
want
any
any
construction,
no
matter.
What
so
and
most
of
the
letters
in
regards
are
not
in
regards
to
the
the
new
proposed
structure,
it's
more.
What
was
done
in
the
past,
and
so
you
know
not
many
of
them
are
mentioning.
S
Many
of
the
letters
are
really
focusing
on
the
new
structure.
They're.
Looking
at
you
know
the
neighboring
property
so,
but
to
answer
your
question
specifically,
no,
I
I
did
not
go
door-to-door
and
present
plans
to
them.
You
know
with
covet
and
everything
else
yeah.
I
I
figured
I'd,
address
their
concerns
at
this
meeting
or
you
know
up
until
up
until
a
couple
days
ago
there
was
only
well.
S
I
guess
there's
only
been
like
three
three
letters
and
two
of
those
letters
are
out
from
the
same
property,
the
owner
of
the
the
duplex,
so
anyways
yeah.
I
I
yeah
yeah,
I
didn't
know
I
I
had
this
many
people
in
in
opposition
until
a
couple
hours
ago.
Really
so.
C
You
thank
you.
So
much
is
the
registered
neighborhood
association
here
to.
C
C
P
As
noted
in
the
project's
summary,
the
width
between
this
new
development
is
income
is
inconsistent
with
and
lower
than
the
average
spacing
between
the
other
homes.
On
the
block.
The
requested
setback
of
10
feet
is
under
the
minimum
setback
requirements
and
disturbs
the
view
along
the
block.
There
is
already
differences
in
the
setback
of
the
houses
on
either
side,
and
this
additional
odd
placement
adds
to
the
disruptive
nature.
P
The
overall
massing
of
the
new
house
is
substantially
smaller
than
the
homes
both
to
the
east
and
west
and
smaller
than
many
on
the
block.
Additionally
to
the
east,
mr
benoit
has
built
a
garage
that
is
taller
than
the
house
on
407
west
o'farrell,
in
which
he
resides.
It
is
quite
visible
from
the
side
angle
and
across
the
street,
and
I
have
a
photo
I
can
share
later.
P
The
garage
is
also
approximately
the
same
height
and
width
as
the
house
taking
up
the
majority
of
the
space
behind
the
house
with
only
a
few
square
feet
remaining.
This
adds
to
the
inappropriate
difference
of
massing
between
the
two
sites.
Mr
benoit
received
certificates,
appropriateness
in
case
drh19-00409
and.
P
Drh20-00047,
the
applications
and
radius
maps
for
both
indicate
the
project's
covered,
lots,
28,
29
and
30.
where
lot
30
is.
This
is
the
substandard
lot
in
question
today.
It
appears
that
the
square
footage
of
all
three
lots
were
used
to
determine
the
acceptable
lot
coverage
and
open
space
for
the
house
and
the
addition
of
the
garage
on
the
site
removing
lot
30
as
part
of
the
equation.
The
garage
that
mr
benoit
has
built
is
an
is
inappropriate
in
relationship
to
massing
for
houses
on
the
block.
P
P
Both
are
composed
of
wood
and
brick
with
similar
porch
structures,
with
columns
combined.
The
above
suggests
a
disruption
in
the
cohesiveness
and
distasteful
appearance
of
the
block.
If
the
new
home
were
to
be
built,
mr
benoit's
earlier
certificate
appropriate
of
appropriateness
project
case
drh20-0047
indicate
the
removal
of
trees
covering
lots,
28,
29
and
30.,
where
lot
30
is.
This
is,
is
the
substandard
lot
in
question
today.
C
T
My
name's
katie
fight,
I
live
at
1006
north
fifth
street.
I
urge
you
to
deny
authorization
of
this
project.
T
I've
sort
of
watched
in
horror
as
what
had
been
you
know,
sort
of
a
classic
north
end
lot
has
been
basically
butchered
by
the
development
first
by
building
what
I
guess
is
a
garage,
even
though
it
looks
like
a
huge
house,
almost
touching
the
existing
house
that
may
or
that
I
believe,
may
have
been
enlarged
somewhat.
T
If
I
read
the
sign
correctly-
and
this
is
just
completely
out
of
character
for
the
neighborhood
and
the
way
it
was.
I
just
heard
the
lady
before
me
describe
how
it
appears
the
permission
for
building
the
big
garage.
That's
almost
touching
the
house
took
place,
including
the
space
where
this
net
little
sliver
of
a
lot
is
where
the
new
development
is
to
be
placed
that
this
is
just
absolutely
in
violation
of
how
any
credible
development
should
be
taking
place
in
the
city
and
appears
to
have
violated.
T
C
C
Wonderful
are
there
any
final
questions
for
staff
for
the
applicant.
L
E
If
ted,
if
you
could
pull
up
the
elevations
on
the
packet
packet
102,
I
think
the
side
elevations
so
david
I've,
I've.
You
mentioned
your
drawings
and
I
know
it's
hard.
I
know
it's
hard
to
draw
things,
especially
in
perspective
when
you've
got
such
a
small
lot.
E
It
your
drawings,
your
drawings,
don't
match
they
don't
line
up
with
your
with
your
floor
plan,
and
I'm
I'm
wondering
if
maybe
you
can
just
give
me
give
me
some
comments
that
maybe
help
me
understand
a
little
bit
better
because
up
on
the
commission
up
here.
Well,
we're
not
you
know,
we
don't
issue
building
permits,
you
know
we're
not
the
building
department,
but
as
a
commission
we
are
more
or
less
in
many
cases
an
architectural
review
board
in
a
lot
of
respects
and
when
the
guidelines.
E
Require
certain
details
for
trim
and
and
architectural
details,
and
it's
important
for
us
to
see
those
on
these
drawings
and
when
I'm
looking
at
these
drawings,
the
the.
E
Well,
it's,
as
you
mentioned
it's
backwards.
The
port
should
be
on
the
other
side,
the
chimneys
backwards.
It
has
two
windows
and
your
floor.
Your
floor
plan
shows
four
windows
and,
and
then,
if
you
look
at
the
windows
on
the
back
bedroom
of
the
house
like
they
don't
even
meet
code,
there's
no
egress.
So
again,
that's
not
our.
E
It's
not
our
our
part
to
to
determine
that.
But
I
I
struggle
greatly
with
the
drawing
that
is,
I
see,
isn't
even
is.
E
S
I
yeah
sure
I'll
try
well.
First,
first
of
all,
I
I
did
redraw
it.
I
don't
know
if
you
can
kind
of
kind
of
see,
I
still
did
miss
those
those
secondary
windows.
I
think
I
added
those
in
the
master,
but
there
are
two
two
windows
that
do
meet
egress
for
that
that
back
bedroom
that
are
at
the
back
of
the
house,
but
then
yeah,
I
redrew
it
and
kind
of
switched
the
orientation.
S
I
I
don't
know
if
you
can
see
that
that
well
but
anyways
that
all
that
all
I
I
did
try
to
address-
and
I
you
know
I
I
apologize
like.
I
said
it's
not
my
you
know
my
the
side
elevations
from
the
street.
S
You
know
you
really
can't
see
the
side
elevations
on
these
substandard
lots.
It
really
comes
down
to
the
front
elevations
but
yeah
I
I
did
mess
up
and-
and
you
know,
put
the
porch
on
the
wrong
side
on
one
of
them
and
I
did
dictate
the
you
know
the
the
what
sighting
and
everything
else
was
going
to
be
used.
I
I
yeah
I
I
guess
I
I
did
my
my
best
to
try
and
yeah
dictate.
S
You
know
the
quality,
materials
and,
and
everything
in
that
regards
typically,
you
know
what
what
has
happened
in
the
past
with
these
is
you
know,
I
can't
draw
you
know
framing
and
any
of
those
kind
of
details
that
the
the
building
permits
will
require,
and
so
what
ends
up
happening
is
I'll.
Take
this
plan
I'll,
take
it
to
a
an
actual
draftsman
or
slash
architect.
S
They'll,
you
know,
take
the
gist
of
it
and
then
put
it
into
an
actual
building
set
of
plans,
of
which
ted
then
signs
off
on
in
order
for
it
to
be
submitted
for
building
permits.
So
that's
that
was
kind
of
my
intent
is
you
know
yeah.
This
is
basically
as
close
of
a
as
close
of
a
representation
that
I
could
give
you
with
a
couple
couple
mistakes,
but
in
the
same,
regards
ted
will
still
have
the
you
know.
S
The
final
say
before
anything
actually
gets
submitted
and
he'll
verify
that
what
submitted
matches
the
intent
of
what
was
approved
at
that
point.
So
that's,
I
guess,
probably
the
the
short
answer
or
a
long
answer.
E
Can
can
you
describe
to
me
what
the
you
know
trim
details
are
like
around
one
window
as
an
example?
What
is
it?
Is
it
because,
right
now,
your
drawing
doesn't
have
anything
like
that
in
the
permit.
D
E
Or
your
application
doesn't
stand
any
of
that
either
and
if,
if
we're
going
to
approve
this
it'd
be
nice
to
know
what
I'm
approving.
S
So
do
you
have
an
idea
yeah
I
got,
I
mean
typically
around
a
window.
It's
a
you
know.
Six
inch,
smooth,
hardboard,
siding
kind
of
you
know
fascia
a
lot
of
times.
I
know
historic
likes
a
two-inch
reveal.
So
that's
that
was
the
the
intent
yeah.
Okay.
S
I
guess
in
regards
to
the
opposing
neighbors
comments.
I
think
I
addressed
most
of
those
previously,
but
you
know
this
does
meet
the
substandard
ordinance.
It
does
meet
the
the
lock
coverage.
Unfortunately,
it's
you
know
meets
the
the
height
requirements.
S
It's
still
a
25
foot
wide
lot
and
that's
it's
a
buildable
buildable
lot.
So
I
I
you
know
I
don't
know
as
far
as
architecturally,
if
there's
anything
different
that
that
I
could
do
to
to
make
it
much
better.
You
know,
there's
been
quite
a
few
of
these
approved
and
yeah.
I
I
guess
did
the
best
with
what
I
what
I
what
I
have
left
there
so
yeah.
S
I
happy
to
answer
any
any
further
further
questions,
but
I
I
guess
I
ask
you
approve
it
with
any
sort
of
conditions
that
you
guys
see
fit.
I'm
I'm
open
to
working
with
you
guys,
however,
however,
makes
sense
for
you.
C
Thank
you,
and
with
that
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing
and
we'll
consider
emotion
or
some
discussion.
E
I'll,
madam
charles
I'll
I'll
start
some
discussion
since
I
I
seem.
E
C
E
Great,
I
think
the.
E
I,
according
to
what
the
staff
writes
in
the
report,
I
agree
with
the
only
thing
I'm
having
a
problem
with
is
the
drawing
itself
and-
and
you
know
we
we
need
to-
I
think
I
mean
I
think,
I'd
just
like
to
state
to
the
rest
of
the
commission-
that
we
need
to
be
really
cautious
on.
E
I
think
on
approving
conceptual
things,
because
you
are
looking
at
a
you
know.
You've
maybe
got
the
height
right
here
on
the
on
this
drawing
and
looking
at
the
top.
You
know
that,
what's
that
east
elevation
I'll
just
focus
on
that,
but
like
the
the
front
and
rear
elevations,
you
know
aren't
showing
the
chimney.
I.
D
E
These
elevations
is
really
very,
it
is
backwards
and
doesn't
have
as
many
windows
and
and
if
you
look
at
the
heights
in
the
proposed
heights
of
the
windows
or
sides
of
the
windows
on
the
west
elevation,
you
know
I
and
there's
no
trim
detail.
I
mean
we're,
I
guess
I
guess
we
got.
I
feel
we
need
to
be
really
careful
we
need
to
have.
We
need
to
be
careful
where
we're
looking
at
an
application
if
you
read
through
it
under
proposed
for
windows,
it
says
as
per
plan.
E
E
I
guess
I'm
just
I'm
just
really
concerned
about
that.
I'm
not
concerned
about
the
rest
of
the
stuff,
this
the
front
setback.
I
think
I
would.
I
would
approve,
with
the
setback,
to
meet
the
guidelines
of
the
average
of
the
two
houses
on
either
side
of
it,
so
that
would
need
to
be
measured
as
far
as
the
sizing,
the
size
of
the
house
and
lot
coverage.
I'm
fine
with.
E
C
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Koski.
Before
we
have
any
further
discussion
mary,
could
you
possibly
speak
to
any
legal
grounds
regarding
inaccurate
drawings
in
applications
when
an
application
does
say,
as
commissioner
koski
stated
per
drawings,
but
the
drawings
are
inaccurate,.
R
So
if
the
application
itself
for
the
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
says
as
per
the
drawings,
the
drawings
would
need
to
be
accurate
or
need
to
have
corrections
noted
on
them.
If
there's
a
specified
setback
height.
Just
you
know,
setbacks
in
between
houses.
Things
of
that
nature
that
this
commission
would
specify
they
do
need
to
be
marked
on
the
drawings
or
in
whatever
references
produced
on
that
certificate
of
appropriateness.
C
Thank
you
and
then
one
more
question
for
you.
Mary
are
inaccurate
drawings,
in
that
case
grounds
for
denial
of
an
application.
R
Madam
chair
commissioners,
I
believe
that
this
commission
has
the
ability
to
state
the
corrections
that
they
would
like
to
see
and
that
it
would
not
necessarily
be
a
basis
for
denial
if
it
were
going
to
be
a
basis
for
denial.
My
suggestion
to
the
commission
would
be
to
make
very
clear
findings
and
recommendations
for
how
that
can
be
corrected
in
order
for
the
applicant
to
come
back
and
seek
approval.
M
I
also
have
some
I
agree
with
this.
Is
commissioner
brown?
I
also
agree
with
commissioner
koski
that
we
shouldn't
really
be
approving
things.
Unless
we
have
concrete
plans
of
particular
materials
dimensions,
sizes
trim,
detail
I
mean
we
should
have
that
information.
Otherwise
we're
I
mean
we're
kind
of
flying
by
the
seat
of
our
pants.
B
I
can
see
this
is
commissioner
rep,
and
I
would
I
appreciate
commissioner
browninkowski's
feedback
and,
and
I
definitely
think,
expertise
and
insight
to
the
plants
and
what
they
bring
is
of
value.
I
do
I
will
be
supporting
the
application,
as
I
do
believe,
based
on
conditions
of
approval
and
setbacks
as
what
we
may
need
to
add
to
our
recommendation,
but
I
trust
that
if
the
plans
have
to
be
finally
approved
and
staff
have
to
review
that
and
give
final
approval
before
they
can
proceed,
I
feel
comfortable
with
that.
D
E
Man,
I'm
sure
I
could
I'll
make
a
motion.
I
I
will
move
that
for.
J
L
D
L
C
J
A
This
is
a
request
to
modify
the
first
level
facade
of
a
building
to
include
a
canopy,
a
raised
patio
with
guard
rail
for
improved
accessibility
and
also
to
relocate
the
door
and
add
accordion
style
windows
to
the
first
level,
and
this
is
in
the
old
boise
commercial.
Historic
district
structure
is
contributing.
A
These
are
the
floor
plans.
As
you
can
see,
the
top
is
the
existing
floor
plan
and
the
applicant
will
go
into
more
detail
on
some
of
these
changes.
So
you
can
compare
the
two
and
see
kind
of
the
floor
plan.
Alterations,
you'll,
see
on
the
bottom
proposed
floor
plan,
a
patio,
an
enclosed
patio
will
be
included
and
then
again
the
door.
A
This
is
one
of
the
elevations
provided
by
the
applicant.
As
you
can
see,
there
is
some
changes
here
the
applicant
is
proposing
to.
There
are
some
decorative
columns.
If
we
go
back
to
the
there
are
some
decorative
columns
that
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
inc
to
keep
in
place.
However,
between
those
columns
will
be
the
accordion
style
doors
that
will
open
up
to
an
open
patio
seating.
A
A
And
there's
another
rendition:
the
proposed
colors
will
be
black
and
a
kind
of
yellow
gold
trim.
A
Patio
in
this
area,
and
then
the
awning
will
also
be
installed
over
the
top
the
transom
windows
over
the
up
in
this
area.
Will
they
are
metal
windows
that
will
be
reap
they're,
aluminum
windows
that
will
be
replaced.
However,
they
won't
be
changed
in
size.
A
A
C
Wonderful,
are
there
any
questions
for
ted
before
we
hear
from
the
applicant.
M
This
is
commissioner
brown.
I
have
a
question
sure.
Can
you
guys
hear
me?
Okay,
yes,
I'm
like
striking
out
with
technology
tonight
but
so
ted.
I
looked
at
these
plans
and
I
was
just
wondering:
did
you
receive
a
more
detailed
set
of
plans
than
what
was
in
our
packet.
A
G
I
apologize,
I
pretend
really
quick.
I
was
wondering
these
changes
are
fairly
significant.
I
I
have
two
questions
for
you.
One
is
just
kind
of
verifying
that
the
building
will
maintain
its
contributing
status
with
the
changes
that
are
proposed
and
also
are
any
of
these
upgrades.
G
Have
they
been
requested
by
the
city
because
there's
a
lot
of
kind
of
upgrades
for
ada
and
accessibility-
and
I
didn't
know
if
that
was
coming
from
somewhere
specific
or
it's
just
something
that
the
building
owner
wanted
to
do.
A
So
you'll
see
this
as
you
walk
around
and
look
at
buildings,
it
was
done
most
recently
on
the
the
my
the
union
block,
building
where
diablo
and
sons,
I
believe,
is
located,
which
is
also
a
national
register,
building
not
in
the
historic
district,
but
they
opened
up
the
facade,
the
first
level
facade
of
that
building
to
create
kind
of
an
open
bar
area
and
did
some
alterations
there
and
you'll
see
some
of
this
in
hyde
park
as
well,
where
they'll
either
put
roll-up
doors
on
that
first
facade
to
roll
it
up
and
open
up
the
space
and
area
to
the
outside
to
an
outside
patio
area.
A
With
these
applications
we
do
also
transmit
them
to
shippo.
So
we
we
especially
with
national
register
buildings.
You
know
to
to
try
to
get
some
feedback
from
shippo
or
a
letter.
You
know
indicating
whether
this
is
an
application.
That's
that
they
consider
will
you
know
negatively
impact
the
national
register
status
or
not,
but
but
again
these
are
projects
we
have
approved
throughout
the
city,
on
historic
buildings
and
and
it
hasn't
changed
the
contributing
status
on
those
buildings
as
such
and
again
yeah.
So
does
that
answer
your
question.
A
Madam
chair
commissioner
weaver,
whenever
you're
going
in
and
doing
a
significant
change
like
they're
doing
of
a
floor
plan,
there
are
code
requirements,
then
all
of
a
sudden
kick
in.
So
there
are
requirements
for
ada
accessibility,
adequate
ada,
accessibility
following
those
those
laws
and
regulations.
E
E
E
A
I
don't
have
any
photos,
however.
It
was
considered
non-contributing,
as
mentioned
in
the
report
back
in,
I
think,
78
and
then
later
was
restored.
C
Of
course,
any
final
questions
for
ted-
okay,
great,
is
the
applicant.
U
U
Great,
thank
you,
commissioner.
Richard
wilmott,
chrysalis
architecture
and
planning
address
is
3914.
East
presidential
drive,
meridian,
idaho
ted
thanks
for
the
presentation
and
commissioners.
Thank
you
for
hearing
us
this
evening
and
considering
our
application.
E
U
Really
the
center
of
downtown
boise
right
across
from
city
hall,
it
is
undergone,
let's
just
say,
significant
renovation
over
its
lifespan.
It's
it.
It's
been
anything
from
a
a
marketing
office
to
numerous
and
various
restaurants.
U
U
If
and
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
would
like
to
do
ted.
Is
it
possible
that
I
can
share
my
screen.
O
Richard
just
a
moment
I'll
add
you
as
a
panelist
and
you
will
rejoin.
Oh.
U
C
U
Can
everybody
see
my
screen
now
great,
so
this
image
that
you're
seeing
here
is
obviously
the
image
that
ted
had
presented,
that
represents
our
colors
and
some
of
the
some
of
the
attributes
of
the
elevation,
but
one
of
the
things
that
is
kind
of
important
to
our
discussion
and
and
I'll
try
to
touch
on
some
of
the
comments
or
questions
that
were
raised
by
the
commissioners
during
ted's
ted's
presentation,
but
relative
to
this
particular
building
it
because
it
has
undergone
such
significant
renovation
over
its
lifespan.
U
The
building
code
does
in
fact
require
a
certain
levels
of
accessibility
upgrades
to
occur
during
any
particular
renovation
and
early
on
in
a
renovation
or
or
an
early
stage,
renovation,
say
10
15
20
30
years
ago,
when
the
building
was
renovated,
it
might
have
had,
let's
just
say,
restrooms
upgraded
to
be
made
more
accessible,
but
the
building
code
basically
doesn't
isn't,
isn't
it's
so
exacting
or
specific.
It
just
gives
you
certain
criteria
that
you
need
to
meet
certain
cost
threshold
thresholds
and
you
also
need
to
meet.
U
You
need
to
touch
on
certain
aspects
of
the
building
well,
this
building
because
it
has
been
renovated.
So
often,
and
undergone
such
renovations
from
time
to
time,
we're
kind
of
at
the
point
where,
let's
just
say,
the
easy
outs
in
terms
of
making
a
building
more
accessible
or
no
longer
available
to
us,
and
so
we're
now
looking
at
things
that
are
more
critical
to
the
building,
which
are
basically
the
accessible
route.
U
And
what
that
implies-
or
it
refers
to
is
the
the
means
at
which
somebody
who
wants
to
gain
access
to
a
particular
building
has
to
be
provided
with
the
appropriate,
accessible
pathway
to
get
into
the
building
and
what's
kind
of
unique
about
this.
Building
relative
to
some
of
the
other
buildings.
Even
on
this
block
and
in
downtown,
is
that
the
floor
in
this
building
is
elevated
above
the
above
the
brick
sidewalk
by
six
or
eight
inches,
and
so
what
we.
U
What
we
are
proposing
is
to
provide
full
accessibility
now
to
this
building
which
it
in
effect
has
never
had.
It
has
never
been
truly
accessible
when.
U
That
wasn't
a
consideration.
It's
it's
a
heavy
consideration
now,
but
it
also
coupled
with
that
is
the
the
design
intent
that
we
are
proposing
for
this.
This
particular
restaurant
is
that
this
restaurant
is
is
highly
experiential
and,
as
you
can
see
on
this
image,
there's
this
there's
this
sort
of
grade
image
of
a
tree.
This
is
basically
it's
a
sculpture
for
all
intent,
but
it's
really
the
center
of
the
showcase
of
of
this
particular
restaurant
in
itself.
So,
as
as
a
point
of
reference.
U
U
We
want
everybody
to
be
able
to
experience
the,
let's
just
say
the
design
dialogue
that's
created
with
not
only
the
interior
design,
but
the
effort
and
the
time
and
the
considerations
that
we've
made
to
the
design
to
make
this
space
interesting
and
and
some
a
place
that
people
want
to
experience.
And
so
this
tree
is
specifically
located
within
the
space
is
a
main
opening
within
between
the
two
halves
of
the
building.
One
half
has
partial
dining
room.
U
One
house
has
partial
kitchen,
the
other
half
is
mostly
dining
with
some
of
the
with
some
of
the
the
restrooms
and
and
other
access
points
to
the
building.
But
the
the
idea
with
this
particular
tree
is
that
you're
able
to
see.
J
U
And
experience
it
from
the
front
door,
and
now
anybody
is
able
to
do
that
with
with
this
proposal,
and
so
this
this
tree
is
a
critical
component
to
sort
of
the
the
design
of
the
space
you
can
see
in
as
a
point
of
reference.
The
door
is
being
shown
here.
The
opening
is
being
shown
here,
which
is
which
is
this
opening
here
and
so
again.
U
For
us,
it's
really
important
to
provide
that
that
equitable
approach
or
an
equitable
accessibility
to
this
particular
building
and
the
way
that
we
chose
to
do
that
and
and
provide
it
in
the
most
efficient
way,
is
here
on
the
western
corner.
We
recognize
the
fact
that
it
is.
U
It
is
changing,
let's
just
say,
the
the
existing
recessed
door
locations
which
are
centered
here
between
each
house
each
half
of
the
building,
but
we
think
that
it's
just
as
important
to
provide
a
space
that
is,
that
is
compliant
for
everybody,
to
experience
the
way
that
we
want
them
to
experience
it,
and
so
in
terms
of
that
accessibility
component,
it's
actually
pretty
critical
to
the
project.
U
As
far
as
the
the
the
placement
and
and
of
the
columns
and
where
those
are
located,
what
work
we're
absolutely
intending
to
to
keep
these
columns
and
keep
them
visible?
There's
we
have.
We
think
that
they're
just
as
important
to
the
building
as
you
do
and
so
we're
maintaining
those
in
the
in
holistically
in
their
in
their
exact
approach
and
one
of
the
one
of
the
things
that
has
occurred
over
the
life
cycle.
U
This
building
is
that
it
underwent
a
fairly
modern,
upgrade
and
installed
some
additional
structure
just
behind
these
columns
and
there's
these
rather
large
steel
columns
and
our
approach
is
to
attach
this
canopy
so
that
as
we
so
that
we
are
not
having
to
attach
to
any
of
the
sandstone
or
the
the
concrete
lentils
or
any
of
the
brick.
This,
this
canopy
was
really
going
to
be
cantilevered
from
the
existing
steel
columns
that
are
within
the
structure,
which
basically
allows
for
a
lot
of
that
detailing
and
existing
condition
to
remain
in
place
really
unaffected.
U
The
one
component
that
we
are
affecting
obviously
is
is
the
is
a
lot
of
the
fenestration.
We
want
to
try
to
replace
that
to
be
to
be
something
that
is
more
more
modern,
but
still
carries
a
lot
of
the
characteristics
that
that
might
have
been
experienced
back
when
this
building
was
built
right
now.
These
windows
are
all
wind:
are
wood,
they're,
all
single
pane,
they're,
highly
inefficient,
they're,
just
not
conducive
to
the
type
of
use
that
is
imposed
upon
them.
You
know
the
doors
currently
are
are
deteriorating.
U
The
window
sashes,
the
trims.
A
lot
of
that
stuff
is
deteriorating
because
they're
not
protected
by
any
sort
of
canopy
currently,
and
so
what
we
are
proposing
is
to
replace
these
a
lot
of
this
fenestration
with
with
a
window
system
that
is,
it
is
metal
that
is,
that
does
have
a
have
a
a.
J
U
U
In
terms
of
you
know,
maybe
these
muntins
are
our
thin
sight
line,
or
maybe
when
we
want
to
incorporate
something,
that's
a
little
heavier
in
these,
but
our
approach,
our
our
desired
approach-
is
to
provide
these
window
openings
with
a
fairly
high
visual
of
what's
happening
inside
the
space
because
of
the
the
time
and
effort
that
we're
that
we're
trying
to
design
this
interior
space
with
one
of
the
considerations
in
in
in
some
of
the
testimony
that
you
might
hear
tonight
is
that
the
the
the
building
had
undergone
some
renovation
in
2001
and
and
it
it
did,
do
that.
U
U
50
years
and
and
implementing
the
systems
that
we're
trying
to
implement,
we
think
will
help
encourage
that
one
of
the
other
things
that
you
might
hear
in
terms
of
testimony
is
is
some
of
the
detailing
that's
currently
in
place
as
a
point
of
reference.
U
Some
of
the
key
components
that
you
see
missing
are
the
steeple
that
no
longer
exists
this
these
dentals
that
march
across
the
top
of
the
parapet.
These
no
longer
exist,
even
the
dentals
that
occur
at
the
mid-band
on
the
height
of
the
building.
These
no
longer
exist.
U
What
we
have
now
is
a
fairly
simple,
a
simple
building
that
has
undergone
some
significant
renovation
since
its
existence.
U
D
U
Old
but
and
what's
available,
but
the
these
panelized
systems,
which
are
relatively
representative
on
the
building
now
down
low,
which
you
can
kind
of
see
here,
we
can,
in
this
particular
window
system
if
it's
desired,
bear
with
me
two
seconds.
U
With
this
particular
window
system,
again
we're
desiring
that
we
have
full
glazing
for
to
just
to
be
able
to
experience
the
interior
of
the
space.
But
if
it's,
if
it's
acceptable,
we
would
like
to
try
to
incorporate
some
panels
in
here,
also
so
that
they
are
a
metal
panel
or
they
can
even
be
wood
for
that
matter.
But
we
would
like
to
try
to
above
above
the
railing,
try
to
keep
it
fairly
transparent.
But
we
understand
that
you
know
if
it's
desired,
to
have
some
detailing
in
these
systems
that
we
can.
U
We
can
certainly
accommodate
that
we're
not
turning
our
head
to
history,
we're
just
trying
to
enhance
what
we
have
and
and
make
it
and
have
the
building
last
for
another
40
or
50
years
or
100
for
that
matter.
So
with
that,
we
appreciate
any
thoughts
or
consideration
that
the
commission
may
have.
We
are
we're
excited
about
the
project
and
we
think
it'll
be
a
great
addition
to
downtown.
V
You
go
ahead,
megan.
I
have
a
question
for
the
applicant
sure
if
he
would
just
go
to
slide
three.
I
V
Can
yeah
you
have
a
keynote
on
there
listing
the
body
of
the
facade
as
a
black
brick?
Is
that
planning
on
altering
the
whole
facade
the
whole
body
of
the
building.
U
V
U
What
we
are
proposing
is
exactly
what
is
being
suggested
in
the
conditions
of
approval.
Is
that
we
would
paint?
Well,
let
me
let
me
let
me
sort
of
back
up
a
second.
U
Would
I
love
to
paint
the
entire
building
absolutely,
but
I
think
what
what
ted
is
is
suggesting
is
also
appropriate
and
that
we
only
paint
the
brick
that
is
currently
painted
now,
as
you
can
kind
of
see
from
this
particular
perspective,
there
is
a
a
fairly
significant
portion
of
this
building
on
both
the
east
and
the
west
sides
here
and
up
here
that
are
visible
from
the
street,
not
only
the
sidewalk,
that
is
on
our
side
of
the
street,
but
the
sidewalk
that's
on
the
other
side
of
the
street.
U
So
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
just
be
compatible
with
this
is
this
is
representative
of
the
door
that
we're
proposing
to
fit
in
this
location
and
sort
of
an
iconic,
interesting,
highly
textual
door.
It
has
interesting
colors
to
it,
and
so
we're
trying
to
be
compatible
with
that,
so
I'm
open
to
discussion
there.
But
if
I
had
my
druthers
and
and
I
could
I
could
do
everything
that
I'd
ever
want
to
do.
U
I
would
rather
just
paint
the
whole
building,
but
I
understand
if
we
want
to
maintain
the
character
and
texture
of
the
existing
brick.
V
M
Madam
chairs,
this
is
commissioner
brown.
I
have
a
couple
questions
for
the
architect,
so
I
spent
probably
four
hours
looking
over
this
application
and
then
reviewing
our
guidelines.
M
I
didn't
even
look
at
the
secretary
of
the
interior
standards
for
the
treatment
of
historic
properties,
because
I
already
spent
way
too
much
time
on
this
application
and
ted.
When
I
asked
you
about,
if
you
saw
something
more
detailed
plans
than
what
I
reviewed.
M
U
U
We
feel
that
concrete's
the
most
durable
reasonable
solution
for
that
in
order
to
maintain
the
accessibility
and
the
level
with
between
between
the
two
floors,
the
floors
being
the
floor
inside
the
building
and
the
sidewalk
below
being
six
or
eight
inches
six
range,
eight
inches
below.
We
want
to
elevate
that
to
make
it
so
that
it's
one
consistent
level
and
navigable
by
a
wheelchair.
M
Yeah,
I
I
understand
the
accessibility
into
the
first
floor
and
that
makes
sense
in
that
one
entry.
So
our
guidelines
point
to.
M
2.1.42.14.4
that
sidewalk
cafe
elements
should
not
be
attached
to
the
building,
so
that
includes
the
awning
that
you're
proposing,
which
is
a
metal
awning
which
is
generally
not
appropriate,
should
be
a
fabric
awning,
and
then
the
concrete
patio.
Of
course
that
is
a
permanent
fixture
and
that
kind
of
also
goes
against.
Under
the
old
boise,
it's
generally
appropriate
to
maintain
a
continuous
straight
wall
with
zero
front
inside
setback
of
historic
properties.
On
the
block,
I
would
consider
that
you're
changing
the
street
wall.
M
If
you
look
that
entire
block,
it's
all
one
straight
wall,
except
for
where
it
steps
back
on
that
other
side
of
your
building
on
the
east
side,
I
believe
where
that
other
little
patio
was
put
in,
and
I
have
a
question
for
you
about
the
transoms
and
there's
currently,
I
believe
three
recessed
entries
on
the
front
of
the
building
is
that
correct.
U
So
right
now
there's
a
set
of
transoms
that
are,
above
all,
of
the
doors
and
above
the
lower
set
of
windows,
and
all
those
transoms
are,
let's
just
say,
flush
with
the
face
of
the
building
facade.
They
might
be
recessed
six
inches
or
so,
but
they're
not
recessed,
with
the
same
dimension
as
the
doors
themselves.
U
And
so
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
is
is
remove
the
two
entries
to
make
one
accessible
entry.
M
L
M
Have
you
reviewed
the
standards
for
the
treatment
of
historic
properties
and
the
city's
guidelines
for
commercial
properties.
J
U
I
do
I
think
that
there
there
are
some
considerations
that
we're
making
that
are
representative
of
how
a
building
can
adapt
and
how
it
still
can
be
compliant.
It
doesn't
just
because
the
building
isn't
compliant
with
every
single
standard
does
not
make
it
not
compliant
with
the
standards.
M
M
It
says
commercial
buildings
have
unique
character,
defining
elements
including
historic
storefronts
and
their
basic
elements,
bulkheads
piers
display
windows,
transoms
doors,
entrances
and
freezes,
and
these
elements
should
be
identified.
Retained,
preserved
regardless
of
first
floor
uses,
and
I
know
that
this
building
went
through
actually
in
1983
it
received
federal
tax
credit
for
its
rehabilitation
by
one
of
I
would
say,
the
pioneering
preservationist
in
boise
joan
carly.
M
You
push
to
get
the
old
boise
district
listed
in
the
national
register
and
then
subsequently
we
also
have
the
local,
the
local
district,
and
I
I,
as
a
secretary
of
the
interior,
qualified
architectural
historian,
believe
what
you
are
proposing
it.
It
doesn't
meet
the
standards.
The
materials
on
the
current
storefront
may
be
newer,
but
they
reflect
the
historic
character
of
the
building,
far
more
than
what
is
being
proposed.
M
I
also
believe
we
shouldn't
really
be
commenting
on
this
project,
because
the
plans
I
just
feel
like
they're
incomplete
they
don't
have
building
materials.
The
windows
are
not
defined.
I
know
ted
had
put
conditions
of
approval
and
one
of
those
conditions
said
we
could
have
fiberglass
windows
which
aren't
allowed
in
the
commercial
districts
in
old
boise.
M
In
this
district,
I
looked
at
the
district
in
all
there's
about
55
contributing
after
these
changes
that
are
proposed,
the
building's
not
going
to
be
contributing.
That's
a
professional
opinion.
We've
seen
this
done.
M
The
old
spaghetti
factory
was
approved
at
one
point
that
building
was
listed
in
the
national
register
as
part
of
the
old
boise
historic
district.
Those
changes
that
dramatically
alter
that
storefront
or
that
front
of
the
building
as
a
storefront.
There's
no
bowling
alley
made
that
building
non-contributing.
M
The
new
owners
asked
about
the
tax
incentives
for
the
building,
and
they
they
couldn't
do
them,
because
the
building
was
now
not
contributing
because
it
lost
its
integrity,
and
I
feel
like
out
of
all
the
buildings.
We
should
really
care
about
in
boise
it's
our
commercial
downtown
corridor
which
is
enjoyed
by
everybody.
M
M
I
think
you're
gonna
the
building
is
gonna,
be
a
non-contributing
structure,
once
you're
done.
C
Thank
you,
commissioner
brown.
Just
for
the
sake
of
time,
and
I
I
do
appreciate
your
sentiments,
I
know
commissioner
weaver
had
a
question
and
then
I
would
like
to
move
on
with
this
hearing
process.
So,
commissioner,
weaver
did
you
have
a
question.
C
A
C
C
K
You,
my
name,
is
gabby
thomason.
I
live
at
1303
north
el
dorado
street
83704,
and
I
am
here
tonight
to
speak
on
behalf
of
preservation,
idaho,
we're
concerned
with
this
application,
because
we
see
14
proposed
changes
that
are
in
conflict
with
the
city's
own
ordinances
and
design
guidelines
for
commercial
historic
districts.
K
K
We
understand
wanting
to
brand
the
restaurant,
but
it
should
be
done
in
a
manner
consistent
with
existing
styles
in
the
district
section
294
states
that
it
is
generally
appropriate
to
paint
and
coat
materials
with
muted
colors
and
paint
and
coat
doors
and
more
vivid,
colors,
section
2911
states
that
it
is
generally
not
appropriate
to
paint
or
coat
surfaces
and
bright
neon
or
reflective
colors.
This
should
be
an
easy
fix
for
the
owners.
0.2
section
3213,
the
historic
entry
pattern
will
be
altered
by
replacing
two
original
storefronts
into
a
single
entry
at
the
far
west
end.
K
This
alteration
will
not
only
relegate
historic
infrastructure
to
the
landfill.
It
will
eliminate
a
historically
significant
and
character
defining
feature
of
the
building
necessary
ada
compliance
can
be
managed
in
another
fashion,
as
is
being
done
in
other
cases.
Point
three
section:
two
fourteen
three
and
two
fourteen
four,
the
proposed
canopy
design
is
not
well
defined
in
the
plan
for
the
city
to
say
it
has
to
be
done
in
a
way
that
doesn't
permanently
impact.
K
The
building
without
requiring
specific
information
on
how
it
is
to
be
done,
means
that
if
it
needs
to
be
removed
in
one
year
or
20
years,
these
owners
may
not
be
around
to
ensure
that
it
is
or
was
done
correctly.
In
the
first
place,
the
building
will
have
been
adversely
impacted
with
no
recourse
by
the
city
and
point
number
four,
which
has
already
been
mentioned
by
ashley
section,
414,
clearly
states
that
unique
character,
defining
elements
such
as
those
we
have
discussed
should
be
identified,
retained
and
preserved
regardless
of
first
floor
uses.
K
We
support
the
reuse
of
this
space
and
these
restaurant
owners
have
a
history
of
success
in
boise,
which
we
applaud.
However,
when
businesses
propose
moving
into
existing
protected
historic
buildings,
it
is
required
that
the
city
be
diligent
and
analyzing
proposed
modifications
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
city's
codes
enforced
in
our
local
historic
districts.
A
look
at
chapters,
one
through
four
of
the
design
guidelines
for
commercial
historic
districts
shows
at
least
14
sections
where
this
design
goes
against
both
what
is
listed
respectively,
as
generally
appropriate
and
generally
not
appropriate.
K
Our
historic
buildings
must
retain
their
significance,
and
this
is
done
by
protecting
both
important
design
elements
and
historic
materials
covering
up
removing
and
permanently
altering
those
elements
and
materials
is
in
clear
opposition
to
the
city's
guidelines.
At
this
point,
the
architect
can
and
should
go
back
to
making
needed
changes.
So
we
are
asking
tonight
that
the
application
be
denied
until
necessary.
Design
changes
are
made
and
other
methodologies
are
clarified
and
we
would
be
happy
to
share
a
more
complete
list
of
our
concerns,
if
requested.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
C
Okay,
wonderful,
thank
you.
Are
there
any
final
questions
for
staff
or
the
applicants
before
the
applicant's
rebuttal?
U
U
U
There's
there
is
a
a
precedence
that
has
been
set
in
downtown
boise
to
allow
these
things.
Ccdc
is
supportive
of
these
of
these
ideas,
and
we
feel
that
the
way
that
we
are
proposing
this
particular
solution
that
we're
in
compliance
with
those
requirements
in
terms
of
of
of
you,
know,
future
owners.
You
know
taking
wanting
to
remove
the
canopy.
U
I
don't
know
why
that
would
ever
be
want
to
be
the
case,
given
that
it
provides
not
only
a
benefit
for
the
sidewalk,
but
also
for
the
facade
and
protecting
its
materials,
especially
the
columns
that
that
we
are
all
wanting
to
maintain
and
and
the
fact
that
you
know,
there's
there's
other
other
spaces
tenant
improvements,
projects
that
have
occurred
not
only
on
this
street
but
on
eighth
street,
where
canopies
have
been
included
and
and
there's
a
purpose
for
that.
U
There's
a
purpose
that
that
these
that
the
canopies
are
are
being
added
to
these
buildings
and
it's
to
save
them.
So
we
would.
We
hope
that
you
can.
You
can
see
it
in
in
from
that
perspective,
that,
by
simply
by
the
addition
of
of
including
an
element
like
this,
that
we're
actually
able
to
protect
the
things
that
we
want
to
protect
buildings
do
need
to
change
over
time.
They
need.
U
They
do
need
to
adapt
to
energy
considerations
and
accessibility,
considerations
and-
and
those
are
the
things
that
were
we're
trying
to
be
responsive
to
in
order
to
keep
these
buildings
relevant
and
keep
them
alive.
So
as
far
as
the
patio
is
concerned,
and-
and
it
being
let's
just
say,
permanent-
our
our
current
proposal
is
that
it
is
concrete
if
there
is
a
and
that's
that's
simply
to
maintain
efficiency
and
and
and
equitable
elevation
between
this,
this,
what
would
be
the
sidewalk
and
and
the
building
floor?
U
So
if
there's,
if
there's
another
alternative,
you
know
if
we
go
to
something
that
is,
is
more
of
a
a
a
framed
situation
that
can
be
applied
on
top
of
the
brick
that
if,
if
after
this
particular
owner
is,
is
looking
at
a
another
doing
another
project
somewhere
else
and
wants
to
move
out
of
this
particular
space,
we
can
easily
remove
it
away
from
the
brick.
I
I
wouldn't
get
hung
up
on
the
idea
that
that
the
concrete
is
what
is
in
our
proposal.
U
That's
what
we
would
like,
so
we're
we're
proposing
it
now,
if,
if
it's,
if
that's
something
that
can
be
remedied
through
a
condition,
then
we're
we're
open
to
a
suggestion
like
that.
Absolutely
but
again,
we
think
that
our
our
proposal
is
complementary
and
we
hope
that
you
see
it
the
same
way
that
we
do.
Thank
you.
C
E
Chair
just
a
note
to
staff
that
if
you
could
change
the
screen
sharing
option
ted
because
we
are
currently
seeing
the
applicant
screen.
Thank
you.
M
M
That
aren't
are
not
appropriate
and
I
don't
know
if
something's
not
appropriate,
why
we
continue
to
allow
it
to
be
done.
I
think
the
purpose
of
our
commission
is
to
uphold
the
guidelines
in
the
commercial
district
guidelines
or
the
residential
district
guidelines,
meaning
the
city
adopted
the
standards
for
rehabilitation,
the
secretary
standards
and
when
it's
clear
that
there
are
many
issues
with
this
project
issues,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
that
the
building
will
be
non-contributing.
M
C
N
Chair,
I
just
want
to
ask
commissioner
brown
a
question.
I
am
I'm
fully
in
support
of
making
these
historic
buildings
accessible.
I
think
you
know
voices
changing.
You
know
we
want
people
to
to
have
access
to
downtown
right.
We
want
every.
We
want
universal
design
and
everybody
have
access
to
things.
So
I'm
wondering
commissioner
brown,
just
from
your
professional
perspective,
like
what
are
the
big
no-nos
that
are
happening
here,
that
we
can
kind
of
like
talk
through
just
help
educate
me.
Please.
M
Sure
so
one
of
the
things
that
I
brought
up
and
also
preservation
idaho
had
brought
up
was
that
we're
changing
the
sprint
of
the
land.
So,
as
I
mentioned,
93
the
building
was
rehabilitated
using
the
federal
tax
incentives,
and
that
process
is
not
easy.
It's
I
don't
know
if
anybody's
actually
done
through.
M
Text
projects
danielle,
I
think
you
maybe
have
had
some
projects
and
it's
it's
not
an
easy,
easy
task
to
to
do
and
the
building.
Currently
it
has
more
his
compatible
historic
materials
design
than
what
they're
proposing.
So
the
one
is
changing
the
entries.
The
other
is
the
light
pattern.
M
M
M
It's
a
concrete
patio.
I
think.
If
you've
looked
at
the
building,
I
walked
down
to
that
building
today,
there's
currently
a
patio
area
there,
and
it
is
it's
not
raised.
I
don't
think
it
needs
to
be
raised.
You
can
access
it
right
off
the
street
if
they're
proposing
to
put
a
ramp
on
that
one
side,
I
think
that's
acceptable
to
access
the
building
in
this
field.
We
always
struggle
with
vda
access
and
there
are
allowances
for
that
that
you
can
do
and
then
the
metal
awning
is.
B
I
appreciate
that
commissioner
brown,
I'm
good.
I
I'm
interested
because,
based
on
the
conditions
of
approval
by
staff,
I
see
I
mean
so
when
I
read
this
application.
I
had
no
concerns
with
it,
based
on
the
recommendations
of
the
staff
recognizing
that
they
clearly
articulated
that
things
were
of
concern
such
as,
like
the
patio
and
then
the
canopy
was
to
be
installed
in
a
way,
that's
minimum
intact
to
the
brick
so
that
not
to
destroy
architectural
details.
B
So
it
seems
conflicting
to
me
the
information
that
is
written
versus
what
we're
discussing
now
and
so
because
I'm
comfortable
with
the
proposed
I
mean
I
I
don't
know
the
details
of
like
I'm
fine
if
we
need
to
propose
color
detail,
changes
of
that
nature,
but
the
conditions
of
approval
I
supported
because
I
felt
like,
but
I
don't
know
when
you
say
it's
gonna
mean
it's
moving
from
a
contributing
to
a
non-contributing.
B
I
I
don't
see
how
that
could
be,
and
maybe
that's
just
because
it
hasn't
been
reassessed
to
determine
that
and
that's
based
on
your
professional
expert
expertise
that
you
bring
that
you
would
think
that
if
it
was
reassessed,
it
wouldn't
uphold
that
for
which
I
would
have
concerns
with.
But
I
would
think
that
the
staff
would
think
about
the
proposed
recommendations
in
a
way
that
would
lend
to
it
continuously
being
a
contributing
structure,
not
making
it
a
non-contributing.
G
When
I
originally
initially
reviewed
the
application,
that
was
my
first
concern
was:
oh,
my
gosh
there's
so
many
changes
here.
This
building
is
not
going
to
be
contributing
any
longer
and
which
was
why
I
asked
staff
that
originally
and
right-
and
I
you
know
with
commissioner
brown's
sentiments-
I
think
that
it
sounds
like
that
could
be
the
case
I
mean
I
don't
know
you
know
when
or
who
or
how
that
would
ever
be,
that
determination
would
ever
be
made,
but
it
does
feel
like
there's.
G
You
know
enough
changes
to
the
facade
that
would
you
know
potentially
change
the
character
of
the
building.
I
do
applaud
the
applicant
for
trying
attempting
to
fully
integrate
accessibility
into
the
building.
I
do
know
it's
difficult
and
I
know
that
the
existing
building
codes
do
allow
some
concessions
to
that
and
I
think
it's
so
important
to
make
a
building
accessible.
G
You
know,
and
so
I
applaud
that-
I
I
just
think
there
are
probably
other
ways
to
be
able
to
keep
the
charac
existing
character
of
the
building
and
and
still
integrate
that
accessibility
into
the
building
it
just
you
know,
would
have
to
be
thought
out
about
a
little
bit
more
than
what
we
could
come
up
with
tonight.
I'm
sure
thank
you.
E
Of
site
my
comments
on
this
well,
personally,
I
want
to
go
there
and
I'll
go
eat.
I
want
to
sit
on
the
patio.
I.
E
Everything
we
have
with
the
city,
it's
it's
it's
a
great
place,
but
as
far
as
as
as
far
as
some
of
the
points.
J
G
E
And
commissioner
brown,
I
think
you
know
I'm
I'm.
I
would
not
be
in
support
of
this
at
this
current
time,
but
in
in
saying
that
I
think
it'd
be
nice.
E
If
you
know
we
could
suggest
to
the
applicant
if,
if
denial
did
happen
in
this
case,
that
the
app
can
go
back
and
and
work
with
the
preservation,
idaho
and
and
sit
down
and
work
with
the
old
boise
historic
district
association
and
and
and
go
over
some
of
these
things
together
and
come
back
to
us
with
a
proposal
that,
hopefully
all
those
parties
have
come
to
some
conclusion
on
that
they
would
agree
on
and
and
if
there.
E
Tonight,
to
deny
this,
I
think
maybe
commissioner
brown
be
best
making
it,
because
she
had
some
references,
but
I
think
it's
important
that
we
reference
the
articles
in
our
guidelines
that
this
project
doesn't
meet
for
denial.
So
the
applicant
can
take
that
back
and
and
call
up
these
other
parties
and
work
together
on
coming
to
a
solution
to
bring
it
back
to
us
so
that.
M
I
guess
I
will
make
the
motion.
Can
you
guys
hear
me
all
right?
Yes,
my
microphone
keeps
cutting
out.
So
sorry,
I
motion
to
deny
dhr
20-00542
I'll
try
to
get
the
biggest
points
for
not
meeting
1.6.1.4,
maintaining
a
continuous
straight
wall
with
a
zero
front
and
side
setback
of
historic
properties
in
the
block.
C
Thank
you.
Do
I
have
a
second
I'll.
Second,
thank
you,
commissioner
weaver
victoria.
Would
you
please
call
the
roll.
C
A
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
This
is
a
request
to
construct
a
rear
edition,
full
basement
and
front
porch
on
a
non-contributing
house
in
harrison
boulevard.
A
This
property
was
reviewed
a
couple
of
months
ago
by
the
commission
and
at
that
time
it
included
a
two-story
garage
with
adu
that
was
really
out
of
massing
in
character
with
the
the
property
that,
with
along
with
some
plans
that
weren't
completely
clear
and
higher
lot
coverage.
All
that
combined
caused
the
commission
to
deny
the
project.
A
The
garage
is
no
longer
a
part
of
the
project,
so
the
garage
the
existing
garage
will
remain
so
the
project
just
includes
a
260
square
foot,
rear
edition,
as
well
as
the
front
porch
here
fronting
harrison
boulevard,
and
this
is
the
street
side
so
and
then
a
basement
a
full
basement
expansion
as
you'll
see.
This
is
another
pretty
tight,
substandard
corner
lot.
A
Corner
lots
are
a
little
bit
different
because
they
require
higher
setbacks
off
of
the
street,
so
it
has
to
have
a
15-foot
street
setback.
So
the
house
current
house
doesn't
meet
that
setback,
so
the
existing
house
is
already
in
violation
of
the
setbacks.
A
A
However,
the
rear
addition
will
count
towards
lock
coverage
and,
due
to
the
tight
nature
of
this
lot,
that
260
foot
square
foot
addition
on
the
rear
does
kick
lock
coverage
up
to
39,
which
is
four
percent
over
our
our
requirement
or
our
guidance
at
35.
C
Thank
you
ted.
I
do
have
one
question.
Perhaps
it
could
be
a
prophylactic
situation.
Could
you
pull
up
those
conditions
of
approval
that
are
in
the
staff
report
so
that
the
applicant
can
review
them.
A
Bring
those
up
they
are
in
the
summary
for
the
project
so
as
you'll
see
standard
conditions
that
we
have
on
a
lot
of
these
applications
dealing
with
the
materials
of
citing
in
windows.
A
But
the
main
one
is
that
the
setbacks,
so
those
street
side
setbacks
do
need
to
be
met
or
a
variance
applied
for.
So
in
this
case,
if
the
commission
approves
the
application,
the
next
step
would
be
to
get
a
variance
for
the
for
those
street
side,
setbacks
which
I
think
there's
a
a
case
that
could
be
made
for
it.
A
Just
due
to
the
tight,
the
the
existing
house
already
encroaches
into
the
setback,
and
so
I
think
there
is
probably
a
case
to
be
made
for
approval
of
those
variances,
but
that'll
have
to
be
approved
by
the
planning
and
zoning
commission.
C
O
Well,
thank
you
for
your
time
again
tonight,
I'm
more
than
prepared
to
do
an
in-depth
presentation
to
kind
of
give
some
more
background
on
our
presentation,
but
we
are
prepared.
I
am
prepared
to
accept
the
conditions
of
approval
that
are
outlined
in
the
staff
report,
supporting
approval
of
our
project,
so
if
that
makes
it
easier,
we
certainly
accept
those
or,
if
you'd
like
me,
to
proceed
with
a
supporting
presentation.
I
can
do
that.
C
I
think,
for
the
sake
of
time,
if
you
are
in
agreement,
we
can
accept
that
as
your
testimony
and
then
move
forward
with
the
rest
of
the
hearing
process.
C
Sounds
great,
thank
you.
Are
there
any
questions
for
staff
for
the
applicant.
C
C
Great
thank
you
josh,
seeing
that
we
don't
have
anyone
willing
to
testify.
C
Okay,
with
that,
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing
and
we'll
consider
a
motion.
E
Madam
chair,
this
is
commissioner
koski.
E
I
just
want
to
say
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
to
the
applicant
and
paul
and
tammy
and
and
your
contractor
joe,
for
coming
back
to
us.
It
was
after
the
last
time
you
were
here.
You
know
I
didn't
didn't,
didn't
want
to
be
upsetting
to
you
at
all,
but
we
had
a
lot
of
discrepancies,
I
think,
and
at
least
with
the
with
the
garage
and
with
the
setbacks
and
and
with
drawings,
particularly
the
din
map.
E
So
I
I
want
to
thank
you
so
much
for
coming
back
with
accurate
drawings
and
more
details,
so
we
can
accurately
take
a
look
at
this,
and
with
that
I
would
like
to
move
for
approval
of.
B
I
D
I
C
In
favor
motion
carries
thank
you
so
much.
That
concludes
our
hearing
for
this
evening.
Thank
you
all
for
your
time,
and
we
will
see
you
february.