►
From YouTube: Historic Preservation Commission
Description
March 28, 2022
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
hopefully
didn't
or
interrupt
your
your
dinner
too
much
just
wanted
to
run
through
the
agenda.
Real
quick
won't
take
long,
five
items
tonight.
Item
number
one
is
the
reconstruct
the
front
porch
on
22nd
street
in
the
late
correspondence
package
that
was
sent
out
to
you
on
friday.
There
were
some
comments
of
support
from
nina
staff,
did
not
have
any
concerns
with
this
application.
We
would
propose
it
for
the
consent
agenda
unless
there's
any
objections.
C
B
Item
number
two:
we
will
hear
that
is
the
item
last
month
that
there
was
the
conflicting
historic
surveys.
We
have
some
information
in
the
project
report
and
some
guidance
for
you.
So
we'll
we'll
definitely
hear
that
one
at
number
three.
I
would
recommend
moving
to
the
front
of
the
agenda
just
as
an
order
of
business.
It
isn't
a
public
hearing,
it's
ratification
of
findings,
so
you
don't
need
to
open
it
up
for
public
testimony
or
anything.
B
C
B
It's
probably
just
something
that
we
don't
do.
A
ton
of
you
know
in
in
either
case
whether
it's
staff
recommended
approval
and
it
was
denied
or
staff
recommended
denial,
and
it
was
approved
in
either
case.
We
don't
have
findings
in
the
record
that
support
that
decision.
So
we
go
back
draft
those
based
on
your
discussion
and
bring
them
to
you.
This
was
a
case
where
staff
recommended
denial
and
it
was
ultimately
approved.
B
Item
number
four:
we
will
hear
and
item
number
five
will
be
here
so
with
that
that's
all
I
had.
I
just
thought
I
would
would
mention
our
senior
historic
planner
resigned,
unfortunately,
is
no
longer
with
the
city,
so
we
are
in
search
of
a
historic
preservation,
planner
again
so
kind
of
looking
at
how
to
broaden
our
scope
really
get
some
high
quality
candidates
in
here,
hopefully
to
have
that
staff
back
up
soon,
but
you're
stuck
with
me
for
in
the
meantime.
A
D
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
Front
elevation
shows
that
expanded
concrete
porch
to
the
to
the
left
of
the
door.
If
you're
looking
at
the
property
from
the
street
some
photos
of
the
existing
house
showing
that
existing
concrete
stoop
and
brick
steps
that
would
be
proposed
to
be
removed
and
replaced
with
that
staff
has
recommended
approval
application
and
found
that
it
complies
with
the
residential
guidelines.
And
I
would
stand
for
any
questions.
D
D
D
F
F
H
F
Have
anywhere
out
there
to
sit
and
chat
with
our
neighbors,
so
that's
the
reason
for
the
expansion.
That's
that's
about
it.
We
made
it
a
little
bit
lower
so
that
we
can
avoid
having
a
guardrail
around
it
technically
should
have
a
guardrail
around
it
now
because
it's
that
high,
but
it
looks
like
at
some
point
in
the
past
that
guardrail
was
taken
down
so
other
than
the
the
widening
this
stoop.
That
was
that's
the
only
change
that
we've
proposed
and
I
guess
I'll
just
stand
for
whatever
questions
you
guys
might
have.
A
C
F
H
B
Madam
chair
nina
submitted
some
comments
for
me
to
read
into
the
record
so
I'll
go
ahead
and
do
that
now
please
so
nina
said
generally,
we
have
concerns
about
changes
that
could
impact
the
status
of
a
contributing
home.
But
that
being
said,
we
do
love
a
front
porch.
This
one
appears
quite
low
profile
as
well
as
removable,
if
needed.
So
if
the
commission
feels
confident
this
modification
would
not
jeopardize
the
home's
contributing
status,
we
support
this
application.
A
A
Okay,
miss
algar.
If
you'd
like
you,
have
five
minutes
for
a
bottle
or
you
can
yield
your
time
I'll,
just
I'll
yield
my
time.
Thank
you.
So
much
with
that,
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing
and
we'll
consider
a
motion.
We
can
have
a
motion
then
some
discussion.
We
can
just
jump
into
discussion.
A
C
I
I
think
it's
whenever
you,
whenever
you
got
a
contributing
structure
and
we're
adding
something
to
the
front
of
it.
I
think
it's
a
very
significant
thing
to
consider,
and
normally
normally
I
wouldn't-
I
wouldn't
be
a
fan
of
this,
but
being
that
it's
a
concrete
stoop
that
is
more
or
less
free
from
the
house.
It
doesn't
involve
any
anything
attached
to
the
house,
any
they're,
not
changing
the
door,
they're,
not
changing,
railings
they're,
not
putting
a
roof
over
it.
All
it
is,
is
a
new
set
of
concrete
steps.
A
little
wider.
C
I
Madam
chair
I'll
just
build
off
of
what
commissioner
koski
said.
I
appreciate
that
they
lowered
the
steps
two
feet
so
that
they
don't
have
to
have
that
guard
rail
and
I
feel
like
that,
helps
to
preserve
that
facade
and
there's
nothing.
That's
going
to
be
interfering
with
you
know
the
original
look
of
the
house,
fantastic.
B
B
It's
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
to
demolish
an
existing
single-family,
home
and
construct
a
new
single-family
residence
is
in
the
north
end
historic
district
and
the
historic
survey
on
file
with
the
city
indicates.
It
is
not
contributing
as
a
reminder.
It's
located
at
the
northwest
corner
of
pueblo
and
north
4th
street
in
the
east
end
or
sorry,
the
north
end,
and
it
is
a
corner
lot.
B
B
Last
month,
right
before
the
hearing,
it
was
discovered
that
the
historic
survey
on
file
with
shippo
does
conflict
with
the
one
on
file
with
the
city,
the
applicant
requested,
contributing
or
non-contributing
status
from
the
city,
and
we
provided
the
copy
on
file
that
we
had.
That
indicates
that
the
property
is
not
contributing.
B
B
I
will
point
out
that
the
shippo
copy
does
have
the
typewritten
x
typical
on
the
rest
of
the
survey
form,
whereas
the
city
one
is
a,
is
a
written
in
pen
in
the
non-contributing
category
you
know.
Certainly
we
could
have
accidentally
got
a
blank
form
that
somebody
mistakenly
filled
out
is
kind
of
the
best
explanation.
We
can
really
offer
up
as
detailed
in
the
project
report.
B
This
is
the
commission's
purview
to
determine
status
based
on
these
surveys
and
that
the
really
the
the
implications
of
that
are
the
required
findings
for
demolition
of
the
existing
structure.
The
existing
house,
if
it
is
determined
by
this
commission
to
be
non-contributing
these
threshold
for
demolition,
is
certainly
much
easier
to
gain.
You
have
to
meet
three
of
the
five
findings
for
demolition.
B
It's
kind
of
you
know
they
have
not
provided
a
financial
analysis,
which
is
one
of
the
findings,
so
that
one
is
clearly
not
met,
but
really
it's
that
impact
on
the
district
that
the
demolition
of
a
contributing
home
would
have
would
be
the
finding
that
you
would
need
to
make
a
positive
finding
on
order
in
order
to
approve
this
proposed
demolition.
So
that's
the
decision.
C
B
B
E
B
B
You
know,
and
we
we
have
those
on
file
with
the
city
for
convenience.
I
mean
we
look
at
historic
surveys,
whether
it's
through
phone
call
inquiries,
email
inquiries,
people
wondering
the
status
of
their
property
multiple
times
a
day
and
to
kind
of
cross-check.
Those
with
with
the
idaho
with
shippo's
database
would
be
fairly
time
consuming.
So
very
rarely.
A
A
K
Well,
good
evening,
members
of
the
commission,
my
name
is
kirsten
wallace
with
wallace
custom
design
and
renovation.
My
address
is
816
north
haynes
street
boise,
idaho
83712,
and
I'm
on
here
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
hph
properties
lp.
I
just
want
to
start
where
and
thank
you
very
much
for
reconsidering
this
application.
K
Ever
having
had
this
happen
before
wallace
custom
design
and
renovation
has,
I
can't
even
tell
you
how
many
applications
we've
submitted
before
the
commission
wallace
custom
design
has
been
in
business,
renovating
homes
in
the
north
end
since
2000,
which
is
just
after
these
surveys
were
conducted
and
just
prior
to
the
passage
of
the
ordinance
that
established
the
district
and,
in
my
experience
same
with
staff.
I
have
never
seen
this
happen
and
nor
have
I
ever
been
provided
with
any
conflicting
survey
that
might
be
on
file
at
shippo.
K
K
K
Furthermore,
staff
did
not
uncover
any
objective
evidence
explaining
the
reason
for
the
discrepancy
and
it's
equally
as
likely
that
the
document
on
file
with
the
city
is
quote
unquote.
The
original
document
no
one's
brought
forth
any
evidence
that
there
is
that
one
of
these
two
competing
documents
is
the
original
versus
the
other.
K
Another
point
I
want
to
touch
upon
is
that
you
know
a
lot
of
times.
We
see.
Oh,
you
know
the
age
of
the
home,
it's
old,
so
therefore
it's
contributing
well.
I
would
submit
that.
That's
not
the
only
factor
here.
The
historic
preservation
guidelines
indicate
that
the
home
must
have
been
present
during
the
period
of
significance
and
possess
historic
integrity,
reflecting
its
character
at
that
time.
K
Boise
city
code,
11-12-04,
is
where
that
provision
is
found.
The
period
of
significance
for
the
residential
historic
district
in
the
north
end
begins
in
1878
and
derives
its
significance
and
character
from
groupings
of
20th
century
architecture
and
styles
typical
include
queen
anne
tudor
revival,
colonial
revival,
ranch
and,
of
course,
minimal.
K
Traditional,
it's
not
necessarily
a
style,
but
it's
sort
of
like
the
default
style
when
you
can't
when
it
doesn't
really
meet
any
of
the
characteristics
of
one
of
the
more
ornate
styles,
this
particular
building
was
not
built
until
1940
and
in
1941
the
attached
garage
was
added.
It's
not
necessarily
what
I
see
typical
of
a
minimal
traditional
house
present
in
the
north
end
historic
district,
namely
because
it's
described
as
having
aluminum
siding,
concrete
basement,
asphalt,
roofing
and
those
materials
are
not
representative
of
buildings
that
were
built
during
the
period
of
significance.
K
In
the
memorandum
I
submitted
to
the
commissioners
before
the
hearing,
I
provided
some
links
to
some
photographs
of
typical,
minimal
traditional
homes,
and
you
normally
see
sort
of
a
asymmetrical
front,
facade
windows
that
are
double
hung
or
multi-pane,
typical
to
the
style
and
sort
of
a,
even
though
it's
maybe
maybe
not
ornate,
there's
still
a
defining
facade,
typically
represented
by
some
sort
of
a
bump
out
or
a
front
porch
or
something
of
that
nature.
This
has
none
of
those
characteristics.
K
Staff
indicated
also
that
the
commission
may
still
approve
a
finding
of
demolition,
provided
the
applicant
meets
the
findings
under
that
city
code
provision.
I
would
disagree
that
it
would
be
procedurally
improper
at
this
point
to
consider
a
change
in
status.
There's
no
application
for
a
change
in
status
before
the
commission
and
code
section
110509.7
prescribes
the
procedure
for
doing
that,
and
that
is
not
what
what
is
before
the
commission.
K
And
there's
also
a
caveat
that
says:
you
know
any
building
that
is
located
within
the
designated
historic
district
may,
on
its
50th
anniversary,
be
deemed
contributing,
if
it
wasn't
so
before
that,
but
there's
a
caveat
for
that
as
well,
and
it
requires
a
survey
and
public
process
as
outlined
in
that
provision.
That
process
is
not
what
we're
here
for
we're
here
on
an
application
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness.
K
The
condition
of
the
property
report
that
owner
also
said
that
yes,
it's
in
a
historic
district,
but
it's
non-contributing
and
then
before
purchasing
the
property
and
before
even
drawing
up
plans.
Wallace,
custom
design
and
renovation
also
verified
the
condition
of
this
property
and
its
non-contributing
status.
And
I
have
an
email
from
the
planning
staff
that
says.
Yep
non-contributing
go
ahead
should
be
good
to
go
as
long
as
you
comply
with
district
guidelines,
which
I
think
wallace
and
the
draftsman
did.
K
At
this
point,
financial
resources
have
been
committed
to
develop
plans
based
upon
the
property's,
designation
and
reliance
upon
code,
section
1103,
0.20,
b7,
b3
a1,
and
I
would
submit
that
the
applica.
The
applicant
should
not
be
penalized
for
the
government's
mistake
in
this
case,
because
that's
clearly
what's
what
what
this
is.
K
K
So
while
the
city
and
the
state
may
impose
land
restrictions
to
enhance
quality
of
life
by
preserving
the
character
and
desirable
aesthetic
features
of
certain
neighborhoods,
the
impact
of
restrictions
have
to
be
considered
in
the
factual
context,
and
here
reclassifying
this
building.
When
there's
no
application
before
the
commission
or
a
request
to
do
so,
and
there's
been
no
member
of
the
public
that
has
submitted
any
opposition
to
this
project
would
effectively
penalize
only
the
applicant
in
this
case,
and
it
would
seriously
interfere
with
the
applicant's
primary
expectation
concerning
the
use
of
the
property.
K
So
we
respectfully
request
that
the
historic
commission
approve
the
application
for
a
certificate
of
appropriate
appropriateness
to
demolish
the
existing
building
and
construct
a
single-family
residence
on
property
in
an
r1ch
single-family
residential
with
historic
overlay
zone.
And
with
that
I
will
answer
any
questions.
B
Madam
chair
again,
I
have
some
written
comments
from
nina
to
read
into
record
before
that,
though
I
will
say
in
your
late
correspondence
you
received
on
friday.
There
is
some
information
from
the
applicant
with
the
mls
listing
and
some
statements
the
legal
memo
she
referenced.
I
did
not
receive
until
just
before
the
hearing.
I
have
not
had
time
to
to
look
into
that,
but
with
that
being
said,
here
are
nina's
comments,
as
was
our
testimony.
Last
month,
aside
from
a
few
quibbles
on
design,
we
support
this
application.
A
L
This
is
britney
stigliano
403,
north
mobley
drive
boise
83712.
This
evening
I
will
be
testifying
on
behalf
of
preservation,
idaho,
with
regards
to
this
project.
It
is
an
absolute
series
of
unfortunate
events.
However,
we
have
seen
discrepancies
like
this
come
before
the
commission
before,
while
they
are
few
and
far
between.
Fortunately
and
rare,
you
do
have
a
a
survey
before
you
from
the
state
historic
preservation
office
of
idaho,
that
is
typed
and
not
handwritten.
L
I
would
encourage
the
commission
to
accept
that,
as
it
is
part
of
the
record
and
and
value
the
typed
legal
document,
that's
before
you,
as
opposed
to
a
a
handwritten
document.
This
is
this
is
a
clear
reason
and
I
will
be
testifying
later,
but
and
you'll
I'll
be
a
broken
record
by
the
end
of
the
night.
This
is
a
very
clear
reason
why
it's
so
important
that
the
city
must
finally
take
upon
on
upon
itself
doing
resurvey
of
our
historic
districts.
L
This
is
unfortunate
for
the
neighborhood
and
for
the
homeowner.
However,
I
will
say
this
is
still
not
a
reason
for
demolition.
This
house
does
have
a
contributing
factor
to
the
neighborhood
as
a
whole,
and
while
we
do
look
at
homes
individually,
it's
important
to
look
at
the
impact
that
a
demolition
of
a
home
in
a
historic
district
has
on
the
district
of
a
whole.
L
A
K
K
This
is
the
government's
mistake
and
the
government
should
remedy
it,
and
I
agree
with
what
preservation
idaho
recommends
and
that
is
to
re
to
redo
a
survey
of
the
entire
north
end.
It's
been
over
20
years,
and
if
there
are
more
of
these
errant
shippo
surveys,
they
probably
are
out
there
and
haven't
been
found
and
to
penalize
this
applicant,
because
this
shippo
survey
was
found.
That
is
unfair.
K
There
was
a
reference
made
to
the
legal
document,
there's
no
evidence
as
to
which
document
is
quote
unquote.
The
legal
document
we
don't
know
which
document
is
the
right
one,
but
the
code
says
that
everyone
is
entitled
to
rely
on
the
document.
That's
on
file
with
planning
and
development
services,
and
that's
the
one
that
says
the
home
is
not
contributing.
K
K
I
don't
know
what
percentage
of
properties
are
contributing
and
non-contributing
and
there's
been
no
and
there's
been
no
testimony
or
evidence
regarding
that
or
what
the
effect
of
demolition
of
this
particular
property
would
have
on
the
district,
especially
since
the
record
of
survey
on
file
with
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
planning
and
development
services
says
it's
non-contributing,
so
until
unless
and
until
there's
evidence
presented.
Regarding
that,
I
don't
think
the
commission
can
make
a
determination
regarding
the
impact
of
demolition
on
the
district
as
a
whole.
And
that
concludes
my
my
presentation.
A
A
I
personally
would
like
to
ask
legal
a
question.
I
suppose,
can
you
speak
to
the
commission's
power
on
determining
contributing
status
based
on
the
survey
that
was
presented
from
shippo?
Do
we
have
the
authority,
as
was
mentioned
in
in
the
preservation
idaho
testimony?
Do
we
have
the
authority
to
accept
that
as
findings
to
deny
this
application.
M
A
C
C
That's
not
that's!
Not
the
process
for
the
applicant
to
go
through,
it
doesn't
say
contact
shippo
to
see
if
it's
contributing
it
says,
contact
your
city
government,
so
I
I
will
be
in
favor
of
approving
this
because
of
that.
It's
a
terrible
error.
I'd
hate
to
see
a
contributing
host
goal,
but
they've
gone
through
the
process
and
we've,
given
them
the
answers
as
a
city,
and-
and
that
would
be
my
reasons
for
approving
it.
E
E
A
A
D
C
D
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission.
The
applicant
has
requested
to
construct
a
second
story
edition
and
change
the
character,
defining
facade
on
a
property
in
the
warm
springs,
historic
district,
and
it
is
classified
as
contributing
the
application
or
the
star.
The
subject.
Property
is
located
on
the
south
side
of
warm
springs
very
near
the
intersection
of
elm
avenue.
B
The
applicant's
proposal
is
to
construct
a
two-story
addition
on
the
rear
and
visible
from
the
front
of
the
residence
which
would
connect
that
detached
garage
to
the
existing
structure
and
add
a
second
floor
to
both
the
garage
and
a
portion
of
the
main
home.
This
is
the
existing
house.
It
is
a
colonial
revival.
B
You
can
see
from
the
rear
view
that
that
is
actually
not
not
attached
to
the
home
as
it
would
appear
from
the
street,
and
additionally,
there
is
a
carport
that
doesn't
it
does
show
up
in
the
existing
drawing
here
that
would
be
proposed
for
removal
as
part
of
the
project.
So
the
proposal
would
add
that
second
story
in
the
location
of
the
garage
and
again
onto
the
rear
of
the
home,
connecting
them
adding
square
footage.
B
The
residential
guidelines
for
historic
districts
have
a
lot
of
discussion
and
guidelines
around
massing.
You
know
staff
does
find
that
the
massing
of
the
proposal
is
appropriate.
The
two-story
addition
to
the
garage
and
to
the
rear
of
the
home
is
certainly
in
character,
with
the
existing
home
and
in
character
with
surrounding
properties.
B
What
the
residential
guidelines
do,
however,
is
strongly
discourage
attached
garages
specifically,
they
find
it
is
not
appropriate
to
design
and
construct
a
garage
as
part
of
the
primary
building.
Primary
buildings
should
not
have
garages
that
access
from
the
front
elevation
or
public
right-of-way
with
this
home,
not
having
an
alley
and
only
having
access
on
warm
springs.
B
For
that
reason,
although
you
know
we
do
find
that
that
massing
and
height
that
they're,
adding
to
the
garage
and
primary
structure
is
appropriate,
we
find
that
the
proposal
to
attach
the
connect,
the
detached
garage,
the
primary
structure,
is
not
appropriate
and
should
be
denied.
The
commission
could
direct
the
applicant
to
bring
back
a
revised
plan
that
would
meet
the
guidelines
based
on
discussion
tonight,
approve
the
application
as
submitted
or
deny
the
application
and
ask
the
applicant
to
come
back
with
a
completely
revised
proposal.
So
with
that,
I
will
stand
for
any
questions.
G
I'm
brian
lonnis
we're
at
905
east
warm
springs,
and
I
would
like
to
say
first
and
foremost,
we
love
our
home.
We
love
the
historical
value
of
our
home
in
any
renovations
to
the
inside
that
we've
done.
We
have
done
what
we
could
to
maintain
the
historical
value
of
the
home
even
to
the
extent
of
remodeling
a
bathroom,
putting
the
exact
same
tile
back
up
just
because
it
was
worn,
but
we
found
the
same
tile.
We
were
able
to
put
fresh
kind
of
fresh
knit
up
and
we
really
love
it.
G
G
We
would
like
to
remove
that
as
a
part
of
removing
that
we
do
need
additional
parking
space.
We
also
have
you
know
four
children,
and
so
is
the
gentleman
over
there
just
talked
about
masking
being
appropriate.
We
really
worked
hard
to
come
up
with
a
plan
that
would
maintain
the
historical
value
of
the
home.
G
G
We
work
really
hard
to
to
pair
those
together,
and
so
we,
with
stone
design,
came
up
with
a
plan
that
we
thought
and
still
do
strongly
believe,
maintains
the
historical
value
of
the
home
while
allowing
us
to
raise
our
children
and
and
have
the
space
that
we
need
in
the
home
and
again
no
visible
difference.
We
feel
from
the
street
there's
still
a
setback.
J
N
Yeah,
I
think
that
the
carport
being
gone,
and
we
need
that
additional
parking,
the
actual
structure
of
the
garage
will
not
be
attached
to
the
main
structure
of
the
home.
It'll
be
coming
off
of
the
sunroom,
which
is
behind
the
home
and
so
visually.
As
my
husband
said
from
the
street,
the
effect
is,
is
very,
very
minimally
different
and
our
home
being
set
so
far
back
it.
N
It
really
gives
the
same
same
feeling,
I
feel
like
a
marriage
of
both
worlds.
We
absolutely
fell
in
love
with
our
home
because
it
was
pretty
untouched.
There
were
50s
updates,
but
the
90s
had
never
got
to
it
and
it
was
really
just
historically
preserved
beautifully,
and
we
want
to
honor
that
and
honor
the
fact
that
it
is
30s
and
get
rid
of
the
the
70s
carport
and
just
kind
of
open
it
up
to
the
neighborhood
a
little
bit
more.
We
yeah
that's.
E
N
G
N
We're
not
yeah
the
existing
garage
is
not
being
changed
in
fact,
we're
coming
forward
and
jogging
a
little
bit
to
deal
with
property
lines.
So
it's
not
going
to
be
touched
because
it
is
part
of
the
historical
register.
That
was
a
big
point
when
we
were
talking
to
amy
at
the
historical
society,
not
to
touch
that
just
to
add
on
so
the
visually
is
the
same,
but
that
remains
untouched
and
completely
original
fantastic.
A
E
Good
evening,
madam
chair
and
commissioners,
my
name
is
sheila
grisham.
I
live
at
1204,
east
state
street
boise
83712,
and
tonight
I
am
testifying
on
behalf
of
the
easton
neighborhood
association.
905.
East
warm
springs
is
a
contributing
home
to
the
warm
streams,
warm
springs,
historic
district
and
it's
on
the
national
historic
dis
register.
E
It's
a
colonial
revival
and
it
seems
to
be
in
beautiful
condition.
Ina
is
not
opposed
to
them.
Taking
down
the
carport,
we
actually
think
that
this
will
enhance
the
home
and
we
are
not
opposed
to
an
addition
to
the
back
of
the
house.
However,
we
are
concerned
with
the
attachment
of
the
garage
to
the
house
and
that
it
could
possibly
change
its
contributing
status
from
contributing
to
non-contributing,
and
so
therefore,
we
cannot
support
the
attached
garage
portion
of
the
proposal.
E
L
Good
evening,
brittany
sigliano
again,
I
trust
that
if
you
cannot
hear
me
you'll,
let
me
know
403
north
mobley
drive
testing
on
testifying
on
behalf
of
preservation,
idaho
much
like
ina
and,
I
believe,
in
a
letter
submitted
from
warm
springs,
avenue,
historic
district.
We
support
removing
the
front
carport
in
the
front
of
the
house,
and
we
support
the
proposed
addition
in
the
back.
The
carport
does
appear
to
be
a
much
later
addition
to
the
home
and
not
intrinsic
to
the
home's
historic
character.
L
The
addition
to
the
back
would
seem
to
have
sufficiently
minimal
impact
on
the
historic
integrity
of
the
home
as
well.
However,
we
do
not
support
adding
an
attached
attached
garage,
as
this
is
not
in
keeping
with
the
original
design
nor
of
the
home
that
was
appropriate
or
nor
of
this
home.
When
it
was
built,
we
asked
that
the
homeowners
consider
a
more
appropriate
alternative
to
attaching
the
garage
to
the
home
and
if
you
have
any
questions,
I'd
be
happy
to
answer.
Thank
you.
O
Sarah
buyers
with
stone
design
group
and
I
live
at
3958
south
sumter
way
in
boise
83709,
I'd
like
to
state
that,
just
like
lones
brian
and
his
wife
annie,
they
we
went
through
the
whole
process
of
what
can
we
do
to
utilize
more
space
for
our
kids,
a
home
office.
You
know
all
this
all
these
checklists
to
make
the
homework
for
them.
O
Really
the
inside
of
this
home
isn't
super
large.
I
don't
know
if
you've
been
in
the
if
anyone's
been
in
this
home,
it's
really
shallow
and
so
to
make
this
work
just
going
horizontally
with
that
addition
worked
quite
well
and
also
replicating
that
design
on
the
right
side,
I
feel
like
really
matched
the
appropriateness.
I
don't
know
why
that
would
ruin
the
contributing
factor
of
the
home.
I
don't
understand
that
aspect,
but
I'm
not
a
historic
preservationist
either.
So
I
don't
know
what
classifies
for
that.
O
But,
like
brian
stated
this
we
were
maintaining
the
existing
garage
we're
staying
out
of
the
current
zoning
setbacks.
We
are
making
this
a
livable
home
in
this
century.
So
it's
what
we're
trying
to
do
so.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
we
tried
our
best
to
match
the
design
and
make
it
work
for
the
modern
family.
G
Just
a
a
couple
things
there
was
mention
previously,
I
mean
we
had
discussed
moving
backwards
in
the
house.
However,
there
is
there's
a
as
you
can
see
in
the
in
the
photo.
There's
a
she
called
it:
a
billiards
room,
gene
smith,
the
previous
owner.
It's
our
it's
our
school
room
for
the
kids,
so
there's
no
there's
no
really
way
to
be
able
to
functionally
go
back
in
the
yard,
and
so
I'm
glad
to
hear
that
you
guys
are.
Everybody
seems
to
be
okay
with
the
building
we're
doing
in
the
back.
G
The
other
thing
I
just
I
guess
I'd
like
to
clarify-
and
I
think
it
came
up
in
an
earlier
one
with
the
porch
stoop,
because
the
original
garage
is
stained,
we're
not
done
we're
not
getting
rid
of
it.
It's
not
getting
demolished
any
the
garage
moving
forward
is
something
that
could
be
undone
if
that
was
something
that
was
necessary.
That
seemed
to
be
a
concern
of
yours
with
the
porch,
so
we're
not
doing
any
demolishing
yeah
just
trying
to
keep
it
age-appropriate
and
and
functional
for
us
today.
A
D
C
Loading
is
many
of
the
garages
are
set
far
back
from
the
house,
and
I
believe,
that's
a
very
defining
characteristic
of
this
property
and
when
you
view
the
front
of
the
house
with
this
proposed
new
garage
moving
forward,
I
think
that
significantly
changes
the
front
view
of
the
house,
because
it
is
not
it
not
only
would
it
be
attached
or
not
only
is
it
attached
it's
farther
forward,
so
I
think
you
know.
The
reason
for
my
motion
is
one:
it's
attached
that
we
that's
in
the
guidelines.
We
don't
have
attached
garages
and
then
two.
C
E
E
E
So
I
understand
it's
a
complicated
situation
and
you
do
only
have
access
off
of
warm
springs,
so
that
kind
of
limits
your
access
points,
but
there
are
a
couple
examples
where
they
have
been
attached,
but
they're
kind
of
delineated.
So
you
can
see
the
differentiation
between
the
two,
the
historic
of
what's
been
added
and
that
I
think,
would
make
me
feel
a
bit
more
comfortable
here.
E
A
A
A
I
Please
I
think
I
agree
with
what
people
have
said.
You
know
this
plan,
there's
thought
that
went
into
it.
You
know
aesthetically,
it's
pleasing,
I
think,
what's
hard
for
me
is
if
we're
looking
at
this
current
photo.
You
know
you
see
the
garage,
but
it's
not
a
focal
part
of
the
house
like
you.
Your
eye
doesn't
recognize
it
as
like
being
of
equal
importance
to
the
house,
and
I
see
the
new
design
as
bringing
that
garage
forward
and
kind
of
incorporating
it
into
the
house,
and
that
does
in
my
mind,
change.
I
You
know
the
facade
of
the
house
and
kind
of
like
the
way
your
eye
recognizes
the
functionality
of
the
garage
and
its
prominence.
I
think
removing
the
carport
makes
sense.
I
think
that's
a
great
idea,
but
I
agree
with
what
some
of
my
fellow
commissioners
have
said,
like
the
the
you
know,
bringing
the
garage
forward
trying
to
match
it
to
the
house,
it's
not
inconsistent
with
the
time
of
the
architecture,
but
it
is
inconsistent
with
this
building
and
this
home
and
and
the
role
that
it
plays
in
the
neighborhood.
E
One
more
comment:
please:
I
wonder
if
we
could
bifurcate
this
and
approve,
perhaps
the
removal
of
the
carport,
as
well
as
the
back
edition
and
not
approve
the
front
garage
and
allow
them
to
at
least
get
started
on
some
of
the
project
and
then
come
back
for
additional
approvals
on
the
garage
in
the
front.
I'm
not
necessarily
sure
I
can
propose
that
like
work
through
the
words
of
that,
but
I
don't
know
if
that
might
be
an
interesting
way
of
doing
this.
A
A
C
I
think
I
think,
by
denial,
they're
gonna
they
would
go
back
to
redesign
anyways
and
and
with
the
two,
the
two
cases
pointed
out.
The
two
instances
pointed
out
in
the
in
my
motion.
They
would
need
to
address
both
of
those
which
is
the
attached
garage
and
the
new
addition
doesn't
create
a
creates.
An
appearance
inconsistent
with
the
historic
character
of
the
building,
which
is
changing
the
front
facade
so
I'll
stay
with
my
motion
based
on
that,
and
that
would
be
the
design
criteria
to
meet,
to
bring
it
back
to
staff.
D
C
B
B
Supposedly
the
existing
house,
there
is
evidence
in
the
packet
and
submitted
by
the
applicant
of
alterations
being
made
to
the
home
over
the
years,
including
it's
obscured
in
this
photo.
But
in
this
photo
you
can
see
a
a
window
turned
at
45
degrees,
which
would
kind
of
be
uncharacteristic
of
a
home
like
this.
The
applicant
has
submitted.
You
know
that
information
that
there
have
been
alterations
to
the
original
home
made.
B
We
did
find
that
those
significant
alterations
were
made
before
the
survey
was
performed
and
were
considered
when
the
survey
was
completed.
So
when
looking
at
changing
status
of
a
property,
there's
really
two
areas.
That
code
identifies
that
the
commission
can
lean
on
to
do
so.
One
would
be
an
error
in
that
original
survey.
B
That
would
be
that
it
didn't
take
into
account
significant
alterations
that
that
made
the
home
potentially
non-contributing,
and
it
was
an
error
in
survey.
The
other
grounds
would
be
additions
and
alterations
that
were
made
after
the
survey.
That
would
make
the
home
inappropriate
and
we
did.
We
did
not
see
evidence
submitted
that
supported
either
of
those
claims.
B
A
P
P
P
I
think
it
was
an
error
in
the
original
survey,
the
the
survey-
and
I
don't
know
if
you
have
that
in
your
report-
if
you
can
bring
that
up,
but
the
survey
has
a
quote
on
it.
That
says
this
residence
has
had
numerous
additions,
plus
windows,
doors
and
front
porch
have
been
altered,
and
you
know
just
from
sitting
here
tonight
that
kind
of
sounds
exactly
like
something
that
you
would
disapprove
of
if
somebody
was
in
front
of
you
asking
for
that
to
happen
to
a
contributing
structure
to
this
day.
P
P
P
P
They
enclosed
half
of
that
front
porch,
and
it
is
what
it
is
today.
So
I
guess
my
question
to
whoever
put
this
on
is
contributing
is
what
was
contributing.
What
style
is
the
easton
considering
contributing
we're
not
asking
for
it
to
be
off
the
contributing
list
in
order
to
demo
it?
We
don't
even
have
that
plan
right
now.
It
might
be
something
we
come
to
in
the
future
with
just
because
we
don't
know
the
feasibility
of
the
house
yet,
but
if
we
were
to
remodel
that
house
and
to
update
it,
the
foundation
is
crumbling.
P
P
Do
we
go
to
the
house
with
the
front
stoop?
Do
we
have
the
house
with
the
long
porch
in
front
of
it?
Do
we
have
the
existing
house
now
that
has
a
bedroom
on
half
of
the
front
porch,
and
then
I
mean
I
just
feel
like
then
we'd
be
at
the
mercy
of
historical
when
all
of
that's
historical,
but
is
any
of
it,
contributing
it's
there's,
there's
even
the
the
historical
wood.
P
J
N
J
A
E
Hi
again
good
evening,
madam
chair
and
commissioners,
my
name
is
sheila
grisham.
I
live
at
1204,
east
state
street
boise
83712,
and
tonight
I
am
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
easton
neighborhood
association.
The
east
end
neighborhood
association,
believes
that
201
north
floom
is
a
good
representation
of
our
historic
district
and
its
contributing
status.
E
The
home
has
had
additions
made
prior
to
the
historic
district
survey
being
done,
and
they
still
found
that
this
home
was
to
be
contributing.
These
types
of
additions
to
homes
of
this
era
were
common.
They
added
on
to
the
home
as
the
space
was
needed.
My
understanding
is
that
these
types
of
additions
only
add
history
to
these
homes.
Ena
is
not
in
favor
of
a
reclassification
of
this
home.
If
it's
reclassified
to
non-contributing,
that
means
that
demolition
would
become
easier.
E
E
L
L
This
home
was
considered
contributing
at
the
time
of
the
survey
and
should
not
be
reclassified
without
any
appropriate
documentation
by
technical,
historic
experts
that
would
allow
for
such
a
reclassification
preservation
agrees
with
ena
and
the
city
staff's
recommendation
for
denial
of
this
application.
Thank
you.
P
Thank
you,
so
the
easton
neighborhood
association-
and
it
appears
the
preservation
of
idaho,
seems
to
think
that
we
plan
to
demolish
this
property.
That's
not
what
this
is
about
today
today
is
about
classifying
it
as
non-contributing.
Instead
of
contributing
the
many
changes
to
the
front
and
side,
elevations
have
no
relevant
relevance
to
the
historic
preservation.
P
I
I
just
feel
like,
as
staff
outlined,
you
know,
there's
no
apparent
error
in
the
survey.
That's
been
proven
and
also
the
alterations
were
not
made
after
the
survey.
I
just
don't
see
the
findings
to
move
it
from
contributing
to
non-contributing,
and
also
I
hesitate
to
do
that.
You
know
they're
saying
the
applicant
says
you
know
they
have
no
plans
at
this
time
to
to
tear
it
down.
But
if
it
comes
to
that,
you
know
they
might.
I
just
would
encourage
them
to
find
solutions
within
the
contributing
status.
I
E
I
agree,
I
also
think,
although
I
do
find
it
a
little
ironic,
because
the
survey
they're
running
into
mistakes
in
the
survey
and
obviously
changes
have
been
made
up
to
this
house
before
the
survey
was
completed
and
then
we
as
commissioners
are
always
like.
Oh,
you
can't
make
any
changes,
and
so
I
see
the
irony
in
that
it's
a
little
circular,
but
I
also
appreciate
that
the
survey
was
accurate
and
all
the
changes
were
done
prior
to
the
survey
being
completed.
So
I
agree
that
we
should
move
forward.