►
From YouTube: Historic Preservation Commission Meeting
Description
September 27, 2021
B
We'll
go
ahead
and
go
through
the
agenda
next
month.
I
want
to
just
bring
up
that
we
will
have
a
speaker
dan
everhart
with
the
state
historic
preservation
office
will
be
here
to
talk
about
secretary
of
interior
standards
with
the
commission.
So
that'll
be
a
good
opportunity
for
you
to
hear
what
he
has
to
say
and
ask
him
some.
B
I
also
wanted
to
let
the
commission
know
that
this
will
be
my
last
hearing,
I'm
moving
out
of
the
state,
so
somebody
else
will
be
doing
the
hearings
from
now
on
so
I'll,
be
yeah
moving
to
just
be
closer
to
family
washington
state.
So
just
want
to
let
you
guys
know
that
so,
and
so
we
can
go
through
the
agenda
now.
We
just
have
four
items.
B
B
D
A
B
B
B
B
This
ordinance,
the
intent
of
this
ordinance,
is
to
have
language
inside
our
historic
code
that
allows
staff
to
address
illegal
unpermitted
work
in
the
historic
districts.
So
right
now
we
don't
really
have
those
tools
in
our
historic
code.
So
if
somebody
screws
up
or
does
something
intentionally
really,
it's
all
left
up
to
code
enforcement
and
our
legal
department,
so
planning
doesn't
really
have
a
huge
role
in
that
except
advisory.
B
So
what
this
does
is
allow
our
planning
director
to
implement
some
penalties
just
depending
and,
of
course,
it's
a
case-by-case
issue.
If
it's
somebody
removes
a
tree
without
a
permit
or
installs
the
wrong
windows,
those
things
can
be
taken
care
of
relatively
easily,
but
you
start
escalating
into
you
know:
a
house
was
demolished
or
a
roof
was
removed
or
something
more
onerous
was
done.
B
B
The
only
comments
we've
heard
on
this
one
were:
what's
in
those
are
just
some
emails
back
and
forth,
with
the
neighborhood
association
and
and
preservation,
idaho
and
they've
all
been
aware
of
this
and
and
think
it's
a
great
start
to
to
our
processes
along
this
line.
So
this
one
we've
heard
no
other
comment
on
this
either,
so
this
one
could
certainly
be
on
consent
as
well.
D
D
B
B
B
F
F
G
B
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
D
A
A
A
D
C
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
This
structure
certainly
doesn't
try
to
mimic
anything
in
the
historic
district
necessarily,
I
don't
think
it
would
be
mistaken
as
a
historic
structure
and
again
the
the
lot
is
about.
I
think
80
feet
wide,
so
it
is
fairly
wide
for
the
for
the
neighborhood,
but
again
through
modulation
and
design,
the
the
applicant
has
broken
up
some
of
that
massing
so
that
it
doesn't
come
across
as
massive.
B
E
E
This
is
shannon
stoger
and
my
husband
rich.
We
currently
live
at
1312
north
19th
street
as
we
build
our
new
home.
I
think
ted
covered
our
project
very
well.
The
proposal
includes
removing
the
existing
garage
and
building
a
new
home.
Our
new
home
is
one
and
a
half
stories
designed
to
fit
the
unique
lot
while
trying
to
maintain
the
character
and
charm
of
the
north
end.
As
the
proposal
outlines,
it
will
have
all
of
the
requirements
of
the
historical
district,
including
wood
windows,
smooth
cement,
signing
brick
accents.
E
We
have
done
a
landscape
plan
and
have
consulted
with
an
arborist
one
of
the
concerns
I
know
with
the
north
end.
Neighborhood
association
was
what
is
going
to
happen
to
the
beautiful
tree
in
front
of
our
property
and
we
have
consulted
with
an
arborist
and
they
feel
like
they
can
trim
it
and
maintain
the
character
of
the
tree
and
make
sure
that
it
will
not
be
a
hazard
for
anybody.
E
H
E
The
house-
it's
all
skylights,
so
we
are
not
intruding
in
privacy
for
the
people
behind
us.
I
think
I
think
the
house
ted
covered
it
pretty.
Well,
we
have
designed
a
front
porch
to
add
some
dimension
to
the
project
and
then
there
will
be
the
garage
sits
back
a
little
bit
from
the
front
of
the
house.
So
again,
there's
dimension
there
to
try
and
make
it
pleasable
to
the
eye
as
you're
looking
at
the
house
from
the
street.
I
I
As
the
applicant
mentioned
during
that
visit,
we
observed
that
there
is
a
beautiful
and
massive
tree
in
the
right-of-way
that
does
extend
over
the
lot.
So
while
some
trimming
would
surely
be
necessary,
we
wanted
to
be
sure
that
the
tree
itself
would
remain
happily
and
healthily
in
place.
So
we
did
exchange
communication
with
mr
stoger,
who
assured
us
that
that
was
important
to
them
as
well,
and
that
they
were
working
with
an
arborist
to
preserve
it,
which
is
wonderful.
I
A
H
H
H
H
The
contractor
told
me
that,
and
besides
they
can't
be
bothered
our
north
end.
Historic
district
is
being
torn
down
and
deconstructed
every
day
as
we
speak
as
your
own
commission
agendas,
a
test,
boise's
demolition
ordinance,
is
weak
and
fraught
with
loopholes.
It's
basically
a
record-keeping
tally
of
accelerating
demo
waste.
There
are
no
standards
for
home,
remodels
and
demolitions
of
garages
and
utility
buildings
under
200
square
feet
are
totally
exempt
time
here
in
hearings
like
this
one,
I'd
like
to.
H
Thank
you
I
just
I'm
finishing.
I
just
simply
think
that
when
we
pat
ourselves
on
the
back
for
being
a
green,
sustainable
city,
we
have
to
take
a
look
at
the
reality
of
what
is
happening
every
day
in
the
north
end
historic
district,
and
I
think
in
hearings
like
this.
Whenever
a
demolition
comes
before
you,
you
have
to
ask
tough
questions
about
the
consequences
of
any
demo
and
where
this
material
is
going,
it's
filling
up.
Our
landfill
I've
been
a
victim
of
it.
I've
watched
it
this
summer
and
here's
one
example.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
I
A
D
I'm
sure
I'll
just
open
up
some
discussion.
I
just
want
to
thank
mr
klinger
for
his
his
comments
today
and
while
he
does
support
this
motion,
I
think
we
need
we
do
need
to
listen
to
those
and
consider
those
in
the
future.
So
I
just
want
to
thank
him
for
first
comments
today.
That's
all
I
have
beautiful.
G
A
C
D
A
B
B
B
This
is
what
was
requested
and
what
is
being
requested
tonight,
so
the
garage
will
sit
back
here
and
then
access
would
be
taken
again
from
dora
street
and
the
reason
staff
recommended
that
access
be
taken
from
the
alley
is
because
this
is
a
substandard
lot.
It
does
fall
under
our
substandard,
loud
ordinance,
and
so
it
is
in
our
code
that
access
when
an
alley
is
available,
that
access
should
be
taken
from
the
alley.
B
B
So
there
is
some
pattern:
precedence
throughout
the
district
that
would
that
may
justify
the
historic
commission
allowing
such
such
access.
However,
staff
takes
a
conservative
approach
and
on
on
especially
on
issues
with
code,
and
we
do
recommend
that
access
still
be
taken
from
the
alley,
and
so
we
recommend
denial
of
drh2100.
A
J
C
J
Okay,
because
I
can't
wear
glasses,
then
all
right,
so
we
are
here
today-
he
was
here
about
three
or
four
months
ago
in
front
of
you
or
his
at
his
architect
was
and
did
receive
approval
for
this
building
on
this
last
lot.
Here
at
the
time,
there
was
some
confusion
about
if
you
were
to
revisit
the
video.
At
the
end,
there
was
confusion
amongst
a
lot
of
different
people,
sort
of
as
to
what
was
approved
or
not
approved,
and
it
turned
out.
J
Since
that
time,
we've
talked
to
staff,
and
originally
we
thought
that
we
were
going
to
be
looking
at
doing
a
variance
for
this
property
in
order
to
obtain
this
approval.
But
after
we
received
all
the
paperwork
filled
it
out,
we
talked
to
staff
again
and
we
ended
up
here
before
you
asking
for
the
modification
of
the
previously
approved
condition.
J
J
This
is
pulling
it
in
a
little
bit
closer
to
have
a
better
understanding
of
just
where
things
stand,
how
it
would
fit
into
the
overall
street
and
the
lot
there,
because
what
he's
really
looking
for
is
just
to
be
able
to
have
a
fully
functional
garage
and
because
this
is
a
substandard
lot,
garage
access
is
supposed
to
be
taken
off
of
alleys.
However,
you
do
have
the
ability
to
modify
the
regulations
as
appropriate
in
order
to
issue
a
certificate
of
appropriateness.
J
We
understand
that
many
most
of
the
lots
in
the
rest
of
the
north
end.
They
all
obtain
access
off
of
their
garages,
but
also
everyone
knows
that
most
of
those
people,
many
of
those
people,
end
up
parking
on
the
streets
and
just
creating
more
traffic
congestion,
because
it
is
so
difficult
to
get
in
and
out
of
those
narrow
garage,
those
narrow
alleys
and
garages.
J
Let's
go
to
the
next
slide.
This
is
consistent
with
the
boise
city
guidelines
for
residential
historic
districts.
The
purpose
of
the
harrison
boulevard
district
is
in
part
to
assure
that
new
building
will
be
in
scale
and
congruence
in
character.
With
the
district.
Here
the
house
has
been
approved.
It
is
in
the
right
scale.
It
looks
great
it's
going
to
be
a
great
addition,
and
access
from
dora
is
in
fact
congruous
with
what
has
happened
in
this
district
overall
48
of
the
53
corner.
Lots
receive
access
from
their
side
streets.
J
That
is
the
vast
majority.
We're
also
not
worried
about
setting
a
precedent
here
by
you
guys,
because
I
know
that
you'll
regularly
have
people
come
back
and
say
hey.
I
saw
that
you
approved
this
here.
Now.
Can
you
please
approve
it
for
me:
you're
not
going
to
have
that
issue
here,
because
this
is
the
last
law
there's
nowhere
else
to
build
on
harrison
boulevard
and
so
you're
really
looking
at
the
last
opportunity
for
this
to
even
be
an
issue
before
you
know.
J
Also,
one
of
the
things
that
you
regularly
look
at
is
the
historic
access
and
from
here
you
can
see
that
and
that's
when
there
was
still
a
fence
there,
but
coming
across
this
property
it
was
all
it
was
regularly
just
driven
across
right.
There
there's
never
been
going
around
and
coming
into
this
property
from
the
back.
It's
always
really
just
been
right
from
the
side
right
there.
J
Also
not
looking
at
in
expanding
this
beyond
the
substandard
lot.
There
are
other
ability,
looking
at
other
lots
and
just
to
see
that
in
the
greater
scheme
that
this
sort
of
thing
is
allowed
is
that
street
access
is
allowed
when
there's
existing,
curb
cut
on
a
corner
lot
or
you
find
that
it's
not
detrimental
to
the
function
and
appearance
of
the
affected
block
coverage.
Here,
the
entire
block
is
essentially
a
curb
cut.
J
J
We
were
also
we
were
in
contact
with
nina,
and
I
don't
know
I
guess
kate
is
on
the
phone.
I
don't
know
where
they
what
they
finally
decided
on
this,
but
she
did
have
some
questions
and
one
of
the
things
that
mr
zenger
is
proposing
in
order
to
make
this
seem
more
congruous
with
a
side
street
is
to
put
fencing
along
his
side.
He
was
already
planning
on
doing
that.
He'd
like
to
have
a
really
nice
sliding
fence
right
along
his
garage
right
along
the
sidewalk
nina
raised.
J
The
issue
of
kate
did
of
then
having
cars
backing
up
onto
the
street.
That's
more
blind,
and
so
mr
zenger
is
absolutely
open
to
whatever
sort
of
modifications
would
need
to
be
made
there,
whether
it's
a
slatted
fence,
a
lower
fence,
a
fence
that
ends
sooner,
but
just
to
help
keep
that
appearance
of
just
having
a
long
side
fence
across
there
and
then
finally,
the
power
pole
placement
is,
I
we
understand
he
understands.
J
I
mean
there
are
power
poles
throughout
the
north
end,
but
in
this
case
that
power
pole
is
a
mere
16
feet
in
from
the
edge
which
is
less
than
the
length
of
the
standard
camper
van
that
you
now
see
all
over
the
north
end,
which
makes
it
really
hard
to
be
able
to.
You
can
see
that
red
dot
come
in
and
make
that
tight
turn
into
the
parking
area
into
the
parking
lot
into
his
driveway,
because
also
many
of
the
north
end
lots.
J
So
in
closing,
we
are
simply
requesting
approval
of
this
modification
he
doesn't
want
to
have
to
park
on
harrison.
He
doesn't
want
all
of
these
issues.
The
access
is
impeded
by
the
neighbor's
fence
and
the
utility
pole.
Every
neighbor
within
300
feet
approves
of
this
request.
It
is
entirely
consistent
with
the
harrison
boulevard
plan.
It
does
not
set
a
negative
precedent
and
the
majority
of
other
homes
in
this
neighborhood
on
in
the
harrison
boulevard
district
do
obtain
side
street
access.
A
I
I
However,
we
were
able
to
discuss
our
concerns
with
the
applicant
via
his
attorney
miss
tekkeretz,
and
we
were
happy
to
hear
that
he's
open
to
a
revised
fence
construction
that
addresses
this
issue.
We
also
suggested
that
the
driveway
be
constructed
with
permeable
paving
and
it
sounds
as
though
mr
zinger
is
amenable
to
that
as
well.
So
at
this
time,
nina
would
like
to
offer
our
support
of
this
application,
with
the
condition
that
the
fence
design
takes
pedestrian
safety
into
consideration
and
that
the
driveway
is
made
from
permeable
materials.
A
Okay,
I
suppose
I'll
offer
my
thoughts.
I
have
absolutely
no
problem
with
this
application.
I
think
that
this
is
one
of
those
situations
where
we,
as
a
commission,
you
know,
can
look
at
a
situation
independently
and
see
that
it
makes
sense.
I
think
that
that
placement
of
the
power
pole
really
concerns
me,
especially
with
how
nasty
alleys
can
get
in
the
winter.
A
I
would
not
want
to
be
backing
in
and
out
of
that,
when
you
know
the
plows
haven't
come
through
in
five
days,
so
I
personally
think
that
moving
the
access
for
the
driveway
makes
sense,
and
so
I
will
be
voting
in
support
of
this
modification,
but
I'd
love
to
hear
my
fellow
commissioners
thoughts.
Madam.
D
It's
clear
that
when
ali
is
available,
vehicle
access
to
the
property
shall
be
taken
from
the
alley
it's
clearly
available.
There
might
be
some
some
work
that
might
need
to
be
done,
for
instance,
moving
a
poll
which
is
done
and
can
be
done,
although
costly,
when
you're
working
on
a
project.
I
think
that's
something:
that's
not
impeding
the
ability
to
load
from
the
alley
and
being
that
it
is
quite
available
per
the
code.
G
I'll
have
I'll
just
add
something
sure
so.
We've
had
these
discussions
in
the
past
about
removing
curb
cuts,
adding
curb
cuts
and
as
these
neighborhoods
developed
they
evolved.
So
originally
not
too
many
people
had
cars
or
if
they
had
cars
they
did
park
them
off
the
alley,
but
as
the
times
changed,
we
added
curb
cuts.
We
added
different
access
to
the
home,
so
adding
this
access
off
the
street,
I
think,
is
perfectly
perfectly
reasonable
and
actually
fits
the
historic
character
of
the
neighborhood.
A
A
A
B
That
would
allow
the
planning
division
to
actually
have
some
enforcement
responsibility
when
it
comes
to
work
being
done
in
the
district.
So,
as
you
can
see
on
this
slide,
it's
to
address
illegal
or
unpermitted.
Work
in
the
historic
districts
determine
whether
the
issue
can
be
easily
resolved
or
mitigated
through
a
planning
process.
B
B
B
B
So
it's
essentially
giving
staff
a
mechanism
to
implement
a
delay
and
it
was
kind
of
determined
we,
you
know
in
our
code.
We
do
have
a
fine,
a
thousand
dollar
fine,
for
when
somebody
does
something
wrong
again,
the
planning
staff
has
no
control
over
when
or
how
that
fine
is
implemented,
but
a
thousand
dollar
fine.
I
think
we
all
agreed
on
isn't
going
to
deter
somebody
from
maybe
purposefully
doing
something
to
a
property.
B
B
B
B
B
G
Okay
and
then
my
second
question,
slash
concern
is
something
I
think
ena
also
echoed
was
that
the
planning
director
may
waive
the
requirement
of
a
report
and
hearing
which
worries
me.
If
some
planning
director
had
undue
pressure
from
an
outside
source,
like
a
governor's
son
or
somebody,
influential.
G
Because
we
know
that
happens,
it's
not
unheard
of.
So
I'm
just
concerned
that
we're
giving
one
person
absolute
power
over
the
process,
which
is
more
of
a
democratic
process
versus
having
one
person,
be
able
to
just
wave
their
hand
and
allow
something
to
happen,
and
it's
something
we
won't
see
which
makes
me
very
uncomfortable.
B
B
I
think
the
intent
there
is
that
minor
violations
would
get
waived,
something
that
if
they
come
back
and
they
they
want
to
mitigate,
they
removed
a
tree
without
a
without
a
without
a
an
approval,
or
they
put
up
the
wrong
window
in
or
something
like
that
that
they're
willing
to
mitigate
through
our
planning
process.
It
may
not
require
something
come
back
before
the
historic
preservation.
Commission.
B
A
Thank
you.
I
guess
to
kind
of
provoke
that
question
that
if
there
were
a
report
for
a
minor
situation
like
that
and
they
I
would
assume
ted
happened
frequently
on
a
level
that
we
are
not
familiar
with.
Do
we
as
a
commission
want
to
be
hearing
all
of
those
individual
reports
on
top
of
everything
else?
A
If
we
do,
what
does
that
look
like
for
us
in
terms
of
our,
I
guess
overall
commitments
to
the
commission,
because
sometimes
I
feel
like
you
know
we
can
be
here
until
midnight
and
if
we're
hearing
minor
reports
on
you
know
insignificant,
I
mean
not
insignificant
but
lots
of
little
infractions.
That
slightly
concerns
me,
but
that's
just
my
initial
thought.
So
I'd
love
to
hear
others.
D
D
I
also
believe
that
we
need
to
empower
the
people
that
work
for
us
and
work
for
the
city
and
and
and
trust
that
that
system
and
trust
the
the
the
the
process-
and
I
think
we
have
good
people
working
here
at
the
city
and
I
think
they
make
great
decisions
and
yeah
we
don't
want
to.
We
don't
want
to
see
everything
we.
D
A
A
A
A
I
So
we
are
very
pleased
that
the
city
has
hurt
us
and
think
that
the
delay
of
work
and
an
investigation
is
fair
and
reasonable,
and
while
I
do
appreciate
ted's
explanation
and
fully
acknowledge
that
there
are
likely
many
appropriate
use
cases,
I
do
think
it's
worth
echoing
the
concern
commissioner
molloy
raised
about
this
being
at
a
single
person's
discretion
rather
than
being
overseen
by
democratic
process.
But
overall
we
just
want
to
give
our
thanks
to
the
city
for
proposing
this
amendment.
D
D
I
would
be
in
approval
of
what
we've
got
going
on
here
with
this
amendment
to
code,
and
I
think
the
staff
and
ted
also
addressed
the
desire
to
have
something
posted
on
the
law.
First
up,
work
order.
It
sounds
like
there's
a
posting,
that's
not
unlike
public
meeting
postings
that
could
put
on
for
for
for
meetings
that
things
that
come
in
front
of
us
on
a
regular
basis.
So
I
agree.
I've.
A
G
G
A
I
actually
think
that's
a
great
idea,
I
wouldn't
mind
having
that
deported
in
just
one
kind
of
cumulative
report.
I
think
it'd
be
nice
to
know
and
then
that
way,
if
we
see
problems
kind
of
continuing
to
happen
over
time,
then
we
can
address
it
but
yeah.
I
think
I
think
that's
a
fantastic
idea
is
that
the
kind
of
report
that.
A
D
D
A
B
A
I
think
that's
great
are
my
fellow
commissioners
in
agreement,
but
that's
something
we'd
like
to
see.
I
also
wonder
if
it's
possible
to
strongly
encourage
those
who
have
violated
or
show
up
on
the
report
for
having
made
violations
to
attend
that
work
session
so
that
they
can
see
or
hear
what
other
things
have
potentially
gone
wrong
to,
hopefully
prevent
things
from
going
wrong
in
the
future.
I
think
that
would
be
ideal.
A
B
D
Madam
chair,
I
think
I
think
when
it-
and
maybe
we
can
have
legal
help
in
the
back
there,
but
I
think
currently,
if
we
want
to
have
something
brought
up
in
a
work
session,
we
can
ask
and
it
can
be
brought
up,
including
you
know,
code
violations
that
may
have
been
observed
and
we
want
to
know
status
of
and
those
kind
of
things
can
be
talked
about.
I
don't
know
that
that
needs
to
be
written
in
the
ordinance.
D
H
F
Madam
chair
commission,
we
can
add,
your
recommendation
can
include
whatever
you
guys
wish
to
see
council
approve
or
deny
that's
totally
up
to
you
guys,
whether
forcing
someone's
appearance
at
a
work
session.
I'd
have
to
look
into
that
and
off
the
top
of
my
head.
I
don't
know,
but
I
would
just
point
out
that
you
also
have
I
mean
I
think,
in
a
lot
of
these
situations,
you
have
the
opportunity
to
address
whoever
made
the
violation.
F
For
instance,
if
someone
cuts
down
a
tree
before
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
has
been
issued,
they're
going
to
have
to
seek
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
still
after
the
fact,
so
you'll
still
be
able
to
see
that
applicant
and
make
your
opinions
known
on
the
record
so
whether
we
need
to
or
whether
you
would
like
to
see
all
those
things
put
into
the
ordinance
is
up
to
you.
But
you,
you
will
still
have
the
opportunity
to
be
heard
on.
You
know
the
kind
of
recourse
and
consequences
that
there
should.