►
From YouTube: Historic Preservation Commission - 2/22/21
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).
C
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
a
couple
items
for
the
work
session.
First
of
all,
we
have
a
full
commission
now
I'd
like
to
welcome
our
new
commissioner
marty,
commissioner
marty
kintai
she's
here
in
person
with
us
and
brings
a
wealth
of
knowledge
and
good
background
to
the
commission,
so
welcome
commissioner
kintai
to
your
first
meeting
and
it's
good
to
have
a
full
commission
minus
our
student
commissioner.
Of
course,.
C
Next
up
is
are
the
nominations
and
elections,
so
we
would
take
a
nomination
for
chair
and
vice
chair
and
then
a
vote
on
each
one.
C
D
Ted
yeah,
I
would
nominate
cindy
montoto
to
continue
being
chair.
E
C
B
B
E
B
C
And
so,
madam
chair
next,
we
would
have
a
nomination
for
vice
chair
and
that
position
would
fill
in
for
the
chair
when
the
chair
isn't
available
at
the
meetings.
F
I
can
attest
that
it
is
a
very
friendly
role
and
everybody
is
very
helpful
if
you
do
need
to
roll
b
as
the
role
of
chair,
so
I
can
attest
to
that
being
vice
chair
in
the
past
year
or
a
year
ago,.
G
I'd
like
to
nominate
danielle
weaver,
I
know
she's
not
here.
If
I
can
do
that.
A
E
B
E
E
A
I'll
try
to
not
be
absent
this
year,
ted
if
you'd
like
to
move
forward
with
the
agenda
review.
C
Sure,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
first
item
item
number.
One
is
ratification
of
findings.
If
you'll
recall
the
item
before
you
last
month
for
the
restaurant
on
main
street,
the
project
was
denied.
C
C
So
it
would
not
be
on
consent
agenda,
so
it
would,
and
it's
not
really
a
hearing
really
so
there's
no
testimony
or
anything
for
this.
It
would
just
be
you,
the
commission,
discussing
the
the
additions
or
changes
that
that
are
to
be
made
for
the
findings,
and
then
we
would
make
those
we
would
so
those
when
once
it's
decided
and
voted
on
the
changes,
then
you
could
go
ahead
and
accept
the
findings
at
that
point.
So
we
don't
have
to
come
back
again.
C
C
Item
number
three
21
3:
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
requests
to
construct
a
single-family
residential
structure
and
detached
garage
on
a
vacant
lot.
C
You'll
recall
this
property.
About
a
year
ago,
the
commission
approved
demolition
of
a
contributing
minimal,
traditional
house
on
this
property,
and
so
this
is
the
applicant
coming
back
and
requesting
this.
This
new
single-family
house
and
detached
garage.
C
The
garage
he
provided
revised
plans
for
the
garage
kind
of
shrunk
it
down
a
little
bit
if
you'll
notice,
so
in
the
plan,
so
he
did.
It
is
a
more
more
modest
garage,
so
that
is,
we
haven't
heard
from
anybody
in
the
public
on
this
one.
C
Item
number
four
drh
at
717,
19th
street;
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
request
to
demolish
a
non-contributing
house,
construct
a
single-family
residential
structure
and
detached
garage,
and
then
the
request
also
includes
rerouting
the
canal
on
the
property.
This
one
will
be
heard.
There
is
some
anticipated
testimony
for
this
one.
C
Item
number
five
drh
2127
at
1307
fort
street,
is
a
request
to
demolish
a
contributing
structure
in
the
hay
street
historic
district.
This
one
will
be
heard
as
well
as
a
recommendation
of
denial
is
being
proposed.
C
And
then
drh2129
at
1708
25th
street
is
a
request
to
construct
a
garage
with
an
accessory
dwelling
unit.
Again
on
this
one.
We
have
not
heard
testimony
from
any
of
the
na
or
heard
any
from
anything
from
the
public
on
this
one
and
the
applicant
appears
to
agree
with
the
conditions
of
approval
in
the
staff
report.
So
we
are
recommending
this
one
be
on
the
consent.
F
B
A
Well,
if
there
are
no
questions,
we'll
go
ahead
and
call
the
work
session
to
an
end
and
we'll
see
you
all
back
here
to
start
the
hearing
at
6.
A
Good
evening
today
is
the
22nd
of
february
2021.
This
is
the
scheduled
time
and
place
for
the
historic
preservation
commission
meeting,
I'm
chairperson
montoto,
and
I
now
call
the
meeting
to
order
victoria.
Would
you
please
call
the
roll
rap.
E
B
B
A
You
ted,
would
you
like
to
do
your
preamble
introduction.
C
C
C
After
that,
we
proceeded
to
public
testimony,
starting
with
those
who
signed
up
on
the
online
signup
sheet
in
advance
and
then
anyone
who
else
who
raises
their
hand
virtually
if
you
are
attending
through
your
phone,
you
can
type
in
star9.
To
raise
your
hand,
each
member
of
the
public
is
allowed
up
to
three
minutes
for
testimony.
C
A
A
B
A
You
it
looks
like
we
have
one
item
up
for
deferral,
and
this
is
item
number
two
on
our
agenda:
drh20-00543
luke
caldwell
at
1714,
north
26th
street.
Is
there
any
member
of
the
audience
wishing
to
speak
to
this
item.
B
A
Hearing
none.
I
will
now
take
a
motion
on
the
deferral.
This
item
will
be
deferred
to
the
march
29th
2021
hearing.
H
I'll
I'll
move
that
item
be
deferred.
Tell
the
march
me.
A
B
A
A
Drh20-00542,
commissioner
brown,
did
you
have
something
to
add
on
this
matter.
G
Okay,
so
for
item
number,
two
I'd
like
it
to
say,
the
commission
found
the
request
to
not
be
consistent
with
the
desired
guidelines
for
commercial,
historic
districts
and
then
specifically.
G
A
Rest
of
the
sentence
is
fine.
Thank
you,
commissioner
brown.
Was
there
any
anyone
wanting
to
add
discussion
to
these
findings
before
we
go
ahead
and
take
a
vote
to
accept
them?
Commissioner,
koski.
H
Yeah,
I
those
are
a
lot
of
numbers
and-
and
I
guess
the
question
I
have
is:
did
we
discuss
all
those
different
points
during
the
last
meeting?
They
we
just
needed
to
add
them
into
the
ratification
of
findings.
Is
that
what
you're
saying
commissioner
brown.
G
Yes,
so
these
are
the
ones
I
had
pointed
out
when
I
said
to
deny
it
they're
in
our
meeting,
I
took
them
straight
from
our
meeting
minutes,
and
so
I
would
just
like
them
to
be
in
this
record
if
somebody's
just
looking
at
this
record
versus
all
of
the
meeting
minutes.
A
Madam
chair,
thank
you,
commissioner
koski,
and
thank
you,
commissioner
brown,
for
detailing
all
of
those
points.
Let's
go
ahead
and
call
the
vote
to
accept
the
findings
with
these
changes
victoria.
Will
you
please
call
the
roll.
B
A
B
E
A
Thank
you.
Next,
we
will
move
to
our
consent
agenda.
We
have
two
possible
items
on
consent
this
evening
and
we
will
start
with
item
number
three.
A
Great,
seeing
none
and
based
on
the
representation
of
the
applicant
and
lack
of
opposition
item.
A
A
A
A
Will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda,
I
move
that
the
consent
agenda
and
all
items
on
the
consent
agenda
be
approved,
subject
to
all
the
findings
and
conclusions
and
conditions
of
approval
agreed
upon
for
each
application.
Do
I
have
a
second
well
second,
thank
you,
commissioner
rep
victoria.
Would
you
please
call
the
role.
E
B
A
You
victoria
and
with
that
we
will
now
move
on
to
the
remaining
items
on
our
agenda,
starting
with
item
number
four
drh21-00012
patrick
garrity,
at
717
north
19th
street
ted.
Can
we
please
have
the
report.
C
C
C
C
Roughly,
where
my
cursor
is
here,
the
boise
canal
extends
currently
extends
across
the
around
the
center
area
of
the
property.
C
C
C
This
is
some
background.
Some
recent
background
on
what
is
occurring
with
this
property.
C
C
C
We
did
receive.
Unfortunately,
we
received
these
kind
of
in
bits
and
pieces
as
staff,
and
so
what
we
did
is
we
decided
to
take
everything
the
appealed,
items,
the
new
items
and
compile
them
into
the
one
report
that
you
have
before
you
to
kind
of
make
it
more
of
a
seamless
timeline
and
more
of
a
cohesive
explanation
of
what
occurred.
C
C
As
such,
you
know
if
there
are
parts
of
it
that
the
commission
wants
to
approve
and
parts
they.
You
know
that
you
could
either
approve
it
all
with
one
motion
or
or
not
you
could
you
could
also
if
there
are
certain
areas
of
this,
that
you're
not
comfortable
with
you
could
you
could
also
approve.
You
know,
sections
of
it
as
well.
That's
certainly
within
your
purview.
C
C
C
This
is
a
document
that
shows
the
10
trees
that
were
removed
and
where
they
were
located
and
and
where
the
new
house
and
garage
would
have
been
or
is
proposed
to
be
so.
It
appears
that
these
trees
were,
though,
removed
without
a
permit,
were
removed
to
accommodate
the
house
and
garage.
C
C
C
So
this
this
is
a
substandard
lot.
The
substandard
lot
ordinance
does
require.
There
does
limit
the
massing
of
a
house.
A
house
can
only
be
a
full
two
stories
if
it's
abutted
by
two-story
houses,
the
applicants
did
originally
submit
a
full
two-story
house.
Staff
worked
with
them
to
reduce
that,
to
what
you
see
now,
which
is
a
partial
two-story.
C
So
there
is
a
full
two-story
house
adjacent
to
the
property
to
the
left
of
the
property
and
then
across
the
street
is
a
one
and
a
half
story
house,
and
so
with
that
staff
thought
it
was
that
this
partial
two
story
was
appropriate
for
the
property.
C
C
So
this
is
a
general
assessment
of
the
the
comments
more
detail.
Obviously,
in
those
documents
themselves,
you
know,
unfortunately,
there
isn't
much
that
can
be
done
about
the
removal
of
the
trees,
except
requires
some
sort
of
mitigation
which
I
believe
has
been
done.
This
is
also
with
the
code
compliance
department
or
division
with
the
city,
so
penalties
for
violating
for
for
removing
the
trees
without
a
permit
could
and
may
be
assessed
to
the
property
owners.
C
C
The
survey
is
old
and
like,
as
previously
mentioned,
likely
completed
for
the
harrison
boulevard
national
register
listing
and
the
only
city.
The
only
survey
the
city
has
on
file
for
the
property.
C
C
Usually
the
reclassification
occurs
when
a
contributing
house
has
been
inappropriately
altered
or
if
a
non-contributing
house
within
the
period
of
significance
has
been
restored
to
its
original
or
historic
state
and
generally
a
reclassification
hearing
is
held
to
review
that,
and
typically
it
is
a
property
owner
that
comes
forward
and
requests
those
that
hearing
and
request
that
classification
change.
So
it
is
on
you,
it
would
be
unusual
for
the
city
to
require
that
on
a
property,
in
this
case,
there
appears
to
be
no
evidence
in
the
city's
files
that
the
house
has
been
restored.
C
C
K
K
C
G
This
is
commissioner
brown
shouldn't.
We
have
a
option
to
ask
ted
questions
next.
A
Yes,
we'll
have
an
option
to
ask
both
staff
and
the
applicant
questions
at
one
time.
Okay,
thank
you.
Sorry,.
K
Thank
you
to
the
board
and
mr
venegas
for
allowing
us
a
hearing
tonight.
The
presentation
about
our
plan
is
brief.
It's
about
six
minutes
in
length
to
save
everyone
time.
K
First,
I
want
to
just
let
the
commission,
the
historic
office
and
our
neighbors
attending
this
meeting
know
who
the
applicants
are:
I'm
patrick
garrity,
my
wife
and
I
own
711
north
19th
street.
We
have
been
approved
through
this
body
to
renovate
that
house
when
we
bought
7-11
my
wife's
parents,
tom
and
andrew
colgan,
bought
7
17..
K
We
are
a
family,
we
are
working
people
and
the
overarching
purpose
of
this
project
is
to
allow
our
families
to
be
together.
Molly
and
I
work
at
st
luke's
and
we'll
be
living
full-time
at
7-eleven,
with
our
children
and
tom
and
andrew
when
retired
and
when
7-17
is
complete,
we'll
be
living
there.
Full-Time
there's
been
some
suggestion
by
people
that
we
are
investment
developers
or
planning
on
building
an
apartment
complex,
and
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
who
we
are
next.
K
I
just
wanted
to
share
the
overall
plan
for
717,
which
I
think
ted
did
a
very
nice
job
of
describing.
K
K
K
K
I
think
one,
the
most
controversial
part
of
this
has
been
tree
removal.
It
was
never
our
intention
to
upset
our
neighbors
cause
anyone
emotional
distress
or
flout
the
rules
and
laws
in
boise.
I
am
deeply
sorry
for
all
of
those
things.
I've
spoken
to
many
neighbors
and
removing
these
trees
caused
a
significant
shock
to
them.
On
this
block,
a
huge
right-of-way
tree
fell
on
a
home
and
a
second
was
removed
by
city's
forestry
because
it
was
at
risk
for
falling
also.
K
So
it's
been
a
shock,
a
shocking
change
of
scenery
for
our
neighbors.
We
hope
to
make
amends
with
our
neighbors
in
this
community
as
we
replant
and
beautify
this
property.
As
this,
I
just
want
to
go
point
by
point
to
this
slide.
The
trees
were
removed
without
a
certificate
of
appropriateness.
This
was
performed
by
a
licensed
arborist,
who
told
me
that
a
permit
wasn't
necessary.
K
It
may
be
that
the
house
existing
in
the
newly
expanded
historic
district
led
to
confusion
of
the
arborist,
but
but
I'm
not
exactly
sure
the
arborist
was
a
professional
outfit,
which
was
ironically
for
me,
recommended
on
nextdoor
and
had
many
positive
google
reviews.
K
There's
been
some
suggestion
that
the
coa
application
was
made
and
then
before
approval,
we
removed
the
trees,
but
that's
the
opposite.
Miss
owens
from
the
city
called
me
and
informed
me
that
removing
private
property
trees
without
a
coa
is
against
the
law
and
asked
me
to
submit
a
coa,
which
I
did
when
the
office
approved
the
coa.
K
It
was
under
the
conditions
that
we
would
replace
seven
private
property
trees,
but
importantly
that
we
would
also
work
with
city
forestry
to
replace
class
one
trees
with
class
three
trees
along
the
ada
street
right
of
way,
and
we
intended
and
offered
to
make
these
large
plantings
rather
than
tiny
saplings.
K
K
A
We're
not
seeing
anything
but
your
title
page.
K
E
I
K
This
was
the
only
visual
slide,
which
is
the
current
state
of
the
property
crab
apple
trees
along
ada
street,
the
current
canal.
In
the
current
house,
we
initially
planned
to
cover
the
canal
after
discussing
this
with
boise
canal
company,
and
that
was
out
of
an
abundance
of
safety.
Idaho
is
the
number
two
canal
death
state
behind
florida
and
if
any
of
you
live
near
this
neighborhood,
you
know
it's
teeming
with
children.
K
And
here
is
a
representation
of
the
architecture
within
the
block
here
at
714,
you
can
see
is
the
home
that
was
struck
by
the
tree
four
homes,
including
that
home
on
this
block
are
currently
unoccupied
because
of
work,
and
and
hopefully
this
will
become
a
flourishing
block
once
all
of
that
work
is
done,
and
finally,
we've
enlisted
a
large
number
of
local
building
experts
and
small
businesses
to
make
this
project
happen.
I
thank
you
for
your
time
and
I
invite
any
questions.
A
Thank
you,
mr
garrity.
At
this
point,
are
there
any
questions
for
ted
or
the
applicant.
G
C
C
C
In
generally,
the
commission
in
the
past
has
honored
the
survey
in
hand
that
the
property
owner
has,
but
it
is
the
the
commission.
It
is
certainly
in
the
purview
of
the
commission
to
request
that
the
request
a
I
guess,
what
would
amount
to
a
reclassification
hearing
for
the
property
and
have
the
property
re-surveyed.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner
brown.
Commissioner
koski
did
I
see
you
had
a
question
as
well.
H
Yes,
man,
I'm
sure
I
have
a
question
for
ted
ted.
You
you,
you
commented
on
potential,
citations
or
or
fines
for
the
illegal
removal
of
the
tree,
but
I
just
want
to
clarification
on
that.
Has
has
the
city
have
we
given
passed
on
any
citations
or
fines
at
this
point
for
that
illegal
activity.
C
Madam
chair,
commissioner,
koski
staff
has
the
planning
management,
team
and
staff
has
talked
to
code
compliance
about
this
issue
and
has
asked
them
to
look
into
a
fine
for
removal
of
the
trees.
C
And
I'm
not
sure
what
the
amount
of
that
fine
would
be.
The
planning
staff
usually
isn't
involved
with
penalties
or
citations
that
is
left
up
to
the
code,
compliance
and
city
legal
team.
But
there
has
been
a
discussion
about
implementing
a
fine
for
this
for
the
further
removal
without
a
permit.
H
I
E
H
Of
the
historic
contributing
does
it
contribute
to
an
historic
contributing
property
or
could
it
I
mean
maybe.
C
Madam
chair,
commissioner
koski,
while
I've
been
doing
this,
I
haven't
we,
we
haven't
had
proposals
to
move
a
canal
like
this
in
the
historic
districts.
C
I
would
say
that
you
know
if
this
property
were
to
be
contributing,
we
wouldn't
be
recommending
that
it
be
allowed,
so
it
would
be
if
the
property
were
contributing.
We
would
certainly
consider
the
location
of
the
canal,
the
location,
the
house,
the
location
of
the
house,
the
trees
that
were
on
the
property,
everything
to
be
a
an
important
aspect
of
the
contributing
property.
H
A
H
Please
question
I
have
is:
can
you
give
me
some
more
background
on
the
tree?
Removal
and-
and
you
say
you
didn't
you
weren't
aware
of
it
is
is,
is
that
is
that.
H
Entire
is
that
your
story,
you
weren't
aware
that
you
were
supposed
to
get
a
permit
for
those
or
is.
H
K
As
I
stated,
we
used
a
tree
service
who
is
licensed
and
recommended,
and
I
specifically
asked
them
if
we
required
a
permit-
and
he
told
me
no
and
I've
had
a
number
of
discussions
now
with
mr
venegas
on
a
whole
host
of
topics.
But
last
week
I
asked
him
what
what
because
one
of
our
concerned
neighbors
asked
me.
What
is
the
consequence
for
your
contractor?
If
that's
the
road
you
go
down
and
the
answer
it
sounds
like
which
I
am
naive
about
and
now
understand.
K
K
According
to
my
understanding,
so
I
had
five
arborists
come
out
and
provide
quotes
for
the
work,
and
I
chose
one
and
I
asked
him
if
we
needed
a
permit
and
he
told
me
no
and
he
came
out
and
did
the
work
and
I
think
the
the
the
thing
that
I
found
is
number
one.
None
of
those
arborists
ever
mentioned
getting
a
permit
either
or
getting
a
coa
and
number
two.
K
I've
asked
many
north
end
residents
now,
if
they
know
about
coa,
if
they
know
about
tree
removal
and
the
bottom
line
is
that
they're,
including
with
myself,
there's
a
lot
of
ignorance
about
this,
and
in
some
of
my
discussion
with
mr
venegas,
I
think
that
their
office
obviously
feels
that
ignorance,
because
he's
told
me
that
part
of
their
plan
is
an
education
campaign.
Regarding
issues
like
this.
H
A
A
I
do
have
one
for
the
applicant,
mr
garrity,
I
noticed
in
your
presentation
the
word
dilapidated
was
used
to
describe
the
home,
that's
existing
on
the
property.
Can
you
go
into
a
little
bit
more
detail
explaining
why
you
chose
that
word?
What
makes
you
think
that
the
property
is
dilapidated.
K
I'm
I'm
certainly
not
a
technical
expert,
and
I
use
that
to
as
a
general
word,
to
describe
its
condition
when
we
purchased
the
house.
We
walked
through
it
with
a
very
well
regarded
north
end
architect,
and
she
said
told
me
that
she
could
see
the
place
was
in
terrible
condition
and
that
the
next
phase
of
the
project
would
be
easier
if
the
house
was
removed
and
we
built
a
new
one
and
everyone
who's
been
through
the
pro
through
the
house
has
felt
that
way.
K
It
was
a
run
as
a
rental
house.
It
was
in
very
poor
shape
and
that
that's
all
that
I
can
say
about
it.
A
That's
helpful.
Thank
you
so
much
any
last
questions
for
the
applicant
or
ted.
A
A
Yes,
we
can
just
please
state
your
name
and
address
the
record.
M
We
we
we
agree
with
the
with
the
star
report.
The
report
says
that
the
house
is
not
is
a
non-contributing
structure,
doesn't
matter
how
much
we
like
it
as
a
non-contributing
instructor,
the
homeowner
has
every
right
to
alter
it.
The
homeowner
has
gone
above
and
beyond
moving
the
canal
and
also
dangerous.
They
puts
a
liability
to
the
homeowner
and
increases
his
injuries
cost
and
he's
setting
it
up
better,
much
better
fencing
and
a
better
view
of
it
for
all
for
all
the
neighbors
to
enjoy,
instead
of
just
burying
it.
M
So
again,
that's
going
above
and
beyond
to
enrich
our
neighborhood
he's
already
said
that,
but
he
hired
a
licensed
arbories.
He
didn't
go
up
with
a
chance
of
himself
to
cut
trees
when
you
hire
a
city
licensed
arborist
with
over
18
years
of
experience,
you
have
to
assume
that
he
knows
what
he's
doing,
especially
since
he's
licensed
by
the
city.
M
We
don't
believe
that
the
neighborhood
should
be
penalized
in
a
vindictive
way
for
the
mistakes
of
a
licensed
contractor.
The
homeowner
has
received
a
code
violation.
He
probably
will
receive
some
fines.
We
believe
that
the
19
department
to
build
because
of
the
three
incidents
is
vindictive.
The
neighbor
has
agreed
to
plant
more
trees.
Let's
not
forget
that
trees
have
a
lifetime.
I
personally
have
a
day
3
in
my
cr.
I
see
trees
dying
all
over
the
city
because
they
are
reaching
the
100
year
old
or
more.
M
M
It
seems
to
seems
to
me
it
seems
to
us
that
the
neighbors
took
this
property
as
a
public
bar,
but
it's
not
a
public
party,
it
is
a
private
property.
The
neighbor
has
gone
above
and
beyond
and
should
be
penalized
in
an
unfair
way
by
the
night
in
the
pyramid.
We
agree
with
the
staff
that
this
project
should
be
approved
with
the
recommendations.
A
Okay,
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
move
into
the
public
portion
of
testimony.
Do
we
have
anyone
signed
up
to
testify
this.
A
A
O
O
O
Yes,
we've
made
some
mistakes
on
the
way,
but
we
think
before
you
as
a
well
thought
through
and
thoughtful
plan
for
the
neighborhood,
because
we
want
to
live
in
a
place
where
we're
wanted
and
look
forward
to
the
deliberations
and
if
you
have
any
questions
of
me,
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
them.
Thank
you.
H
P
Hi,
my
name
is
mitzi
c
slack.
I
live
at
707
north
19th
street,
so
while
it's
critically
important
to
the
neighborhood
that
the
canal
remain
open
and
we
appreciate
that
effort,
I
think
that
the
demolition
of
a
1939
house
in
the
historic
district
to
make
room
for
a
new,
larger
home
should
give
us
all
pause,
as
is
said
before,
the
survey
that
was
done
on
this
home
was
done
in
1978
a
full
year
before
the
establishment
of
the
historic
preservation
commission.
P
I
think
that
there
is
another
home
on
the
block
on
the
other
side
of
me,
that
was
also
built
in
1939
and
it
was
deemed
contributory
in
the
2001
survey.
So
I
think
that
relying
solely
on
a
1978
survey
to
determine
the
whether
or
not
this
is
a
contributory
home
is
questionable.
P
I
also
take
exception
to
the
cat
characterization
of
this
as
a
dilapidated
property.
It
is
undoubtedly
in
need
of
remodeling
and
updating,
but
not
dilapidated.
Anyone
who
knew
the
previous
owner
joyce
white
knew
that
she
would
never
have
allowed
that
to
happen.
She
was
a
true
steward
of
her
properties,
even
listening,
the
companion
home
next
door
at
711
on
the
national
historic
register.
P
This
is
a
charming
home.
It
is
small,
modest
and
unique.
Its
position
on
the
lot
possesses
characteristics
that
make
it
important
to
the
overall
characteristics
of
this
district,
the
setting
the
feeling,
the
association,
all
components
of
the
secretary
of
interior,
seven
aspects
of
integrity
according
to
the
published
north
end
design
goals,
the
most
significant
features
of
the
district
are
its
overall
scale
and
simple
character
of
buildings
grid
street
layout
and
tree
line
streetscape.
P
A
P
J
L
L
Looking
around
the
north
end,
small
homes
such
as
717
can
be
found
their
design
location,
add
variety
and
beauty
to
the
north
to
the
north
end
as
the
historic
district
website
states,
the
north
end
was
generally
developed
as
a
working
and
middle
class
neighborhood.
Hence
the
preponderance
of
modest
bungalows.
L
I
won't
belabor
the
aesthetic
and
historical
merits
of
homes
like
717,
that's
not
my
expertise,
but
I
would
like
to
call
attention
yes
to
the
survey,
and
I
know
it's
gotten
attention
so
I'll
try
to
be
brief.
It
contains
no
pertinent
information
outside
of
the
data
construction.
L
More
recent
surveys,
like
the
2001
once
the
expanded
north
end
was
done,
includes
far
more
information.
Like
construction
materials
commentary
on
the
conditions
of
the
home
and
even
just
basic
information
like
legal
addresses,
which
is
not
included
in
this
old
survey,
I
believe
that
the
values
and
preservation
of
older
homes
and
constructions
in
this
city
and
around
the
country
have
changed
in
40
years.
L
I
think
we
put
much
more
value
on
older,
preserving
older
homes
than
we
did
when
the
survey
was
done
and,
as
was
mentioned,
the
permission
to
move
the
canal
is
predicated
on
this
non-contributory
outdated
survey.
L
I
believe
it's
outdated
and
complete
and
reliance
would
be
improper
and
that,
regardless
of
the
outcome
of
a
new
survey,
the
new
homeowner
would
still
they
would
not
be
deprived
of
a
place
to
live.
There
is
what
would
then
be
a
contributing
home
for
them
to
live
in,
and
I
think
717
should
be
resurveyed
before
this
commission
gives
permission
for
its
destruction.
L
Finally,
on
a
personal
note,
the
north
end's
growth
in
recent
years
has
made
it
difficult
for
myself
and
others
like
me
to
live
in
the
neighborhood.
We
spend
our
whole
lives
in
the
more
small
homes
we
tear
down
the
less
options
for
young
homeowners
and
the
less
options
for
affordable
rental
options.
The
historical
integrity
of
the
north
end
lays
as
much
in
the
diversity
of
people
and
ideas
as
it
does
in
the
brick
and
mortar
of
its
homes.
L
A
A
Okay,
it
doesn't
appear
so
so
are
there
any
final
questions
for
staff
or
the
applicant
before
the
applicant's
rebuttal.
H
When,
when
you
mentioned
the
the,
when
this
conditions,
when.
H
For
their
condition
of
approval,
appropriateness
for
removing
the
trees
retroactively,
you
say
in
the
staff
report
that.
K
H
It
was
approved
on
the
staff
level,
with
conditions
are
the
conditions
that
you
that
were
approved
of
that
portion
of
the
application
to
have
the
licensed.
C
I'm
sure
commissioner
koski
conditions
on
the
on
the
original
survey
did
require.
C
C
When
we
decided
to
I'm
sorry
when
it
was
appealed
and
we
decided
to
pull
everything
together
into
this
combined
application,
it's
when
you
know
we
just
reviewed
things
in
a
little
more
depth
and
decided
to
add
that
condition.
H
Were
there
any
conditions
in
there
as
to
where
the
placement
of
the
new
trees
were
to
be
specifically
in
the
same
published
positions
as
the
other
ones
that
were
removed
illegally?.
C
Madam
chair,
commissioner
koski,
we
didn't
dictate
where
the
trees
would
be
located,
because
we
let
the
the
applicant
propose
that
at
that
time
the
plans
for
the
new
home.
We
hadn't
had
a
chance
to
review
plans
for
the
new
construction
so
knowing
where
to
plant
new
trees
in
association
with
that
new
construction
was
difficult,
so
the
applicant
actually
proposed
gave
us
the
the
replanting
plan,
as
well
as
the
footprint
of
the
house
and
garage
showing
where
the
new
trees
would
be
planted.
A
Thank
you
if
the
applicant
would
like
you,
have
five
minutes
for
rebuttal.
A
K
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
everyone
for
your
time.
I
think
I
just
want
to
thank
the
north
end,
neighborhood
association,
for
supporting
our
project.
I
want
to
thank
mr
venegas
for
all
the
work
that
he's
done
on
this
project.
We've
had
many
conversations
with
him.
K
I
want
to
clarify
one
thing,
which
is
that
when
we
first
visited
this
property
with
a
very
experienced
north
end
architect,
who
once
served
on
the
historic
commission
she's
the
first
person
who
contacted
historic
office
for
us
and
and
came
to
us
and
told
us
that
she
had
found
that
this
property
was
listed
as
non-contributing
and
since
that
time,
while
she
was
too
she
well,
we
have
gone
with
a
different
architect.
K
K
Would
stay
it
is
as
it
is,
because
the
city
in
general
doesn't
resurvey
and
that's
that's
been
the
mode
that
we
have
been
operating
under
based
on
what
we
were
told
by
these
architects
in
the
city
office.
K
It's
it
certainly
has
no
currency
in
this
town
right
now
to
be
from
out
of
town,
my
wife
and
I
moved
from
indiana,
but
it
certainly
plays
a
factor
in
misunderstanding.
The
rules
and
I
think
the
bottom
line
is
that
we're
deeply
sorry
about
removing
the
trees
and
we're
certainly
sorry,
mostly
about
all
of
the
emotional
fallout-
that's
occurred
from
it
and
upsetting
our
neighbors.
K
We
don't
want
to
live
in
a
neighborhood
where
people
dislike
us,
because
we
part
of
the
neighborhood.
We
really
want
to
help
this
neighborhood,
and
we
hope
that
this
commission
will
support
this
plan
and
and
lastly,
the
mitigation
plan
was
submitted
by
us.
We
tried
to
create
a
generous
mitigation
plan
to
get
this
property
back
to
the
the
beauty
that
it
once
had
and
as
mr
venegas
has
mentioned,
that
requires
us
to
utilize
a
licensed
landscape
architect
in
developing
that
plan.
A
Okay,
with
that
I'll
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing-
and
I
think,
given
the
complicated
nature
of
this,
we
should
just
jump
into
some
discussion.
So,
commissioner
brown,
I
know
you
have
you
likely
have
some
thoughts
on
this.
So
let's
go
ahead
and
start
with
you.
G
Sure
I
actually
don't
have
too
many
thoughts
on
this
this
project.
This
goes
back
to
other
projects,
we've
seen
where
it's
really
hard
to
make
decisions
with
40
to
your
42
year
old
data.
That's
what
we're
basing
our
decisions
on
this
property.
G
G
But
I
guess
if
we
have
no
mechanism
to
make
folks
or
have
the
city
resurvey
and
base
our
decisions
on
42
year
old
data,
that's
what
we're
gonna
have
to
do.
I
don't
I
don't
really
have
any
other
or
other
things
to
say
about
it.
Thank.
F
You-
and
I
would
just
offer
for
commissioner
brown
as
well
in
in
recognizing
that
I
will
first
say
that
I
will
be
supporting
this
project
as
proposed
by
the
staff,
and
but
I
agree
with
commissioner
brown
in
the
context
that
and
to
the
neighbors
who
have
concern
and
interest
in
understanding
what
is
considered
a
contributing
home
now,
and
I
think
that's
a
further
conversation
beyond
just
our
commission,
but
just
as
a
city
as
a
as
us
as
itself
as
we
continue
to
grow
that.
F
How
do
we
look
at
that
opportunity
collectively,
as
is
a
city
to
investing
in
that
evaluation
of
contributing
versus
non-contributing?
So
I
would
happy
to
be
a
part
of
that
broader
conversation.
But
to
her
point,
what
we
have
presented
in
front
of
us,
I
will
be
supporting
the
project
and
to
the
applicants.
F
I
hope
that
you
feel
welcome
in
boise.
Welcome.
We
want
you
to
feel
like
you
are
a
part
of
our
community.
F
If
nothing
else
for
you
and
your
in-laws,
it's
an
opportunity
for
learning
and
expanding
opportunity
for
relationship
building
for
neighbors
in
ongoing
outreach
and
education,
which,
unfortunately,
is
on
the
back
side
of
you
having
to
learn
some
difficult
things.
But
it's
also
a
great
way
to
establish
relationships
with
new
neighbors
and
to
help
us
as
a
community,
learn
how
to
better,
inform
and
educate
those
that
are
moving
in
and
those
that
are
long-standing.
F
That
may
have
not
lived
in
a
historic
district
before
so
there's
lots
of
learning
that
we
have
to
do
still
as
a
city
as
as
we
grow
and
continue.
So
I
hope
you
and
your
in-laws
feel
welcome,
and
I
hope
you
get
engaged
in
the
community
and
try
to
give
back
in
different
ways.
So
with
that
said,
that's
all.
I
have
to
contribute
tonight
beautifully.
B
H
Madam
chair,
I
have
some
comments
and
thoughts.
I'm
I'm
struggling,
I'm
struggling
with
this
one.
The
integrity
of
our
historic
districts
is
not
just
based
on
a
building.
It's
also
based
on
properties,
the
environment
and
how
that
contributes
to
our
neighborhoods,
and
this.
H
L
H
And
it
sounds
like
the
city
and
code
compliance
is,
is
going
to
review.
H
But
that
that
aside,
it's
it's
coincidence
or
not
that
moving
of
the
canal
is
right
where
those
trees
were
removed,
and
I
just
want
to
read
a
couple
things
out
of
our
guidelines
that
I
think
we
need
to
consider
as
commissioners.
H
O
H
Changing
the
perspective
on
this
property-
and
I
would
not-
I
would
not
be
in
agreement
to
approve
of
this
based
on
those
things.
That's
all
I.
A
F
Motions,
I
don't
think
we've
had
a
motion,
yet
I
think
everybody's
just
said
what
they
were
thinking.
I
was
going
to
do
and
in
discussions,
but
if
no
one
else
has
a
discussion,
I
will
make
a
motion
to
approve
drh
21-0-0-1-12,
with
the
conditions
of
approval
outlined
by
staff.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner
rep.
Is
there
a
second
bye?
Second,
thank
you,
commissioner.
Kintai
victoria,
will
you
please
call
the
roll.
A
All
right,
I
guess
we're
discussing
some
more
and
I
suppose
I'll
share
my
thoughts.
This
is
one
of
the
hardest
applications
in
my
seven
years
on
the
commission
that
I've
seen
come
forward.
A
You
know,
commissioner
koski
had
brought
up
earlier
that
wanting
to
know
if
there
was
precedent
in
other
applications.
The
canal
had
been
moved
before
if
the
canal's
current
location
is
historic
in
its
own
right
and
while
it
is
on
private
property-
and
I
respect
and
understand
that
I
find
myself
asking
that
same
question
and
also
I
I
also
am
feeling
very
conflicted
with
demoing
any
demo.
We
see
come
forward,
regardless
of
contributing
contributing
or
non-contributing
status.
A
I
hate
to
see
just
because
we
only
have
so
many
properties
left
in
our
historic
districts,
and
I
know
that
we
we
have
to
go
off
of
that,
but.
A
D
So
I
agree
that
this
is
a
really
and
I'm
just
gonna
do
a
blanket
apology.
I
live
in
a
small
north
end
home
and
I
have
children
in
it
and
you
can
probably
hear
them
so
sorry
about
that.
But
I
agree
that
this
is
a
really
hard
decision
and
I
think
that
there's
the
different
pieces
and
some
I
struggle
with
more
than
others.
D
I
think
that
the
applicant
did
what
they
could
with
the
trees
and,
unfortunately
you
know
they
thought
they
were
following
the
wrong
path
and
they
weren't
and
so
trees
were
removed,
and
I
think
you
know
it
sounds
like
the
city
is
going
to
follow
through
on
that
process.
We
are
not
enforcement,
and
so
I
think,
that's
kind
of
out
of
our
jurisdiction.
D
Now
I
think
the
canal
is
the
thing
that
I
struggle
with
the
most,
because
we
are
an
urban
area
that
is
developed
on
top
of
an
agricultural
area,
and
so,
if
you
look
at
the
maps
of
the
city
and
all
of
the
the
canals
that
exist,
it's
like
this
really
cool
interesting
feature.
D
That
kind
of
like
nods
back
to
where
we've
come
from
right
and
and
you
can
walk
through
the
north
and
you
can
hear
the
canal
and
you
can
see
it
exposed
in
places,
and
so
I'm
excited
that
they
are
leaving
it
open.
But
I
feel
like
that's.
The
crux,
for
me
really
is:
is
this
canal
piece
right
like
it's
a
non-contributing
structure,
whether
it
should
be
or
shouldn't
be?
I
mean
they
made
the
decision
based
on
the
same
data
that
we
have
and
I
think
to
say.
D
Well,
we
you
know
people
think
that
it
should
be
contributing,
isn't
fair
to
the
property
owner,
because
the
property,
knowing
you
know
with
the
information
that
we
have
right,
that
it's
not
contributing
structure.
And
so
I
feel
like
the
canal
is
really
the
the
hard
part
for
me,
because
it
does
play
into
the
identity
of
the
lot
and
the
north
end.
D
And
so
I
don't
know,
if
maybe
we
want
to
approve
parts
of
it
and
disapprove
parts
of
it.
I
think
the
canal,
if
we,
if
we
don't,
approve
that,
obviously
the
the
structure
needs
to
change
right,
because
it's
the
structure
that
the
way
it's
planned
for
now
the
canal
would
have
to
be
moved.
And
so
I
think
maybe
that's
a
piece
that
we
need
to
talk
through
and
I'd
be
interested
to
hear
what
other
people
think
on
that.
F
So
this
is
commissioner
rupp
and
I
would
say
well
one
I
think
to
everyone's
point:
we
aren't
regulatory.
They
have
met
three
out
of
the
five
criteria,
so
that
was
natural
like
yes
for
me,
as
the
I
will
say
wrong,
different
hat,
not
like
this
hat
as
a
community
volunteer,
but
in
my
professional
career,
I'm
our
child
care
administrator
for
the
state
of
idaho.
So
for
me,
children's
health
and
safety
is
always
at
the
forefront
of
my
mind.
F
So
when
the
applicant
spoke
to
the
aspect
of
the
canal,
for
which,
as
a
child
care
administrator
terrifies
me
and
I'm
not
a
big
fan
of
them.
So
when
we
spoke
to
that
fact
of
children,
I
mean
anyone
who
goes
in
there's
no
drain
to
stop
and
it
goes
underground.
F
Terrifies
me
exceedingly
a
lot
and
although
I
value
and
appreciate
the
perspective
that
individuals
brought
to
their
presentation
tonight,
whether
it
was
the
applicant
and
or
the
community
member
speaking
to
the
historic
nature
of
the
canals
and
to
commissioner
maroney's
point,
we
are
an
agricultural
town.
So
it's
a
it's
a
mode
to
that
old,
historic
component
of
our
community
and
how
we've
grown
in
around
it
and
on
top
of
it.
So
I
value
and
appreciate
that,
and
I
thought
that
what
the
applicants
did
to
add
existing.
F
You
know
like
new
fencing,
which
you
know
for
me:
I'd
make
it
10
feet
tall,
but
I
know
that's,
probably
not
aesthetically
pleasing
so
and
that's
not
historically
a
likable
option
for
anyone
in
town.
So
so
I
think
that
the
what
they
are
doing
to,
I
think
uphold
what
they've
recognized
has
been
a
difficult
conversation
and
trying
to
recognize
a
non-contributing
home.
F
So
you
can
make
that
choice,
whether
you
like
it
or
not,
but
then
the
point
of
valuing
and
identifying
the
historic
piece
of
the
canal
and
keeping
that
and
trying
to
incorporate
that
I
had
to
give
them
not
to
doing
that.
It
makes
me
still
nervous,
but
I
appreciate
that
they're
doing
it
in
a
the
most
appropriate,
safe
manner,
and
so
I
just
I'm
going
to
say
a
prayer
for
those
children
living
in
that
neighborhood
and
that's
so.
F
H
There's
a
couple
different
components
to
my
comments,
and
I
I
can't
ignore
the
first
component
and
the
first
component
is
an
illegal
activity
took
place
on
this
property
by
removal
of
trees
as
a
result
of
those
trees
being
gone.
H
Oh
now
they
can
move
the
canal.
I
I
I
can't
I
I
don't
I
I
don't
approve
of
that
at
all.
I
would
think
that
I,
I
can't
speak
for
the
staff
and
saying
that
if
an
application
was
to
remove
those
trees
and
done
in
the
right
order,
if
they
would
have
been
allowed
to
remove
them,
my
guess
is
they
would
not
have
been
at
least
the
healthy
ones,
and
it
appears
that
many
of
them
were.
E
H
If
those
trees
were
still
there,
the
canal
couldn't
be
moved
so
to
approve
of
something
that
is
a
result
of
illegal
activity.
I
don't
think
I'm
doing
my
job
as
a
commissioner.
G
Adam's
chair,
so
I
just
want
to
speak
a
little
bit
about
the
the
canal
and
how,
as
architectural
historians-
and
we
look
at
districts
and
things
like
that,
just
to
kind
of
give
you
some
background,
even
though
this
house,
when
it
was
the
national
register
nomination,
was
listed
in
1980,
it
was
as
a
non-contributing
house
if
you,
if
you
actually
read
the
little
description
about,
they
could
barely
see
the
house
when
they
actually
surveyed
it.
So
that
might
have
been
part
of
the
reason
it
was
non-contributing.
G
Secondly,
the
canal
itself:
the
boise
city
canal
is
eligible
for
listing
on
the
national
register
of
historic
places,
so
it
is
considered
a
historic
resource
in
itself
as
historians,
there
are
seven
aspects
of
integrity
that
we
look
at.
One
of
those
is
location
and
design.
G
We'll
do
this
location,
design
and
moving
the
canal
is
actually
would
be
moving
the
physical
location
of
that
property.
It
would
be
adversely
affecting
the
historic
canal.
In
addition
for
the
district,
if
you
ever
read
the
national
register
nomination
from
1980,
it
talks
about
the
city
lying
trees,
the
flowering
trees
like
all
about
the
historic
now
historic
landscape
that
contributes
to
the
feeling
and
setting
and
what
the
canal
does.
G
D
Follow
a
question
from
for
commissioner
brown,
so
you
said
it:
the
canal
is
eligible
right,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
it
that
it
is
listed
correct.
G
It's
not
formally
listed
individually,
but
it
is
an
eligible
resource,
so
there
are
working
for
the
state
circulation
office.
We
get
lots
of
data
in
and
we
look
at
properties
and
we
say
they
are
eligible
for
listing
for
the
national
register,
they're
ineligible
for
listing
for
national
register.
So
this
property
is
eligible
for
listing
in
the
national
register
and
it
does
contribute.
I
would
say
it
is
a
contributing
element
to
the
national
register
listed
district
as
well
as
the
local
district.
G
F
So
I
was
still
going
to
be
there,
so
I
don't
unders
so,
like
is,
would
it
possible
to
like
still
be
contributing-
and
I
know
we're
talking
about
a
canal-
not
a
home
but
in
the
historic?
So
I
feel
like
we're
like
split
in
here's
here
like
I'm,
like
I'm,
improving,
based
on
the
historic
guidelines
of
not
the
canal,
but
I
know
the
canal
is
a
component
of
the
home
for
which
they
kept.
So
I
think
they
were
checking
the
box
like
yes,
we're
keeping
it.
Yes
we're
doing
that
historic
piece.
G
F
Which
is
why
I
think
the
applicant
is
maintaining
its
it's
kind
of
like
when
we
approve
a
contributing
home
and
they
add
a
porch,
and
we
say
yes,
because
if
you
take
it
away,
it
can
still
be
contributing.
So
we're
saying
you
kept
the
canal
you're
just
moving
it.
So
if
you,
so
it's
still
there.
So
in
my
mind,
that's
how
I
think
of
those
things.
G
Yeah,
I
think
it
would
still
be
contributing
to
the
overall
historic
district.
I
just
don't
think
it'd
be
a
contributing
statement
to
the
overall
eligible
resource
of
the
canal
itself.
It's
a
little
tedious
got
it
and
they
won't
spend
a
lot
a
lot
of
time
on.
I
just
wanted
to
make
you
aware
that
it
is
an
eligible
resource.
A
Hey,
let's
get
a
motion
put
forward.
H
H
That's
what
I
would
like
to
put
in
motion,
but
I
don't
think
we
can
do
that.
I
think
we
have
to
either
deny
it
or
defer
it
with
instructions
back
to
the
applicant
to
come
back
with
something
suitable.
So,
madam
chair,
would
you
like
me
to
put
a
denial
epic
motion
together
or
a
deferral.
A
I
think,
whatever
you
see,
making
the
most
sense
and
being.
D
Madam
chair
and
commissioner
koski,
my
understanding
was
because
these
were
submitted
individually.
We
could
parse
them
out,
and
so
you
could
deny
moving
the
canal,
which
I
think
then
would
result
in
having
to
redesign
the
house
right.
If
the
canal
is
the
piece,
that's
that's,
I'm
tripping
everything
up.
That's
correct!.
B
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Koski
did
you
want
to
take
a
whack
at
your
motion.
H
Sure
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
move
the.
H
Deferred
with
the
instructions
that
the
applicant
come
back
to
the
commission
with
a
plan
for
a
a
new
home
based
on
keeping
the
canal
where
it's
at
and
replacement
of,
the
trees
that
were
illegally
removed.
B
A
Commissioner
moroni
you
had
mentioned
taking
aspects
of
the
application
as
it
is
and
approving
those
would
you
like
to
attempt
a
motion
doing
so.
B
A
F
Maybe
we
should
ask
staff
if
there's
an
option,
for
how
do
we
do
thai
and
if
is
there
an
option
that
what
what
what
happens,
if
there's
always
going
to
be
a
tie,
we
have
other
commissioner
members
they're
just
not
present
this
evening.
Maybe
our
attorneys
or
staff
could
help
us
understand
what
our
options
are.
K
C
I
Yes,
well,
I
would
like
to
make
a
clarification
and
then
I
would
like
to
hopefully
present
the
commission
a
couple
of
options.
One
commissioner
brown
in
some
of
the
discussions
regarding
the
motions
mentioned
that
it's
not
possible
for
a
survey
to
take
place.
I
wanted
to
quickly
correct
that
stating
that
there
is
a
possibility
under
idaho
or
boise
city
code
11-0509.7,
where
the
commission
can
make
a
motion
to
request
reclassification.
I
If
the
commission
were
to
entertain
that
kind
of
emotion,
there
would
have
to
be
another
public
hearing
set
to
determine
whether
or
not
there
were
errors
in
the
original
survey.
I
believe
that
would
be
the
only
criteria
for
which
this
commission
could
consider
such
a
motion.
A
Thank
you,
mary.
Let's
have
a
quick
discussion
on
what
makes
the
most
sense.
I
think
deferral
makes
the
most
sense
at
this
point
just
because
we
do
have
other
commissioners
who
I
know
would
have
thoughts
on
this,
but
I'd
love
to
hear
some
other
thoughts.
H
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Koski.
Is
there
second?
Oh
sorry,
oh
commissioner
brown,
perfect,
commissioner
brown.
Second
victoria,
would
you
please
call
the
roll
up.
A
A
Drh21-00012
will
now
be
deferred
to
the
march
29th
meeting
and
now
we'll
move
to
item
number
five
drh21.00027
richard
wilmott
at
1307,
west
fort
street
ted.
Can
we
please
have
the
report.
C
C
C
You'll
see
yeah,
as
you
read
through
your
structural
analysis
reports.
These
are
kind
of
some
of
the
the
key
points
that
the
front
and
rear
porch
sections
are
separating
from
the
main
structure.
The
foundation
is
showing
large
cracks.
C
C
C
More
photos
indicating
settling
of
the
porch
large
crack
in
the
foundation
non-pressure
treated
lumber,
bearing
on
concrete
excuse
me,
here's
where
they
show
the
chunks
of
concrete,
where
the
structure
is
sitting
on
various
chunks
of
concrete
throughout
the.
C
So
these
are
the
findings
for
demolition.
Three
out
of
five
findings
have
to
be
made
for
demolition
of
structure
the
first
one
that
the
building
is
classified
as
contributing
or
not
contributing.
This
building
is
classified
as
contributing,
but
the
building
site
or
structure
cannot
reasonably
be
national
state
or
local
criteria
for
designation
as
a
historical
property.
C
The
property
does
meet
local
criteria,
as
it
is
a
contributing
property
within
the
local
historic
district
and
remains
as
such,
the
demolition
of
the
building
would
not
adversely
affect
the
character
of
the
district
anytime.
A
contributing
structure
is
demolished,
it
adversely
impacts
the
character
of
the
district
and
the
neighborhood
as
well,
so
that
finding
so
far
none
of
the
findings
can
be
made
up
to
that
point,
the
roaner
has
reasonably
demonstrated
that
rehabilitation
of
the
building
object,
cider
structure
would
not
be
economically
feasible.
C
As
you'll
see
the
the
in
the
report
and
in
the
discussion,
the
applicant
has
estimated
that
rehabilitation
of
the
structure
would
be
just
over
half
a
million
dollars,
five
hundred
thousand
dollars,
but
there's
also
a
statement
in
there
that
demolition
and
new
construction
would
also
be
just
over
500
thousand
dollars
as
such,
with
the
feasibility
being
equal
to
rehabilitation.
C
Excuse
me
or
demolition
and
rebuild.
Obviously
this
the
historic
preservation
staff
would
would
recommend
you
know
we
are
here
to
preserve
contributing
historic
structures,
so
all
things
being
equal
and
the
cost.
We
would
certainly
want
to
see
the
contributing
structure
rehabilitated
rather
than
demolished.
C
All
things
being
equal
that
plans
have
been
submitted.
Plans
have
not
been
submitted
to
staff.
C
So
actually,
the
staff
cannot
make
any
findings
on
this
project.
C
The
applicant
also
indicates
that
they
think
that
the
structure
has
been
altered
on
the
facade
and
that
and
putting
into
question
whether
it
should
even
be
contributing
in
the
first
place.
The
main
point
is
that
you
know
this
is
the
survey
from
1949
there's
one
from
1956,
that's
identical,
so
you'll
see
the
porches
on
each
side
appear
to
be
open.
Porches
with
the
hash
marks.
C
The
applicant
maintains
that
the
porches
were
enclosed
and
maintains
that
they
appear
to
have
been
enlarged
because
they
look
much
smaller
on
the
sanborn
map
than
they
do
on
the
on
the
actual
ariel
and
on
on
the
ground.
C
So
staff
conclusion
three
out
of
the
five
findings
which
is
required
could
not
be
met.
Structural
issues
with
the
roof,
flooring
and
foundation
are
not
uncommon.
With
these
these
historic
houses
and
can
generally
be
repaired
without
full
demolition.
C
Which
are
areas
that
might
have
contained
more
moisture,
so
it's
unknown
at
this
time,
how
extensive
that
dry,
rot
is,
and
that
wasn't
provided
in
the
report
again,
the
cost
comparison
of
rehab
versus
rebuild
is
the
same,
so
the
feasibility
finding
cannot
be
made,
and
as
previously
and
as
indicated
on
the
last
slide,
the
porches
were
enclosed
and
may
have
been
extended.
However,
it
is
assumed
that
the
architectural
historian,
in
likely
reviewing
the
sanborn
maps,
understood
that
these
alterations
took
place
or
may
have
taken
place
and
still
listed
the
house
as
contributing.
C
H
On
on
the
the
statement
of
rehabilitation,
costs
and
estimates,
when
we
ask,
for
that,
is
the
cost
for
just
repairing
or
rehabilitating
the
are
we
asking
for
an
estimate
to
repair
and
rehabilitate
the
things
that
they
they
suggest
are,
are
wrong
or
deficient,
or
is
it
to
build
the
entire
structure
rehabilitate
the
entire
structure
to
to
a
newest
to
a
brand
new
building.
C
C
So
in
this
case
they
did
provide
a
cost
analysis
of
rehabilitation,
assuming
that
that
rehabilitation
is
for
the
the
the
issues
that
they
point
out
on
the
structure,
but
instead
of
providing
a
an
analysis
of
what
it
would
cost
to
to
an
itemized
analysis
of
what
it
costs
to
demolish
and
and
new
build,
they
just
stated
that
that
that
would
be
it'd
be
about
the
same
cost.
Instead
of
providing
that
analysis,
so
they're
making
a
statement
that
you
know,
rehabilitation
is
the
same
their
analysis
on
rehabilitation.
G
Yeah,
I
just
have
a
little
bit
more
clarifying
following
up
commissioner
koski's
question,
so
the
rehabilitation
costs
does
that
include
like
if
they
need
to
repair
the
siding
or
replace
the
siding,
and
are
they
repairing
as
a
standard
say
to
repair
it
over,
replace
it
and
repair
the
windows
over
replacing
the
windows.
C
It's
a
madam
chair,
commissioner
brown.
It's
assumed
that
what
they
are
talking
about
in
that
cost
analysis
is
specific
to
what
they're
saying
is
deficient
on
the
property,
so
probably
lifting
the
building
and
replacing
a
foundation
as
well,
and
that's
probably
the
main
thing
for
the
floor
and
correcting
the
foundation
or
fixing
the
separation
issues
and
foundation.
Issues
for
all
four
porches
and
also
the
roof
system
would
probably
have
to
be
deconstructed
with
and
and
with
and
brought
up
to
code.
C
C
You
know
beyond
that.
I
would
defer
to
the
applicant
to
explain
further
what
their
what
they
had
in
mind
with
that
rehabilitation.
A
Okay,
thank
you
is
the
applicant.
A
E
E
E
N
Perfect.
Thank
you.
Sorry
about
the
technological
issues
there,
richard
wilmot,
3914
east
presidential,
drive,
meridian,
idaho,.
N
You
know
we
this
this
particular
structure
we
feel
at
baseline
is
not
in
fact
a
contributing
structure.
For
many
of
the
reasons
that
ted
actually
pointed
out,
given
the
fact
that.
N
During
during
it
during
its
existence,
you
know
we
don't
know
when
it
was
actually
built,
but
it
was
built
sometime
between
before
1949,
which
is
really
the
the
the
period
of
historical
significance
in
which,
after
that
time,
the
the
front
facing
porches
along
front
street
have
been
have
been
significantly
modified,
likely
doubled
in
size
and
completely
enclosed
and
they've
been
enclosed
with,
let's
just
say,
more
modern
materials
that
aren't
significant
to
the
craftsman
style
identified
in
the
survey,
and
you
know
the
survey
was
conducted
in
such
a
way
that
it
wasn't
an
invasive
survey.
N
N
Regardless
of
whether
the
the
report,
the
porches,
were
seen
at
the
time
as
being
contributing
they
they
aren't,
because
they
weren't
part
of
the
original
structure
and
and
as
such,
the
these
components
of
the
building
are
failing
significantly
outside
of
the
energy
issues
that
are
being
experienced.
N
Structural
issues
are
being
experienced
with
the
with
the
failing
of
the
of
the
floor
and
and
walls
and
everything
surrounding
these
particular
porches,
and
it's
causing
the
rest
of
the
the
structure
to
fail
in
regards
to
a
couple
of
the
issues
related
to
the
cost
and
how
this
structure
is
is
in
fact
failing.
The
the
reports
that
we
obtained
and
the
estimates
that
we
obtained
relative
to
replacement
and
renovation
is
only
particular
to
those
items
that
we've
identified
as
being
as
being
a
failure
to
the
building.
N
So
in
the
case
of
the
the
ridge,
beam
ted
basically
hit
it
on
the
numbers
that
the
entire
roof
system
has
to
be
removed
from
this
particular
structure
outside
of
the
ridge
beam
the
rafters
along
the
top
cord
they're
spanning
such
a
significant
distance
that
those
would
also
have
to
be
reinforced
and,
at
that
point,
we're
basically
putting
on
new
trusses,
which
means
that
the
ceiling
inside
of
the
structures
also
has
to
be
removed
along
with
obviously
the
roof
covering
and
everything
else
you
know
and
and
outside
of
the
roof.
N
You
know
you
can
work
your
way
all
the
way
down
to
the
foundation
where
again
ted
was
right,
that
the
the
building
of
a
structure
would
have
to
be
lifted
and
at
that
point,
there's
some
fairly
significant
sequencing
issues
where,
with
the
roof
being
removed.
Now
we're
now
we're
we're
trying
to
figure
out
which
part
of
this
project
do
we
do
first
and
how
do
we
attack
we
tackle
it,
which
leads
to
the
fairly
significant
cost.
N
You
know,
I
understand
that
relative
to
a
comparison
of
rehabilitation
and
and
renovation
to
the
items
that
we're
seeing
at
fault
in
in
the
report
versus
a
complete
removal
and
rebuild
we're,
not
we're
not
getting
a
lot
of
value
out
of
the
out
of
the
the
the
simple
replacement
because
we're
just
trying
to
get
it
back
to
livable
and
safe
conditions,
because
right
now,
with
sloping
floors
and
doors
that
don't
close
and
the
potential
for
any
sort
of
seismic
event,
this
building
would
collapse
on
its
own.
N
So
there,
the
the
value
of
spending
500
000
on
on
removing
a
roof
just
to
simply
replace
it.
The
way
that
it
was
is
a
is
a
difficult
thing
for
the
building
owner
to
to
to
rationalize
when
they
could
take
it
down
and
build
a
new,
a
new
structure
with
all
of
you
know,
with
all
the
relative
modern
amenities
that
would
be
expected
in
a
in
a
in
a
residence
the
at
this.
At
this
particular
moment
you
know.
N
Yes,
we
may
not
comply
with
the
three
out
of
out
of
the
five,
but
of
those
of
those
three
out
of
the
five
it
being
a
non-contributing
structure
is
a
fairly
significant
part
of
that,
and
because
again,
because
the
the
front
facade
has
been
fairly
significantly
modified,
I
don't
know
how
it
can
continue
to
be
a
contributing
structure,
especially
given
the
fact
that
it
was
done
outside
of
outside
of
the
period
of
historical
significance
and
one
of
the
one
of
the
ways
that
or
materials
that
have
been
used
on
the
building
are
the
aluminum
windows
that
wasn't
something
that
was
readily
available.
N
Was
constructed
by
any
stretch,
and
so
we,
you
know
providing
new
plans
for
for
what
we
would
propose
on
this
particular
site.
We
would
certainly
do
that
considering
a
potential
approval
of
removal,
but
at
this
point
you
know
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
in
compliance
with
the
commission's
findings
and
and
being
able
to
remove
this
structure
would
then
allow
us
to
start.
N
You
know
proposing
some
a
new
design
for
this
particular
this
particular
site,
and
that
being
two
of
the
two
of
the
five
conditions
would
would
get
us
a
lot
closer
to
meeting
the
third
and
and
then
relative
to
the
third.
I
think
I
touched
on
that
a
little
bit
relative
to
the
the
the
site
assessment
or
the
cost
assessment
for
the
replacement
we've
we've
engaged
with
a
with
a
local
contractor
that
has
significant
experience
in
this
type
of
project,
and
it
just
it
just
doesn't.
N
It
doesn't
make
sense
to
maintain
this
structure
in
its
condition
to
simply
replace
it
like
for
like
or
replace
the
conditions
that
are
failing
like
for
like
for
the
dollar
amount.
N
You
know
we're
we're
being
told
it's
a
half
a
million
dollar
investment
and
to
say
that
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna
level
out
the
porches
and
that
we're
gonna
put
in
a
ridge
beam
and
provide
proper
firewalls
and
things
like
that
for
five
hundred
thousand
and
we
still
haven't
even
touched
the
interior
spaces
to
make
those
spaces
better.
It
doesn't
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
us,
so
we
want.
N
We
want
there
to
be
an
understanding
that
if,
if
we're
trying
to
get
this
structure
as
such
that
or
it
or
any
structure
that
that
is
something
that
somebody
can't
actually
live
in
and
right
now,
people
are
living
in
it
and
it's
a
difficult.
It's
a
difficult
situation
for
them
mike
the
the
property
owner
is
on
the
line.
Ted
is,
are
you
able
to
if
I
were
to
defer
my
time
to
the
property
owner?
Can
you
accommodate
that.
N
Q
Q
Gospel
church
next
door,
ex-gospel
church
was
actually
non-contributing
and
the
general
consensus
was
that
there
was
not
anything
particularly
attractive
in
the
architecture
or
exterior
integrity
of
the
building
and
its
character
that
made
it
contributing
it
it.
It
was
clear
from
the
sandbone
maps
that
the
front
and
the
back
sunrooms
were
added
outside
of
the
period
of
the
historical
significance
with
the
aluminum
windows
aluminum
doors.
Q
As
richard
said,
they
were
not
available
during
the
period
of
historical
significance,
as
as,
as
we
can
see
from
the
reports
that
is
provided
to
you
by
the
by
the
structural
engineer,
I
fear
for
the
safety
of
my
family.
My
young
children
established
it's
not
a
structurally
safe
place
to
live
any
again.
As
richard
said,
any
seismic
event
of
any
kind
can
bring
this
whole
house
upon
us.
Q
Q
Q
So
I
I
I
listened
to
the
the
previous
applicants,
the
applicants,
the
the
testimonies
and
it's
clear
that
there
are
strong
feelings
from
all
sides
about
the
the
historic
district
and
I
moved
here
from
bay
hill
springs
behind
capital
high,
because
that
was
the
condition
of
my
family.
Moving
to
boise
was
that
they
want
to
move
to
north,
and
otherwise
they
will
forsake
me.
Q
So
so,
then
we
got
into
this,
and
now
I
find
out
that
there's
a
de
facto
lien
on
my
property
that
I
can't
do
anything
even
if
I
prove
because
prove
to
you
good
people
that
you
know
the
out
the
most
significant
portion
that
proves
historical
nature
of
the
property
is
the
exterior
of
the
property
nobody's
gonna
come
inside
and
look
at
the
crumbling
house
and
say:
oh,
it
looks
very
historical
and
outside
has
been
changed
significantly,
it's
expanded,
it's
enclosed,
the
materials
modern
materials
have
been
used.
Q
Revamping
of
the
whole
building
the
outside
will
still
look
non-historical
because
it's
not
historical
and
in
I
looked
at
the
survey
report
from
the
consultant
and
it's
it
says
in
his
own
report
that
his
his
report
is
more
of
a
reconnaissance
than
a
detailed
report,
not
intensive
report.
So
it
was
probably
a
drive-by
consultant
who
went
around
and
took
pictures,
and
so
I
I
I
will
urge
that.
Q
I
understand
our
confirmation,
biases
and
our
strong
feelings,
and
I
I
but
I
will
urge
you
guys,
as
representatives
of
the
city
and
essentially
of
us,
people
that.
Q
And
I
will
appeal
to
you
that
the
more
objective
and
the
pragmatic
stance
is
taken
instead
of
an
emotional
one
here,
because
it
just
disregards
the
well-being
of
the
homeowner
and
the
family,
and
it's
just
the
hard
line
as
as
previously
said
by
commissioner
brown.
It's
a
42
year
old
survey
and
I
don't
know
how
old
is
my
survey
and
it's
just
some
of
that
stuff
is
outdated
and
it's
not.
I
you
nobody
can
prove
the
relevancy
of
it
or
the
or
the
accuracy
of
it.
Q
So
that's
I
think,
that's
all
I
have
to
say
thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so
much
are
there
any
questions
for
the
applicant
or
staff
at
this
point.
M
Testify
hello,
can
you
guys
hear
me.
M
M
However,
we
do
feel
for
this
homeowner
and
we
would
like
to
know
if
there
is
anything
that
the
staff
can
do
to
to
help
him
present
a
better,
more
realistic
project
regarding
how
much
it
really
would
cost
to
rehabilitate
on
what
would
need
to
be
rehabilitated
and
what
really
would
cost
the
bill
with
with
a
more
detailed
plan,
and
then,
hopefully
he
can
come
out
at
a
later
meeting
and
and
everything,
and
then
we
can
make
a
better
decision,
and
so
right
now
we
are
starting
with
the
with
the
staff
recommendation
to
to
the
united
demolition,
since
it's
a
contributing
structure
and
it
doesn't
mean
any
of
the
demolition
requirements
like
like
dad
was
saying.
J
J
What
I'd
like
to
say
is
settling
porches
can
be
fixed,
insulation
can
be
fixed,
cracked
foundations
can
be
fixed.
All
of
those
things
that
they
mentioned,
that
are
wrong
with
the
house
can
be
fixed.
I
understand
that
there
is
a
cost
for
that,
but
at
this
point
in
time
we
are
losing
contributing
houses
in
our
historic
districts
at
an
alarming
rate.
Along
with
this,
we
are
losing
affordable,
housing
and
adding
to
our
landfill.
J
This
from
what
I
understand,
the
city
is
working
on
updating
the
historic
guidelines.
Until
this
project
is
finished,
we
should
not.
We
should
definitely
not
be
approving
demolitions,
especially
in
the
historic
districts.
Plans
should
be
required
for
whatever
they
are
planning
to
put
in
place
of
what
is
being
done,
a
lot
a
little
demolished.
J
A
H
Sure
so
richard
are
you
there?
Yes,
sir
okay,
can
you
rehabilitate
this
building.
H
You
provide
a
cost
estimate
that,
from
a
builder
to
as
you
mentioned
in
your
statement,
to
fix
the
parts
that
are
failing
and
to
bring
it
up
to
code.
H
E
N
I
don't
know
I
don't.
I
don't
agree
with
that:
no,
the
the
expectation
that
something
shall
remain
out
of
code
at
the
potential
of
safety
and
energy
concerns
and
and
and
and
just
simple
consideration
for
its
occupants.
No,
I
don't.
I
don't
agree
with
that.
H
N
H
N
That
you
do
no
that's
not
correct
the
moment
that
you
do
renovation,
for
example,
to
the
entire
roof.
You
would
be
required
to
bring
it
up
to
current
code.
N
N
A
strip
you
can't
touch
a
structure
and
and
build
it
back
to
its
prior
condition,
without
bringing
it
up
to
current
code,
meaning
if
the
roof
is
changed
or
the
roof
is
improved.
It
then
has
to
be
made
current
with
current
code,
so,
for
example,
relative
to
the
ridge
beam.
N
If
the,
if
a
ridge
beam
was
put
in
place,
the
rest
of
the
roof
system
also
has
to
be
modified
and
be
brought
up
to
current
code
with
additional
webbing
in
the
roof.
Trusses
that
supports
the
the
top
cords
based
on
whatever
their
spam
is.
N
We
have
to
meet
current
loading
conditions
for
for
live
and
snow
loads
and
dead
loads,
and
then,
at
that
point
the
same
same
would
go
for
the
roof
covering
you
wouldn't
put.
For
example,
if
this
house
had
a
had
a
a
roof
covering
on
it
that
didn't
have
any
waterproofing
or
proper
waterproofing
underneath
it,
we
wouldn't
go
back
on
with
a
roof
that
doesn't
have
any
waterproofing,
so
it
wouldn't
it
would
need
to,
and
it
would
be
required
to.
B
H
You're
not
having
to
meet
the
new
construct
requirements
for
energy
and
for
the
items
you
mentioned.
Another
question
this
estimate
is
for
for
500
dollars.
You
state
was
for
bringing
it
up
up
to
code
and
to
repair
the
things
that
are
are
falling
apart.
I
question
many
of
the
line
items.
In
there
I
mean:
okay,
it's
half
a
million
dollars
but
carpet
interior
paint,
24
000
in
plumbing
22,
000
heat,
vac,
hvac,
new
windows
and
doors.
H
All
there's
a
lot.
There's
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars
in
here
that
have
nothing
to
do
with
bringing
the
structure
and
repairing
the
structure
to
to
to
take
care
of
the
things
that
you
say
are
deteriorating.
H
Need
to
remove
the
roof
having
a
roof
without
a
ridge
beam
in
that
in
that
state,
I
think
is,
is
is
very
characteristic
of
this,
this
style
of
home
and
it
can
be
supported.
H
I
mean
interior
doors.
You
don't
need
interior
doors
in
here
to
run
up
to
bring
this
to
rehabilitate
the
parts
that
are
falling
apart.
So
I
think
I
think
this.
H
H
Match
what
the
estimate
says,
you
stated
that
the
estimate
was
to
repair
the
building
and
to
bring
it
up
to
code
and
that's
a
whole
new
building
right.
There.
N
And
and
that's
what
happens
when
the
building
gets
lifted
relative
to
the
plumbing,
everything
has
to
be
disconnected,
there's
likely
to
be
repairs
that
would
just
need
to
happen
to
whatever
existing
plumbing
fixtures
are
within
the
home.
N
There's
a
lot
of
waste
lines,
supply
lines
that
are
underneath
the
home
that
once
the
house
is
lifted,
all
have
to
be
removed
and
disconnected
and
then
replaced
as
far
as
the
interior
doors
are
concerned,
that's
in
reference
to
the
doors
that
used
to
be
exterior
that
are
now
interior
doors,
because
the
porches
have
been
enclosed
and
the
building
has
been
modified.
N
Those
doors
don't
actually
shut.
They
don't
actually
close,
because
the
the
walls
have
settled
so
much
that
that
the
frames
need
to
be
replaced
and
they've
been
split.
So
as
far
as
the
carpet
is
concerned,
once
the
once,
the
roof
has
been
torn
off
to
make
it
make
it
compliant
with
with
live
and
dead
load
requirements.
N
Current
live
deadload
requirements
which
will
be
required
when
the
when
the
ridge
beam
is
replaced.
The
whole
inside
of
the
house
has
now
been
exposed
and
all
of
the
interior
finishes
have
been
compromised
and
the
ceiling
has
to
be
redone
which,
as
I'm
sure,
you're
aware,
once
you
start
doing
interior
finish
work.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner
koski.
If
the
applicant
would
like
you
have
five
minutes
for
rebuttal
or
you
may
yield
your
time.
G
I
actually
sorry,
oh
I'm
sorry,
commissioner
brown.
I
had
a
question
for
the
architect.
Please
have
you
pulled
all
of
the
historic
building
permits
for
this
property.
G
Normally
the
city
of
boise
has
all
of
their
historic
building
permits
available.
I
mean
I've
pulled
mine,
we've
done
research
in
this
neighborhood
and
they
have
them.
So
I
find
that
kind
of
hard
to
believe
that
they
don't
have
the
building
permits
for
this
property.
N
G
And
then
I
would
just
like
to
clarify
survey
technique,
reconnaissance
versus
intensive
level
survey,
so
a
reconnaissance
is
not
a
drive-by
survey.
You
are
characterizing
that
wrong.
A
reconnaissance
level
survey
is
taking
several
photos
looking
at
the
building
documenting
changes
to
the
building,
an
intensive
level
survey
and
actually
eligibility
status,
so
the
different
criteria
and
then
an
intensive
level
survey
is
doing
a
deep
dive
into
the
history
about
all
the
changes
all
of
the
occupants
of
the
structure
and
really
diving
into
who
built
it.
Who
was
that
person?
G
So
those
are
the
two
distinct
difference
between
a
reconnaissance
versus
attentive
level
survey
and
most
of
these
historic
national
registered
districts
that
were
surveyed
are
reconnaissance
level
survey.
You
do
not
need
an
intensive
level
survey
to
list
a
property
as
a
contributing
or
non-contributing
for
the
national
register.
G
I
also
have
one
additional
question
so
on
your
plans,
you
say:
there's
no
roof
insulation
and
then
the
one
photo
that
you
do
provide
in
the
packet
actually
so
shows
insulation
in
the
attic
area.
G
A
Thank
you
back
to
the
applicant.
If
you
would
like
you
have
five
minutes
for
rebuttal
or
you
may
yield
your
teeth.
N
Relative
to
providing
new
plans,
we
can
certainly
look
look
into
accommodating
that
and
providing
what
we
would
be
suggesting
in
place
of
this
I'll
review
with
canon
and
if,
if
it's
decided
that
we
want
to
try
to
do
that,
we'll
certainly
do
that
and
provide
that
for
consideration.
N
As
far
as
the
the
reconnaissance
versus
intensive
commissioner
brown,
you
had
mentioned
something
to
the
effect
that
they
would
identify
during
a
reconnaissance
visit,
the
things
that
have
been
modified
on
the
building
which
they
didn't
do
in
their
report.
So
it
would
be.
It
would
be
really
helpful
if
that
were
actually
the
case,
because
I
don't
think
that
it
was.
N
They
would
have
known
right
away
that
that
the
modifications
that
have
been
made
to
both
porches,
both
on
the
front
and
back
were
were
not
actually
contributing
to
the
structure
and
not
original,
because
in
the
on
the
building,
there
are
some
original
windows,
but
in
in
the
two
front
and
rear
facing
facades.
N
The
windows
are
not
are
not
original,
so
if,
in
fact,
they
were
to
identify
modifications
that
have
been
made,
they
certainly
didn't
do
it
in
the
report
and
then,
lastly,
relative
to
to
this
particular
structure,
you
know
we're
talking
about
a
a
fairly
significant
amount
of
money
that
would
be
required
to
repair
again
portions
of
this
particular
structure
and
not
really
enhancing
the
livability
of
the
of
the
structure
itself
or
the
interior
environment.
N
N
If,
if
it's,
if
it's
determined
that
that
our
our
report
in
its
current
situation
isn't
acceptable
for
an
approval
that
that
we
at
least
are
able
to
get
a
deferral
for
the
next,
the
next
hearing,
so
that
we
can
either
gather
some
additional
information
or
be
able
to
appropriately
respond
to
to
your
comments
raised
tonight
in
lieu
of
a
denial
it
would
just,
it
would
help
us
in
our
process
to
to
best
respond
to
that.
He
raised
this
evening
with
that
we
can.
A
Thank
you,
mr
wilmont,
and
with
that
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing
and
we'll
consider
a
motion.
H
E
H
H
Yes,
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
for
drh
21-0027
for
denial
based
on
the
items.
B
H
H
H
Yeah,
I
I'd
like
to
start
discussion
and
and
and
tell
you
what
the
basis
for
my
for
my
motion
was
for
denial.
This
is
a
contributing
property.
We.
D
H
And
cost
is
not
to
be
a
factor
in
remodeling.
The
project
hardship
can
be
a
factor
but
repairing
or
renovating
a
structure.
H
Cost
of
that
is
important,
but
it's
not
something
that
we
can
consider
wholly
owning
a
house
in
a
historic
district
and
owning
an
old
home.
It's
expensive.
It
costs
more
money
to
repair
things
than
to
build
it
new.
It
costs
more
money
to
remodel
than
to
build
something
new.
This
is
part
of
having
an
old
house,
and
here
we
have
a
contributing
structure
that
someone's
living
in
right
now.
H
Currently,
it's
currently
being
used,
it
just
needs
to
be
repaired
and
yes,
it's
expensive.
I
understand
that
I
own
a
home
in
a
historic
district
as
well
and
it's
expensive,
but
that's
part
of
owning
a
home
in
a
historic
district.
L
H
E
F
I
was
just
actually,
mr
koski,
you
know.
Probably
I
don't
want
to
belabor
the
fact
but
hit
on
many
of
the
points
that
I
was
going
to
articulate
so.
A
G
I
would
like
to
add
some
some
things,
so
it's
quite
clear:
we
can't
lose
another
contributing
property,
that's
not
only
contributing
in
the
local
district.
It's
also
contributing
to
the
national
register
of
historic
places.
District.
G
G
The
secretary
the
interior
standards
number
four
most
properties
change
over
time
and
those
changes
can
have
significance
in
their
own
right.
So
we
need
to
keep
that
in
mind
when
we're
looking
at
these
pro
properties
that
are
just
slightly
modified
and
they're
contributing
to
a
district,
they
don't
have
to
retain
all
of
their
integrity
like
a
individually
eligible
property
would
be
also
I'd
like
to
point
out
that
we
had
one
of
the
largest
earthquakes
in
april
2020.
So
I
think
we
know
that
the
house
can
withstand
seismic
activity.
A
Krishna
brown
any
further
discussion.
A
Okay,
victoria,
would
you
please
call
the
roll.
B
B
A
Thank
you,
and
that
concludes
our
hearing
for
this
evening.
Everyone
we
will
reconvene
march
29th
and
thank
you
all
for
being
here.