►
From YouTube: Historic Preservation Commission - 7/27/2020
Description
Please visit the following link for information on how to testify during virtual public hearings:
https://www.cityofboise.org/departments/finance-and-administration/city-clerk/virtual-meetings/
A
E
C
A
F
G
E
What
was
it
two?
Seven,
seven,
three,
nine
eight.
B
G
C
A
And
matt
was
telling
me
tonight
that
I
can
set
those
up
ahead
of
time
and
wait
to
send
that
oh
interesting,
don't
type
in
the
email
addresses
until
a
couple
days
before.
Okay-
and
I
didn't
know
that
in
saline,
it
says,
do
all
of
it:
okay,
but
then
they
get
it
like
a
month
ahead
of
time
and
they
lose
it.
You
know,
understandably,.
A
So,
and
do
you
have
her
name
josh,
it's
jillian
maroney,
okay,.
C
G
B
J
A
Yeah
there's
mary
grant.
She
got
in
okay,
I'm
great.
A
A
E
A
E
I'm
just
gonna
have
them
yeah
devon
can't
get
in
either.
A
J
A
A
C
Downtown
a
couple
nights
ago
at
like
dinner
time
and
their
daughter
used
to
babysit
leo
before
she
went
away
to
college,
and
so
he
just.
D
A
A
D
L
E
B
C
D
C
Should
we
go
ahead
and
get
started,
yeah,
okay,
great,
let's
go
ahead
and
call
the
work
session
to
order
ted
go
ahead
and
take
it
away.
E
Okay,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
We
have
a
short
work
session
presentation,
but
I'll
open
up
by
going
through
the
agenda
real,
quick
and
identify
the
items.
You
know
how
we're
going
to
handle
some
of
these
items
or
propose
to
handle
them
item
number
one
is
drh2150.
E
Deferred
from
last
month,
we
will
definitely
be
hearing
that
one
item
number
two
is
drh
2231,
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
to
construct
a
garage
in
adu
that
one
will
be
heard
as
well.
The
applicant
will
be
giving
a
presentation
on
that
item.
Number
three
was
deferred.
E
The
applicant
needed
more
time
to
work
out
some
kinks
on
this
application.
So
that's
drh
2278
proposed
to
be
deferred
to
august
august.
31St
item
number
four
drh
2282.
This
one
was
deferred
because
the
applicant
just
didn't
get
the
site
posted
in
time
so
by
state
law.
We
had
to
defer
that
out
and
our
only
item
for
consent
is
item
number
five
brh
2290,
which
is
a
certificate
of
appropriate
request
to
construct
a
one
and
a
half
story
garage
with
an
adu
on
top
any
questions
or
comments
on
those.
E
G
E
Okay,
all
right
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
proceed
so
this
you
know
some
information
has
come
in
and
and
different
comments
have
been
made,
so
we
just
wanted
to
go
over.
E
You
know
the
process
of
of
demolition
and
the
role
that
the
commission
plays
in
that
process
of
demolition
of
historic
buildings
in
a
historic
district
or
otherwise
historic
buildings
in
the
city.
E
But
the
role
of
the
commission
under
city
code,
exacting
punishment
for
violations
of
the
code,
is
not
within
the
purview
or
authority
granted
to
the
commission.
E
While
it
is
the
duty,
the
commission,
to
promote,
preserve
and
protect
historic
assets.
It's
the
city,
attorney's
office
and
the
department.
E
Who
is
supposed
to
proceed
with
those
kind
of
actions
and
again
underlined
there
legal
strongly
cautions
the
commission
that
any
decision
on
the
application
made
for
the
implicit
or
explicit
purpose
to
punish
the
applicant
would
likely
be
the
subject
of
an
appeal.
E
So
the
commission,
their
role
with
these
demolitions,
are
to
review
proposals
for
demolition
of
historic
structures
and
structures
located
within
the
boundaries
of
a
local,
historic
district
and
hold
a
public
hearing
for
demolition
of
contributing
structures
or
structures
with
local
landmark
status
or
historic
easements
owned
by
the
city,
and
to
make
a
decision
on
those.
You
know
on
those
demolitions
to
either
approve
the
demolition
or
to
deny
the
demolition
and
you'll
see
below
that.
E
E
You
know
the
contractors
and
and
property
owners
tell
us
that
we're
not
clear,
sometimes
on
on
in
in
what
we
do,
and
so
we
we
kind
of
try
to
massage
out
our
reports
and
our
conditions
and
ultimately,
our
code
and
our
guidelines,
and
this
is
a
condition
that
we've
started
using
here
and
again-
and
this
is
something
you
you
may
you
probably
won't
see
this
time,
but
next
month,
you'll
see
it
in
in
one
of
the
packets,
but
this
the
commission
is
essentially
well
as
it
states.
E
This
permit
does
not
allow
any
portion
of
the
house
to
be
demolished.
The
entire
structure,
including
foundation,
exterior
walls
and
roof,
shall
be
retained
and
protected,
and
then
it
goes
on.
Failure
to
comply
will
result
in
issuance
of
a
stop
work
order
and
and
property
will
stop
until
approval
by
a
historic
commission
or
appeal
from
the
city
council
and
again.
E
This
is
just
our
attempt
to
try
to
pull
out
some
of
that
gray,
make
things
a
little
more
clear
for
the
applicants
and
the
public
in
general
that
when
we
are
approving
a
house
for
a
new
basement
or
in
addition,
that
we're
not
approving
the
house
being
deconstructed
or
torn
down
and
put
back
together
the
way
it
was
before.
That
is
not
that's,
not
something
that
that
that
is
appropriate
and
it's
not
something
that
we
approve
with
any
of
any
of
our
applications.
Unless
it's
requested
and
approved
by
the
commission.
E
And
so
as
we
move
forward
and
again,
we
work
closely
with
legal
to
make
sure
that
we
are
working
within
the
parameters
of
as
we
move
forward
and
and
and
consider
ways
to
make
the
process
less
gray
and
to
even
codify
some
of
the
some
of
the
penalties
as
you'll
see
here,
which
we
do
not
yet
have.
But
these
are.
E
These
are
some
language
that
we've
that
we've
discussed
in
our
office
of
what
possible
penalties
could
occur
if
it
was
laid
out
more
clear
in
our
code,
one
that
is
fairly
common.
If
you
look
at
historic
districts
across
the
country
is
a
construction
delay
and
that
that
delay
can
go
anywhere
from
I've
seen
six
months
to
five
years,
a
delay
on
new
construction
on
that
property.
E
We
don't
see
a
lot
of
these
and
that's
why
this
one,
you
know
the
ones
that
we've
seen
recently
have
kind
of
we've
had
to
kind
of
step
back
and
and
kind
of
you
know,
frame
ourselves
a
little
bit
with
with
what
we
can
do
what's
in
the
code,
etc
and
moving
forward.
E
We,
though,
the
commission
doesn't
implement
penalties
on
these
projects.
We
do.
We
certainly
want
the
commission
to
be
a
part
of
you
know
the
discussion
on
on
what
the
city
should
be
doing
as
far
as
penalties
for
these
illegal
demolitions
so
and
again,
working
within
the
parameters
of
what
our
legal
department
thinks
is
appropriate
as
well.
So
it
would
be
a
kind
of
a
broad,
broad
discussion,
but
moving
forward.
What
what
can
that
look
like?
E
E
I
just
wanted
to
give
a
brief
kind
of
outline
of
what
what
we're
looking
at
as
we
move
forward
like
I
said
we
don't
see
a
lot
of
these
illegal
demolitions,
at
least
we
don't
know
about
them
all
always,
and
so,
when
we
do
and
they
come
before
us,
you
know
there
is
a
process
and-
and
the
city
has
certain
routes
that
they
have
to
take
with
that
process,
and
so
does
the
commission
so
with
that
I'll,
just
open
it
up
for
a
discussion,
if
you
guys
have
any
questions
or
comments
on
this,
then
again,
this
work
session
isn't
to
talk
specifically
about
any
particular
application
about
illegal
demolition
and
the
role
of
the
commission
and
the
role
of
the
city.
M
M
M
F
Hello,
all,
yes,
I
haven't
had
enough
opportunity
to
introduce
myself
in
person,
given
the
current
situation,
but
I've
taken
over
for
adam
who
used
to
be
present
with
you
all
from
our
office.
To
answer
your
question,
commissioner:
koski.
The
stop
work
order
is
placed
with
a
condition
that
the
applicant
go
through
the
proper
procedures
and
steps
to
get
approval.
F
So
at
this
point
in
time
we
have
initiated
that,
for
the
purpose
of
ensuring
no
additional
work
happens
in
discussions
with
staff
of
the
planning
and
historic
offices,
we
are
have
determined
that,
as
far
as
what
our
abilities
are
under
code
right
now,
time
is
the
biggest
penalty,
and
as
these
construction
sites
lose
time,
they
are
losing
money,
and
that
is
likely
a
more
effective
remedy.
At
this
point
than
a
small
fine
for
a
charge
of
a
misdemeanor.
F
There
is
a
possibility
of
going
down
that
road
route.
However,
to
get
more
to
the
point
of
your
question
once
they
have
gone
through
and
gotten
the
appropriate
certificate
of
appropriateness,
they
have
gone
through
the
procedure,
then
that
work
order
or
the
stop
work
order
will
be
lifted
so
that
they
can
continue
with.
M
The
city,
the
code
enforcement
office
can't
take
off
of
a
stop
work
order.
It
has
to
go
through
the
approval
of
whatever,
whatever
process
is
first
to
get
the
certificate
appropriate,
which
means
it
starts.
G
With
hpc,
it
sounds
like.
F
I
wouldn't
put
it
that
way.
What
it
is
is
that
this
is
a
condition
placed
by
the
department
on
to
the
applicant
that
once
this,
the
appropriate
certificate
of
repro
appropriateness
has
been
received,
then
they
will
remove
the
condition.
Unless
and
until
that
happens,
the
condition
will
remain,
and
so
the
punishment
so
to
speak
is
not
with
hpc,
but
it
is
conditioned
upon
what
happens
next
with
this
particular
particular
application.
L
Chair
this
is
probably
for
this
is
no
commissioner
richter.
This
is
probably
a
question
for
mary
as
well.
If
we
were
to
defer
this
application
to
to
reclassify
so
there
would
be
an
opportunity
to
repost
for
public
comment.
Our
next
commission
hearing,
I
believe,
is
like
63
days.
L
F
The
60
days
is
a
hard
stop
unless
we
get
agreement
from
the
applicant.
So
yes,
you
certainly
are
welcome
to
get
agreement
from
the
applicant
and
to
ask
him
for
that
and
that
ask
can
come
from
staff
or
from
the
commission,
and
if
the
applicant
were
to
agree
to
that
three-day
extension,
the
commission
could
make
that
decision
at
the
next
hearing.
C
I
do
have
one
what
type
of
outreach
is
going
to
be
done,
or
is
there
any
going
to
be
done
to
ensure
that
the
public
is
aware
of
these
penalties?
E
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
as
we
go
through
a
process
of
identifying
particular
penalties,
a
penalty
or
particular
penalties
for
inappropriate
activity
that
would
have
to
be
approved
if
we
were
going
to
codify
it
or
even
if,
even
if
we
weren't
really,
it
would
need
to
be
approved
by
the
city
council.
E
So
it
would
be
first,
a
public
hearing
in
front
of
the
historic
preservation
commission,
which
would
be
broadly
noticed
and
then
another
actual
public
hearing
for
a
final
decision
on
that
code,
amendment
or
code
edition
by
the
city
council.
So
the
process
of
implementing
it
would
be
we'd,
probably
for
something
like
that,
make
sure
we
did
extra
outreach
to
you
know
all
all
stakeholders
very
broad
outreach
to
maybe
even
the
bca
and
other
organizations
that
that
need
to
educate
their
members
on
things
like
this.
E
So
we
would
do
a
very,
very
broad,
very
broad,
outreach
on
that
and
as
far
as
ongoing
it
would
language
if
we,
whatever
language
we
did
implement,
would
then
become
would
be,
would
be
integrated
into
our
staff
reports
as
well.
So
they
would
have
that
awareness
as
well
so
yeah.
So
we
we
would
do
our
best
to
get
that
that
information
out
and
let
people
know
what
the
consequences
are
of
of
that
inappropriate
activity.
M
Yes,
commissioner
koski,
as
far
as
deferring
a
well,
let
me
step
on
not
different.
If
we're
going
to
re,
we
here
an
item
for
reclassification
we've
done
that
before
and
we
we
would
go
by
the
guidelines
that
we
haven't,
that
we
have
for
determining
reclassification.
M
M
I
think
it
was
on
27th
street,
maybe
and
irene
somewhere
around
there,
that
we
we
reclassified
because
renovations
have
been
made
to
it
so
many
times
previously,
that
it
was
no
longer
contributing
property,
but
if
it
was
a
hearing
on
reclassification
from
contributing,
not
contributing
based
on
an
illegal
act,
if
something
like
that
happened,
would
that
affect
the
reclassification
process?
F
Sure
I
chair
and
commissioner
koski,
I
don't
believe
that.
F
I
can
pull
those
up
if
necessary,
to
provide
the
exact
language,
but
I
believe
that
the
decision
would
need
to
be
based
on
those
two
criteria
and
not
whether
the
alterations
or
changes
to
the
property
were
the
result
of
an
illegal
act
that
that
specific
aspect
is
not
laid
out
in
the
criteria.
F
So,
if
I'm
answering
your
question,
commissioner
koski,
I
believe
that
this
commission
would
still
need
to
look
to
the
two
criteria
laid
out
as
far
as
consideration
of
whether
or
not
the
reclassification
is
appropriate
within
the
commission's
discretion.
M
If
the
hearing
is
for
reclassification,
it's
based
on
current
state,
not
anything
before
that.
So
I
believe
that's
what
you
just
said.
So
thank
you.
E
And
I
would
just
add
that
most
of
the
time
we
you're
gonna
hear
two
reclassification
requests.
I
think
next
month,
but
usually
when
we
get
these
requests,
it
is
somebody
a
property
owner
requesting
to
have
their
their
property
changed
to
non-consume.
E
You
know
due
to
due
to
that
the
survey
was
an
error
or
that
you
know
work
had
been
done
to
that
would
essentially
make
the
house
non-non-contributing.
E
L
Hey
ted's,
commissioner
richter,
madam
chair,
the
the
current
application
that
we're
gonna
be
hearing
tonight.
That's
that's
just
for
the
the
cfa
to
construct
the
house
as
designed
before.
Have
they
in
that
application
asked
for
a
condition
of
re
re
reclassification
on
this
property,
or
is
this
something
that
we're
just
having
to
do
because
our
hand
is
forced
at
this
point.
E
E
If,
if
a
contributing
home,
for
instance,
was
demolished,
you
know
there
would
and
and
again
we
can
talk
more
about
this
in
the
hearing,
but
there
the
house
is
gone,
and
so
it's
kind
of
you
know
implicit
that
the
how
the
property
is
is
non-contributing.
So
if
they're,
if
the
commission
determined
that
they
wanted
to
have
that
that
hearing
that
extra
hearing
for
reclassification
it
would
more
be
a
formality
in
this
case,
in
a
case
such
as
that,
but
it's
not
not
something
that
the
commission
is
forced
to
it's.
E
It's
a
part
of
code
that
maybe
mary
can
talk
about
a
little
bit
more,
isn't
again
a
requirement
that
the
commission
do,
but,
but
it
isn't,
it
is
an
option
and
in
a
situation
where
a
house
has
been
completely
demolished
again,
it
would
just
act
as
a
formality
at
best,
because
there's
no
way
to
really
require
that
they
keep
the
property
contributing.
So
it's
you
know
it's
it's
a
bit
confusing.
L
So,
thank
you,
ted.
I
appreciate
that
so
so
mary.
If,
let's
say
a
house
was
demolished,
that
was
contributing
and
the
commission
were
to
come
back
with
a
with
a
ruling
that
the
applicant
needs
to.
F
Madam
chair
commissioner,
richter
when
a
reclassification
comes
up,
the
code
section
is
1105.09
and
it's
under
section
seven
and
under
that
section,
that
motion
to
reclassify
can
be
made
by
the
commission
by
the
staff
or
by
the
applicant.
So
if
where
the
commission
were
to
want
in
its
discretion
to
have
a
reclassification
hearing,
that
motion
can
be
made
by
the
commission
itself
rather
than
having
an
applicant
go
back
and
reapply
or
to
file
for
that
motion
or
that
reclassification.
F
So
I
hope
I'm
answering
your
question
in
the
sense
that
the
commission
would
not
have
to
send
it
back
to
the
applicant
so
to
speak.
That
is
a
motion
the
commission
can
make
on
its
own
in
looking
at
whether
or
not
that
affects
a
deferral.
F
It's
related
in
the
sense
that,
from
the
first
time,
the
application
is
deferred
a
decision.
A
final
decision
needs
to
be
made
on
that
within
60
days.
So
if
there
is
a
motion
to
reclassify,
we
have
to
give
proper
public
notice
for
any
hearing
to
reclassify
and
a
decision
on
that
application.
If
it's
related
to
that
same
reclassification
would
still
need
to
occur
within
the
60
days
unless
there
was
an
agreement
by
the
applicant
otherwise,
and
then
so.
F
Hopefully
that
answers
your
question
and
then
just
to
get
back
to
a
clarification
by
our
question
on
a
question
by
commissioner
koski
when
you're
looking
at
the
criteria
for
changes
in
classification,
the
two
criteria
for
the
commission
to
consider
are
number
one:
whether
or
not
the
building,
site,
structure
or
object
is
eligible
for
the
national
register
have
historic
places
and
number
two,
whether
or
not
the
building
site
structure
object
contributes
to
the
district.
F
So
again
that
would
be
present
state
of
how
the
commission
were
to
make
that
decision
to
reclassify
it.
M
M
C
C
E
The
public
hearing,
so
we
would
stay
on
stay
on
your
zoom
until
the
meeting
the
actual
meeting
starts.
So
there's
no
need
to
re-login
or
do
anything.
H
E
E
E
M
M
M
M
M
Or
maybe
cody
or
hovers
monitoring
there
are
people
trying
to
get
in
the
meeting
that
can't
get
in
on
their
link.
G
And
they
need
passwords,
so
I
know
there
are
a
couple
that
I'm
aware
of
so.
E
M
I
do
know
I
do
know.
A
a
representative
from
nina
is
trying
to
get
on
again.
L
E
B
C
C
H
E
E
D
M
D
E
Good
evening
and
welcome
to
this
hybrid
meeting
of
the
boise
city,
historic
preservation,
commission,
a
few
things
to
start
out
with
for
the
good
of
the
order,
everyone
from
the
public
entering
this
hearing
virtually,
has
been
automatically
muted
and
cannot
speak.
As
the
item
you're
interested
in
comes
up
for
discussion,
you
will
be
called
upon
and
unmuted.
E
We
will
ask
if
you
have
slides
to
share
if
you
can
use
the
planner
slides
for
your
visuals.
If
you
have
your
own
slides,
you
will
be
promoted
to
a
panelist.
This
may
log
you
off
for
a
moment
and
log
you
back
in
and
then
you'll
have
the
capabilities
to
share
your
screen,
a
quick
overview
for
zoom.
The
capabilities
and
options
are
different,
depending
on
which
device
you're
using
if
you're
on
a
smartphone
you'll
be
limited
to
only
speaking
and
sharing
your
camera.
E
E
Our
procedures
for
public
hearings
begin
with
a
presentation
from
the
planning
team
and
then
we'll
go
to
the
applicant,
and
then
the
representative
of
the
registered
neighborhood
association,
followed
by
questions
from
the
commission.
After
that,
we
proceed
to
public
testimony,
starting
with
those
who
signed
up
on
the
electronic
sign
up
sheet
in
advance
and
then
everyone
else
who
raises
their
hand
virtually
each
member
of
the
public
is
allowed
up
to
three
minutes
for
testimony.
We
will
provide
a
30-second
warning
and
then
stop
you
at
three
minutes.
E
C
Thank
you.
Ted
today
is
the
27th
of
july,
I'm
chairperson
montoto,
and
I
now
call
the
meeting
to
order
victoria.
Would
you
please
call
the
roll.
H
D
C
Thank
you.
Have
all
the
commission
members
had
a
chance
to
review
the
minutes
from
june
29th
great.
Does
anyone
have
any
comments
or
changes
to
the
minutes.
C
Okay
hearing
none
I'm
going
to
place
item
a
the
minutes
of
our
june
29th
meeting
on
the
consent
agenda.
C
C
Okay,
seeing
none.
C
We
will
go
ahead
and
defer
item
number
three
and
the
next
item.
We
have
is
item
number
four
drh20-00282
todd
heist
at
714,
east
mckinley
street.
Was
there
any
member
of
the
public
wishing
to
speak
on
this
item.
L
Deferrals
madam
chair,
I'd
like
to
move
to
approve
the
deferrals
of
item
number
three
and
number
four
for
next
year.
C
C
Carries
thank
you
moving
to
our
consent
agenda.
We
did
place
item
a
the
minutes
from
our
june
29th
meeting
on
the
consent
agenda
and
our
next
item
is
item
number
five
drh20-00290
dan
and
stephanie
dawson
at
907.
North
17th
street
is
the
applicant
present.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand
great,
I'm
seeing
a
hand
raised
by
amy
allgeier.
C
C
C
I
see
no
hands
raised
so
with
that
we
will
go
ahead
and
put
item
number
five
drh20290
on
the
consent
agenda,
and
with
that
I
move
that
the
consent
agenda
and
all
items
on
the
consent
agenda
be
approved,
subjects
to
all
the
findings
and
conclusions
and
conditions
of
approval
agreed
upon
for
each
application.
Do
I
have
a
second.
D
H
C
In
favor
motion
carries
fantastic
and
we
will
now
move
to
the
remaining
items
on
our
agenda.
The
first
item
to
be
heard
this
evening
is
item
number
one
drh20-00150
ken
litzinger,
at
1521
north
fifth
street.
This
is
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
request
to
construct
a
partial,
two-story,
single-family
structure
and
associated
site
improvements
and
an
r-1ch
ted.
Maybe
please
have
the
report.
E
So,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission
good
evening,
this
is
an
application
for
a
to
construct.
A
partial,
two-story
single-family
structure
with
associated
site
improvements,
was
deferred
from
the
july
20
or
from
the
june
hearing
I'm
just
going
to
quickly.
You
have
your
packet
we've
been
through
a
lot
of
the
the
plans
and
and
photos
of
the
building,
so
I'll
go
through
that
a
little
bit
quicker
and
kind
of
get
to
the
meat
of
the
discussion.
E
This
is
the
house
that
was
previously
standing
on
the
property
prior
to
it
being
demolished.
This
is
the
lot
on
the
corner
of
fifth
and
sherman.
E
E
Excuse
me,
as
I
mentioned
on
in
2017,
the
commission
approved
an
extensive
remodel
to
the
contributing
home
on
the
property
in
march
of
2020
staff
was
called
by
a
neighbor
that
the
house
had
been
demolished
upon,
confirming
this
a
stop
work
order
was
placed
on
the
property
and
then
the
applicant
on
made
submitted
plans
essentially
the
same
plans
for
the
extensive
remodel
they
were
now
using
those
plans
for
new
construction.
E
On
june
29th,
the
commission
reviewed
the
request
and
deferred
the
application
to
the
july
27th
2020
commission
meeting
at
the
hearing.
The
commission
expressed
concern
that
the
contributing
house
was
demolished
without
the
required
approvals
or
permits.
The
commission
asked
that
staff
return
with
information
on
demolition
and
how
the
city
handles
illegal
demolition
in
the
historic
districts
and
how
the
city
may
plan
to
prevent
this
from
occurring
in
the
future.
E
E
Homeowners
that
you
know
our
process,
isn't
black
and
white
enough
there.
It's
it's
hard
to
understand.
What's
allowed,
what's
not
allowed,
and
so
we
massage
these
out
to
to
try
to
make
things
more
clear,
and
so
we
we
sometimes
will
change
our
conditions
or
add
conditions,
like
we've
done
in
the
past,
to
try
to
make
things
more
clear
on
what's
expected
and
what
is
inappropriate.
E
Or
additions
to
city
code
concerning
penalties
for
illegal
demolitions,
the
proposals
would
require
a
public
hearing
by
the
commission
and
final
approval
by
city
councils,
so
whatever
the
commission
may
determine
through
a
work
session
would
be
appropriate.
That
would
have
to
be,
of
course,
our
legal
office
would
be
involved,
and
city
council
would
be.
The
final
final
approval
on
that
process.
E
As
you
see
there,
a
desire
for
the
commission
to
hold
the
application
until
appropriate
consequences
are
levied
and
again
under
city
code.
It
is
not
the
role
of
the
commission
to
you,
know,
impose
penalties
or
you
know,
exact
punishment
upon
an
applicant.
E
However,
you
know
the
the
penalties
and-
and
whatever
action
is
going
to
be
taken,
would
be
taken
through
that
through
the
the
department
and
the
city
attorney's
office
and
again,
the
underlying
person
is
legal.
E
Strongly
cautions
the
commission
that
any
decision
on
this
application
made
for
the
implicit
or
explicit
purpose
to
punish
the
applicant
would
likely
be
subject
would
be
the
subject
of
an
appeal
and
further,
you
see
the
third
point
below
a
deferral
on
an
application
must
comply
with
boise
city
code,
without
agreement
by
the
applicant
to
the
deferral
decision
must
be
made
by
the
commission
within
60
days
of
the
initial
hearing
date.
E
Part
of
nina's
of
the
letter
from
nina's
council,
as
they
urge
that
a
reclassification
of
this
site
from
contributing
to
non-contributing
must
take
place
or
the
application
must
be
denied.
E
So
as
you've
had
a
chance
to
read
this,
the
the
memo
the
city
takes
the
position
that
such
reclassification
is
discretionary,
providing
the
commission
with
three
options
for
its
decision.
With
regard
to
the
application,
the
commission
may
decline
any
action
to
reclassify
the
property
and
the
advantages
there.
There's
advantages
and
disadvantages
you'll,
see
in
the
memo
and
down
below
the
advantage
of
declining
any
action
to
reclassify,
provides
efficiency
in
the
procedure
and
protects
the
due
process.
Rights
of
the
applicant.
E
In
theory,
the
reclassification
a
new
hearing
for
reclassification
would
come
first
and
then
potentially
a
hearing
on
the
decision
of
the
of
the
actual
application
before
you,
though,
both
could
possibly
occur.
At
the
same
time,
advantages
would
be
to
eliminate
any
possibility
of
appeal
from
nina
that
decision,
approved
and
denied
coa
was
made
upon
allegedly
unlawful
procedure,
and
the
disadvantage
is
once
final
decision
on
the
application
is
made.
E
And
the
commission
may
just
deny
the
application
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness.
If
the
commission
denies
the
application,
it
should
provide
a
very
clear
and
concise
reason
statement
of
its
findings
as
to
why
the
applicant
application
does
not
meet
the
criteria
laid
out
in
code,
as
noted
above,
this
decision
should
be
forward-looking,
as
a
decision
based
on
prior
conduct
may
be
construed
as
a
punitive
measure.
E
E
So
with
that
staff
at
this
point
does
recommend
that
the
commission
provide
an
approval
or
denial
decision
on
the
application,
so
the
option
the
recommended
options
would
be
to
approve
drh2150
based
on
staff's
analysis
and
findings
or
move
to
deny
drh
2150,
and
with
that
I'll
stand
for
questions.
M
Madam
chair
and
ted
this
commissioner
koski
on
the
just
clarify
for
me
on
the
plans
that
were
submitted
by
the
applicant
did,
if
I'm
looking
at
those,
are
those
the
same
plans
that
were
submitted
for
initially
for
the
initial
application
and
they've
gone
unchanged,
except
for
the
status
of
it
being
new
construction
versus
renovation.
C
Applicant
okay,
great,
is
the
applicant
present.
C
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand
great,
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
You
have
20
minutes.
H
K
K
The
end
result
is
that
a
home
will
be
built
on
this
property,
regardless
of
the
underlying
issues
or
concerns.
At
the
last
meeting,
no
immediate
homeowner
testified
in
opposition
to
this
project.
The
nearest
neighbor
was
mr
aldana,
who
lived
one
block
away
away
and
spoke
as
a
concerned
neighbor
and
as
a
builder,
in
support
of
the
project
moving
forward
in
the
previous
history
of
the
property
being
used
by
squatters
drug
users
and
the
poor
condition
of
the
structure.
K
Regarding
the
illegal
action
of
us
demolishing
the
home,
we
simply
refuted
as
a
false
accusation.
If
our
intent
was
to
demolish
the
structure,
it
would
have
been
done
long
before
incurring
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars
in
expenses
for
lifting
the
home
and
paying
the
additional
cost
for
contractors
to
work.
Under
the
said
instructor,
we
went
through
those
procedures
to
preserve
the
historical
structure
in
good
faith,
upon
lowering
the
structure
and
framing
in
the
false
support
walls
to
keep
the
home
from
collapsing.
K
K
We
were
then
ordered
by
mr
vanegas
and
mr
archibald
to
clean
up
the
site,
remove
all
debris
and
resubmit
the
project
as
a
new
construction.
Since
he
said,
a
contributing
home
was
lost
since
the
stop
work
order.
We
have
completed
all
those
items
at
the
city's
request,
which
leads
us
before
the
historical
district
tonight
seeking
reapproval
mr
vanegas
and
I
have
exchanged
emails
regarding
our
interpretation
of
demolition
and
the
preservation
of
property
which
led
to
the
stock
work
order.
K
K
Mr
archibald
and
the
city
granted
permission
to
allow
site
work
to
reduce
the
liability
of
exposed
basement
by
backfilling,
finishing
window
wells
and
reducing
further
erosion
of
dirt
onto
the
public
right
of
ways
for
the
city
due
to
public
concern.
We
have
continued
to
comply
with
the
city's
request
to
complete
this.
K
I
request
that
nina's
letter
be
ignored
by
the
commission
for
the
decision
for
this
decision,
since
mr
vanegas
at
the
city
instructed
us
to
proceed
down
this
path
for
reapproval.
Today,
we
are
approaching
five
months
since
the
stop
work
order
was
issued,
which
I
contend
is
hardly
defined
as
an
instant
approval,
especially
when
I
am
the
person
incurring
the
lost
time
and
bearing
the
burden
of
the
holding
costs
of
the
project.
K
K
It
simply
is
not
part
of
the
application
process
tonight,
however,
I
am
willing
to
collectively
meet
with
the
city
historical
district
and
nina
separately,
to
discuss
and
resolve
these
matters
prior
to
next
month.
If
that
will
help,
I'm
truly
sorry
for
the
position
that
we
are
in
today.
Our
intention
was
never
to
demolish
a
contributing
historical
home
and
ask
for
your
approval
of
the
project
again
tonight.
K
M
Madam
chair
commissioner
koski
here
I
have
a
question
for
the
applicant:
it's
regarding
the
design
of
of
the
home
and
the
plans
being
that
they
weren't
changed.
Is
your
intent
to
copy
the
home.
That
was
there.
C
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
bot.
Any
other
questions
for
the
applicant
great
is
the
registered
neighborhood
association
here.
To
testify
great
I'm
seeing
a
hand
raised
by
sherry,
batazo,
sherry.
You
have
20
minutes,
please
stream
an
address
for
the
record.
O
O
The
applicant
who
performed
the
illegal
demolition
has
provided
both
written
and
verbal
account
before
this
commission.
That
demonstrated
either
a
lack
of
understanding
or
a
willful
disregard
for
historic
preservation,
along
with
a
lack
of
competency
for
performing
construction.
That
requires
preservation
in
the
homeowners
joint
letter
of
explanation
provided
on
march
25th.
O
They
pointed
to
several
areas
where
a
competent
contractor
may
have
taken
other
actions
that
could
have
saved
the
structure.
A
house
that
has
stood
for
over
a
hundred
years
will
in
fact,
sway
and
be
on
the
verge
of
collapse
once
it's
siding,
lead-based
or
otherwise,
which
serves
as
sheer,
has
been
removed.
O
O
P
Because
I
can't
hear
you
guys
very
well,
so
I'm
just
going
to
go
ahead
and
speak.
I
don't
know
how
much
time
I've
got
left
but
as
as
sherry
alluded
to
in
her
in
her
statement
in
in
representing
the
neighbors
of
the
north
end
neighborhood
association,
it's
really
unfortunate
that
nina
has
to
find
itself
in
this
position
of
enforcement.
P
We
we
look
upon
the
city
to
do.
What
we
believe
is
is
is
the
right
thing
to
do
in
enforcing
its
codes.
These
are
not
arbitrary
laws
just
put
in
place
and
then
excuses
are
made
to
oversee
or
make
exceptions,
and
that
sort
of
thing
so
in
this
particular
instance,
especially
where
there's
pointing
to
a
pattern
of
behavior,
that's
that
in
in
the
eyes
of
the
north
end,
neighborhood
association
is
becoming
prevalent.
P
As
sherry
said,
you
know
the
the
property
on
15th,
which
seems
to
have
set
the
precedent
for
bad
behavior.
In
this
particular
case,
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
here
about
the
the
demolition.
As
far
as
I
can
see,
there
are
two
two
distinct
demolitions
that
occurred
here.
One
was
it's
just
a
simple
demolition
without
without
a
permit,
as
though
somebody
up
on
the
bench
or
anywhere
tore
down
their
garage
and
just
didn't
notify.
You
know
the
city
of
its
actions.
P
The
other,
of
course,
is
the
demolition
within
a
historic
district
which
again
is
is
is
similar
but
different
in
that
demolition
within
a
historic
district.
As
the
commission
knows,
you
have
to
make
findings,
you
have
to
make
three
or
five
criteria
in
order
to
justify
demolition
of
a
you
know
of
a
historic
of
a
contributing
home
within
the
district.
P
Now
to
say
that
wasn't
the
intent
of
the
owner
or
the
contractor
is
is
not
an
excuse
because,
as
he
described,
you
know
removing
all
the
components
that
would
hold
the
structure
sound
and
then
it
and
then
taking
it
down
for
safety
reasons.
I
think
it's
just
it's
just
ludicrous
if,
if
anything
that
qualifies
as
as
demolition
by
neglect
or
by
negligence-
and
so
therefore
is
is,
is
is
every
bit,
as
you
know,
the
deserving
of
prosecution,
as
you
know,
as
any
other
kind
of
demolition,
you
know.
P
So
it's
it's
our
recommendation
that
this
this
be
denied
that
that
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
this
particular
application
be
denied,
because
it's
it's
it's
an
attempt
to
to
just
ask
forgiveness
where
you
know
asking
permission
was,
was
clearly
the
right
thing
to
do.
P
P
We
want
fairness
as
well
as
as
the
applicant
would
want,
then
nina
will
always
step
in
and
do
what
needs
to
be
done
on
behalf
of
the
residents
here
who,
as
sherry
said,
play
by
the
rules,
go
through
the
review
processes
at
all
sorts
of
additional
time
and
expense,
and
all
of
that.
So
if
we
did
not
pursue
prosecution
of
these
and
and
these
are,
these
are
misdemeanor
offenses
that
carry
with
them.
You
know
a
thousand
dollar
fine
if
this
was
actually
the.
P
If
we
pursued
this
through
demolition
of
neglect
of
historic
property,
it
would
carry
a
thousand
dollars
a
day
penalty
for
as
long
as
that
condition
exists.
So
again,
you've
got
two
distinct
demolition
violations
in
which
to
review,
and
we
understand
clearly
that
this
is
not
the
job
of
the
commission
to.
P
Some
sort
of
punitive
action,
but
it
is
incumbent
upon
the
city
to
to
do
what's
right
and
if
I
think,
if
the
commission
were
to
make
that
recommendation,
that
the
city
followed
through
with
its
enforcement
of
its
ordinances,
I
think
that
that
would
be.
I
think.
H
P
Important
in
addition
to
this,
I
just
want
to
make
a
statement
as
well,
because
we're
serious
about
it
that
nina
intends
to
file
a
complaint
with
the
idaho
division
of
professional
licenses
against
against
the
contractor
for
behavior.
That
we
think
is
unprofessional.
So
that's.
That
concludes
my
comments.
C
Okay,
thank
you.
So
much
was
there
any
member
of
the
public
wishing
to
testify
this
evening.
C
Q
Q
Q
Normally,
if
there's
going
to
be
a
reclassification
or
if
a
structure,
object
or
value
is
determined
or
classified
as
contributing,
there's
a
process
that
everyone
gets
to
participate
in
to
debate
and
make
factual
findings
related
to
whether
or
not
and
to
what
extent,
that
object
or
structure
should
be
considered
contributing
to
historic
values
in
the
neighborhood
and
everyone
in
the
neighborhood,
including
nina's
members,
have
a
unique
and
cognizable
interest
in
those
factual
findings
in
those
processes
and
those
procedures
and
that's
the
reclassification
process.
Q
Q
That's
the
reclassification
process,
where
the
the
structure
or
the
remnants
or
the
objects
are
to
be
a
factual
finding
is
to
be
made
as
to
whether
or
not
they're
contributing,
and
so
is
there
subfloor
left
are
there.
Walls
left
the
applicant
indicated
that
they
may
be
interested
in
repurposing,
some
of
those
and
there's.
No
doubt
we
can
never
get
back
to
historical
values
that
were
deprived.
Q
Through
which
those
deter
those
factual
determinations
might
be
made,
are
the
walls
contributing
that
remain?
Are
the
walls
even
still
there?
The
applicant
in
the
application
materials
indicated
that
oh
well,
they
intended
to
save
the
walls,
but
there's
no
real
mention,
as
are
there
any
contributing
objects
or
pieces
of
structure
that
might
still
be
salvaged
and
required
to
be
utilized.
Q
That's
why
it's
important
that
the
reclassification
process
be
endeavored
and
that
those
factual
findings
be
made
prior
to
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
determination
on
an
entire
new
structure,
and
so
I
just
want
to
lodge
that
objection
and
encourage
a
denial
on
that
procedural
point
as
well.
Q
You
know
with
that.
I
thank
you
for
your
time.
C
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
ertz.
Are
there
any
other
members
of
the
public
wishing
to
testify
this
evening?
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand,
I'm
seeing
derek
heard
raising
his
hand,
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
You
have
up
to
three
minutes.
R
R
R
I
think
this
is
a
disgrace
and
a
disservice
to
the
neighborhood
and
to
the
builders,
architects
and
designers
that
do
work
within
the
guidelines
in
these
awesome
historic
districts
that
we
do
have
without
strict
adherence
to
the
rules
or
penalties
when
they
were
violated.
We
diminish
the
value
of
the
whole
district.
R
These
are
established
rules
that
those
working
in
the
district
must
adhere
to
to
be
ignorant
or
to
not
care
is
not
an
excuse.
Every
time
the
story
seems
to
be
the
same,
we
didn't
know,
we
tried
really
hard.
The
wind
blew
it
down
on
and
on
you've.
You've
heard
it
all
you
guys,
some
of
you
have
been
sitting
there
a
long
time.
You've
heard
a
lot
of
those
excuses.
R
Some
of
you
are
just
hearing
the
excuses
for
the
first
time,
so
I
think
this
builder
future
builders
and
homeowners
that
do
blatantly
disregard
these
rules
need
to
be
held
accountable
and
for
me
to
best
service,
my
current
clients
and
my
future
clients.
I
need
to
know
if
this
commission
and
the
city
council
is
going
to
back
up
the
rules
and
regulations,
and
you
know
many
of
us
are
working
in
this
district.
R
I
appreciate
nina
standing
up
and-
and
you
know,
going
going
to
bat
on
this
one
nina's
representing
5
000
households
in
this
district-
and
you
know
those
of
us
that
are
following
the
rules
sure
do
appreciate
that
and
those
of
us
that
are
living
in
the
district
sure
do
appreciate
that.
R
So
thank
you
nina
for
your
your
your
tireless
energy
on
this
effort,
and
I
just
wanted
to
add
my
my
my
voice
as
a
homeowner
and
as
someone
who's
been
designing
and
and
creating
homes
for
people
according
to
the
rules
for
coming
on
two
decades.
So
thank
you
and
thank
you
again,
commissioners,
for
sitting
up
there
and
and
listening
to
all
these
hearings.
C
C
C
Okay,
I'm
seeing
none
josh.
Are
you
saying
any
okay
with
that
we'll
return
to
the
applicant?
You
have
five
minutes
for
rebuttal.
C
K
Thank
you
for
your
time
information.
I've
heard
nina's
information
which
obviously
standing
of
what
went
on,
which
is
apparent
from
their
testimony
that
they
provided
tonight,
because
the
shear
and
the
sighting
were
on
the
on
the
home
and
part
of
the
roof
was
still
on
the
home
when
it
was
swaying
and
things
were
disintegrating
and
starting
to
collapse.
K
K
K
The
underlying
issues
of
the
demolition
and
this
reclassification
that
I
never
requested
never
asked
for,
and
I
believe,
ted
brought
to
the
attention
that
I
don't
know
if
a
public
hearing
or
something
needs
to
be
said
on
the
issue,
because
no
home
issue
is
there
now
we
were
ordered
to
haul
off
all
the
debris
in
that.
So
no
wall
segments
exist
some
old,
dilapidated
two
by
fours
from
the
subfloor
there
and
we
preserve
the
sandstone
foundation
blocks
because
we
did
want
to
reuse
them.
They
don't
make
that
type
of
product
anymore,
that's
a
historical
product.
K
Regarding
the
two
underlying
issues-
and
I
don't
want
this
to
become
a
long,
protracted
legal
matter,
but
those
are
underlying
issues
that
that
are
going
to
be
resolved
at
some
point
in
time,
but
a
home
is
eventually
going
to
be
built
on
the
property.
That's
that's
just
a
fact
at
some
point
in
time
it
will
we've
already
started
the
process.
The
foundation
is
in
the
plumbing
the
roof
and
plumbings
are
in
the
structure
needs
completed.
K
If
anything,
if
it's
going
to
be
a
long,
drawn-out
process,
the
basement
should
still
be
framed
and
a
subfloor
put
on
to
cover
up
the
the
nine
nine
foot
hole
in
the
basement,
because
I
believe
the
basement
has
nine
and
a
half
foot
ceilings,
so
things
need
to
be
tidied
up
and
finished.
A
home
needs
to
be
built,
and
I
know
we
can
work
through
these
other
matters.
Whether
you
know
nina.
Regarding
you
know,
there
needs
to
be
bite.
There
needs
to
be
things
done.
K
You
know,
let's
work
through
this
issue
and
find
out
what
we
can
do
together.
So
this
process
doesn't
happen
again
and
other
homeowners,
who
are
hiring
contractors,
don't
have
to
sit
here
like
I
am
today
to
go
through
this.
It's
not
fun
and
trust
me.
It's
been
long
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
putting
this
behind
us,
but
it's
going
to
take
a
long
long
time.
C
No
okay,
great
so
with
that,
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing.
C
I
think
just
for
the
sake
of
the
complexity
of
this
application
and
situation
that
we
should
just
jump
right
into
discussion
as
opposed
to
entertaining
emotion,
right
off
the
bat,
and
I
will
say
I
I
think
this
is
the
trickiest
application.
I've
ever
seen
in
my
five
plus
years
on
the
commission.
C
C
It's
our
job
and
responsibility
to
be
hearing
the
application
before
us
tonight.
So
with
that
I'll
go
ahead
and
open
up
some
discussion
from
my
fellow
commission.
L
C
Thank
you
so
much
for
that
comment.
Does
anyone
else
have
additional
comments.
M
I
do
feel
it's
appropriate
to
have
a
motion,
a
second
to
offer
discussion,
but
I
do
understand
the
gravity
of
of
this
topic
and
the
application
in
front
of
us.
M
I
think
that,
while
the
application
is
for
the
new
construction
being
built
on
top
of
this
existing
foundation,
that
currently
has
a
stop
work
order
for
violation
of
code
and
that
the
stop
work
order
was
issued
by
code
compliance
or
code
enforcement,
and
if
we
are
going
to
approve
or
or
entertain
approving
this,
we
are
in
effect
operating
in
a
way
of
of
enforcement
or
penalty,
or
lack
of
I
agree
that
as
a
commission,
we
we
we
do
not
it's
not
our
job
to
to
worry
about
enforcement
or
penalties.
M
So
I
am
struggling
greatly
on
approving
something
for
a
project
that
has
a
stop
work
order
because
of
illegal
activity.
I
disagree
greatly
with
the
testimony
from
the
applicant
that.
M
They
were
saving
saving
items
to
to
to
reuse
in
wall
sections,
because
I
was
I
was
there
the
day
it
was
demolished
and
and
saw
that,
and
if
we
go
into
public
record,
there
will
be
photos
for
photos
of
the
demolition
when
the
complaints
were
on
the
complaints
that
were
issued
for
demolition
and
those
photos
will
show
that
demolition
was
done
without
approval.
M
They
knowingly
did
not
do
that
and
now
by
their
application
for
a
new
structure.
They
are
trying
to
say,
oops,
sorry
and
and
move
on.
I
understand
the
up
the
the
homeowner's
position
and
that
this
is
a
long
time
and
he
he
wants
a
house.
I
get
that.
M
I
also
know
that
we
shouldn't
be
as
a
commission.
Our
job
isn't
isn't
a
penalty
or
any
kind
of
punitive
action
against
him.
That
is
the
job
of
city,
council
and
the
mayor.
That
is
the
job
of
our
city.
M
As
a
commission,
I
would
like
to
see
the
the
applicant
appeal,
a
denial
to
go
in
front
of
city
council
and
the
mayor
to
explain
to
the
city,
council
and
the
mayor
why
and
how
they
went
against
the
demolition
and
for
this
reason,
as
well
as
a
couple
others,
but
for
this
specific
reason
I
would
like
to
move
that
we
deny
this
application
and
with
a
second
and
now
let
me
restate
that
I'd
like
to
move
that
drh20-00150
that
we
moved
to
deny
and
with
a
second,
I
would
like
to
offer
up
some
more
discussion.
C
C
Okay,
thank
you,
commissioner
richter.
Let's
further
that
discussion
before
we
call
the
role
on
that.
M
Madam
chair,
commissioner
koski
thank
you
for
offering
more
discussion.
I
would.
I
would.
I
think
it's
really
important
that
all
of
us
as
commissioners,
chime
in
on
this.
This
is
something
that
I'd
like
to
see
resolved
quickly.
So
the
homeowner
can
move
on.
I
mean
we're
not
about
delaying
the
homeowners
ability
to
move
forward,
we're
about
making
sure
that
the
rules
are
followed
and
and
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
M
I
do
want
to
state
that
one
other
thing
that
could
be
should
be
looked
at
and
reason
for
denial
would
be
that
in
chapter
five
of
our
design
guidelines,
it
specifically
stated
that
it
is
preferred
to
design
congruence
contemporary
structures
rather
than
duplicate
or
mimic
the
design
of
historic
buildings
in
the
district.
M
It's
been
made
clear
in
testimony
today
and
through
the
plans
that
this
is
a
copy
of
the
historic
structure,
an
exact
mimic
of
the
historic
structure,
and
we
have
to
go
by
as
a
commission,
the
secretary
of
interior
standards
and,
as
stated
in
standard
nine
of
the
national
secretary
of
interior
standards,
it
does
state
that
new
construction
should
also
be
distinct
from
the
old
and
must
not
attempt
to
replicate
historic
buildings.
M
The
secretary
of
tier
does
advise
that
replication
and
mimicry
are
unacceptable
approach
to
design.
So
as
far
as
merit
for
denying
the
existing
plan,
I
believe
there's
full
merit
that
that
should
be
redesigned.
M
But,
more
importantly,
I
I
really
would
try
to
encourage
the
applicant
to
be
in
front
of
the
mayor
and
city
council
to
to
face.
You
know
what
to
help
us
as
a
city
and
to
help
the
app
can't
understand
what
the
consequences
are
of
breaking
the
rules.
M
C
You,
madam
chair,
thank
you.
Do
any
of
my
fellow
commissioners
have
any
anything
they'd
like
to
share.
L
Madam
chair
pressure
director,
I
just
like
to
say
that
commissioner
koski
pretty
much
nailed
it
on
the
head
there
and
I
definitely
agree
with
every
point
that
he
made.
So
thank
you.
C
I
concur
so
with
that.
If
no
one
has
any
additional
comments,
no
victoria,
will
you
go
ahead
and
call
the
role
on
that
motion.
Please.
H
G
C
In
favor
motion
carries
thank
you
so
much.
The
next
item
we
have
on
our
agenda
this
evening
is
drh20-00231
james
byron
at
1417
east
franklin
street.
This
is
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
request
to
demolish
an
existing
one-story
garage
and
to
construct
a
two-story
garage
with
accessory
dwelling
unit
and
an
r-1ch
ted.
Can
we
please
have
the
report.
D
E
E
As
proposed,
the
project
will
meet
setbacks
required
by
the
zone.
However,
the
backup
space
from
the
doors
of
the
garage,
I
believe,
are
not
25
feet.
There's
22
foot
of
backup
space
plus
three
feet
of
buffer
space
for
a
total
of
25
feet
required
from
the
doors
of
the
garage.
E
And
then
some
of
the
the
garage
and
you
can
see
some
of
the
neighboring
structures
in
the
background
and
then
here's
a
view
along
the
alley.
As
you
can
see,
there's
some
different
structures
along
the
alley.
Different
size
structures
along
the
alley.
E
E
Potential
areas
of
concern
proposed
lot
coverage
is
about
38
percent,
so
the
existing
garage
contributes
about
seven
percent
to
the
lot
coverage
and
the
new
garage
contributes
about
nine
percent
to
the
lot
coverage
so
about
a
two
percent
difference
there,
approximately
in
lot
coverage.
E
Where
there's
a
garage
adu
that's
going
to
be
higher
than
the
house
when
the
house
is
non-contributing,
you
know,
potentially
that
non-contributing
one-story
house
could
could
be
changed.
It
could
be
increased
in
height.
Another
story
could
be
added
on
to
it.
It
could
be
demolished
someday
and
and
rebuilt
with
a
with
a
taller
house.
E
E
M
M
Do
we
have
photos
of
the
homes
on
either
side
of
this
property
and
are
they
one
stories?
Are
they
two
stories?
Are
they
storing
halfs?
Do
you
have
a
picture
of
a
street
view.
E
I
believe
the
house
right
next
door
is
a
one-story
house
and
I
think
the
house
to
the
other
side,
to
the
west
side
is
a
story
and
a
half.
So
you
have
a
one
story
in
a
story
and
a
half
structures.
C
E
I'll
madam
chair
I'll,
need
I'll,
bring
up
the
applicant's
presentation
and
then
work
through
the
slides.
That
would
be.
S
Great
for
him,
okay,
good
evening,
my
name
is
krista
stumpf,
my
husband,
james
byron,
and
I
are
the
applicant
of
1417
east
franklin
street.
Just
for
that
clarification,
I
believe
ted's
presentation
said
west
franklin.
Oh
thank.
D
S
I
wanted
to
point
out
the
unique
position
that
our
home
is
in.
We
I
purchased
or
we
purchased
the
home
in
1998
because
it
was
a
historic
home.
Although
the
district
didn't
exist
at
the
time
in
the
early
2000s,
when
the
district
was
formed,
I
actually
opted
in
because
I
think
historic
preservation
is
important
and
I
had
hoped
that
some
of
my
neighbors
on
the
street
would
have
done
the
same.
S
But
so
I'm
the
funny
little
square
in
the
east
end
that
everyone
asks
about
in
2011
we
actually
remodeled
the
home
and
worked
very
hard
with
staff
and
the
preservation
commission
to
do
so
in
a
in
a
way
that
we
felt
was
added
to
the
historic
nature
of
the
home,
and
so
here
today
on
in
2020
we're
submitting
a
plan
for
a
garage
and
adu
next
line.
S
So
I
just
have
some
pictures.
Actually,
the
assessor
came
by
when
we
were
after
we
had
remodeled
and
brought
us
that
picture
from
the
50s,
the
home
in
1998
with
the
garage,
and
you
can
see
even
at
that
time.
Next
door,
there
was
quite
a
tall
structure
there
and
then
today,
with
our
house
and
garage
and
pandemic
swimming
pool
this
summer
next
slide.
S
So
I
wanted
to
just
hit
on
our
proposal.
These
are
similar
to
what
we
submitted
in
the
package,
but
just
a
couple
of
key
points.
So
the
proposed
garage
is
about
three
and
a
half
feet
taller.
The
pitch
of
the
house
is
14
and
a
half
feet
and
we
worked
really
hard
to
make
the
structure
as
as
low
as
possible
and
still
be
usable.
So
we
kept
the
side
load,
an
18
foot,
roof
line.
It
provides
23
by
26
feet
with
interior
stairs
and
the
38
lot
coverage
with.
S
So
it
offers
an
adu
of
about
365
square
feet.
I
have
a
couple
of
other
pictures
next
slide,
so
in
this
image.
We're
trying
to
show
that-
and
this
was
my
largest
criteria-
that
from
the
sidewalk
view,
the
garage
did
not
overwhelm
the
existing
house
and
I
think
we've
done
a
pretty
good
job
there.
You
can
see
what
that
would
look
like,
and
then
we
have
a
couple
other
images
next
slide.
S
So
you
don't
see
the
front
door
here,
but
our
architect
worked
these
up
so
standing
at
the
front
corner
of
our
house.
That's
the
view
from
the
sidewalk
the
west
side.
You
can
just
see
the
structure
in
the
back
next
slide,
here's
the
side
of
the
house-
and
so
you
can
see
that
this,
actually,
you
probably
wouldn't
be
able
to
see
from
the
sidewalk,
because
of
course
this
is
in
our
backyard
here
next
slide,
just
a
couple
more.
This
would
be
from
the
alley
view.
S
This
is
what
you
would
see
and
next
slide
and
the
other
corner
of
the
alley
view
so
next
slide
so
just
to
hit
on
a
couple
of
things.
Originally,
I
actually
was
aiming
for
a
remodel
of
the
garage,
but
it
has
a
really
shallow
foundation
and
the
wood
is
touching
the
dirt
and
I
think
it
would
end
up
being
that
that
one
post
was
maintained
there.
S
So
the
garage
will
is
currently
on
the
property
line
and
the
alley,
and
we
would
set
it
back
the
five
feet
as
proposed
here
and
the
roof
line
is
lower
and
I'll
show
you
some
photos
of
surrounding
structures
on
the
alley
and
and
some
of
the
homes
on
franklin
and
washington
and
again
we
just
worked
really
hard
on
the
mass
of
the
garage
in
terms
of
lot
coverage.
S
Okay,
so
I'll
just
go
quickly
through
here,
but
we
worked
like
like
I've
said
we
worked
really
hard
and
these
are
actually
we
hired
a
different
architect
and
and
then
our
current
architect
came
up
with
some
alternative
plans.
So
this
was
the
first
plan
which
you
can
see
has
a
seven
and
a
half
foot
difference
in
the
house.
S
We
don't
have
to
linger
here,
but
I
just
wanted
the
commission
to
know
that
we
gave
it
a
lot
of
consideration
and
so
this
next
this
is
the
same,
just
different
elevations
and
then
this
was
done
by
our
current
architect,
but
still
shows
the
exterior
staircase
and
something
that's
quite
common
in
the
east
end
and
and
north
end,
this
kind
of
box
in
the
back,
and
so
we
didn't
feel
like
that
met
our
needs,
even
though
it
would
give
us
actually
more
space
next
slide,
and
so
that's
the
front
elevation
of
what
what
could
have
been
next
slide.
S
Okay
and
and
we
did
want
to
get
support,
and
so
the
east
end
neighborhood
association,
I
believe,
submitted
a
letter.
I
talked
to
sheila
and-
and
she
was
supportive
of
the
project
and
then
we
contacted
all
the
neighbors
on
the
alley
so
on
both
sides
of
the
alley
and
only
one
was
concerned
about
the
height
as
ted
indicated
and
I'll
and
I'll
show
you
that
her
home
behind
us
is
taller.
So
that's
the
next
slide.
S
So
this
is
kind
of
a
funny
picture.
But
if
you
see
on
the
left
side
of
the
slide,
1422
east
washington,
that
house
height
is
20
feet,
eight
inches
our
neighbor's
garage
1415
east
franklin
is
at
least
19
feet
tall.
Of
course
our
house
is
14
and
a
half
and
we're
proposing
18
feet
there.
But
and
then
this
is
from
haines
street
walking
towards
coston,
and
you
can
see
there.
S
The
blue
home
or
the
blue
garage
and
home
are
quite
a
bit
taller
and
if
you
keep
going
next
slide
down
the
alley,
you
can
see
that
that
home
right
there
by
that
garage
on
the
first
picture,
is
the
boise
boys,
new
house
and
that's
a
very
large
home
and
then
moving
towards
our
house.
That's
1415
east
franklin,
which
again
was
taller
than
our
home
and
so
just
a
couple
more
pictures
of
what's
existing.
C
N
Just
out
of
curiosity,
I
know
you
did
a
remodel
on
your
house.
Did
you
in
the
past?
Have
you
done
any
other
additions
on
it
or
is
the
garage
kind
of
the
first
exterior
work
you've
done.
S
Other
than
the
remodel,
thank
you
for
your
question
other
than
the
remodel
in
2011,
which
did
add
on
to
the
home.
We
have
not
done.
We
have
not
made
any
other
changes.
N
D
C
And
then
I
wanted
to
piggyback
off
that
question.
Do
you
have
plans
in
the
future
to
do
any
additional,
exterior,
remodeling
or
adding
any
adding
a
second
story
on
the
main
structure.
S
Not
at
this
time
you
know
it's
it's
hard
to
predict
the
future.
Actually,
in
2011,
when
we
worked
on
the
remodel
of
our
home,
we
considered
a
second
story
and
actually
working
with
trout,
architects
at
the
time
and
the
city
staff.
They
discouraged
that
and-
and
I
realized
things
are
different
now
so
so,
while
ted
has
a
point
and
that's
something
we
could
consider
or
a
future
homeowner
could
consider,
we
don't
have
any
immediate
plans.
You
won't
see
me
back
in
a
year
great.
Thank
you.
So.
C
Much
any
final
questions
for
the
applicant
okay.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank
you.
Let
me
pull
up
my
preamble
here.
C
With
that,
then,
is
there
any
member
of
the
public
wishing
to
testify
this
evening
on
this
application?
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand.
C
I'm
not
seeing
anyone
josh,
you
see
anyone
nope,
okay,
are
there
any
last
questions
for
staff
or
the
applicant.
M
M
The
question
I
have
for
staff
is,
since
this
house
is
on.
M
A
street
without,
as
the
only
historic
district
home
there
is
the
lot
coverage
and
setbacks
required
by
planning
and
zoning
in
the
city.
The
same
for
the
non-historic
sites
are
either
side
of
her
and
across
the
street
from
her
is
it
still
35
percent
and
the
25
feet
required
for
a
garage
backup.
E
Madam
chair
tarkovsky,
there
isn't
a
lot
coverage
maximum
for
non-historic
properties
if
it's
a
if
it's
a
substandard
lot.
There
are
substandard
lot
rules
and
it
has
to
comply
with
with
our
substandard
lot,
ordinance,
which
I
think
the
the
corner
house,
it's
not
in
the
historic
district,
but
I
believe
it's
a
substandard
corner
lot,
so
it
would
have
to
comply.
It
wouldn't
comply
with
lot
coverage
that
wouldn't
be
a
thing
for
them,
but
they
would
have
to
apply
with
the
maximum
floor
area
ratio
for
substandard
lot.
E
D
S
C
Thank
you
so
much
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing,
and
I
will
consider
emotion
prior
to
some
discussion.
N
C
We
have
a
double
second,
I
think
I
saw
commissioner
moroney
first,
but
I
am
open
to
any
discussion,
commissioner
weaver.
If
you
want
to
start
out
on
that.
N
Yeah
I
I
actually
have.
I
think
that
that
the
height
is
fine.
In
my
opinion,
I
think
the
garage
is
set
nicely
behind
the
house
and
I
agree
with
one
of
the
renderings
that
showed
that
you
would
barely
see
the
house
or
the
garage
behind
the
house
yeah.
It
was
actually
a,
I
think,
the
next
one,
but
but
it's
okay.
It
looks
really
good
and
I
really
appreciate
the
owners
willingness
to
try
and
work
to
come,
make
the
garage,
compact
and
as
low
as
possible.
N
My
only
concern
was
really
the
lot
coverage
and
part
of
the
reason
why
I
had
asked
additional
remodels
was
because
of
the
fact
that
they've
done
a
remodel
and
maxed
out
the
lot
coverage
already
and
now
we're
adding
on
more
to
it.
N
So
you
know
it
kind
of
keeps
chipping
away
at
it,
but
I
I
appreciated
commissioner
koski's
or
questions
about
the
other
parts
of
the
neighborhood
and
if
they
would
have
to
comply,
if
they
hadn't
done
what
they
didn't,
and
I
think
in
my
mind,
it's
probably
more
important
that
they
wanted
to
keep
their
house
and
put
it
in
the
historic
district
than
probably
the
lot
coverage.
Because
I
would
imagine
that
there
are.
N
There
is
probably
a
lot
tighter
lots
around
them
than
what
they're
doing
here,
which
is
why,
ultimately,
I
decided
that
I
would
approve
this.
C
Thank
you
so
much
any
additional
discussion.
M
Yes
manage
here,
and
commissioner
weaver,
this
is
mr
koski.
I
I
you
know
applaud
the
applicant
and
I
wish
I
could
see
you
and
in
in
which
I
was
in
front
of
you
to
say.
I
applaud
you
for
opting
in
to
be
part
of
the
stark
district
when
it
first
was
put
together
and
that
little
that
little
overhead
map
kind
of
tells
the
story
of
of
your
commitment
to
to
preservation
and
then
to
and
to
the
different
things
that
that
historic
districts
are
all
about.
M
So
I
I
applaud
that
and-
and
I
think
your
design
is
great-
I
was
was-
and
I
guess
am
a
little
concerned
about
the
height
being
above
that
of
the
house.
Being
that
you
you
don't
have
I
mean
you?
You
don't
have
taller
houses
or
garages
on
either
side
of
you
and
actually
you
did
have
some
in
taller
height,
but
you
don't
have
two
story
garages
on
either
side,
but
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
your
neighbors.
Aren't
part
of
the
historic
district
so.
M
My
concern
about
the
height
I
think
has
been
has
been
taken
away.
I
think
you've
done
a
great
job,
as
commissioner
weaver
said,
to
limit
your
height
and
and
and
with
that
you've
gone
over
the
the
lot
coverage
of
38
to
38
from
35.
M
I'm
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
that
and
I'm
concerned
about
the
25
feet
of
space
for
the
garage,
I'm
I'm
I'm
I'm
willing
to
overlook
or
or
approve
the
lot
coverage
based
on
where
your
lot
is
and
who
your
neighbors
are
and
that
they
aren't
held
to
the
same
standard.
M
I
M
My
my
thought
is
to
is
to
approve
is
to
prove
this,
but
with
with
concern
that
you
can
get
that
handled
through
a
variance
or
through
other
means.
L
Madam
chair,
commissioner
richter,
I
appreciate
my
fellow
commissioners
comments
and
I
do
appreciate
the
energy
and
effort
that
the
applicant
has
gone
through
in
order
to
put
together
a
hopefully
viable
project
for
them.
I
think
the
design
is
good.
L
L
L
C
Thank
you,
commissioner
richter.
We
do
have
a
motion
before
us.
Is
there
any
additional
comments
before
we
go
ahead
and
vote
on
that.
M
Again,
a
lot
coverage
concern
of
mine,
also,
if
consumer
I
think,
of
approval,
was
put
in
to
reduce
the
size
of
the
garage
to
meet
the
35
lot
coverage,
which
I
would
imagine,
then
also
put
them
in
a
position
to
meet
the
back
cups
of
25
feet,
including
the
buffer.
H
L
L
The
peak,
although
it
is
you
know
higher
in
the
home,
we've
seen
applications
where
the
peak
is
considerably
higher
than
this
and
the
way
it
is
designed.
Like
I
said
I
I
I
do
appreciate
how
it
is
designed
and
where
and
where
it's
located
a
lot.
I
I
could
possibly
overlook
the
the
peak
height-
that's
not
in
my
favor,
but
I
think
if
the
lot
coverage
was
reduced,
I
would
be
agreeable
to
approving
the
application.
C
Okay,
does
anyone
have
anything
further
before
we
go
ahead
and
vote
on
the
motion
before
us
to
approve
the
application.
M
N
Well,
I
guess
my
thought
is
on
that
is
that
I
I
I'm
kind
of
with
commissioner
richter
that
I
don't
know
how
usable
that
garage
will
be
in
if
you
can
just
cut
off
that.
I
guess
what
I
would
prefer.
N
If
that's
your
choice,
is
that
you
just
you,
you
deny
the
application
and
then
have
them,
come
back
and
rethink
the
how
they
are
actually
going
to
design
it
rather
than
just
asking
them
to
chop
off
some
amount
to
it,
because
the
garage
that
was
there
before
made
it
at
right
at
the
you
know
the
the
35.
So
there's
really
they
don't
really
have
a
choice
of
as
far
as
I
can
tell
of
anything
they
can
do
so.
C
So,
basically,
all
of
the
surrounding
properties,
not
not
on
the
alley
side
but
to
the
north
and
to
the
east
and
to
the
west,
are
not
a
part
of
the
historic
district
so
and
like
the
applicants
said
they
opted
in
which
I
think
is
fantastic,
and
I
think
we
can
see
their
appreciation
for
their
historic
elements
that
they've
maintained
in
the
remodel
and
in
this
design
as
well
they're
already,
if
this
application
does
get
approved,
they're
already
going
to
have
to
get
a
variance
for
their
garage,
which
they're
all
of
their
neighbors
are
not
held
to
that
same
standard.
C
So
my
my
thought
process
is
I
I
don't.
I
I
see
that
there's
a
little
bit
of
wiggle
room
here
in
this
application,
and
so
I
will
be
voting
in
favor
of
this,
but
that's
just
kind
of
my
thought
process
and
I
wanted
to
have
that
on
the
record.
Are
there
any
additional
comments
before
we
go
ahead
and
vote
on
the
motion
before
us.
C
I
Hi,
I
just
want
to
say
I
agree.
This
is
a
unique
situation
and
usually
I
vote
against
if
it's
taller
than
the
house
and
I'm
a
pretty
big
stickler
about
lot
coverage,
but
given
that
kind
of
the
purpose
is
to
maintain
the
character
of
the
historic
district
and
of
the
blocks
that
these
houses
are
on
and
knowing
that
the
rest
of
the
houses
on
the
block
that
this
house
is
located
on
can
change.
I
I
I
find
it
really
admirable
that
they've
opted
into
the
historic
district
already
they've
gone
through
several
redesigns
trying
to
meet
our
standards
that
their
neighbors
aren't
going
out
to
do,
and
so
I
will
be
voting
in
favor
of
this
project.
L
Commissioner,
I
I
appreciate
that
every
you
know
all
the
comments
and
commissioners
have
made,
including
yourself
and
just
to
say
this:
they
they
did
opt
in.
They
know
what
the
guidelines
are,
and
the
home
and
property
should
be
designed
under
the
guidelines.
M
M
C
Carries
thank
you
so
much
and
with
that
I
will
adjourn
the
meeting.
Thank
you
everyone
for
your
time
this
evening
and
we
will
see
you.