►
From YouTube: Historic Preservation Commission
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
C
Okay,
Madam,
chair
I,
think
we
are
already
we'll
we'll
do
elections
after
the
presentation,
but
we
have
the
our
zoning
code
rewrite
team
here
to
give
an
update
to
you
on
that
on
how
that's
going
excellent.
B
Thank
you:
let's
go
ahead
and
call
the
meeting
to
order
with
that.
I
will
turn
it
over
to
the
team.
D
Perfect
shared
sorry,
okay,
good
evening
Commissioners,
my
name
is
Lindsay
Mosher
I'm,
the
communications
manager
for
planning
and
development
services,
and
we
have
our
zoning
code
rewrite
here
tonight
to
talk
about
module
three
and
where
we're
at
so
we
just
finished
up
well
backtrack.
A
little
bit.
We
started
this
process
back
in
Fall
of
2020.
It's
been
broken
up
into
three
different
modules
and
we've
had
pretty
extensive
community
outreach
and
within
each
of
those
modules,
once
we
are
done
with
module
two,
we
decided
we
weren't
quite
there.
Yet
we
made
some
pretty
substantial.
D
Edits,
went
back
out
in
front
of
the
community
in
summer
of
2022
to
make
sure
we're
headed
on
the
right
track,
received
really
positive
feedback,
and
now
we're
in
fall
talking
about
module
three.
We
just
finished
Outreach
about
a
week
and
a
half
ago,
we'll
have
an
Outreach
summary
report
here
in
the
coming
weeks
and
months,
but
that
went
pretty
well
as
well
and
I
recognized
some
of
your
faces.
D
I've
seen
some
of
those
events
and
the
next
steps
will
be
the
public
hearing
process
in
the
winter
and
into
the
summer
as
well.
So,
just
to
recap,
this
is
kind
of
the
framework
that
we
worked
through
for
our
module
three
and
some
of
the
feedback
that
we've
heard.
We
know
that
we
have
a
variety
of
great
neighborhoods.
We
wanted
direct
development
where
there's
planned
public
investment.
We
need
to
have
a
strategy
to
produce
affordable
and
sustainable
housing,
and
we
need
to
manage
growth
along
the
edges
of
the
city.
D
So
now
we'll
go
through
a
module
three
and
the
team
will
go
through
what
those
different
application
types
look
like
and
with
that
I'll
kick
it
over
to
Andrea.
E
Good
evening,
Commissioners
for
the
record
Andrea
tuning
to
get
us
started
off.
It's
really
important
to
understand
where
we
had
been
through
the
community
engagement
process,
because
we
had
gathered
quite
a
bit
of
feedback
and
really
that
feedback
requested
that
the
city
create
consistent
and
predictable
decisions,
really
making
sure
that
we
had
conversations
with
all
of
our
providers,
whether
those
were
internal
to
the
city
of
Boise
or
our
external
agency
partners
as
well,
and
then
defining
clear
roles
for
our
stakeholders
and
based
on
that
information.
E
We
ultimately
came
up
with
what
we
were
hoping
our
process
would
do
in
module
three,
and
so,
as
a
part
of
that,
we
ultimately
determined
that
it
was
critical
for
our
process
to
reinforce
our
goals
and
our
strategic
priorities
as
a
city
ensuring
that
we
involved
all
of
the
important
and
critical
Partners.
So
whether
that
was
our
internal
Partners
or
our
external
Partners,
so
that
we
could
achieve
those
goals
that
we
were
seeking
to
do
and
then,
of
course,
obtaining
those
excellent
projects
which
we
were
striving
for.
E
So
when
we
looked
at
module
three,
we
ultimately
made
some
major
modifications
and
the
modifications
that
we've
identified
as
key
changes,
including
creating
those
application
types
and
we'll
kind
of
walk
through
what
that
means,
creating
a
new
application
type
as
well.
Knowing
that
an
allowed
use
is
the
first
step,
but
the
allowed
form
is
also
almost
as
important,
because
our
land
is
so
valuable
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
getting
the
ideal
scenario
in
those
key
locations
throughout
the
city
of
Boise.
E
We
also
propose
to
reintroduce
the
hearings
examiner,
which
our
code
currently
allows
us
to
do.
We
originally
had
a
hearing
examiner
for
several
years.
Over
time,
we
decided
that
we
probably
didn't
need
that
role
at
the
city
of
Boise,
but
we
think
that
that
position
can
fulfill
very
specific
goals
that
we
have
as
a
city.
E
So
when
we
talk
about
application
types,
we've
ultimately
identified
four
specific
types
of
applications,
so
we've
got
the
very
simple
review
so
I.
Think
of
that,
as
maybe
an
over-the-counter
review
or
something
that
takes
just
a
couple
of
days,
an
administrative
review
which
does
have
you
specific
standards
which
might
take
a
little
bit
longer
and
may
take
some
research
and
some
time
to
evaluate
the
proposal.
E
Type
3,
which
is
the
appointed
body
review.
The
historic
preservation
commission
would
fall
under
that.
So
with
the
design,
Review
Committee
and
the
hearings
examiner
and
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
as
well.
And
then
the
final
one
is
the
city
council
review
and
when
we
look
at
the
differences
between
these
applications,
we
can
see
that
they
become
more
complex
or
if
we
start
from
Type
4,
we
can
say
that
those
are
identified
in
the
local
land
use
planning
act,
and
so
our
state
Doctrine
ultimately
requires
that
the
city
council
reviews
and
approves
those
items.
E
When
we
look
at
the
type
3
when
we
look
at
the
red
items,
those
are
items
that
are
not
considered
to
be
required
by
the
state
law,
but
those
are
items
that
we've
identified
that
there's
probably
an
important
component
that
our
community
needs
to
be
involved
in
and
so
we've
kind
of
identified
those
into
the
four
bodies
that
we've
talked
about.
So
the
hearings
examiner
would
be
reviewing
variance
applications,
Planning
and
Zoning
would
focus
on
land
use
such
as
expansions
of
non-conforming
uses.
They
would
focus
on
the
allowed
use
or
alternative
form.
E
So,
in
that
case,
where
they
wouldn't
be
meeting
that
Urban
form
that
we
would
be
looking
for,
but
they
are
the
allowed
use
conditional
use
permits
and
then
some
of
our
complex
Hillside,
as
well
as
river
system
permits,
so
really
focusing
on
that
land
use
piece
design.
Review
commission
would
be
focusing
on
architectural
design
through
the
major
small
lots
and
our
major
design
review
applications,
and
then,
of
course,
you
as
a
historic
preservation
commission
would
be
reviewing
those
certificate
of
appropriateness
and
not
a
whole
lot.
Changes
in
regard
to
what
your
purview
would
be.
E
The
important
part
with
three
and
four
is
that
they
require
that
we
have
an
interdepartmental,
Review,
Committee
review
that,
and
so
we
would
all
get
around
a
round
table.
Anybody
that
would
have
a
stake
in
that
development
would
have
an
opportunity
to
talk
about
that,
so
whether
that
is
solid
waste
location,
whether
that
is
irrigation
districts,
whether
it's
architectural
designs,
land
use.
E
Type
2
is
a
little
bit
different,
so
those
are
really
those
administrative
review
applications
that
will
have
you
specific
standards.
There
is
a
caveat,
so
there
are
some
that
have
the
asterisk
behind
it
and
that
identifies
projects
that
we
may
identify
and
say
they
might
need
a
little
bit
more
coordination,
and
so
we
will
require
that
they
have
that
interdepartmental
review
as
they
go,
but
they
would
still
be
reviewed
at
the
administrative
process.
E
The
important
component
here
also
identifies
what
that
appeal
structure
looks
like.
So
when
we
have
those
very
simple
applications
that
don't
require
much.
There
is
no
appeal
type
2
or
staff
level
applications.
Those
would
appeal
to
our
hearings.
Examiner
any
type
3
application
that
is
reviewed
and
approved
or
denied
would
appeal
to
the
city,
council
and
then
city
council
decisions,
if
they
were
chosen
to
appeal,
would
go
before
our
judicial
review
process,
and
so
what
we
do
is
when
we
categorize
all
of
these
different
review
bodies.
E
When
we
talk
about
that
interdepartmental
review,
it
really
does
just
allow
us
to
coordinate
all
of
our
efforts
to
make
sure
that
we're
all
aligning
our
goals
to
create
those
excellent
projects
that
the
city
is
currently
seeking.
And
so
it
will
be
anything
from
an
internal
Department
to
our
external
agencies.
F
Thank
you
Andrea
good
evening,
Commissioners,
as
Andrea
said,
I'm
going
to
walk
us
through
a
couple
of
different
changes.
We've
made
to
the
zoning
code
to
really
help
us
reinforce
our
City's
vision
and
goals
through
our
process.
F
One
specific
one
is
the
creation
of
a
new
application
type
that
we're
calling
allowed
use
and
it
would
be
either
an
allowed
use,
a
loud
form
or
an
application
for
a
loud
use,
alternative
form.
So,
within
our
zoning
code
we
typically
Center
applications
based
off
of
if
it's
an
allowed
use
or
not,
and
if
it's
a
conditional
use
or
rezone
Etc.
So
what
we
also
care,
though
about,
is
making
sure
that
the
allowed
use
is
meeting
our
City's
goals
and
a
lot
of
that
has
to
do
with
how
that
building
is
built.
F
So
what
we've
done
is
decided
to
focus
on
our
mixed-use
areas,
where
we
heard
from
our
community
that
they
wanted
us
to
direct
our
most
intense
development
within
those
mixed-use
areas
and
they're
shown
here
on
the
screen.
We
have
our
mx1,
which
is
neighborhood,
which
is
some
of
that
small
scale
neighborhood
serving
commercial
MX3,
which
is
the
mixed
use
active
and
that's
typically
found
on
State
Street,
Fairview
Vista
and
a
variety
of
different
activity.
Centers.
F
We
have
our
mx4,
which
is
found
only
on
State
Street,
which
is
a
mixed
use:
Transit,
oriented
development,
the
city's
been
planning
for
decades
to
have
high
capacity
Transit
along
State,
Street
and
there's
four
identified
nodes.
That
would
eventually
become
Transit
stations,
and
we
want
to
support
our
most
intense
development
and
also
development
that
supports
Transit
at
those
locations.
And
then,
of
course,
we
have
our
MX-5,
which
is
mixed,
use
downtown.
We
have
plenty
of
investment
there
and
we
want
to
continue
to
see
growth
within
those
areas
so
where
those
are
shown
on
the
map.
F
So
the
best
way
to
do
this
is
through
example,
that's
kind
of
a
lot
of
words
to
just
show
two
different
pictures
which
hopefully
helps
get
the
picture
the
message
across
and
so
we're
imagining
we're
in
an
MX3
location,
so
I
think
State,
Street,
Vista,
Fairview
and
we
know
multi-family
is
allowed
in
these
areas.
However,
there's
two
different
types
of
multi-family
that
support
different
goals
within
our
city.
As
you
can
see,
the
one
on
my
left,
which
is
our,
would
be
considered
a
type
2
application.
So
that's
a
staff
level
review.
F
We
have
very
specific
use
specific
standards
and
we
would
require
interdepartmental
review.
However,
we've
already
established
that
this
form
helps
support
the
city's
goals
and
we
want
to
review
and
approve
that
if
it
meets
those
new
specific
standards
administratively,
so
that
type
of
form,
which
is
four
or
more
stories
and
it
does
not
exceed
our
parking
minimums-
would
be
approved
administratively.
If
a
developer
comes
in
and
they
go,
we
don't
want
to
provide
that
product.
We
want
a
lower
intensity
development
here
and
we
want
it
to
have
excess
amounts
of
parking.
F
F
And
then
our
other
way,
we've
kind
of
review
reviewed.
Our
code
is
really
to
get
what
we
want
from
our
development
findings,
and
we
have
done
this
to
many
of
the
application
types,
not
all
so
I'm,
not
sure
if
we
changed
much
with
a
certificate
of
occupants
or
certificate
of
appropriateness.
But
we
all
have
legal
findings
that
we
review
each
project
against
and
does
this
help
meet
those
findings.
So
this
is
a
good
example
of
from
our
design
review
findings.
Our
previous
findings
say
the
traffic
impact
is
minimized.
G
Thanks
Deanna
good
evening,
commissioner
Selena
Walker
for
the
record
so
looking
at
how
all
of
this
actually
translates
into
our
process
framework
and
how
that
process
compares
to
what
we
currently
have
now
I'm
going
to
show
you
that
in
just
the
next
couple
of
slides
and
try
to
keep
it
high
level.
So
this
is
an
example
here
of
the
change
in
process
for
an
administratively
reviewed
project.
So,
for
example,
a
duplex
as
you
can
see
from
those
flow
charts,
there's
not
a
whole
lot
of
difference
here.
G
The
key
difference
here
that
you
can
really
notice
is
that,
under
our
current
process,
when
we
get
applications
received
for
say
a
pre-application
meeting,
there's
a
high
level
of
variability
in
how
complete
that
concept
might
be.
It
could
be
anything
from
back
of
an
applicant
sketch
to
something
fairly
fully
fleshed
out.
G
So
what
we
would
like
to
see
is
having
that
early
concept,
review
meeting
where
we
can
work
with
an
applicant
at
the
beginning
of
their
process
to
make
sure
that
they're,
looking
the
right
places
in
the
code
make
sure
that
they
are
aware
of
kind
of
what
our
priorities
and
concerns
would
be
for
that
project
so
that
when
it
is
submitted,
it
is
at
that
100
level.
So
staff
can
write
that
report
and
get
that
decision
turned
around
in
a
timely
manner,
and
that
appeal
would
then
go
to
the
hearing.
G
Examiner,
underneath
you
can
see
that
there
are
some
administratively
approved
processes
that
could
require
interdepartmental
review.
So
as
an
example,
if
you're
looking
at
one
of
those
allowed
use,
allowed
form
applications,
although
we
are
comfortable
with
the
use,
specific
standards
and
our
design
guidelines,
making
sure
that
we're
getting
that
excellent
project
that
we
need
at
an
administratively
reviewed
level,
we
do
recognize
that
there
may
be
the
need
for
multiple
departments
or
even
external
agency
partners
such
as
achd,
to
come
together
and
make
sure
that
we're
getting
all
of
that
feedback
at
the
same
time.
G
Again,
to
ensure
that
when
that
application
is
submitted,
it's
at
that
full
100,
so
that
we're
not
having
applications
submitted
and
then
kind
of
trying
to
leave
it
up
to
staff,
to
try
to
chase
down
all
these
different
departments
or
agency
partners
and
incorporating
that
feedback
which
at
times,
can
be
even
conflicting
with
one
another
so
really
trying
to
get
everyone
in
the
room
in
a
timely
manner
for
the
projects
that
really
need
it
going
on
to
the
hearing
level.
G
So
this
is
perhaps
a
little
more
relevant
to
Historic
preservation,
commission
or
our
different
hearing
level
bodies.
Again,
you
can
kind
of
see
the
changes
there
in
the
existing
process
and
the
proposed
process
when
we
have
applicants
coming
in
for
that,
pre-app
meeting
concept
could
be
anywhere
from
zero
to
a
hundred
percent.
What
we
would
like
to
see
is
having
an
early
concept
review
meeting
an
applicant
could
then
go
out
and
speak
with
the
neighborhood
and
get
their
feedback
as
well.
G
On
that
initial
concept
that
they've
built
out,
they
would
return
to
actually
have
a
mid-process
review
check-in
with
staff
so
that
we
could
touch
base
on
what
was
discussed
at
that
neighborhood
meeting.
How
have
they
incorporated
or
not
the
feedback
that
we
gave
them
in
that
initial
meeting
and
then
send
it
on
for
that
interdepartmental
review?
G
Then
the
staff
would
write
report
and
it
would
go
to
the
commission
with
the
appeal
going
to
the
appropriate
body.
So
in
the
case
of
the
historic
preservation
commission-
that's
where
you
all
would
come
in
and
then
you
know
if
there
were
appeals,
we
would
take
it
from
there
and
again
city
council
level.
These
type
4
applications,
really.
The
only
difference
here
between
Type
4
and
type
3
is
that
we
do
have
that
formal
recommendation
coming
from
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
before
it
goes
on
to
city
council
to
make
that
final
decision.
G
Finally,
we've
also
been
working
in
our
department
to
try
to
come
up
with
different
ways
that
we
can
really
address
the
community
feedback
we've
heard
of
wanting
to
involve
the
community
and
partners
early
in
the
process.
So
we've
talked
a
lot
about
that
interdepartmental
review
and
how
we
kind
of
get
different
agencies
and
departments
all
on
the
same
page
with
each
other.
But
oh
excuse
me.
We
also
want
to
make
sure
that
our
community
is
getting
involved
as
early
as
possible
and
that
we're
communicating
effectively
with
them.
G
So
our
GIS
staff
is
currently
in
the
process
of
working
on
this
Community
Development
tracker.
We
do
have
a
live
version
of
this.
Now
that
you
could
take
a
look
at
if
you
wanted
to
give
feedback,
we
would
love
to
hear
your
thoughts
and
what
this
is
is
a
GIS
based
tool
that
presents
all
of
the
information
that
is
currently
already
publicly
available
through
in
a
seller
portal.
H
Another
question
quick
yeah
sure
so
then,
when
they're
giving
the
feedback
for
like
a
historic
property,
would
that
be
coming
to?
How
does
that
get
to
us
or.
G
Doesn't
need
to
sure
that's
a
great
question.
It
would
come
to
you
in
the
same
way
that
public
feedback
comes
now,
so
there
would
be
a
link
to
fill
out
a
a
mail
form
like
an
automatic
form
that
would
populate
and
that
information
would
go
to
the
planning
and
development
services
main
email
and
would
then
be
forwarded
on
forwarded
onto
the
staff
that
is
working
on
that
application.
So
you
would
still
see
all
of
that
correspondence
in
your
packet.
Just
like
you
do
now
awesome.
Thank
you.
B
I
have
a
follow-up
question
to
that
sure
for
applications
that
are
like
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
minor
that
are
going
to
be
approved
at
staff
level.
How
does
that
feedback
impact
the
application?
If
there's
opposition
to
a
project,
would
it
immediately
come
to
a
hearing
level,
or
is
it
just
taken
kind
of
to
work
and
mediate
between
staff
and
the
applicant.
G
You
know
if
we
currently
require
noticing
of
immediate
neighbors
for
an
Adu
application
that
is
administratively
approved.
However,
neighbors
can
submit
comment
if
they
have
concerns
or,
if
they're,
supportive
of
that
project
that
is
included
in
the
staff
report
and
in
the
staff
review
if
they
were
to
appeal
an
administrative
decision
that
appeal
of
a
staff
level,
historic
application,
would
then
appeal
to
the
historic
preservation
commission.
Is
that
correct?
B
G
So,
just
to
close
out
we'd
be
happy
to
stand
for
any
other
questions
as
well,
but
there's
links
here
for
that
Community
Development
tracker
and
for
the
email
that
goes
directly
to
this
whole
team.
Here
for
any
comments
that
you
might
have
on
the
zoning
code.
We
also
have
the
website
up
where
you
can
read
the
full
draft
if
you
would
like
and
look
at
the
conversion
map,
so
we
are
looking
to
have
that
comments.
Deadline
of
December
15th,
so
I
would
love
to
any
thoughts
that
you
would
like
to
share.
G
I
G
I
So
I
I
just
asked
that,
because
the
historic
preservation
commission
itself
I
mean
it's
getting
principle
is
to
encourage
historic
preservation
throughout
the
city
and
that's
not
just
restricted
restricted
to
the
historic
districts
designated
at
a
local
level.
So
Richard
might
see
a
property
and
say
you
know
that's
a
great
example
of
mid-century
architecture
and
that
should
be
preserved
and
rehabilitated.
So
I
just
went
it'd
be
nice.
If
that
was
included
in
that
process.
B
I
have
a
question
as
well
so
I
understand,
and
please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
that
really
the
purpose
of
this
entire
rewrite
is
to
going
back
to
that
I
think
the
three
goals,
one
of
the
main
ones,
increasing
density
and
affordability
in
terms
of
Housing
and
our
historic
districts-
are
really
existing
to
protect
these
areas
to
adverse
negative
developmental
impact.
B
And
so
what
are
the
changes
that
we're
going
to
be
seeing
within
the
historic
districts
based
off
of
the
new
ordinances,
R1
r1c
R2,
and
how?
How
are
those
going
to
impact
the
applications
that
come
before
us?
B
So
if
we
have,
for
example,
an
empty
lot
in
a
historic
district?
What
are
the
potentials
that
can
go
on
that
lot
with
the
new
guidelines,
if
you
will,
that
would
be
allowed
on
that
lot.
Does
that.
G
Make
sense?
Yes,
commissioner:
Monto,
that's
a
good
question.
I
guess
I
would
lead
by
saying
that
for
one,
the
historic
overlay
is
essentially
remaining
unchanged
so
and
that
historic
overlay
does
take.
You
know,
sort
of
the
primary
seat
when
we're
looking
at
historic
properties.
So
any
of
the
requirements
that
are
currently
in
that
historic
overlay
would
continue
to
be
in
place.
Regardless
of
changes
to
the
base
zoning
requirements.
G
There
have
been
changes
to
the
dimensional
standards
for
the
r1c
Zone
specifically,
did
you
mention
another
one?
Sorry.
B
G
B
So
when
you
say
dimensional
changes,
meaning
height
messing.
What
do
you
mean
by.
G
That
yeah,
so
that
would
include
setbacks,
so
yard
setbacks
that
could
include
Building
height,
minimum
lot,
size
and
Street
Frontage
requirements.
B
And
are
we
generally
seeing
an
increase
in
a
loud
increase
in
height
decrease
in
setbacks?
Is
that
kind
of
generally?
What.
G
Commissioner,
Monto
yes
I,
would
say
in
general,
some
of
the
high
level
changes
to
the
dimensional
standards
for
residential
zones
is,
there
has
been
some
increase
in
the
allowance
of
height
I
think
that
the
the
setbacks
are
really
going
to
vary
by
zone.
So
you
might
want
to
kind
of
take
a
look
at
those
and
and
see
especially
for
the
r1c
and
R2,
and
then
there's
also
some
specific
standards
like
use,
specific
standards
for
residential
uses
in
those
zones.
B
G
Commissioner
mantoto,
yes,
we
have
we're
currently
in
the
process
of
a
sort
of
reiterative
all
staff
review
of
these
drafts
of
the
new
zoning
code,
and
so
we
are
soliciting
feedback
from
design
review,
folks,
historic
preservation,
current
planners
and
long-range
planners,
to
ensure
that
the
changes
that
we're
making
are
we're
thinking
about
all
those
different
pieces
of
the
code.
Excellent.
Thank
you.
You're.
J
Welcome
I
have
a
question
how
much
additional
time
per
application.
Do
you
think
the
inter
Department
review
is
going
to
add.
G
Commissioner,
honored,
that's
also
a
great
question,
I
think.
Ideally,
our
hope
is
that
it
would
create.
It
would
cause
less
time
to
be
taken
up
than
we
currently
have
now
so
because
it
would
be
a
regularly
occurring
meeting.
G
You
know
we
do.
We
are
working
with
our
agency
partners
to
see
what
kind
of
time
frame
would
work
best
for
them.
How
frequently
can
they
meet
for
how
many
hours?
How
would
they
have
a
representative
coming
to
that
on
a
regular
basis,
but
I
believe
the
goal
here
is
really
to
make
more
efficient
use
of
everyone's
time,
as
opposed
to
under
our
current
system.
G
If
we're
kind
of
sending
out
transmittals
to
our
agency
partners,
it's
sort
of
incumbent
on
the
planner
who's
writing
that
staff
report,
if
they
don't
hear
back
within
a
certain
amount
of
time
to
need
to
try
to
follow
up
with
them
and
some
of
that
feedback
might
be
coming
in
very
late
in
the
process,
and
it
could
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
site,
design
or
building
design,
which
would
then
cause
further
delays,
because
in
order
to
incorporate
that
feedback,
especially
if
it
has
to
do
with
traffic
impacts
or
Solid
Waste
or
something
like
that,
that
could
be
really
influential.
G
I
Have
one
more
so
this
is
sort
of
about
the
zoning
code
rewrite
but
General
like
historic
preservation
and
Zoning
codes
in
other
cities.
So
a
city
of
Portland
went
through
something
similar.
They
went
through
a
zoning
code
rewrite
and
the
reaction
to
that
zoning
code,
rewrite
to
add
density
was
to
designate
more
historic
districts
a
lot
of
mid-century
neighborhoods
where
are
being
designated
throughout
Portland.
I
G
Commissioner,
Moy
that's
a
great
question
and
if
anyone
else
would
like
to
jump
in
on
this,
one
specifically
I
would
say
feel
free,
Josh.
Looking
at
you,
two
things,
I
will
say,
is
you
know
one
through
this
process?
G
We
have
started
to
already
flag
additional
changes
that
may
need
to
be
made
that
are
related
to
the
zoning
code,
but
are
not
really
appropriate
when
the
within
the
context
of
this
specific
rewrite
so,
for
example,
we're
not
currently
doing
a
survey
of
historic,
neighborhoods
or
properties
in
the
city,
but
that
is
something
that
may
need
to
occur
after
the
zoning
code
has
been
adopted.
So
that's
kind
of
looking
forward
to
next
steps,
and
also
a
major
part
of
that
is
as
we're
working
through
this
rewrite.
G
We
are,
you
know,
working
with
some
of
our
new
staff
who
have
been
brought
on
to
do
sort
of
development
services
managing
and
managing
kind
of
how
we
structure
ourselves
as
a
department.
So
we
are
aware
of
the
potential
for
Staffing,
need
changes
and
trying
to
get
out
in
front
of
that
and
and
kind
of
look
to
the
future
of
what
we
might
need
to
do
in
terms
of
our
internal
work.
Do
you
want
to
add
anything
to
that
Josh.
C
Thank
you,
Lena
I
think
that
was
really
well
said
about
the
way
that
we
are
rearranging
our
work
with
our
development
services
group
and
the
way
that
we
approach,
applications
and
kind
of
front
loading.
The
process
is
going
to
create
efficiencies.
There
are
Staffing
changes,
we
we
know
we
will
need.
We
don't
know
what
those
are
yet.
C
The
topic
of
new
districts
is
certainly
a
tricky
one,
because
we
do
have
a
growing
desire
in
the
city
to
create
new
districts,
so
I
mean
I,
think
you're
well
aware
of
the
West
downtown
or
the
West
End
folks
are
very
interested
in
creating
a
new
district.
There
have
been
other
districts
proposed
recently
as
well.
Some
mid-century
districts,
I
think
are
on
the
radar.
C
The
challenge
with
that
is
new
districts
means
more
staff,
and
that
means
real
money,
and
that
is
a
conversation
we
have
to
have
with
leadership,
come
up
with
a
strategic
plan
about
our
staffing
needs
and
how
we're
going
to
move
forward
with
those
you
know,
frankly,
we're
kind
of
maxed
out
right
now,
so
new
districts
probably
does
mean
more
staff
and
that's
you
know:
that's
a
process
to
go
through
in
a
quite
a
conversation
to
go
through
to
get
those
additional
staff
members,
but
we
know
it
would
be
needed.
F
Foreign
and
I
just
wanted
to
add
one
quick
thing:
I
heard
a
couple
things
saying:
one
of
the
goals
is
to
increase
density,
I
think
that
if
we
could
reflect
back
to
our
revised
one
and
two
draft,
we
actually
were
really
deliberate
in
saying
that
we're
having
a
variety
in
neighborhoods
and
that
we're
directing
development
where
we
have
that
investment,
which
is
typically
in
our
mixed-use
zones,
so
I
would
encourage
you
to
take
a
look
at
how
we've
tried
to
be
take
a
very
modest
approach
to
changes
in
that
dimensional
standard.
B
Thank
you
any
other
questions
for
Stuff.
Okay,
thank
you
so
much
Josh.
Do
we
need
to
do
the
agenda
review
or
do
you
want
to
do
elections
first?
Let's.
C
Go
ahead
and
do
elections
so
with
Danielle
Weaver's
departure.
We
will
need
a
new
chairperson,
so
I
would
look
for
any
volunteers
or
any
nominations.
B
I
have
been
chair
for
way
too
long.
I
would
love
to
see
someone
else.
Have
it
turned
I've
been
here
for
a
long
time.
I
can
volunteer.
That
would
be
great.
I
will
nominate,
commissioner
moroney,
as
do
we
need
to
vote
on
it
Josh,
or
can
we
just
do
a
volunteer.
B
Vote.
Okay,
then
I
will
nominate
commissioner
moroney
as
chair
I'll.
Second,
that
Christina,
would
you
please
call
the
roll.
A
B
Do
you
want
me
to
finish
up
okay
Josh?
Can
we
have
the
agenda
reveal
please
yeah.
C
B
Any
opposition
to
putting
item
number
three
on
the
consent
agenda.
B
And
we
will
hear
we
will
do
that
yep,
great
okay,
anything
else
that.
B
Let's
go
ahead
and
call
it
and
I
think
there's
food
in
the
other
room,
yep.
A
A
B
Good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
city
of
Boise's
historic
preservation,
commission
public
hearing
a
few
things
to
start
out
with
for
tonight's
proceedings.
Everyone
from
the
public
entering
the
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
there's
a
chat
function
in
Zoom.
This
is
not
part
of
the
record
and
should
be
only
used
if
technical
difficulties
arise.
B
Are
procedures
for
public
hearings
begin
with
a
presentation
from
the
planning
team,
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
are
in
person,
then
who
have
signed
up
on
the
sign
up
sheet
in
advance
and
then
anyone
else
in
public
who
raises
their
hand
virtually
if
you
are
attending
through
your
telephone,
you
can
type
in
Star
9.
B
To
raise
your
hand,
each
member
of
the
public
is
allowed
up
to
three
minutes
for
Testimony.
We
are
strict
with
that
time,
as
it
is
limited
in
code.
Finally,
the
applicant
is
allowed
five
minutes
for
rebuttal,
after
which
the
hearing
will
be
closed
and
the
commission
will
deliberate
and
render
a
decision.
B
I
just
realized
that
my
script
says
that
I
now
have
the
floor.
I
don't
think.
I
was
supposed
to
read
that,
but.
B
I
am
chair
person,
montodo
and
I.
We'll
continue.
Reading
my
script
I
apologize.
We
are
citizen,
volunteers
appointed
by
the
mayor
and
approved
by
the
city
council.
We
make
final
decisions
on
conditional
use
permits.
This
I,
don't
think,
is
right
for
us.
We
utilize
a
consent
agenda.
This
means
that
if
the
applicant
agrees
with
the
staff
report,
there
is
no
and
there
is
no
public
opposition.
The
item
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
All
items
that
are
placed
on
the
consent
agenda
are
approved
with
one
motion.
B
Without
further
public
comment
for
items
not
on
the
consent
agenda,
we
will
hold
a
full
public
Hearing
in
the
order
just
detailed
a
few
minutes
ago
with
staff,
the
applicant,
the
neighborhood
association
and
then
public
testimony.
Thank
you
all
for
attending
tonight.
Christina.
Will
you
please
call
the
roll
tape.
A
B
You
we
do
not
have
any
items
on
the
consent
agenda
this
evening
and
we
do
not
have
any
deferrals.
B
So
first
we
will
hear
item
number
one
and
that
is
oh
I'm.
Sorry
I
should
have
done
the
minutes.
Sorry,
my
script
is
is
not
right.
I
apologize!
B
We
need
to
approve
the
minutes
from
the
October
24th
2022
hearing
do
I
have
a
motion.
I'll
move
a
second,
oh!
Thank
you,
commissioner,
otter
second
from
commissioner
moroney
Christina.
Can
you
please
call
the
roll
hi.
K
B
You
now
we
will
move
on
to
our
first
item
on
the
agenda
this
evening
and
that
is
Dr
h22-00380
James
Ritter
at
1706
North
10th
Street
staff.
May
we
please
have
the
report.
M
Yes,
oh
yeah,
the
button
I'm
hungry,
okay,
good,
okay,
yes,
as
you
say,
this
is
Dr
h2200380
1706,
North
10th.
This
is
a
requested
approval
to
demolish
an
existing
non
as
originally
thought
an
existing
non-contributing
structure
and
construct
a
new
single-family
residence
with
a
detached
garage
on
the
property
it's
in
the
north
end
and
it's
initially
considered
to
be
non-contributing.
This
site
location
is
shown
here.
M
This
is
a
photograph
of
the
existing
home
and
there
was
an
email
that
was
received
today.
That
indicated
that
the
state
historic
preservation
offices,
documentation
for
the
inventory,
shows
that
this
property
is
contributing,
whereas
our
city
of
Boise
inventory
listing
shows
it
as
non-contributing
and
just
in
case
we
get
to
it.
Here's
the
site
plan
for
what
they're
proposing
where
the
garage
would
be
in
the
rear
and
what
the
garage
would
look
like.
M
As
I
said,
we've
received
this
email
indicating
that
there's
a
discrepancy
between
the
contributing
and
non-contributing
Status,
based
on
oh
yeah,
sorry,
based
on
past
situations,
where
it
has
happened.
It
usually
led
to
the
being
you
know,
delaying
the
process
where
we
would
have
to
go
through
some
research
to
determine
what
the
facts
and
whether
it
is
contributing
or
not
contributing.
So
we
might
want
this
to
be
deferred
to
the
next
meeting
is
my
general
recommendation.
B
Thank
you,
Richard
does
commission
have
any
questions.
J
Please
I
have
a
question
so
when
this
came
up
a
couple
months
ago,
we
determined
are
the
attorney
determined
so
I'm,
guessing
I'm,
going
to
look
at
the
attorney
again
that
the
code
required
that
the
applicant
only
look
at
the
city
of
Boise's
records
for
Conformity
versus
non-conformity
when
proceeding
forward.
So
I
wonder
if
that
has
changed
at
all
from
the
attorney's
perspective,
and
also
it
looked
from
your
staff's
perspective.
The
city
of
Boise's
records
are
that
it
is
non-conforming.
Is
that
correct?
Yes,.
N
B
L
What
process
do
we
have
to
verify
the
records
that
we
have
I
mean?
Is
there
I
mean
we
have
the
state
to
start
preservation
office,
anything
one
document
with
one
different
check
mark
on
it
from
the
same
period
and
the
one
that
the
city
has
so
do
we
have
a
last
time?
We
deferred
the
item,
so
we
could
look
at
it
further
at
the
city
and
come
to
a
conclusion.
L
Do
we
have
a
process
like
that
again
to
use?
Maybe
that's
for
for
Josh.
C
I'll
jump
in
commissioner
Madam
chair,
commissioner
Koski
you're
right
this
and
commissioner,
are
you
right?
This
did
come
up
a
few
six
months
ago.
Maybe
the
the
process
that
took
place
in
1993
and
94
when
these
were
adopted,
when
the
survey
was
done
and
adopted,
I
think
was
not
clear
to
anyone
on
City
staff
or
I.
Think
you
know
anyone
on
the
commission
now.
It
was
long
enough
ago
that
there's
quite
a
bit
of
uncertainty
about
how
this
inconsistency
appeared
within
the
surveys.
C
On
that
last
application,
you
know
Richard's
correct.
We
did
defer
that
defer
it
to
do
a
little
bit
more
research,
that
research
really
didn't
result
in
US,
finding
any
sort
of
breadcrumbs
or
any
indication
of
how
this
error
happened.
The
commission
ultimately
decided
you
know
with
with
some
input
from
from
the
city
attorney
has
mentioned
that
the
city
is
The,
Record
Keeper
on
these,
and
we
did
not
have
an
ex
an
explanation
for
the
discrepancy.
If
you
did
decide
to
defer
tonight
that
would
allow
staff
an
opportunity
to
do.
C
You
know
with
Richard's
expertise
and
evaluation
of
the
status
of
how
we,
you
know,
which
is
possibly
the
correct
status.
I
think
that's
still
a
little
difficult
to
you
know
there
is
an
established
process
for
reserving
a
property.
You
know
the
staff
doing
some
research
over
the
next
month
would
not
be
that,
so
it
would
not
be
any
sort
of
official
change
of
status.
What
it
would
do
would
give
the
commission
better
information
to
make
a
decision
on,
but
if
you're
comfortable
tonight
that
it's
non-contributing,
that
is
the
record
that
the
city
has.
C
That
is
a
direction
that
we
did
go
on,
that
previous
application.
You
could
make
that
decision
tonight
or
you
could
ask
us
to
do
whatever
investigation.
We
can
do
to
give
you
as
much
information
as
possible
to
make
your
decision.
B
N
Point
of
clarification:
do
you
mean
take
the
hearing,
do
the
hearing
and
then
come
back
to
another
meeting
if.
N
Yeah,
if
you
were
to,
if
you
wanted
to
defer
for
additional
information,
it's
probably
better
to
conduct
the
hearing
at
a
later
date,
so
that
the
applicant
yourselves
can
review
any
sort
of
new
evidence
that
a
staff
applicant
or
maybe
a
member
of
the
public,
wanted
to
produce
it's
a
cleaner
record
to
do
it.
That
way.
I
Hey
so
that
was
my
email,
that
I
looked
at
the
ship
of
record,
and
it
said
it
was
a
contributing
property
versus
non-contributing,
which
the
the
staff
or
the
city
Boise
has
on
record.
I
I
can
tell
you
from
the
ship
of
perspective
that
the
how
those
surveys
worked
was
the
city
went
out
hired
somebody
to
do
those
surveys
collected
that
information.
They
then
sent
that
information
to
shippo,
where
shippo
would
review
it
and
either
concur
or
not
concur
with
the
findings,
the
determinations
of
eligibility
for
all
of
the
properties
as
either
individually
eligible
individually
ineligible,
contributing
to
a
historic
district
or
non-contributing
to
a
historic
district.
I
That
information,
then,
should
have
gone
back
up
to
the
city,
with
the
correct
and
for
the
correct,
contributing
or
non-contributings
of
the
shipo
disagreed
with
the
consultant.
In
this
case,
maybe
it
was
sent
to
the
the
shipa
with
non-contributing,
and
then
the
ship
has
said
now
actually
retains
enough
Integrity
to
be
contributing
to
the
historic
district
and
then
sent
that
information
back
to
the
city.
This
city
should
have
of
the
final
documentation.
I
J
J
I
have
no
idea
when
they
bought
it,
but
assuming
that
they
bought
it
based
on
the
knowledge
that
was
provided
by
the
city
and
it
wasn't
their
responsibility
to
call
shippo
and
now
shippo
what
the
records
were
and
I
think
that
places
an
undue
burden
on
the
applicant
to
do
a
lot
more
extra
homework
than
technically
they're
required
to
do,
and
that
we
can
be
asking
them
to
do,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
it's
fair
to
them
to
defer
it
when
they
have
done
everything
right,
and
it
is
our
mistake
at
the
city
for
not
having
the
correct
records.
H
I
agree
with
commissioner
otter
I
think
that
they
shouldn't
be
penalized
for
a
mistake
in
in
our
filing,
but
I
think
that
commissioner
Moy
is
right.
We
we,
this
is
the
second
time
this
has
happened
within
six
months.
We
need
to
request
the
correct
records
and
and
figure
out
where
the
discrepancies
are
so
this
doesn't
keep
happening,
but
I
don't
think
that
tonight
is
the
night
that
we
fix
it.
L
Madam,
chair,
I
I
think
we
need
to
I
mean
continue
with
this
item
in
the
hearing
and
go
through
the
process
if
it's
approval
or
a
deferral
that
comes
at
the
end,
so
I
think
we
need
to
continue
going
through
hearing
from
the
applicant
hearing
from
the
neighbors
Association
go
through
that
process.
L
B
B
I
say:
let's
proceed
then,
and
with
that
we
will
hear
from
the
applicant
is
the
applicant
present.
B
B
Yes,
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
you'll
have
20
minutes.
O
So
I
guess
this:
this
first
off
here
kind
of
being
thrown
with
the
curveball
I
would
say
you
know.
Knowing
you
know,
our
our
application
was
submitted,
thinking
that
that
it
was
a
non-contributing
and
I
do
agree
that
at
least
to
go
through
the
process
here
and
at
least
determine
if
you
approve
the
project
as
it's
currently
been
submitted
for,
would
be
best.
O
If
down
the
road.
You
guys
decide
that
that
it.
It
in
fact
doesn't
want
to
want
to
be
a
contributing
structure.
Then
you
know
we'll
just
end
up
reapplying
for
a
different
sort
of
proposal,
but
with
that
I,
don't
really
have
anything
else
to
add.
B
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
questions
for
the
applicant?
Okay?
Thank
you.
You'll
have
five
minutes
for
a
bottle
after
we
hear
from
the
public.
Is
the
registered
neighborhood
association
here
to
testify
great?
Please
come
forward
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
you'll
have
20
minutes.
Okay,.
P
P
We
on
the
team
respectfully
disagree
with
staff's
approval
of
this
project.
Nina
is
uncomfortable
with
this
application
in
its
current
form.
For
these
reasons,
the
47
lot
coverage
is
unacceptable.
Unfortunate
approvals
passed
in
the
past
should
not
be
used
to
circumvent
the
historic
district
requirements.
Other
substandard
lot
projects
in
the
north
and
historic
district
have
worked
very
successfully
within
the
required
parameters
or
requested
only
a
few
additional
percentage
of
the
lot
coverage.
P
P
Each
project
is
evaluated
on
its
own
merits
and
in
its
particular
location
and
hardships.
The
floor
ratio,
the
floor
area
ratio
or
far
in
the
is
in
the
substandard
law.
Ordinance
requires
that
the
built
livable
square
footage
on
the
lot
being
no
higher
than
55
percent
of
the
lot
size.
This
application
is
required
requesting
65
percent,
far
2200
square
feet,
livable
space
on
3364
square
foot
lot
way
above
the
zoning
codes
allowable
far,
while
half
of
the
space
is
in
the
basement,
which
does
not
significantly
increase
the
massing
of
the
home.
P
P
We
acknowledge
that
this
that
it
is
not
the
intent
of
the
concurrent
applicant
to
use
the
garage
and
attic
spaces
livable
space,
but
this
is
part
of
the
permanent
structure
that
could
easily
be
altered
with
or
without
legal
permit,
to
become
part
of
the
livable
square
footage
at
some
point
in
the
future
by
a
different
homeowner,
the
proposed
house
is
much
taller
than
the
houses
on
either
side.
To
all
appearances,
it's
it
is
a
two-story
house,
there's
only
one
two-story
house
on
the
whole
block
face.
P
We
know
the
store
that
storage
is
a
problem
in
small
houses,
but
this
design
has
approximately
800
square
footage
800
square
feet
on
the
attic
floor,
which,
with
a
seven
foot
head
height
per
building
code
code
definitions,
this
is
habitable
space
and
should
be
considered
be
included
in
the
far
calculations,
which
is
right
now
at
65,
but
should
be
higher.
P
The
design
of
the
Stick
Of
The
Stairway
to
the
basement
would
easily
accommodate
a
stacked
Stairway
to
the
second
floor,
with
just
the
removal
of
the
small
closet
on
the
side
entry,
the
proposed
garage
will
need
two
side
setback
variances.
It
is
much
too
tall
to
qualify
for
a
three
foot
setback.
The
front
setback
may
also
need
setback
variances,
and
we
did
contact
the
city
to
confirm
these.
P
These
facts
we
think
of
applicant
for
considering
permeable
Paving
and
including
the
down
down
shielded
exterior,
like
lighting
fixtures.
Overall,
we
are
concerned
with
the
massing
and
how
projects
like
this
in
our
affect
our
neighborhood.
We
worry
about
the
loss
of
modest
housing
and
affordable
housing.
Our
housing
crisis
is
not
solved
by
building
the
largest
house
possible
on
Tiny
Lots.
The
city
is
sorely
lacking
in
modest
homes.
The
North
End
is
a
place
where
these
houses
exist
most
particularly
on
this
block,
which
has
some
of
the
smallest
houses
in
the
neighborhood.
P
P
B
You
so
much
are
there
any
members
of
the
public
wishing
to
testify
this
evening.
B
Okay,
it
doesn't
look
like
it,
we
did
have
one,
but
it
was
Sandy.
So
the
applicant
has
five
minutes
for
rebuttal
if
they
would
like
to
use
it.
B
O
Hi
Michael
belt
here
again,
yeah
I,
just
want
to
clarify
a
couple
quick
things:
the
original
percentage
lot
coverage
calculation
that
was
on
the
drawings
is
inaccurate.
We
are
proposing
now
just
40
percent,
so,
instead
of
what
it
was
before,
which
was
was
over
that.
O
The
topic
of
this
attic
space
I
definitely
can
sympathize
with
what
the
last
person
said.
I
can
tell
you
that
the
true
purpose
of
that
is
is
only
for
storage
and
it's
it's
at
a
six
foot.
O
Six
inch
ceiling
height
up
in
there
which,
for
it
to
be
habitable
space,
you've
got
to
be
at
seven
feet,
and
so,
although
someone
could
I
suppose
go
in
and
and
retrofit
and
and
create
something
up
there,
the
intent
of
what
we're
doing
is
is
is,
is:
is
solely
going
to
be
used
for
storage
and
and
the
house
I,
don't
think
really
does
visually
appear
to
be
a
two-story,
I
I
would
say
it's
it's
more
of
a
one
and
a
half
story
with
the
Dormer.
O
That's
got
a
window
in
it,
and
so
that's
that
would
be
I.
Think
everything
I'd
have
to
say
about
it.
B
B
I
guess:
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
with
my
thoughts,
I
think
having
such
a
significant
project
on
a
home
where
there
is
uncertain
status
to
the
historic
district
attached
to
the
property.
I,
don't
feel
comfortable
personally
making
a
decision
at
this
time,
especially
after
commissioner
Malloy
detailed
the
process
of
what
possibly
happened.
B
L
Madam
chair,
if
I
could
speak
up,
I
and
I,
don't
know
Josh
or
or
Richard
could
help
us
out
with
this,
but
the
substandard
maybe
remind
us
of
the
substandard
lot
requirements
when
it
comes
to
setbacks
and
height
and
and
lot
coverage.
Because
there's
there's
a
lot
going
on
here,
they're
trying
to
jam
a
lot
into
a
small
lot,
so
that'd
be
helpful.
C
Yep
Madam
chair
commissioner
Koski,
so
yeah
the
sub-centered
law
ordinance,
you
know,
or
it
applies
to
areas
in
and
out
of
the
historic
district,
and
it
is
a
fairly
complicated
ordinance.
So
I,
don't
I,
don't
blame
you
there,
just
a
couple
of
clarifications
number
one.
You
know
that
is
a
single
story
garage
in
our
view
and
does,
and
regardless
qualifies
for
the
three
foot
reduced
setbacks
through
the
substandard
law
ordinance.
C
You
know
that
doesn't
that
is
not
dependent
on
the
height,
but
this
is
a
substance,
or
this
is
a
single
story.
Garage
the
floor
plan
doesn't
show
a
Stairway
to
that
second
floor.
It
is
a
drop
down.
Attic
access,
certainly
not
habitable
square
footage
by
our
interpretations.
Another
aspect
of
the
substandard
law
ordinance
is
front
setbacks.
C
Those
can
be
between
10
and
20
feet
as
long
as
they're
within
five
feet
of
the
average
of
the
adjacent
properties
and
their
proposal
is
so
they
can
go
down
to
that
11
feet
because
I
think
one
is
at
12
and
one's
at
11..
So
these
are
things
that
can
be
done
within
the
substandard
law,
ordinance
without
a
quote-unquote
variance
the
optical
application
and
height.
So
the
sub
Center
law
ordinance
has
some
specific
definitions
of
height.
C
It
is
18
feet
to
the
midpoint
of
the
roof,
but
the
second
story
has
to
be
contained
within
the
roof
volume.
C
I
would
call
this
structure
a
partial
two-story
because
of
that
Center
portion
that
does
extend
up
outside
of
what
we
would
call
the
roof
volume
to
call
this
a
true
story
and
a
half
by
the
definition
of
the
ordinance
those
front
and
rear
Dormers
would
not
be
there
and
that
Second
Story
would
be
contained
within
the
roof
volume,
so
I
think
by
the
definition
in
the
ordinance.
This
is
a
partial
two-story
foreign.
L
So
I
I
agree
with
a
lot
of
what
Nina's
testimony
was
today
and
thank
you
for
coming
forward
and,
and
speaking
I
know.
It's
public
speaking
sometimes
is
is
a
tough
thing
to
do
so.
Thank
you
for
that
and
a
substandard
lot.
L
We
there's
different
criteria
on
purpose
because
it's
hard
to
put
something
there:
I'm,
okay,
with
the
setbacks,
especially
after
Josh's
clarification,
height,
wise
I'm
concerned,
especially
that
is
a
two-story
or
a
partial
two-story,
and
we're
going
above
the
height
we're
going
above
the
percentage
of
livable
Space
by
quite
a
bit
and
the
substandard
lot
ordinance
allows
us
to
do
some
of
that,
but
they're
exceeding
that
so
I'm
uncomfortable
with
both
of
those
things
and
I'm
quite
I'm,
uncomfortable
with
the
contributing
status
issue.
L
I'd
rather
not
delay
an
applicant,
an
applicant
going
through
the
process.
You
know
I'm
a
homeowner
too
and
I'm.
You
know
like
I.
If
I
was
trying
to
build
a
home,
I
want
to
get
it
done
as
soon
as
possible,
but
those
would
be
my
biggest
concerns
and
I
would
lean
towards
a
deferral
one
for
us
to
clarify
it's
contributing
or
not
contributing
status
and
two,
hopefully
to
allow
some
time
for
the
applicant
to
come
back
to
our
staff
and
make
some
design
changes.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Koski
any
other
discussion.
L
B
B
You,
the
next
item
on
tonight's
agenda,
is
Dr
h22-00403
Nick
Schuler
at
2637
West,
Ellis
Street.
This
is
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
to
modify
a
previous
approval
to
construct
a
new
front
porch
on
a
property
and
an
r1ch
Zone
Richard
Maybe.
Please
have
the
report.
Okay,.
M
As
stated,
this
is
to
request
approval
of
a
modification
to
the
character
defining
facade.
That
is
not
in
conformance
with
the
previously
approved
application.
M
Drh-22-00036
as
conditioned
the
property
is
located
in
the
North
End
historic
district,
and
the
classification
of
this
property
is
contributing.
Here
is
the
site
location
for
the
property.
M
Here's
a
photograph
of
the
the
front
facade
before
any
work
was
done
and
the
the
condition
mentioned
that
that
awning
should
be
kept
or
replaced
and
kind
came
to
our
attention
that
other
work
has
been
done
to
the
property
and
here's
the
existing
awning
as
it
was
taken
down
to
get
a
sense
of
what
it
looked
like
better
than
that
previous
photo
provided
and
as
I
stated
before.
Here
is
the
condition
that
the
cover
shall
be
repaired
or
replaced
as
necessary
with
like
materials
and
form.
M
The
photograph
and
information
that
we
were
provided
via
email
indicate
showed
us
that
this
is
what
was
in
fact
being
built
or
had
been
built
at
this
stage
in
the
process,
and
the
analysis
is
from
our
perspective.
The
staff
perspective
is
the
porch
is
built,
is
excessive
and
massing,
and
the
steps
and
the
edge
reports
are
close
to
a
not
within
a
15-foot
setback.
M
Front
setback:
the
vertical
wood
paneling
along
the
wall
of
the
porch
and
surrounding
the
porch
structure
and
steps
is
not
congruous
with
the
rest
of
the
property
or
adjacent
properties
and
I
have
highlighted
the
design
guidelines
and
how
this
porch
creates
a
false
sense
of
history
and
is
incongruous
in
size,
scale
and
material
to
the
district
and
and
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior
standards
of
a
standard
that
is
very
similar
to
that
portion
of
the
design
guideline.
M
That
shows
that
this
course
does
not
meet
that
standard,
because
it
is
its
incompatibility
based
on
massing
size,
scale
and
Architectural
features,
and
that's
my
report.
L
M
The
one
one
aspect
of
that
an
original
application
was
a
proposal
to
replace
that
which
led
to
this
condition
was
a
proposal
to
replace
that
awning
with
a
small,
a
very
small
version
of
what
we
see
now
and
that
led
to
my
assumption,
not
having
been
a
fly
on
the
wall
that
led
to
the
decision
to
condition
it
so
as
that
only
repair
can
be
done
to
that
and
that
application
did
have
other
things
that
relate
modifications.
M
It's
the
best
of
my
memory
that
relate
it
to
the
back
portion
of
the
property,
but
there
was
nothing
and
I
I,
don't
recall
about
when
I
didn't
dig
deep
into
the
original
application
as
far
as
like
window
replacements
and
things
like
that,
I
don't
have
that
information
and
okay.
Q
I
appreciate
you
guys
taking
the
time
tonight
to
hear
this
again
so
just
to
clarify
on
the
application
with
the
city
and
with
the
historic
district.
There
was
approval
for
the
porch
new
windows.
We
kept
the
siding
intact,
which
is
actually
considered
a
non-contributing
site,
if
not
allowed,
citing
the
by
being
aluminum,
but
that
was
their
previous
purchasing
it
and
then,
as
well
as
their
interior
model,
to
reconfigure
rooms
and
that's
all
stated
in
there
and
approved
as
far
as
the
historic
district
is.
Q
Typically,
the
jurisdiction
is
from
the
front
view
and
invisible
from
the
streets,
so
the
interior
stuff
wasn't
really
relevant
to
the
historic
district.
Q
So
basically
2637
West
Ellis
has
been
a
labor
of
love
that
we
spent
just
under
a
year
and
so
far
we're
just
over
300
000
in
renovating
the
home.
The
last
thing
we
want
to
want
to
do
is
jeopardize
not
only
the
money
we've
invested,
but
also
the
timely
important
this
project.
We
do
own
multiple,
contributing
Northern
properties,
rentals
and
Andover
models,
and
so
we
do
value
and
respect.
Q
You
know
the
historic
district
and
what
they're
trying
to
maintain
so
a
couple
things
as
far
as
just
showing
that
our
respective
wanting
to
follow
along
with
the
guidelines.
You
know
we
installed
thirty
thousand
dollar
worth
of
Windows.
Instead
of
ten
thousand
most
all
the
neighboring
and
most
all
the
houses
down
the
streets
are
all
vinyl
windows.
Q
We
went
with
a
more
expensive
option
that
that
you
guys
approved,
which
is
a
the
fiberglass
composite
Pella
Window,
with
the
grids
in
it,
and
they
were,
you
know,
far
more
expensive,
but
we
were
wanting
to
be
compliant.
You
can
see
those
in
the
picture.
Q
We
maintain
the
exterior
window
trim.
So
the
this
this
sashes
and
the
trim
is
all
original
to
the
home
and,
like
I,
said
that
siding
is
a
metal
siding.
That
technically
is
not
allowed,
but
is,
and
you
can
see,
the
neighbor's
house
has
the
white
vinyl
windows,
but
we
just
tried
to
keep
the
Integrity
of
of
that,
and
we
have
obviously
come
before
the
historic
district
in
the
past
for
approvals
and
so
we're
not
trying
to
just
sneak
under
the
radar.
Q
Our
goals
are
always
to
our
homes,
whether
we're
doing
nibbles
or
remodels
is
to
be
have
them
fully
permitted,
be
compliant
with
the
city.
Court,
ordinances
and
building
codes
be
respectful
of
the
neighborhood
and
and
consider
it
to
neighbors
and
to
run
a
safe
and
clean
job
site.
Q
Part
of
the
reason
for
this
porch
issue
was:
it
was
physically
sinking
into
the
ground.
It
was
the
railings
were
attached
to
the
home
and
it
was
pulling
the
siding
off
the
home.
Q
The
house
was
when
we
purchased,
it
was
not
me,
had
no
maintenance
done
to
it.
For
a
long
long
time
the
neighbors
were
kind
of
tired
of
looking
out.
It
was
a
rental
and
just
wasn't
maintained
a
lot
of
deferred
maintenance
and
the
the
railing
there's.
Some
pictures
that
I
sent
to
where
it's
actually
rusted
and
rotting,
where
it's
separated,
so
the
the
railing
or
the
structure
that
was
attached
to
the
home
and
supported
by
the
rails,
were
actually
not
connected
because
they
were
rusted
through
keep
scrolling.
Q
I
should
get
some
more
I,
don't
know,
there's
some
close-up
pictures
that
I
sent
in
with
the
rusting
but
anyways.
So
we
received
approval
to
rebuild
the
porch
with
like
materials
like
Richards,
that
is
I,
don't
know
if
there
was
a
clear.
Obviously
there
wasn't
a
clear
understanding
of
exactly
what
it
was
to
be
size
and
or
whatnot.
Q
I
will
make
a
note.
The
porch
doesn't
come
out
off
the
home
any
further
than
the
previous
one
did
with
the
railing.
As
far
as
from
the
door
to
the
steps,
the
steps
were
off
to
the
side
previously,
which
was
kind
of
odd,
because
every
home
down
there,
the
steps
are
all
centered
straight
out
to
the
street
off
the
center
of
the
porch,
and
so
they
were
yeah
like
at
most
every
home
down.
Q
There
comes
the
steps
come
down
just
like
that,
and,
like
I
said
that
porch
cover
doesn't
come
out
any
further
to
the
road
or
the
setback
than
the
previous
one
did
so
like
I
said
clearly,
there
was
a
disconnect
in
what
was
to
be
built
or
not
to
be
built
and,
like
I
said
with,
we
have
always
tried
to
be
compliant
and
so
I
take
responsibility.
If
they're,
if
it's
not
what
like
I
said,
it
was
pretty
vague.
As
far
as
like
the
actual
posting,
maybe
it's
posting
was.
Q
Folks,
so
certificate
appropriateness
to
construct
a
new
front
porch,
not
a
dormer,
to
an
existing
single-family
home
on
a
property
yada
yada,
so
that
I
mean
just
very
vague.
We
do
intend,
we
tended
to
put
the
metal
roof
back
on
it
and
then
black
metal
railing
that
is
up
to
code,
the
height
and
handrails
down
each
side
so
that
it's
safe.
Q
Q
Q
So
these
are
family
homes.
Our
goal
is
to
always
to
make
a
homeless
or
a
family
can
live
safely
and
functionally
and
build
memories.
Q
There's
many
schools
parks
and
pools
nearby,
and
so
with
that,
so
it
is
important
to
us
when
I'll
just
kind
of
finish
with
this
important
to
us
working
neighborhoods
through
remodels
or
new,
builds
historic
or
not
to
consider
neighborhood
input.
We
have
had
overwhelming
support
and
compliments
as
well
as
thank
yous
from
Neighbors
and,
like
I,
mentioned
that
the
house
was
not
in
good
shape.
It
was
not
maintained,
I
guess
the
sprinkler
system
hadn't
been
turned
on
in
12
years.
Q
Q
The
North
End
has
been
going
through
a
transformation
as
homes
are
being
purchased.
Leveled
and
new
homes
are
constructed
that
don't
fit
in.
This
is
not
the
case
case
with
Nick's
project
at
2637,
with
Dallas
he's
taken
extensive
effort
to
maintain
the
charm
of
the
neighborhood,
adding
modern
features
inside
and
upgrading
a
roof
and
fence
to
the
outside
of
this
house.
L
Madam,
chair
I:
do
please
I'm
Mr
Schuler.
This
is
commissioner
Koski.
Did
you
and
your
initial
application
apply
to
do
any
work
on
the
garage.
Q
So
the
I'm
not
sure
I'd
have
to
look
back
and
see
the
garage.
We
did
a
new
roof,
obviously
because
it
was
in
poor
condition
and
siding,
but
I
have
to
go
back
and
look
at
the
original.
It
wouldn't
been
through
the
historic
district.
Like
I
said
my
understanding
from
everything
I've
gone
through
is
it's
basically
from
the
street
view,
and
so
we
did
outer
Dormer
on
the
back
of
the
house.
Q
That
was
approved,
but
it's
not
from
street
view,
but
you
guys
did
did
approve
that
and
so
yeah
I
don't
know.
There's
no
modification
of
things
of
the
garage
structurally,
just
new
siding
in
a
new
roof.
L
Q
Q
Wasn't
made
clear
to
be
previously
with,
like
I
said
from
my
knowledge,
it
was
from
the
the
street
view.
Hence
the
the
grids
and
the
windows
on
the
front
and
the
sides,
but
not
on
the
back.
So.
L
Okay
and
then
I
have
another
question
on
on
your
application
or
your
letter
with
your
design
letter
of
intent
from
January,
you
say
that
only
the
front
large
windows
will
have
exterior
grids
to
match
existing
I'm.
Looking
at
the
front
of
the
house-
and
that's
not
the
case
you
put
in
windows
with
grids
in
between
the
glass-
is
that
correct.
Q
L
Okay,
because
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
those
also
do
not
meet
the
start,
preservation
guidelines
or
your
conditions
of
approval,
specifically
one
point
C,
where
window
buttons
are
supposed
to
be
on
the
exterior
of
the
glass,
a
half
of
an
inch,
which
is
what
your
application
and
your
just
and
your
letter
of
intent
said.
You
were
going
to
do.
Yes,.
L
I
have
is
and
I'm
wondering
Josh
if
you
could
pull
up
the
or
Richard
pull
up
the
picture
of
the
original
porch
and
then
I
want
to
compare
it
to
this.
That
picture
we
just
saw.
Q
I
can't
disagree
with
that
and,
like
I
said
I,
it
wasn't
a
intentional
misunderstand:
I
mean
clearly
there's
a
misunderstanding
in
what
in
those
details,
and
so
like
I
said
with
the
metal
railing
and
the
metal
roof
and
the
size
of
it,
you
can
see
in
that
previous
picture
doesn't
exceed
past
the
one
just
like
the
other
one
ended.
B
Okay
is
anyone
from
the
registered
neighborhood
association
here
to
testify?
Please
come
forward
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
you'll
have
20
minutes.
P
Madam,
chair
Sandy,
Herman,
1404,
North,
7th
Street,
the
North
End
loves
a
good
front
porch,
and
we
appreciate
the
work
that
is
being
put
in
to
rehabilitate
this
home,
which
clearly
needed
attention.
However,
we
have
an
obligation
to
protect
the
Integrity
of
contributing
historic
housing,
which
is
why
we
object
to
this
application.
P
P
P
They
directed
us
to
the
city,
but
we
remain
unclear
as
to
the
implications,
and
we
implications
are
here,
but
we
do
hope
that
the
city
will
take
the
steps
necessary
to
right
this
wrong.
Nina
feels
very
strongly
that
the
city
should
enforce
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
conditions
of
approval
for
this.
In
all
other
projects,
each
applicant
agrees
to
all
conditions
before
approval
is
granted.
The
conditions
were
clearly
stated
in
this
case,
and
several
of
them
were
clearly
violated.
P
We
would
like
the
illegal
porch
removed
and
the
original
stoop
and
stoop
cover
rebuilt.
We
acknowledge
that
some
of
the
historic
roof
framing
was
removed
to
install
the
new
porch
roof
Gable
and
hope
that
rebuilding
the
roof
will
restore
the
house
to
contributing
status.
All
of
the
contributing
buildings
are
precious
to
the
Integrity
of
our
historic
districts.
P
B
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
tonight
wishing
to
testify.
B
It
does
not
appear
so
if
the
applicant
would
like
you
have
five
minutes
for
rebuttal.
B
Q
Okay,
yeah
I,
understand
Nina's
opinion
or
input
I
respect
them.
What
they
do
obviously
I
feel
it's
excessive
to
tear
the
entire
thing
apart.
Q
If
there's
something
that
we
could
do
to
make
it
better
I,
don't
I,
don't
know,
I
mean
obviously
like
I
said
we're.
Gonna
have
matching
railings
metal
roof,
all
of
which
are
significantly
more
expensive
than
just
using
wood
and
then
just
to
defer
to
ship.
Is
it
shippo,
I,
don't
know,
what's
called
their
email?
Basically
they
reflect
or
send
it
back
to
the
city
or
to
the
the
board.
Q
They
didn't
want
anything
to
do
with
it
and
felt
that
they
didn't
need
to
step
in
and
be
involved
just
to
clarify
that
but
I'm
just
looking
for,
hopefully
a
resolution.
Obviously
I've
I
mean
learned
a
lesson
and
understand.
Q
I
need
to
be
more
clear
and
more
understanding
exactly
what
can
be
done
and
can't
be
done
on
on
those
types
of
approvals,
and
just
also
the
there
was
some
kind
of
Fab
that
came
through
I,
don't
know
60s
or
70s
the
aluminum
craze,
where
they
did
aluminum
siding
all
these
aluminum
porch
covers,
and
so,
if
you're
going
for
historic
that
it's
in
itself
wouldn't
have
been
original
to
the
home
at
all,
it
would
have
been
done.
Q
You
know,
40
years
or
50
years
after
the
home
was
built
and
so
to
restore
something
that
I
don't
even
know
how
you
would
duplicate
that
or
where
you
would
I
don't
have
no
idea
something
back
to
what
it
was
that
wasn't
actually
original.
Q
It's
kind
of
a
hard
situation
to
try
to
figure
out
but
I'm.
Just
looking
for
some
kind
of
a
resolution
to
work
together
to
you
know
not
completely
tear
it
to
shreds
and
tear
it
all.
Apart
and
just
looking
for
you
guys
to
completely
mediator
and
come.
B
L
Madam,
chair,
I'll
start
off.
It's
okay,
since
I
had
a
lot
of
questions
to
ask.
This
is
the
exactly
the
kind
of
stuff
we've
been
dealing
with
for
a
while
and
not
only
I.
I
have
so
many
problems
with
it.
L
Their
application
says
one
thing:
the
original
application
even
says
in
their
letter
of
intent.
It
says
they
want
to
change
the
aluminum
shed
porch
cover
to
a
wood
frame
Gable
with
shingle
roof.
We
told
them.
No,
we
put
in
the
condition's
approval.
No,
you
can
only
repair
what
you
have
as
is
or
in
like
form,
and
then
he
went
and
did
it
anyways
did
the
exact
same
thing.
We
told
them.
We
can't
do
and
then
also
in
the
condition's
approval,
it's
specifically
States.
L
If
what
type
of
Windows
you
can
use
and
if
there's
grids
we
can
do
and
in
his
application
they
they
say
they're
going
to
have,
let's
see
front
large
Windows
we'll
have
exterior
grids
to
match
existing
and
they
didn't
do
it.
You
put
in
something
cheaper,
something
that
wasn't
approved
and
then
there's
been
work
done
on
the
garage
if
we'd
have
to
check
to
see.
L
If
that
was
in
part
of
the
application
process,
but
if
it
if
it
wasn't,
then
he
did
not
approved
work
without
a
permit
on
a
garage
and
then
to
add
to
it
the
material
he
used
for
his
siding
and
trim
trim
work
is
non-approved
material
as
in
our
certificate
of
guy
appropriateness.
It
says
it
has
to
be
wood
or
smooth
cement
board
only
and
he
was
fake
grain,
non-wood
trim
and
siding
on
the
garage.
L
It
specifically
says:
siding
has
to
be
smooth
cement,
board,
siding
or
real
wood.
I
have
so
many
problems
with
this
and
I
know
our
this
app.
This
agenda
item
is
only
for
the
front
porch,
but
I
I
believe
that
the
city
should
take
their
full
use
of
code
and
and
whatever
they
need
to
do,
for
penalties
on
on
this
applicant
and
that
if
they
want
to
do
other
things
like
work
on
the
garage,
they
got
to
go
through
the
application
process.
L
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Koski
I
Echo
your
concerns.
The
implications
of
all
of
this
work
to
the
status
of
this
home
is
devastating
and
I
would
love
to
see
work
retrofitted
to
more
of
the
original
front.
Facade
I
also
think
that
it
was
mentioned
I
Believe
by
Miss
Herman,
that
it
took
two
weeks
for
a
stop
work,
order
to
be
issued
on
this
property
while
work
progressed.
B
That
is
unacceptable,
so
much
of
this
could
have
been
prevented
had
it
just
been
done
when
code
enforcement
was
notified,
and
this
is
a
very
scary
precedent
that
I
would
really
hate
to
see
set.
So
I
would
love
to
hear
my
fellow
Commissioners
thoughts.
J
Madam,
chair
I,
agree
with
everything
that
commissioner
Koski
and
you
have
said
about
this
I
think
it
also
sets
a
really
bad
precedent
for
everybody
who
goes
through
the
process
and
follows
it
and
that's
not
fair
to
them
to
go
through
for
the
people
who
do
it
right
and
to
get
to
allow
somebody
who
does
it
wrong
to
get
away
with
it.
It's
just
it's
an
overall
bad
precedent
that
we're
setting.
I
Malloy
yeah
I
agree
with
all
my
Commissioners
and
I
think
you
know.
The
Idaho
state
code
allows
for
the
city
to
find
the
owner
with
a
misdemeanor
up
to
300
a
day
in
each
day.
That
violation
continues
like
exists,
shall
constitute
a
separate,
offense
and
I
think
they
should
use
that
to
the
full
extent.
Every
day.
This
thing
is
in
violation,
charge
them
three
hundred
dollars
until
it
is
fixed
and
it
is
back
to
the
original
appearance
because,
as
it
stands
now,
I
think
you've
jeopardized
the
status
of
this
house.
Thank.
B
You,
commissioner,
Malloy
I
as
chair,
cannot
make
a
motion,
but
I
would
love
for
any
motion
to
include
that
Idaho
state
code.
Are
there
any
other
thoughts,
Madam.
H
B
B
I,
concur
any
other
comments
before
we
entertain
a
motion.
L
Madam
chair
and
commissioner
Melanie
I
guess
maybe
I'd
like
to
ask
either
Josh
or
Council.
L
Original
application
can
be
part
of
this
motion,
be
it
the
discussions
we
had
about
work
on
other
parts
of
the
building
on
the
siding
on
the
garage,
the
windows
being
inappropriate.
If
those
can
be
part
of
it
or
if
that
needs
to
be
a
separate
item.
C
Manager,
commissioner,
croskey
I'll
just
jump
in
real
quick,
so
there
could
be
a
number
of
things
that
don't
follow
the
approved
plans.
We
would
not
know
that
until
we
did
our
final
inspection,
the
code
enforcement
complaint
was
for
the
front
porch,
so
that
was
before
you
tonight.
If
there
are
additional
deficiencies,
they
will
have
to
remedy
those
either
through
this
process
of
an
of
a
modification
of
the
certificate
appropriateness
or
fix
them
to
the
approvals
that
are
in
place.
But
again
without
having
done
our
final
zoning
inspection
found.
C
I
I
guess
I'll
make
a
motion
so
I
motioned
to
deny
drh22-0043
based
on
these
staff's
recommendations
and
that
the
city
imposed
finds,
as
stated
in
the
Idaho
statutes.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Malloy
do
I
have
a
second
I.
N
That
would
be
a
jurisdiction
of
the
court
of
General
jurisdiction
for
Ada
County,
but
I
think
the
message
was
pretty
loudly
received
that
I
imagine
staff
will
be
conferring
with
code
enforcement
to
make
sure
it's
been
being
addressed.
Thank.
K
H
B
You
next
we'll
move
on
to
our
final
item
this
evening.
That's
item
number
three
Dairy
h22-00405
Kenneth
Reed
at
1507,
North,
5th
Street.
This
is
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
to
construct
a
new
detached
garage
with
Adu
above
on
property
in
an
r1ch
Zone
Richard.
Can
we
please
have
the
report
sure.
M
Yes,
as
stated,
this
is
for
the
construction
of
of
the
garage.
I
will
show
you
images
of
what
it
appears
we'll
look
like
magically.
M
Why
is
it
lagging
the
will.
M
Non-Responding,
of
course,
anyway,
it's
it's
in
the
packet.
What
it's
going
to
look
like
the
height
of
the
garage
is
acceptable.
It
is
the
it
I
believe,
is
the
same
or
lower
than
I'm
at
a
loss
for
words,
because
I
can't
scroll
to
my
information,
but
is
it
the
same
or.
O
A
M
Again,
I
apologize
for
the
technical
glitch,
but
yes
we
we
do
move
for
approval
of
this
application.
It
seems
to
meet
the
standards
of
materials,
choices
and
other
elements
and
the
layout
it's
very
similar
to
many
rear
garage
proposals
that
we've
looked
at
in
the
past.
M
J
Had
a
question
Madam
chair,
Richard
I
couldn't
tell
from
the
drawings
if
the
garage
is
higher
than
the
house
or
not.
That
was
my
one
question.
M
Right
per
the
documentation,
given
it
was
it
or
I,
think
I'm
going
to
attempt
to
open
again
foreign.
M
Yes,
the
existing
resonance
is
at
20
feet
and
the
garage
Adu
is
within
a
foot.
It's
20
feet
9
inch
to
Peak,
so
it
is
barely
taller.
B
Thank
you
any
other
questions
for
Stuff.
B
R
Good
evening
my
name
is
Kenneth
Reed
I'm,
an
architect.
I
live
at
2415,
Compass,
Drive
Boise,
so
I
got
this
commission
because
I
did
an
Adu,
that's
almost
identical
to
it.
On
14th
Street
for
a
Boise
fireman
named
benjira
and
a
co-work
of
his
Kevin
O'donnell
here
asked
if
if
he
could
have
something
similar
in
his
backyard
and
I
looked
at
it
and
I
saw
that
his
house
is
pretty
small.
That
just
came
on
and
it's
not
very
tall.
R
And
although
his
lot
is
slightly
larger,
it
was
still
going
to
be
a
challenge.
So
I
did
talk
to
Josh
and
Richard
and
said
I.
Don't
think!
I
can
actually
make
this
shorter
than
the
existing
house,
because
the
house
is
actually
just
a
nice
little
contributing
Cottage
and
they
say
well,
you
know,
show
us
what
you
can
do,
and
so
this
is
what
you
see.
R
It
is
a
little
bit
taller.
I,
don't
think
I
can
make
it
shorter.
Even
if
I
did
the
massing,
where
it
was
just
a
box
and
you
had
an
eight
foot
ceiling
for
a
garage
and
an
eight
foot
ceiling
for
a
room
above
and
a
foot
for
structure
and
a
foot
and
a
half
or
so
for
insulation
on
a
roof,
I
think
you'd
still
be
tapping
really
close
to
20
feet
and
I.
Don't
think
the
massing
would
be.
R
You
know
similar
to
the
house,
so
this
architecture
tries
to
be
similar
to
the
house
and,
like
I
said
it
resembles
something.
I
did
on
14th
Street
about
three
years
ago,
and
we
also
in
anticipation
of
hopefully
getting
disapproved.
We
walked
around
and
got
the
neighbors
Kevin
walked
around
and
talked
to
all
of
his
neighbors,
and
it
was
fortunate
we
got
the
list
of
neighbors
and
all
the
neighbors
are
actually
present.
R
A
R
Know
our
next
step
is
to
get
an
Adu
approval
from
Planning
and
Zoning.
If,
if
we're
so
fortunate
to
get
your
approval
here
tonight,
I
think
that's
it
I'll
stand
for
any
questions
that
you
might
have.
B
P
Chair
Sandy
Herman,
1404,
North,
7th
Street.
We
agree
with
Steph
on
approval
of
this
project.
We
think
the
nine
inches
is
pretty
insignificant
and
we
only
add
that
we
hope
the
applicant
considers
permeable,
Paving
and
shielded
exterior.
B
It
does
not
appear
so
if
the
applicant
would
like
you
have
five
minutes
for
rebuttal:
okay,
they're
yielding
their
time,
and
with
that
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing
and
we'll
start
I
guess
with
my
thoughts.
B
B
I
would
hope
that
it
doesn't
not
exceed
that
and
that
you
would
do
your
best
to
stay
very
Vigilant
in
your
building
and
execution
of
this,
and
with
that
I
would
be
voting
in
support
of
this
application.
But
I
would
love
to
hear
my
fellow
Commissioners
thoughts.
B
L
Reed
good
to
see
you
again,
I
I
thought
you
were
done
with
this
game,
you're
back
in
so
I
it
in.
If
you
consider
the
surrounding
property
means
a
two-story
house
right
directly
behind
him,
they
could
put
in
a
garage
with
a
two-story
garage
right
directly
across
from
it.
Next
to
that
is
another
two-story
I'm
not
worried
about
the
height
in
this
case,
especially
considering,
what's
going
on
in
that
alley,
so
I
would
be
up
for
approval
as
well.
I
Make
a
motion
please,
commissioner:
Malloy
yeah
I
moved
to
approved
drh-22-00405
based
on
the
staff
recommendation
and
conditions
approval.
B
K
B
You
that
concludes
our
hearing
for
this
evening.
Thank
you
very
much.