►
From YouTube: Historic Preservation Commission - 3/29/21
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
A
A
Okay,
yeah,
we
could
have
some
conflict.
B
C
Okay,
are
we
about
ready
to
start
perfect
good
evening,
guys,
let's
go
ahead
and
call
the
work
session
to
order
and
with
that
I'll
just
turn
it
over
to
ted?
So
we
can
go
through
tonight's
agenda.
A
Thank
you,
madam
chair
tonight.
We
have
a
relatively
long
and
involved
agenda,
so
I'll
go
through
now,
and
we
do
have
a
couple
of
things
we
can.
We
can
put
on
consent
if
it's
the
will
of
the
of
the
commission.
A
We
haven't
heard
any
issues
from
the
public
on
that
one,
so
we
can
have
that
one
on
consent.
If
it's
the
will
of
the
commission.
A
The
next
one's,
the
the
big
one
of
the
evening
item
number
two
drh2112,
and
this
is
the
one
with
the
that
got
deferred
last
month,
because
the
commission
wasn't
able
to
to
to
come
to
a
decision
on
it,
so
it
was
deferred
to
this
month
and
that's
the
one
where
the
trees
were
removed,
requests
to
reroute
the
canal,
leave
it
exposed
and
and
reroute
it
on
the
property
to
make
room
for
a
new
house,
new
single-family
structure
and
detached
garage.
A
Some
items
have
come
back
and
forth
to
you
on
this
one.
You
did
receive
a
memo
from
the
applicant's
attorney
and
then
you
also
received
a
memo
from
our
city
attorney
mary.
On
that
I
don't
know.
If
you've
had
a
chance
to
read
through
that,
yet
you
know
essentially
what
I
guess
what
staff
is
asking
for
on
this
one
tonight
is
just
an
up
or
down
vote:
either
approve
it
or
deny
it
deferring
it
again
or
pushing
it
out
further.
A
You
know
we
start
to
run
into
issues
with
due
process
on
this
on
this
project.
So
I
would
just
say
it
either.
You
know,
and
I'm
I'm
not.
You
know
the
commission
can
do
what
it
wants
with
it,
but
his
staff
were
requesting
that
it
either
be
approved
or
denied
tonight,
and
if
it's
denied,
with
specific
reasons
for
denial,
so
that
the
applicant
can
come
back
on
that
as
well.
A
There
was
a
question
on
whether
the
canal
was
approved
or
not
by
staff
and
part
of
mary's
response
to
that
in
her
memo,
basically
detailed
that
you
know
the
city
is
considering
that
that
approval
went
out
and
it
was
pulled
back
by
staff
and
brought
back
to
the
commission.
So
we
feel
like
we're
on
solid
legal
ground
to
do
that,
and
so
we
are
not
considering
that
canal
move
already
approved.
A
So
that
is
something
that
will
be
decided
by
the
commission.
I
don't
know
mary
did
you
want
to
expand
on
anything
on
that
item?
Okay,
so
there
will
be
some
a
lot
of
testimony
on
that
and
another
thing
is
the
commission
will
need
to
vote
to
reopen
the
public
testimony
portion
of
the
hearing
because
it
was
closed
last
night
last
time
for
deliberations,
so
it
will
need
to
be
reopened
and
testimony
taken.
C
C
A
A
A
A
All
right
item
on
to
item
number
four:
this
is
drh21
and
this
is
a
request
to
also
reconstruct
well
it's
to
reconstruct,
to
construct
an
addition
to
construct
a
basement
and
reconstruct
the
historic
wraparound,
porch
change,
the
primary
orientation
to
17th
street
and
add
a
new
door,
replace
windows
and
add
solar
panels
and
the
the
sighting
will
be
removed
to
temporarily
removed
for
insulation
so
that
one's
located
in
the
expanded
north
end
historic
district
and
that
one
we
are
going
to
hear.
A
The
applicant
has
an
issue
with
at
least
one
of
the
conditions
on
the
application.
So
we'll
go
ahead
and
hear
that
one.
A
A
A
A
A
This
one
was
denied
back
in
january
by
the
commission.
The
applicant
has
come
back
with
some
revisions
to
the
plan.
He
has
hoped
to
meet
the
concerns
that
the
commission
had
this
one.
I
initially
had
to
be
heard
just
because
it
was
denied.
We
haven't
heard
any
anything
from
the
public
and
the
the
applicant
agrees
with
the
conditions
of
approval
on
it.
A
So
we
can
put
it
on
consent
or
hear
it
either
way.
I
guess
we'll
we'll
do
we
want
to
do.
We
want
to
hear
that
one
again.
C
You
know
there
are
there
any
concerns
based
on
the
plans
from
any
commission
members
that
make
you
want
to
hear
this
item.
E
I
had
a
question,
I
guess
for
ted.
One
of
the
conditions
of
approval
said
something
about:
they
can't
have
a
concrete
patio.
It
has
to
be
similar
to
what's
in
the
the
city,
and
so
was
that
allowing
was
your
intent
to
allow
them
to
have
the
raised
patio.
E
A
Intent
was
not
to
allow
the
raised
patio
and
they're
actually
not
proposing
that
anymore
they're
just
proposing
the
standard
temporary
patio
system,
that's
removable,
so
what
we,
what
we
decided,
we
and
the
commission
also
hadn't
had
an
issue
with
that
as
well
on
the
last,
and
you
know
in
re-looking
at
that
as
staff.
We
also
thought
that
that
was
probably
something
that
we
didn't
want
to
see.
Those
sidewalk
areas
are
improved
specifically
for
the
downtown
and
we
really
don't
want
to
see
those
those
covered
and
raised
with
concrete.
A
So
the
intent
of
that
was
to
just
allow
standard,
temporary
patio
in
front
of
the
restaurant,
nothing
permanent
and
the
applicant
is.
It
was
unclear
on
his
application
to
me
that
he
was
pulling
that
back,
but
in
talking
to
him
on
the
phone
he
said
the
intent
was
to
not
do
the
the
permanent
raised
patio
anymore.
B
B
F
Like
to
have
I'd
like
to
hear
drh
21-61,
it
was
proposed
for
consent,
but
I'd
like
to
hear
it
please.
B
C
Great
we'll
go
ahead
and
call
the
work
session
and
we'll
start
the
hearing
at
6
pm.
C
B
C
Thank
you
before
we
go
ahead
and
improve
the
minutes.
I'm
going
to
turn
things
over
to
ted
for
our
virtual
introduction.
B
A
Good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
city
of
boise
historic
preservation,
commission
meeting
a
few
things
to
start
out
for
tonight's
proceedings,
everyone
from
the
public
entering
the
hearing
has
been
automatically
muted
and
cannot
speak.
As
the
item
you're
interested
in
interested
in
comes
up
for
discussion.
You
will
be
called
upon
and
unmuted
you
will
be
promoted
to
panelists
and
will
rejoin
the
meeting
after
a
slight
delay.
A
A
A
After
that,
we
proceed
to
public
testimony,
starting
with
those
who
signed
up
on
the
online
sign
up
sheet
in
advance
and
then
anyone
else
who
raises
their
hand
virtually
or
in
person.
If
you
are
attending
through
your
telephone,
you
can
type
star9
to
raise
your
hand.
Each
member
of
the
public
is
allowed
up
to
three
minutes
for
testimony.
A
A
C
F
Madam
chair,
I
move
that
we
approve
the
minutes.
C
B
I
C
You
we
have
one
possible
item
for
consent
this
evening
and
that
is
item
number
eight.
C
A
Yes
in
this,
madam
chair,
sorry,
he
was
emailed
me
emailed
me
that
he
was
having
problems
getting
logged
in
on
this
one.
We
can
go
ahead
and
and
keep
it
on
consent,
perfect.
B
C
Sure
great
should
we
wait
then,
to
approve
the
consent
agenda
until
he
hops
on
or
are
we
okay
to
move.
C
Okay,
great
staff
was
there
any
written
opposition
to
this
matter.
C
Say
none
and
based
on
the
lack
of
opposition
item
drh21-00079
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
I
move
that
the
consent
agenda
and
all
items
on
the
consent
agenda
be
approved,
subject
to
the
findings
and
conclusions
and
conditions
of
approval
agreed
upon
for
each
application.
Do
I
have
a
second
I'll?
Second,
thank
you
victoria.
Would
you
please
call
the
roll.
H
D
C
Now
go
ahead
and
move
to
the
remaining
items
on
the
consent
or
on
the
agenda.
Excuse
me.
The
first
item
that
we'll
be
hearing
tonight
is
item
number
one.
This
was
proposed
for
consent,
but
we
do
have
an
individual
hearing
person
wanting
to
testify
on
this
matter.
So
this
will
be
heard-
and
this
is
item
number
one-
drh20-00543
luke
caldwell-
located
at
1714
north
26th
street
ted.
Can
we
please
have
the
report.
A
A
A
A
A
C
While
we
wait
for
the
applicant,
are
there
any
questions
for
ted.
D
D
B
A
Okay,
I
apologize.
We
just
have
applicants
that
can't
get
in
right
now,
so.
A
B
D
A
C
We'll
go
ahead
and
move
on
to.
The
next
item
is
the
applicant
present
for
our
next
item.
C
Okay,
great
we're
going
to
move
on
to
item
number
two.
This
is
drh21-00012
patrick
garrity
at
7,
17,
north
19th
street
ted.
Can
we
please
have
the
report.
H
Sorry,
just
in
terms
of
the
public
hearing
we'll
need
a
motion.
C
To
reopen
to
reopen
item
number
one:
oh
right,
you're
right!
I'm
sorry.
C
I
move
to
reopen
item
number
two
drh21.00012
for
public
testimony.
C
Thank
you
victoria.
Will
you
please
call
the
roll
rub.
B
A
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
This
is
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
application
that
was
deferred
from
last
month
due
to
the
commission's
inability
to
come
to
a
decision
on
on
the
project.
It
is
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
request
to
demolish
a
non-contributing
house
and
construct
a
single-family
residential
structure
and
detached
garage.
The
request
also
includes
rerouting
the
canal
and
retroactive
approval
for
the
removal
of
trees.
This
property
is
located
in
the
expanded
north
end
and
classified
currently
as
non-contributing.
A
A
So
the
background
on
this
I'll
be
brief.
Since
we
heard
this,
we
did
receive
code
compliance,
complaints
over
the
removal
of
10
trees
on
the
property
and
a
certificate
of
appropriateness.
Application
was
submitted
for
retroactive
approval,
which
was
appealed
a
certificate
of
appropriateness.
Application
was
submitted
for
relocation
of
the
canal.
A
We
did
release
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
this,
but
after
reviewing
the
appeal
application,
it
was
clear
that
they
intended
to
appeal
the
canal
as
well,
so
we
did
pull
that
back
and
tell
them
this
needed
to
come.
Told
them
this
needed
to
come
to
the
commission
for
a
review
so
that
we
can.
We
did
consider
that
to
be
appealed,
along
with
the
removal
of
the
trees,
a
certificate
of
appropriateness.
A
A
You
see
the
garage
back
in
this
area
and
then
the
main,
the
house
toward
the
center
of
the
lot,
where
the
canal,
roughly
and
I'll,
show
you
some
more
slides
of
this.
Where
the
canal
roughly
cut
across
the
center,
the
canal
will
is
proposed
to
be
relocated
along
the
perimeter
of
the
lot
running
along
that
north
property
line
and
along
the
front,
and
it
is
proposed
to
remain
open
as
an
amenity
as
an
amenity
to
the
neighborhood
and
the
property
itself.
A
So
it's
not
going
to
be
buried
or
or
tiled.
It
is
going
to
remain
an
open
canal,
and
so
these
the
trees
that
were
removed
again,
ten
trees
removed
on
this
property
and
the
green
dots
roughly
show
where
they
are
located.
And
then
this
is
the
replanting
plan.
A
Seven
trees
will
go
back
on
the
property
with
the
new
project.
Here's
a
visual
showing
where
the
canal
exists
now
again
cutting
roughly
across
diagonally
across
the
middle
of
the
property,
and
then
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
run
it
where
the
red,
the
red
lines
are
at
generally
adjacent
to
the
to
the
property
line.
On
the
north
and
east
side
and
again,
it's
proposed
to
remain
an
open
canal
and
will
require
safety,
fencing.
A
A
The
comments
and
support
said
that
the
design
generally-
and
this
is
just
a
general
summary
of
the
comments-
commented
that
the
house
is
compatible
with
the
neighborhood
will
improve
the
site
and
that
the
canal
will
remain
open
and
more
accessible
to
the
public.
A
The
points
of
opposition
were
that
the
trees
were
removed
without
a
permit.
The
canal
should
remain
in
its
traditional
location
and
that
the
property
should
be
contributing
and
that
the
survey
is
outdated,
so
it
as
discussed
last
time.
The
survey
is
from,
I
believe,
1978
and
appears
to
have
been
done.
A
You
know
for
the
probably
for
the
not
the
harrison
boulevard
national
register,
historic
district
and
when
the
expanded
north
end
historic
district
was
implemented.
The
property
was
not
re-surveyed.
It's
unclear
why
it
was
not
re-surveyed.
They
may
have
determined
that
because
it
already
had
a
survey.
They
were
just
sticking
with
that
survey
that
they
had
so
staff
does
recommend
approval
of
drh
12
drh
2112,
with
the
conditions
of
approval
listed
in
the
staff
report.
C
Great,
thank
you,
chad
and
commission
members,
just
for
the
sake
of
time,
because
we
do
have
a
long
evening.
I'm
gonna
ask
that
questions
wait
until
after
the
applicant
has
presented
and
then
questions
can
be
asked
for
ted
and
the
applicant
at
that
point
is
the
applicant.
C
D
C
Hi,
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
you
have
20
minutes.
B
C
K
You
all
right.
Thank
you
good
evening,
commissioners.
My
name
is
jeff
bauer.
My
address
is
601
west
bank
in
boise,
I'm
a
land
use
attorney
with
gibbons
pursley,
and
I'm
here
tonight
on
behalf
of
the
applicant.
Also
here
with
me
tonight,
are
pat
and
molly
gertie
and
their
project
architect,
leah
mcmillan,
is
on
the
phone.
If
there
are
any
design
questions
for
us
first,
I
do
want
to
thank
planning
staff
as
well
as
the
commission.
K
We
appreciate
all
the
time
you
spent
on
this
and
and
the
opportunity
to
provide
additional
comment
tonight
at
this
hearing,
we've
reviewed
the
conditions
of
approval
in
the
staff
report
and
we're
in
agreement
with
all
the
proposed
conditions.
We
also
agree
that
approval,
as
staff
recommended
is
proper
under
the
circumstances
I
do
know
there
was
testimony
on
this
last
month.
I
wasn't
there.
Unfortunately,
I
do
want
to
provide
a
brief
overview
so
that
my
comments
tonight
are
in
a
bit
of
context,
but
I
I
promise
to
go
fast
tonight.
K
There
are
three
separate
certificates
of
appropriateness
before
the
the
commission.
The
first
as
ted
mentioned
deals
with
the
removal
of
trees
on
the
property.
The
second
certificate
deals
with
relocating
an
irrigation
facility
on
the
property
and
the
third
certificate
deals
with
demolition
and
construction
of
a
new
home
on
the
property.
K
We
think
it's
important
that
the
commission
takes
each
of
these
applications
and
looks
at
them
discreetly,
because
they're
all
at
a
different
stage
in
the
application
process,
and
they
all
have
asked
for
specific
land
use
entitlements,
some
of
which
have
been
granted
I'll
start
with
the
tree.
K
Cova,
patrick
and
molly
guaranty
with
me
tonight
applicants
their
folks.
Their
parents
are
tom
and
andrea
colgan
they're
the
owners
of
this
property
and
and
the
applicants.
In
my
mind,
they
were
interested
in
this
property
because
it's
next
door
to
their
daughter,
molly
and
their
grandchildren,
because
the
existing
home
would
not
support
their
family.
They
hired
consultants
to
determine
what
options
they'd
have
to
redevelop
the
property.
K
First,
they
hired
your
ex-colleague,
beth,
lassen,
former
historic
preservation,
commissioner
and
architect
in
the
valley,
great
deal
of
familiarity
with
the
historic
districts
to
analyze
the
property's
contributing
status.
Miss
lassen
looked
at
the
record.
Primarily
the
survey
spoke
with
city
staff
and
ultimately
determined
correctly
that
the
property
was
non-contributing.
K
Applicants
also
hired
their
project
architect
miss
mcmillan.
She
did
the
same
due
diligence
looked
at
the
looked
at
the
property.
History
spoke
with
historic
planning
staff.
Again
the
result
was
the
same.
The
property
was
non-contributing,
the
colgans
also
hired
as
another
consultant
spf
water
engineers.
K
K
Preliminary
approval
for
the
plan
with
with
some
preliminary
designs,
so
with
confirmation
from
land
use,
consultants,
city
staff
and
the
canal
company
that
this
project
was
feasible,
the
colgans
did
go
ahead
and
purchase
this
property
with
the
intent
to
redevelop
it.
K
This
tree
removal
was
to
accommodate
this
remodel
and,
as
mr
garrity
spoke
spoke
to
you
last
last
month,
they
did
specifically
seek.
They
did
specifically
inquire
with
the
arborists
as
to
whether
permits
were
necessary.
So
here's
just
a
screenshot
of
a
text
message
thread
with
mr
garrity
and
and
the
tree
service
arborists.
K
We
got
that
information,
but
there
was
certainly
no
intent
to
circumvent
any
process
here,
as
was
conveyed
last
time.
A
great
deal
of
regret
for
this
decision,
and
you
know
apologize
to
the
city
and
our
neighbors.
K
K
K
K
It
includes
a
condition
of
approval
that
the
applicants
implement
a
tree
mitigation
plan,
which
is
various
plannings
all
around
the
property,
with
large
caliper
trees
heights,
ranging
from
10
to
20
feet
to
mitigate
that
remote.
K
So
this
is
properly
before
each
night
on
appeal.
We're
asking
for
this
commission
to
uphold
mr
venegas's
administrative
decision
to
approve
it.
You
know
at
this
point
there
is
no
reason
to
reverse
mr
venegas's
decision.
The
trees
are
already
removed
and
an
approval
or
upholding
that
decision
only
ensures
that
the
tree
mitigation
plan
is
properly
implemented.
K
So
now
I'll
turn
to
the
canal,
this
application
to
reload
the
reload
relocate
the
canal
was
filed
shortly
after
the
tree.
Removal
certificate
was
issued
so
january
7th
this
was
filed
and
what
it
does.
As
plainly
stated
by
mr
venegas,
it
asks
to
relocate
the
canal
from
its
present
location
to
the
perimeter
of
the
property.
K
You
can
see
in
this
slide.
These
are
engineered
plans
that
boise
canal
company
has
has
signed
off
on.
At
this
point,
the
redesign
will
include
improved
canal
walls,
so
they'll
be
stacked
rock,
as
opposed
to
the
the
cracked
concrete
walls
that
are
there
now
and
the
the
relocation
will
also
provide
additional
open
water,
so
we're
going
to
go
from
91
feet
to
approximately
114
feet,
and-
and
this
is
important-
because
we
also
heard
comments
from
neighbors-
that
this
is
a
facility
used
by
local
waterfowl
and
critters
as
habitat.
K
So,
with
the
with
the
stacked
rock
wall
and
the
additional
length
we're
improving
this
facility
and
making
it
more
usable,
it
will
not
be
fenced.
It
will
remain
visible
through
a
wrought
iron
style
fence
for
safety,
so
this
application
was
approved
on
january
15th,
its
certificate
of
approv
of
appropriateness
was
issued
and
notice
went
out
to
the
neighbors.
K
K
K
Forward,
even
if
the
this
commission
doesn't
agree
that
this
permits
final
and
we
can
move
forward,
which
we
are
asking
you
to
find
tonight,
this
is
a
relocation
of
a
of
a
facility,
so
there
are
five
approval
criteria
that
need
to
be
met
to
approve
to
uphold
the
administrator's
decision.
In
this
case
the
five
approval
criteria
in
front
of
you.
I
know
you're
all
very
familiar
with
these.
These
are
the
same
criteria
for
demolitions.
K
So
in
our
written
memorandum
we
detailed
these,
but
I'll
briefly,
say
we
meet
criteria,
one
two
three
and
five:
it's
not
a
contributing
facility,
there's
nothing
in
the
record
to
indicate
that
the
canal
itself
could
be
registered
individually
as
a
historic
property.
K
This
won't
have
an
adverse
effect,
as
I
discussed
we're,
improving
beautifying
we're
not
removing
this
and
lastly,
the
plans
that
we've
submitted
again
will
have
a
positive
effect,
keeping
it
open
as
an
amenity,
improving
these
the
rock
walls
and
making
sure
that
the
neighborhood
as
a
whole
continues
to
enjoy
this,
this
amenity,
so
third,
certificate
of
appropriateness.
This
is
the
new
home,
so
the
procedural
posture
of
this
one
is
no
decision
has
been
made.
It
was
deferred
at
your
last
hearing
and
it's
back
before
you
tonight.
K
So
this
request
is
to
demolish
a
non-contributing
home
and
replace
it
with
a
story
and
a
half
home
with
a
1676
square
foot
first
floor.
So
the
the
base
the
first
floor
has
a
square
footage
of
1676
feet.
Reasonable
size,
demolition
again
is
proper
in
this
case,
because
we
meet
four
of
the
five
criteria
going
through
them
again
a
bit
by
bit
as
to
category
one
factor,
1
very
clear
in
the
record
that
this
house
is
marked
on
the
current
survey
with
the
city
as
non-contributing.
K
Second,
the
evidence
in
the
record
indicates
that
the
existing
structure
is
not
eligible
for
individual
designation.
The
survey
marks
this
box.
Specifically,
it
says
it's
not
eligible
for
designation.
The
survey
also
does
not
list
any
distinctive
features,
architectural
or
historical.
That
would
lead
to
a
contributing
status
or
or
individual
registration.
K
Third,
this
demolition
won't
have
an
adverse
impact,
primarily
because
it's
not
contributing
to
the
district,
but
another
really
important
factor
in
category
3
is
adverse
impact
on
adjacent
properties.
The
garrity
is
only
only
adjacent
property.
They've
submitted
multiple
written
comments
and
testimony
on
this
application,
they're
in
favor
of
it
and
the
evidence
in
the
record
shows
it
will
not
have
an
adverse
impact
on
their
property.
K
Lastly,
as
to
factor
five,
we
have
submitted
plans
for
a
redeveloped
site
and
the
home
that
we've
submitted.
Ms
miss
macau.
Miss
mcclellan,
lea
the
architect,
has
gone
through
great
lengths
to
analyze
the
city's
historic
design,
review
criteria
and
prepare
designs
and
elevations
that
meet
all
of
those
criteria.
K
City
staff
did
have
one
comment
on
our
design.
It
was
minor,
but
we
want
to
take
it
seriously.
City
staff:
ask
that
we
add
a
second
window
to
the
to
the
facade
of
the
property
on
the
north
side
to
balance
the
home,
that's
fine
with
us
and
we
are
in
agreement
with
a
condition
of
approval
tonight
to
add
a
window
to
that
facade.
K
Lastly,
I
do
want
to
touch
briefly
on
reclassification.
I
know
this
came
up
in
the
hearing
last
month
and
in
plain
and
simple.
Our
position
is
that
reclassification
of
this
property
at
this
time
is
improper
under
the
city
code,
during
the
pendency
of
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
which
is
what
we
have
now.
K
Staff
is
required
to
confirm
the
property's
classification.
In
this
case,
mr
venegas
did
just
that.
His
report
to
the
commission
clearly
states
that
this
is
a
non-contributing
home
staff
did
not
prepare
any
report
or
make
any
recommendation
to
reclassify
this
property,
as
is
required
under
boise
city
code,
section
110304,
sub
20..
K
L
Madam
chair,
I
have
just
a
couple
questions
please
this
first
one's
for
staff.
I
was
thinking
that
there
had
been
and
I
was
trying
to
find
it
really
quick
and
I
couldn't
a
recommendation
that
not
only
was
a
window
added
on
the
north
side,
but
that
the
front
elevation
was
addressed
as
well
ted.
Could
you
remind
me
if
that
was
the
case.
A
Madam
chair
commissioners,
yes,
so
on
the
front
of
the
house
hold
on
one.
Second,
let
me
bring
that
up.
A
The
front
of
the
the
facade
of
the
house,
so
the
the
front
elevation
staff
thought
that
the
balance
of
openings
or
windows
on
the
front
of
the
house
could
be
better
with
either
the
addition
of
an
additional
window
on
the
right
side
of
the
door
or
enlarging
the
window
on
that
elevation
and
then
potentially
the
upper
gable
section
appears.
A
L
Thank
you
so,
mr
bauer,
thank
you
for
your
presentation.
I
appreciate
all
the
work
you've
gone
to
try
and
address
all
the
comments
and
the
neighbors
comments
and-
and
I
know,
there's
still
others
that
are
out
there,
but
I,
I
think,
you're
doing
a
good
job
trying
to
address
all
those.
I
I'm
curious
are
you
you
mentioned
the
north
elevation.
Are
you
also
open
to
looking
at
the
windows
on
the
front
elevation?
I
think
that
might
be
a
closet
in
the
corner
there.
K
Chairman
montoto,
commissioner
weaver,
we
are
happy
with
with
either
proposal
that
mr
venegas,
you
know
raised
adding
a
window
enlarging
a
window
or
fine,
as
well
as
an
additional
window
on
the
upper
section
of
that
facade.
L
Great
then,
my
second
question
is:
I
know
that
you
spoke
a
lot
about
the
designation
of
non-contributing
and
I
I
think
the
confusion
is
because
the
report
that
was
done
is
not
the
traditional
one
that
we
usually
see
and
it
actually
uses
a
term
that
we
don't
use.
I
think
it's
non-contributory
and-
and
it
maybe
you
know,
had
this-
I'm
not
sure
what
criteria
they
had
to
determine
that
and
I'm
curious
when
you
had
your
architect
review
the
property.
What
was
what
made
the
determination
that
the
pride
the
property
was
non-contributing.
K
Chairman
montoto
council,
commissioner
weaver
a
few
things.
One
was
the
survey
absolutely
and
I
think
if
you,
if
you
look
through
the
historic
preservation
commission's
code,
there
is
a
definition
of
of
what
constitutes
a
survey,
and
this
survey
satisfies
that
definition.
It
has
the
address
of
the
home
the
the
date
it
was
built.
K
It
had
the
opportunity
to
list
any
architectural
or
historical
features,
and
it
has
a
photo
that
those
are
sort
of
the
baseline
requirements
for
for
a
survey
under
the
city
code.
So
we
certainly
meet
those
as
to
what
the
architect
and
miss
lassen
did.
Certainly
they
didn't
rely
on
the
survey,
but
I
think,
more
importantly,
was
was
the
follow-up
with
historic
planning
staff
who
also
relied
on
the
survey.
K
I
think
that,
overall,
the
impression
that
we
got
from
miss
lassen
and-
and
you
know
our
own
personal
opinion-
is
that
the
the
house
was
built
late
1940,
you
know
potentially
outside
the
the
period
of
significance
and
it
doesn't
have
any
distinguishing
architectural
features
and
it's
also
a
style
of
home
and
architectural
style.
That's
that's
not
necessarily
referenced
or
important
as
a
as
a
style
in
the
district.
So
I
think,
all
of
those
things
added
up
to
the
conclusion
that
the
the
property
was
non-contributing.
C
Any
final
questions
from
mr
bauer
or
ted
before
we
move
on
okay.
Thank
you
so
much.
Mr
bauer
is
the
registered
neighborhood
association
here
to.
C
M
C
Good
evening
hi
good
evening,
I
must
ask
before
we
start
are
you
authorized
by
the
board
to
speak
on
their
behalf.
C
Okay,
you
can
provide
testimony
tonight,
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
you
have
20
minutes.
M
Sure,
thank
you.
I'm
kate
henwood.
I
live
at
1116,
north
20th,
I'm
sorry
north
12th,
here
in
the
north
end
and
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
north
end,
neighborhood
association,
known
as
mina
upon
further
reflection
and
input
from
many
neighbors
nina,
would
like
to
amend
its
previous
testimony.
M
First,
although
written
approval
by
the
boise
canal
company
is
a
condition
of
approval,
this
critical
information
still
hasn't
appeared
in
the
packet.
Without
that
written
approval
for
the
proposed
change
in
the
course
of
the
canal.
Consideration
of
this
application
is
premature.
We
see
this
as
an
error
in
process
as
the
rest
of
the
project
hinges
on
that
written
approval.
M
We
would
also
ask
that
the
commission
consider
if
relocation
of
this
portion
of
the
canal
could
jeopardize
the
canal's
existing
eligibility
for
historic
designation.
We
see
this
as
a
values
decision
that
can
have
larger
implications
for
canals
and
other
significant
historic
features
for
the
future
of
the
north
end
historic
district.
M
Further.
This
lot
had
known
constraints
when
it
was
purchased.
You
cannot
presuppose
you
can
wipe
away
those
constraints,
as
was
done
here
from
the
outset.
The
entire
project
was
predicated
on
cutting
down
healthy
trees
and
or
covering
a
canal
actions
which
chip
away
at
the
overall
essence
character
and
integrity
of
the
neighborhood.
C
G
G
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
this
is
a
situation
that
should
have
never
happened
or
come
before
you
in
this
form,
or
in
this
condition
it
begs
the
question
of
just
how
well
the
rules
of
the
north
end
historic
district
are
being
followed
demolition
of
another
home
in
acceptable
condition
in
order
to
construct
a
larger
house
necessitating
the
moving
of
a
major
canal
structure
that
caused
the
premature
removal
of
ten
mature
trees
which
now
needs
retroactive.
Approval
represents
a
cascading
series
of
insults
to
this
community
and
regrets
aren't
enough.
G
G
Now
correct
me:
if
I'm
wrong,
if
there
is
a
written,
appro,
formal
statement
of
approval
from
the
canal
company
in
the
record,
I
can't
find
it.
I
hear
reference
tonight
that
it's
been
signed
off,
but
if
there
is
a
formal
document
in
the
record,
somehow
I've
missed
it
and
I'd
like
to
be
corrected.
If
I'm
wrong,
it
needs
to
be
a
formal
written
statement
backed
up
by
an
engineering
assessment
or
a
feasibility
review,
indicating
that
a
major
reconfiguration
to
this
century
old
water
course
is
possible.
G
Any
approval
conditioned
on
some
sort
of
approval
in
writing.
Coming
in
the
future
by
the
canal.
Company
is
speculative.
It
represents
cart
before
the
horse
decision
making
in
the
wake
of
the
errors
that
have
already
occurred.
Our
historic
district
is
entitled
to
better
performance
by
the
applicant
and
by
this
body.
G
C
C
N
You
good
evening,
madam
chair
and
commissioners,
this
is
sheri
pitazzo
at
311,
north
23rd
street,
I'm
testifying
here
tonight
in
support
of
this
application
and
because
I
wanted
to
add
a
little
bit
more
context
to
the
applicant's
presentation
back
in
october.
While
I
was
serving
on
the
neenah
board.
This
applicant
contacted
me
after
having
committed
the
tragic
act
of
uncertified
tree
removal
and
based
upon
the
blowback
he
was
receiving
online
and
from
neighbors.
N
N
He
began
preparing
for
the
remodel
of
this
home
and
was
surprised
to
learn
that
he
had
needed
prior
approval
by
the
city
to
remove
the
trees
on
their
own
law.
As
was
presented.
He
said
he'd
spoken
with
an
arborist
who
said
nothing
was
required
by
the
city.
He'd
searched
the
city's
website
for
tree
removal
info
and
saw
nothing
that
required
the
certificate
for
the
removal
within
the
historic
district
with
him
on
the
phone.
I
looked
on
the
city's
website
and
found
his
story
to
be
accurate.
The
info
was
not
contained
within
the
tree
section.
N
However,
it
was
layered
more
deeply
within
the
historic
section.
The
city
has
since
taken
actions
to
make
this
more
clear,
both
by
sending
a
letter
to
all
residents
in
the
historic
districts
with
their
december
sewer
bills.
I
know
I
received
one
and
making
it
more
clear
and
easy
to
find
on
the
website.
N
I
recognize
that
this
applicant
performed
an
act
that
goes
against
the
applicable
historical
guidelines
for
the
area.
In
the
past
year,
I've
testified
in
opposition
to
two
projects
who
performed
unpermitted
acts
that
were
prohibited
within
the
historic
districts,
including
and
of
what
I
would
consider
a
more
substantial
violation
in
nature:
the
demolition
of
two
contributing
historic
homes.
N
I
think
it's
important
to
draw
a
distinction
between
those
two
applicants
and
this
one
at
the
hearings
for
both
of
those
applications.
As
you
probably
remember,
those
applicants
came
before
the
commission,
arrogant
and
unapologetic
for
their
actions.
None
of
those
parties
showed
much
for
remorse,
nor
value
for
historic
preservation
and
neither
of
whom
suggested
remedies
or
mitigations
to
make
up
for
their
actions
and
made
no
acknowledgement
or
attempt
to
clean
up
what
they
had
done.
They
simply
threw
fits
lawyered
up
and
appealed
after
appealed.
N
This
applicant
has
behaved
far
differently,
they've
acknowledged
their
mistake.
Yes,
it
was
grand
they
made
countless
efforts
to
meet
and
talk
with
neighbors
and
they've
offered
solutions
that
the
city
has
accepted
to
make
up
for
the
best
that
they
can.
While
I
too
wish
there
are
greater
deterrents
put
forth
by
the
city
that
would
keep
us
from
losing
historic
homes
and
old
growth
trees.
We
have
yet
to
reach
that
point
in
our
preservation
path
for
this
growing
city.
P
Great,
my
name
is
derek
hurd
and
I'm
currently
at
112
north
21st.
No,
that's
not
true
one.
Two
one
two
north
21st-
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
quickly
before
that
the
link
to
testify
publicly
just
became
corrected
and
live
like,
as
you
were,
asking
for
public
testimony,
so
there
may
be
people
that
are
trying
to
get
in
and
just
coming
in,
that
are
just
now
finding
the
link
as
it
spreads
out
on
social
media.
P
So
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that,
so
you
know
that
there's
still
people
maybe
wanting
to
testify
and
come
in
I'm
a
north
end,
neighborhood
association,
member
since
1999
a
past
board
member
and
passed
his
historic
preservation
representative
for
nina
and
just
a
couple
quick
comments.
I
believe
this
historic
home
is
contributing
and
would
have
been
classified
as
contributing
if
it
were
surveyed
in
the
expanded
north
end
survey.
P
P
P
I
suggest
that
the
applicant
work
with
the
city
to
save
the
existing
home
as
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
in
lieu
of
the
two-car
garage,
so
they
can
still
have
their
big
home
up
front
and
then
they
can
have
a
adu
in
the
back
and
and
everybody's
happy,
except
the
trees
which
you
know
here.
We
are
again
with
ignorance
asking
for
forgiveness
and
as
sherry
batazo
stated
so
eloquently,
you
know
it
it.
It
does
get
frustrating
time
after
time
after
time.
P
After
again,
when
builders
applicants
homeowners
come
in,
do
something
illegal,
ask
for
forgiveness,
that's
frustrating
and
then
what's
more
frustrating
is
when
they
get
away
with
it.
We
need
to
have
fines.
We
need
to
have
appropriate
licenses
suspended
by
contractors
that
are
doing
it
by
tree
services
that
are
doing
it
and
make
make
it
too
painful
to
be
doing
these
illegal
acts.
So
I
appreciate
your
time
I
appreciate
you
listening
and-
and
I
hope
all
the
neighbors
that
are
clicking
on
the
wrong
link
can
still
get
in
and
and
give
their
testimony
tonight.
Thank
you.
R
Mitzi
c
slack
707
north
19th
street.
This
project
is
predicated
solely
on
the
non-contributory
status
of
the
home.
Based
on
an
improper
survey.
I
won't
belabor
the
already
presented
facts
from
the
case
for
resurvey,
which,
according
to
city
attorney
mary
grant,
is
allowed
by
boise
city
code.
There
is
clearly
adequate
evidence
presented
that
the
threshold
for
this
has
been
met.
The
survey
was
done
for
the
wrong
historic
district
with
distinctly
different
overriding
goals
and
guidelines.
R
It
is
out
of
date,
inadequate
and
incomplete
at
minimum.
The
property
must
be
resurveyed.
Moreover,
I
believe
the
home
and
canal
should
be
designated
historic,
even
without
additional
survey.
At
the
february
hearing,
this
property
was
aptly
described
by
commissioner
koski
as
iconic
over
the
25
years.
I
have
lived
on
this
street.
I
have
watched
pedestrians
stroll
by
this
lovely
property,
stopping
to
admire
the
trees
and
canal
with
breadcrumbs
in
their
pockets
for
the
ducks
by
law.
R
The
term
historic
property
means
any
building,
structure,
area
or
site
that
is
significant
in
history,
architecture,
archaeology
or
culture
of
this
state,
its
communities
or
the
nation.
This
home
and
canal
are
absolutely
significant
to
the
culture
of
this
northern
community.
They
are
historic
and
should
be
afforded
all
due
protection
when
my
home
was
annexed
in
2004.
R
I
was
not
given
a
choice
about
whether
I
wanted
to
be
assumed
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
hpc
with
all
its
restrictions.
Nonetheless,
this
was
in
pursuit
of
the
greater
goal
of
stewardship
and
preservation,
and
I
accepted
it
gladly
believing
that
the
historic
charm
and
integrity
of
this
neighborhood
would
be
protected
on
this
block
of
19th
street.
R
We
will
all
have
significant
changes
already
to
the
historic
streetscape,
with
the
companion
property
next
door,
with
its
planned,
enormous
6800
square
foot
remodel
and
now
the
same
applicant
proposes
further
alteration
in
the
appearance
and
feel
of
a
street
that
has,
for
generations,
remained
essentially
unchanged,
removing
trees
diverting
the
historic
canal
and
demolishing
a
1939
home
in
pursuit
of
maximum
lot
coverage
for
a
new
home
as
a
resident
of
this
block
for
a
quarter
of
a
century.
I
find
this
extremely
distressing.
R
Protection
of
these
modest
homes
in
the
north
end
was
deemed
essential
and
reminds
us
all
that
the
north
end
was
generally
developed
as
a
working
and
middle
class
neighborhood.
These
are
our
historic
routes
and
demolition
of
a
quaint,
modest,
1939
home
in
favor
of
a
large
new
home
negatively
impacts,
historic
integrity.
R
C
Hi
there
please
state
your
name
and
address.
Can
you
guys
hear
me?
Yes,
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
am
I
unmuted.
We
can
hear
you
hello.
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
we
can
hear
you.
C
C
M
I
my
name
is
naomi
aiken.
I
live
at
813
north
20th
street
directly
on
the
intersection
of
20th
and
ada,
my
parents
in
1978,
when
I
was
six
months
old,
bought
a
home
on
14th
and
ada,
and
they
continue
to
live
in
that
home
to
this
day.
So
I'm
a
lifelong
north
ender.
I
have
lived
on
20th
and
ada
for
17
years
and,
like
I
said,
my
parents
have
lived
in
their
home
at
14th
and
ada
for
43
years
now.
M
My
daughter
and
I
have
walked
aydah
street
every
day,
practically
for
the
14
years
of
her
life
and
enjoyed
the
property
that
is
in
dispute
at
this
time
and,
as
was
mentioned
by
the
other
neighbor,
we
daily
stopped
with
friends
to
enjoy
the
open
space
and
the
greenery
that
was
presented
on
this
property
prior
to
the
destruction
of
the
trees.
M
The
property
on
19th
street
has
been
a
gem
to
the
neighborhood
for
my
whole
lifetime
and
for
previous
generations.
I
liken
it
to
elm
grove
park
and
camel's
back
in
terms
of
what
that
property
had
off,
has
offered
with
open
space
and
continues
to
offer
with
the
current
canal
and
the
open
space.
Even
though
the
destruction
of
the
10
trees
is
heartbreaking,
devastating
and
I
cannot
have
not
been
able
to
pass
by
that
property
since
the
time
the
trees
were
destroyed.
M
Like
I
said,
my
parents
have
owned
their
home
for
43
years.
I've
owned
mine
for
17..
We
both
purchased
our
homes
prior
to
the
north
end
becoming
a
historic
district
and
we've
abided
by
the
rules
that
were
put
in
place.
Even
though
I
did
believe
some
homeowners
like
my
parents
should
have
been
grandfathered
in
my
dad
and
my
mom
had
a
porch
project
denied
because
it
didn't
follow
the
rules
laid
out
by
the
historic
district
and
for
my
own
remodel.
I
had
to
work
around
an
existing
tree
in
the
backyard
that
had
I
removed.
M
Nobody
in
the
neighborhood
would
have
noticed,
but
I
still
abided
by
the
rules
that
were
laid
out
by
the
historic
district,
these
new
homeowners
who
have
destroyed
the
trees
and
are
planning
to
completely
change
the
neighborhood,
knew
the
rules
when
they
purchased
their
home,
and
I
don't
think
that
it
is
okay
for
new
homeowners
to
come
in
and,
as
was
stated
by
previous
people,
who
have
been
against
this
project,
to
break
the
rules
and
ask
for
forgiveness.
M
Later,
the
loss
of
the
open
space
that
will
be
the
neighborhood
will
lose
if
the
proposed
home
is
built
is
as
devastating
as
the
destruction
of
the
trees
that
have
already
been
taken.
The
rerouting
of
the
canal
and
the
building
of
the
home
and
the
garage,
even
in
the
style
of
the
existing
homes,
is
not
appropriate
for
this
lot,
which
is
in
an
area
of
the
north
end.
That
does
not
have
any
open
space
and
it
is
quickly
losing
front
yards
and
backyards
to
excessive
remodeling
of
neighborhood
homes.
H
C
S
This
is
sherry
edmonds,
I'm
at
1419,
north
13th
street.
I
am
a
nina
member
and
former
board
member.
I
I
most
people
have
already
stated
my
concerns
with
this
project.
I
just
I
I
just
have
a
couple
of
things
to
add.
I
know
there's
nothing.
We
can
do
about
the
trees
now,
but
it's
even
just
looking
at
the
slide.
I've
walked
around
this
property
a
number
of
times
and
and
looking
at
at
the
slide
is,
is
it's
not
just
about
the
legality
of
the
trees?
S
It
looks
like
they
just
deliberately
cut
down
every
single
tree,
and
it's
it's
even
if
you
didn't
know
about
permitting
it's
hard
to
believe
that
you
really
believe
in
the
character
of
the
north
end
and
you
cut
down
all
of
the
trees
on
your
lot.
It
just
seems
it
just
doesn't
seem
fitting
to
the
neighborhood.
S
My
larger
concern
is
about
the
survey.
I'm
still
not
clear
on
why
this
hasn't
been
re-surveyed
more
recently,
and
I
would
agree
sorry.
I
have
kids
in
the
background
I
would
agree
with
with
prior
neighbors,
who
spoke
that
at
a
minimum,
this
needs
to
be
re-surveyed.
If
it's,
if
it's
deemed
a
non-contributing
structure
at
that
time,
then
they
they
would
be
welcome
to
move
forward
with
their
plans,
but
it
needs
to
be
resurveyed
if
it
is
contributing
it's.
We
need
to
capture
these
errors
when
we
find
them.
S
I
feel
that
in
a
historic
district
we
can't
we
can't
move
forward
and
say,
oh
well,
that
that
already
happened.
Oh
well,
the
trees
are
already
down.
Oh
well,
we
missed
the
survey
like
when
we
catch
something
as
important
as
a
survey.
We
should
correct
it
at
that
time,
rather
than
than
looking
back
in
the
past
and
saying
it
was
just
a
mistake.
So
sorry,
this
isn't
very
well.
I
just
threw
a
couple
notes
together
during
testimony.
So
apologies
if
I
was
all
over
the
place.
Thank
you.
That's
all.
I
have.
T
My
name
is
austin
schmitz.
I
live
at
805
north
19th
street
during
the
last
meeting
regarding
the
lot
7
17
or
19th
street.
There
were
some
comments
and
opinions
that
need
to
be
addressed.
We
as
the
public
and
the
committee
need
to
remember
what
the
roles
and
responsibilities
are
during
these
discussions.
T
My
family
moved
into
north
end
in
1953,
where
my
grandparents
raised
their
children
in
the
house
that
I
reside
in
today
at
805
north
19th
street.
My
father,
who
was
raised
in
this
house,
now
resides
across
the
street.
Where
I
was
raised,
we
as
a
family
never
felt
that
the
canal
was
a
dangerous
place
for
children
by
moving
the
canal
into
the
corner
and
cranial
shore.
Small
bend
could
introduce
possible
catastrophic
event.
T
One
of
the
committee
members
last
month
mentioned
idaho
state
code,
67-4608
I'd
like
to
remind
the
committee
that
this
code
should
be
familiar
as
this
code
dictates
on
how
the
committee
operates
with
any
law
changes
within
the
historical
district,
the
rest
of
the
paragraph
that
that
code
is
as
follows,
and
I
believe
that
mitzi
said
it
so
I'll
save
you
the
time
this
committee
should
always
strive
for
rehabilitation
of
any
structure
before
demolition
in
is
even
considered
within
historic,
historical
district
boundaries.
The
historic
district
is
slowly
losing
its
distinctive
character.
T
C
U
Name
is
sarah
wandling
and
I
live
at
1605,
north
22nd
street
and,
like
sherry
said,
I
agree
with
many
of
my
neighbors
who
have
already
spoken
about
the
general
disapproval
of
the
neighbors
and
why
we
are
sad
that
this
could
be
moving
forward.
So
I
won't
spend
a
lot
of
time
re-hashing.
All
of
that.
U
But
one
of
the
things
that
I
just
want
to
point
out
is
that,
in
my
opinion,
it's
part
of
the
point
of
a
historic
district
to
maintain
the
history
of
a
neighborhood,
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
that
I
love
living
in
the
north
end.
Is
that
there's
so
much
character
and
you
can
walk
from
street
to
street
and
all
the
houses
look
different.
U
And
so
I
ask
this
commission
to
truly
consider
what
the
what
the
purpose
of
being
a
part
of
a
historic
district
is
because
we
all
we
want
to
maintain
the
character
of
our
neighborhood,
and
this
lot
in
particular,
has
so
many
different
aspects
of
character
that
need
to
be
maintained.
Like
others
have
said.
U
C
V
Hi
my
name's
katie
fight.
I
live
at
1006
north
fifth
street
boise.
I
am
a
a
member
of
the
nina
interim
or,
however
one
would
classify
it
committee,
but
these
are
my
own
words
and
my
own
thoughts
on
this
matter.
V
The
the
commission's
actions
tonight
are
likely
to
set
precedent
depending
on
the
deliberations
in
their
outcome,
a
disastrous
path
for
the
protection
of
north
end.
Historical
values
may
be
set
if
this
project
is
approved
in
the
current
form.
The
garrity's
bought
this
property
well
aware
of
the
many
constraints
on
building
a
large
new
house.
Here,
the
constraints
include
a
historic
canal
dating
from
1866
running
at
a
diagonal
on
grade
through
the
property.
V
There's
a
charming
little
north
end
home
that,
with
a
new
historical
survey,
may
very
well
be
found
to
be
eligible
for
recognition,
contributing
to
the
historical
character
of
the
north
end.
And
then
we
have
the
combination
on
this
iconic
lot
in
this.
In
in
this
neighborhood
of
the
canal
and
the
house,
and
both
sort
of
interplay
together
re-routing
the
canal
will
alter
the
path
from
what
certainly
appears
to
be
the
historical
area.
V
It
will
change
the
nature
of
the
lot
demolishing
the
house
will
be
a
tragedy,
because
all
the
smaller
houses
in
the
north
end
are
are
are
being
dismantled,
either
to
be
replaced
with
to
be
replaced
with
bigger
houses
and
or
even
the
historical
homes.
As
was
discussed
earlier,
some
that
are
supposed
to
have
been
left
standing
have
been
taken
down
by
developers
who
then
asked
for
owners
who
then
asked
for
forgiveness
and
pay
some
small,
fine
or
whatever.
V
After
the
fact,
I
don't
believe
that
that
the
behavior,
particularly
of
the
pro
of
the
property
owner,
should
be
a
factor
in
your
in
your
considerations.
I
I
you
know
asking
for
forgiveness
after
the
fact
and
being
apologetic.
Well.
Well,
that's
fine,
but
the
you
know
it's
a!
This
is
a
blow
to
the
neighborhood.
What
has
happened
here
and
if
you
approve
this
project
and
allow
the
house
to
be
demolished
and
the
canal
boot
moved
it'll
be
an
even
bigger
blow.
O
O
I
am
writing
in
opposition
to
the
project
at
717
north
19th
street.
I
understand
that
the
buyers
are
from
out
of
the
area
and
perhaps
the
guidelines
and
restrictions
of
living
in
a
historic,
neighborhood
weren't
conveyed
to
them.
While
I'm
compassionate
to
their
situation.
It
doesn't
change
the
rules
and
the
rules
are
what
the
historic
preservation
commission
is
there
to
uphold.
O
O
O
Thirdly,
I
watch
the
meetings
almost
monthly
and
I'm
concerned
with
the
efforts
to
influence
commission
members
by
playing
the
emotional
card,
heartfelt
stories
of
young
couples
with
babies
that
just
want
to
have
their
parents
next
door.
This
has
absolutely
nothing
to
do
with
the
guidelines
or
the
enforcement
of
them.
These
are
the
rules.
The
commission
is
there
to
enforce
them.
Well,
it
makes
a
great
story
to
have
grandparents
grow
up
next
door
to
the
grand
children
it
it
should
have
no
weight
whatsoever
in
the
decision-making
process.
O
O
Fourth,
carlos
cotto
spoke
on
behalf
of
the
north
end
neighborhood
association
nina
last
month,
but
I
do
not
believe
that
his
comments
were
representational
at
all
of
how
the
neighborhood
feels.
I'm
sure
that
you
all
are
aware
of
that.
Kodo
is
currently
one
of
the
newly
seated
nina
members
that
was
just
voted
to
be
recalled
on
march
18th,
specifically
on
the
project
on
19th
close
to
12,
mature
trees
were
removed
illegally.
O
I
understand
that
the
homeowners
were
told
they
didn't
need
a
permit
for
this,
and
I
am
sympathetic,
but
in
the
matter
of
rerouting
the
canal,
if
this
illegal
activity
hadn't
taken
place,
this
wouldn't
be
a
consideration
and
then
therefore,
I
feel
like
they
should
not
be
rewarded
by
allowing
it
to
happen
now.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration.
W
C
W
I
grew
up
on
the
corner
near
the
corner
of
17th
in
ada
and
as
a
little
girl,
I
used
to
walk
with
my
leftover
sandwich
crusts
to
feed
the
ducks
after
school
on
this
corner.
It
was
always
a
very,
very
special
place,
I'm
now
65..
So
this
was
55
years
ago.
When
I
was
9
years
old,
it
was
a
place.
I
went
to
nearly
every
day
after
school.
W
W
W
The
small
home
and
the
contribution
that
it
makes
this
was
the
neighborhood
that
was
the
first
neighborhood
in
boise.
It
was
formerly
farms,
the
canal
predates
all
houses,
and
I
request
that
a
new
survey
be
done.
I
remember
when
mrs
white
got
the
registration
for
the
house
next
door.
I
was
friends
with
her
sons
when
I
was
a
child
and
it
was
always
really
special
to
see
that
brass
plaque
on
that
house,
and
I
just
feel
it
would
be
unjust
for
this
to
go
forward.
W
W
C
Great
okay:
are
there
any
final
questions
for
staff
for
the
applicant
before
the
applicant's.
C
Rebuttal:
okay,
if
the
applicant
would
like
to
come
forward,
you
have
five
minutes
for
rebuttal.
K
Thank
you,
chairman
montoto
and
commissioners
again,
jeff
bauer,
601
westbanik,
there's
a
lot
to
cover
here,
so
I'm
just
going
to
run
through
it
as
fast
as
possible.
As
to
nina's
comments,
we
couldn't
agree
more.
This
project
hinges
on
boise
canal
company's
approval
of
this
relocation,
and
it
is
a
specific
condition
of
approval
in
the
existing
certificate
granted
by
mr
venegas.
So
if
the
canal
company
would
does
not
approve
this
relocation,
this
project
is
dead.
K
Conditions
of
approval
like
this
are
commonplace,
as
you
all
know,
and
there's
no
reason
that
we
can't
move
forward
today
with
the
strict
condition
of
approval
that
the
canal
company
finally
approved
this
and
for
the
record,
we
are
very
close
to
a
final
design.
They've
approved
our
engineering,
we're
just
waiting
for
a
license
and
easement
agreement.
K
As
to
mr
klinger's
comments,
I
think
it's
important
to
remember
that
in
the
context
of
non-contributing
homes
under
the
city's
certificate
of
appropriateness
criteria
as
to
process
this,
this
is
a
staff
level
decision.
So
when,
when
a
party
comes
to
the
city
to
demolish
a
non-contributing
home,
the
hearing
that
we're
having
today
isn't
isn't
isn't
normal.
Normally
mr
venegas
makes
that
call
on
his
own.
K
That's
the
typical
process
again
to
mr
klinger's
point.
Our
application
is
complete:
we've
submitted
all
required
forms
and
documentation
under
the
city
code
for
certificate
of
appropriateness
and
based
on
the
certificate
of
appropriateness,
application
form
butazo.
We
agree
with
her
comments.
The
applicant
has
gone
out
of
out
of
their
way
to
meet
with
with
neighbors
adjust
our
plan
accordingly.
K
Mr
heard's
comments,
I
want
to
reiterate
again
reclassification
during
a
pending
certificate
of
appropriateness,
is
different
than
reclassification.
Generally,
we
agree
that
the
commission
can
reclassify
property
in
the
district
with
a
separate
hearing
and
a
separate
decision,
but
as
to
pending
applications.
We
think
it's
improper
to
change
the
rules
during
the
application.
I
think
all
the
commissioners
can
understand.
You
know
the
fundamental
fairness
of
of
changing
such
a
significant
status
of
the
property
at
this.
K
At
this
point,
as
to
ms
sizzlick's
camp
comments,
there
are
no
errors
in
the
survey
just
because
it's
not
as
thorough
as
she
or
other
folks
would
like
doesn't
mean
there's
any
incorrect
information
in
it,
and
I
have
not
seen
anyone
come
forward
with
any
incorrect
information
in
the
survey
the
home
proposed
is
not
large.
This
the
base
square
footage
is
676
square
feet.
K
To
ms
aiken's
comments,
we
understand
the
emotional
attachment
to
this
property
and
that's
really
why
we
want
your
approval
tonight.
The
sooner
we
get
approved,
the
sooner
we
can
go
forward
with
our
tree
mitigation
plan,
get
those
mature
trees
on
site,
relocate
and
improve
the
canal
for
her
and
her
daughter
to
enjoy.
K
K
Comments
as
to
the
canal,
we
are,
we
have
gone
through
significant
engineering,
we
have
vetted
the
angles
with
spf
engineers
and
they
specifically
raised
comments
that
we
will
be
making
the
the
canal
facility
safer
in
many
respects,
by
improving
the
wall
structure,
the
stacked
rocks,
provide,
you
know
more
more
structure
and
we're
also
decreasing
the
the
slope
of
the
facility
by
a
few
feet.
By
making
it
longer
and
again
it
will
be
fenced.
K
K
No
presidential
value
whatsoever,
many
sections
of
this
canal,
this
this
irrigation
facility,
are
piped
throughout
the
north
end
as
the
as
the
commission
knows,
but
we're
proposing
to
leave
our
section
open,
miss
wittig's
comments.
We
couldn't
agree
more.
We
are
here
tonight
to
follow
the
rules
and
we,
we
believe,
that's
incumbent
upon
the
commission
to
follow
those
rules
and
apply
the
criteria
we
aren't
asking
for
any
special
favors
based
on
you
know,
families
living
next
to
each
other.
K
We
just
want
the
the
applicable
five
demolition
and
relocation
criteria
applied
fairly
and
lastly,
as
to
ms
williams
comments
again,
demolition
of
a
non-contributing
structure
is
staff
level
and
relocation
of
an
in-ground
irrigation
facility
is
exempt
under
the
matrix
for
certificate
of
appropriateness.
Thank
you
all.
C
Thank
you,
mr
bauer.
Are
there
any
final
questions
for
staff
or
the
applicant.
C
Okay
with
that,
I
will
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing,
and
I
would
like
to
hear
a
motion
first
just
so
we
can
see
where
we're
at
so.
At
this
point,
I
will
consider
a
motion.
F
I'd
move
for
denial
based
on
our
guidelines
as
written
on
page
three
of
our
guides
and
idaho
law
code,
67-4608,
which
I
can
I
can
read
verbatim
different,
very
discount.
Thank
you.
C
A
second
thank
you,
commissioner
koski.
If
you'd
like
to
go
into
detail
on
that,
please.
F
Sure
sure
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
just
going
to
read
a
paragraph
or
two
I'll
make
it
as
quick
as
possible
out
of
our
guidelines.
Just
for
the
basis
of
my
denial,
my
denial
motion.
T
F
D
F
Those
are
the
readings
out
of
our
our
guidelines
that
we
need
to
consider
as
commissioners
and
one
that
I'm
considering
greatly,
because
I
believe
the
I
believe
the
canal
and
is
a
significant
part
and
a
contributing
part
to
the
property
and
is
addressed
in
those
guideline
guidelines
that
are
written.
F
F
I
would
suggest
to
that
the
applicant
that,
if,
if
this
denial
would
go
through
that,
as
far
as
the
house
goes
and
they're
willing
to
work
with
the
neighbors
as
they
state,
I
think
they
should
get
it
surveyed
themselves
if
they,
if
they
feel
that
it's
not
a
contributing
house,
and
you
want
to
show
the
neighbors
that
why
don't
you
get
it
surveyed,
I
think
that
would
be
a
great
move,
and
if
it's
not,
if
it
comes
as
non-contributing,
then
they
can
address
that
with
a
different
application
to
build
a
house
on
the
property.
F
As
is
thank
you,
madam
chair.
Those
are
my
comments.
H
C
C
Thank
you
all
for
your
patience.
That
was
a
long
one.
We're
gonna
move
back
to
item
number
one
which
is
drh20-00543
luke
caldwell
at
1714,
north
26th
street
ted.
Can
we
please
have
the
report.
A
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission.
The
this
item
is
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
request
to
construct
a
single-family
structure
and
detached
garage
on
a
substandard
lot.
In
the
expanded
north
end,
the
property
is
considered
non-contributing.
A
And
this
is
the
site
plan
for
the
property.
As
I
explained
the
first
time
we
went
through
this.
The
property
generally
meets
setback
requirements,
except
for
probably
the
front
setback.
It
appears,
though
reduced
setbacks
are
allowed
for
substandard
lots.
It
appears
that
this
this
property
won't
be
able
to
comply
with
our
substandard
mod
ordinance
for
a
front
setback
due
to
the
extensive
setback
to
the
property
on
the
north.
A
Front
setback
would
be
required
for
the
property
or
for
the
house,
the
and
then
the
garage
in
the
back
is
a
single
car
single
vehicle
garage
with
just
to
the
south,
we'll
have
a
paved
pad
for
uncovered
parking,
so
it
will
comply
with
the
two
parking
spots
for
the
required
two
parking
spots
for
a
single
family
property.
A
A
C
Thank
you,
ted
and
again,
commissioners.
For
the
sake
of
time,
we're
going
to
hold
questions
until
after
the
applicant
has
presented
is
the
applicant.
C
X
C
B
X
X
This
is
a
undeveloped
lot
on
1714
north
26th
street,
and
I
would
like
to
build
a
single
family
home
here
on
this
lot
and
definitely
want
to
do
it
to
code,
and
I
read
through
the
conditions
of
approval
the
eight
conditions
and
I
100
agree
with
the
staff's
recommendations
on
what
to
do
and
I'm
totally
in
accordance
with
all
of
them
to
perform
those.
So
that's
pretty
much
all
I
have
to
say
thank
you
so
much.
C
Thank
you,
mr
caldwell.
At
this
point,
are
there
any
questions
for
the
applicant
or
staff
from
the
commission?
Sorry
we'll
get
to
public
testimony
just
shortly.
C
F
I
just
want
to
address
the
question
on
the
front
setback.
Did:
are
you
saying
you're
in
agreement
of
moving
it
back
to
meet
the
15
feet,
requirement
for
the
front
setback.
X
So
if,
if
that's,
if
that's
what
we
have
to
do,
I'm
I'm
happy
to
do
it.
I
was
hoping
to
get
it
at
10,
but
if
I
have
to
adjust
the
house
to
figure
it
out
or
the
garage,
I'm
I'm
willing
to
do
that.
What
makes
it
difficult
is
that
the
house
on
1718,
which
I
own
as
well,
which
is
contributing,
therefore
it
can't
be
moved
forward,
is,
is
extremely
set
back.
X
I
I
measured
it
it's
it's
roughly,
I
think
58
feet
from
the
actual
road,
and
so
it's
way
back
there,
and
so
I
understand
why
you
know
you're
asking
to
kind
of
meet
in
the
middle
somewhere
and
obviously
10
would
be
the
shortest
amount
and
15
seems
reasonable.
So,
yes,.
C
Okay
is
the
registered
neighborhood
association
here
to
testify
on
this
item.
M
Hi
good
evening
again,
this
is
kate
henwood
1116,
north
12th.
Thank
you.
I
have
a
brief
comment.
Nina
does
not
support
this
project
as
it
has
been
presented,
the
one
and
a
half
story,
design
conflicts
with
the
at-grade
design
of
the
nearby
houses.
If
the
house
was
lowered
to
grade
it
would
fit
the
streetscape
more
harmoniously.
C
M
C
Y
Yes,
my
name
is
parker
bloom
and
I
live
at
the
residence
of
1706
north
26th
street,
which
is
the
house
right
next
door
to
the
proposed
building
of
a
new
home.
I
don't
feel
that
that
fits
the
quality
of
the
historic
north
end
and
the
quaintness
that
we
have.
Y
I
moved
to
boise
and
purchased
this
house
in
1987..
I've
lived
in
that
home
the
entire
time,
and
what
I've
seen
in
the
recent
years
is
we
are
losing
our
quality
of
life
in
the
boise
north
end.
This
does
not
fit
the
historic
north
end.
It
actually
will
be
higher
than
a
a
ranch
house,
because
it'll
be
a
story
and
a
half
to
me.
Y
I
just
hope
that
everybody
considers
what
we
have
in
boise
and
what
we
have
in
the
north
end
and
it's
very
sad
to
see
it
slowly
disappear
the
quality
of
life
that
we've
so
much
enjoyed
for
30
plus
years
in
boise,
idaho
and
the
north
end
that
house,
as
you
see,
if
you
pull
up
one
of
those
pictures
will
be
sitting
right
next
to
the
house.
That's
currently
there.
Y
It
will
be
five
feet
off
of
my
fence
line,
but
that
house
looks
as
if
it
sits
right
next
to,
and
that
is
not
five
feet
off
of
the
house
sitting
to
the
north
of
it.
I
know
he
owns
both
lots,
but
I
think
you
could
do
much
better
with
that
property
than
just
trying
to
jam
one
more
house
into
the
north
end.
C
X
Yeah,
that
would
be
great
parker.
I
totally
understand
your
concerns
and
growing
up
being
there
in
the
north
end.
I
grew
up
on
23rd
street.
Actually,
my
first
house
that
I
purchased
when
I
was
21
was
literally
a
block
and
a
half
away
from
the
house
that
I'm
proposing
to
construct
on
26th
and
hazel,
and
I
absolutely
love
the
neighborhood.
X
I
am
passionate
about
it.
I
grew
up
in
the
north
end
and
I
would
love
to
build
a
home
that
I
truly
do
feel
fits
the
neighborhood
and,
yes,
it
is
a
substandard
lot.
It's
a
skinny
lot.
I
am
not
a
big
fan
of
skinny
homes.
Personally
myself,
but
as
as
you
know,
we
are
in
a
city
where
the
historic
district
is
kind
of
plays
a
factor
in
that
the
house.
X
That's
next
door
is
part
of
the
historic
district,
and
so
I
have
a
lot,
that's
not
being
used
and,
as
we
all
know,
there
are
plenty
of
people
looking
for
you
know,
property
to
be
able
to
live
in
to
rank
here
in
our
city
close
to
downtown.
I
think
that's
going
to
provide
that
and
I
will
build
a
home
that
is
quality
that
is
using
everything
up
to
standard
for
the
historic
district.
X
I
want
this
home
to
fit
the
neighborhood
and
there
are
two-story
homes
across
the
way
and
many
of
the
architecture
all
throughout
the
north
end
has
a
lot
of
different
variation,
but
my
goal
will
be
to
use
high
quality
materials
and
to
really
make
it
feel
like
it's
quaint.
That
fits
the
neighborhood,
and
I
feel
like
with
my
experience,
I'm
really
going
to
be
able
to
do
that
and
make
it
a
great
home
for
for
a
family
to
be
able.
L
Madam
chair,
I
do
have
a
question
for
mr
caldwell,
please
I'm
looking
at
your
plans
and
I
guess
I
was
until
the
last
person
spoke.
I
was
a
little
confused.
I
there's
a
a
line
on
your
plans
which
seems
to
represent
grade,
but
now
that
I
look
at
it.
I
I'm
confused
at
how
high
the
house
actually
is
above
the
ground.
X
So
basically
the
the
basement,
where
usually
you
would
you
would
dig
out
eight
feet-
we're
gonna
be
digging
out
four
instead,
so
that
it's
more
of
a
daylight
basement
and
that's
why
it
will
become
a
one
and
a
half
instead
of
a
one
story
so
that
obviously
it's
not
a
tall
double
two-story
skinny
home,
but
will
be
actually
in
in
accordance
to
what
you
guys
require.
L
X
The
actual
height
here
it
says,
height
to
eve,
is
is
14
height
to
midline
is
18
and
height
to
peak
is,
is
21.,
okay,
which
all
is
up
to
co.
L
Okay,
thank
you
yeah.
I
just
think,
and
maybe
staff
understood.
I
just
think
the
drawings
have
some
confusing
lines
and
dimensions
on
them.
That
makes
it
difficult
to
understand.
X
C
I
think
just
for
the
sake
of
time
this
evening,
we'll
all
entertain
emotion,
first
and
then,
if
there's
any
discussion,
we
can
follow
up.
C
C
A
I
believe
we
have
received
requests
from
at
least
one
commissioner
for
a
five-minute
break.
Oh.
C
Sure,
okay,
I
think
that's
great,
let's
break
for
five
minutes
and
return
at
7
55..
C
D
D
C
C
Yep,
okay,
all
right
thanks!
Everyone,
we're
gonna,
go
ahead
and
reconvene
and
we're
going
to
move
on
to
item
number
three.
This
is
drh21-00061
amanda
swales
at
1412,
north
8th
street
ted.
Can
we
please
have
the
report.
A
A
A
A
C
Thank
you
is
the
applicant
present.
C
Z
My
client's
desire
is
to
build
a
nice
front.
Porch
that
looks
like
it
had
always
been
there.
The
plan
is
to
remove
that
concrete
stoop
that
was
put
in
sometime
after
1956.
We
are
unsure
and
replace
it
with
a
wood
porch
of
the
same
footprint.
Unfortunately,
we
don't
have
any
photos
of
the
original
house.
We
believe
it
was
built
in
1903
or
1905,
because
there
was
evidence
on
the
sanborn
maps
the
front
stoop
itself
again
or
not
the
front
stoop,
but
the
front
porch
itself
is
very
basic.
Z
The
house
itself
is
a
national
kind
of
folk
style
with
a
pyramid
roof,
and
it
has
like
a
slight
2x2
flare
on
the
edges,
which
we
are
mimicking
with
the
new
front,
porch
it
all
tucks
under
the
existing
roof.
So
therefore
we're
not
touching
the
existing
house,
no
real
changes
there.
The
materials
are
all
going
to
be
wood,
there
might
be
some
pressure
treated
structure,
but
everything
will
be
wrapped
in
real
wood
painted,
probably
a
white,
because
that's
sort
of
the
trim
color
of
the
house
as
it
is
right
now.
Z
I
we
do
agree
with
the
conditions
of
approval.
We
are
starting
the
variance
process
because
the
existing
house
itself
is
already
out
of
compliance
with
the
20-foot
setback
just
because
it
was
built
before
that
setback
was
put
into
place.
I
can
go
into
that
more
if
you
guys
have
questions
about
it.
Z
For
the
sake
of
time,
I
won't
go
into
much
more
if
you
have
questions
about
materials
or
anything
else.
Please
ask.
C
Okay,
thank
you
so
much
miss
wales
is
the
registered
neighborhood
association
here
to
testify
this
evening.
M
Hello,
kate,
henwood
again,
do
you
need
my
address
each
time?
I
speak.
Yes,
please
1116
north
12th
street
and
my
comments
are
brief.
Just
wanted
to
say
that
nina
enthusiastically
supports
this
application.
We
think
reinstalling,
your
front
porch
will
add
pleasantly
to
the
streetscape
on
this
block.
Thank
you.
F
Applicant,
madam
chair,
I
have
a.
I
have
a
question
for
staff.
F
Hey
ted
in
previous
examples,
at
least
in
the
10
year
that
I've
been
here
on
the
commission.
F
We
have
not
been
approving
or
at
all
of
this
type
of
application,
just
putting
on
a
porch
without
any
historical
photos,
obviously
based
on
the
sanborn
maps
and
other
projects
we
see
throughout
these
historic
districts.
Porches
were
definitely
a
part
of
that.
The
homes.
G
F
A
Madam
chair,
commissioner
koski
we
we
don't
get
too
many
of
these.
We
have
had
a
a
few.
I
guess.
As
you
know,
growth
and
new
new
people
have
moved
into
the
north
end
a
couple
of
these
over
the
last
year
or
two
in
the
past.
I
would
say
when
the
first
couple
years
I
was
doing
this
work.
A
There
were
a
few
of
these
that
were
getting
approved
by
the
commission
and
generally,
the
idea
was
that
you
know
if
you
could
show
if
it
was
if
the
porch
was
removed
after
the
period
of
significance,
so
the
removal
of
the
porch
wasn't
considered
a
historic.
You
know
a
new
historic
component
of
that
house,
but
it
was
removed
at
some
later
date
outside
of
the
period
of
significance.
Then
you
know
it's
it's.
A
It
is,
I
would
say,
rare
for
us
to
have
a
photo
of
a
house
that
actually
shows
what
the
original
porch
looked
like,
and
so
generally
we
do
try
to
go
back
and
look
at.
We
take
the
style
of
the
house,
as
we
did
in
this
instance,
and
look
at
what
those
porches
might
have
looked
like
on
similar
styled
houses.
This
one
seemed
to
generally
be
appropriate
in
looking
at
the
field
guide
to
american
house
examples
that
were
in
there,
and
so
you
know
we
felt
comfortable,
adding
this
back
on.
A
But
then
again
you
know
again
going
back.
If,
if
we
had
seen
that
the
porch
had
been
removed
during
the
period
of
significance,
then
the
removal
of
the
porch
and
the
addition
of
that
stoop
would
have
become
itself
a
part
of
the
historic
structure
but
because
it
was
removed
sometime
after
we.
Just
the
commission
in
the
past
has
traditionally
considered
it
appropriate
to
to
try
to
reconstruct
that
that
historic
front
porch
using
examples
from
similar
styled
homes.
F
A
I
believe
it
was
I'll
have
to
go
back
and
look
at
the
survey
in
your
packet.
I
believe.
A
C
Okay,
if
the
applicant
would
like
you
have
five
additional
minutes.
Z
I
did
have
one
question
about
the
conditions
of
approval.
Oh
sure,
and
it
was
talking
about
the
porch
materials
including
posts.
Floor
trim
skirting
should
all
be
natural
wood
and
does
that
exclude
using
tricks?
Decking
a
wood,
look,
sort
of
truck
sticking
for
the
flooring.
A
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
deck
saint
trex
decking,
is
generally
considered
inappropriate
for
the
front
porch
or
front
of
a
house
it's
okay,
generally
for
a
like
a
rear,
porch
or
a
less
visible
area,
but
on
a
front
porch.
We
do
typically
require
all
natural
wood
for
wood
materials
on
the
porch.
C
Thank
you,
ted
okay,
that
works.
Okay.
Thank
you,
miss
wales,
and
with
that
I
will
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing
and
we'll
consider
a
motion.
AA
C
Second,
second,
oh
I
had
commissioner
brown
second,
that
first,
okay
victoria,
would
you
please
call
the
roll.
F
It's
okay.
I
just
I
just
just
like
to
make
a
comment.
I
guess
for
the
rest
of
the
commissioners
that.
F
When
a
survey
is
done,
it
takes
in
consideration
alterations
that
have
been
done
and
as
an
historic
property
took
in
consideration
the
changes
to
the
existing
or
would
show
the
existing
front
stoop
and
entry
on
it
considered
that
being
considered,
contributing
and
we're
talking
about
removing
that
and
putting
an
old
port
trying
to
recreate
a
porch
that
we
don't
have
a
photo
of.
D
F
Design
without
any
any
actual
basis
for
it,
just
basing
it
on
designs
of
the
time,
not
actual
photos
of
the
actual
house.
So
for
that
reason,
I'm
I'm
struggling
I'm
going
to
vote
to
deny,
but
I
do
applaud
their
efforts.
L
I'm
sure
I'll
just
address
that
really
quick
in
the
past.
All
of
the
porches
that
I
recall
that
have
been
not
approved
have
not
actually
had
access
to
the
sanborn
map,
so
we
haven't,
although
we
think
that
there
might
be
something
there
and
I
may
be
wrong,
but
this
is
just
what
I
recall.
While
we
think
that
there
might
have
been
a
porch
or
something
in
front
of
the
house,
we
don't
have
any
proof
of
that.
L
So
we
haven't
it's
harder
to
approve
it,
but
since
we
can
clearly
see
on
all
these
maps
that
it
was
there
that
and
the
size
of
it
the
approximate
size
of
it
that
it.
You
know,
I
feel
like
it's
a
lot
easier
to
approve
this
one,
and
also
just
based
on
the
fact
that
we
know
the
style
of
the
house
and
the
style
of
a
typical
porch
for
it
that
it
makes
it
also
easier
to
approve-
and
I
suspect
that
potentially
why
it
was
approved
they
did.
L
L
F
B
A
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission.
This
is
a
certificate
appropriateness
request
to
construct
an
addition,
a
basement,
reconstruct
the
historic
wrap-around,
porch
change,
the
primary
orientation
to
17th
street,
add
a
new
door,
replace
windows
and
add
solar
panels,
and
the
siding
will
be
removed
and
reinstalled
for
installation.
This
is
in
the
expanded
north
end,
historic
district
and
the
property
is
considered
contributing.
A
So
this
is
a
ariel
of
the
house,
so
this
is
the
garage
off
of
the
alley
and
the
house
again
sort
of
a
national
style,
pyramidal
roof
the
house
is
oriented
toward
rydenbaugh,
so
part
of
the
request
is
to
reorient
the
house
to
17th
street.
A
And
if
you'll
read
the
notes,
there's
a
report
that
kerry
davis
did
on
this
property
and
she
calls
this
an
an
essentially
an
inappropriate
covering
on
the
south
elevation.
A
A
It
seems
clear
in
looking
at
the
sanborn
maps
that
the
primary
entrance
to
the
structure
was
traditionally
to
the
south,
but
in
kerry's
report
she
insinuates
that
the
main
the
the
the
main
entrance
may
have
changed
a
couple
of
times
over
time
and
that
the
entrance
to
17th
street
may
have
at
one
time
been
a
primary
entrance
to
the
structure.
A
If
it's
going
to
be
replaced,
it
should
try
to
match
that
that
footprint
as
close
as
possible
you'll
see
solar
panels
here
in
the
historic
districts.
We
generally
do
not
want
to
see
solar
panels
on
a
street
facade,
so
there
is
a
condition
of
approval
that
the
solar
panels
not
be
placed
on
that
street
facade
whether
the
orientation
is
changed
or
not.
It
shouldn't
be
on
the
front
or
a
street
facing
area.
A
A
A
A
For
for
this
historic
district
is
generally,
this
would
be
considered
generally
outside
the
period
of
significance
for
the
district
so
again
similar
to
the
previous
house.
We
we
might
consider
that
that
porch
was
removed
outside
of
the
period
of
significance.
A
And
again,
some
photos-
and
this
is
a
similar-
this
is
a
two-story
version
of
the
national
and
pyramidal
house.
I
didn't
see
any
wrap
around
porches
in
the
in
the
book
in
the
field
guide,
american
houses,
but
I
did
find
these
again.
You
saw
you've
seen
a
couple
of
these
already
fairly
modest,
hip
style
porches
on
the
structure
again,
nothing
that
shows
a
wrap
around,
but
you
can
get
the
idea
of
what
the
porch
might
look
like.
A
There
are
some
concerns
generally,
we,
you
know
in
the
past.
The
commission
has
if,
when
there's
a
street
facing
facade
the
front
of
the
house,
the
staff
or
the
the
commission
generally
wants
to
see
that
in
addition
stepped
back.
You
know.
In
the
past
the
commission
has
said
a
minimum
of
10.
Feet
is
good
anything
closer
to
10
feet.
To
that
front,
facade
could
impact
the
the
you
know
the
adversely
impact
the
contributing
house.
A
A
So
staff
does
have
a
condition
of
approval
in
there
that
I
think
that
the
applicant
would
like
to
talk
to
you
about
and
they
would
like.
If
the
reorientation
is
approved
on
the
house,
the
the
applicants
would
like
to
keep
that
six
foot
set
back
so
that
that
staff
condition,
if
this
is
approved,
would
need
to
you
know,
be
removed.
A
I
talked
about
the
solar
panels
on
the
south
roof
elevation.
They
should
not
be
on
a
street
facing
roof
elevation;
they
should
be
on
an
interior
or
back
elevation,
and
then
I
also
talked
about
that
window.
Change
on
that
west
elevation
that
we
would
like
to
re
have
that
part
of
it.
It's
so
close
to
the
front
of
the
house
on
a
large
lot
that
we'd
like
to
see
that
remain
as
a
single
or
double
hung
window.
A
So
with
that
we
do,
staff
does
recommend
approval
of
the
application
with
the
conditions
of
approval
listed
in
the
report.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you
is
the
applicant
present.
C
Hi,
please
state
your
state,
your
address
for
the
record
and
you
have
20
minutes.
Q
Yeah
scott
wybar
442
west
stature
street
in
boise
and
I'm
the
architect
on
the
project.
Thank
you,
members
of
the
commission
for
considering
our
proposal.
Thank
you
ted
also
for
explaining
everything.
So
far,
I'm
going
to
add
just
a
little
bit
more
to
that
explanation.
Q
So
the
the
project
consists
of
a
deep
energy
retrofit
to
the
pacifier
standards
of
an
existing
two-story
historic
single-family
residence.
So,
under
this
proposal
an
existing
non-historic
edition
will
be
removed
and
replaced
with
a
new
650
square
foot
single
story.
Addition,
a
new
basement
will
be
added
under
both
the
existing
and
new
portions
of
the
structure
and
a
non-original
porch
added
in
1996
will
be
removed
and
the
original
wrap
around
porch
will
be
restored.
Q
An
entry
door
will
be
restored
on
the
17th
street
side
of
the
house,
and
we
have
evidence
of
that.
There
was
that
door
on
the
17th
street
side
and
we
are
proposing
to
change
the
address
as
test
stated
from
ryden
boss
street
to
17th
street.
Q
The
existing
entry
door
on
17th
street
will
remain.
However,
all
existing
non-original
windows
will
be
replaced
with
new
aluminum,
clad
wood
windows
and
the
original
wood
siding
will
be
temporarily
removed
to
allow
for
the
installation
of
exterior
insulation
and
then
reinstalled
new
wood
siding
to
match.
The
original
profile
will
be
installed
on
the
proposed
edition,
so
the
project
has
two
major
goals
and
the
first
is
to
improve
the
livability
of
the
interior
of
the
house.
Q
Q
The
second
goal
is
a
deep
energy
retrofit
that
will
significantly
reduce
the
building's
carbon
footprint,
while
improving
interior
comfort
and
air
quality.
To
meet
this
goal,
the
project
is
proposing
building
a
building
envelope
and
mechanical
system
updates
to
meet
the
fies
plus
passive
house
energy
efficiency
standard,
a
home
that
achieves
passive
house
energy.
Q
So
I'm
going
to
talk
just
a
little
bit
more
about
the
the
sanborn
maps,
so
the
sanborn
maps
indicate
that
the
primary
orientation
of
that
of
the
house
has
been
to
the
south,
but
historical
records
show
that
the
property
has
had
at
least
five
different
addresses,
several
of
which
were
on
17th
street.
Q
Q
The
established,
massing
and
orientation
of
the
building
is
ambiguous,
as
the
footprint
is
nearly
square,
as
mentioned
in
the
updated
inventory
form,
with
the
loss
of
the
wraparound
porch
and
various
other
modifications.
Over
its
120
year
history,
the
house
has
lost
its
integrity
of
design.
Its
integrity
of
feeling
has
also
been
compromised
by
the
loss
of
original
design
features,
as
well
as
hindered
integrity
of
materiality
and
workmanship.
Q
It
is
the
opinion
of
the
project
team
that
the
restoration
of
the
original,
wraparound,
porch
and
removal
of
the
non-original
edition
will
greatly
improve
the
architectural
and
historic
integrity
of
the
house.
The
proposed
edition
will
be
a
single
story
to
soften
the
transition
from
the
two-story
main
house
to
the
neighboring
house
on
the
north.
Q
Q
The
project
proposes
the
restoration
of
an
existing
entry
door
on
the
17th
street,
that
is,
the
east
elevation
to
be
used
as
the
primary
entry
door
and
we're
proposing
this,
because
the
current
layout
of
the
first
floor
is
very
awkward.
The
entry
door
opens
directly
into
the
dining
room,
the
design
solution
that
we
worked
through
proposes
here.
Q
Q
The
south
and
east
elevations
are
nearly
identical
in
size
and
the
two
over
two
layout
of
the
window
door
openings
is
identical
on
both
the
original
wraparound
porch
also
does
not
provide
evidence
of
a
primary
architectural
facade
because
it
is
printed.
It
is
present
on
both
the
south
and
east
elevations
and
does
not
would
would
not
provide
a
visual
cue.
Q
The
project
team
believes
the
current
proposal
is
in
keeping
with
the
secretary
of
the
interior
standard
for
rehabilitation
for
entrances
and
porches,
because
it
proposes
to
replace
the
historic
porch
and
its
and
in
original
entrance,
while
no
drawings
or
plans
exist
for
the
original
porch.
We
believe
the
new
design
is
compatible
with
distort
with
the
historic
character
of
the
building
and
is
compatible
in
size,
scale
and
material
with
the
original.
Q
The
original
south
entry
door,
along
with
its
sense
of
connection
to
the
south
side
of
the
property,
will
remain.
We
believe
the
resulting
architectural
solution
will
greatly
benefit
the
quality
and
usability
of
the
interior
space,
while
simultaneously
connecting
the
building
to
both
17th
street
and
ryden
boss
street.
Q
AB
I
don't
have
a
question,
please,
scott,
have
you
ran
calculations
on
what
kind
of
energy
will
be
provided
by
having
the
panels
on
the
south
side
at
all?
Out
of
curiosity,.
Q
Yeah
we
we
initially
we're
initially
thinking
that
we
work
we're
going
to
need
about
a
12
kw
system,
so
our
first
and
what's
not
shown
here
and-
and
I
should
have
had
that
on
our
our
plans,
but
we're
going
to
first
put
the
panels
on
the
garage.
Q
So
the
next
place
we
basically
have
left
are
the
house
west
and
south
facades,
so
the
the
hip
roof
makes
it
a
little
bit
hard
to
fit
a
lot
of
panels.
So
if
the
orientation
could
be
changed,
we
we
thought
that
the
south
would
be
our
best
generating
facade
anyway.
The
south
would
be
sort
of
a
secondary
facade
at
that
point.
Q
AB
C
Questions
before
we
move
on,
okay
is
the
registered
neighborhood
association
here
to
testify.
M
C
C
It
doesn't
appear,
we
have
anyone,
so
the
applicant
would
like
you,
have
five
minutes
for
rebuttal.
Q
Q
Q
So
I
I
would
just
like
to
ask
if
it
would
be
acceptable
to
keep
that
dimension
as
shown
it
will,
it
will
make
it
very
difficult
for
us
to
organize
the
interior
plan
to
fix,
to
fix
that.
Basically,
we
have
some
important
some
programmatic
stuff
that
has
to
happen,
and
we
we
just
really
can't
fit
it
all
back
there
if
we
have
to
adjust
it.
Q
So,
just
not
knowing
that
specific
dimension,
if
we
had
known,
we
probably
could
have
maybe
redone
something,
but
we
are
actually
believe
it
or
not
kind
of
limited
where,
where
we
can
do
the
addition,
so
if
it
were
possible
to
you
know,
take
take
the
general
way
that
that
massing
of
that
small
edition
is
subordinate
to
the
main
house
without
needing
it
to
be
specifically
10
feet.
Q
I
think
that
would
that
would
really
help
our
proposal,
and
the
other
thing
I
would
say
would
just
be
an
explanation
for
the
the
reason
that
the
porch
does
not
extend
all
the
way
across
the
south
facade,
and
we
we
did
that
for
for
two
reasons.
One
was
that
the
roof
would
cover
that
that
one
window
and
it
helps
our
in
meeting
the
passive
house
certification.
It
helps
that
we
have
more
windows
that
bring
in
solar
gains
in
the
winter
instead
of
shading
that
window
actually
on
the
south
side.
Q
Q
So
the
we
did
that
so
so
that
part
of
that
was
keeping
that
window
available
for
for
solar
gains.
That
helps
give
us
heat
energy
in
the
winter.
And
the
second
reason
is
that
if
we
bring
that
porch
all
the
way
across
there,
we
don't
want
to
give
a
confusing
entry
sequence
so
that
the
stairs
actually
we
can.
We
can
still
have
that
connection
to
the
front
to
the
right
and
boss
street
side
with
a
small
path.
But
people
won't
confuse
that
as
the
primary
entry.
Q
If
we
do
bring
the
porch
across,
we
either
have
to
have
access
sort
of
into
the
backyard
or
it
has
to
come
directly
out
onto
ride
and
bar.
And
so
I
I
feel
that
it's
it's
a
better
solution
to
to
hold
that
porch
back,
so
that
we
can
keep
that
connection
without
it
being
confused
as
a
primary
entrance.
Q
But
the
the
door
at
the
original
door
and
everything
is,
is
still
there
and
so
that
that's
if,
if
that
condition,
were
also
acceptable
or
to
keep
the
porch
as
proposed,
that
would
be
ideal.
But
we
we
would
accept
to
move
the
the
porch
roof
all
the
way
across
the
facade,
if
necessary.
Q
And
I
think
that's
I
think,
that's
all
that
we
have.
C
Thank
you
so
much
okay,
and
with
that
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing
and
we'll
consider
emotion,.
AA
Madame's
here
can
we
just
have
a
little
bit
of
discussion
about
the
variances
that
they
have
in
question?
First,
is
that
okay,
sure.
AA
I
think
it'll
maybe
make
our
motions
better
and
get
us
through
quicker
if
we
can
through
some
of
this
first,
I
just
first
went
to
address
the
setback
that
would
be
on
the
east
side
that
that
10-foot
one
in
our
guidelines
4.1.2.
A
Madam
chair,
just
a
point
of
clarification
that
section
of
the
guidelines
I
think,
has
been
poorly
written
in
the
past.
The
commission
has
considered
the
wall
plain
that
to
be
kind
of
a
side
wall,
plane
breakup
where
it's
just
a
couple
of
inches
where
you
can
have
where
you
are,
you
might
have
a
side
wall
plane,
and
then
you
do
an
addition,
and
you
want
to
kick
it
in
a
couple
additions.
You
want
to
differentiate
the
wall
plane
and
not
just
have
a
straight
wall
plane,
go
all
the
way
back
right.
A
The
wording
of
that
has
tripped
up
a
lot
of
people.
I
I
don't
think
you
know
we
generally
have
wanted
to
see
an
addition.
Come
all
the
way
up
to
the
front
of
the
facade
just
a
couple
of
in,
but
just
a
couple
of
inches
back.
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
clear,
just
based
on
past
precedent
and
how
we've
inserted
that
section
of
the
guideline.
F
Madam
chair
I'll
I'll
make
a
motion
to
help
continue
our
discussion.
Thank
you.
I
would
like
to
move
for
drh
21-72
for
approval
based
on
the
staff
report
and
the
conditions
in
it.
B
C
L
Madam
chair,
I
agree
with
commissioner
moroney
that,
because
that
addition
is
it's
set
back,
but
it's
also
a
lot
shorter
than
the
rest
of
the
house.
I
I
feel
like
it.
It's
not.
If
it
had
been
the
two
full
two
stores
like
the
rest
of
the
house,
I
think
it
would
have
needed
to
be
set
back
more,
but
because
of
its
diminished
size
to
the
rest
of
the
house.
I
I
would
agree
that
it
would
it
it's
fine
and
it
fits
our
guidelines.
C
Thank
you,
commissioner
weber
victoria,
go
ahead
and
call
the
vote.
H
B
H
B
H
E
Commissioners,
so
I
think
we
should
approve,
based
on
the
two
comments
that
we
had
previously
with
keeping
the
setback
as
proposed.
If
we're
really
concerned
about
it,
another
way
to
kind
of
fix
that
problem
is
to
use
different
either
materials
or
different
within
its
siding.
So
that
is
not
seamless
from
the
original
house
to
the
edition.
So
maybe
that's
up
for
discussion.
AA
Adam
cheryl
attempt
I
moved
to
approve
drh
2172
with
all
of
the
staff
conditions.
With
the
exception
of
the
addition,
setback
can
stay
as
it's
currently
drawn
in
their
plans.
H
C
Next,
on
tonight's
agenda
is
item
number
five
drh21-00075
richard
wilmott
at
1213,
north
5th
street
ted.
Can
we
please
have
the
report?
Thank.
A
A
A
A
The
applicant
has
taken
a
design
used
designed
to
break
up
some
of
the
massing
as
well,
so
we
believe,
with
that
reduction
in
height,
that
it
would
could
be
an
acceptable
structure,
and
these
are
the
side
elevations
going
back
to
the
site
plan.
You
also
note
that
another
issue
is
the
lot
coverage
which
is
at
39.
A
The
applicant
claim
has
has
which
he
can
explain
to
you,
but
there
is
a
large
covered
patio
in
the
back
that,
if
that
cover
is
removed
off
the
patio,
it
could
get
the
project
down
just
to
just
under
35.
I
believe-
and
these
are
just
some
photos
of
the
adjacent
houses
as
you
can
see.
This
is
about
a
one,
maybe
one
and
a
half
story,
and
then
a
one
and
a
half
to
a
partial
two
story
to
the
north,
and
these
are
some
houses
throughout
the
neighborhood.
A
These
are
the
concerns
that
I
mentioned,
so
we
do
have
a
condition
to
reduce
it,
to
28
feet
to
peak
and
to
get
to
35
percent
no
higher
than
35
percent
and
with
those
conditions,
we
could
recommend
approval
of
this
project.
I
Richard
wilmot
chrysalis
architecture
and
planning
addresses
3914
east
presidential
drive,
meridian,
idaho
commissioners.
Thank
you
for
the
time
this
evening.
I'll
try
to
make
this
brief.
We
were
proposing
a
as
ted
mentioned,
a
new
new
single-family
residential
project
with
a
detached
garage.
I
Our
our
current
proposal
is
such
that
we
have
a
main
level
and
a
basement
level,
the
with
the
covered
front,
porch
and
the
covered
rear
porch.
We
we
understand
that
the
the
rear
porch
puts
us
over
the
lot
coverage
that
is
desired
at
35
and
we
would
be
at
34.7
percent
if
we
were
to
make
that
portion
of
the
project
uncovered.
I
Ideally
because
of
the
connection
to
the
the
main
great
room
of
the
house,
the
central
space,
the
central
living
area,
it
would
be,
it
would
be
nice
to
be
able
to
have
the
ability
to
provide
access
to
a
covered
space
outdoors
via
the
via
the
rear
porch.
But
if,
if
that
becomes
a
reason
for
denial,
then
we
can
certainly
reconsider
and
do
do
an
uncovered
porch
back
there.
I
However,
the
roof,
the
roof
slope
we've
taken
fairly
great
care
in
terms
of
providing
variation
of
design
and
roof.
Slope
and
massing
of
the
of
the
project
to
be
fairly
compatible
with
what
we
see
is
this
as
the
traditional
style
of
this,
how
of
this
home
being
sort
of
a
craftsman,
type
architectural
style.
So
what
we
have
on
the
front
facade
ted.
Can
I
share
my
screen?
D
I
Beautiful
okay,
these
are
just
some
some
3d
perspectives
of
different
angles
of
the
of
the
helm.
We
have
the
front
porch
that
is
elevated.
The
main
floor
of
the
house
is
elevated
about
30
inches
as
we're
currently
proposing
it
above
the
average
grade
of
the
site,
and
so
that
in
effect,
pushes
the
home
up
taller
than
what
would
normally
be
accustomed
with
a
house
that
is
actually
sitting
at
grade.
I
But
we've
we've
taken
taken
the
care
to
be
sympathetic
to
this,
this
type
of
design
and
style
for
having
an
elevated
porch
and
an
elevated
main
floor,
and
the
the
wainscoting
in
that
particular
to
to
sort
of
offset
that
would
be
of
some
sort
of
stone
or
or
sandstone
material,
but
that
in
effect
then
elevates
the
overall
roof
peak
to
something
that
is
closer
to
31.
It
would
be
closer
to
28
if
we
weren't
in
fact
elevating
elevating
the
home.
I
As
you
see
here,
the-
and
this
is
this:
is
this
little
roof
here?
Is
the
one
we're
talking
about
over
the
covered
patio?
So
you
know
with
that.
If
this
were
to
be
uncovered,
we'd,
be
just
under
the
35
percent
and
and
be
in
in
full
compliance
and
wouldn't
have
wouldn't
have
much
concern
over
lock
coverage.
I
The
elevation
of
the
rear
garage
is
is
very
similar
to
the
main
house.
We
have
a
couple
of
dormers
to
lost
some
daylight
into
into
the
garage
space.
Basically
now
these
would
be
trusses
that
would
allow
for
some
storage
up
above
considering
the
garage
sizes
is
really
just
enough
to
accommodate
two
two
vehicles
with
that
we
we
don't
have
any
other
concerns
about
about
the
staff
report
other
than
the
two
being
the
roof
height
and
and
the
rear
patio.
We
would
like
to
try
to
maintain
coverage
on
the
rear
patio.
I
One
of
the
things
that
we
did
with
this
particular
design
and
and
its
orientation
on
the
site
is
that
there's
two
large
trees
on
the
site,
we're
anticipating
maintaining
those
at
the
front.
There
is
another
large
tree,
that's
not
necessarily
on
the
property.
It's
not
it's
on
an
adjacent
property,
that's
rather
large
and
we've
purposely
oriented
the
patio
and
and
the
the
functional
backyard
or
the
functional
rear
yard
to
orient
to
maintain
and
accept
kind
of
the
large
tree
canopy
that
would
occur
in
this
in
this
north
northwest
corner.
M
Testify,
I
am
kate,
henwood
1116
north
12th
street,
again
quick
comments.
We
just
do
ask
that
the
projects
stay
within
the
standard.
35
percent
lot
coverage.
Otherwise
we
support
staff's
recommendation
of
approval.
C
C
I
C
F
I've
I've
got
a
madam
chair.
Can
I
have
a
comment?
First,
please
possible,
usually
I'm
the
one
giving
a
motion
first.
So
thank
you
for
letting
me
do
that.
I
just
wanna
I'm
interested
in
the
opinion,
the
rest
of
the
commissioners
on
the
height
of
the
house
on
the
staff's
report
and
recommended
conditions.
F
It
does
suggest
28
feet
for
a
maximum
height
instead
of
32.
Even
that,
I
think,
is
a
significant
height
of
this
property.
If
you
looked
at
the,
if
you
look
at
the
street
view
on
this
block,
all
the
the
homes
are,
I
believe
all,
but
one
are
one
story
and
not
story
and
a
half
they're
one
story:
they're
short
houses.
So
it's
really
out
of
character
for
this
block,
I
think
for
even
28
feet.
There's.
F
Guidelines
that
says
it
needs
to
be
28
feet,
or
that
specifically-
and
it
is
noted
that
the
previous
home
on
this
lot
was
24
feet
high,
so
I've
just
got.
I've
got
some
concerns
on
the
height
and
I'm
interested
in
the
other
commissioner's
comments.
Thank
you.
AA
I
just
have
to
agree
with
koski
I
feel
like
if
you're
starting
from
scratch,
it's
pretty
easy
to
meet
our
requirements,
and
so
I'm
it's
hard
for
me
to
find
a
reason
to
be
flexible
with
the
lot
coverage
or
the
height,
where
it's
being
designed
specifically
to
be
in
this
place
and
they're
not
working
with
around
like
a
a
project
and
trying
to
make
it
work.
So
that's
what
I
have
to
say.
C
Thank
you.
I
saw
a
lot
of
nods,
so
would
somebody
like
to
make
a.
C
F
And
maybe
I
need
to
make
a
motion
first.
I
guess
I
I'm
just
wondering
if
the
other
commissioners
are
have
a
feeling
that
28
feet
would
be
a
good
height
or
if
it
needs
to
be
less
I'd,
really
like
to
help
the
applicant
move
through
and
get
going
on
their
projects.
So
I'd
rather
not
deny
something
if
we
don't
have
to,
but
28
feet
seems
high
to
me.
So
I'm
I'm
I'd
love.
If
someone
would
make
a
motion.
C
I'll
refrain
from
making
a
motion,
but
I'll
give
my
thoughts.
I
suppose
24
feet
was
a
number
that
I
felt
maximumly
comfortable
with.
I
still
think
even
then
that's
a
little
bit
high,
but
as
a
top
number
I
I
would
be
personally
okay
with
that.
I
don't
know
if
that's
helpful
to
anyone,
but
we
do
have
two
more
applications
to
get
through
this
evening.
So
if
we
could
make
a
motion
for
the
sake
of
everyone's
time.
F
F
I'll
give
it
a
shot
I'll
make
a
motion
for
drh
21-75.
F
For
denial,
the
project
based
on
its
height
in
the
neighborhood,
and
I
would
encourage
the
applicant
to
work
with
city
staff
to
to
bring
something
forward
that
reach
that
is
closer
to
24
feet
in
height
that
would
better
fit
in
the
neighborhood.
Thank
you.
AC
AC
I
just
was
trying
to
look
for
the
notes
from
our
like
for
the
summary,
because
I
agree
with
commissioner
koski
and
maroney
with
regards
to
height
as
well
as
lot
coverage,
but
I
thought
we
had
notes
where
we
could
approve
it
recognizing
I
was
trying
to
see
if
we
could
frame
it
with
an
approval
recognizing
that
we
wanted
it
to
be
the
lot
coverage
of
35,
and
but
I
don't
know,
I
can't
find
the
notes
that
would
appropriate
like
the
height
not
to
exceed.
AC
I
think
the
way
that
they
have
it
in
the
notes
is
the
peak
of
the
house
shall
not
exceed
28
inches.
The
revised
plan
should
be
reviewed
and
approved
by
staff
prior
to
spending
the
building
permit,
but
it
sounds
like
everyone's
wanting
24,
not
28.,.
C
AA
B
L
Because
it
already
says,
though,
the
maximum
lot
coverage
should
be
35
percent,
so
we-
and-
and
I
don't
know-
if
there's
anything
else
in
here-
that
we
would
want
to
amend,
but
we
could
amend
that.
I
guess
the
question
I
have
is
there's
house
1209
next
door,
and
I
my
thought
is-
is
that
it
shouldn't
be
either
higher
than
that
house
or
higher
than
24
feet.
AC
Yes,
this
is
commissioner
rupp,
and
I
was
I
had
to
find
e,
but
I
was
in
support
of
approval
based
on
the
the
conditions
of
approval
based
on
staff,
so
I
I
feel
comfortable
with
28
inches.
So
that's
the
motion
of
the
table
right
now
is
not
that,
but
I
just.
C
Wanna
eat,
would
you
like
to
amend
your
motion,
or
would
you
like
to
go
ahead
and
vote
on
that.
F
No
I'd
like
to
humanitarian
commissioners
I'd
like
to
keep
it
at
24
feet.
That
was
the
significant
part
of
the
of
the.
F
I
would
like
to
you
know
be
great
if
I
could,
if
we
could
have
the
motion
to
approve
with
the
condition
that
it
meets
24
feet
in
height,
but
I
believe
by
taking
eight
feet
off
on
height
of
that
house,
it's
going
to
be
a
complete
redesign
and
then
we'd
be
approving
something
that
we
have
no
idea
what
it's
going
to
look
like.
So
I
will
keep
my
motion
as,
as
is.
C
Okay
victoria,
would
you
please
call
the
role.
H
C
Would
someone
like
to
make
a
motion
so
we
can
get
things
moving.
L
I'll
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion
that
we
approve
drh
21-0075
with
staff's
recommendations,
as
noted
in
the
staff
report.
B
H
C
Okay,
we
have
two
more
applications
this
evening.
I
would
like
to
get
through
them
so
that
there
are
no
deferrals
to
next
month's
meeting,
so
if
we
can
be
as
efficient
as
possible
just
again
to
value
everyone's
time.
The
next
item
we'll
be
hearing,
is
drh
item
number
six.
C
B
A
A
A
With
this
structure
the
way
it's
designed
it
does
so
I'll
just
go
over
quickly.
Some
of
the
issues
that
staff
had
it
does
extend
in
front
of
the
wall
plane
of
the
house,
which
is
generally
discouraged
and
again
it's
unfortunate.
The
house
faces
eastman
instead
of
the
length
of
the
property
towards
7th,
but
we
do
have
a
condition
of
approval
that
the
garage
be
pulled
back.
The
adu
and
garage
be
pulled
back
to
not
extend
beyond
the
main
wall
plane
of
the
house.
Fronting
eastman.
A
A
This
is
the
main
floor
plan
on
the
right,
and
so
this
is
the
upstairs
on
the
left,
and
the
upstairs
should
just
cover
this
right
side
here
with
the
wall
plane
of
that
garage
door.
So
so
the
second
story
just
comes
up
to
here,
so
there
was
just
some
confusion
on
the
way
I
was
reviewing
these
these
floor
plans,
because
if
you
look
at
the
floor
plan,
so
it
should
be
stepped
back
here
with
the
garage
coming
with
this
wall
here,
but
it
appears
there's
just
a
straight
wall
plane
on
that
rear
elevation.
A
And
these
are
the
these
also,
these
elevations,
I
don't
think,
are
labeled
correctly.
This
should
actually,
I
think,
be
the
right
elevation,
and
this
one
is
the
left
elevation
if
you're
looking
at
it
from
the
street
from
eastman
street,
so
just
some
some
alterations
to
make
it
to
make
it
consistent.
A
A
C
Thank
you,
ted
is
the
applicant
present
perfect
if
you'd
like
to
come
forward
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record,
and
you
have
20
minutes.
J
C
A
C
J
The
the
spirit
of
the
design
was
to
more
utilize
the
space
as
it's
traditionally
intended,
and
so
the
layout
of
the
original
home,
where
the
structure
the
front
door
at
one
point
was
facing
7th
street,
and
so
in
the
in
the
neighborhood
directly.
J
It
would
also
help
with
that
setback
as
well,
and
it's
just
kind
of
a
weird
thing,
because
you've
got
this
side:
yard
setback,
which
is
typically
five
five
feet
and
we're
dealing
with
something
that
you
can't
really
build
a
standard
garage
on
that
would
be.
That
would
be
typical
and
normal
in
this
type
of
situation,
with
a
rear
setback,
and
so.
J
Let's
see
height
as
well,
the
height
of
this
is
the
is
the
same
height
as
the
existing
home
and
then
what's
right.
Next
to
it,
concerning
massing
is
also
it's
lower
than
the
building
right
next
to
it
as
well.
J
By
about
eight
feet,
and
so
in
the
spirit
of
you
know
the
neighborhood,
I
feel
that
the
height
is
appropriate,
the
massing
is
appropriate
and
if
we
do
pull
it
back
and
put
more
of
that
living
area
up
above
the
garage,
then
I
think
we
can
achieve
a
smaller
building
envelope
and
and
more
appropriately
meet
the
the
setbacks.
D
M
Hello,
kate,
henwood,
1116
north
12th
street
just
quickly
wanted
to
say
that
nina
appreciates
that
the
project
is
well
under
the
35
law
coverage
guideline
and
that
there
is
no
increase
in
impermeable
paving.
So
we
support
the
staff
recommendation
to
approve.
C
Thank
you,
miss
henwood.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
tonight
wishing
to
testify?
C
It
doesn't
seem
we
have
anyone
if
the
applicant
would
like
you
have
five
minutes
for
rebuttal
or
you
can
yield
your
time,
they're
gonna
yield.
So
with
that,
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing
and
we'll
consider
emotion.
F
A
man
I'll
put
together
a
motion
to
try
to
get
discussion
started
got
I
I
see
some
pretty
significant
and
glaring
items
here
that
will
will
back
my
motion.
My
motion
will
be
to
deny
drh
21
dash
77,
based
on
the
front
setback
requirement
of
20
feet
and
the
proposal
six
feet.
Your
your
14
foot
over
the
setback
requirement,
a
rear
setback
has
got
a
15
foot
requirement
and
is
proposed
five
feet.
You're
10
feet
over
the
setback
requirement.
F
The
house,
the
house
itself-
is
only
one
inch
taller
than
this
edu
proposed
and
based
on
6.1.10
in
our
desired
guidelines.
F
F
AA
I
just
have
a
point
of
clarification:
the
15
foot
setback.
I
think
I
think
it's
13
feet
on
here,
because
they'd
be
coming
in
from
the
alley
right.
So
like
the
back
of
the
garage
where
it
says
five
feet,
I
think
that's
not
where
the
garage
door
is
right.
The
garage
door
is
on
the
left
side.
Is
that
am
I
reading
this
wrong
or.
A
No,
madam
chair
commissioners,
the
garage
will
be
loading
from
the
alley
this
way
because
of
the
orientation
of
the
the
it's
a
strange
orientation
on
this
lot.
So
this
rear.
A
You
know
if
the
law,
if
the
property
was
facing
7th
street,
like
the
rest
of
the
properties,
this
would
be
a
5-foot
side
setback,
but
unfortunately,
it's
a
rear
setback
which
is
required
to
be
15
feet.
So
this
is
the
rear
along
here,
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
and
and
it
needs
to
be
by
code
15
feet
same
with
the
front.
A
F
Madam
chair,
I
have
some
additional
comments.
If
I
could
so
my
biggest
concern
here
is
is
where
we're
pushing
we're
exceeding
the
boundaries
in
multiple
cases
we're
the
proposal
exceeds
the
rear
setback
by
a
lot
10
feet.
I
consider
it
a
lot
from
ted's
clarification.
There.
We
are
now
with
the
front
set
back
we're
they're
exceeding
that
by
nine
feet.
F
I
think
the
height
is
a
concern.
One
inch
difference.
F
While
that
may
be
less
in
height
from
the
house
that
doesn't
I
would
I
would
I'm
considering
it
not
subservient
potentially
and
then
the
also
the
issue
that
it's
in
closer
to
the
street
than
the
house
is
so
we're
really
really
exceeding
on
many
bounds,
and
that's
that's
why
I
voted
for
my
denial.
Thank
you.
H
C
Sorry
is
there
a
second,
I
will
second
his
motion.
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Rep
any
discussion
before
we
vote.
AC
C
H
B
C
Okay,
our
last
application.
This
evening
item
number
seven
drh21-00078
byron,
falwell
at
1707,
north
9th
street
ted.
Can
we
please
have
the
report.
A
A
And
this
is
a
proposed
site
plan,
so
this
as
far
as
the
work
that
will
be
visible
on
this.
The
addition
here
to
the
side.
A
You
know
the
commission
in
the
past
has
approved
additions
that
match
the
height
side.
Editions
that
match
the
height
of
the
existing
house
staff
did
not
add
a
condition
of
approval
concerning
that,
but
just
brought
it
up
as
a
discussion
item
for
the
commission,
and
with
that
I
will
stand
for
questions.
AD
I've
had
the
pleasure
of
working
with
the
homeowners
for
the
past
few
months
on
producing
a
right-sized
remodel
project
that
will
accommodate
their
large
family
and
provide
a
design
that
coordinates
and
contributes
to
the
existing
historic
home.
This
working
class
victorian
house
is
in
need
of
structural
stabilization
and
waterproofing
in
the
existing
sandstone
foundation.
AD
The
remaining
changes
to
the
exterior
are
in
the
form
of
two
modestly
sized
editions
one
to
the
south,
which
is
visible
from
the
street
and
one
to
the
west,
which
faces
the
rear
of
the
property.
The
south
edition
has
been
set
back
from
the
historic
home
facade
by
12
inches
per
the
department
of
interior
standards.
AD
E
E
A
little
slow,
I
have
a
question
for
the
architect.
I
was
just
wondering:
can
your
project
be
achieved
without
the
side
edition
if
it
were
to
be
put
on
the
rear
or
the
radiation
made
larger.
AD
AD
The
south
edition
is
kind
of
an
an
attempt
to
provide
the
living
space
that
that
parlor
room
doesn't
really
provide
for
the
family.
AD
The
the
existing
historic
house
is
kind
of
a
warrant
of
small
rooms
and
that
that
parlor
addition,
often
the
on
the
front
of
the
building,
is
such
a
design,
iconic
design
feature
of
the
existing
house
that
we
didn't
want
to
do
anything
with
that,
of
course,
and
so
the
the
south
edition
really
there
provides
the
living
and
dining
room
spaces
that
are
required
to
make
the
house
livable.
M
Kate
henwood
1116
north
12th
street
just
wanted
to
comment
that
nina
appreciates
the
design
and
the
limited
lot
coverage
and
just
the
fact
that
their
rehabilitating
and
adding
on
to
an
existing
home,
rather
than
demolishing
so
we
support
the
staff
recommendation
of
approval.
Thank
you.
C
E
So
I
I
guess
I'll
motion,
so
I
motion
to
deny
drh21-0007
based
on
our
design
guidelines
that
is
generally
not
appropriate
to
construct
a
new
edition
that
creates
an
appearance
inconsistent
with
the
historic
character
of
the
building
use,
which
is
4.1.1,
point
sorry,
4.1.10
and
then
also
4.1.11
over
power
cover,
obscure
or
eliminate,
historically
significant
architectural
stylistic
character
pending
features
such
as
windows,
storage,
porches
and
roof
lines.
E
F
Yeah,
I'm
sure
I've,
I'm
I'm
open
for
again
for
comments
from
the
other
commissioners
on
this
one.
I
actually
agree
with
commissioner
brown
on
four
point.
F
One
point:
one:
zero
and
four
point,
one
point,
one
one:
if
you,
if,
if
ted,
maybe
you
could
pull
up
a
slide
on
page
426
on
our
slide,
it's
the
front
photo
of
the
house.
F
One
one
more
the
very
front
shot.
I
have
it
there
we
go
knowing
this
block
and
knowing
this
street
and
knowing
this
house,
it's
it's
a
it's
a
skinny
house
and
and
it's
it's
front-facing
elevation.
F
As
you
see,
part
of
the
defining
characteristic
of
the
historic
part
of
this,
I
believe,
is
the
fact
that
this
house
isn't
very
wide
and
while
we've
approved
additions
on
sides
of
homes,
if
it's
set
back
from
the
front,
the
distance
that
we're
looking
at
here,
I
think
what
really
is
affecting
my
thoughts
is
that
that
addition
on
the
south
is
next
to
that
open
porch.
F
So
if
the
for
instance,
if
the
addition
would
be
on
the
north
side,
I
don't
I
don't
know
if
the
impact
would
be
as
great,
but
I
think
that
addition
on
the
cell
side,
even
though
it's
set
back
from
the
front
of
the
house,
is
right
next
to
that
open
porch.
So
it
it
very
much
shares
a
similar
plane
while
be
a
couple
inches
off,
maybe
of
the
of
the
front
wall
of
the
of
the
porch.
I
guess
so,
I'm
that's
why
I'm
really
struggling
with
this
one?
F
I'm
I'm
struggling
I'd,
be
interested
to
hear
what
other
commissioners
have
to
say.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
commissioner
koski.
Would
anyone
else
like
to
offer
thoughts
before
we
vote
on
this
motion.
AA
C
You,
commissioner,
moroney
with
that
victoria,
would
you
please
call
the
role.
B
AA
Madam
chair,
I
move
to
approve
drh2178
with
staff.
I'm
sorry
with
staff's
constraints.
H
C
That
concludes
our
hearing
for
this
evening.
Thank
you
all
so
much
for
your
participation
and
we
will
re
convene
at
our
april
26th
hearing.