Historic Preservation Commission

Transcription

1 Historic Preservation Commission Hearing Minutes of September 20, 2004 Commission Members Present Scott Chandler/Chairman, Steve Lord, Clay Carley, Jennifer Stevens, Mark Baltes, Rachel Reese, Cathy Sewell Staff Members Present Tempra Wilson, Jeff Neberman, Teresa Sobotka, Nicki Heckenlively Other Items Presentation by Karen Bubb, Boise City Arts Commission Proposed Boise City / ACHD Art Projects on Warm Springs Ms. Bubb: ACHD has approached BCAC to inquire if we are willing to take the lead in writing a joint grant application to the National Endowment on the Arts for public art in the streetscape on Warm Springs between Broadway and Penitentiary Road. Specifically, they are interested in funding artist-designed archways, art in traffic circles, or/and art in the pedestrian areas in front of the school on Warm Springs. BCAC is interested and willing to partner with them on this project. I would be responsible for writing the NEA grant and implementing the artist selection process. ACHD is offering matching funds and project coordination. As this is a Historic District, I want to make sure that I approach this project in a way that is in compliance with the wishes of the Historic Preservation Commission. Do you have guidance for me as to how I should approach this project or specific recommendation? What criteria should I apply when identifying the opportunities in the call for artists? Are there other considerations or constituents I should involve and then what should the process be? How involved would you like to be in the project planning and artist selection? Is it best to communicate with you through reports or is there a member of the committee that I could actually engage in a sub committee to be on the selection panel? I would like to make sure that this is a project that was pursued with the Historic nature of the neighborhood in mind as would be required. Obviously as well, to do it right from the beginning. I am coming here in the beginning before anything is initiated. Mr. Neberman: Karen, I think it would be important that whatever kind of panel you put together you have a member of the Historic Preservation Commission. This is going to have to receive a Commission level Certificate of Appropriateness. It is important that we have at least a

2 Page 2 of 40 Commissioner involved in the inaudible historically could just be a disaster, bigger and bigger, and then this Commission wouldn t issue you a Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Bubb: I do not want to get to that point. Mr. Neberman: We won t. That s not going to happen, but my sense is someone other than myself and a Commissioner should be on whatever Committee you finally put up so at least somebody will be thinking about it more historically than just artistically. Commissioner Stevens: Mark are you interested considering your background? Commissioner Baltes: I d be interested in being on that selection panel. It disallows me from being able to participate in the call for artists. Commissioner Stevens: That is an important consideration. Commissioner Baltes: That s okay. In this instance, I would rather represent the Commission on the selection panel part of it than worry about being a participant. Ms. Bubb: Are you sure? Would you like to think about it a little first? Commissioner Carley: You may regret that down the road. Commissioner Baltes: No. I m okay with that really. I need to explore other things anyway. I shouldn t immerse myself everything in Historic. Commissioner Stevens: Would it necessarily preclude him from submitting? Ms. Bubb: It would. Commissioner Stevens: Okay. Ms. Bubb: I take it every Commissioner on this Commission supports Art themes. Commissioner Stevens: Absolutely. Commissioner Baltes: We don t have a quorum to vote on it at this point, but I think they d find it very compatible. Ms. Bubb: Okay. Are there particular criteria or should I just work with Mark on identifying what those criteria would be? Commissioner Carley: Height, massing, scale. Commissioner Baltes: Setbacks. Don t forget the setbacks.

3 Page 3 of 40 Ms. Bubb: In working with ACHD I m sure I ll be informed of those issues. Mr. Neberman: We have guidelines for public inaudible just whatever seems to be appropriate. Ms. Bubb: Okay. Commissioner Carley: I think it leads to false sense of history. Ms. Bubb: If I go forward with this then in preparing the grant perhaps, I could utilize you as a reviewer on those sorts of documents? Commissioner Baltes: Certainly. Ms. Bubb: Then Mark will report back to the Commission and notify me when I should be doing presentations? Commissioner Baltes: Yes. Mr. Neberman: Whenever you are ready to go take into consideration that you are three or four weeks out from when you submit an application of getting the funds. When timing becomes really important let us know in advance. Ms. Bubb: Okay. You know me well don t you? Mr. Neberman: I know you really well. You re fantastic about procedure and staying within dates and times. I just wanted to let you know you ve got that lag because we have to give public notice and all that. Ms. Bubb: The application would not be ready to go out until March 2005 and then the project activity will occur in So we re pretty far ahead. Then they actually have three years to complete so we re pretty far out. I appreciate your comments. Mr. Neberman: Thank you. Ms. Bubb: I ll be checking in with you. Commissioner Carley: Thanks Karen. Commissioner Stevens: Thanks Karen.

4 Page 4 of 40 Open Public Hearing DRH / Old Boise, LLC Location: 113, 117, & 119 South 5th Street Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish three existing houses and construct a surface parking lot. Chairman Lord: I would like to ask my colleagues on the Commission if any of them have visited the subject matter site. Commissioner Carley: Two comments. One, I have visited all sites on all matters today and the second matter is because of my personal interest in DRH I will be recusing myself from the proceedings. Thank you. Commissioner Stevens: I also have visited this site as well as the other items on the agenda today. I also wanted to explain to the public today that I was suppose to be in Florida this week, because of what is happening in Florida I was not able to go on vacation, and therefore, on the short notice was not able to find childcare for my baby. I apologize in advance if she becomes a little disruptive and I ll do the best I can from the (inaudible) out, but that is why I am here with her and I hope that you all are understanding. Commissioner Sewell: I have visited that site. Commissioner Baltes: I too have visited that site. Commissioner Reese: As did I. Chairman Lord: I have not. Although I am familiar with it and have been a life long resident of Boise and have worked in the area through most of my early adulthood. With that, could we have the staff report please? Mr. Neberman: The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the three existing houses at 113, 117, and 119 South 5th Street and construct an interim surface parking lot in place of them. The houses were constructed sometime in the 1920 s and staff will refrain from reading pages two and the first part of three and skip to issue #1 on page three. In order to receive a Certificate of Appropriateness under the Historic Preservation Ordinance the applicant will need to meet three of the five findings sited below and staff will now go through the five. Staff would also request that when a vote is taken there be a separate vote on each of the five findings should that be the desire of the Commission. Finding A: That the buildings, project site or structure is not classified as contributory to the district. The houses have been classified as noncontributing in the district in the 1979 survey. Consequently, the applicant has made Finding A.

5 Page 5 of 40 Finding B: That the building, object, site or structure cannot reasonably meet national, state or local criteria for designation as a historical or architectural landmark. There is a letter in your file from September 13, 2004 from the State Historic Preservation Office that states that it would be individually eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Consequently, the applicant has not met Finding B. Finding C: That the demolition of the building, object, site or structure would not adversely affect the character of the district and/or the adjacent properties. Staff has relied on a letter submitted by Mr. Charles Hummel and Mr. Hummel has four points in his letter: 1. The long-term replacement structure will contain residential housing, which is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Of course, there is no guarantee that will be achieved at any point in the future but it is listed as the intent of the applicant at some point in the future. 2. Mr. Hummel has also indicated that the current houses are unusable and staff will consider that issue in depth. 3. The current houses do not contribute visually or aesthetically to the district. 4. Single-family houses do not relate to the primary historic character of the district, which is commercial and multi family mixed use. In this case, staff would call attention to the application in Hyde Park for the demolition of the old hotel there. One of the findings of the Commission was that was a mixed-use area. Halfcommercial, half-residential and that was historically the appropriate mix for Hyde Park. In this case, the downtown core of Old Boise is primarily commercial and multi-family structures. Staff has deferred to Mr. Hummel s analysis in particular that the single-family houses do not relate to the primary historic character of the district. Staff would recommend that the Commission find that the applicant has met Finding C. Finding D: The owner has reasonably demonstrated that rehabilitation of the building, object, site, or structure would not be economically feasible. Staff used this application as being unique in that there is a hardship here and that hardship very specifically is the presence of the Boise Canal, which runs through the south side of the property. You have in your packets a considerable amount of information regarding clean up costs, past maintenance and relationships that past tenants have had with the mold problem in the houses. Given the condition of the foundations, the presence of the canal, and testimony regarding the reoccurring mold problem in all three units staff contends that the applicant has reasonably demonstrated that the rehabilitation of the houses would not economically feasible. The applicant has met Finding D. Finding E: Plans have been submitted to redevelop the property and such plans will have a positive effect on the district. The applicant is requesting surface parking that is not called for under the Boise City Design Guidelines for Historic Districts. Consequently, staff contends that the applicant has not met Finding E.

6 Page 6 of 40 Other considerations and staff s biggest concern with this request is that the parking lot will turn into a permanent feature. While staff has the highest degree of confidence in the applicant s intention of developing the property in a manner consistent with Historic Design Standards and the Comprehensive Plan goals, there s also this concern that the other property owners may use this case as a precedent under which they could create surface parking. Staff would urge the Commission to fully enunciate the special circumstances that lead to the decision should the request for demolition be approved. Staff is recommending approval of the request based on the Findings of Fact and Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1 through 7. Commission Stevens: Jeff, I m curious and just want to clarify you said there is no way to ensure that this is truly an interim parking lot. Can we in our conditions of approval, do something to ensure that something gets built there? My guess is no because we can t bring the houses back once they are gone. Mr. Neberman: That is a question that perhaps would be better addressed by the legal staff because that is a topic of discussion that staff had prior to the hearing. Ms. Sobotka: There is a parking lot ordinance for parking interim and it states that you can have a parking lot for up to five years. However, the weird part of it is that you can renew a number of times so I am not sure exactly why they call it interim because it could be theoretically an extremely long interim period. I cannot see or know of any precedence and I have tried to think this through as to why you could not put specific conditions of approval on in other words saying that five years is too long if you want to say that or five years is maximum, whatever you wanted, and there would need to be something built within X number of years. I also see a secondary problem of once you have a parking lot and then say for purpose of conversation within two years or three years you would need to have something brought back to you. If you don t like whatever structure design that they bring back, then Okay, leave it as a parking lot so that can be problematic too. You could also before you finalize approval, as we usually do, look at whatever design and make sure that you would be comfortable with that even though you have given two to three years to get it built. You may even want to look at a bond issue. Even though the current applicant is an extremely reliable person, you never know what the future holds with either, economic the argument is that will this is a rough time to be building more residential back. Well, I don t know that it won t be a rough time five years from now to be building residential. Once this is a parking lot, is it just going to be a parking lot? What if the lot gets sold? What is the next person going to do? If there was a bond attached maybe that would give an incentive to commit for rezone or something else if necessary to keep it moving. Those are at least some ideas that I thought might help you with that issue. Mr. Neberman: The Chairman of the Commission, Scott Chandler sent an to staff this morning with his thoughts that he wanted to have made as part Chairman Lord: Do you know if this has been shared with the applicant? Mr. Neberman: It has not. It came in this morning about 11:00 o clock.

7 Page 7 of 40 Chairman Lord: We need to make sure that occurs then. If any of the applicant s representatives who would like to have a chance to verify I ll let the record reflect that it is an that expresses a concern about the lack of landscaping in the event that this is something that does become a permanent or extended term (inaudible) so raising the question about whether landscaping might be an alternative or acceptable mitigation in the event that this surface parking becomes a somewhat long-term use for this particular parcel. Ms. Sobotka: Back to that interim parking ordinance. It does not address or minimally address the significance of landscaping so that was something else that we kicked around was that you may want to heighten the amount landscaping. Chairman Lord: While the parking lot ordinance may not talk about it, though I m sure that it is certainly within the applicable, we could request as part of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Ms. Sobotka: Yes. That is what I m to trying to say. Commissioner Baltes: Since we are talking about the demolition and ultimately the interim parking lot, shouldn t we be looking at or shouldn t we be addressing some sort of change of use criteria here. We are talking about a change of use in going residential to parking. Chairman Lord: That is a good question. Commissioner Baltes: It was never brought up in our staff report and as I understand it requires a certificate in and of itself as a separate line item. Is that not correct? Chairman Lord: I m not sure if we defined well enough if it requires a separate line item or whether our approval would constitute approval for the change of use. If an argument can be made that we should do it whether or not our ordinance currently requires us to do it is something for Legal. Ms. Sobotka: You at least have authority in the State code to look at that and notice it s enabling legislation, which would allow you to, based on State code, regardless of how clearly their ordinance board deals with it since you do not have a process in place, I think you can do it either way. You can either take that as a separate issue that needs to be dealt with first or else you could have that as an issue criteria to weld as part of this particular application. Commissioner Baltes: Personally, I think we should look at that first. Chairman Lord: There is certainly nothing that would prohibit us from looking at that first in the course of our deliberations and if we want to ask the applicant if there is anybody from the public who wants to comment about it I think they certainly have the opportunity to do that. Ms. Sobotka: While looking at that in terms of how interim the parking lot will be because I can see (inaudible) put together.

8 Page 8 of 40 Doug Tamura (Applicants Representative / 499 Main Street / Boise, 83702) Mr. Tamura: We concur with the staff s findings that we need to (inaudible) the three apartments for demolition in the historic district. Clay did a real good job as far as including letters from the Industrial Hygiene Resources and Disaster Kleanup in regards to the ongoing mold situation. It also includes letters of termination from the tenants about the mold problem. What I talked to Clay about was the ongoing liability of health reasons for wanting to tear those buildings down. What he is looking for is an interim solution before he can do a nice large mixed-use project on that whole south half block. I met with Tempra to brainstorm with her if there was any way that you could condition future projects on something like that, which was difficult to come up with ideas. Even in a five-year window, the structure of the whole downtown area because of its potential growth down there, it is hard to tell what could be optimum for that location. In closing, the one thing that I wanted the Commission to re-review would be the letter from Charles Hummel supporting demolition of this project. We re here mainly to answer questions. Commissioner Stevens: So the reason we don t have a design for what may go there is because you are not sure in the next five years what the area will support. Is that what I am understanding? Mr. Tamura: I think there s two things that Clay is looking at. He is looking at even a bigger picture of even additional contiguous properties that might be included in part of this. He s got a master plan of what he would like to achieve there and that s an ongoing process. Commissioner Stevens: As a follow up to that, I assume you are talking about the property that currently houses Addies. Mr. Tamura: Well there s that and there s potentially even other contiguous properties that they re looking at. I think what they would like to do is one of the things they see as a necessary component in there is (inaudible) and so buying up property and go ahead and screen and some kind of parking structure within a mixed use project. As they assemble more property, it gives them ability to look at even more projects of what they could put in there. That is the part that makes it real complicated. The size and extent of what they re working on. Chairman Lord: Is it your understanding Mr. Tamura that presently the applicant is looking for aggregation or assembly of vicinal property? Mr. Tamura: Yes. Commissioner Sewell: Mr. Tamura, do you have any costs for demoing and then reconstructing the surface parking lot with that? Mr. Tamura: I don t believe Clay has gone to that extent yet. The first attempt off the top of my head I would think it would be around reconstruction of the site would be about $3.00 per

9 Page 9 of 40 square foot for both landscaping and parking. Demoing the buildings I would assume would be about $10,000 - $20,000 range for all three buildings. Commissioner Sewell: It s most likely going to exceed the cost of the mold remediation. We were given $18,000. Mr. Tamura: I think that was just on the one house. Commissioner Sewell: On the plan can you explain what the intentioned area as given a graphic description of that. Mr. Tamura: Usually what we typically have been doing in doing surface (inaudible) I also set on the Board with the Belgravia Association and one of the comments that we ve made to Clay is maybe there should be some more detail as far as the landscaping. Our Board more or less approved the demolition of the buildings, but until we saw more detail of what you guys talked about earlier it seemed like it would be a requirement. Chairman Lord: With that comment in mind would it make sense for us to I m just asking the question would certainly have a broader discussion and ask for public comment on it as well, but in viewing has the applicant had any interest in trying to submit this, and with detailed landscape plans might address some of those, What does it look like over the long term? Mr. Tamura: I think there s probably two ways we could accomplish that. Whether that becomes a condition of approval that staff has approved in a more detailed application of the landscaping. The bigger picture is the demolition issue and I think if we get past that and even the issue of the change of use. I think those are things we can address assuming we can get past the demolition. Whether we want to table that, we can resubmit, or handle that at staff level. Commissioner Sewell: The canal right now is causing the mold problem. Do you see that the canal is going to be a problem for future development? I m looking at the parking lot just to the south of this area across the street and that has been vacant for a long time and now we re potentially bringing in another parking lot and I am just wondering is something (inaudible) now or whatever that might be with any development. Mr. Tamura: I believe what s going to comes to the (audible) that once the new project goes in there the restructuring of that whole canal, and that type of tiling, and all of those things will be one of the requirements. Mold has only become an issue in the last two to three years and I think we recognize the potential liability there. Commissioner Stevens: It is probably in here somewhere, but can you remind me how big the lot is in square footage. The entire area where the parking lot would go. Do you remember? Mr. Tamura: I m guessing it s like is that a lot and a half?

10 Page 10 of 40 Mr. Neberman: It s two lots, but one is comprised of two, and one is one, so I would estimate that it s 100 by 80 or something like that. Mr. Tamura: But the standard BCOT is a 25 x 122 and a standard block is 300 x 122 and I believe this might be more than a lot so I am assuming that it s two lots so it s 50 x 122, 6,000. Commissioner Stevens: Okay. Mark Heath (176 S. Capitol Blvd. / Boise, 83701) Mr. Heath: We have also done the redevelopment of the Basque block at 610, 612 and 608 Grove Street and we are pretty much in support of demolition of these buildings because they don t add anything to the downtown core. We would sure like to see a parking lot become part of that area as it s become a very useful type of situation to have in that area and we don t see any further need for those buildings. They don t have anything to do with the historical need of the area and I think with what we have done in our block is try to increase the historic preservation in that area and we do not see any further need for those buildings. I think it would be very good to have those buildings gone. Chairman Lord: Thank you very much. Mike Hall (Capital City Development Corporation / 805 W. Idaho, Ste. 403 / Boise, 83701) Mr. Hall: Just a few comments. We provided a written recommendation that s attached to your report that you ve probably looked at. We do support staff s recommendation, which has been explained to you. We re comfortable with that. Staff s recommendation would provide the Commission, as I understand it provide the Commission an opportunity to review a revised landscape plan and a more detailed plan of the parking lot. In our recommendation, we did voice support for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of those houses. We also stated some concerns about a parking lot in that location. Parking lots tend to have a negative impact on the pedestrian environment on the street. On the other hand, his is a difficult situation as these situations usually are. We do not feel that the applicant has at least gotten in motion to some extent on redeveloping the site to a use that is more consistent with the river, urban plan and downtown plan for that area. Where by again we are comfortable with the condition and the requirement that they come back with an application for a parking lot with landscaping and our understanding is there are some landscaping features that could be added to make that a better pedestrian environment than what might be implied by the interim parking lot plans attached to the application. Ms. Sobotka: I have some comments that I would like to make so that the applicant can respond to them during rebuttal. You have three different buildings here, three different houses yet they re all being clumped together, if you will, and it would be appropriate, Jeff said to make Findings on each of the five criteria, which I agree with, but also on each building. I wanted to make sure that at least you would consider that. The next step if you go that way is on criteria number five. That the owner has reasonably demonstrated that rehabilitation of the buildings,

11 Page 11 of 40 object, site, or structure would not be economically feasible. Commissioner Sewell pointed out we have figures on one of them and the plan is $18,000 and are just being grouped together. Our very honest developer here said that Jeff looked into a lot of that so I just want to make sure that we re not hanging out there and basing three on figures for one. The reason I bring that to your attention is I know it should be arbitrary and capricious what this set of applications versus anything else that you do in the future. I do know in the past we ve had people really go out, look at it, and say, Okay this is what it costs to rehab and this is what the other costs are, so that you really have some pretty good figures there. I just hate to have you all decide based on I don t know if you ve got a good record in that situation. Commissioner Baltes: That s a very good point that Legal brings up. Especially in light of the fact that about a year ago or so we were asked to reevaluate some surveys of properties Downtown and in Hyde Park and everything, which staff noticed were probably categorized incorrectly. In that packet these three houses each listed individually were brought before us for evaluation because they show as being noncontributing, but in the eyes of staff they thought they were in fact contributing structures and should be evaluated as such. My feeling is that since we are talking about demolition here and this would be the last opportunity to really explore how those were categorized we should do that right now and look at them as Teresa, our legal advisor said, on a property by property basis. PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED Commissioner Reese: I am having a very difficult time with it and was happy to see that staff requested a letter from Charles Hummel. I have to agree with Mark when I start to look at criteria one and two. It s almost because you don t meet criteria two so the buildings are eligible for National Registry. It does go back to ask about meeting number one, and when you look at what defines a contributing building, you have to wonder if they re looked at today, surveyed today, well over 50 years old, so there you are just getting over the 50 year mark at that moment when those are being surveyed, and they are going to meet the National Registry criteria, and they have not been altered. In a lot of ways, I think that s an important point that would probably be considered contributing if resurveyed. That is the first point I would like to make and maybe that brings up more conversation. Commissioner Sewell: To respond to that I think this is a difficult issue and think Mr. Hall is right. I am not so sure, how I feel about reviewing these as isolated individual cases. It looks like the property at 119 S. 5th is really the one that has the mold issue and that the numbers that we received were for that property and it s probably the one that s right in line with the canal. I am not so sure allowing the removal of that one and maintaining the other two is maybe that is an option. I don t know. I think that point is brought forward at the Commission, but I do think even though they are marked as noncontributing I think that having a surface parking lot in that area, which is if you look at the map of that area it s filled with surface parking lots. I think that almost an entire block on both sides of the street would become a surface parking lot. There s also the lot between Interior Systems and I m not sure what that is now. Throughout this part of the district, there are a lot of surface parking lots so I am a little concerned with that. I think

12 Page 12 of 40 that parking is not an issue in that area. I think I have been able to find parking on any occasion whether on the street or in a lot and so I am not so sure about that either. Chairman Lord: My understanding is that when we are looking at demolition of structures according to State Law and my understanding of City Ordinance we should be looking at them on a structure-by-structure basis. I am somewhat concerned that the evidence seems to support demolition on one based on mold, but I haven t seen a lot of evidence. There seems to be this sort of generalization that says because one has mold we should presume they all do. I don t know that I have any evidence that I consider compelling that takes me in that direction. I think that the standard for demolition needs to be a high standard and I think typically we have applied a fairly high standard with regard to the proof we expect in a case like this when someone is making a demolition request. It may be that a surface parking lot is a good interim use while property assembly occurs so that a better ultimate use and maybe even a better fit with the rest of the neighborhood can occur, but I think we still have to walk through our process and we still have to look at our criteria. It might be that a better landscaping plan would suffice as a substitute for the property that is being requested for demolition. I m not going to say that I inevitably oppose demolition. I m not comfortable saying that on the record in front of me demolitions justified based on three of the five criteria we need to find. My thought would be that I feel more comfortable tabling or deferring so that the applicant can address those issues if that were appropriate. That s the direction I had. I don t think a compelling case has been made. I think looking at demolition a compelling case is something you should reasonably expect. I think about the controversy we ve had over other demolitions, which for better or for worse haven t been within ambit of historic preservation. I would tend to also comment on the notion that we now have a little bit more advanced and sophisticated understanding of what it means to create a historic district in a historic neighborhood. Based on the contemporary of today s standards for the creation of a historic district or historic neighborhood if the building was in it, it contributes to the neighborhood even though they may not have existed during the period of significance they have a contributory affect on the neighborhood and I think these tend to have that affect. I am worried about what seems to me to be a little bit of a surface parking in this area and I certainly understand all the problems. I ve dealt with commercial projects that run right next to the Boise canal in this neighborhood and I know exactly the dilemmas that it creates. My concern right now is the evidence in front of us and it has not established a compelling enough case for me to find that it either can t meet the National Register or it can t be rehabilitated. I think what I would like to see there is more evidence of what s wrong structurally with the other two. If I m missing something in staff s presentation and the applicant s presentation I certainly invite staff to fill me in on any blanks that I might be missing. It is probably a pretty good case made for the demolition of 119 based on the mold problem and unfortunately, once mold invades a house it is pretty hard to make it go away. I unfortunately happen to know about that because I am involved in litigation right now as an Attorney for people who are defending a mold case so I m very conscience and cognizant of the problems that occur when mold is found in a house, wet crawl space or a wet basement.

13 Page 13 of 40 Commissioner Stevens: Everybody has actually come pretty close to stating all of the concerns that I had, but I want to reiterate a couple of things. Number one, the idea that we need parking in that area is I sort of laugh because I moved here from the Bay area and if you ve ever tried to park there you know that s really what parking needs are. There are a lot of surface parking lots in the extremely close vicinity and I just do not see that we need more. Additionally, you read the letter from Trisha Canaday from the State Historic Preservation Office, and I just want to echo what you said Steve, and that is whether or not these are actually classified as contributing structures, they are in fact in my opinion, and they do contribute to the area. Trisha noted in her letter that this was originally a mixed use of it and while of course it has now become primarily commercial, the east homes do in fact have a historic place in this neighborhood. I do take issue with the idea that we need to tear them down. Even with the clearly difficult mold problem that exists at least 119, possibly 113 as well, and possibly all of them for all I know. I don t feel that it s been demonstrated that the costs of rehabilitating those or remediating those is anymore than demolitioning them and then doing a parking lot. In fact if you take the figures that Mr. Tamura brought to us approximately $20 K for the demolition and then approximately $3.00 a square ft. for the construction of the parking lot, if we re talking about 6,000-8,000 sq. ft. lot we are actually talking about comparable costs here. A remediate in the three houses or destroying them and building a parking lot. At this point, regardless of whether or not they come back with a landscaping plan I am strongly disinclined to approve the application for demolition of these houses. Commissioner Baltes: I would like to weigh in on the whole interim parking lot argument because I have lived in this town long enough to see that very, very few buildings ever grow out of parking lots. I think that Mr. Tamura sort of touched on ultimately what will happen down here and that is that other properties will be acquired and redeveloped and this will be the convenient parking for any of those developments. I think everybody sort of touches on a level of skepticism as to whether once a parking lot ever becomes anything else so I am real reluctant to accept any sort of interim plan that doesn t involve the ultimate redevelopment plan in place. In re-reading the letter from Charles Hummel where he talks about it s important that if these houses come down the replacement structures need to be contributing to the overall character of the district and all that kind of stuff. It makes me believe that Charles probably assumed that there was going to be reconstruction occurring there and that it wasn t going to be a lengthy fiveyear plus stay of it being surface parking. My feeling is that until we get further information I could not support this. Commissioner Sewell: In reading the letter in regard to the visual inspection for the mold most of it seems like maintenance issues. The dryer vent doesn t vent properly, the sewer line has a crack in it. I m not so sure whether the canal running through there I guess I m looking for data to indicate that it is indeed the canal causing the problem and not just lack of maintenance. I might be leaning towards, and hearing from the other Commissioners, possibly deferring this and getting a little more information. I am not so sure that a surface parking lot contributes more than having residential use down there on those houses. I think that is more the use we re looking for. Maybe I need a little bit more information.

14 Page 14 of 40 Commissioner Reese: Now this is zoned where these could be small commercial? Is that right? The building could have a tenant with a small business. Mr. Neberman: C5-HD, so commercial is an outright allowed use. Commissioner Reese: Along those lines I would like to comment that, I think that Finding five, to not meet that Finding that is a very big Finding I think to have, which is to have your redevelopment plans and what s going to happen next. That s not just a little Finding to not meet. That makes a difference. I think if there was a plan in place, drawings, and This is what s going to happen, that I would be much more comfortable in feeling like we move forward and this is going to be a positive move for the entire district and without that, it accentuates the other smaller problems that seem fixable. I am leaning the same, I feel like I need more information. Commissioner Stevens: I would like to echo what Commissioner Reese just said. I m not necessarily completely opposed to the demolition of these homes provided that there is a plan in front of us that meets with the guidelines that we set forth for this particular district. Again, I would like to also echo what Commissioner Baltes said regarding what Charles Hummel wrote and what he wrote, if I may quote, No one favors removal of buildings in historic districts unless their proved to be completely unusable and will be replaced with buildings which contribute to the historic ambiance of district without adverse affect on the other properties. I think we all want to respect Mr. Hummel s opinions because of his lengthy history in the area and I agree with him. We can t favor removal of these until we do in fact have something in front of us, which proves to us that what will replace the demolition will replace these structures and in fact contribute to the historic district. I wanted to make those points but I am not completely opposed to the demolition provided we do in fact have something in front of us that contributes. Ms. Sobotka: Most of your discussion here has been very open and I think you have some pretty good direction. To the developer, I am confused about the contributory versus the noncontributory. You all might want to talk about that a little bit more. In other words, I basically heard (inaudible) going into Is it contributory or noncontributory? Even if it s not it contributes over all. The criteria to look at the National Register, etc. and so it seems to me that in fairness to him you probably need to flush that a little bit more so he knows what direction to go on. Chairman Lord: Thank you Teresa. I struggle with our criteria A, which simple says the building project, site or structure is not classified as contributory to the district. Unfortunately, anything you put in view, I think until we have a classification that says something else, my perspective is you can t do anything to rebut the suggestion by staff, that the facts allow us to find the that criterion was met. Not withstanding I would like to call it contributing. The more I think of its class as non-contributing, whatever process we classify, until we do something to reclassify it we are stuck with that characterization.

15 Page 15 of 40 Ms. Sobotka: I agree exactly with that and you could of course have a hearing, but you would have to give notice to the developer so he d be able to bring in evidence one way or another on that. Commissioner Baltes: I think that is exactly the point. I think that we were asked to reevaluate these things because of staff s recommendation. They were erroneously classified in 1979 along with a number of other properties. I think these properties are due that type of scrutiny and evaluation so that they can stand up on their own merit. Where that process doesn t exist right now, I think unless our legal advisers tell us we can t do it, I think we should put in place a mechanism to make that happen. Ms. Sobotka: I think in your ordinance rewrite you are putting in a mechanism for that. I think what I am trying to tell you is even without that, if you provide notice and say we want to take up this item either as the first criteria, much like we were talking about taking up change of use, if we want to take up this item so the developer is ready to go and understands that this will be the item on the table, has evidence there, and staff has evaluated it, I think that is fair for you to go ahead and take up whether it s contributing or noncontributing. Just like I think it s fair for you to take up the change of use or not. However, I don t think you can kind of slide it in. Both of those issues would need to be specifically noticed up so the developer in time can research and address them. Chairman Lord: I think that s perfectly well stated and I think it s always appropriate when a government agency is trying to take action and expects an applicant to bear burden of proof. The applicant has to know the subject matter about which the burden of proof must be born. I know that s a mouth full but according to the (inaudible) of this proceeding, it will be appreciated. I ve put together a list of things and I ll go ahead and indicate what I think are the concerns that I ve heard and I think they are concerns that I probably agree with. One of the concerns is that we have is we don t have any evidence that suggests a need for change is use. Another concern that we have is that even though it may have been characterized in a survey as noncontributing it may in fact have been mistakeningly so characterized. The third item that I would like to bring out, is a little bit more specificity, has to do with our Criteria C and that is demolition of building, site, or structure without adversely affecting the character of the district and there (inaudible due to paper crumpling) obvious. I guess I have a concern about what happens when you replace existing structures with surface parking given the perception we all have, which is that surface parking is in excess in this particular area of the downtown core at the present. With respect to a particular thing, that staff noted under C1. Staff really noted something that I think as Commissioner Stevens identified probably is appropriate to place under Item E. I understand that there s interrelationship between those two, but Item E has to do with what property is there or what property is proposed to replace the property that s been demolished. Containing residential housing is probably a criteria that might appropriately fall some place else. I don t feel like the evidence in front of us right now demonstrates that it would not adversely affect the character of the district or the adjacent properties. I m not saying that we couldn t put together something that would convince me to the contrary. I think the area that s the most concern to me is that the owner hasn t demonstrated that rehabilitation to the building, object, site, or structure would not be economically feasible. I think again the structure required a pretty significant case

16 Page 16 of 40 to be made for the demolition. I guess that puts us in a position that gauging the consensus of the Commission correctly would be to suggest a referral so we can look at that additional information or we should deny it and ask for re-submittal. Ms. Sobotka: Is that on all three? Chairman Lord: I don t think we have enough information on all three. Commissioner Chandler: I was here for the beginning and I will be abstaining on the vote just simply because I wasn t here for the whole thing. Is it appropriate for me to express any concerns at this point or should I just not voice anything at all. Ms. Sobotka: I think you can express your concerns because you did give out your , you did read the packet is that right? Okay just put that on the record. Commissioner Chandler: I ve read the packet, I ve viewed the sites from the street, and I did submit some concerns via , I will abstain on the vote because I have not participated in the entire hearing. One thing that bothers me through this is that what appears, at least as I understand is to be two parcels, three structures on two parcels, is that they are being considered as essentially as one demolition. I m not sure about the appropriateness of that. That just seems like it is inappropriate that we should be considering these three as one where in fact there are at least two parcels and three structures. While the mold is a significant factor in the potential rehabilitation it does enter into each one of them differently and whether or not there should be two applications for demolition because there are two parcels or three applications because there are three structures. I am not sure what is appropriate but it does seem inappropriate that we are considering these all as one. Ms. Sobotka: I just talked to the developer and he would prefer deferral over a straight denial. Commissioner Stevens: I guess I m not sure what use deferral would be considering the plethora of concerns that the Commissioners seem to have expressed. What would deferral do considering we ve got issues the Commissioners seem at large to have issues with the classification of the property with the change in use? It just seems like a lot of things need to happen before we reconsider this particular application. I guess I m just interested in what everybody else s thoughts are, but my feeling is that I m not sure what use that would be versus denial. Chairman Lord: The primary differences if we ask or grant a deferral, the applicant doesn t have to submit a new application and pay new application fees. That can be time consuming and cumbersome in and of itself. The applicant engaged outside consultants and really what we are asking for is additional information or for the information to be presented differently. It seems to me that a deferral might be appropriate so that we don t put the applicant in the position of having to start from scratch again. I certainly understand your concerns too and maybe starting from scratch again in light of all the concerns you ve expressed would also be a good thing to request for this particular project.

17 Page 17 of 40 Commissioner Sewell: I think Chairman Chandler brought up a good point. I think that we are dealing with separate properties here and they should be submitted and reviewed in that way. I also think as far as Commissioner Stevens s questions, I am for a deferral and some more information. I think one thing is even though these properties can meet the National Register criteria for historic buildings I am still not so sure that they are necessarily contributing to the district overall and down the road. I do think though that a residential use or perhaps a commercial use within those structures is more contributing to the district than a surface parking lot so I think that is at least in some way how I evaluated that particular criteria. COMMISSIONER REESE MADE A MOTION TO DEFER DRH WITH THE CAVEAT OF LOOKING FOR THE THREE PROPERTIES TO BE SEPARATED FOR INDIVIDUAL DEMOLITION REQUESTS. Commissioner Stevens: Again, for point of clarification, can we go from one application for three properties to one application and try to do it individually or can we make three applications. Ms. Sobotka: Sure. We do that all the time. You just would make three Findings of Fact, three Motions, etc. The reason I hesitated there is you kind of are doing three applications but only under one umbrella. For instance, you can often times take up to two or three different actions on one application, so you do A, B, C. COMMISSIONER STEVENS SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Reese: With the applicant taking into consideration all of our concerns especially the redevelopment plan within those three separate demolition. Chairman Lord: Let me ask our legal council this question and then maybe we can ask for the applicant s representative to provide some input. Do we need to defer to a date certain or with the applicant s representative s concurrence can we defer indefinitely? Ms. Sobotka: You cannot defer indefinitely. Chairman Lord: Even with the concurrence? Ms. Sobotka: Even with the concurrence. You can ask him how much time he needs. You could always send over again for instance if he said over 42 months or something along those lines and that s not long enough then you could defer again, but no indefinite deferral. You would have to deny if it s going to be indefinite. COMMISSIONER REESE MOVED FOR A DEFERRAL FOR OCTOBER18, COMMISSIONER STEVENS SECONDED.

18 Page 18 of 40 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY WITH CHAIRMAN CHANDLER ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER CARLEY RECUSING HIMSELF. Mr. Neberman: Staff notes that there s a considerable number of citizens that have come to testify for Item 4 and if it s the Commission s will perhaps that would better serve the needs of the public to do Item 4 next. Chairman Lord: We could do that. DRH / Becamm Construction Location: 1137 N. 22nd Street Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct new, two-story + 1,985 square foot house on vacant + 3,060 square foot lot. Mr. Neberman: The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new house, 1,985 square feet approximate, 2 ½ stories on a vacant, but legal substandard lot at 1137 N. 22nd Street. This is a legal lot of record and there is a property right to construct a singlefamily house there. Staff has analyzed the request based on five criteria. First of all the setbacks, which do meet the Boise City Code. The materials, which are Masonite lap siding, cedar shingles and cedar beams are appropriate materials for the Historic District. From a design perspective, it s somewhat of a highbred house, but it does appear to have historic elements to it and historic materials and some historic design elements, but is clearly a product of its own time and staff has no particular issues or concerns with the design. Staff would also like to note before going into height and massing, that the applicant did bring in a revised plan in an attempt the plan you have in front of you has a revised elevation, which shows a less steep pitch so the original application was something considerable higher than what s been submitted here. Staff would like to call attention to the Commission that the applicant has made a good faith effort to try to bring down some of the height of this particular structure although I think that applicant would agree that staff and the applicant have reached a gentlemen s disagreement over the appropriateness of this particular design on this particular site. Staff s two primary concerns with the application first of all is height. The revised plans will have a height to the ridgelines of approximately 33 feet. That height is approximately two-and-a-half to three times higher than the contiguous houses and is generally higher than most of the houses in the immediate vicinity. Second problem that staff has with the application is the use of a garage facing 22 nd Street. Particularly a semi-sunken garage facing 22 nd Street. Staff doesn t find that to be an appropriate design element. Chairman Lord: Is that curb cut presently on this property that would allow for that driveway location? Mr. Neberman: There is not a curb cut. Chairman Lord: This would require us to get rid of some on street parking and allow for a curb cut if we were to approve it. Is that correct?