Commission defers decision on demolition and new residence with ADU at 809 East State Street

The Boise City Historic Preservation Commission voted to defer consideration of application DRH25-00261, which would demolish a noncontributing house at 809 East State Street and replace it with a partial two-story residence and a garage with an ADU above.

Planning staff recommended denial, saying the proposal “does not comply with the design guidelines for residential historic districts and the Secretary of the Interior standards” because the proposed house (29 feet, 10 inches) was significantly taller than immediately adjacent primary residences. Richard Jarvis, planning staff, described concerns about massing, scale and the proposal’s use of numerous craftsman-style details that, in staff’s view, created a “false sense of history.”

Tad Jones, the project architect, said the existing house was noncontributing and his team had worked with staff and neighbors. He provided site-specific measurements and design rationale, including that parts of the new design (dormer eaves) would align with a neighboring house and that the proposed footprint was only 35 square feet larger than the existing structure because much of the area would be in a basement level. Jones said the existing house showed significant structural and water damage and that a contractor’s assessment submitted with the application concluded a rehabilitation was not economically or technically practical.

Neighbors raised a mix of concerns and support. Cheryl Bridal (807 East State Street) described the ADU on her adjacent property, saying it was built before the historic district and is “grandfathered.” Erin Worton (310 North Strawn Avenue) said she supported elements of the proposed craftsman detailing to help the new house blend into the block but asked the commission to consider denying or relocating the ADU so it would not abut a full-time residence and reduce sunlight and privacy for neighbors.

Commission discussion centered on three recurring issues: overall height (the proposed residence at 29—910" vs. nearby houses measured at about 23 feet and 16 feet), the degree to which the new building’s detailing resembled historic craftsman features (3-over-1 window panes, brackets, porch posts) and the ADU’s level of architectural emphasis. Commissioners suggested options to lower the ridgeline by roughly 6 to 18 inches (for example, reducing basement height, lowering the main-floor ceiling, or changing roof pitch from 8:12 to 6:12) and asked the applicant to simplify ADU detailing, preserve significant trees and remove proposed artificial turf in the backyard.

Commissioner Moore moved to defer DRH25-00261 to the commission’s next regularly scheduled meeting so the applicant could respond to the design and mitigation comments; Commissioner Sales seconded. The motion passed on a unanimous roll call vote.

The applicant indicated willingness to explore changes discussed at the hearing, such as lowering overall height modestly, restoring a standing-seam roof on dormers to differentiate new construction from historic buildings if desired, adjusting window configuration if required, simplifying ADU ornamentation, retaining three trees identified in an arborist report and replacing proposed artificial turf with other ground cover. Staff will expect a revised submittal addressing the commission’s concerns when the item returns for review.

Clarifying details in the hearing record include the proposed primary residence height (29 feet, 10 inches), the ADU height (about 23 feet), proposed lot coverage (35.7% as stated by the applicant), the site’s noncontributing status (reclassified in 2009 per the applicant’s materials), and that the applicant holds a zoning certificate for the ADU location.