Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boise historic commission defers remodel at 917 E. Jefferson, asks architects to preserve garage facade
Summary
The Boise City Historic Preservation Commission deferred consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for changes at 917 East Jefferson Street and directed the applicant to explore options that retain the street-facing garage opening or otherwise avoid altering the front facade’s character-defining features.
The Boise City Historic Preservation Commission on Dec. 9 deferred action on an application to remodel the main entry and fill the garage opening at 917 East Jefferson Street, instructing the applicant to return next month with alternative designs that preserve the property’s street-facing garage or otherwise avoid altering the building’s character-defining front facade.
The commission’s directive follows staff findings that the proposal—removing the garage door, extending and deepening the historic front porch and adding a large patio cover—would conflict with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Standards 2 and 3) by removing distinctive materials and creating “a false sense of historic development.” Staff recommended denial because the proposed alterations affect the primary facade of a contributing structure in the East End Historic District.
In a presentation, Richard (staff member) described the changes and staff’s recommendation. He told commissioners the proposal “involves extensive alterations to the character defining facade of a contributing property,” and that staff suggested alternatives such as preserving the garage opening (potentially infilling it with glazing) and removing the patio cover.
Lauren Allen, representing Hatch Design Architecture and speaking for the owners David and Amy Reed, said the remodel would “allow for the owners to better accommodate their growing family and make the home more livable for future generations.” Allen described plans to extend the porch, remove access to the garage to expand dining space and replicate corner windows to match existing Art Deco–style details.
Commission discussion focused on the porch’s curved awning and how copying or extending that feature could create a false sense of age for the house. Several commissioners agreed the curved awning is a unique, character-defining element that should be retained. Commissioners suggested alternatives such as keeping the garage opening and raising the interior floor behind it or using glazing in the garage opening as a secondary option; some asked for renderings to better evaluate proposed glazing.
After discussion, a commissioner moved to defer DRH24-00342 to next month with directions that the architect explore keeping the garage door and not changing the front facade (including the proposed extended porch), look for ways to accommodate additional living space within the existing footprint, and bring renderings showing glazing in the garage opening as a secondary option. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously on roll call: Montoto — Aye; Malloy — Aye; Parks — Aye; Owens — Aye; Sales — Aye; Moore — Aye.
The commission closed the hearing and set expectations that the applicant return with revised designs and visualizations showing alternatives to the proposed front‑facing changes. No final decision on the certificate of appropriateness was made; the application remains postponed to the commission’s next monthly hearing.
