Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20020313ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 13~ 2002 334 W. I-IALLAM - CONCEPTUAL, PUBLIC HEARING (CONT'D FROM DEC~ 12TM) .................. 1 118 E. COOPER - FINAL - PUBLIC HEARING ..................................................................................... 7 950 MATCHLESS DRIVE - FINAL REVIEW ....................................................................................... 11 513 W. SMUGGLER- CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT- PUBLIC HEARING ~.~ ................... ~.... 13 633 W. MAIN ST. - CONCEPTUAL - PARTIAL DEMOLITION - PUBLIC HEARING ................ 15 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 13~ 2002 Chairperson, Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners present: Jeffrey Halferty, Melanie Roschko, Michael Hoffman, Teresa Melville, Neill Hirst and Paul D'Amato. Gilbert Sanchez and Rally Dupps were excused. Staff present: Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland MOTION: Melanie moved to approve the minutes of ,lanuary 23rd and February 13th, 2002, second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Disclosures: Michael relayed that he was approached by a neighbor of 118 E. Cooper to represent them but declined. 334 W. Itallam - Conceptual, Public Hearing (cont'd from Dec. 12th) The Chief Deputy Clerk swore in HaYden Connor, Shane Harvey and Mitch Haas. Amy relayed that the proposal is to put an addition on the Victorian era house and to construct a garage behind it. Since the last meeting, the Parks Dept. has signed off on a tree removal permit. All of the significant development review standards in chapter 2-7 of the design guidelines have been met. Amy focused on the addition to the historic house. At the last meeting there were concerns about an existing addition on the back of the house and how much more of that is to be demolished and what HPC really felt needed to be preserved. Amy said the only thing that she can determine is historic is the porch itself and the wall underneath it. Staff feels that no new construction should take away more of that porch and wall. That addition is not original to the house but it is historic to that time period. In the guidelines the addition should be clearly distinct from the historic building by providing some kind of jog or change in wall planes or materials. It also discusses that roof forms should be similar to those on the historic house. Staff finds that there is conflict with both of those guidelines. There is no jog in the wall that really distinguishes that back ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 13, 2002 comer of the historic house. The flat-pitched roof lowers the prOfile of the addition and it is not compatible with gable roof pitches that are on the historic building. Amy said the new proposed garage is in conflict with a number of the design guidelines. There was an approval granted by HPC in 1988 on this property and some aspects of that approval were built, the out building. They did receive a bonus at the time and a portion was applied to the outbuilding and the rest of it needs to meet today's revieTM standards. They will be asking for a 360 square foot FAR bonus. Staff feels the project is not meeting an exemplary preservation effort. Regarding the partial demolition standard there is concern about an historic west addition on the building and we can work out what is appropriate to preserve on that addition. The applicant still wishes to have a determination on the on-site relocation even though there is no tree to be forcing the house to move to the west. The guidelines say that proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case by case basis and it is only meant to be when that is the best preservation method. Moving the house deteriorates its integrity. Another variance is being requested with regard to placing a garage on the street based on the finding of hardship. Staff finds that there is no hardship that would warrant a FAR bonus. Also, there is a residential design standard that discourages placing the garage where it is proposed to be located. Mitch said the historic part of the building is being left intact and not touched by any work being proposed and the Connor's have committed to rehabilitation and restoring the structure which is an outstanding preservation effort. Regarding the addition to the east side, Mitch said it is clear that the roof form should be more closely or consistent with the gable and pitched roofs on the rest of the structure. The addition would extend another ten feet out from behind the historic part of the structure and ten feet is more than sufficient for a jog showing differentiation. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 13, 2002 Amy relayed that the next issue is the on-site relocation proposal. The guidelines state there may be cases, when the location will not substantially affect the integrity of the property and its rehabilitation can be assured as a result. The carriage house was relocated in 1963 by five feet and the property was not compromised. It is the owner's belief that there is lack of a true relation between where the house sits and the site features. The site is flat and there are no features that are of historic significance. Moving the house over ten feet to the west will not effect this sites historic integrity and the historic house will still be intact. The relationship to the streets will be unchanged. Mitch said he would like to know "why" moving the house effects the historic integrity. Mitch also said the request to relocate the house on-site is consistent with the guidelines. They feel that the ability to relocate the building ten feet is an integral part and major incentive for Hayden's going to the time and expense and effort in doing the restoration and rehabilitation efforts on the historic portion of the structure, which desperately needs work. The house is already going to be Picked up from where it sits in order to put a basement underneath it. Regarding the project not being exemplary work in Amy's memo, that is not the standard for a FAR bonus. The standard is an outstanding preservation effort. Not touching the historic building but committing to restoration and rehabilitation is exemplary. Consistency with every guideline is not a requirement for a FAR bonus. The one car garage will replace a driveway open to the street. Mitch said the owner would retain the west wall and west porch. Some balancing of the guidelines must occur. Mitch pointed out that there are 63 guidelines in which they are consistent and 8 that are perhaps pointed out as being inconsistent. Questions and clarifications. Melanie indicated that she was unclear why the owner wants the house relocated. Mitch said it was the desire to have yard space. Shane added that 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 13, 2002 the house is in the middle of the lot and the Connors would like the ability to utilize more of the lot. Amy said the main issues are the overall massing and design of the addition. The character and placement of the addition and the question of relocating the house are also important issues. The offset and roof design are other issues that need to be discussed by the board. Michael said the key issues are: 1. relocation 2. design of the offset 3. roof design 4. garage and FAR Neill said the house "site" is an historic integral part to this application. Mitch said moving the house ten feet is not going to negatively impact the landmark building or site. Neill asked why the flatter roof pitch was chosen for the addition? Mitch said it differentiates the addition from the historic structure but it can be restudied. Melanie said at the last meeting it was suggested that the applicant look at relocating the garage off the alley and also looking at the addition and perhaps jogging it off the back of the house instead ofoffto the east side of the house. Mitch said the owners are not willing to take up the yard space with a garage. Doing a jog interrupts the floor plan functionally. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. Hayden Conner explained the original footprint of the house for the board members. Comments: The relocation, as presented is too extreme and guideline 9.1 has not been met. The relocation is not the best preservation alternative. Neill said if you are going to allow lot splits you can hardly oppose the relocation of this house. Amy explained when you do a lot split you are 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF; MARCH 13, 2002 taking the square footage away from the historic building and putting it in a separate structure which is a good preservation alternative. There is no removal of the impact to the historic building by moving this house sideways, and the location is important to its historic integrity. Paul agreed with Neill's comments. Melanie relayed that the relocation of the house is not justified. Suzannah concurred, the key element it has not been demonstrated that the relocation is the best preservation alternative. The location, centered on the lot is part of the importance of the house. Regarding Mitch's comment that the relocation is not touching the historic house, relocating it is certainly touching it and changing its position on the site and interfering with its integrity. Teresa relayed that it is important to look at the relationship of this house to other houses in the neighborhood. Jeffrey supported staff's comments on the relocation. Relocation is to give better prominence and some relationship or new view corridor to the historic resource and he is not finding what he sees as a good case for relocation. Melanie said architecturally guideline 10.4 states that the addition should be distinguishable from the historic building and she feels that a jog or something to set the addition off or separate it from the historic building would be appropriate. Off the east side is not the most creative way of solving the problem and meeting the guidelines. The board agreed with Melanie's comments. Roof forms: Jeffrey said the flat roof is not consistent with the historic patterns in the neighborhood. The board agreed with staff's memo regarding the roof form and architecture of the addition. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 13~ 2002 Garage: Michael felt that there was not a compelling need to grant the variance for the garage. There is no unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. Melanie said the garage should access off the alley. There are ways of using this wonderful property and jogging the house to the back. Jeffrey said the garage, by right of the carPort does not help the historic resource's elevation from Third Street. The alley access would certainly help that elevation. Suzannah said her concern would be how much the garage extends the rear addition of the historic house and closes down that space between the house and carriage house, which is a problematic issue in maintaining the character of the two buildings. FAR Melanie indicated she could support the FAR for the preservation of the house as long as the rest of the issues discussed have been addressed. Jeffrey said because this is a landmark property if the massing issues could be modified he could support the bonus. Suzannah said the threshold issue is the relocation for support of the bonus. Rebuttal Mitch said if they had come in and applied for a lot split without any changes to the house other than moving it over odds are that would have been approved and then they could come back in and ask for the addition. Because we are asking for the addition first we are not being allowed to move the house. He also pointed out that this lot even with moving the house does have two structures, one which is 1300 square feet which is a good percentage of the allowable FAR on this site and they feel it achieves the same thing that you might have on a lot split by breaking the FAR into two masses. Mitch said he hasn't heard "why" where it sits on the property is integral to its historic significance. He would like some tangible reasons. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 13~ 2002 Mitch said regarding the architecture on the east side they have gotten some direction but the jog doesn't work as it makes an oddly shaped room that functionally doesn't make any sense. The addition will go out ten feet from the corner and the change in materials and window designs are agreeable. Shane asked the board about the addition to the east. Suzannah said the board concurred with staff recommendation that it needed to be studied in terms of its separation from the building, also that the roof shapes and details needed restudied. Shane said one of the prime reasons for the restoration of this project is to make useful space while preserving the integrity of the property. Suzannah said the position of the house on the lot is integral to the significance of the house in its time. The house is a prominent Victorian as opposed to a miner's cottage and the position in the center of the lot is integral. Mr. Connor said the house was not on a large lot, there was a house right next too it which is no longer there. Amy said it is still at least two lots and the house on Lot M is a smaller building on 3,000 square foot lot, so Suzarmah's comments are still valid. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue 334 W.. Hallam until April 10, 2002; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Melanie, Neill, Teresa, Michael, Paul, Suzannah 118 E. Cooper - Final - Public Hearing David Fiore and Carl Darr were sworn in. Amy informed the board that the proposal addresses all of the conditions from conceptual and they were to look more at the restoration aspects of the front porch and address the bathroom addition. Staffrecommends approval of the project. Planning & Zoning approved the project and it now goes to council. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 13, 2002 David Fiore relayed that 14 lodge rooms are being restored to the Aspen community. He said he made an effort to speak to some of the neighbors since the last meeting. The building will be brought up to ADA compliance. They are pulling in the back of the current construction 2 to 4 feet depending. Amy said the exact appearance that will be created for the porch post that is presently gone would be determined at the site. There is one building issue regarding the pair of double hung windows and a bay in front, which are not meeting egress requirements. The lot is be rezoned LP-PUD which means that all of the dimensional aspects are to be set by other review boards. Suzannah asked Amy to address the possibility of change in use. The Planning office will probably suggest certain conditions of approval at their council review to make sure there is not some change back to a residence that leaves this property way beyond what would be allowed in terms of floor area. David Fiore said their kitchen facilities do not meet code to serve a full breakfast, so they will be serving a continental breakfast~ Suzannah opened the public hearing. Sworn in were Rita Rasmussen, Millard Zimet, Ron Kanan, Margo Gubser, Raife Bass, Norma Dolle, David Ledingham, Marsha Goshorn Assistant City attorney, David Hoefer informed the board that two letters were received in opposition of the 9.85 foot rearward setback variance; one from Rita Rasmussen and the other from Charles Dalton. A letter was received from Carol Saunders-White in favor of the project. Millard Zimet, attorney for R.K. Land and Cattle who owns the property immediately across the alley gave testimony that the design of the project, particularly in the back is not compatible with the adjacent properties and referred to Section 26.415.010.C.5 which states that no approval shall be granted unless the proposed development is compatible with development on adjacent parcels. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 13, 2002 Rita Rasmussen relayed her concern of privacy and noise levels. It was relayed that P&Z said the design was the purview of the HPC and HPC said P&Z would have the final review including the variances. Ron Kanan said we all need to honor the process and make sure the intent of each board carries consistently throughout the process. Margo Gubser represented Charles Dalton. Margo said there is no objection to the carports or the preservation efforts on the original house. Dalton is opposed to any addition to the excessive mass. The hot tub would also be intrusive to neighbor's privacy. Raife Bass also indicated that he is representing neighbors. The clients are for the rezoning and the reduction of lodge rooms. The issue here is a privacy issue that will be affected by the mass in the back. This project already is over current allowable FAR. The hot tub location will be right in the living room window. Normal Dolle, owner of the Snow Queen relayed that they were turned down years ago due to setback issues. Density is something to be considered. The parking is already a problem on the street. David Lettingham, manager of the Snow Queen stated that he has listened to everything that has been said and what they are doing is great. Saving the Little Red Ski Haus as a bed and breakfast is a great challenge. David also said he has been working with David Fiore on the hot tub issues. Possibly one more parking spot could fit in the back. In defense of the Ski Haus, David said when the neighbors built decks facing Aspen Mountain that was a choice they all made and the Little Red Ski Haus was already there. David said he lost his view of Red Mountain when they developed the lot behind him and that is just life. Marsha Goshorn, a 26-year resident said the lodges are the history of this town. The back part of the building has been here for 40 years. The view has been there and actually they are pulling back fi.om the alley and they will have a little different roofline. The neighbors won't be looking at a solid wall. In some cases their view might be improved by taking the porch off the side. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMiSSiON MiNuTES OF, MARCH 13~ 2002 Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Assisstant City Attorney, David Hoefer relayed that there are three types of variances; hardship, HPC variances, PUD variances which are variations from any of the dimensional feqUirements. David Hoefer also said P&Z recommended to council the variances but Council is the final review authority. Michael asked Amy to relay her views regarding the back section of the house. Amy said the addition is 40 years old and in the deSign where they are proposing to extend the building has no impact on the character, design, and massing. Carl said the north wall jogs back and forth. At its worse case it is 3 inches from the property line and in some cases they are bringing it back in 2 ½ feet to 4 ½ feet from where it is now. The variance being requested is 9 1/4 feet. Amy said there is an addition that is being extended toward the alley with the same basic height. Carl explained the north wall elevation to the board. Comments: Michael said he is trusting that the applicant will do their best to continue to work with the neighbors. The board understood that the variance aspect is not being discussed by HPC. Neill said as far as the design goes, if we are improving the setback violation, one should not be too upset by that. There is also room to improve the one bedroom by shortening it. Jeffrey relayed that he supports the small lodge preservation. Small lodges help preserve our town and vitality of it. Jeffrey commended the applicant for the restoration efforts. The location of the proposed addition is the most appropriate on this site. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 13~ 2002 Snzannah concurred. The location and size of the addition does meet the guidelines. Suzannah also said the public concerns will be addressed at council and they are the ultimate decision makers in terms of the PUD, size and setbacks. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution g4, 2002 as proposed in the memorandum; second by Melanie. Motion carried 7-0 Yes vote: Michael, Teresa, Neill, Paul, JeffreY, Suzannah, Melanie. 950 Matchless Drive - Final Review Kim Raymond and Alan Becker were sworn in. Amy stated throughout the process the concern has been the deck and the juncture that it creates between the house and the addition. The deck actually extends past the house and the guidelines talk about the connector being narrower than the house. Staff feels the deck still needs to be pulled back. Klm said they possibly could make the deck smaller. Her point is that the deck is a foot away from the shed roof and it is cantilevered out. Alan Becker said a composite board, wood grain vertical siding is being proposed for the larger part of the addition. Amy said guideline 10.7 talks about setting the walls of the connector back from the significant facades of the building. The deck is extending out beyond the historic building. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. Melanie said it was mentioned at the last meeting that the post and support could be pulled back in so it is at least in line with the building. I1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 13, 2002 Suzannah has concerns with the concrete/steel columns in terms of their roughness of the material and arChitecture. Alan Becker said he could change the columns on the back porch from corrugated steel to wood. MOTION: Melanie moved to approve Resolution #5, 2002; with the following conditions: I. The applicant restudy the deck on the new addition for approval by staff and monitor and to restudy the corrugated columns in the rear of the building. 2. Provide a structural report demonstrating that the miner's cottage can be moved and information about how the house will be stabilized from the house-mover. 3. Provide a bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure. 4. Provide a relocation plan detailing how the bUilding will be stored during construction. Measures must be taken to fence off the building, cover windows with plywood, and otherwise protect it from damage. 5. Information on all venting locations and meter locations for the miner's cottage shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 6. Submit a demolitiOn plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly What areas of the historic house are to be removed. 7. Submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage. Final determination about the restoration of windows that have been removed will be handled in the field by staff and monitor during the interior demolition and discovery phase. 8. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 1¸2 ASPEN HISTORIC pRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 13, 2002 9. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures. 10. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 1 I. The preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 12. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are know and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 13. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. Motion second by Jeffrey. Amended motion. Melanie moved to amend condition #1 to add, restudy the corrugated column in the rear of the building; second by Jeffrey. All in favor have the motion and amended motion. Motion carried 7-0. Yes vote: Paul Michael Teresa, Neill, Melanie, Jeffrey, Suzannah 513 W. Smuggler - Conceptual Development - Public Hearing Harry Teague, Ryan Sturtz, and Drew Harman were sworn in. Amy relayed that the last discussion was trying to create a bigger connector piece between the historic cottage and the addition. They are also asking for a bonus and the guidelines require the connector to be ten feet and they are only providing six feet. The applicant is trying to bring back the house of 1880 and not an addition that happened sometime in 1904 that shows up on the SanbOrne Map. staff concurs with the applicants proPosal. Staff still has concerns with the size and scale of the addition, not with the architecture which is simple but the two story linear massing. As a goal of 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 13~ 2002 approving bonuses, if it had more of a larger footprint and maybe not as much height a bonus would be warranted. Harry said they reduced the size of the project has been reduced and the connector has been increased in length to ten feet to comply with the guidelines. The total FAR has been reduced 100 feet. The height of the addition has been lowered one foot. They are using the proportions of the existing building to create the new addition. The massing of the entire neighborhood has large flat modem houses all around. This proposal is actually smaller. The project is 70 feet from the edge of the street and quite far back. The fenestration has relatiOnships t° the geometry of the existing house. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: The neighborhood and site of the addition mitigates some of the excessive height on the addition and design guidelines 10.6 and 10.7 are satisfied This is an exemplary project. Looking and the old structure and comparing it to the new made a good project. One member felt that the addition is too massive. One concern is the variance for the ten feet off the back. It would be preferable that the addition did not sit that far back, whiCh WOuld be a whole new design. The mass of the addition is quite large and overwhelming. The proposal is taking some of the square footage that was taken off and re- massing it so hat it is not obstructive to the historic resource. The context and position of this house is supported by the massing of the new addition and the reduction in height of a foot. The massing is not overwhelming. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 13~ 2002 On the newly submitted drawings, A200, the separation between the buildings'is eight feet. The reduction in height of one foot accomplishes a lot. It brings the size and scale down and the proportions are more compatible with the historic house. There is still some concern about the overall volume of the addition but the computer rendering is convincing. Elevation A200 with the flat roofed set in office is a more successful solution. MOTION: Michael moved to approve the conceptual development, partial demolition, on-site relocation and Historic Landmark Lot Split application for 513 W. Smugger, Resolution #6, 2002 with the following conditions: 1. ~4pproval of the variances that were previously noticed. 2. Granting of the FAR bonus of 500 square feet. 3. Rear yard setback variance and combined front and rear yard setback variances approved as noticed. 4. Plans as submitted Exhibit L dated 03-13-02. Motion second by Paul. Motion carried 4-2 Yes vote: Jeffrey, Suzannah, Michael, Paul No vote: Melanie, Neill 633 W. Main St. - Conceptual - Partial Demolition - Public Hearing Elizabeth Dart and Barbra Long were sworn in. Revised plans and proof of publication were entered into the record. Amy commented that the house is an individual landmark and in the historic district. It is a very simple house with very little detailing and a one-story addition in the back. The application isto put a master bedroom on top of the addition and construct a one car garage on the back of the property. There is a new dormer proposed for the historic structure and alterations to windows in an existing dormer and staff has concerns as to whether the window alterations are appropriate and meeting guideline 3.3. There is also a request to relocate a window on the historic house. Staff finds that 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ MARCH 13, 2002 appropriate unless proof is provided that it is not the only remaining original window on the house. On the addition the concern is that the addition is popping up above the historic structure and causing negative impacts on the building. The garage has numerous dormers and competes with the historic house, which is very simple. There needs to be a balance between the garage and house. On the east side of the structure there were no windows proposed in the entire length of the building and that should be reStudied. A setbaCk variance is being requested for the garage and that seems appropriate. Barbra Long said they have attempted to address staff's concern with revised drawings. On the east elevation they removed the skylight and put a dormer in that is similar to the one on the west elevation. They will enlarge the windows for the egress. On the west elevation they added double hung windows to maintain the proportions. They have elected not to replace the window on the historic house. Barbra also said they are proposing to add a window at the bottom of the stair of the landing. Regarding the dormers on the garage they did a study and the concern is getting enough light into the garage. They would prefer to keep the dormers in the upper part of the garage. Amy relayed that the changes are sympathetic to the historic house. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. The board determined that they didn't really know what the original house looked like and therefore felt that the changes were acceptable with some revision that could be addressed at final. There were concerns with the design issues of the dormers and windows to be addressed at final. The dormer fenestration should be looked at and simplified. 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 13, 2002 The length o£the east wall is a concern and possibly a jog could be studied that separates the volume of the garage from the bulk of the house. That would clarify the additions. Haley Darth relayed that the siding is going to be changed in order to differentiate old from new and there is a roofline change. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #7, 2002, granting conceptual development and a rear yard setback variance as noticed for 633 W. Main subject to the following conditions: 1. That the dormers and windows be restudied and addressed at final. 2. Differentiate the wall between the house and garage with a jog or architectural feature on the east elevation. Motion second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Melanie, NeiIl, Michael, Paul, Suzannah The board clarified for the applicant that there is concern that the dormers are quite busy. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 17