Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20210623Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission June 23, 2021 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeff Halferty, Jodi Surfas, Peter Fornell, Sheri Sanzone, Kara Thompson, and Roger Moyer (4:35 PM). Staff present Amy Simon, Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Halferty moved to approve the minutes from June 9, 2021. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll Call: Mr. Halferty; Yes; Ms. Surfas; Yes; Mr. Fornell; Yes; Ms. Sanzone; Abstained; Ms. Thompson; Yes. Motion passed four (4) - zero (0) - one (1). PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Fornell asked Ms. Johnson if he needed to recuse himself from the meeting in case the applicant purchased affordable housing credits from him. Ms. Johnson asked if the applicant could speak to this. Ms. Kim Raymond stated she does not believe any employee housing mitigation is needed for the project. Ms. Thompson noted Mr. Moyer had joined the meeting. PROJECT MONITORING None STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Simon stated City Council reviewed the 925 King St project. City Council approved the subdivision. However, they did not approve the TDR request. Ms. Simon said she will be sending an informational memo to the board outlining the decision and some background information. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission June 23, 2021 Ms. Simon stated the July 14th meeting will be canceled and the hearing will be continued. NEW BUSINESS 135 W Francis St – Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations and Floor Area Bonus, Public Hearing Ms. Thompson asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Johnson replied public notice had been provided in accordance with the code. Ms. Kim Raymond, Kim Raymond Architecture + Interiors, displayed a portion of the Sanborn Map dated 1898 noting the location, front and side porches, rear one-story element and overall size of the structure. She then displayed a picture dated 1963 of the front of the house and a side pointing out the front brick chimney, the windows on the east elevation and the one-story element in the back that was hidden, obstructed or partially removed from the addition done in the 1980s. She next displayed a picture dated 1965 of the west side of the house pointing out the side porch was still on the building, the one-story rear element, the dormer and brick chimney that was hidden in the 1980s addition and other components of the house. She noted the single window next to the bay windows to be restored back to this look. Ms. Raymond displayed pictures of the house from 1970 and 1980. In the 1980 picture she pointed out where the ventilation pipe extended out a window and where the side porch had been removed. She displayed a picture dated 2021 of the house from the front. Next, she displayed a picture of the west side showing the addition from the mid-1980s which completely obstructed the one- story element in the rear of the house. She also pointed out where they added a window next to the single one and the vent moved to the wall next to the window. She then pointed out the two lilac bushes and pine tree they plan to save. The small lilac bush next to the house will not be saved. She displayed a 2021 picture looking at the rear of the house and noted the new addition in the back will be about the same height as the house to the east. Ms. Raymond displayed pictures and noted where the side porch had been previously located. Ms. Raymond then displayed pictures dated 2021 from inside the rear of the home. She pointed out the slope of the ceiling and stated this was part of the original one-story element. Ms. Raymond display a site plan of the existing conditions pointing out the roof of the addition consuming the rear dormer and the existing trees. Ms. Raymond then displayed demo plan of the site stating the percentage of demo area will be 28.29%. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission June 23, 2021 Ms. Raymond displayed the proposed site plan and indicated the trees to be saved including the cottonwoods, lilacs and the pine tree in the southwest corner of the site. She stated she spoke with Mr. Dave Radeck, Open Space Project Technician, regarding the window well near a tree. Ms. Raymond displayed floor plans of the main level and upper level. She stated the plan meets the HPC guideline of using the entire historic portion of the building. The link between the historic and new structures will contain the powder and mud rooms. There will be a glass link between the historic and new structure. She displayed a roof plan stating they will be restoring the gable roof of the single-story element. She stated the connector will have a glass roof that will follow the roof line of the historic element set just inside. The new structure will also have roof deck and it will not be visible from First St and Francis St which she believes meets the guidelines. Ms. Raymond provided elevations of the proposed restauration depicting the existing structure, what will be removed, and what is to be added back including the side porch, dormer window, front and rear chimney, and one-story element. Additional elevations show the connector and new addition. Ms. Raymond displayed renderings of the restored house. From the sidewalk in front of the house you will not be able to see the new addition. From the rear of the house, she pointed out the gable on the new structure running in the same direction as the historic structure and a dormer. Another rendering of the west corner showed the proportion of the historic and new structures which will be the same size above grade. She displayed an east elevation showing the one-story element, the glass link, and how the ridge and dormer on the new structure blocks the rooftop deck. She then displayed another east elevation showing some dimensions of the distance between the peaks of the old and new structures (36 FT 7 IN) and noted the new structure is not quite 5 FT taller than the historic resource. She stated the linking element to be restored will be 11 FT 8 IN in height and with the almost 3 FT wide glass element provides 14 FT 6 IN between the slope of the historic resource and the new addition. Ms. Raymond displayed a west elevation and noted the gable on the new addition will be slightly less steep because the steeper pitches are more Victorian. She then displayed north and south elevations as well a picture of the proposed outdoor lighting. Ms. Raymond then reviewed comments from staff and the referral agencies regarding the unmet items on the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Review Criteria included in the agenda packet. Ms. Thompson asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Mr. Halferty asked to look at the proposed site plan and asked if they ever studied moving the resource to the west instead of the east. Ms. Raymond replied no and thought moving it to the east would provide more space for the trees and you would be able to see the house better from Francis St. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission June 23, 2021 Ms. Thompson then turned the floor over to Ms. Sara Yoon. Ms. Yoon reviewed the staff memo noting the hearing was for a conceptual review and displayed a picture of the existing condition of the property. She then reviewed what was included in the application, a description and zoning of the property. She noted there had been a permitted addition from the 1980’s. Shortly after, the property was designated. She also displayed the Sanborn map from 1904 and a picture of the resource before the addition. Ms. Yoon next reviewed the existing and proposed revised site plans. She stated the proposed site plan moves the new structure to the rear of the property. She stated staff did have a question regarding the demolition plan and the applicant provided a revised demolition plan (Exhibit I attached to the HPC Agenda for 6/23/2021) showing the proposed demolition at less than 40% so the nonconforming parking can be retained per the code. Ms. Yoon stated the applicant is proposing to reconstruct the one-story historic element to be used as the connecting element. She added the applicant is also requesting the structure to be moved forward and to the east which puts the new addition more forward of the historic resource when viewed from the N 1st St. She stated Chapter 8 discusses secondary structures and the one-story element possibly buried under the 1980’s addition would be considered an add on as part of the connecting element. This element does not completely adhere to the design guidelines because the dimensions of the one- story element are not compatible with the design guidelines. Additionally, staff finds the site context and alignment of the historic resource aligns with the other historic home located at 135 W Francis St. There is evidence of past land use applications where the resource did not move forward which seemed o be a conscious choice. Staff wants to respect the 10 FT setbacks which was the standard zoning requirement at the time the resource was constructed. Staff would like HPC to discuss this topic and provide direction to the applicant. Ms. Yoon then described the proposed addition located at the rear of the property as having a smaller footprint which is supported. However, the addition is taller than the historic resource and is using a connecting element that is wider than a traditional connector, so it doesn’t fully meet the design guidelines. The roof form of the addition is viewed as a gable roof as viewed from the north and west elevations. She noted if you walk along the alley and circle around to the front, you will see a large portion of the roof being flat to accommodate the roof deck. As a corner lot there are more stringent requirements for the form to highly compatible or to have a strong relationship with the historic resource. Staff recommends the commission discuss the form further to determine if the criteria has been fully met. She added the skylight feature on the patio could be slightly reduced so it doesn’t directly abut the historic resource to better meet guideline 9.6. Ms. Yoon stated supports the request for the 5 FT 2 IN rear yard setback variation. She noted the application requested larger light wells, but the drawings show compliant light wells, so staff Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission June 23, 2021 requested clarification in their memo. Based on the applicant’s presentation, they will not be requesting larger light wells so there is no need for a side yard setback variation. Ms. Yoon stated some aspects of the guidelines for to the floor area bonus request has not yet been met and recommends a restudy of the design. Ms. Yoon stated staff does support the applicant’s effort to remove the confusing non-historic addition and acknowledges the design is heading in the right direction but there a number of elements to be addressed for the application to move forward. Staff is recommending a continuance at this time with staff’s comments along with the comments from the other city agencies outlined in the memo. She displayed a list of the conditions to be met before approving the application and noted they are also in the packet on page 11. She concluded her presentation and asked if there were any questions. Ms. Thompson asked if the structure located on the corner across the street was historic and if it had been moved. Ms. Yoon said she did not have that information, but would retrieve it for 201 W Francis St. Mr. Fornell asked staff to confirm the limitations of the floor area requested. Ms. Yoon confirmed the proposed design requires 140 SF and the applicant is requesting 250 SF. She added the needed SF is verified during the building permit process and anything in excess is forfeited. Mr. Fornell asked if staff believes the applicant has provided information to confirm the existence of the one-story element and if it’s appropriate to be restored. Ms. Yoon stated they received photos of possibilities, but staff wants to understand if there is physical historic material left to weigh the importance of the alignment versus a reconstruction of an element and if the historic alignment is being compromised. The information provided in the application was unclear if there was any historic fabric left for restoration of the one-story element. Staff would like to maintain the historic alignment. Mr. Fornell believes the applicant made an argument showing alignments that have been changed so he feels it’s on staff to prove this has not been allowed historically. Ms. Yoon responded looking at land use case applications submitted prior to this application, it was noted the applications abstained from moving resources forward. If the resource for this application was moved forward, it would place it out of the alignment with neighboring structures. Mr. Fornell stated when he looks at the proposed design, he noticed the flat roof with a deck and a safety fence around it and wanted to know if an above grade setback variance was necessary. Ms. Yoon stated the language should reflect the variance is for above and below grade for a 5 FT reduction because the livable space above the garage is counted as principal space. Ms. Thompson then allowed the applicant’s civil engineer, Justin Yarnell with Yarnell consulting to respond to the comments from the engineering and parks staff. He noted some of the comments will be addressed at the time the building permit is acquired. For stormwater Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission June 23, 2021 management, he stated they are proposing a water quality vault that ties into the existing public system. Ms. Thompson then allowed the homeowners, Ms. Jessica DiPaola and Mr. Mark DiPaola to speak. Ms. DiPaola thanked the commission for considering the project and stated they are excited to have a second home in Aspen. She added they selected Ms. Raymond because she is a local and cares about the history and charm of Aspen as they do. Ms. Thompson then opened for public comment. No one commented so she closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Thompson then opened for commissioner discussion and asked for opinions of the relocation first. Mr. Moyer does not feel the house should be moved. He added he remains open to the floor area bonus but does not feel the project is top notch exemplary yet. Mr. Halferty doesn’t feel he has heard a good enough argument yet for moving the resource one direction or not. Normally, a resourced is moved to provide a better visual relationship with the avenue or street. Ms. Surfas agrees with Mr. Moyer and Mr. Halferty. She added there may be a case for moving it east with the existing landscaping and to give more space on 1st Ave. Mr. Fornell believes moving the structure toward Francis St will make it more prominent so under certain conditions he doesn’t have a problem with moving the house as they proposed. He is a little concerned with the connecting element and the request for the FAR bonus. He feels they addressed his concerns with the light wells. He is leaning toward allowing the move but is interested in the other commissioner’s opinions. Ms. Sanzone agrees with Mr. Moyer, Mr. Halferty and Ms. Surfas. Ms. Thompson stated she is struggling with the request to move as well because it’s a corner lot and extremely prominent. She believes there is a relationship with the structure across the street that should be preserved. Ms. Thompson stated she is not opposed to it moving to the west but would like to preserve the front alignment. Ms. Sanzone stated she was pleased the applicant highlighted the lilacs located on the eastern property line that were in the old photos and still exist today. She believes more investigation is needed because the lilacs may be on the neighbor’s property and therefore protected and they may be historic. She has not yet heard a compelling reason for moving the structure. Ms. Thompson then asked the commissioners to discuss the rear yard setback variation. She feels if the commissioners ask the house to remain further back, then the addition will need change. She added she would be open to a setback that is less than the proposed 5 FT because it impacts the alley. Mr. Moyer and Mr. Fornell were not opposed to the variance. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission June 23, 2021 Ms. Thompson then moved on to a discussion regarding the guidelines and some of the conditions, especially chapter 10. Ms. Sanzone stated she likes the simplicity of the link and agrees with staff that there needs to be more investigation regarding the one-story element. She understands this will be tough since it requires some demolition to see what’s there, but feels it’s needed for her to be able to support the linking element as proposed for the new addition. She is not opposed to the height of the new addition, noting its vertical orientation, small footprint and favorable relation to the neighboring house. Ms. Surfas stated if they can really prove the one-story element exists, she thinks it would be a nice way with the class to connect the historic resource with the new addition. In regard to the new addition, she agrees with Ms. Sanzone. She added if the windows were more similar to the size and shape of the existing asset, it might help. She does not feel the addition overwhelms the asset. Mr. Halferty also believes there should be more investigation into the one-story element. He believes the alignment will drive a lot concerning the one-story link. He stated the addition seems taller when viewed in the 2D, but he does not feel the indicated 5 FT 6 IN taller height does not seem that bad when perceived from 1st Ave and the street. He asked about moving the resource towards the two streets to potentially help disguise some of the addition. Mr. Halferty agreed with Mr. Moyer and feels more study is needed before he believes he can grant the requested FAR bonus. Mr. Fornell is satisfied with the massing based on the percentages of the new versus the historic asset is well within the limitations. He wonders if the height of the addition will become a bit more intrusive if it becomes closer. He asked if they need to put a requirement on them that they need to restore the one-story element if it was determined to exist after digging into it more. Mr. Moyer feels the real issue is determining if the one-story element exists or not. If it does, he likes the glass connecting element. He feels if the tower was reduced, and the one-store element is preserved then it will be a very unique and interesting connecting element. He believes the tower could be made to better fit within the guidelines. Regarding Mr. Fornell’s questions, he doesn’t feel the commission need to decide anything until they know if the one-story element is historic or not. Mr. Moyer concurs with staff and their recommendations. Ms. Thompson feels the linking one-story element would be amazing if it is indeed historic. She feels there are many elements of this project that could be worthy of the FAR bonus and she supports figuring out the addition at this time. Ms. Thompson asked the commissioners to comment on the form of the addition. She feels the proportions are a little bit unique on how wide the gable is and how short the resource is. She believes the gable on the addition makes it look tall and skinny. She is open to not seeing a gable roof on the addition and wanted other commissioners to comment. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission June 23, 2021 Mr. Halferty feels because it is challenging because it’s on a corner lot. He is not sure a flat roof would be appropriate, and he is unclear which direction the gable should be running. He believes the commission needs to adhere to the chapter 10 guidelines. Ms. Thompson feels with the limited space on the lot, the ability to make proportions and the form work well is lost and she wanted to open up some flexibility. Ms. Surfas is curious about the snow shedding function of snow from the addition onto the connector. She is open to some flexibility. Mr. Fornell stated he visited the site three times today and he noticed an addition with a flat roof on a historic asset across the alley. He is open to flexibility in the guidelines. Ms. Sanzone stated she would also support flexibility in the roof form. Mr. Moyer also supports some flexibility. Ms. Thompson would like to see a lower roof. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Raymond if there was anything she needed clarity on. Ms. Raymond displayed a photo of a historic project at 232 E Bleeker St noting it was exactly what was being suggested. She stated the resource was moved forward and to the west. The addition is more modern and does have a flat roof. She noted this lot did have more space. Ms. Raymond asked for more clarification on the context noting the guideline talks about the block, neighborhood and the whole district. She feels restricting the conversation to the just the house next door when interpreting the guideline is very limiting. She stated all but two of the previous applications included moving the resource nine to ten feet. She stated moving this house the requested four feet places it more in line with the brick house across the street. She believes the Sanborn map shows a rhythm when you go down the street. She stated if they can’t move the house forward, then they won’t have room for a garage in the back. She feels because the house next door has already been moved, the context on the block is already lost. Ms. Raymond wanted to clarify they asked for the 140 FAR bonus because if they were going to make the window wells bigger, that would have made the basement account for more. She asked what it would take to have an exemplary restoration if they are restoring the chimney, front porch, dormer, and the complete historic element. Ms. Raymond also asked if they can’t dig into the house to determine how much material is remaining from the one-story element, what do they need to show it’s historic beyond the Sanborn map the photos to prove that it was really there and it was historic. Ms. Raymond thinks it’s awesome there could be some flexibility but asked how flexible. She feels it needs to relate to the gable or be completely different. Ms. Thompson stated for her, the restoration is excellent, and she is not questioning it. Mr. Halferty agreed but reiterated chapter 10 is a very important guideline and there is a lot of variety of what’s happened to additions. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission June 23, 2021 Regarding the relocation, Ms. Thompson stated since it is a corner lot, she will scrutinize a bit more and will consider the context of the whole neighborhood. She feels the house should stay approximately where it currently is located. Ms. Surfas asked Ms. Raymond to provide the dimensions of the garage. Ms. Raymond responded it will barely fit a car. Ms. Raymond reiterated if the house if moved forward and over, it’s going to be mor prominent on the lot and more in alignment with the large brick house on the other corner. She added the guideline states it should be in a similar location but doesn’t need to be the same. Ms. Yoon noted there is a dilemma on the site because of the reconstruction of the one-story element impacting the location and she doesn’t believe those can be looked at separately. The memo identifies the one-story element based on the Sanborn map, but doesn’t want to limit the amount of guesswork to reconstruct it. Staff’s position is that an investigation needs to happen to identify the types of material and confirm if it is a true restoration. She wants to make sure the applicant is not pushed to restore something based on too much guesswork to preserve and restore the element when it may impact the alignment. Mr. Fornell stated when he thinks of exemplary, he thinks of a historic asset that sits on its own two feet and any attachments start to detract from the original nature of the historic asset. He suggested the applicant may want to pursue an addition that is not connected to the asset. Ms. Thompson stated the applicant always has the ability to not connect the addition with the resource. She added some sites require demo work to figure out the situation. She feels the commission needs to have more information. Mr. Halferty noted it can be inconvenient to the homeowner, but some investigation can reveal what is going on. Ms. Raymond stated the guidelines force them into a linking element. She stated they spoke with Ms. Simon about it and she though it would be a great to use the one-story element as a link. Ms. Raymond added at the time, Ms. Simon did not know the element was buried in the addition. Ms. Raymond feels over the years the guidelines are being interpreted differently. She feels these homes need to be modernized so they are usable. She doesn’t feel having a disconnected addition will be acceptable to the homeowners since their bedrooms will be in the new addition. She has had previous projects where the house was moved over 10 FT, so she is not sure why it is an issue on this particular lot. She is trying to get a garage on the back of the property that fits. She feels moving the house forward keeps it in the rhythm of the street. Ms. Raymond stated previous HPC commissions have allowed restorations of much bigger elements with far less evidence, so she is confused and surprised about the need for proof for this application. She feels the Sanborn map shows the location and size, photographs of it and what appears to be a section of the historic roof viewable from inside the structure. She feels at a loss because this is so different that what I’ve experienced before, and she is not sure where else to go. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission June 23, 2021 Ms. Surfas asked her to show the images again. Ms. Raymond displayed pictures showing the rear element from outside front and side of the home and inside with the possible historic roof line in the ceiling. An elevation of the addition from the 1980’s was also displayed. Mr. Fornell noted he was tolerant of the request to move the historic resource to the north and east. He asked if anyone would be comfortable with moving the asset only north. Ms. Sanzone doesn’t believe anyone doubts the one-story element existed in 1965 and possibly more currently. She believes the commissioners want to know if it is there now and the only evidence is the sloping ceiling. She is looking for evidence that shows enough of it is there so it can be restored and not rebuilt. She feels there are too many questions about what is there and can it be saved. Ms. Thompson added from the image, the fenestration shown doesn’t align with what is shown in the proposed plan. She echoed Ms. Sanzone’s comments. She feels it is a significant element that will drive the location of the addition and the relationship between the structures. Mr. Moyer asked if there is another place for the garage. Ms. Raymond responded it can’t be any further forward, but it could be located on the other side of the addition. Ms. Yoon reminded the commissioners to not get into a design discussion. Ms. Thompson believes the commission needs more information and feels the others agree on a continuation. Mr. Moyer motioned for a continuance. No one seconded this motion. Ms. Raymond stated she is fine with a continuation but requested to ask one more question. She stated not out of disrespect but noted the example of 209 E Bleeker where the whole house was not there, and it was approved to be rebuilt. She asked why the fabric of what was there so critical on the one element and she doesn’t know what they are looking for as evidence. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Yoon for the type of information typically provided to the commission in similar situations. Ms. Yoon responded there are competing preservation outcomes. There is a historic alignment that is there, and the one-story element shown on the Sanborn map. She added applicants are not required to rebuild things because it’s on the map. Staff and the commission look at what is there for restoration. She stated if the one-story element is to be rebuilt, evidence needs to be provided. Staff and the commission want to work with the applicant to see how this would impact location. She stated typically they do look for materials and investigative probing to show there are bones to reconstruct things. Ms. Thompson added the location of the one-story element is driving the location of everything else on the site. She stated Ms. Yoon and Ms. Feinberg Lopez can provide additional information regarding what proof is being requested. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission June 23, 2021 Ms. Thompson moved to continue the application until July 28, 2021. Ms. Raymond agreed to the date and stated she is still lost on what she needs to do. Mr. Fornell stated he wondered this too. Mr. Halferty seconded the motion. Ms. Thompson feels the commission has provided clear directions and comments. Staff can further guide the applicant. Ms. Thompson moved to extend the meeting until 7:30 PM and was seconded by Mr. Fornell. Mr. Fornell asked if the one-story element does not show to exist today, is an option available for the element to not be recreated and a qualifying element to be created to a new conforming addition based on the guidelines. He wanted to know if the commission could provide guidance for the one-story element to be abandoned in exchange for either a qualifying linking element or a detached structure. Ms. Thompson responded as a standard for all projects, the commission is asking for proof that historic framing exists. Ms. Raymond stated she’s never been asked this before. Ms. Thompson informed her she was not muted. Ms. Thompson stated she understands historic photographs have been used before on projects for restoring front porches or other items that do not dictate how the site planning occurs. This is a unique situation, so the commission does need additional information. Mr. Halferty agreed with Ms. Thompson. Mr. Fornell also agreed with Ms. Thompson. Ms. Thompson asked for other discussion on the motion to continue the hearing. Ms. Sanzone stated she found quite a few discrepancies on the proposed site plan and landscape plan. She also noted there are two different stormwater plans in the application. She stated there is missing information in the survey to provide the grades at the base of the trees proposed to be saved and the graphic representation f the trees to be saved are shown much smaller that their actual size per the survey and aerial photographs. She would also like to see additional information confirming they are proposing to save these landscape features based on the drawings provided. She also commented the civil drawings of a proposed grading show a significant fill being added withing the drip line of the trees, which isn’t allowed because it would compromise the health of the tree. Ms. Thompson requested a roll call for the motion to continue the meeting until 7:30 PM. Roll call: Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes for a total of six – zero (6 – 0). The motion passed. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission June 23, 2021 Ms. Thompson requested clarification regarding if a transformer will be located on the property. Ms. Thompson asked for any other discussion and no one respond with comment. Ms. Thompson requested a roll call for the motion to continue the hearing until July 28, 2021. Roll call: Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes for a total of six – zero (6 – 0). The motion passed. Ms. Thompson thanked the applicant. Ms. Thompson closed the hearing. Ms. Thompson asked staff if a hybrid meeting is possible. Ms. Yoon responded that this may be considered in November once the meetings are in the new City Hall but is not an option for meetings held at the Armory building. Ms. Thompson advocated keeping the hearings virtual but requested an in-person work session in July with the board. Mr. Fornell and Ms. Sanzone agreed. Ms. Yoon will work on organizing a date for a work session. Ms. Thompson moved to adjourn and was seconded by Mr. Moyer. All in favor. The motion passed and the meeting was adjourned. OLD BUSINESS None Cindy Klob, Records Manager