At its Nov. 19 meeting, the Flagstaff Heritage Preservation Commission approved a partially covered front porch and fencing at 402 West Birch and asked the applicant to return with revised plans for a proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and garage.

Staff described the project as a new one‑bedroom, one‑bath ADU above a two‑car garage on a non‑contributing property within the townsite historic overlay. Architect Anne Mead told the commission the design locates the carriage‑house style unit at the rear of the lot, matches roof pitch to the primary house, and uses a mix of stucco and lap siding to reduce perceived bulk.

Commissioners raised repeated concerns about the ADU's bulk and its subservience to the historic primary dwelling. Commissioner Duffy Westheimer pressed that, although "the state law says people can go to 25 feet," that allowance "doesn't mean you have to" build at that height and argued the current design "would stand out like a tower in the neighborhood." Commissioners and staff discussed a range of adjustments to reduce massing, including lowering plate heights by about 16 inches, converting the gable dormer to a shed dormer, breaking the garage face into two smaller doors, removing or shrinking the second‑floor deck, and exploring whether the unit could be rotated so the garage loads from the alley. Staff noted some physical constraints such as an existing gas meter that could complicate reorientation.

Owner Holly Aberbeck, who spoke during public comment, noted other two‑story examples nearby and urged consideration of the full neighborhood context. Anne Mead said the design team could "knock 16 inches off of it" but cautioned that very low ceilings could make interior spaces impractical.

The commission split the item into two actions. On the primary house changes, Commissioner Jesse Dominguez moved to approve the proposed front porch and fencing; Commissioner Alicia Hayes seconded and the chair called the motion in the affirmative. For the detached ADU and garage, Commissioner Amy Horn moved to continue the decision to the December meeting and requested the applicant provide modified drawings addressing the commission's guidance; the motion was seconded and commissioners voted in favor to continue the ADU portion.

Next steps: the applicant will prepare revised drawings addressing the commission's suggestions (smaller apparent upper story, broken‑up garage façade, altered roofline, possible deck reduction or repositioning). Staff indicated they could accept updated drawings ahead of the December agenda and that a new staff report is not required if the applicant submits revisions in time for commissioners to review before the next hearing.