Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20240424 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2024 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Kim Raymond, Charlie Tarver, Riley Warwick, Barb Pitchford and Kara Thompson. Absent were Peter Fornell and Jeff Halferty. Staff present: Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Jeff Barnhill, Planner I Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer asked if the Aspen Chapel was being designated historic. Ms. Armstrong said she believed that to be the case. Mr. Moyer said he thought it was great that it happened. Ms. Armstrong agreed. Ms. Thompson mentioned that she had met with Kirsten and the City’s Chief Building Officer, Bonnie Muhigirwa to discuss the building envelope consultant and related policies that HPC could adopt. She would be working with them to draft something that could be brought to the whole HPC board as a work session. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Raymond stated that she was conflicted on the first agenda item and would leave the meeting before the item. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Armstrong stated that the May 8th meeting would be cancelled as there were no agenda items. She also stated that a work session for the building envelope discussion would have to be sometime in June and the May 22nd meeting agenda was full. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Armstrong noted that since the last HPC meeting there had been one approved project monitoring item at 135 E. Cooper Ave. She then went over the details which were included in the agenda packet. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Armstrong noted that since the last HPC meeting there had been one certificate of no negative effect issued at 330 Gillespie St. She then went over the details which were included in the agenda packet. CALL UP REPORTS: None. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code for the agenda item as both agenda items were continued from previous meetings. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2024 Ms. Raymond left the meeting. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT: 227 E. Bleeker St. - Substantial Amendment - PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Mr. Milo Stark – Kim Raymond Architecture & Mr. Scott Hershey with Koru Ltd. Mr. Stark started his presentation by giving an update on their onsite progress since the last meeting. He noted that the historic siding has begun to be removed and showed a few pictures of areas with and without historic sheathing. Mentioning that their second request at the last hearing had to do with a synthetic roofing material, he again described the aspects of using that material. He said with that hearing being continued, they are now proposing a new roofing material. He referenced the Sanborn map and noted that they believe some of the roof area may have been historically tin. He said they are now proposing a metal roof in addition to the synthetic shingles and showed a few samples of the metal roofing to the HPC members. He said with HPC’s reaction to the proposed synthetic material not meeting the guidelines, they thought they would try for metal roofing, as it was seen historically. Ms. Thompson asked if the rest of the existing historic 1-inch sheathing was still in good condition. Mr. Stark said yes. Mr. Stark also noted that all the siding that has been removed has been numbered and that there had been very minimal if any damage to it. Staff Presentation: Stuart Hayden - Planner - Historic Preservation Mr. Hayden started his presentation by going over some of the history of the project and the previous HPC approvals. He noted that in December 2020 HPC approved the Conceptual Major Development of the project on the condition that the historic framing be investigated for any evidence of any historic material or openings and that such findings be reviewed by staff and the project monitor. He noted that the investigation revealed roughly 700 square feet of historic 1-inch-thick wood planks. He said that in November 2023 the applicant requested an insubstantial amendment to remove the historic materials and replace them with fire rated sheathing, a waterproof membrane, and furring strips. This request was remanded to HPC as a substantial amendment. Mr. Hayen moved on to state that staff finds the permanent removal of historic materials to be inconsistent with the strict interpretation of guidelines 2.1 and 2.4 and the overall root of the entire chapter. He went on to explain the reasoning behind staff’s beliefs, quoting sections of the Historic Preservation Guidelines dealing with historic materials as included in staff’s memo. He said that maintaining the original material and replacing only those elements that cannot be repaired is one of the four basic principles that form the foundation of the Historic Preservation Guidelines. He noted that staff recommends denial of the request to remove the historic sheathing. He moved on to the applicant’s request to install EcoStar Empire Shake and went over some of the approval history for roofing materials on this project. In 2021 HPC approved the installation of cedar shingle roofing and then in 2022 the project monitor and staff approved an insubstantial amendment to install architectural asphalt shingles. After being denied an insubstantial amendment request to install synthetic Brava brand shingles in December of 2023, the applicant requested to install the synthetic EcoStar Empire Shake. He noted that staff finds that this request fails to meet Design Guidelines 7.7, 7.8 and 7.9 and the overall root of this entire chapter. He again explained the reasoning behind staff’s beliefs, quoting sections of the Historic Preservation Guidelines dealing with historic materials as REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2024 included in staff’s memo. He noted that staff recommends denial of the request to install the EcoStar Empire Shake. He said that since the last HPC meeting on this project, the applicant has requested to install a standing seam metal roofing material. He noted that this roofing material fails to meet the same Design Guidelines as the synthetic shake material. He explained the reasoning behind staff’s beliefs, quoting sections of the Historic Preservation Guidelines dealing with historic materials as included in staff’s memo. He noted that staff recommends denial of the request to install the Drexel metal roofing material. Mr. Tarver asked if the metal roof were to be approved would there be a color that staff would prefer. Mr. Hayden said one of the non-reflective options. Ms. Thompson asked the applicant to bring forward their samples of the metal roofing materials. Mr. Stark brought up samples in their proposed colors. Board Discussion: Ms. Surfas started the board discussion, stating that she felt the applicant is going to run out of options. She was not present at the work session where roofing materials were discussed, so she was interested to hear the thoughts of the other board members. Ms. Pitchford said that through all this she had learned that there is a difference between a shake and a shingle in size and texture. She said she had a problem with the sheen in the metal material and the matte finish follows the guidelines a little better. Agreeing with Mr. Hayden’s presentation, she thought that, based on the historic guidelines, what has been proposed does not meet them. She said she would like to say yes to something but if you look at the guidelines and what has been proposed, they don’t fit. Ms. Thompson noted that the Design Guidelines are just that, guidelines and the board has discussed changing them to reflect what building standards are today. She said that she was not inclined to say yes to the metal roof because the addition already has one and she did not find it appropriate to have the same material on the addition and the historic resource. She stated that she would be more inclined to say yes to the synthetic shingle that was previously shown. She felt it was more compatible with the guidelines in terms of differentiating the old for the new. She said she felt they were moving in a direction where they will have to accept more synthetic materials. Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Thompson why she preferred a shake over a shingle. He asked why she wouldn’t ask the applicant to provide a sample of a synthetic shingle. Mr. Stark went over the different brands and styles of shake that they had presented and noted that the EcoStar brand does not produce what would be considered a synthetic shingle. He noted that while the brand labels this product a shake, the exposure and thickness resemble a shingle. The board briefly discussed the differences between a shake and a shingle. Mr. Moyer said that he concurred with staff. He said that when it came to the siding and sheathing issues, the HPC members were asked to make decisions that were beyond their comprehension when dealing with moisture issues. He said that until those issues were resolved it puts HPC in a quandary. He went on to describe paint issues that result from poor moisture management. When it came to the roofing materials, he said that until they have a real policy, they should just stick to the wood shingles. Mr. Warwick said the problem is that you probably cannot get insurance with a wood shingle. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2024 Mr. Moyer asked if that was the issue on this project, to which Mr. Stark said yes, it is getting harder to insure wood shingle homes. Mr. Moyer said considering that, they have to be able to be flexible and allow something else. Mr. Hayden wanted to add a point of clarification. He said that the applicant is currently approved for asphalt shingles which are insurable. He also added that there are currently homeowners in Aspen installing new wood shingle roofs, so insuring them is apparently possible. Ms. Pitchford asked if those were a treated wood shingle being installed. Mr. Hayden said he believed so, as the City requires roofing materials to be Class A. He mentioned that at least one of the insurance companies he had spoken with while prepping for the previous work session said that they consider the exact location of a property as well for insurance purposes. Ms. Pitchford wanted to confirm that asphalt shingles are approved for this particular project to which Mr. Hayden said yes. Ms. Thompson added that the applicant has raised their concerns about the lifespan of that product and that it is not recyclable. Pointing to the samples of the synthetic EcoStar product, Mr. Moyer said that it is a faux shake not a faux shingle. He said that they were not there to approve fake materials to a historic building. Mr. Warwick felt things needed to be prioritized here. He noted that the house needs to get insurance and he knew from experience that insurance is getting harder and harder to obtain. He said that they needed to categorize what they prefer better, knowing that the secondary building will have a new metal roof. He said they need to decide if they would prefer metal, synthetic shake, or the previously approved asphalt shingles. He said that his preference is the “fake” shake. Ms. Surfas did not believe that anyone would know the shake material was fake as long as it was all the same size. She felt it was much better than the asphalt shingles. Mr. Moyer asked Mr. Stark about the sizes and arrangement of wood shingles on other historic homes in town. Mr. Stark described the roof style of the adjacent house. The board briefly discussed other examples of roof styles on historic projects in town. Mr. Stark showed a picture of the onsite mockup of the Empire Shake that was presented at the January meeting. Ms. Pitchford said that this was a tough situation. She had originally agreed with staff’s recommendation but realized that there is a dilemma here. She agreed with Ms. Surfas in that the synthetic shake / shingle looked more authentic that the asphalt shingles. Ms. Thompson and Ms. Surfas both agreed that they need to adapt on this. Mr. Tarver said that something that is hard to insure should not be an acceptable standard. He said that if something is more expensive to insure that is not HPC’s issue. He noted that “not able to be insured” is different than “more expensive to insure”. He said that he deferred to the rest of the board, but he would be ok with the synthetic shake in a mixture of 6- and 9-inch sizes and in the lighter color. Ms. Thompson noted that her opinion is not necessarily based on insurance, but rather that she believed that their Design Guidelines need to adapt to current building practices. She said that she was ok with the synthetic shingle / shake. Mr. Moyer again stated that he preferred the asphalt shingle. He thought the applicant’s sample of the synthetic material looked obviously fake due to the size of the individual shakes. Ms. Pitchford asked if this synthetic material was recyclable, to which Mr. Stark said yes. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2024 Ms. Thompson moved on to discuss the removal of the historic 1-inch sheathing and replacing it with the 7/16ths-inch fire rated sheathing. Mr. Moyer said he concurred with staff on this as well. He said he did not know if what was being proposed would work. He noted that they were proposing to take off historic materials and replace it with something new, which was totally against the guidelines. Mr. Stark went back over the reasoning for their proposed wall assembly and said that they believe it will be a high functioning unit and a much better fire rated wall. He noted that they had submitted a letter from the City’s Chief Building Official stating that their wall assembly met all current code amendments. Mr. Moyer asked if Mr. Stark had done any research of what other communities with significant historic homes were doing on this front. Mr. Stark said he had not. Mr. Hershey further explained their reasoning for their proposed wall assembly and noted that it will still look historic from the outside. Mr. Moyer wondered if the City could be leader in developing a system for historic houses to address moisture issues and meet modern fire codes. Ms. Thompson said that they have been trying to be at the forefront on this and should be with the types of historic homes in town. She noted that the Chief Building Official did provide a letter, signing off on this assembly. She said that she would be more concerned if they did not allow the applicant to put in a furring strip because of the moisture issues, but that means they need to use thinner sheathing to maintain the historic reveal. Overall, she was ok with this request. She noted that HPC had over the past number of years said no to this type of wall assembly, because the guidelines had not been updated. She said she found it unacceptable that they are still sitting here years later with no solution for applicants. Mr. Warwick said that in his mind this proposed wall assembly protects the historic structure better than not using it. He said that the fact that the current guidelines do not fall in line with that, tells him that they are not up to date, which is why the board has leeway to make decisions. Ms. Pitchford agreed that the guidelines need to be updated but also supported staff in following the current guidelines as written. She agreed that providing a better fire rated sheathing would better protect and preserve the resource in the long run. Mr. Tarver said he was fine with the sheathing change. Mr. Moyer asked about the current condition of the historic siding that had been removed so far. Mr. Stark said that they had removed and saved about 75% of the siding so far and every piece is number and would be stripped, double primed and the reinstalled. Mr. Moyer asked if it would still look old. Mr. Stark said yes. Public Comment: None MOTION: Mr. Warwick moved to approve Resolution #03 of 2024 to approve the lighter colored synthetic shake / shingle and the replacement of the wall assembly as proposed. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, motion passes. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2024 OLD BUSINESS: 808 Cemetery Lane (Red Butte Cemetery) - Minor PD Amendment to a Project Review Approval, Use Variation, GMQS Review Applicant Presentation: Alan Richmond – Red Butte Cemetery Association Mr. Richmond started by introducing Mr. Stoney Davis who is the President of the Red Butte Cemetery Association. Mr. Davis then introduced three members of the Association Board who were sitting in the audience. Mr. Richmond noted that this is a beautifully maintained historic property and is a treasure of Aspen. He said that they are here tonight with a proposal intended to ensure that the historic character is maintained into the future. He mentioned that while there have always been voluntary efforts to maintain the property, in recent years it has become apparent that there is a need to supplement those efforts with the part time work of a Cemetery employee. He said they are asking HPC to support this by granting approval for the part time employee to live in the existing maintenance building as an on-site caretaker. He said that the cemetery is not a City Park and is not supported by City taxes. Mr. Richmond went over some of the background of the Cemetery and its history and showed the plot map of the Cemetery, pointing out the current location of the maintenance building. He described the previous area where the maintenance building is now as piles of various materials out in the open and an eyesore. He noted the building is 1300 square feet and is located in the rear of the property. It consists of a 950 square foot garage and a 350 square foot office/kitchen/bathroom space. He showed a few pictures of the exterior and interior of the building. He mentioned that the Cemetery has had a part time employee for many years and for some time it was someone who didn’t live in the valley. He noted that in 2014 the City Council approved a request to convert the office space into a living / sleeping space to allow the employee to “crash” only when needed for work purposes and it would not be a full-time living space. Due to concerns raised by neighbors, the approval was limited to a one-year trial basis. After the one year the Cemetery Association did not ask to renew the use. He then showed a few pictures and described the interior of the office / living space. Speaking to why they are back with this new request, Mr. Richmond noted the current problem of housing in the valley and that City Council has placed an emphasis on public / private partnerships in contributing to a solution to the housing issue. He mentioned that having a housing unit onsite will help the Association recruit and keep an employee. Also, it will help with security issues and act as a deterrent to future vandalism that might occur. He noted that this job is not a full time, 40 hour a week position, but is more seasonal in the spring, summer, and fall. He described a few other reasons and benefits of having an employee onsite. In addressing some of the opposing comments that suggest that the housing unit will not be compatible with the serene nature of the cemetery, Mr. Richmond noted that no exterior changes are being proposed to the maintenance building and that due to the size of the unit, it can only accommodate a single person. He also noted that the Association, who has a vested interest in maintaining the serene nature of the Cemetery, can set conditions on the lease so that nuisances don’t occur. Mr. Richmond then addressed opposing concerns that this request will undermine the existing zoning of the site. He noted that the property has been zoned as a park since the 1970s. He went on to describe the impact of the zoning type over the years. He noted that the proposed application does not require REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2024 the property to be rezoned and quoted section 26.445.060 of the Code that allows the City to vary uses in a Planned Development (PD). He noted that City staff finds that this meets the standards to allow a use variation. He then noted a few other housing units that already exist at the Golf Course and Iselin and Anderson Parks and said that this will not be setting a precedent. Mr. Davis commented that he would like to get the Cemetery where it can run after he is gone. Mr. Moyer asked if the building had heat and if it was hooked up to City water and sewage, to which Mr. Richmond said yes. Mr. Moyer also asked that if the employee has a car, would it be parked outside the building or inside. Mr. Davis said they could make room in the winter for it to be inside. Mr. Moyer then asked who would manage the person, APCHA or the Cemetery Association. Mr. Richmond said that the Association would control who resides there. Ms. Thompson noted that the employee would just have to qualify with APCHA. Mr. Moyer asked a few more questions about the future of the landscaping of the Cemetery. Ms. Johnson wanted to state for the record that she was just informed that Ms. Surfas has a conflict of interest on this item and had left the meeting. Ms. Pitchford asked how close the maintenance building is to the houses on Overlook Dr. Mr. Davis said it was probably 175 - 200 feet to the closest neighbor on Overlook Dr. Ms. Pitchford also asked how the employee would access the building, to which Mr. Daivs said there is only one access point to the cemetery and that is the main entrance. Mr. Tarver asked for clarification that the employee would not have to meet the 1500 hours required by APCHA. Mr. Richmond said they could not guarantee that someone would qualify based on the hours the cemetery would need them. Mr. Tarver also asked if they had considered anything that would prohibit more than one person living there. Mr. Davis said they hadn’t considered more than one person living there. Mr. Warwick asked how much they pay the employee, to which Mr. Davis said last year they paid $25 per hour and that that employee lived in Snowmass. Staff Presentation: Jeff Barnhill – Planner I Mr. Barnhill began his presentation by quickly going over some details of the property and the applicant’s request to establish a deed restricted affordable housing unit on site. He showed the plans to convert the space into a living unit. He noted that as part of preapproval the project must align with City of Aspen values and provide a public benefit. He then went over a few City goals from the Aspen Area Community Plan that this project aligns with. Mr. Barnhill then went over the Floor Area ratios and noted that the 1300 square foot total is not changing other than it will now consist of 352 square feet of affordable housing and 928 for the maintenance workshop. As far as the Growth Management Standards, staff found that they were all met or found to be nonapplicable. He then went over the APCHA deed restriction proposal and noted that since this was an existing unit and a voluntary deed restriction, it can be allowed to be under the 500 square feet minimum for a studio. He mentioned that APCHA had proposed to waive the minimum number of hours for qualification, but the employee must work the hours specified in the application. The unit will be categorized as an RO unit. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2024 Mr. Barnhill then mentioned that this is not a rezoning of the property and that as a Planned Development, the applicant may request use variations on the site. He reviewed the Use Variation Standards. He then reviewed the Period of Significance for the cemetery, highlighting some of the history of the property. He noted that staff had found that a live in caretaker has been an intentional part of the cemetery since its inception and that the property was originally developed with a caretaker house on the grounds where he historically lived all year. He read from a 1901 newspaper article, included in the agenda packet, regarding the “sexton” that lived on the property. He closed by stating that staff recommends HPC approve the Resolution based on the criteria, recommending the establishment of a deed restricted affordable housing unit onsite. He clarified that this would be a recommendation to City Council who would be the final review authority on this matter. Ms. Thompson asked why the resolution did not specify the size category of the unit. Mr. Barnhill replied that APCHA recommended it to be an RO unit but did not specify how many people could occupy it. Ms. Thompson noted that HPC could include an occupancy limit in their recommendation. Mr. Warwick asked about the Victorian structure that Mr. Barnhill had mentioned. Mr. Barnhill showed a historic site map and pointed out the historic Victorian cabin and outhouse that exist on the property. He noted that part of the 2009 approval to build the maintenance facility was a condition to preserve these. Public Comment: Ms. Thompson asked the board members to confirm that they had read the public comment emails that had been sent to them since the packet was published. All members confirmed that they had read the emails. Mr. Leo Barabe said he has lived right next to the cemetery for 50 years. Him and his wife have always been happy about the employees that have worked at the cemetery. He said it would keep one more car off the highway if someone could live there and having a car parked onsite may also act as a deterrent to any mischief. He offered his support of this request. Mr. John Keleher stated that his wife and son are buried in the cemetery and his family has 5 other plots there. He said he was in full support of this request. Mr. Ned Walker said he lives on Silver King Dr., and less than 10 years ago he buried his 26-year-old daughter in the cemetery and him and his wife visit it regularly. He thanked Mr. Davis and the Cemetery Association for the beautiful setting and the upkeep work they do. He said he supports having an onsite manager there. He understood that there were some concerns from neighboring residents but noted that the cemetery is for the whole community and is not a backyard. He thought that HPC had a real opportunity to secure the future of the cemetery. Mr. Jonathan Nickell handed out an information packet (included in the agenda packet) that summarized his comments. He said he lives on Snowbunny Lane and backs up to the cemetery. He sees the maintenance shed out his bedroom window. While he thanked Mr. Davis and the Cemetery Association for their work on the Cemetery, he said that they disagree on this issue. He said that in the original Planned Development there was a commitment by the Association that they would not use the maintenance facility for housing. He said that almost immediately after that they applied for a use variation to have someone live there. He said that they are now reneging on that commitment. He asked the HPC not to approve this. He claimed that the Association had the resources to buy a housing unit REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2024 somewhere else in town. He stated that the unit they are proposing is not something someone would want to live in long term. He noted that they had originally promises to plant vegetation around the maintenance facility to shield it from the neighbors, but that has yet to happen. He also noted the installation of unpermitted fuel tanks on the property and the digging up of sagebrush. Ms. Thompson asked if the applicant had rebuttal to any of the public comments. Mr. Davis responded that what had been dug up was thistles and rabbit grass, not sagebrush. Regarding the fuel tanks, he noted that they were instructed by the City’s Building Department that they needed to get into compliance with the fire department. He mentioned that they had acquired the equipment to get the tanks into compliance and were working on it. Ms. Armstrong responded to public comment by noting that they cannot confirm or deny any unpermitted work, as they have not received any complaints. She said that there is a system for community members to file complaints. Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson stated that she agreed with staff and suggested that HPC’s recommendation to City Council note that the unit should be qualified as a studio, which would only allow up to two people to live there. Mr. Moyer said he would like to add that landscape screening is put around the building. He said that it would help with the fuel tank issue and was also agreed upon a long time ago. Ms. Raymond agreed. Mr. Warwick commented that if he lived in the surrounding neighborhood, he would probably pay attention to this issue. He said the idea of someone potentially having a party out there might be scary to neighbors but was probably in all reality not likely. He noted that there are systems in place to report noise complaints. He listed a few situations he personally knew of related to the difficulty of the housing market in town and thought that affordable housing was very important. Ms. Raymond agreed with Mr. Warwick and noted that the Aspen Area Community Plan states that the housing issues are not just for the City and County to solve. She felt that this was a perfect example of that and agreed with Mr. Barabe that it could take another car off the road. She said she was in favor of this becoming an affordable housing unit. She also felt that since the Association had previously agreed to planting trees around the building, that that needed to happen. Ms. Pitchford agreed with the previous member comments, including making sure they recommend that it be a studio apartment and that landscaping be planted. Mr. Tarver said that he had lived next to the cemetery 38 years ago and it was quiet. He agreed with the landscaping recommendation. He recommended that the historic cabin not be allowed for storage. Mr. Barnhill asked the board members if they wanted to suggest a different landscape screening plan than what was included in the original Planned Development approvals. Ms. Thompson recommended having an updated landscaping plan be reviewed by staff and monitor to be consistent with the original intent, but that it could be different as the original plans may be old. Ms. Raymond pointed out that in the packet Mr. Nickell handed out there were two different landscaping plans submitted at two separate meetings in 2008 and 2009. She wondered if both were REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 24TH, 2024 approved. Mr. Barnhill commented that since this specific request only dealt with interior work, he had not dug into those aspects of the PD approvals. Ms. Raymond said that if one of those was approved and agreed upon, then something very similar should be done. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #04 of 2024 with the following adjustments to the conditions. Condition #6 be revised to state that the unit should be classified as a studio category RO with the rental rate based on the employee’s category. Condition #7 to state that the applicant will install landscaping either consistent with previous approvals or to work with staff and monitor to come up with a different acceptable plan. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Pitchford seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk