Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20160323ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, Patrick Sagal, Michael Brown, Bob Blaich and Sallie Golden. Absent were John Whipple, Gretchen Greenwood and Jim DeFrancia. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Nora said there is an apparent conflict of interest on the Meadows. Her family came here for the Institute. Nora said she has total ability to be objective on this application. Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director introduced herself and went over the moratorium that will be in place for a year that was passed by City Council. In the commercial zone districts, downtown, commercial core, C1, neighborhood commercial, mixed use and SCI zone districts we cannot accept any new land use applications during the period that the moratorium is in place. There are also limits on what building permit applications can be taken in. If a building permit application were coming in that didn’t trigger a land use review but was asking to increase height or FAR that is something that would be caught in the moratorium. City Council wanted to make sure that they have some breathing room and time to work through code amendments to better incorporate the Aspen Area Community plan into the land use code. As we move fo rward we will be asking HPC for input. Amy said she issued a certificate of no negative effect at the Ute City Banque building for skylights that were leaking. 540 E. Main Street – Aspen Police Station Planned Development – Project Review, Major Development, Conceptual Review, Demolition & Relocation of designated historic properties, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use review for the provisions of Affordable Housing Growth Management Reviews for an Essential Public Facility and for the development of affordable housing, public hearing cont’d from February 24th ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 2 Jennifer said there was a site visit today to inspect story poles, Exhibit N. The scope of the project is to demolish the existing ranch house and a cement block garage, construct a new police station along Main Street and a new multi-family building for affordable housing behind the police station. There will also be a new trail connection from Main Street to Obermeyer. As part of the project the proposal is to relocate the historic resource on the site and move it forward. Direction was given at the last meeting that the barn could be removed because it wasn’t of the same period of significance as the historic house and the shed. The house and shed to remain on site as an interpretive building. There were two proposals for siting the house, one was square to the street and the other at an angle. Staff is recommending the square to the street angle. There was discussion on wanting to know where the resources will be temporarily located during the redevelopment of the site. The initial was Burlingame but there has been some talk about Anderson Park. The applicant is still trying to determine where they would be stored and recommends that be a condition of final. The Board asked how the two resources would be maintained as an interpretive building on the site. There is still discussion how that would occur. Currently the applicant is committing to maintain the two structures on the site by getting them on foundations and stabilizing them. The applicant isn’t sure if the Historical Society will operate the interpretive building. Jennifer said another question was to look at the fencing of the rear courtyard and how it may block views of the resource. A 3/1/2 foot fence is proposed and staff is recommending that the fencing impacts the view of the resource and should be removed. There was also discussion about reducing the height of the police station which is over 30+ feet. There are several zone districts in that area. In the commercial core and C1 district a two- story building is giving the height limit of 28 feet. Some of the height has been reduced. HPC needs to determine if they are OK with the height and if it is suitable to the character of the building for its use and that it is compatible with the neighborhood. Staff’s position is that it be as close to 28 feet as possible. The board also asked for more renderings and views which should be presented by the applicant during their presentation. Changes for affordable housing are included in the packet. The reso is to approve the project with conditions; maintain the height of 28 feet for the police station; removing the fencing along the perimeter of the courtyard; there is also concerns about the elevator near the affordable housing. It is almost like a standalone mass and maybe it can be incorporated into the building better. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 3 We need to look at the exposure of the garage level from Rio Grande Place and if the mass can be reduced by landscaping, dirt etc. The ramping being proposed to connect the new trail is mostly on the Concept 600 building property. We would like consent from the adjacent property owner by final on the trail. Parks is also concerned that there is enough turnaround for cyclists. The temporary storage should be outlined in the development for final. In the resolution is a requirement to have a more detailed plan on how the resource shall be maintained as an interpretive building on the site and also a detailed plan for restoration and repair of the materials on the historic resources. The rear addition to the cabin can be removed. Nora asked about stabilization vs preserving the historic buildings. Amy said in this case we don’t want to take the work on the building to far. There is an appreciation for the state that it is in now and we don’t want to disturb the unique materials. We would like to fix it where it is and allow that condition to be maintained for the long term. Debbie pointed out that new renderings will be presented tonight that you haven’t seen. If the board does not have sufficient time to look at what they are going to present you can ask for a continuation. The applicant is to provide staff with a copy of what they are presenting for the record. Michael asked about the rear of the parcel and what is allowed in the SCI zone district and CC and C1. What is the height of the rear building at its peak point? Jennifer said if it is a two-story building in the CC and C1 it can be 28 feet. For a three-story in the commercial core it is 38 feet and C1 is 36 feet. The heights are a little higher for the SCI zone. On the rear you measure from the third-story down to the entry to the garage. The top of the roof form down to the finished grade. That is at 46.6 feet. Michael also asked what the rear setbacks are for adjacent zone districts. Jennifer said Obermeyer was a PUD and it probably has minimum setbacks. The CC and C1 have O setbacks. Applicants: Alan Richman, Planning Services; Jack Wheeler and Jeff Pendarvis from the Capital Asset Department. Richard Pryor and Bill Lynn ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 4 from the Police Department. Charles Cunniffe architects; Charles Cunniffe, Scott Smith, Jim Kehoe, Design Workshop, Darla Calaway. Alan pointed out that they were specifically asked to bring information to the meeting for today. We were asked to respond to certain specific items and bring a 3D rendering. We will respond to the direction that was given by the HPC. We ask that you keep in mind the importance of the functions of the overall plan. The property was purchased by the city 15 years ago to meet long term community needs. At one point in time it was considered for the Fire Department but they decided to stay on Hopkins. The civic master plan started 10 years ago. The police department is in an immanent need of a new home. This location allows them to coordinate their operations with the Sheriff’s and it is in close proximity to the jail, court house and to city administration buildings. In 2015 the property was rezoned to public. The zone district permits the uses which is clearly outlined in the staff report. It also requires that the dimensional requirements get set by the adoption of a Planned Development Plan. Alan said there are three primary standards for a planned development 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through the proposed dimensions. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character that is suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the distinct identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. Alan said there are clearly significant community goals that can be achieved here. We are creating a public building that will serve the community for many years to come. We are also providing onsite affordable housing and we are preserving a unique historic resource. The dimensions are necessary to achieve the purpose and primary uses of the project. This is not another building on Main Street it is a special building being used for a public purpose. We are also doing a LEED certified building and the City wants to lead by example. In 50 years I would like to think people will view this as a memorable space and worthy of recognition. The dimensional limits in the surrounding zones are one way to judge whether the project will be compatible with the neighborhood. The code doesn’t require absolute adherence to those limits. The surrounding zones do allow for more height ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 5 and we do have three stories in the affordable housing building. When looking at the neighborhood you need to consider the buildings on either side of the site. We measured the court house plaza and that is 35’3 inches and the Concept 600 is 32’6”. The new courthouse addition is a three story building. The floor area of this building is well below that of surrounding sites. The floor area is 1.1 to 1 on this site. It is about 30,000 square feet on a 27,000 square foot site. The CC and C1 allow the floor area of 2.75 to 1 and 2.5 to 1 respectively. SCI allows 2.25 to 1. We are way below the surrounding properties. That is because we consolidated our floor area and we have limited foot prints. For a downtown property we have large amounts of open space. We are accommodating a trail and a public plaza. The buildings tend to be more vertical and the foot prints are limited and the open space is considerable. Darla Calaway did a power point on two site plans. The police station is on the west property line and there is affordable housing. There is also an historic structure and the Hunter Creek trail connection which is a mid-block connection that connects pedestrians, bicyclists through the connection. There is also a public courtyard that allows the police to hold their public functions and an employee courtyard. The Concept 600 building is to the east. The Hunter Creek trail connection currently exists in a stair ramp configuration. We need to reconfigure the stairs and the ramp. We are lining the trail up with the cross walk to make the connection more direct. There is 12/1/2 feet of grade change to navigate through. We can do beacons etc. to make pedestrians aware of the garage doors. The alleyway is an emergency access and it is a patient drop off for Aspen Medical. The ramp is on the Concept 600 property and at final design we will address that. Regarding the historic structure we heard that the visibility is important to the HPC and how can we increase that visibility. The interior of the historic structure is very important to the board. If the building is too close to other buildings we would have to fire rate it and that would have implications to the interior. We have lowered the screening around the police courtyard from 5 feet to 3 ½ feet so that the view is not blocked. Richard Pryor, Chief of Police There are two elements why we would like to maintain the fence in the courtyard area. On the northwest area is an employee break area and just to the south is the main operations area and patrol. That is where people come and go and they are right near the windows. The courtyard ties into the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 6 employee break area. We are hoping to provide an area where the police offices have an area to do reports and take a break and a few interviews. Most importantly is the security aspect. We do not want people just walking up to the windows of the police department and look in. There needs to be some kind of private space. A visual barrier is needed to indicate that it is a private area. There is 3 ½ feet of delineated space in which we can maintain our private space. Darla said there is a fence separating the Hunter Creek trail system connection which also serves the employee housing units and the police functions. Then there is a ten foot separation. It is out intent to separate the uses. We have not determined what the fencing is. It could be a trellis, plantings, and screen. It is not a privacy fence but will allow the police officer to be seated at a table and have a conversation without being completely exposed by those coming by the Hunter trail system. The trail is misleading as it is a midblock connection. Willis inquired about the ramp and accommodating a bike. Darla said the turning radius of a bike depends on design speed. You can walk a bike down the ramp or ride. Michael said bikes are not permitted on the sidewalks. Darla said we will involve Obermeyer Place and Concept 600 building regarding the ramp, snowmelt etc. Darla said the start of the ramp is within the easement and as it switches back it is on the Concept 600 property and a portion is in the alley right-of-way. Alan said there was a pedestrian easement granted by Obermeyer. Michael said we are being asked to approve a site plan in which the applicant doesn’t have control of the land. Willis said they are proposing to have those approvals in place at final. Charles said we are confident that progress is in place. Charles said at the last meeting the request was that we come in tonight with supplemental information. Charles presented a 3D power point of the project. The best presence of the historic house is along the trail. One concern was the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 7 visibility of the elevator tower from the Rio Grande side of the site. There was conversation of making the elevator go to the second floor and have the third floor be walkup. There is a preference to make everything handicapped accessible and we can sort that out at final. Our goal is to get the building at 28 feet except for the clearstory which gives us ventilation and extra light and the elevator override. At final we can explain the benefits of LEED and WELL. Jim said the building will be cooled by ventilation with a radiant floor system which will have cooling properties. The windows will be automated so that fresh air flows from the lower level into the core of the building up through the circulation area and out the clearstory. Daylight is important in this building and it reduces the carbon footprint. Half of the building is internal because it abuts the existing court house plaza building. Housing Charles said the pulled the units in the center back to allow a little bit more outdoor livability. We also added storage closets. Every unit has either a deck or balcony and every unit has a storage closet. Our housing component is smaller than the county building about four feet. Jennifer asked if a fully sketch up model is available which she requested. Charles said we will have that for final. We provided a 3D which is a walk around. Jennifer clarified that the direction from the board was to provide additional perspectives so that you could actually see more of the buildings and that they would have a fully functional sketch up model so you could actually ask to see this view or that view. Michael asked what the height of the clearstory is. Charles said it is currently at 4’.3” and our intention is to lower that. The overall goal is to keep the building at 28 feet except for the clearstory. Michael said the building is two story. Is there a reason you couldn’t do the clearstory if you maxed out at 28 feet. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 8 Charles said it is really difficult. In the commercial design standards the ground floors are supposed to be 13 to 14 feet high and we are down to 12 feet right now. We don’t want the building to look disproportionate to look like a horizontal building. We would like to keep the vertical emphasis and also allow the building to have presence and stature in the community. The buildings around it are quite large. Michael said the interesting thing is that the building to the west is three stories and the same height and the building to the east looks like it is four stories and the same height. Alan said the building to the left is dug out a full story below where we are and it exposes four stories. Jim said this building is essentially an office building with a public component. With that we have air movement, lighting requirements and all that happens below the floor plate. Those in design create limitation to reductions of floor plates and height. Willis asked what the ceiling heights are on the second floor? Jim said we are proposing 12 feet floor to ceiling. Underneath the structure we have 12 inch mechanical ducting and below that we have the lighting and fans. We have about 9 feet with three feet of mechanicals. Jack Wheeler said the elevator overrun is in front of the clearstory. If we reduce the clearstory the elevator overrun will be at the higher elevation. Taking the clearstory down is not going to reduce the mass of the building. The overall building is below 28 feet. We will try to minimize the clearstory. The clearstory is a function of the LEED and it is important that we are the City of Aspen hang that plaque and get the LEED certification. We feel the mass is appropriate in what we are trying to do. Charles said Gretchen asked us to lower the front portion of the building in front of the elevator and we did and we also did a reduction of the brick. Willis clarified that the building is at 28 feet except for the clerestory and elevator override. Michael said the way the city measures the height is at 33’4”. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 9 Patrick asked how far back the clearstory is. Jim said it is approximately 30 feet back from the east wall. The clearstory is behind the elevator shaft. Charles said no matter what we do the county building will continue to overwhelm this building. Michael asked if they discussed tucking the second elevator in between the police building and the affordable housing. Charles said it is tucked in against the county building and it is also usable between us and the county because there is a connection between our building and the county sheriff’s office. Jack Wheeler said the reason it is on the north end is that it can service the parking area and loading area at the lowest level. Charles said we also can’t put it in the middle of a secure police parking area. The handicapped parking is also at that area. Jim said the idea is that people can do gown the elevator and walk across to the park. Patrick said he supports the police in wanting a separation. Would it be possible to move the historic resource up front toward Main Street so that the police could have that entire area back there? Darla said it could move to the front but then it compromises the firewall requirements under the code. Nora asked if a transparent wall could be incorporated so that you could see the historic resource. Darla said there needs to be a balance between maintaining the use of the space. A total transparent wall would diminish that space. We could use an open screen or possibly a trellis with plantings etc. Amy said the county building will be coming before HPC but it is an advisory review and HPC is not in a position to deny their proposal. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 10 Sallie asked if there are areas that need railings that are not shown in the drawings. Darla said guardrails and handrails for the ramp and stairs will be provided. Bob asked if the public amenity space is basically for the housing. By maintaining the historic building in its location you have to compromise that. Darla said the police station needs are accommodated. There would be an opportunity to do a specific scheme for the affordable housing including a landscape berm. Charles said the courtyard to the front is a very active place to interact with the community. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Lisa Hancock, curator for the Historical Society Lisa said she is here to represent their needs. We were approached about taking the three buildings to the Holden Marolt site. The discussion was is this an added value to the Marolt site and it was determined that it was. It would work for us to take these buildings. I was alarmed at the last meeting when HPC recommended to keep the structures onsite which for us is not our preference. Then there was discussion that we would use those as an interpretive site. There are many reasons why that will not work for us. It does work at Holden Marolt because it is an added value. There are two structures at Marolt, the salt shed and the barn itself. Having these other structures of the same time period gives us an opportunity especially with school children and with visitors to see the extra interpretive component. The other part is that staffing is in place. Since we lease the property from the city it could be added to the lease that the site is used for interpretive purposes. At its present location it is not a very acceptable site to interpret. The story that this building tells is a domestic interior. We tell that story already with the Wheeler Stallard house. If we can add this to the mining and ranching story that we already tell at Holden Marolt it just makes that story complete. To have it as a total separate site it isn’t very compelling. It isn’t a site that would be manned on a daily basis. It is diffi cult to attract visitors to the sites ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 11 we currently have (4) Holden Marolt, barn, lixiviation plant, Wheeler Stallard house and we operate the Independence ghost town and Ashcroft ghost town and how are we going to attract visitors to 5 site. At the last time we were here at the meeting we weren’t consulted. Sallie asked what staff preferred. Amy said there was a lot of discussion at the last meeting and the board decided for the integrity of location keeping the buildings on the site and part of the mix and fabric of town was the right thing to do. We have had no dialogue about this. Maybe it’s not the Historical Society that does the interpretation. It is up to the HPC whether the decision should be back on the table but we weren’t expecting that toni ght. Nina Gabrielle, vice president of education and programs for the Aspen Historical Society. I work with the public and children. Imagine that you are 8 years old and I’m trying to tell you how people lived in 1885. If I could take them inside a building that would awesome and it would be priceless in trying to get them to understand. The Holden site was a large industrial plant and the largest in Pitkin County. Being able to interpret the families that lived here is invaluable. It could be done on the existing site but it could be done better on the Marolt site. I would be able to bring 120 kids onto the property. I don’t think this is the appropriate site. Patrick asked how many kids and adults are at the museum yearly. Nina said she has been doing this for 8 years. An average of kids is 400 to 500 per year and the adults are around 800 that come to the Holden Marolt site. In 1885 the Holden Marolt site was undeveloped. Jeff Pendarvis said he is coming as a parent of a 2nd grader. I went on the tour when my daughter was in 3rd grade and the tour is awesome. The context with that house at the Marolt makes sense. With the house on our site and trying to tell the story doesn’t make any sense to a 3 rd grader of 4th grader. Nina’s argument is very compelling. Jerome Sennesich, represented Obermeyer Place We have been meeting with the development team and they have been responsive and we have made excellent progress. We are working on what ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 12 the stairway should look like and we have discussed a bike channel. We are generally in support of the project for the police department as a whole. Bob asked if there was any discussion about the interpretive center and was it positive or negative about the tenants. Jerome said the buildings have historic value and we recognize that and also the interiors. If there is someone wanting to take that stewardship I would suggest you reconsider. Having them sit closed up or locked up and not open to the public is a shame. If they stay there who is going to make them accessible. Obermeyer appreciates the value of them and understands that it is an historic property and at the same time we have been looking at the buildings with nothing going on. We would love to see something happen to them. Patrick asked Jerome what he thinks about a clear elevator as opposed to the stairs and you wouldn’t need the ramp. Jerome said Obermeyer would encourage a rolling access point rather than an elevator. Concept 600 is willing to give an easement. Amy pointed out that at the last meeting it was clear that the board wanted the buildings to stay. Since that time we as staff have heard nothing from the Historical Society and nothing from the applicant to suggest a different plan was needed. It is HPC decision and if they move the affordable housing should be restudied. The project should be continued if the applicant would like to look at moving the buildings to Holden Marolt then you have the opportunity to look at the design of the affordable housing. Michael said he was originally for moving it off site and in particular Gretchen spoke and we decided to keep it on the site. We all thought the Historical Society was going to operate the facility. That has some weight to it not that it is on the original site. Sallie said she doesn’t understand why this is coming up right now and if we should address it or not. Jerome said at the last meeting he heard the board wanted to keep it there and the board would like it accessible. What I am hearing tonight is that the Historical Society doesn’t believe they can take the stewardship. If the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 13 choices is on-site un-accessible or Holden Marolt and accessible to me it’s the accessible factor. Jack Wheeler, Asset Management said we want to do what you want us to do. If you want us to keep the resource on site we are willing to do that. As I stated at the last meeting the operational component is a big question mark. We are also prepared to take care of the financial investment off site. Charles said if the house stays onsite it will never been in its original position onsite. Originally the site was very large. Jennifer said at the last meeting the discussion was how many employees are generated by the police building and it is up to city council to say you have to mitigate at a certain rate. The commission was comfortable with the generation of 39 employees with the new police station and that will be the recommendation. How much is mitigated will be handled by City Council. Willis identified the issues: Mass and scale: Staff recommends that the police station should not be greater than 28 feet and the removal of 3 ½ foot high fence and the applicant chooses not to do that for reasons we already heard. Staff is recommending that the stand alone elevator in the AH piece be a detached mass. The applicant has presented otherwise and want to stay with their original expression of the elevator in the back. Staff is recommending the turning radius and site lines be accommodate for cyclists on the ramp. Management of the historic resource will be discussed further. Debbie said given that the relocation issues is back on the table and staff at the last time said if it gets relocated off site we want a restudy of the employee housing units. Maybe HPC should discuss what the desire of the commission is about relocation off-site. If it is going offsite the meeting should be continued until you see a final site plan with those buildings offsite. Nora said she is disappointed that this is back on the table because we really vetted it the last time and had good discussions. We are picking away of what the fabric of this town used to be. This was a building that was in the middle of the town. It was not a farming and mining cabin. It might b e seen in a different light. There is very little that you can walk around this town and recognize. For the kids to see that there was a log cabin right in the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 14 middle of town is really powerful. I am disappointed that we are circling back to this and I hope we keep in mind what our job is which is to preserve the town and its character. Patrick said he agrees with Nora’s intent but looks at it as something that was on a ranch. I would support moving it to the Marolt because of education which is why the Historic Preservation is beneficial. Leaving it where it is looks like it is in a tunnel with the 3D picture. It is really tucked behind everything. If it is moved to Main Street we need to meet the fire codes and that would probably destroy the interior character. Move it to Holden Marolt and let the employee housing be redesigned. The building area might be office space before it is employee housing because wherever city hall goes space for offices might be needed before the new building is being built out and this could be potential office space in the near future and then housing. Bob said he envisioned the space as currently planned and knowing that the building would be sitting there not used or be another function is a concern. If the building were moved it would be a much better space for the function of the affordable housing. It would be a good area for kids to play that live in the affordable housing complex. Bob said he has been many places where they have taken existing buildings and brought them togethe r in a context for the purpose of education and for the public. Sallie said there is a thing called imagination and having this building right in town and imagining what was around it is a good thing. What is fighting against this are the big walls on either side and it is hidden in a hole. We don’t have to approve it being hidden in a hole. Michael said Gretchen spoke eloquently at the last meeting about keeping it onsite. I also agree with what Nina said. The way it is presented in this fashion it is not going to do the community any good. Sallie said we need more perspectives and I don’t feel we have enough information. Michael said if the site plan has no other option as to how that building can sit there, then I’m struggling with it and Ho lden Marolt starts to look like a good alternative. I’d like to see some other site plans. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 15 Willis pointed out that they presented two site plans if it stays onsite. We need to discuss whether it stays or goes. Nora commented that we spent the entire evening the last time discussing this. Willis said the center of Obermeyer Place is a dead zone essentially. At that time the connectivity was between Main Street and the skate park. There is not enough room to create outdoor space except in front of the police station on Main Street. The little structure backs up to a 42 foot wall. It has lost its expression as an historic structure. The public interest is best served having it at the Marolt ranch. There is too much going on at the site. The opportunity to redesign the employee housing is a good thing. It is a tight urban space. Bob asked what is on the Marolt site that might have been moved from another location that might be a reference point. Nina said the three buildings that exist were on the site. The Zupancis property was not the center of town it was the outskirts and the undeveloped part of town. Willis said if it goes to Marolt there is the opportunity to redesign the employee housing. There are too many confused uses in a tight urban space. Patrick agreed. Richard Pryor said the trail is used frequently with people going to the medical center. Nora said the story poles don’t tell how high the affordable housing is. Our charge is preservation. We are a 360 degree town and our view from the Rio Grande should meet the same expectations as Main Street and to be looking at a solid wall back there is really difficult. I would like to see the historic resource stay onsite. Willis said he would make the motion to support the historic structures moving to the Marolt property. Amy said you can give clear direction but it’s difficult to split the motion. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 16 Michael said it is a directive to the applicant. Debbie said you could take a straw vote. We might have the same problem next time with the different members. If the direction of this board is to relocate and continue the meeting to restudy the employee housing you could make that motion. Willis said he would like to propose to restudy with the historic structures considered offsite. Allow the applicant to choose where it goes pending further discussion with the historic society. Bob said the client can come back with another proposal and say we restudied it and we would like to keep there. Sallie said we are continuing the application for a restudy across the board and we can give them a directive as to what each of us think. That is what the motion should be. Willis asked the HPC what they think of the Main Street elevation of 28 feet; clearstory etc. Patrick said once it was explained the clearstory is OK. The clearstory is 30 feet back and won’t be an issue as far as visibility. The historic resources should be moved offsite and the housing should be restudied to make it lower so that there is a view which is what Nora, Michael, Sallie and myself want. Nora said she would like it to be 28 feet and the clearstory 28 feet because it is still a building. Michael said you can do a clearstory. Basically if the entire building is 24 feet you can do two stories. You still would have room for the clearstory and you fit within the 28 feet. Willis said this is a civic project and the applicant said it should embody civic pride because of its uniqueness. Today this town feels there is a certain pride in modesty not pushing the envelope to exceed what people perceive as small town character. If you lead by example it should be in a modest way. Anything you can do to comply with the 28 feet and the clearstory and the LEED aspects to decree the volumes is supportiv e. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 17 Sallie said the applicant needs some kind of direction. Michael said the board thinks it should remain onsite but not in this site plan that is being shown to us. There is too much on the site and it is overwhelming the historic resource. As a board if we are considering that site plan then I think you are hearing a lot of the people on this board want to see it go off site. No one is saying definitively move it off. We are open to seeing other site plans. Willis said he would definitively move it off the site. There are too many functions on a small site. It is a civic place. The historic interpretive center is over the top and it should go to Marolt where kids can enjoy it. Sallie said staff has good points and if the applicant works with s taff that might be helpful. Having more views is recommended. We cannot design their project. Patrick said if they are going to change the employee housing they will have to move it to where the historic house is currently. Alan said we don’t have dramatic options to place the historic structure. It has always been in the central location on the site. Jack Wheeler said since we started this the historic house was to remain onsite. The entire conversation from day one was that the historic house was to remain onsite. If this was a normal project we wouldn’t be looking at the interior of the unit. I’m concerned that we will get direction again with a different board makeup at the next meeting. You wanted us to keep it onsite and we addressed all the concerns. Michael said we thought that would include a plan for the Historical Society or somebody to create vitality there and have it be worthwhile. Jack Wheeler said at the last meeting the Historical Society said they would not operate this location. We are not in a position to operate the historic interpretation. This is an ongoing dialogue that has no precedence. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 18 Nora said at the last meeting we understood that the Historical Society said no and we all said this is important enough to have in the middle of town and that there will be a solution. Jennifer said if the historic house remains on the site the city has agreed to maintain the structure. It doesn’t mean that it will be operated and open to visitors. It will be put on a foundation and will be repaired so that it doesn’t deteriorate anymore. There is no guarantee that you will have an operator for that structure. The question for the board is does it remain onsite. The board also had concerns about the massing of the affordable housing and how it affects the Rio Grande perspective. If it moves offsite it might have a better chance with the Historic Society as an interpretive building and more room would be freed up. If can stay onsite but there is the possibility that the interpretation may not occur. Sallie said if it moves offsite it gives them the chance to relieve some of the stress on the site. Jeff Pendarvis said we were told at the last meeting to leave the historic house onsite. HPC also commended us on the employee housing component. We followed the direction that the board gave us. We are within the height of the zone district. Our 38 feet above grade is within the height of the zone district. We are compliant with the affordable housing. Amy said there are two possible direction; keep them onsite until another interpretation can be figured out. More than likely the applicant is not going to reduce the mass and they already lost one of the affordable housing units that was supposed to be in the historic structure. Or you can go in the Holden Marolt direction and get a reconfiguration of the massing of the affordable housing. Michael and Willis agreed that there is too much on a small space. Bob said you could let it stay there as a building and you preserve it and you don’t describe any function for it. And you don’t prescribe that any organization would take it over. Maybe in the future the city could determine a new function for the space. Amy said one of the most important things is that this building be used for interpretive purposes. Any other use is going to gut the building. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 19 Charles said the historic house has to be moved off-site to do the construction. We would like to get direction for the police element because of the timing. Jennifer said either the resource stays onsite or it gets moved and what I am hearing the HPC would like the affordable housing be re-designed to create more breathing room on that site. Amy said at the next meeting have them present two different site plans. Sallie said they are going to come back with the same site plan. Willis said they can present both options. Jack said when we talk about the 28 feet that is for a two story building and we could turn it into a three story building and be compliant with the CC zone and be under 36 feet. Jennifer said the zone for the cc allows lodging to have a third story. Alan pointed out that they are not in the cc zone district. This is zoned public. Jack said when you measure the affordable housing from the jail road it is 46 feet and a four story building. When you look at it from Main Street it is a three story building and it is smaller than the building next to it. We put the third floor on the affordable housing to accommodate the affordable housing mitigation and to get a good mix with 3 bedroom units. We looked around and stayed below the heights of the buildings surrounding. We are in a public zone district yet you keep pointing at 28 feet. If we move the house the fourth floor would come off. Nora said she understands what Jack is saying but we have a 360 degree town. The Rio Grande is not an alley. Willis said you can have a clear story with 28 feet and we also know that this is a PD and we can make up any dimension we want to in affect or we can choose the 28 feet. Leading by example is being less tall than the buildings on either side. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 20 Straw vote on moving the house to Marolt: Patrick, Willis, Bob, Michael Nora voted to keep the house onsite. Sallie didn’t vote. Willis said Bob mentioned his concern that if the resource stays on site and the interpretive center fails because of the nebulas location and then it would be converted to affordable housing in which case we have lost the unique quality of the interior as a civic asset. That might not ever happen but it is a concern. Bob said his other concern is if a two bedroom affordable housing unit is a good application for the house. I can’t imagine that being a good application. An interpretive center is a better use for the building. Nora said we don’t know down the road if there will be an interpretive application. MOTION: Patrick made the motion to continue 540 to a date certain and that they move the historic house off-site and show a redesign of the employee housing and that they keep it to 28 feet with the clearstory. Patrick withdrew his motion. MOTION: Willis made the motion to continue 540 E. Main to April 27 th with direction to show two elevations, one with the resource onsite and the other with the historic house offsite. The police station be lowered and the affordable housing mass and scale be restudied and height lessened. Michael pointed out that the affordable housing should not be at 46 feet. The city has pushed for lower height everywhere. Motion second by Patrick. Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; Bob, yes; Michael, yes; Sallie, yes. Motion carried 6 -0 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Reception enter, Conceptual Major Development, Growth Management, Planned Development, Public Hearing Jim Curtis, presented Amy Margerum Berg, Executive Vice-President for Aspen Institute ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 21 Debbie said she reviewed the public notice and asked Jim what boundaries he used in connection with the mailed notice. Jim said he went beyond the 300 foot radius and went to 325 feet and used the boundary of property 1A. This is an amendment to Lot 1A within a larger SPA. Debbie said given the neighborhood outreach that has been done and because we have multiple forms of notice the notice is acceptable. Amy said HPC is reviewing the planned development and making a recommendation to city council. Council will make the determination and then it will come back to HPC for details. Planned Development is a special designation given to unique properties in town that gives more flexibility for uses, dimensions etc. HPC will also have conceptual review and growth management. The building was originally called the Central building and was built in 1958. Fritz Benedict and Herbert Bayer designed the building together. The proposal is for the expansion of the lower level of the building where the Plato restaurant is. The entire Meadows area received approval in 1991 for a master plan which included the Institute the Music Associates and the Physics Center. The Institute has done numerous improvement to the site. Expansion limits were set in 1991 and we are close to the limit. They are about 1500 square feet past their limit in terms of building and about 2,000 in decks. We need to talk about traffic and affordable housing and they will need to meet today’s criteria. The applicant was required to compile a Transportation impact analysis which is a newer process where you calculate the proposed square footage and determine what kind of improvements are needed for the overall transportation system and pedestrian activity. The applicant did that but we feel the numbers are incorrect. We are recommending continuation to redo the TIA. Part of their proposal is to improve how pedestrians and disabled people would come in the front of the reception building and down to the new patio. There is a proposal to expand the dining room area on the lower patio and also make an addition on the north side of the historic building to accommodate in house needs. While we understand the need, staff questions the need of impacting the historic structure on all sides. Perhaps there is an area below grade so that the historic materials are not impacted. On the dining room expansion it is on an angle to the historic structure which I am sure is intentional but it is a departure from the Bayer/Benedict idea. It might be a way to distinguish ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 22 old from new or it might be too disruptive and cause attention to itself. We would also like discussion about the height difference between the historic resource and the addition. The new addition is about two feet taller than the ground floor of the dining room. We have also asked for more detail how the new construction actually physically attaches to the historic building. The project includes creating a new pedestrian bridge from the sculpture out to the new terrace. We aren’t entirely clear how that works so we need to know what the requirements are etc. The last topic are the trees. The trees have grown and they are quite large and it is hard to see the front of this building and it is an important piece of architecture. There should be some discussion whether some of them could be removed to provide more view of the architecture. In general this project is good and the architect is trying to be compatible with vocabulary of the institute. Willis inquired about the allocations. Amy said in 1991 the master plan had certain allocations for expanding the various buildings and the institute campus. There was square footage for the lodging, health club etc. As things progressed there was a tracking method but there seems to be an error. Nora said the health center has 1500 square feet unused. Amy said we just need better clarification on the numbers. Michael asked about the area of the total site. Amy Margerum Berg said there is 40 acres on the site. Amy B. said she was the Planning Director for the City of Aspen and after that she was the City Manager for the City of Aspen. It was an historic effort to plan this property and it was important for the community. The music festival was almost at the time bankrupt and the institute was bankrupt. The reason the master plan was done in the first place is the institute sold all the property including the land under the physics and music festival to a developer as part of the package for the St. Regis Hotel. The City got together with the developer and the four non-profits which included the International Design conference and we created a consortium and together we worked with the neighbors and the community to come up with the master plan. We have been very careful to develop the property in the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 23 spirit of the Aspen Idea, Mind, Body and Spirit. We have worked hard to keep the property in the same feeling as 1958. The property still has the original spirit that the Paepcke’s and Bayer’s wanted it to have. Amy B. identified the team: Becky Ward, facilities coordinator Jud Hawk, general manager of the hotel. Amy said we own the hotel but contract out the services to a hotel management company which is Dolce International. Jeff Berkus is the institute’s architect. Amy B. said Donny Lee was here to support the Aspen Institute but had to leave. Amy B. said regarding the FAR we have been careful in keep track of our Floor Area. We have never intended or wanted to go over our floor area ratio. We have been talking for the last 5 and ten years what we want to use our last FAR for. We had discussed increasing the size of the fitness center and lodging. We feel it is important for us to have a restaurant that fits the number of hotel rooms that we have. In 1958 there were 100 seats in the restaurant and only 48 lodge rooms and now we have 98 lodge rooms and still only have 100 seats in the restaurant. When we have double occupancy which is most of the year they all can’t come together to eat breakfast or lunch. The hotel company has done a masterful job of managing that and we have put up tents. The tents aren’t heated as well as they should be. Many times our meals are centered on having a speaker. Having one room connected with the addition would make it feel like one big space and within keeping the architecture. Each time we went through the city process we had a resolution approved by City Council and recorded with our square footage and how much we deducted each time. The resolution shows that we have 2,229 square feet left. We have raised money and we are relying on that. After we build this building we aren’t coming back to ask for more square footage. We just had a donner give us a million dollars to put a conservation easement on the old historic race track. It is zoned open space and it can’t be developed. Someone could come before City Council and ask that it be rezoned. We are cognizant not wanting to come back to ask for more square footage. The addition is in the academic zone district which is meant to fulfill the mission of the Aspen Institute which is bringing intellectual activity to the Aspen community. Jim Curtis said he has been involved since 2003. Staff and myself will get together and work through the history of the numbers. We would prefer to ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 24 defer that discussion tonight. We would like to request that the next meeting date be changed as the architect is out of the country. HPC and staff were gracious to move us up to tonight’s meeting. Jeff Berkus, architect said it is an honor to work on this final building for the institute. I have been engaged with the institute for the last 13 years. When I do architecture with the Institute I bring in body and spirit. The main thing in the building is the elegance of the structural systems and they are clean and very thin. We started with how do we maintain the light elegant pattern that the first two architects have done, Harry Teague and Herbert Bayer. When we start a project we look for the heart or center of the project. When we were asked to add an addition for 100 people the first thing we did was try to determine how to make it as small as possible. It is 15 square foot per person, with 100 people equals 1500 square feet. That is as big as this building is going to be. This space is the only space on the property that is indoor/outdoor. All summer we have a tent that is the same square footage. The piece by Bayer is on the side of the building. People would like another way to come to the building rather than the front door to go to the terrace. The bridge is on the axis of the arrival court. We are asking for a subordinate amount of square footage to be added and it is pushed back from the front façade. We angled the building to the energy of the Maroon Creek valley. It makes a different in the building the way people feel. We continue to honor the natural landscape around the buildings that we are creating and create the views to nature. By angling the building away from the existing building it preserves the view of the existing space. The stair is necessary for egress from the roof and also down to the sub-basement. The basement will go under the new pavilion for storage and we want to connect with a tunnel link so that we have ADA access through a new service elevator. There are storage sheds in the parking lot so in order to get rid of those we might need more basement storage. Jeff addressed the roof terrace. The top of the building will have a skylight to bring light to the center. We want to have a flat usable deck. The roof terrace is at 12’8”. It is only two feet above the existing terrace. It was mentioned that a percentage of terrace was over. If you are over terrace by city code it means it goes to FAR which is not our intention. We intentionally designed this to not go over the FAR. We are concerned about the back of the Bayer building. We made the stairway that goes downstairs low so that the view is maintained out of the existing lounge. We added a very eloquent line structurally above and very simple concrete posts ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 25 and the same Bayer grey and white. The wing is the exact overhang of Bayer’s bldg. The courtyard that was created outside of the lounge is a place where people will love to sit and look up the Maroon Creek valley. Jim said the pedestrian bridge is mandated by the building codes. It also gives us the opportunity to remove the 2005 stairway that imposes on the that side today. Questions: Nora asked the applicant how they felt about the trees. Amy B. said they love the trees and all of Aspen had large trees. The trees are majestic and add green and outdoors. We can clearly limb some of the trees so that you can see the building. We feel the trees soften the building. Patrick asked if the organic growth of the tree is something that Bayer thought of going forward through time with his designs. Amy B. said Lisa did her thesis on Herbert Bayer and she is the curator for the Institute. Lisa said all of his architecture is in tune with the environ ment. The reason for all the low buildings is to be completely in context of the environment. I believe he would see the trees as part of the environment. Bob said he remembers meeting Herbert Bayer in 1960. The thinking behind the presentation is well thought out. Patrick asked about the plan for the bike path. It is an aesthetic entrance to Plato’s. Jeff said there is a very weak connection to the path right now. We are trying to create an accessible connection to connect the terrace to the trail. Nora asked if there could be a collaboration with Parks to eliminate any more erosion of the trail. Jim Curtis said we are having this discussion. Michael asked about the elevations of the north addition. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 26 Jeff said we were very careful to not cover up the front corner and 33% of it and there is a window that we didn’t cover up. The second window is covered up and part of the original structure is covered up. Amy B. said the lobby is very small and when we have groups come in all at once from the airport the luggage storage is a huge issue. It is also noisy. It is important to have that extra storage space up above on the top floor. Amy S. asked if any space could be used where the mechanical corral is. Jeff said it is an interesting idea and we need to reassess all the mechanical equipment as it is at the end of its lifetime. The connection might be tough but we could look at going up by the elevator lobby. Nora asked if that would free up room so that you didn’t have to destroy the historic fabric of the building. Bob said where the last house was built that area isn’t the prettiest view and anything you can do to mast that out would be beneficial. Michael said he thought decks for commercial projects were exempt from floor area. Amy said they are not. We want to work out a solution that works for everyone. It has been debated with most current projects. We want to make sure we are accounting for everything in a fair way. Commercial core properties have recently become exempt from decks. Michael pointed out that we see a lot of projects proposing roof top public amenities which are really not roof top amenities. This looks like a real roof top amenity. Amy said the top of the roof is public amenity. Michael said the walk out patio that they have doesn’t count but when you put it on the roof it counts. Amy S. said so does the part that is cantilevered in the back. Jeff said none of it every counted before. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 27 Amy S. said we can have a discussion as to what counts and what doesn’t and they can take that into account with their planned development review. Amy B. we have had the deduction of floor area that we have used for 15 years and we have been very careful to count every square foot. We also have a recorded exhibit with the deductions. We wanted to design a building that fit within what was allowed. Amy S. said HPC will make a recommendation to council including variations if those are an issue and they will make the final decision. Nora asked what was needed for continuation. Amy S. said the calculations are not clear and there are a few design issues that were mentioned. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: Willis said the square footage calculation can be addressed at the next meeting. TIA analysis and transportation. They have always been good stewards of people coming and going in the remote location that they are. Mass and scale. Additions, one on the north and one on the south . Articulation of the decks and the impression of the architecture as it relates to the historic resource which now has two major additions and this is the third. Staff raised the two foot height difference from the roof deck to the restaurant level. Pedestrian bridge and stair leading to the new addition was also called out by staff. Where should the bridge connect and land. Michael said the applicant did an exceptional presentation and they were well prepared on the heights and showing us where it would measure on the historical asset. I think the project is fabulous. It is probably the best project I’ve seen since I have been on the commission. The clean lines and how elegant and light and simple the design is goes with what is there. The ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 28 height in the historical resource is too low. The site is large and the floor area can be worked out. It is a terrific project. Sallie said the project looks great. It is important that the trees stay there and they are an important element of surprise and discovery. Bob said the floor area can be solved. The removal of part of the north addition and creating the function in the basement for storage is needed. I eat at the bar and it can be disruptive. It isn’t as welcoming to go by the desk etc. The design works very well. The trees can be addressed by Parks. This project is another jewel in the crown for the Institute. I am very supportive of the project and we can work through some of the details. Amy S. said you are missing information that is important, the growth management impacts, square footage, and parking. Nora thanked the applicant for a great presentation and a great site visit. I was shocked that it is small. Possibly you can save the northe rn wall and utilize the mechanical area. It is a beautiful project. Patrick said he knows the site intimately from decades of being there. The design is great and it is a continuation of the Doer Hosier. The trees are part of the organ growth and should stay. The baggage storage should be looked into. The height difference is fine. Willis said engaging in the kaleidoscope panels that Bayer did is a good thing because they are not entirely present as one engages the entrance unless you look for it. I was a huge Bayer fan when I moved to Aspen and his work is near and dear. The west elevation is entirely changed and completely altered. I don’t see the constructive eloquence in the fabric of the addition and that will be for final because it is not mass and scale. Bob said this project is honoring the past and celebrating the future and honoring Herbert’s intent in the building. Willis said the stair and the view doesn’t add up to connectivity. It distracts from the view. MOTION: Patrick moved to continue 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Reception Center to May 25th; second by Nora. Roll call vote: Nora, yes, ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 29 Sallie, yes; Michael, yes; Willis, yes; Patrick, yes; Bob, yes. Motion carried 6-0. City Clerk Minute review Linda Manning, City Clerk gave a history how the clerk’s office has approached minutes over a decade. This past year we have scanned the minutes from the 50’s from hand written bound books. Back then they were action item minutes only. A lot of clerks to day do action item minutes only. Our minutes are summary minutes and we give a brief summary of the item and we try to get the details, who asked the questions and what the response was and the general discussion. City Council loves the HPC and P&Z minutes. Those meetings are not aired on Grassroots TV. If someone comes in they can get the audio of the meeting. For Council you can go online and listen to the meeting. Constantly Council says they rely on the minutes from HPC and P&Z and that is how they know what happened. It seems like every project that is called up comes back to you and Council looks at the minutes to base their decision off of. We try to give a thorough enough summary in those minutes so that when council is looking at them they have enough information to understand what HPC was talking about that there not going to call it up. We are more than happy to make changes to the minutes. You can state what you want in the record and say that you want it in the record and it will be typed. We can’t put it in there unless you say it. If you have an issue or think we aren’t doing a thorough enough job please come and talk to me. We are more than happy to tweak things. We are trying to be innovative and we want to do a good job and if you think we can make improvement please let me know. Patrick said this board is the final decision and the only person that has recourse is the applicant and is it possible that we could get it on video so that people could look at it. Linda said we have talked about that before but it is costly and we haven’t found it necessary at this point. Michael agreed with Patrick on the video. Patrick said maybe we can video larger projects. Linda said we can look into it. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 30 Michael asked what council gets on the call ups. Amy said she gives council all the minutes and resolutions in the packet. Michael said regarding St. Mary’s he was very opposed to St. Mary’s and I didn’t feel the minutes accurately reflected that. Now council will see that. Bob said he has the feeling that council tends to want to take another look when a vote is very close. Sometimes the vote is close because we don’t have enough people. Linda said there was good discussion on the Crystal Palace and the minutes show that. I’m interested to see if it will be called up because it was a great discussion. Debbie pointed out that Council has called up a project that the vote was 7 -0. On a call up if one person wants it called up they support it. Patrick said he doesn’t feet there is anything bad about projects being called up. HPC has opinions from an HPC perspective and Council has opinions from their perspectives. If they want to share that perspective with us that is what a call up is. I don’t find it negative when they do call it up. Michael agreed. Out board and P&Z have misplaced authority in that we are the final review for projects is mind boggling. We are appointed not elected. I’m suggesting if they don’t like our decision they can revoke the decision that was made. All they have right now is the ability to remand it back to us for further consideration. It is kind of misplaced authority. Linda asked about the I pads. Amy said everyone was open to the idea but no one wanted to get rid of the printed sets of drawings. A few members still want a printed packet. Linda said the packet can be put as one document in dropbox. You would then be able to annotate it. Michael said he would be fine with that but he still wants the large copies of the plans. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 31 Patrick asked about showing the public at the meeting what design he is referring to. Linda said we can hook your I-pad up and you could mark your drawings and it could pop up on the screen. Nora said she would prefer a hard copy. Bob also agreed that he likes a hard copy. He sits down and yellow marks things that should be brought up. Linda said we want to do whatever is comfortable for the board. MOTION: Willis moved to approve the minutes of January 27th, 2016, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Willis moved to approve the minutes of February 10, 2016, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Willis moved to approve the minutes of February 24 th, 2016, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Bob didn’t vote. MOTION: Willis moved to approve the minutes of March 9th, 2016, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Michael didn’t vote. Michael thanked Linda for the adjustments. MOTION: Patrick moved to adjourn, second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk