Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission Meeting Signed Minutes - July 20, 2020MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY July 20", 2020 4"' Floor Council Chambers County — City Building South Bend, IN 46601 I. CALL TO ORDER Commission President Michele Gelfman called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. Members of the Public Present: Andy Czarnecki, 805 Arch Avenue, South Bend, IN 46601 Becky Czarnecki, 805 Arch Avenue, South Bend, IN 46601 Clay Harris, 317 Tonti Street, South Bend, IN 46617 Stephen Priebe, 1712 East Wayne Street, South Bend, IN 46615 H. ROLL CALL Members Present: Michele Gelfman, President; Lesley Annis, Assistant Secretary Elizabeth Hertel, Vice President; Sarah Andrews, Secretary; Eric Stalheim; Mary Brazinsky, Treasurer; Patrick Deegan; David Wyncott; Joan Downs-Krostenko, Architectural Historian. Members Not in Attendance: John Tiffany Staff Present: Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator; Adam Toering, Historic Preservation Specialist; Ross Van Overberghe, Site Inspector; Sandra Kennedy, Legal Counsel. Staff Not in Attendance: N/A III. PUBLIC HEARING A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Withdrawn. 1. 821 Ashland Avenue #2020-0611 #9574-05 Chapin Park Local Historic District Representation: N/A 2. 1712 East Wayne Street #2020-0616B #7796-87 East Wayne Street Local Historic District Representation: Stephen Priebe, 1712 East Wayne Street, South Bend, IN STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: 10 July 2020 Application Number: 2020-0616B Property Location: 1712 East Wayne Street Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Tudor Revival / 1929 Property Owner: Steve and Sarah Priebe Landmark or District Designation: East Wayne Street Local District #7796-87 Rating: Notable DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/ SITE: Two and a half story frame, irregular plan house in the Tudor Revival style with brick and half-timbering. The gabled roof has a cross hip roof, with molded raking trim and asphalt shingles, and prominent brick chimney. Windows include eight -light casements, wood casings, some brick or stone sills; 2nd floor section overhangs a bay window. A detached two car, two door garage stands to the rear of the house. ALTERATIONS: COA 2015-0601 allowed for the in-kind replacement of the old wood privacy fence. COA 2009-0522 allowed for tear off and installation of GAF -ELK Timberline asphalt shingles. COA 2000-0523 allowed for the installation of 38' of cedar fencing from the adjacent property's garage to the back corner of the house. COA 1991-0730 allowed for the replacement of windows on the front bay and the west fagade, removal of the aluminum and interior storms and bevel exterior wood sills. COA 1988-0922 allowed for the replacement of the storm door. APPLICATION ITEMS- "Tear down top portion of chimney & relay, pour new 6" cap that will overhang the chimney l "for watershed. " DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant has retroactively requested approval to: i. Deconstruct the top portion of the chimney and reconstruct it with new 8" brick of the same size and configuration as existing, replicating the previous pattern, ii. Construction of a new 6" concrete cap to overhang the chimney for water shedding purposes The brick pattern of this structure is one of the most character defining features. The chimney stack rises up out of the valley in the gabled roof line, with approximately a footprint of 5' by 3', before tapering down to approximately 4' x 18" all the way up to the three chimney caps. A decorative vertical bond of bricks stood proud of the regular bonding about two-thirds of the way up the narrowed section. Previous photographs of the chimney show that instead of a concrete cap, the chimney was topped by a single course of bricks laid on end (a `header bond'), slightly overhanging the chimney stack. The passage of time has discolored the brick of the house, this is visible under the eaves and at other protected locations. The new chimney configuration involved reconstructing the chimney approximately half the way up from the reduction in footprint, with some of the height of the chimney being removed in the process. The vertical decorative bonds have been replicated in new brick. The new 6" concrete cap overhangs the new work by i". STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: EAST WAYNE STREET Il. EXISTING STRUCTURES I. EXISTING STRUCTURES A. BUILDING MATERIALS Original exterior wall materials in the District include limestone, flagstone, stucco, clapboard, wood shingles, sandstone and masonry block. In some instances, vinyl or aluminum siding have been applied over the original surface Required Original exterior building materials shall be retained. Deterioration of wood materials shall be prevented through repair, cleaning and painting. The existing or original architectural detail around windows, porches, doors and eaves should be retained or replaced by replicas of the same design and materials when deteriorated beyond despair. Masonry including brick, limestone, flagstone, sandstone and stucco shall be cleaned only when necessary to halt deterioration or to remove stains, and shall be done with a method acceptable for the preservation of the surface: i.e. low pressure water and soft natural bristle bushes. When repairing stucco, stucco mixture compatible in composition, color and texture shall be used. Recommended Whenever possible, the original building materials should be restored. Metal or vinyl siding may be used when it is the only alternative to maintaining or replacing the original surface material. When used over wood surfaces, this siding should be the same size and style as the original wood. Every effort should be made to retain the original trim around windows, doors, comicles, gables, eaves and other architectural features. Ample ventilation must be afforded the structure when metal or vinyl siding has been installed in order to prevent increased deterioration of the structure from moisture and/or insects. Mortar joints should be repointed only when there is evidence of moisture problems or when sufficient mortar is missing to allow water to stand in the mortar joint. Existing mortar shall be duplicated in composition, color, texture, joint size, method of application and joint profile. It is emphasized that, prior to initiating any restoration or rehabilitation effort, the property owner should contact the Historical Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County which is located in the County/City Building of South Bend. The Commission is an invaluable source of information about all facets of rehabilitation and restoration. Prohibited Wood siding shall not be resurfaced with new material which is inappropriate or was unavailable when the building was constructed, such as artificial stone, brick veneer asbestos or asphalt shingles. Sandblasting or the use of harsh detergents shall not be used on masonry including brick, stucco, limestone, flagstone and sandstone. This method of cleaning erodes the surface material and accelerates deterioration. Brick surfaces shall not be painted unless they had been painted originally. Repointing shall not be done with a mortar of high Portland cement content which can often create a bond that is stronger than the building material. This can cause deterioration as a result of the differing coefficient of expansion and the differing porosity of the material and the mortar, which can result in serious damage to adjacent brick. Paint shall not be removed from masonry surfaces indiscriminately. Not Recommended Waterproof or water repellent coatings or surface consolidation treatments should not be used on masonry surfaces unless required to solve a specific problem that has been studied and identified. Coatings are frequently unnecessary and expensive, and can accelerate deterioration of the masonry. Mortar joints which do not need repointed should not be repointed. SITE VISIT REPORT: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed project. Prepared by Adam Toering, Historic Preservation Specialist Reviewed by Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator PETITIONER COMMENTS: Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if the mason had addressed reconstructing the chimney in the same elevation, profile, and materials. Mr. Priebe stated that the contractor indicated the brick was crumbling and that they would match it as best they could. That he was surprised when he saw the completed work, but that the contractor indicated that it would resemble the original brick over time. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: N/A Commissioner Downs-Krostenko indicated that the brick appears to be `Common Chicago' brick, and that there are three or four kinds of it. It is only available through salvage, but there are people in the area who have access to it. She indicated she had the name of the contact for that material. If the mason went to a regular brick yard, they would not find something like this kind of brick. Had the property owner or the mason applied for a COA or building permit prior to the work being executed, this would have been discovered, and the elevation and profile changes could have been avoided as well. Commissioner Gelfinan asked Commissioner Downs-Krostenko could convey that information to staff for future use. Commissioner Andrews stated that she understood why the concrete cap had to be added to the top but was uncertain as to why the chimney had to be shortened as well. Commissioner Hertel indicated that the chimney is a character defining feature of the home. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that it looks like the mason completed the project and said, "good enough", leading to the change in the elevation, the profile, and the material was not appropriately matched. Commissioner Hertel asked regarding the condition of the chimney. Commissioner Stalheim indicated that the appearance of the chimney is intentional. Specialist Toering indicated that this pattern of brick bonding is unique, and the brick is offset. The mortar squeezes out of the brick. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko confirmed that the brick is all the same brick, but it is turned and faced differently. Commissioner Hertel stated that this uniqueness makes the preservation of the chimney even more important because it is more unique. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko confirmed that this is not the most common brick bonding in our community, and that it is a shame that the mason appeared to not know what he was doing. Commissioner Stalheim stated that the concrete cap was a logical choice. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that there was originally a concrete cap, but it was probably tapered or sloped to the chimney pots. The concrete cap could have been designed differently to better mimic the original, understanding that they wanted it to shed water and other considerations. Commissioner Stalheim indicated that were it to last more than a year, it would need to have some sort of slope to ensure that water would shed off. Commissioner Gelfman indicated that in the future the homeowner should contact the staff in advance of projects like this for guidance. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko indicated that care should be taken when salvaging brick, because — even if there were bricks that were failing — that some of those bricks could be used to "face" the project, and that the bricks should be carefully cared for. Commissioner Hertel stated that the Commission could approve the project, but that she was leaning towards the stipulation that were any work done in the future the chimney were to be reverted to the original configuration and components, unless the homeowner would be willing to entertain the idea of having the chimney reconstructed now. Mr. Priebe indicated he would consider it. Commissioner Hertel expressed that the Commission wants to work with the homeowner, but there is a visual change to the structure indicated in the photographs. Mr. Priebe indicated he would like to get the information for the local company and bricks. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated she would convey it to Staff to convey to the property owner. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: N/A Commissioner Hertel made a motion to retroactively approve COA #2020-0616B with the provision that, if any more work is done in the future, it is returned to the proper components and proper style, and proper height. Seconded by Commissioner Andrews. Seven in favor, none opposed, one recusal. Vote: 7 — 0 —1. Motion to approve COA #2020-0616B with conditions passes. 3. 805 Arch Avenue #2020-0626B #6846-80 Edgewater Place Local Historic District Representation: Andy Czarnecki, 805 Arch Avenue, South Bend, IN 46601 Becky Czarnecki, 805 Arch Avenue, South Bend, IN 46601 STAFF REPORT CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Date: 10 July 2020 Application Number: 2020-0626B Property Location: 805 Arch Avenue Architectural Style/Date/Architect or Builder: Free Classic / 1912 / Whitcomb and Keller Property Owner: Andy and Becky Czarnecki Landmark or District Designation: Edgewater Local Historic District, #6846-80 Rating: Contributing DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE/ SITE: Two story rectangular frame house on a brick foundation and aluminum siding. Gabled roof with asphalt shingles. Sunporches at either end of the primary fagade, screened on the north east side and enclosed on the southwest. Detached one car garage at rear. ALTERATIONS: COA #2014-0825A allowed for mortar pointing and sealant along foundation and wing walls. COA #2002- 0904 allowed for replacement of windows with Marvin Insulated "True Divided Light" wood windows. COA #1993-0523 allowed for the reconstruction of the rear gable entry canopy, per COA #1991-0523. COA #1991-0523 allowed for the installation of new roof material and the reconstruction of the gable canopy with rake boards and molding supported by two full length 4"x4" piers. COA #1991-0510 allowed transition of the driveway from gravel to concrete and the grinding of two stumps. COA #1987-0415 allowed for asphalt roof replacement. APPLICATION ITEMS: "3ft white picket fence using 4.5 " dog ear pickets to be placed in the side / back yard of residence. " DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PRO.IECT: The applicant has requested approval to: iii. Install a 3' tall white picket fence made of pressure treated lumber. iv. Site dimensions: 1. 22' on south side, with 4' gate 2. 30' on west side (facing River Avenue), V in from sidewalk. 3. 18' on north side along driveway, also inset 1' from the sidewalk 4. 12' on east side (facing the garage), also with 4' gate. v. Posts will be every 6' (except where otherwise noted per site plan), set in concrete. This property is at the comer of Arch and River Avenue, facing Arch. The Standards and Guidelines state that `front yard areas shall not be fenced. " The proposed area — while not the `front yard' of Arch — corresponds to the front yard of their neighbor's property on River Avenue. A number of other comer lots within the neighborhood have enclosed side yards, such as 619 Edgewater Drive (COAs #1996- 0405 and #2009-0504B), 740 East Bronson Court (COA #2004-0903-1), and 644 Monroe Street (COA #1989-0629 for the rear fence, #1993-0507 for picket fence). STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: EAST WAYNE STREET Il. THE ENVIRONMENT A. THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT The district is characterized by its proximity to downtown South Bend and its intimate relationship with the St. Joseph River. Edgewater Drive follows the riverfront with a row of houses facing the river from across the street. Other structures in the District share the benefits of the river with the presence of the riverbank and a small park near the southwest comer of the District. Required Distinctive existing features such as parks, gardens, streetlights, fences, signs, benches, walkways, streets alleys and buildings setbacks shall be retained. New plant materials, fencing, walkways, streetlights, signs, and benches shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood in size, scale, material and color. The riverfront character of the district shall be retained. Recommended Whenever possible, the original features should be restored. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to buildings, sidewalks, or streets that are causing deterioration to those elements should be removed. If erosion control efforts become necessary to preserve the riverbank, they should involve processes and materials consistent with the natural beauty of the banks. The development of boat - landings, access points, scenic overlooks or terraces should be done in such a way as to avoid obstructing the view of the river and its banks. Unsightly brush, weeds, and dead or diseased trees should be removed. Where river safety barriers are necessary, as at Arch and Edgewater, they should be constructed and terraced to maintain the natural appearance. Prohibited Existing relationships of buildings and their environments shall not be destroyed through widening existing streets, changing paving material, or by introducing inappropriately located new streets or parking lots incompatible with the character of the neighborhood. Signs, streetUghis, beaches, new plant materials, fenvint,. walkways, and pavink, sraterials which are out of scale or inappropriate to the neighhnrhnnd may nor be used The erection of high walls or barriers which would alter the relationship of the houses and the river is prohibited. In erosion control efforts to preserve the riverbank, poured concrete, concrete slabs, concrete building blocks or other unsightly material shall not be used. The introduction of heavy trucks or similar vehicles in the District, with the exception of Lincolnway, shall be prohibited Not Recommended Telephone poles with high-intensity overhead lights should not be used, with the exception of along Linclonway. B. BUILDING SITE, LANDSCAPING, AND ACCESSORIES Individual properties in the district are characterized by a house located in the center of a flat law, often divided by a walk leading to the front entrance. Many properties have a straight driveway along one edge of the lot leading to a garage at the rear of the house. This driveway often has a sidewalk along one side leading to the front entrance either in the center or at the side of the house. Driveway and sidewalk materials include asphalt or concrete. All of the properties have trees; many have trimmed shrubbery and hedges. All of the houses conform to a uniform setback line within each block. Required Existing plants, trees, fencing, walkways, streetlights, signs, and benches which reflect the properties' history and development shall be retained. Recommended New site work should be based upon actual knowledge of the past appearance of the property found in photographs, drawings and newspapers. New site work should be appropriate to existing surrounding site elements in scale, type and appearance. Plant materials and trees in close proximity to the buildings that are causing deterioration to the building's historic fabric should be removed. Prohibited No changes may be made to the appearance of the site by removing old plans, trees, fencing, walkways, outbuildings and other site elements before evaluating their importance to the property's history and development. Front yard areas shall not be transformed into parking lots nor paved nor blacktopped. Front FaFd ureas shall Prot be fenced with rhe e_vice tion ❑ f Properties along Linenlu)ra r, which Pia y be fenced. but not enclosed stockade-type fenriu . Not Recommended Telephone poles with high intensity overhead lights should not be used, with the exception of along Lincolnway. SITE VISIT REPORT: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. Prepared by Adam Toering, Historic Preservation Specialist Reviewed by Elicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Administrator PETITIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Czarnecki clarified that the fence would not immediately be white, that the pressure treated lumber would need to breathe before it would be painted before the winter. Commissioner Hertel asked for clarification on the dimensions of the fence. Mr. Czarnecki confirmed the dimensions of the fence. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked for clarification regarding the other enclosed front yards, that are corner lots. Specialist Toering confirmed the corner lot locations of the existing fences. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if the existing corner lot fences creates pressure from other lots or property owners to enclose their front yards with fences. Specialist Toering stated that this is precisely why the Commission is hearing the project and staff is not administratively approving it. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if it would help for the Commission to articulate that approval of this project is not support for enclosing front yards elsewhere in the district. Commissioner Andrews stated that this was not dissimilar from a project reviewed last month. Legal Counsel Kennedy stated it could be beneficial to add that clarification on the approval. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stressed the small lot size of the Edgewater neighborhood, and that many just have small front yards. Commissioner Gelfinan clarified that previous approvals were not forward of the setback of the house. Commissioner Hertel asked for a satellite view of the property to be brought up on the TV screens. Specialist Toering expressed that there were letters of support from the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Gelfman and Commissioner Hertel asked for clarification on exactly where the fence would be located. Mr. Czarnecki clarified the location of the fence on the side of the sunroom and house. Specialist Toering showed the Commission other properties in the neighborhood with enclosed side yards. Commissioner Hertel expressed support for the project but looked forward to landscaping improvements to hide it and provide more privacy. Commissioner Gelfman asked about moving the fence back from the sidewalk approximately two feet. Commissioner Hertel expressed concern about the location of the fence and setting precedent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Commissioner Hertel reiterated that there were two letters of support in the packet for this project from neighbors. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko made a motion to approve COA #2020-0626B as applied. Seconded by Commissioner Andrews. Eight in favor, none opposed. Vote: 8 — 0. Motion to approve COA #2020-0626B is passed. Commissioner Gelfman stated that were the homeowner to want to shift the fence some inches to allow for planting, to do so. Ms. Czarnecki asked if they would need to discuss planting with staff. The Commission reiterated that no official permission would be required for plantings, but staff would advise as needed. IV. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR A. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked about the fence issues at 619 Edgewater that are apparent in the photos of COA 2020-062613. There appears to be an unfinished fence. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko is concerned that the fence is a new material that does not appear to be wood. Specialist Toering clarified that no application is on file to replace the fence, but that previous approvals were for fence reconstructions. Commissioner Hertel asked for staff to investigate the minutes regarding the previous fence approvals. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated there may have been an approval for a vinyl fence in 2009, and that if the project were heard today, it may not be approved and that a wood fence would be recommended. B. Specialist Toering explained that 821 Ashland was pulled from the agenda because a repair agreement was entered into between Code Enforcement and the property owner for the reconstruction of this burned -out property. Staff has optimism that the house will be saved. V. REGULAR BUSINESS A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES i. Tabled until next month. B. STAFF REPORTS i. Administrative Approvals 1. Commissioner Andrews asked about 708 Forest Avenue, where a door was shifted from the front to the rear and exchanged with a window. Commissioner Andrews asked if the property was multifamily. Specialist Toering explained that the property is now single family. The homeowner was before the Commission last year for extensive water issues and roof issues. Staff consulted with legal to determine whether we could administratively approve and confirmed that it was within the appropriate framework for an approval. This property owner has also purchased the dilapidated house adjacent. Commissioner Downs- Krostenko stated that she has been in the adjacent house and it is a four- plex and quite fascinating. C. COMMITTEE REPORTS i. Disposition of Historic Preservation Assets 1. Administrator Feasel stated that staff is behind on this project because of COVID. Staff has not hired any interns this year, despite having applicants because of logistical reasons. Staff has concerns regarding future use of the HPC annex (which is allowed through the interlocal agreement, which expires at the end of 2020). More materials are being sent to the contractor to digitize. ii. Standards Update 1. Administrator Feasel stated that Kurt Garner is under contract with the city to facilitate the standards update, and how Indiana Landmarks' model guidelines will be modified for our purposes. Staff are working on the public engagement process. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko is involved in the process to come up with the standards for the early draft. VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Common Council i. Legal Counsel Kennedy explained that The History Museum has formally applied to appeal the denial of the Navarre Cabin move to the Common Council, and what staff will be required to furnish to the Common Council for that process. Legal Counsel Kennedy stressed that our position is that the Commission followed the Standards and Guidelines in making its determination, but we will have to see what their position statement will be to respond appropriately. Commissioner Hertel asked if there had been any response from The History Museum following the denial. Specialist Toering indicated he had one e-mail from a board member who expressed frustration that they had not been cc'd on the official denial correspondence. ii. Legal Counsel Kennedy explained that the attorney for the Modlin family had filed a petition to declassify the structure as a landmark, citing a number of reasons. Legal Counsel Kennedy briefly outlined the history of the property under the ownership of the Modlins: that they purchased vinyl siding, did not acquire a building permit, and continued to be intent on installing the siding. Legal Counsel Kennedy asked the Commission to consider a motion to allow her to file on the Commission's behalf a petition to delist the Landmark or a response that you do not oppose the delisting of the landmark. Commissioner Hertel asked if that motion was needed immediately. Commissioner Andrews asked if there was anything that needed to be added to the motion to add clarity for future additional properties. Specialist Toering showed the Commission a property on Gumwood Road that was delisted by the Commission in 1983 because of the addition of an unsympathetic porch addition, and that this was a response by the Commission to dealing with an uncooperative property owner who did not adhere to the Certificate of Appropriateness process and the Commission as a whole. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko stated that the Commission should not oppose the delisting of the property, but should not actively pursue delisting. Commissioner Hertel stated that she supported delisting the property Legal Counsel Kennedy clarified that stating that the Commission does not oppose the delisting would help the Common Council understand how to move forward. Commissioner Brazinsky asked for clarification for delisting and completing the work. Legal Counsel Kennedy stated that a Building Permit would still be required for executing the work. Delisting the property would still need to be done by ordinance. Commissioner Andrews asked about the title search of historic properties. Specialist Toering stated that some of the districts are recorded; all of the County properties have been recorded. Commissioner Gelfinan asked Commissioner Wyncott was familiar with the property. Specialist Toering explained that he gave Commissioner Wyncott a brief update prior to the meeting. Commissioner Andrews made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission is in support of the Council de -designating 60649 Hickory Road as a Local Landmark. Seconded by Commission Brazinsky. Commissioner Hertel asked for clarification that the property could be landmarked again in the future, were there a different property owner. Legal Counsel Kennedy explained that would be an entirely new landmark designation. Commissioner Gelfinan asked Commission Andrews to repeat her previous motion. Commissioner Andrews made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission is in support of the Council de -designating 60649 Hickory Road as a Local Landmark. Seconded by Commission Brazinsky. Eight in favor, none opposed. Vote: 8 — 0. The motion to voice support for de -designating 60649 Hickory Road passes. VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS A. Administrator Feasel stated that the Commission may be soon hearing a National Register Listing nomination for the Lowell Heights Olivet AME Church on Notre Dame Avenue close to the University of Notre Dame. The Commission will be hearing this nomination as a function of its status as a "Certified Local Government." B. Commissioner Gelfman stated that she would be updating the Special Committees to reflect the new Commission members. C. Commissioner Andrews asked about the 201 HPC Training. Specialist Toering stated that the winter is better for running educational meetings. WN I I I I NVOB41811AR1011►U1 Commissioner Hertel made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Stalheim. Eight in favor, none opposed. Vote: 8 — 0. Meeting adjourned at 6:35 pm. Attest: �6- Sarah Andrews, Secretary Date