►
From YouTube: Preservation Commission Meeting 7-13-2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
Great
okay,
so
I'd
like
to
open
the
tuesday
july
13
2021
meeting
of
the
evanston
preservation
commission,
we
have
a
quorum
of
seven
of
the
eight
members.
The
first
matter
is:
we
have
to
move
to
authorize
the
meeting
to
be
held
with
the
commissioners
meeting,
virtually
in
accordance
with
the
governor's
emergency
order.
B
Moved
in
a
second
second,
okay,
susie
second
roll
call
vote,
commissioner
reinhold.
Yes,
commissioner,
bowden
hi,
commissioner
cohen.
Yes,
commissioner,.
C
C
B
And
I'm
an
I,
so
we
have
a
single
manner
before
us,
the
the
continuation
of
the
hearing
tone
landmark
the
the
hearthstone
church
and
adopt
the
report
that
we've
got
the
the
latest
redraft
of
the
no.
Our
meeting
is
continued.
I
don't
know
if
kate,
if
we
need
to
reopen
the
hearing,
I
think
I
mean
it's
just
been
continued.
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
reopen
it.
B
Okay,
so
the
setting
is,
we
are
continuing
and-
and
we
have
to
according
to
that
ordinance
conclude
tonight,
the
hearing
the
you
know
previously
at
the
may
meeting
we
voted
to
approve
the
landmarking
of
the
church.
B
We
then
discussed
the
report
last
month
and
we
are
obligated
to
finalize
and
vote
to
approve
or
disapprove.
The
report
that's
been
written
tonight.
This
is,
is
the
deadline.
There
was
opportunity
to
speak
at
the
first
public
meeting
about
that
merits
of
the
case.
I'm
at
this
point
we're
just
meeting
to
approve
the
report,
but
there
have
been
you
know
additional
materials
received
that
are
in
the
record.
There
was
a
letter
from
the
owner's
council
that
will
serve
as
part
of
the
record.
B
B
There
were
newspaper
articles
about
larry,
perkins,
designing
the
building
and
a
letter
from
perkins
and
will,
and
so
all
those
materials
received
are
have
been
posted
on
the
website,
they're
all
part
of
the
record,
and
we
don't
need
to
to
read
them
to
admit
them,
and
I
think
all
the
commissioners
had
seen
them
and-
and
you
know,
read
the
materials
we
will
give.
I
think
we'll
have
a
kind
of
a
public
comment
to
start
with
in
case
anybody
does
want
to
speak.
I
think
what
we'll
do
is
I
mean.
B
Hopefully
it
won't
take
this
long,
but
we'll
give
the
owner
first
we'll
give
the
applicant
if
the
applicant
wishes
to
up
to
15
minutes
to
speak,
if
if
they
don't
or
they
conclude,
then
we'll
give
the.
I
think
the
owner
wished
for
their
consult
to
speak,
but
whoever
they
wish
to
speak
a
representative
for
their
time
for
get
a
absolute
maximum
of
15
minutes.
B
And
then,
if
there
are
any
other
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
speak
for
for
up
to
two
minutes,
they
can
speak
if
you've
sent
us
an
email
or
a
letter.
Be
assured,
it
is
already
part
of
the
record
and
you
don't
need
to
repeat:
what's
there
we
have
all
read
it.
I
think
pretty
carefully.
B
If
you're
going
to
speak,
please
identify
yourself
first
for
the
recording
and
then
speaking,
please
please
try
to
stay
with
the
time
limit
or
I'll.
You
know
I'll.
Let
you
know
if
you're
not.
I
would
just
say
that
after
we
give
everybody
the
opportunity
to
the
representatives
of
the
parties
involved
and
members
of
the
public
I'd
ask
that
you
mute
your
self
and
the
remainder
of
the
meeting,
which
will
be
commissioned
discussion
only
without
any
further
comment
by
the
parties
of
the
public.
B
E
The
letter
that
I
placed
in
the
package
speaks
for
itself.
Thank
you,
though,.
B
Okay,
thank
you
all
right.
Does
the
owner
wish
to
have
a
representative
speak?
Yes,
they
do.
Thank
you.
Okay,
do
you
want
to
introduce
yourself?
Please.
D
If
I
can,
I
will
just
introduce
myself
and
go
on
great.
Thank
you,
members
of
the
commission.
My
name
is
bernard
citron,
I'm
with
the
law
firm
of
thompson
and
coburn.
D
I
have
an
extensive
practice
in
land
use
law
for
about
40
years.
I've
started
before
that
as
an
architect
and
has
just
morphed
into
being
an
attorney
dealing
with
these
type
of
issues.
I've
been
involved
with
landmarking
issues,
both
proposing
landmarks
and
opposing
landmarks,
probably
50
50
percent
of
the
times
and
in
most
cases,
have
worked
out
the
differences
so
that
we've
been
able
to
move
forward.
So
it's
not
with
it,
is
not
without
some
knowledge
of
of
process
and
otherwise
that
I'm
being
brought
in
here
today.
D
You
already
know
that
the
church
does
object
to
the
designation
or
the
future
design
potential
future
designation
of
their
building
on
herd
street
as
a
landmark
one
matter
of
housekeeping
that
I'm
missing
jimin
simon.
D
You
mentioned
that
at
the
june
8th
meeting
that
this
that
there
was
a
vote
designating
this
or
recommending
the
designation
of
a
landmark,
I'm
looking
at
the
agenda
for
today,
and
it
indicates
that
no
action
was
taken
at
the
june
8th
meeting
and
in
fact
the
action
would
be
one
way
or
the
other
I
don't
want
to
presume
was
in
fact
going
to
be
taken
this
evening
in
terms
of
whether
or
not
to
recommend
landmarking
of
this
building.
B
The
the
initial
meeting
actually
was
that
may
meeting
and
we
voted
to
approve
unanimously
to
approve
the
landmarking
subject.
However,
to
preparation
of
a
report
and
approval
of
it.
The
report
was
a
draft
was
presented
at
the
june
meeting
and
no
action.
If
you
watched
the
table,
action
was
taken
at
the
june
meeting
and
today
is.
Is
the
deadline
to
approve
the
report.
D
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
you
clarifying
that.
Unfortunately,
I've
been
I'm
a
little
late
to
this
this
process,
so
I
hope
to
not
go
over
past
things,
but
with
that
I'll
continue
forward.
As
indicated,
the
church
does
oppose
the
potential
for
landmarking
of
their
building
for
a
number
of
reasons,
one
of
which
I
will
not
go
into
because,
as
correctly
pointed
out
by
mr
sterling,
it
is
not
something
that
this
commission
takes
into
account,
which
is
the
hardship
on
that.
D
That
is
something
for
the
board,
so
I'll
just
leave
that
be.
We
did
include
that
in
our
letter,
just
so
that
it
was
part
of
the
process.
Secondly,
I
think
there's
some
confusion
in
terms
of
what
mr
sterling
read
into
our
letter.
Vis-A-Vis
the
hearings
before
dapper
I'm
having
been
to
the
dapr
committee
many
many
times
in
evanston.
I
am
fully
aware
we
are
fully
aware
of
what
the
function
is
of
dapper,
so
that
wasn't
our
point.
D
It
wasn't
for
dapper
to
to
take
any
action
on
the
building
in
terms
of
whether
or
not
it
should
be
a
landmark
or
not
what
we
were
merely
pointing
out,
but
we
think
it's
a
strong
point
is
mr
sterling
himself
was
at
that
pro
at
that
that
hearing,
if
this
building
was
so
important
to
evanston,
that
it
would
ultimately
end
up
before
the
commission
as
it
is
today,
there
was
no
one
of
city
staff
who
ever
mentioned
at
that
hearing
at
that
dapper
meeting
that
wait
a
minute.
This
building
should
not
be
demolished.
D
Maybe
it
should
be
continued
while
we
look
into
it
and
we
think
that's
an
important
element,
because
now,
since
that
point
in
time,
staff
has
been
working
very
very
hard
to
justify
this
nomination
not
independently,
but
to
in
fact
justify
this
nomination.
So
that
was
our
point
not
that
dapper
could
take
any
action
on
that,
but
there
was
no
mention
at
all
of
any
form
of
objection
to
the
demolition
of
this
building.
That
was
what
that
project
would
have
taken
was
demolishing
the
building.
Yet
no
one
mentioned
it
again.
D
I'm
going
to
keep
my
response.
My
comments
fairly
brief
here
we
still
have
an
issue
with
the
determination
that
larry
perkins
designed
this
church.
There
is
no
question,
we
cannot
question
this.
We
are
not
questioning
it
that
the
firm
of
perkins
and
will
design
the
church
got
it.
No,
nothing
that
we
have
seen
nothing
that
you
have
seen
says
that
it's
anything
other
than
perkins
and
wills
have
designed
this
project,
but
there
is
nothing
definitive
in
any
of
the
documentation
that
we've
seen
that
says.
D
D
Now
people
are
assuming
that,
but
I'm
a
lawyer,
I
have
to
look
at
things
as
the
way
a
lawyer
would
unfortunately,
but
I
don't
see
that,
for
instance,
in
the
list
that
was
provided
by
mr
perkins's
wife,
it
says
buildings
designed
in
evanston
by
perkins
and
will
it
does
not
say
larry
perkins
if,
for
instance,
this
building
was
really
designed
by
philip
will,
I
think,
the
whole
tenor
of
this
hearing
changes,
even
if
mr
will
lived
in
anna
vincent,
because
everything
this
whole
process
starts
and
ultimately
ends
with
where
you
want
to.
D
We
believe
this
building
should
be
landmarked
because
larry
perkins
designed
it,
and
that
is
not
what
that
letter
says.
It
lists
a
bunch
of
buildings,
a
number
of
buildings,
very
significant
buildings,
I'm
not
questioning
that
but
significant
buildings
that
were
designed
as
it
says,
by
perkins
and
will
now
in.
F
E
D
D
Do
there's
been
a
lot
of
presumptions,
or
maybe
it's
wishes
that
larry
perkins
designed
this
church,
but
there
is
nothing
in
the
record
that,
if
challenge
would
show
that
mr
perkins
absolutely
designed
this,
I
looked
over
the
letter
prepared
by
jerry
johnson
now,
mr
johnson
won't
remember
me,
I
did
work
with
him
on
a
major
project
in
the
city,
but
it
was
a
way
long
time
ago.
The
letter
is
fine.
There's
nothing
wrong
with
the
letter.
D
All
he
says
is
a
presumption
that
mr
perkins
would
have
been
the
partner
in
charge
without
any
basis
for
that
other
than
I
worked
at
the
firm
for
a
long
time,
and
it
doesn't
say:
there's
nothing
there
that
there's
nothing
that
refutes
that.
Maybe
someone
else
was
this.
What
was
the
partner
in
charge
was
in
charge
of
designing
this
church?
D
D
Website,
just
as
as
was
was
directed,
there's
nothing
about
larry
perkins
directly,
so
the
comments
that
were
made
by
landmarks
illinois,
as
far
as
I
can
see
in
the
record,
there's
nothing
that
backs
them
up.
There's
a
wish.
There's
a
desire
to
say
that
this
building
was
designed
by
larry
perkins
and
therefore
it
should
be
designated
a
local
landmark.
D
There's
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
of
undercurrent.
That
seems
to
say
that,
but
we're
taking
you
where
you're
being
asked
to
take
a
very
serious
action
that
will
have.
As
I
pointed
out
and
again,
this
won't
be
discussed
necessarily
with
you,
but
will
have
some
very
strong
consequences
to
the
landowner
and
we
don't
see
that
the
burden
on
the
the
burden
for
that
criteria
is
is
really
having
been
met.
D
And
part
of
that,
I
would
argue,
as
I'm
going
to
is,
is
is
pointed
out
in
larry
perkins's
own
words,
which
was
that
extensive
document
that
I
set
in,
which
was
a
couple
of
hour
interview
of
mr
perkins,
for
the
express
purpose
of,
in
effect,
going
over
his
life
and
going
over
his
projects
and
looking
at
all
the
projects
and
asking
him
specifically
about
projects,
and
if
this
church,
which
has
been
noted,
would
have
been
the
only
church
that
they
did
was
an
important
project
to
mr
perkins,
I
would
say
why
was
it
never
mentioned
he?
D
He
went
into
details
saying
after
a
war,
they
were
looking
for
any
business.
They
could
get
to
keep
the
firm
intact
to
be
able
to
continue
this
firm
which,
as
we
all
know,
became
a
powerhouse
firm
right.
I
mean
it's
there,
so
this
formed
the
basis
of
everything
that
followed
through.
Yet
the
only
projects
that
he
mentioned
in
that
interview
of
his
life
in
his
own
words
were
schools.
D
That's
what
made
this
firm
happen.
It
was
right.
You
know
right
around
the
time
of
the
crow
island
school,
a
bunch
of
other
schools
that
were
there,
I'm
actually
incredibly
impressed
that
you
can
go
from
doing
relatively
small
projects
like
this
to
as
larger
projects
as
perkins.
Wills
has
done
today
and
continues
to
do,
but
if
it
was
that
important,
if,
if
this
church
was
such
a
centerpiece
of
his
practice
at
that
time,
I
positioned
to
you
that
no
different
than
all
the
supposition
that's
been
part
of
the
record.
D
My
supposition
is,
he
would
have
said
so.
He
was
off
and
running.
If
you
read
that
it's
a
very
fascinating
interview,
it's
a
long
read
because
the
interview
was
hours
long,
but
if
it
was
the
only
church
that
he
did
in
his
career,
you
would
think-
and
I'm
saying
to
you-
you
should
know
that
it
would
have
been
part
of
that
that
interview
he
would
have
pointed
it
out
saying
you
know.
I
inherited
this
church
from
from
my
dad,
which
is
probably
really
what
happened
here,
and
you
know
we.
D
We
brought
it
to
completion
and
that
helped
us
now
that
morphs
into
something
else,
there's
a
lot
of
great
architects
out
there.
Evanston
has
been
lucky
or
just
because
it's
it's
the
type
of
place.
It
is
where
you've
had
our
you
know.
Great
architects
living
in
evanston
or
they've
participated
in
buildings
in
evanston
and
and
and
you're
very
lucky
that
that
has
been
the
case
through
the
years,
but
I
think
without
question.
D
It
clearly
wasn't
important
enough
to
him
to
mention
in
that
interview,
and
it
doesn't
rise
to
the
level
of
landmark
architecture.
It
absolutely
does
not
it's
a
fine
building,
there's
it
it's
not
an
ugly
building
it
it.
It
serves
its
purpose
and
I
think
that's,
unfortunately,
in
our
view,
in
our
architect's
view,
the
best
that
could
be
said
about
it,
mention
was
made
of
a
very
old
building.
I
remember
studying
that
in
architectural
history
courses,
martin's
in
the
field
and
and
that
style
of
church
and
that
somehow
this
building
react
relates
back
to
that.
D
This
is
what
churches
look
like
well
that
in
some
ways
diminishes
the
architectural
value
of
the
building,
because
it's
a
church
in
a
in
a
very
pure
but
a
very
minimal
sense
of
the
word.
It
doesn't
have
the
elements
of
a
landmark
church.
It's
a
church.
Now
I'm
not
trying
I'm
trying
to
do
this
without
being
very
negative,
and
I
I
I,
as
my
kids,
would
roll
their
eyes
as
we've
walked
into
cathedrals
upon
cathedrals
and
spine
cathedrals.
D
You
know
in
in
the
trips
we
took
in
the
past,
but
it
doesn't
rise
to
that
level.
It
doesn't
set
a
new
stage
for
the
type
of
church,
nor
does
the
building,
as
we
point
pointed
out,
really
represent
a
second
church
of
christ,
scientists
church
there
were
a
couple
of
them
that
were
done
in
this
style
and
that's
it
so
it
doesn't
even
set
that
it
doesn't
even
set
the
stage
for
what
would
be
the
second
church
of
christ,
type
of
churches.
D
D
It
should
go
above
and
beyond
just
being
a
church
or
a
building
designed
by
mr
perkins
there's
nothing
wrong
with
having
a
building,
that's
a
handsome
building,
but
to
say
that
this
is
a
landmark
building
in
his
own
career.
When
you,
when
you
look
at
crow
island
school,
which
set
the
stage
for
an
entirely
a
different
line
of
architecture,
that's
a
landmark
larry
perkins
building,
some
of
the
other
buildings
in
evanston,
our
landmark
larry
perkins
building.
I
feel
bad
using
his
first
name
like
I
know
him.
D
I
should
be
calling
him
lawrence,
perkins
or
mr
perkins,
because
unfortunately
I
never
met
the
man
in
my
career,
and
I
don't
want
to
diminish
his
relevance
to
architecture
which
is,
which
is
very
great,
but
mr
perkins
had
the
right
to
desi.
If
he
in
fact
designed
this
building
to
do
an
okay
building,
it
was
a
church,
it
wasn't
meant
to
be
a
landmark
building.
That's
not
even
the
style
of
the
second
church
of
christ.
Second
church
second
church
of
christ,
scientists
to
be
ornamented
in
any
way,
it's
a
very
simple
building.
D
D
So,
even
assuming
that
mr
perkins-
which,
by
the
way
I
by
saying
this,
I
am
not
accepting,
we
are
not
accepting
the
fact
that
mr
perkins
actually
was
the
partner
in
charge
because
there
are,
there
are
gaps
in
all
the
evidence
that
is
quote
being
held
up
as
evidence.
We
don't
see
that
so.
With
that
I'm
going
to
end,
I
I
passed
this.
As
I
indicated,
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
the
hardship.
D
We
don't
believe
the
standards
have
been
met
for
this
building
to
be
designated
a
local
landmark
in
the
city
of
evanston.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
Thank
you
all
right
are
there
other?
Are
there
members
of
the
general
public
that
wish
to
speak
for
up
to
two
minutes.
B
No
okay,
thank
you
so
we'll
ask
that
everyone,
oh,
is
that
a
commissioner
mute
their
microphone
and
stay
muted
plays
so
the
revised
report,
which,
which
was
revised
considerably,
taking
into
account
some
of
the
arguments
and
issues
made
at
the
earlier
meetings,
has
been
posted
on
the
website
for
everybody
to
see.
Mark.
B
Okay,
all
right,
I'm
sorry
would
someone
like
to
make
a
motion
to
close
the
hearing.
I.
B
C
B
F
B
Aye,
okay,
thanks
kate,
all
right!
So
then
we're
on
to
just
discussion
by
commissioners
of
of
the
report.
B
B
I
I'll
just
note
one
thing
is
I
I
thought
the
the
arguments
in
council's
letter
that
were
I
mean-
I
guess
I
I
think,
would
probably
most
most
respectively
respectfully
disagree
on
the
building
meeting
the
standards,
and
you
know
I
think,
we've
discussed
that
at
a
great
length
of
the
past
meetings,
why
we
think
it
does,
and
the
report
is
a
lot
of
data.
B
I
do
think
the
it
is
important
to
note
that
the
standards
don't
include
economic
criteria,
which
certainly
is
important
to
the
owner,
and
the
city
council
certainly
has
the
right
to
consider
those
but
I'll
just
note
that
those
aren't
to
the
criteria.
We
don't
really
have
any
ordinance
basis
to
even
discuss
those.
B
E
B
Okay,
I
guess
the
truth
is:
we've
discussed
this
a
great
deal
at
past
meetings.
Would
any
I
mean?
Is
it
time
to
make
a
motion
to
approve?
Would
someone
like
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
report.
A
I
think
we
should
have
two
separate
motions
here
so
we'll
have
one
to
adopt
the
report
as
final
and
then
the
only
change
I'll
make
to
that
which
is
we
can
do
within
the
ordinance
is
I'll.
Add
the
testimony
that
was
given
tonight
and
then
we'll
have
a
second
motion
to
adopt
the
resolution.
That's
attached
and
transmit
the
report
and
resolution
to
city
council.
B
C
F
B
A
H
I
move
to
approve
the
resolution
21prez0073
where
the
commission
determined
the
nomination
is
in
conformity
with
the
city
code,
section
2-8-4,
meeting
the
criteria
for
designation
a
three
a
four
and
b
and
that
the
commission
recommends
the
city
council
designate
the
by
ordinance
the
church
structure
and
lot
record
at
2715
herd
avenue
as
an
evanston,
landmark
and
request.
City
manager
hereby
transmit
the
commission's
recommendation
and
report
to
the
mayor
and
city
council.
F
B
Richard
wrote
in
okay,
so
any
final
discussion.
B
F
B
All
right,
so
that
concludes
old
and
new
business.
I
don't
know
if
there
were
staff
reports
of
any
nature.
I
think
I
had
one
or
two
questions,
but
you
know
if
carlos
arcade
wishes
to
report
any
staff
matters.
A
I
don't
think
so,
we'll
we'll
have
a
motion
to
approve
two
separate
meeting
minutes,
and
then
the
only
thing
that
I
did
bring
up
with
you
is
that
moving
forward
for
the
next
couple
meetings-
or
I
guess
into
the
future
staff-
is
going
to
provide
a
monthly
report
on
administrative
approvals
that
are
made
so
that
there's
some
some
oversight
over
that
delegation
that
that
you've,
given
city
staff.
B
That'd
be
great
so
for
the
ones
for
like
this
month,
you'll
transmit
it
shortly.
I
mean.
A
Yeah
or
or
I
can
just
include
that
in
in
the
next
so
august
might
be
a
little
bit
larger
for
that,
but
yeah
and
we'll
include
everything.
It's
not
just
something
new
that
we've
discussed.
This
is
we're.
Gonna
transmit
all
administrative
approvals.
B
That'd
be
great,
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
you
know,
starting
next
month,
transmit
in
advance
of
the
meeting.
So
if.
H
B
Are
questions
or
you
know
we're
kind
of
going
through
a
transition
process
and
kind
of
some
uncertainty
about
in-person
meetings
and
whether
people
meet
every
month,
and
so
I
think
it
would
help
for
the
commissioners
to
be
able
to
give
you
feedback
or
or
ask
questions
that
might
help
you
guys
with
that
going
forward.
That's.
A
C
A
They,
the
idea
is
just
in
general.
The
commission
is
really
the
exclusive
body
that's
charged
with
resource
management
of
all
types,
and
then
it
also
has
discretion
within
its
rules
on
what
it
can
delegate
to
city
staff.
So
we
just
think
it's
it's
prudent
to
supply
the
commission
with
that
information,
so
that
there's
oversight
over
what
kind
of
projects
number
of
projects
that
are
being
approved.
G
Okay,
so,
to
clarify
a
little
more,
it's
that
we
will
report
applications
that
have
been
approved
administratively,
meaning
that
we
will
follow
all
the
criteria
that
was
established
with
the
documentation
that
kate
provided
earlier
previous
meetings
and
the
whole
intent
is
that
the
commission
still
has
the
authority
to
maintain
that.
B
Trust
we're
there
just
since
we
don't
have
the
list
in
front
of
us,
were
there
more
applications
this
month
that
you
just
that
you
decided
to
approve
administratively
in
the
past
and
then
in
the
past.
Given
the
rule
changes
we
made.
A
I
would
say
there
was
only
one
instance:
it
was
a
accessory
structure,
a
new
garage
for
a
landmark
property
that
we
approved,
but
it
the
materiality
of
the
structure,
is
really
appropriate.
There's
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
wood,
siding
wood
windows,
wood,
overhead
door,
but
that's
really
the
only
case
that
was
approved
that
otherwise
would
have
gone
to
the
commission
previously.
B
F
H
A
They
told
us
to
just
keep
everyone
posted
right
now.
The
idea
is
to
be
in
person,
but
I
don't
think
anyone
really
knows
what
the
governor
will
do.
It
was
a
little
bit
of
a
surprise
when
he
extended
it
this
first
time
and
I'm
I'm
not
sure
that
anything's
necessarily
changed
since
then.
So
I
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
if
he
extended
it.
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
if
he,
if
he
didn't.
A
I
think
that
the
extension
expired
perhaps
july
30th,
oh
okay,
so
he'll
have
to
make
a
decision
prior
to
that
okay
wrong
on
the
date.
But
it's
I
think
it's
the
end
of
july.
C
Yeah
now
that
you
say
that
that
makes
sense,
it
would
be
like
one
more
month.
A
H
H
Okay,
I'm
going
to
make
a
motion
on
the
june
8,
since
I
wasn't
at
the
other
one.
I
moved
to
approve
the
meeting
minutes
for
the
june
8th
2021
minute
meeting.
Second,
second,.
B
Okay
and
royal
callback,
commissioner
reinhold
aye
commissioner
bowdan.
C
F
B
And
I'm
an
I
I'm
sorry,
so
the
special
meeting
date
was
june.
B
Okay,
so
could
someone
who
is
at
that
meeting
make
a
motion
to
approve
those.
B
Second
I'll,
second
stewart,
okay,
I
roll
call
votes,
says
well.
Ryan,
commissioner
reinhold
hi
abstain.
Christian
bojan,
commissioner
cohen
aye,
mr
dweller.
E
A
H
B
I'm
sorry
stuart.
You
want
to
move
to
adjourn,
I
move
where
you
turn.
Second,
second,
okay,
unanimous
acclaim
to
adjourn.