Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This is the regular meeting of the Garden City Planning Commission. It's Thursday, June 11, 2026 at 6.30 p.m. I'd like to call this meeting to order. And our first order of business is to pledge allegiance to the flag, if everyone can stand. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Would the secretary take the roll call, please?

Yes. Chairperson May. Here. Commissioner Steenburg has asked to be absent and excused. Commissioner Walz. Here. Commissioner King. Here. Commissioner Williams. Here. Commissioner Bozzi has asked to be absent and excused. Commissioner Daniels. Here. You do have a quorum with five, Mr. Chair.

Thank you next order of business agenda. We can have a motion Motions made and supported any comments discussion on the motion Take the roll, please.

Yes, Commissioner Daniels I Commissioner walls I Commissioner Williams Commissioner King aye chairperson may I Motion passes.

Next we have approval of minutes in the regular meeting of May 14th, 2026. I second. Motion's made and supported. Any comments or corrections? Hearing none, take the roll please.

Commissioner Williams. Commissioner Daniels? Aye. Commissioner King? Aye. Commissioner Walz? Aye. Chairperson May? Aye. The motion does carry, Mr. Chair.

Okay, next we have public comment on non-agenda items only. One wishing to come forward with a comment for a non-agenda item. Now is the time to do so. Seeing no one, we'll move on. We have no other business items. Other business. Our first item is zoning ordinance amendment discussion. It's discussion of proposed amendments regarding first murals. YOU WANT TO START US OFF?

YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

ONE THING IN APOLOGIES FOR NOT HAVING THIS.

STARTING MURALS. LAST DISCUSSION, YOU WERE PRETTY MUCH SATISFIED WITH THE PROPOSED TEXT, BUT PRIOR TO SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING, YOU FELT YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW proper way to regulate the message unit option. And so on your memo, there's a chart that just proposes four different options for you to consider.

And basically what we did in terms of this consideration is consider the maximum size in terms of what can be proposed.

Because the maximum size, regardless of the wall itself, is 500 square feet of formula. And so just the way the math works out, when we're allowing two message units, so regardless of the number of characters within that unit, whether it's two words, whether they're long words, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, or something like that, it would still have to meet this proportion if you show so in terms of The graphic you see on your sheet is the maximum height of a one-story building is generally about 14 feet. And then just to get to 500 square feet, it's 35.5 feet. So this 14 by 35.5 would be 500 square feet. That 500 square foot maximum. Then, just in terms of percentage, the way it works out is 10% of 500 is 50 square foot. To get to 50 square foot, you do three feet times 6.6. Obviously, if they choose to use logos or something else, it would be a different shape in terms of just a horizontal-oriented graphic, but the size and the percentage of area covered by message units versus the mural itself would be as shown on the graphic. And so then we just scaled that up as proportional. The numbers are on your chart. 15% would be 75, 20% is 100, and 30% is 150.

So in terms of what you'd like to think to give the options for property owners. And so those are the graphic . So hopefully you do get a feel for what you feel is an appropriate scale of message unit versus the art that might be the intent actually of the mural.

Okay, well, personally, since these businesses are already allowed a certain amount of signage on their building by the ordinance, this would be in addition to that. So I would like to see them go with the minimum amount of message units on their murals, if they choose to have a mural. So out of these, I guess I would say 10% should be the maximum. What does everybody else think about this?

15% jumped out at me. I don't like the 20 or 30, but it's just the difference. I would say no more than 15, but I'm fine with 10.

I was kind of like at 20, but to put a not to exceed. So if we got 1,000 square foot side, we could do a 20% and not to exceed 150 square feet. So we could kind of limit... limit it that way a little bit. So the smaller ones could have a little bit more, but the larger ones would be limited to the square footage.

Just to let you know, the draft that's currently ready to be reviewed is the max sign is areas 500 square foot. 70 feet long and 14 feet wide, that would be 1,000 square foot. But right now, as written, wouldn't let the mural go the entire distance.

It would just be 500 square foot.

That's just the options before you right now. You can play with those numbers if you guys want to.

What are they counting as a mural? So if they paint the whole thing like sky blue and draw grass on 500 square feet of it, is it only the sky blue count? Or is that just a blue building? So what are we considering in the mural?

Considering that we don't have current regulations for colors, and you can't really regulate color, if they chose to, they could do that. They could have the artistic area be limited to 500 square feet, I believe. We could try and regulate that with the mural ordinance, if you'd like, in terms of the option. So like, say, the... background wall area shall have a contrasting color to the actual mural area.

But if that's only one, in theory, somebody could do that, and I don't know if that's so bad or not.

I thought when we originally talked about this mural, I thought we were trying to leave out the wording.

Right. We originally were, but then the discussion was held that what are the alternatives for that, because it's either no wording, no graphics at all, or logos at all, or some option.

So the way where the draft is written is a message unit is a way that we can comply with the Supreme Court's rulings and not read the text or regulate the text, but they're allowed to have two different representations of letters or or using 10 digits, I believe, is what it is.

And then that's a way that, because remember, these regulations would apply to not only business owners, but to nonprofit organizations.

So if someone wanted to make a mural and then say, protect firefighters or something like that. do that, or if they wanted to have a .

Yeah, or if they wanted to have .

It's an option that later discussion . Instead of that, give them the tool to do it.

I guess my thought would be, because we've had this topic on the agenda a few times now, my proposal would be we go with the 10%. Let's get it on the books. And if we think we need to adjust it bigger down the road or someone needs a variance, they can always come for that. But at least we get something, because I assume this has to go in front of city council, we get something on the books so that we actually have an ordinance. That's fair.

I agree with that.

And you're good?

Yeah.

We would still need to have a public hearing here and then make a final recommendation to council and then it would go to council.

You mean to narrow it down to one choice?

Correct. Correct.

I think that's a good idea. At least that way we could.

And then I think that maybe to address Commissioner Williams' concern, part of applying for this is that they have to give us a graphic representation and there is some interpretation by the zoning administrator like, oh, we're just kind of a blue sky. I don't think would meet a, wouldn't be a mural then. It's just the color of the building, right? Is that what you're trying to think? Yeah.

They already got the building painted blue. They really don't count as part of the mural.

The mural's defined as, you know, graphic representation, artistic representation there, so I guess, I guess we could have some like Dolly-esque kind of artists and like, it's red. And the name of my painting is red. I don't know, you know, so I'm not sure. But they'll be up to the zoning administrator to say, you know, to challenge it at that point, you know. And then there's a process. If it's challenge, it goes to the zoning board of appeals. If it's challenge, it goes to the zoning board. Yeah, exactly.

If your mural is a blank blue wall, then it's not really a mural.

You just painted your building. Yes.

Call it a blue rainstorm or something. I don't know.

So I was just thinking, let's say it was a fish store and they painted the whole wall blue, but they only had fish that didn't equal up to 500 feet all over the thing.

Yeah, but if they spread it out, the entirety of the area where the fish are would be part of the mural.

I'm just saying that it's still all going to look like the fishbowl.

Yeah.

But do we care?

And I don't. That's why I said the 20%.

But then they could have the words on it, you know. The message unit would be words, right? Right. By fish or whatever, I don't know.

I support the 10% because even if the building is larger, the mural we're thinking of the 500 square feet. We're not contemplating the fact that the side of the building might be larger.

Is there okay with the 500 square feet and 10%? Yep. Okay.

Do you need a motion?

Do we need a motion for this?

No, no. For the next meeting, though, we'll bring back, you know, your input together with the final version of the ordinance amendment. Okay. So to have the hearing.

Yeah. Okay.

right next item is indoor recreation facilities in the m1 zoning district so um we have been approached several times over the years for someone to consider uh looking for places within the city to do uh certain recreation activities currently uh they're permitted as special land use and There aren't as many buildings that can accommodate these type of large open floor areas or high ceilings. Some of the existing buildings that we even had in the past are being converted back to recreation.

For example, the old Garden City Bowl up at Warren's Middle Belt, that actually is being proposed, and it has been approved to start construction to change that to soccer and pickleball.

Soccer courts and pickleball. So it would be indoor soccer. Others have looked into that. Right now, the zoning owners doesn't permit them. Some of our larger buildings, such as industrial. While the front portion of that, the back, where it has the larger buildings and the warehousing, well, pole barn buildings, basically.

is industrial.

So technically right now they couldn't do it. Several years ago, maybe a while ago, we did adjust the permitted uses within industrial to allow for gyms and, because there was a call for that from people who wanted to do Taekwondo or dance or something.

Did anybody ever put any of that in?

They did for a little bit, then they came and went away. But it's an option. And so in the end, why we wanted to bring this forward to you is while...

In theory, it might happen where we make this change and no one comes in.

It is a viable use, we think. something that actually seen in quite a bit of other communities ordinances around the area and Livonia other other clients that of mine do at the within the only thing I would say with that would be when it comes for something that's about organized play for you know rec leagues basically or exercise you might want to consider allowing that as permitted use when there's no bleachers or no attendants or anything.

It's just people doing organized games and .

But if, but the potential, because, the reason for that is because the amount of people visiting the site is gonna be somewhat limited to who can fit on the field.

Whereas if there were bleachers and there was attendants and somebody wanted to set up a league or something where they sold tickets, attendance would require

So in that case, we would say, if you want to allow that, you can have that as special land use.

So they would just come through and make sure it's special land use, make sure that site in the particular area.

And we don't have too many buildings that would allow it, but the Metropolitan building is one example of an older industrial, larger, that's being, they're investing a lot into the building.

They have a lot of things they have to do. And any other building. Or even, you know.

On Manor Park. Yeah, on Manor Park. There is a current dance studio there that occupies a couple of the units on Manor Park. They're looking for any viable use they can get to fill it up, and we thought it could be an option to do so. Also on industrial, there's a few 8,000-square-foot industrial buildings with the little office in the front, the industrial in the back, that have been vacant for a long time. So we're trying to see if there's something to spur on some kind of development.

Well, I don't know. I guess... having the use in there is one thing, but making it a spectator sport is totally different.

And if you chose to choose, you can obviously just say there are no... We can say recreation uses with no spectators.

And that could be it. That could be the end of it. Yeah.

Yeah, they're almost spectators of sports. But you know what I'm saying?

You've got to watch how it works.

You don't want to exclude a lot of people. Maybe fixed seating or something. No fixed seating.

Maybe something like that, maybe.

I just wonder if it's going to matter in the M1. So like over by, I don't know if it's still there. My daughter used to go to the dance studio over by Jets on Ford Road and used to be crazy in that parking lot with people going in and out. And so compare that to something in the M1. It seems to me this would be better situated for... if there were spectators i mean i i unless i'm misinterpreting this i think if so long as the spectator seating is a special land use which means we would look at it and try to understand volume and that sort of thing this doesn't strike me as a problem parking would control that would change parking yeah that's what i'm saying like if they said hey we have a special end like we want to start a soccer league like what we do with the drive-throughs right i mean just making sure

yeah i don't know if it well we have current language in our parking ordinance to restrict parking for something like this there is a standard that they have to comply with and the idea for the special land use in my head was just so that you could determine other factors to make sure that it's compatible with other adjacent land uses

A lot of, the main concern you have is making sure it doesn't impact residential neighborhoods as well.

Oh, I guess, in theory. But like, I don't.

Maybe if somehow the Viking building right at the corner of Locke and Hubbard were to be converted, people might try and block it for the residential to the north. So that's why you want to have a special means for restricting, or insuring that they have enough parking for what they propose on site. Yeah.

that would go through the special values there is uh there is let me find the the standards attendance oh excuse me spectator seating in a facility we used it for the warren road all right we did use i forget what it was though because he they just meet it right over there on warren where the bowling alley is because he you know he bought the lot east and it's parking for that also Next to the car wash.

Correct.

Not wrapped around it completely, but there is.

It goes back.

It goes back. Technically, it's a through lot, and they also have the required 35-foot setback along that residential street and a wall.

So they have that law, so they were able to... That's why it was... That's why it went through administrative approval, because the only thing they needed to do was make a figure of the material.

And they're actually going to raise the roof in height, too.

To get the cleanest thing to that building. But that all fell under the criteria of administrative review. This would be... So right now, it's not a permitted use of that one. They should want to...

what's everybody's feeling about this I don't I don't personally have a problem with it I think it's a good use of buildings if they're sitting vacant the only issue would would possibly be the spectator thing I think that could cause some issues I don't know how much there's a lot of space back there I suspect that you were going to classes in the that's a pizzeria and there's other stuff going on.

They were competing with pizza. It was pretty bad. Yeah. Certain times of day it gets congested.

And nine times out of ten a recital is going to be later after most of those any businesses that are there are closed. Except for Jets. No, in the industrial.

Oh, yeah. The recital can, you know, they often have them at the schools. A Radcliffe Center can host them. You know, they do have them in different locations, too. I know that. We have a gigantic park, so. Yeah.

I mean, there's a lot of horses that people want to go see.

Exactly.

As far as the amount of spectators, I think the fire marshal will have a total, the amount of people that can be in the building.

The amount of people in the building, yeah. Periods. They can put limits on that. Yeah, so. depending on the exiting and everything else.

And the parking ordinance does reflect that. It does say, or, it has certain standards, mainly one per three persons, or per three seats. For stadium management, you have something about stadiums, sports arena, or similar assembly space, with fixed seating, one per three seats, or one really near bench. But then we also have standards in other assembly areas, where it says, or, permitted, max permitted by the fire marshal.

So that is another... I like it. I think it's good.

Everybody in favor of going ahead with some language for this? Okay, so you'll present language at our next meeting?

Right now, the only language, if I could get some direction from you guys. Here's language attached to the memo. It was very, just trying to make it. Revise the permitted uses.

This, NEM1, say indoor renovation facility facilities with power.

spectator seating and under special and use. I'm number 12 indoor recreation facilities with.

It's recreation facilities and the fine term.

We didn't revise of not too long ago so that in the recreation facilities are. Right now as written in front of you it does say indoor.

I don't know.

Something that would end up on the Ochoa or something. It wouldn't be allowed in the M1. Right now, this is just considering recreation facilities inside.

But once again, you can choose what you'd like to consider.

Maybe this is just wordsmithing, Mr. Ortega, but I wonder if it should be like indoor recreation facilities that exclude spectator seating and then that includes spectator seating. That way it's not just a parenthetical. That's good.

Do we add in the special land use to see section and such and such for the spectator seating rules just so people can see that as a reference?

okay so do you want to come back with that at the next meeting and we'll schedule a public hearing then okay okay next item uh scheduling a public hearing region Request to schedule a public hearing for proposed C1 rezoning of the parking lot, or of the lot at 27500 Marquette Avenue at the July 9th, 2026. We don't have a plot plan to see how big this property is.

apologies i didn't know and so to let you know uh right now right now it is a um it was previously utilized as a church as a religious institution is now vacant

It has been bought by a new property owner, and they're proposing this mixed-use, potentially at the moment, of an office space for their architecture firm.

It's an architect that bought the building.

And then the other half, the half that used to be school, changing the school rooms into acres. And I can't even try to find for you the size of the area.

The applicant has already submitted a plot plan for it.

This is adjacent to the property at the funeral home. And how far back does it go? Yeah, so.

And actually, you know, part of it is that the parking lot is shared right now, but it is under individual ownership between Santu and the church.

So where would the cutoff be for the...

It doesn't include the parsonage either. The parsonage gets sold off.

Yeah.

It's actually right about there.

So it is a two-acre lot. Okay. and it does go back about parking on this side yes yes there it is america does go back about 235 square uh 235 feet from marquette and actually the property that's owned that's occupied by the funeral home also other property that's owned by uh Wraps around the back of this, and it's currently zoned C1 as well. Okay, it comes back here.

Yeah, what is Santu's property zoned as? C1. C1. Got rid of the old one. It would be the same as this.

Yep, so it would be exactly the same as this.

And on the west property line, they share that with the house?

Yes, it right now is a single-family home, and the rest of that property to the west of this, west of Santu property, is zoned R1, single-family.

And the thing is, I mean, are they proposing this as a conditional zoning or is this just a straight C1 zoning because there's a lot of other things that could be put in there if it's just a C1?

Correct.

So the other things that would be permitted is retail sales uses, office uses, of course, personal service uses, and then the only type of food service that could be on the site. No standard restaurants are not permitted.

No car washes, no gas stations, no drive-thrus at all.

The only type of food service that could be in here would be a carry-out restroom, meaning like a pizza place in which there's just a counter for people to come pick it up.

That requires special land use approval. If you recall the Beirut Bites location on Inkster and John Hawk in that one multi-tenant building, that required special land use approval because all the others, and that is C1 zoning, and that others have a pharmacy and a barbershop.

So personal service use and retail use. So yes, technically the C1 would be possible if they do a straight rezoning for this. And then the... so yes and then in theory they would have to apply for special land use for the carryout carryout food carryout restaurant now as they're proposing this with the architectural firm are they

proposing a daycare center for their employees or is this something they're proposing for the general public they're proposing it for the general public okay but to your point though you are correct like this is what they're proposing currently right now as a standard rezoning the the request is to hold a public hearing to see if just all permitted or special land uses in the c1 is appropriate in this location but you know the future land use for this this entire block from market to during up to that other block. It's all mixed use action.

So technically this is support.

There particular see one business that you think would not fit here.

Well, it's right in the middle, basically, of a residential area. I mean, it borders the house on the west and it's across the street from all the others. I just don't think a lot of those people would appreciate a bunch of retail stores moving in there. The architectural firm probably wouldn't be much of a disruption, but we have no guarantee that that's what it's going to be. Although I guess I can't see them tearing down that big building to put a strip wall up.

And the architect mentioned that one of the reasons that they want to grow their uses is because of the economics of these uses fitting in the building as it is.

They are going to have to do extensive renovation of the building anyway, but the floor plan and outer structure support this.

So if you're trying to change that to something more, it would be more, it would cost more.

It would just cost.

I guess my thought would be if... keep it r1 really this could only be a church or someone would have to demolish it or turn it into apartments or something where you know you couldn't even do apartments if it was an r1 so if we have someone who's willing to develop it is there an option to give a zoning variance in this case versus changing it to a c1 or is that not an option um let me double check one thing here but uh another thing in terms of the um

the way the statute is the planning statues zoning statute is a word the applicant has to be the one to propose.

hearing would be to see what times there have been times in which property owner after public hearing. If there was concern that was heard, once again, you can't ask or require him, but I can give him his options, and then they will have the potential to change them.

You can make them aware of it, but you can't request it.

Okay. So far, this is what he's requested.

Can you resolve the limit to not doing that with certain uses? No. You can't resolve it? It can't be carried out, or it can't be...

that is a condition rezoning self-imposed by the property owner on property owner on the site that use in that district

out of that district because property that is zoned that particular district they have those rights as property owners.

The principal print uses they're allowed to do those when they provide an ordinance. Special land use they're allowed to do those once if the special land use that's only when the city has to say what uses are going to be on the site.

So technically, for the restaurant uses, they'd have to go through special land uses.

So it's only if the council and the planning commission have both agreed that that type of use is committed at appropriate at that time. But it does open the door for activities.

So it could be out of the public hearing. And then also have a site plan to review for next time before we make a decision?

Yes, we do have a plot plan. We definitely provide that.

Applicant isn't required to provide a full-blown site plan.

But they have provided a very detailed plan. He's an architect. And he already had no problem complying with all the standards of the application for creating a plot.

Okay, well, we can schedule a public hearing and

see what everybody says at that point someone cares to make a motion i'll move to schedule a public hearing uh to consider rezoning or request to rezone the property at 27500 marquette avenue on july 9th 2026. i second the motions made and supported any comments or questions on the motion

Hearing none, let's take a roll, please.

Commissioner King. Aye. Commissioner Daniels. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Walz. Aye. Chairperson May. Aye. The motion does carry, Mr. Chair.

Okay, next item is Nassar's plan amendment, discussion of draft plan.

Coming towards the end of the 60-day review process, and I was just wondering if you guys had any comments or concerns. The revised draft that we'll present it to you will include revised information regarding housing values as up-to-date as we can find. collecting, assessing data.

On that, I wasn't sure if there's any particular things you'd like to address? Is there any public comment yet?

I haven't really heard anything.

right i don't have my notes up but i know we talked about like the cottages not being a fan of that and we talked about some of the figures around the the appreciation in garden city maybe relying on survey data versus hard data has all of that been edited

Well, right now, the draft still includes the cottage option, mainly because it's an option to consider for the council and for you and for future planning commissions and city council. So it's a matter of trying to create a variety of housing types as a discussion remember as a master plan it's intended to spur discussion but it is not a legal document that will be required anything because the next step from this would be any kind of zoning amendment because right now it's not permitted by the zoning ordinance

And maybe the mass question different way so we met on it, I think it was about 3 meetings ago there were specific pieces of feedback that we've given has it been edited at all are you saying that version that we saw 3 meetings ago is still the version and if we have feedback when you bring it to you.

So so the version that's out there right now available for public comment is still that but all the comments you had from that that meeting will be made to okay version that you'll see next.

Okay, because I guess what I was hoping is that we would get to see the revised. Prior to the meeting like I don't know I'd like a little bit of time to you can make sure to provide it to more than just the standard week ahead of time and give you to I would appreciate that just because it's important and.

You can definitely provide the revised version.

I mean, even if it's electronic, that's fine with me. Yeah, I think two weeks would be great. I think we were just trying to get the public hearing schedule. I remember that. I guess where I was going is I wanted to be able to give Mr. Ortega feedback versus our back being up against the wall again. And then we need to make a decision and we haven't had time to edit it appropriately.

Yes, if you get it 2 weeks ahead of time, you can provide comments prior to the meeting. That's what I think that way we can see what we can do.

Definitely get it 2 weeks prior to the next week.

Well, if there's nothing else, then we'll move on. Commissioner's comments regarding planning and zoning matters. Brian? All set.

All set. We haven't asked about the Kmart property in a while.

Which one?

The Kmart property. I believe there was a transaction six months ago or something.

To my knowledge, the last time the current owner purchased it, actually a lot of them

at least a year ago.

They own property that they've been wanting to complete the development on in Canton and that has been completed now. heard anything from them since, but I think that's because they were waiting on the master plan and what was proposed.

So as you know, the master plan has a concept plan for that property.

I think we did try and send it to him.

Yeah, I did include it and send it to them. For review, I didn't hear any comments, positive or negative, actually. But the transaction, I haven't heard there's been more. My timeline's probably just off. Okay, okay. So with the newest owner I've sent it to how about that so but there's still some parcel I also though on top of that I sent it to of course the Kmart owner which owns about the six acres and then what I would refer to as Newman property just on Beachwood just a little off I sent it to him actually the listing agent I kind of know and then also I sent it to the property owner of the K auto and Because that kind of that acre and a half out front is not owned by the Kmart purchaser either. So those are the big kind of landowners back there.

So the purchaser of the Kmart property has not indicated what they intend to do with it? No. Or a timeline or anything? Nothing.

Not anything new in the past. They were very interested and intrigued by our discussion.

About higher density and more residential options. You like that idea? has in common other than that he also was considering it as another possibility as a another grocery store for his because he runs groceries so the proposed plot plan does include you know multi-tenant commercial buildings once again as a master plan it's a concept we can i think there's certain aspects of the concept emphasize, and then when a site plan comes forward eventually, hopefully they hit the highlights.

Thank you. Hello.

that you have anything else just at the beginning we were before we're on starting to me we're just having just general discussion about housing in and houses and right now there's about I think 8 houses under construction the city and you know as we're talking about housing or always trying to increase our footprint and I think it's been going well, actually, to get the houses built. Some of it's been easy. They buy a lot and build, but five of the houses, six of the houses, we've had to split lots. They've had to combine lots. They've had to purchase additional land to get the house to fit. we're trying to shoot box in but I think for some communities 8 houses isn't a big deal but in garden city where there's very little and it is and I think it's a good sign that you know as we're doing the housing master plan. You know that will permit you know may will adjust zoning ordinance prevent more density and we can see easier build outs and things like that so I hope but we have been busy with the new houses and and we're excited to see them so it's it's new families and of course new value on there I'm just like we're talking about Marquette and value also of course it was not taxed and now it's not a religious institution it'll start to be taxed and you have to look at that also it's kind of a we look at value and assessing and all of that and of course It's a good thing to see something that wasn't taxed go on the roll and increase the value and of course our assessment.

Since we're on that subject, do we have any further information about the orange ruler property?

Other than they are going to come back with a smaller version of what they're proposing. And they have all the information what they need to do. They've not done it yet. So they will have to amend or request a rezone back to CBD.

Well, our next regular planning commission meeting will be Thursday, July 9th, 2026. And I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

I'll motion to adjourn. Second. motion made and supported all in favor aye aye motion's carried meetings adjourned