Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Okay. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Okay, welcome everyone to the what is today? the May 13th planning and zoning meeting. Uh, we'll do roll call. I don't see our secretary here, so I guess I will do it. Um, Mark Vaza here. Brian Nolan here. Lisa Shearing here. Jeff Moore here. Jeff Hunt here. Carl Carlin here. Matt Foreman here. I believe that is quorum. Okay. Uh, moving on. We uh approval of the agenda uh approval of the agenda. Um I uh believe do we have a motion to approve tonight's agenda? Motion to approve.

Second. Second. Okay. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Passes. Moving on. Uh the approval of minutes from the April 8th, 2026 meeting. Um, do I Yeah, Mr. Chairman, as noted or discussed, I think there's a few uh comments missing from the second business new business case. So, if we could have those added and next meeting.

So, do we need a vote for that or since they're going to be corrected? We'll bring it um just motion to continue so we can bring back the corrected minutes at the next meeting. Okay. So, do we get a motion to and a second? Second. Okay. All in favor? I

opposed. Okay. So, we will get the approve uh corrected minutes at the next meeting. Um and let's see citizen comments. Is there anyone in the audience or online? um who wish to discuss uh something not on tonight's agenda. Not seeing anyone. Okay. Okay. Moving on to old business. Case number 26-002. The site development plan for the new 9 unit town home development at 8815 MG Avenue. Is the petitioner here? Okay. Please come forward to the podium. State your name and uh address.

Ashim Lami Chan and address of like who you're representing and Oh, so it's I'm the owner and I'm here with Arun Lami Chan. He's a co-owner of the um new development there. Okay. And we need an address on that or we're good. Yeah. And address state where uh you currently live or your business currently resides. Yeah. So um 11 Deer Creek Woods, St. Louis, Missouri, 63124. Okay. Is where I live. And um Okay. And since it's old business, uh go ahead and do we just get Yeah.

Reintroduce? Yeah. Reintroduce. Yeah. Tell us what's going on. Sure. Um again first of all I I would like to I'm going to greet start with a greeting. Good evening everyone. Um you know chairman uh council members and city staff. Um again my name is Ashim Lami. I have here Arun Lami Chan. Uh we own the property at 88 uh5 MG Avenue. Uh we've been owning it since 2022 and have a plan to uh presented a plan last time to develop um a 9-unit town home. So, um, we also do have Mark Doring, who's a principal engineer for this project, joining us virtually. He's in Florida. He said when the weather gets better here, he'll he'll come to St. Louis. Okay.

So, it's getting better. Um, first of all, I would like to thank um, sincerely thank the commission here and then the city staff uh, for your patience and continued guidance throughout this review process. I especially appreciate um the understanding um over the past several months as I've been navigating through some personal challenges um while moving this project as well. Um since our initial review meeting in February, we've carefully reviewed some of the feedback and comments provided by the city as well as the council members and uh we are here to present updated elevation from the MAG Avenue. That was what was requested. um new roof design of all the buildings to show a little bit more architectural character as well as um perspective view of the buildings from uh different sides of the street. So that's what we are here to present today and we believe the new design um with additional architectural detail makes the front elevation from the MG Avenue really appealing. Um however we are we remain committed to continue to working with everyone here um and then the staff to address any remaining concerns um and then refine the project appropriately. So as the applicant has indicated they are looking seeking approval for site development plan for the permitted use of a multif family development in the plan development overlay district for 8815 match. Um since the prior since the last meeting

of February 11th when this was discussed they have revised the elevation al for the um front rendering facing match. However, the site plan does not reflect the new change. Um, so those need to be addressed um to ensure that it's compliant with the zoning code. The existing building is at the 25 foot setback. So the front porch is and this new bumpout front of that. So we would need to verify that it is still consistent with the zoning code requirement of a minimum of 25 ft. front yard set back. Um, sorry, sorry about that. Uh, so as you can see here, this new front elevation and widening of the front patio um is not clearly reflected on the site plan. So that would need to be revised. Um then we have the left renderings with showing landscaping in the tan uh the gray vinyl fencing at the property line and a rendering from with the adjacent commercial to the east. It's stuck. So let's give it a minute. So, um, there's left rendering, right rendering. In the rendering, it's hard to tell, but one of the prior comments was that the

building materials need to be carried around to all sides. Um, the garage side was not showing the brick. You can see a little bit of it at this corner here. I'm going to switch to a see a little bit of it at this corner. Um, however, the elevation drawings are not showing that it's been carried around. So, that would need to be revised as well. Um overall the building materials remain the same. Um I think the other issue that was discussed was that the light fixtures uh were more of a commercial style light fixture. Um they have been added. They have included a phototric plan that shows that lighting would not leave the property. Um Andy Frank with planning design studio is here to provide uh comments on the landscaping if you would like to hear from him now. Okay,

Mr. Chairman, members of the uh commission. Uh my name is Andrew Frankie. I'm with Plane Design Studio. Uh we're the city's on call landscape architect. I have to say that just I think for the record. Uh we reviewed the petitioner's recent submittal and I believe you guys probably in your packet have uh our responses to those. There were just a few items. They're in red. Our responses are in red for the ones that still needed to be addressed. The first one as Whitney talked about was lighting. And just for the record, there is a little bit of light spill over on the east property line uh 0.1 ft candle. So, just to kind of uh put that in perspective, a foot candle is the amount of light that a candle produces 1 foot away from the candle. Uh probably in here there's about between 30 and 50 foot candles. So, that kind of gives you a gauge. It's not very much light. Uh the other thing that uh I'm not sure that their diagram took into account is the effect of the fence along that property line as well. One question that we didn't note in here, but we had as Whitney was talking just came to mind is we were unsure how high up on the building those lights are mounted. Uh if you go back to the rendering uh from the parking lot there, they're the you might you might see that, but I doubt it because if you look at the cut sheet of the fixture, it's recessed in there. So, you're not going to see like a bulb hanging down or anything with a a source of light. But again, if it's a little bit higher in the building, you might have some light coming at you from that. Just a consideration to think about. Uh our other comment was uh about the the fence. We had I believe we had a discussion about that at the last meeting and it was to be gray. We just didn't get the cut sheet. Uh but we did and the gray fence is adequate. Uh our third comment was about the chain link fence. We were going back and

forth. Is it in? Is it out? Uh it sounds like now with the most recent plans that the chain link fence will be removed. Uh correct. And we will have a the vinyl fence will be behind that. Um that's what it appears to be um on the submitt. Correct. Probably need to say that in here. Um, in terms of the chain link fence, uh, we are happy to remove that. We just need to get approval from or permission from the neighbor because they probably own that wall, I'm guessing. Right.

Correct.

Yeah. Okay. Um, our our last comment was actually a landscape item about the uh the trees along M Avenue. Uh we requested a cult of which was shorter, grows 6 to 10 feet tall so it stay out of the overhead electric line and the resubmitted drawings show a smaller cultivar if you're interested named Nana uh that will grow within that range. So that was the extent of our review questions. Um but I'm happy to answer any questions if you guys have any. I will I will just add the lights on the front elevation um of the town homes facing east are near the front door. So they would be below that fence line or right at the fence depending on the second the rear elevations is near the door for the decks. Um so that would be at the second level. Um, questions from commissioners or

Foreman. Oh, thank you. I was the one that made the comment last time on the perspectives and putting it in context with the other building. So, I see a 0.1 a point 2 lighting, but it's at the north. Is that Did I hear that? Yeah, you're correct. There is a little bit of spill over um the commercial property to the north,

right? No fence over there either. So, um you're correct. Um I don't some question last time on the landscaping about existing and new and the property line on the west. Can't remember if we had open issues for you or not though. I don't remember that comment. I did I do know we asked for the petitioner to show all the existing trees over there which he has done.

Okay. But um and he's putting some retaining walls in there to to preserve them as well, which he showed on his landscape plan. I believe there's a kind of an arcshaped uh if you look at the landscape plan near an existing tree uh in that location else on landscape. the site. Yes, Mr. Shearing.

Um I was just curious. I know that in our staff report it there's a slight there's a short section on parking and it says that they have two spaces per um unit if you will and those are in a garage. So, I'm just curious if they have more than two vehicles since these are family units or if they have visitors, where are they where where is there available parking for them? Um, the drive aisle is 25 ft wide. Since the building has to meet the 50 foot setback, the drive aisle that they're showing is 25. Normal drive two-lane drive aisle with 90 degree parking in a commercial setting is 23. Um so there could be sufficient parking uh beh on the existing drive. However, or they could have an agreement with the commercial property uh for even evenings for occasional visitor parking. But the code only requires two parking spaces per unit and and we can't require additional parking. So I guess will there be designated signs that say that there was they can park on that back section of that 25 ft or I'm just curious because the commercial property that you're referring to has a problem with parking now when they have Pilates classes, right? Yeah. Are you gonna do you want to address the parking?

Um, as Whitney mentioned, uh, the the driveway is wide enough that we can mark um few up to five visitor parking spots more towards the north side. And you intend to do that? Yeah. Okay. If If that is something we do want to include as a condition of approval, we would need to have that added. Yeah. Yeah. I think we I think we should include that because it's not shown on here at all with the We can we can add that.

So there's only there's only five spots. No, that's just a visitor uh spot. But the requirement is we should have two parking spots per unit and we have 18 parking spots in under the building for each unit. We're meeting requirement but because the commission is requesting additional uh parking spots for in case visitors um we are happy to provide that more towards on the north side northwest side. along the would they be parallel or would they be 90 degrees? Parallel parking.

Okay. Okay. And I had a question for for staff. When when the code says two parking spots per unit, does that include garage or is that outside of the garage? It includes garage. And I know some cities maybe that's different. Yeah, there are some cities that do it a little bit differently. they'll have covered and then they'll have uncovered. But ours is just um two parking spaces are required per dwelling unit. So 18 whether they're covered in a garage, outside of a garage.

Okay. So it meets the requirement of the code, but I'm concerned that people will use the garages for storage and they won't necessarily park there. So I think the more spots that you can have in and can fit on that driveway, the better. And I don't know how you do that because it's not shown, but it seems like there may be enough room to have some parallel or something that people, you know, they'll need to turn around and come out. But I think that's going to be the biggest challenge.

And again, that was more of a request from the commission here. And like I said before, we want to work with the commission as well as staff to ensure that the design and and what we're putting together kind of meets and satisfies the need of um everybody. I don't want to be a contrarian here, but if you park in the 25 foot drive aisle and somebody has to back out of the garage, I don't think that's going to work. I mean, think about when you're in over in at the uh at Target and you have a I mean, literally, if you're a parking space is normally 18t wide. So you need about, you know, that length to get out before you can turn. If you consume part of that 25, I don't know if you'll be able to.

But if they're visit, if they're parking behind the unit in which they're visiting the unit and someone else Yeah. Yeah. Then but if if somebody parks that's visiting and parks three up, they might and they can't get a hold. It's just something to be aware of. That's right. Maybe you need to look at having a turnaround up there at the north spot. I think there's enough room up there for a turnaround, but it's just I just wanted to point that out because typically you need the full that's why they're 24 ft wide. So

I I think we need to keep the context that they're satisfying the requirements that they have under the code and they're offering us offering to provide five additional spots. that seems like it's uh more than appropriate.

Yeah, I I'm sorry. No, I I mean I I agree that there's a set of requirements, you know, as established by code that they have to meet. Um I also I think that, you know, we in considering a planned a PD area, we can take some of these things into consideration because they will have an effect in the neighborhood. So, I'm thinking before I go on a long spiel that the last time we saw the project, u I appreciate the updated renderings. It's very helpful. Um, definitely some improvements that I see in in the design, but it's complicated enough and there's enough moving parts. We were close to moving it into the site plan review process last time um and then we paused for for um for applicants reasons. I'm not saying we just just pull the debate and do that right now, but I have a feeling there's enough complicated discussion here that it might be helpful. Um, and I I'll just I'll summarize why I think that. Um, it's again, it falls into the requirements of the PD district, but it's very dense. Um, and that density brings a lot of challenges to get it right. Right. So, it's it's dense, it's large. Um, it's on this edge between commercial and residential. It's not an impossible balance to hit, but it's a difficult balance to hit. And I I personally don't know if we've met that balance yet. So that discussion could happen now. It could happen in a dedicated meeting where we can take out buff paper and trace and do things, right? So um that's in my own process. That's what I would suggest because otherwise I probably have a good half hour of comments to go through. But um I make that's the suggestion I make. So I'll leave that for now. Um, any other comments from the commission or questions? Uh, is there anyone online that would like to comment?

No one is raising their hand. No one's raising their hand. Um, so I guess that leaves us. Do we have a motion to either Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Yes. Sorry. In the audience. Yes.

Uh Steve Lock Miller 8831 match. Um we were going to have some residents here, but this has been kind of kicked back several meetings and they weren't able to attend. One of the concerns I have is the topography of the existing lot. And I couldn't quite see in those diagrams if there's quite a bit of fill dirt in there. If that's all going to be removed and how that's going to lay out from street, it looks like it's at street level, but then I think it still rises as it gets to the north end of that. So, if they could just comment on the topography of the

Sure. Could you comment on that, please? So in terms of the if you look at the site plan um it kind of gives you how it kind of goes up a little bit. Um I quite did not understand like what what what would you want to see more?

Well, sure. Yeah. Yeah. Right now, the lot, if you go and look at it, if you're at street level, it rises quite a bit as you go to the north. Is all that dirt coming out so that you are level, street level, the entire length of that lot?

The answer is uh no. I think there's a great difference of if you look if you compare um look at the site plan if you look at the front and then the back um I believe there's total of five feet of difference when you go all the way to the to the north side and that's how the buildings are when you look at the buildings they're also set about two feet lower than each to um basically accommodate the the grade Does that help? Thank you. Quick. Yes. So to clarify, the roof line of all three buildings is the same

will not be same. If you look at there's a slight difference in um rear elevation, the one um as you go north, it will be a little bit higher than um when you on the south because just of the difference in grade. If you if you read the site plan, if you want to pop that back up and see if you can zoom in, Whitney, it's very slight to really tell the difference because it's about 2 feet.

So, the existing topography is in a light gray line and the new topography or the dark diagonal lines. So he is especially between the second and third units away from the street. They're cutting down a little bit and kind of leveling out, but they're not changing any grades around the perimeter. So they're not disturbing any neighbors. And there is about a five those each one of those diagonal lines is one foot of rise from the street as you drive north. So, they're going to pick up. It'll be if you were standing on the sidewalk looking north, the north end of the parking lot is about eye level. It slopes up that much across the depth of the site. But that's the slope that's there. They've kind of taken out the hill in the middle.

Oh, yeah. That's a that's a not nearly that much to move. We're talking like quarter half inch per foot would move water. This would be fine. I'm not worried about that at all. And but that was one of the reasons we asked for the overall elevation because they do step up hill as they go north.

I just had I just had a quick question. Uh, does the fire department need to review that drive lane? Um, they have reviewed it. Um, prior to them submitting, we sat down with the applicant and with the fire department to provide comments. Yeah. And one additional thing, um, based on their feedback from the fire department, we are also adding a fire hydrant, um, about 25, I would say about 30 feet or 35 ft into the property. I just saw that on the rendering and that's what made me think about it. Yes. And that was a ask from the fire department.

Yes. So I don't know if there's any any stomach from anyone else on the board to to move it into a site plan review. If if if there I have more comments just like you do, especially the south elevation. Okay. Because I I don't I don't want to move to a motion to to vote on it without spewing my piece, but if we're going to do that in in another meeting, I won't do it twice. So, I just was Whitney, I have a question. Um, are the site plan reviews open to the public as well? Yes. So, that could be an opportunity for neighbors to interact, right? And if if if you would like, we could send out the notice for that. Okay.

And just to be to be clear, so I can give us I'm not trying to be sneaky about it. Like I have I have some I mean you did take some steps toward um breaking up the massing of this very large and dense project. I don't feel it went far enough and I have concerns about the the expression of the west side that faces the neighborhood. Right. So um again we could do that here or we if we know we're going to have a site plan meeting we could do it there which might be a better forum for it. I leave that to everyone else to tell me. I I agree with that, but I think you might want to give them some direction so that they can maybe think about some of these issues and maybe look at some of that before the meeting so that would make that meeting more productive.

Sure. Should I do that now? So, so could you go to the um the one of the renderings? Doesn't really matter which one right now. Um that actually that's that's a good place to start. So I I the trouble with the zoning setback notwithstanding, you know, the effort to sort of break down the mass of the front face is recognized. I can see how and why you did it. Um it does help, you know, it's it's better because now you get the sense of like if you carry that front twotory volume over into the neighborhood, you can imagine that lining up with other twostory or one and a half story homes. the remainder of the building is still present, but you're definitely breaking it up to give it a sense of um you know scale change. The if you look at the rendering down below, I think that's is that the west elevation? Yeah. Which goes right to the heart of the issue for me. Um on the east elevation, you've broken up the roof line, I believe you mentioned, and at least it looks like you did. Um and that gives the sense of a more individualized unit sense, right? So there's ways you can do that. There's massing, which you did with the roof. There's colors, there's material changes, there's, you know, shifts and things. All kinds of games you can play to like break up a large thing into a small series of small things, right? So, you've done some of that, but you've done none of that on this face, right? And this is the face that the neighbors will encounter, right? So, if it's if it's it's almost more important on this face, honestly, in my opinion, than the other face, right? Because the other face is sort of the commercial face. You know, it's very possible that at some point those buildings will be raised on Brentwood and something tall will be built there. you know, your buildings may end up never being seen again once that happens. Um, I think that that little pathway where the front doors are is going to get kind of miserable if that ever happens. Actually, like I think it's a lot to ask actually for this site, but I'll, you know, suspend my disbelief until we talk more. Um, but I feel like this side really needs to be addressed with almost equal level of passion as the other side. Uh I

understand that it entails expense and I sorry but but um it's not it's not detailed enough to face the neighbors and if you're if you imagine the space between this face and the fence line which is by zoning set back quite a distance that gives you a lot of perspective view to look at it right you can you can see it right so that's that's got to look like you understand that to me right um it's not the back of anything unfortunately this building has at least three front sides right Um, so and the same things you did to the roof on the on the the Bruntwood side could something similar can happen here would also break it up and make it feel a little bit less massive in terms of shadowing over the neighborhood. Right? So those are all things again challenging site challenging massing. I appreciate the effort. I think we're missing some things at least for me. Um, and then as far as the lighting goes like you know I I it's important to me it's a very small piece of a much bigger picture that other things have to be addressed. I could live with modern light fixtures or, you know, carriage lights. I don't care, right? You know, um what else? Uh the I had a question for staff. The the drive aisle is 25 ft wide. Um the building face is set by setback. Is there anything controlling the width of the pavement? Um the first 25 no the first 25 feet were adjacent to residential is to be landscape buffer and the building set back is 50 feet. So they could narrow the drive.

No but they can't widen it. Right. They can't widen it at this point because 25 ft has to be landscape right with deference to to landscape. I that's a shame because it does no one any good and and they could widen it to get parking in there and that would fix some problems, right? because that landscape is unused. It'll never nothing will ever happen with it. It's just a maintenance problem. If you remember, as part of the commercial design guidelines, there was talk about

we just have not pursued the text amendment at this time to reducing the 25- ft setback. um where there's a lower scale development adjacent to residential similar to where like the MC district and the GC district where it's a 12 foot setback or 13 foot setback versus 25 foot here. Um but that text amendment has not been presented at this time. So if that were to be pursued at a later date, that would allow them to add widen the drive a little bit at that time.

Thank you. So anyway, those are some of the concerns I have. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry. So similar and back to the topography as well, if we go much wider, if there were an amendment, I it's kind of steep back there right now to match the existing. we'd probably be getting into retaining wall. Lovely topic for the site plan review. I concur.

Um some of the comments I I think the renderings aren't quite in sync with the elevations and we've seen this recently where we've been getting shall I say computer assisted renderings that don't necessarily hang together with the actual drafted elevations. So, some of the DATM lines where you've got some of the band boards and the articulation on the east faces, I'm sorry. Yeah, east faces of the building and some of where those DATms wrap along the south and then around the west seem a little disconnected. Um, and then I I the south elevation for sure. You've added kind of a pop out on the building that I think Whitney you said the porch and that pop out maybe over the setback lines.

Well, they're not represented on the site pan plan correctly. The original site plan had the building at the 25 foot setback so that the bumpout would be over that. But they have not provided an update rendering. But I think just

updating. Yeah, we'll take a note to you know coordinate the drawing so we can really tell where things are landing. Um, I think the articulation on the west also and I do think the sharp cut off modern fixtures being shown now because there was a discrepancy last time the rendering was showing something more like open lantern residential looking and now those have been updated. I'm not

we we wanted to for that we wanted to ensure that the light fixtures do not have spillover and I know that was one of the big concerns and trying to strike the fine balance between trying to keep the light within the property and not disturb the neighbors. I think that's where we did but we would love to when we get to site plan review if you know team members have other feedback and ideas you know we would love to uh explore those options as well. Any other comments?

One one one thing I do want to go back to in terms of I know you mentioned about west elevation. The west elevation is more of a side elevation for a neighbors. And um we would love to see if there's any examples that you had thought, Carl, um that would be helpful, you know, that way we can incorporate that.

Again, I I I understand the the the the temptation to think of it as a side elevation, but I really I don't see it that way, right? like it's the it's really, you know, the the west elevation is really harder to see, frankly, than the east elevation, right? Because it's up against a wall. There's buildings up against it. You It's actually harder to see. It's understandable that you put the design energy into it because that's the front of the building in quotes, but it's really kind of not, right? You know, and this is what people will see the most of, right? the the match face is a narrow tiny little thing which you have addressed which I appreciate but it's small it's not really what they see they're going to see this right and because they're seeing it across a very wide um flat you know landscape drive you know 25 ft plus 25 ft so it's like 50 feet you're going to see all of this right as you're driving down match so in some ways this is not a side elevation this is almost as much a front elevation by code it might have some other name but as far as experience it's a front elevation right and so so to look for an example like the example would the other side of your building

square. You know, they did a very nice job interpreting it. Seems like you've got the three-dimensional models built. So, figure four on page two of staff report, the bottom one, Whitney, the rendering at the So, that one right there, you're south of the building looking northwest. If you went a hundred yards with your camera, virtual camera, if you went a hundred yards west and you looked northeast, you would see the view you're talking about. That makes sense. No, totally. Thank you.

Yeah. And again, I understand nothing is it's all has complications. I understand. But the that breakdown of, you know, the the long roof lines, you know, facing the smaller houses in the neighborhood with the smaller residential units would, I think, have the effect of contextually merging it with that smaller residential language, right? And so, um, like it did successfully where you did it, you know. So I I think that would help because again I I do worry about that that east west ele so I'm getting confused now sorry the the elevation on the top of the image which is the west elevation right yeah sorry so I was I was misspeing earlier but that I worry about that one the way it's shown

that makes sense and thank you for clarifying that as well so I appreciate it and and I do think there's a number of elements you've got on the east you know you've already got gable lens you brought but You also have a spot where you've popped up the shed um in between the gables. There's actually a popup of a shed. Just a shallow bay. Something like that on the west in the center could you know differentiate that and break up those lines. I mean honestly like to stay within the this you know the stylistic continuum of the work you've already done like you just I would say the best example is what you've already done on the other side. Right. So

okay. So, are there any other comments, questions? Sounds like we're leaning towards a site or site or pardon me, a uh Oh, sorry. Uh, site plan. Yes. Site plan committee. Committee meeting. Committee meeting. Yes. There's a motion drafted in the thing, but my screen went dark. I'll find it. Give me one second. Okay. So, I guess do we have a motion? I can do it. Okay. Oh, got it on. Okay.

I move to recommend we continue the discussion um at the May 27th site plan review. That's correct. Date, May 27th. That would be 6 pm. Correct. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Second. All right. Uh take a vote. Brian Nolan, yes. Lisa Shearing, yes. Jeff Moore, yes. Jeff Hunt, yes. Carl Carlin, yes. Matt Foreman, yes. Okay, it's unanimous. We will do the uh May 27th site plan committee meeting. Okay, thank you very much.

See you there. Um, next order of business is uh our new business is the nomination of officers for the planning and zoning commission. Um, so I'm not really sure. So So we just need uh nominations um for the chair, the vice chair, and the secretary. This is done every year. Nominations are taken in May at the May meeting and then voted upon at the June meeting which will be June 10th. So do we know has anybody pulled their name out of con consideration? We have not. Okay. So

we can nominate in any order. Okay. So people just speak up. I nominate Hart Nelson for chair. We don't need to vote on any of that. People just speak up and put a nomination in. Okay. Right. What job do you have right now? I'm the vice chair. I nominate Mark Faza for vice chair. I nominate Paul Moran for secretary not hear your intro not showing up right so one else want to make nominations that it

else yeah okay we will carry this uh as additional old business at the June 10th meeting Okay, great. Moving on. Almatic report. Nope. Our one alderman says, "Nope, no report." Uh, and then director of planning and uh, development report. Whitney,

we have the site plan subcommittee at 6 PM on May 27th and the next meeting is June 10th. Um, which we will have this item back at. We have not received an application, another new application yet, but if something were to come in, we will always try to get it on the agenda. Okay, great. And next meeting is June 10th. I believe that is everything. We are finished. Thank you everyone.