[1:26] Mr. Myers, are you and your team ready to go? They are ready. Okay, let's do

[1:30] this. Secretary, please call the roll for

[1:33] 7:35. Mrs. Hall-Rayford? Here. Mr. Stokes?

[1:38] Here. Mrs. Moody? Here. Ms. Naylor? Here.

[1:43] This is no public hearing. You have 3 minutes to have no public hearing. You

[1:46] have 3 minutes to speak on whatever you want to speak on. It is

[1:49] Please write your name on the sheet of speak on whatever you want to speak on.

[1:52] It is Please write your name on the sheet of

[1:54] paper up there. Paper up there. Hopefully it's up there.

[1:58] And you have 3 minutes. Jennifer Nicholas, East Point resident.

[2:03] Um I wanted to go back to Jennifer

[2:05] Nicholas, East Point resident. Um I wanted to go back to a couple of to a

[2:10] couple of planning commission meetings last year, October 2nd planning planning

[2:16] commission meetings last year, October 2nd planning commission. You were doing

[2:21] zoning ordinance changes regarding uh

[2:26] garage setbacks. At that time, Mr. Myers had stated that if a garage were

[2:31] destroyed during a fire, including language that would in effect including

[2:35] language that would in effect grandfather existing garages to allow

[2:41] the original setbacks if the garage needed to be rebuilt needed to be

[2:45] rebuilt. Mr. Myers stated that section 11. Mr. Myers stated that section 11.07

[2:53] part D part 1 already covers this in the event of a fire natural disasters, so no

[3:00] additional language would need to be added to this motion.

[3:03] The way I read this Excuse me, the the The way I read this section 11.7, I

[3:10] don't see that it guarantees that a homeowner can rebuild

[3:13] um north of Stevens, east of Kelly. There's nine streets in that

[3:18] neighborhood. Approximately 80 houses on each street, so say about 700 homes. I

[3:26] would say every single one of those homes, the garages are 2 ft away from

[3:29] the fence for the side setbacks.

[3:33] So, all of these structures are now non-conforming.

[3:37] And if something were to happen, they would have to be built

[3:41] differently. They would have to be moved or possibly downsized.

[3:46] Um Definitely have problems on my block

[3:50] with renters. There is a particular rental house that there's no certificate

[3:56] of occupancy that has been current. The last inspection goes back to 2024.

[4:04] It looks like it's owing maybe about $950.

[4:11] These tenants are beyond horrible. Um they don't pay the water bill's dead.

[4:18] And you know, the city definitely needs to do more about these rentals that

[4:24] they're not being inspected. They're not keeping up on the property. It looks

[4:29] disgusting. Uh you know, the whole city is just like

[4:33] littered with trash. I invite anyone to walk from city hall and go

[4:39] from here, go down Semrau all the way down to Kelly and see all the trash all

[4:46] over. And then go down all the other side streets, too. Trash all over the

[4:51] place. It's not just limited to 8 and Gratiot.

[4:54] I mean, this will know whether you can attend or not. I don't know, but if you

[4:59] can, great. If not, please provide the Thank you.

[5:03] Mr. Woodson, if you would be so kind to give her some regions information, maybe

[5:07] contact her tomorrow this home, please.

[5:14] Moving on to the approval of the minutes for the

[5:18] February 5th, 2026 meeting. Chairman DeHaan. Um the minutes

[5:23] from that meeting need to be amended, though.

[5:26] It be corrected without within the minutes.

[5:30] We have a motion. Do we have support? I'll support that. We have motion and

[5:34] support. Secretary, please call the roll.

[5:39] Mr. Sassak? Yes. Mrs. Hall-Rayford? Yes. Mr. Stokes? Yes. Mrs. Moody?

[5:48] Ms. Naylor? Yes.

[5:51] Ms. Zielinski? Yes. Chairman DeHaan? Abstain.

[5:57] We have no public hearing, so we'll move on to new It spans the public alley and

[6:01] also incorporates the applicant's The applicant owns the triangular parcels to

[6:06] the north. So, this site sort of incorporates both

[6:10] of their parcels and the public alley. Um the applicant also

[6:15] just for reference owns this parcel here as well.

[6:22] Um >> [clears throat]

[6:23] » this is the site plan you received in your packets.

[6:26] You might have noticed on the drawings that there are a few revision clouds.

[6:31] We did the staff did iterate this um reviewed the the initial submission.

[6:37] The applicant provided a revision in response to the staff's original

[6:41] comments. Um but as I was mentioning the um

[6:48] This is a 2,800 ft building to consist of offices and storage. Um there are

[6:55] electric vehicle chargers chargers proposed here with four spots dedicated

[7:00] for that purpose. Um landscaping as required by the

[7:04] ordinance. And then on that northern parcel, a

[7:08] dumpster enclosure and a electrical transformer.

[7:12] My understanding is that it's to facilitate the vehicle charging are

[7:16] proposed on that northern parcel.

[7:20] Um These are the elevations of the

[7:22] building. Since the land is zoned MU1 uh and this is a new development that is

[7:30] seeking site plan approval. It is responsible to the architectural

[7:34] standards and the building material standards that are in the ordinance. Um

[7:38] There are a couple There are a couple

[7:42] It It meets most of them. There are a couple items in which this proposal does

[7:46] not meet the standards. Um I will talk about those in a minute.

[7:50] The items in which it doesn't meet, the applicant is requesting a waiver from

[7:54] you and the planning commission can decide

[7:56] whether to grant that waiver. Um the building is composed of composite wood

[8:01] siding. This lower left elevation is the proposed 8 Mile elevation.

[8:08] The entrance is proposed to be off the parking lot on the east.

[8:12] Um all of the elevations are essentially treated the same and at the same quality

[8:17] of design. Um Which is I think appropriate and

[8:21] required by the ordinance. The uh

[8:26] So, as I said, there This has been through

[8:29] um two submissions already. Um there are a couple of things a few

[8:34] things that remain unresolved. Um One of them is that the

[8:40] uh for the for the project to proceed exactly as it

[8:44] was presented to you, um

[8:46] the public alley must be vacated because the applicant is proposing to pave the

[8:50] public alley. Um It is rezoned. The zoning map is

[8:54] amended. It is rezoned. The zoning map is amended to a

[8:57] MU1. Um there were some engineering comments

[9:00] that are still outstanding. I think those are appropriate to be addressed at

[9:03] the engine page.

[9:06] I think the most significant one that um

[9:09] is not a matter of more information or might require redesign is the item of

[9:15] impervious surface. Facade glazing must be 40%. Um it's currently at 37.2%.

[9:24] I think the uh just

[9:28] Our opinion about those waivers, the if They're sort of dependent on each other,

[9:33] I guess. The um I I would grant that as it currently

[9:37] stands, 8 Mile. It's unlikely that someone's going to walk to this building

[9:40] from 8 Mile. Um but the ordinance is trying to move development in the city

[9:46] in a direction where it that is more pedestrian friendly than it has been in

[9:50] the past. Um but I I think there's an argument to be

[9:53] made about the side entrance. Um The

[9:57] uh glazing if there if there should be a door there

[10:02] by ordinance standards and to accept pedestrians

[10:06] from the M I L frontage if there is not a door there then I

[10:10] think the windows it's attractively composed it's

[10:14] the waiver request is only about 2 and 1/2% and that might be reasonable but I

[10:17] think that's sort of dependent on what you think about the

[10:22] the entrance.

[10:25] With that I'm happy to answer any questions.

[10:32] But as it's drawn it doesn't meet it. All of this land is um

[10:38] outside of where the frontage landscaping is in this strip along the

[10:42] property line and then around this triangular piece.

[10:47] The rest of it is pavement and the um

[10:51] from an ordinance perspective this building is over parked. It would only

[10:55] need three three parking spaces for its employees. Um my understanding is that

[11:00] the applicant because the EV spaces are um intended to be

[11:07] retail charging. >> Walkable communities.

[11:10] If you keep making variance we're going to never get there. That's one thing.

[11:15] Like I said I've seen places there seem to be plenty space on the front of that

[11:17] building to accommodate the lighting and the door and they still could have a

[11:21] side interest. Which is at some point in time have to just move in the direction

[11:27] of where we say we're want to go. Or either we don't want to go there one

[11:30] of the two but I think that should be um a consideration that we should be you

[11:36] know asking for a compliance because it's it's a new construction it can uh

[11:40] combine the parcels together if they're not contiguous.

[11:45] Okay. Um the

[11:49] I did talk to the assessor about um and and we've had some conversation with

[11:56] the applicant as well about um whether or not the dumpster enclosure is

[11:59] necessary. I believe I think the applicant can clarify but I believe that

[12:03] they would like to use that parcel at least for the electrical transformer. Um

[12:07] there might be a scenario if if it's not necessary for vehicular access

[12:12] um that the plan could be revised to not

[12:17] use the parcel for dumpster access. There are there are also overhead wires

[12:21] underneath the location of the dumpster as it's currently drawn.

[12:24] Um and then in that case I think the the

[12:29] city's position would be that um there would need to be access agreements.

[12:34] Perhaps the vacation wouldn't be necessary but there have to be um

[12:38] easements recorded easements so that um the parcels are functional together even

[12:43] if with a transfer of ownership.

[12:47] Utilizing nine spots but four of those spots

[12:50] were for the EV and that's not

[12:55] in compliance with the ordinance either correct?

[13:00] The um the number of parking spots

[13:04] the the um it's a small business the

[13:08] occupancy is less than 50 people so the zoning ordinance only requires that it

[13:12] parks their employees. So um as it's drawn it is compliant.

[13:19] Um I I [snorts] was suggesting that um from an ordinance perspective

[13:25] » [snorts] >> there's more parking than there needs to

[13:27] be and that seems like a low hanging fruit for achieving the

[13:32] impervious surface coverage maximum.

[13:37] But the the revised So why are we rezoning the rear

[13:42] of the building? I'm asking is it just to put a dumpster back there we're going

[13:45] to pave the alley just for a dumpster or there's no space on the side that the

[13:50] rezoning isn't necessary? I'm asking the question.

[13:53] » Um well I I think there are alternatives.

[13:56] Um I think that the the I guess the comment about combining is

[14:03] for this um if that and that

[14:08] triangular parcel would have to be rezoned so it's not um split zoned

[14:12] because if it's just sitting there and not being

[14:17] used then it can still be zoned residential and it's like nothing

[14:20] happens but um

[14:24] Some stuff I don't understand still. So we're taking the parcel yes it's

[14:28] residential it's a small triangle and I'm asking the use of that triangle

[14:32] would be for rezoning it for a dumpster. And we talked and we talked about you

[14:39] know zoning areas that we've already have designated.

[14:42] And we're we're combining parcels and we're going to rezone it combining

[14:47] parcels and we're going to rezone it. You know how many other spaces are going

[14:51] to say well it's you know how many other spaces are going to say well it's next

[14:53] door is adjacent is across the alley can I just rezone next door is adjacent is

[14:57] across the alley can I just rezone that? We can get into this spot rezoning zone

[15:01] that we can get into this spot rezoning endlessly and we keep setting you know

[15:06] patterns endlessly and we keep setting you know

[15:09] patterns for that. I'm just trying to understand it with the amount of land

[15:12] that it seems that's held do we really need

[15:17] do we really need to go down that pathway? And if we do need to go down

[15:22] that pathway and if we do keep doing this I think we'll keep doing this I

[15:27] think we'll just keep doing this. Miss closing it off and vacating that

[15:33] and then what we do with it. So those are the two issues I have. The property

[15:37] has the ability to put another dumpster or small supply unit of

[15:42] waste management on it. But we're we're willing to listen to what the the owner

[15:48] of the property wants to do. Sir if you wouldn't mind just put your

[15:53] name on the piece of paper please.

[16:00] Put my name on the Should be a piece of paper up there.

[16:04] Yeah if there's a pen just put your name on it please. Residential zoning is my

[16:08] understanding. Um and it was put back there on purpose.

[16:12] The in a perfect world we would vacate the

[16:15] alley but if you look and um Paul maybe you can point out

[16:21] there's a a residential corner um

[16:25] on the upper left there. When you vacate the alley um

[16:29] each side of the alley is entitled to the to half of the alley vacation.

[16:36] So we kind of drew this up so the alley

[16:39] would not need to be vacated because we would risk

[16:43] not being able to use a corner of the alley.

[16:46] Um it could technically be fenced off. Now um

[16:51] uh city the city planner and I have talked

[16:55] electrical lines running along this alley which we've met with DTE about

[17:01] where to put this transformer and they said they said well this is the bottom

[17:06] of the pole this is like the most ideal place. Um and most economical and it's

[17:10] kind of for us it's out of the way in the back. Um

[17:15] to get away with not having to rezone that back parcel and vacate the

[17:20] alley you know

[17:23] that transformer could move across the alley to be behind the building if

[17:27] absolutely needed but from our use perspective it makes sense to

[17:32] have it in the back. Um

[17:35] so that's kind of what our thinking was with this.

[17:39] Real real estate company with three employees. There'd be a couple offices

[17:43] in the front. The door would not be used. We don't have people

[17:47] we're not retail we don't have people walking in off the street.

[17:50] The only real access to this the is from the parking lot. People park and

[17:55] they walk in whether we have clients or guests or it's just us coming in and

[17:58] out. So we we request to move the door to the side

[18:03] because of that. We don't have anybody just walking in and you know

[18:08] to buy something or to to do anything like that.

[18:11] So that was the reason behind it. We could still put a door there. It's it's

[18:14] a much more expensive concrete it's it's a much more expensive concrete. We were

[18:17] hoping to prefer not to have to do that and spend

[18:20] the extra money but if if we want we have to meet the city's requirements. Um

[18:25] additionally um in the back of the building so the

[18:29] top of the drawing I mean if if we weren't able to pave the

[18:33] alley or that back parcel all that would stay grass.

[18:38] And so there would be more um perviousness on the on the parcel

[18:44] on the on the plan. It could comply with what

[18:48] those requirements are that we're asking that we should probably try and keep

[18:53] moving forward in the way that we want to bring the city.

[18:57] And so if a door can be installed on the front

[19:01] I would my question be why why wouldn't it be?

[19:05] And that would put you without having to do you know the waivers etc.

[19:09] So I I would at first I was in agreement

[19:14] there and have a picnic. Um I but I I have no problem at first I had

[19:21] a problem with no door in the front but I really don't have a problem with that

[19:24] now and I think about all of those commercial businesses fronting Vernier.

[19:30] I I I don't have an issue with that.

[19:36] We also have other established businesses throughout the city

[19:40] that have doorways off of their parking lots but not necessarily

[19:44] » ments and then we're removing ments and then we're removing them. I understand

[19:49] if it was a need or use um but this is just a you know,

[19:54] but this is just a building that's being erected for office and storage.

[20:00] And so therefore we said it doesn't need to comply. That's how it translates to

[20:03] me. Then what are we going to do with the rest of the zones?

[20:07] But that's just my point. I'll get off my soapbox.

[20:10] Mr. Myers, your thoughts?

[20:22] But that's what we have to think through, but if he's willing to move

[20:25] that triangle situation over and leave it green, that saves his previous issue,

[20:30] keeps his parking space, and then the only last piece you have to address is

[20:35] whether you want a front door or not. And then I think he's got a

[20:39] compliance for us.

[20:44] So what what you're saying, John, that will alleviate the rezoning? Yes. Abs-

[20:50] Okay. And the and the freezing of the the vacating of the alley.

[20:54] Okay. >> Which he has 40.

[20:56] So, the intention is as I had mentioned is have offices in

[21:00] the front. It'll likely be a drop ceiling, which would have

[21:03] glass above. I'm sorry. So there'd be nothing

[21:08] in that above section. Mhm. Um, so

[21:13] you this is the other thing we were asking for, Lenny. I don't mean to like

[21:16] flip-flop with because I know we were moving on these other things, but this

[21:19] is the other thing that we were asking for a waiver on. Um,

[21:22] it was on the glass requirement. Um,

[21:27] so yeah. So Mr. Chair, if I can clarify and form in the math for everybody at

[21:32] the table, you're asking for a waiver from 37 and 1/2 to 40, which is about 2

[21:38] and 1/2 per- I gave you two options because I was not

[21:44] I I don't think you can approve it conditionally if there's a redesign that

[21:49] still needs to happen. So how about we table this discussion and we tackle it

[21:54] next month? Is that

[21:58] Is that would that be better to give you a month and come back with a revised

[22:02] site plan with all the changes? If that's what you wish, then yes, it would

[22:05] be much cleaner. >> Commission, how do you feel?

[22:08] Let's table it. All right, there we go. Can I get a motion to table this

[22:12] discussion until the What is April? Losing track of time.

[22:17] Plan review approval can begin for the building of the of the of the structure

[22:21] while we're waiting for special land use approval of the variables that we've

[22:27] just discussed for him to create in drawings.

[22:30] That could be the conditional approval. Is that would that work better for you?

[22:35] » it. Yeah.

[22:44] Mhm. And they you you all can still work on

[22:48] what you just mentioned, too, even but is is irrelevant. I I'm

[22:52] going to have it. If it had been 2.9, you were out of luck.

[22:56] Um, but 2.8, I'm fine. I well I you know, I I concede uh, Commissioner

[23:02] Naylor's point on the front door. Uh, she is right, but I'm also looking

[23:08] at the front doors that are going along Vernier right now and other businesses,

[23:13] and it is an office. It's not a retail establishment, and the family owns ch-

[23:18] changing of the zoning, and number three, it would give him more room for

[23:22] previous property.

[23:26] So those three those are the So the door and that back triangular piece are the

[23:30] big pieces that you have to wait for him to draw and and give

[23:35] recommendations of what your the the council is thinking.

[23:40] The commission is thinking.

[23:46] Brings it up to 40%. Um, I guess my own personal feeling

[23:53] is that the the window like the facade is designed, [snorts]

[23:58] there's not a lot of more window to be had there. Since it's an office

[24:01] building, I think the percentage of glass is a reasonable waiver.

[24:04] Um, but I I also think there should be a

[24:07] door there. So, um, I I think it would improve it, but I I

[24:11] don't know. Um, it's we would be okay with the 2.8%.

[24:16] And you would not touch the square. I mean the the triangle, which would not

[24:21] require any rezoning, right? So that would put us all on the same

[24:25] page. So

[24:29] need to see that next month. Call

[24:33] Call the roll. Dang.

[24:37] Secretary, please be secretary. I second that.

[24:42] We have motion, we have support. Please call the roll.

[24:46] » [laughter]

[25:11] » Mr. Sassick. No, Miss Chairman, we have a nom- we

[25:15] have a nomination. I make a nomination that Mr. Sassick

[25:20] remain in his position as co-chair. Vice chair.

[25:25] Support. I make a nomination for nomination for Mr. Stokes.

[25:32] For Mr. Stokes.

[25:40] All right. I We've never had that before. We've never had that before.

[25:46] What do we think? You. Mrs. Moody. You. Mrs. Moody. Yes. Mrs. Hall-Rayford.

[25:52] Yes. Miss Naylor, you were thinking about

[25:55] taking that back, weren't you? >> [laughter]

[25:59] » Um, Mr. Stokes. Yes. Mr. Zelinski. Yes. Um, Chairman DeHunt.

[26:06] Yes. And Mr. Sassick, do you accept? >> Yeah.

[26:09] The new news is as of last month we have a live active construction appeals board

[26:15] ready to be addressing the technology and the issues coming into our five-year

[26:19] master plan and a lot of our construction issues that we've been

[26:23] struggling with. They've been appealing based on codes, based on violence, and

[26:27] they don't agree that I'm there, but now we have an account- with the

[26:31] understanding that

[26:34] existing buildings would be grandfathered, protected under this

[26:39] section 11.07, and then I was very surprised to hear at

[26:45] the City Council meeting February 17th, very clearly our city manager, Mr. Ryan

[26:50] Madden, instructor to be aware, to give you a heads-up that

[26:54] if something happens, you cannot build it in the same spot that it is now.

[26:59] Um, I you know, again as a homeowner, I would be very upset if

[27:04] for any reason, whether it's a tornado, a fire, or if I simply want to rebuild

[27:10] my 70-year-old garage, and we all had 2 ft between the garage

[27:17] and and the fences, and somehow they managed to take care of their

[27:22] property. Um, so to say we're changing an ordinance to try and change

[27:30] irresponsibly property in my neighborhood that I can leave it where

[27:35] it is. So just something to consider in the future. I understand for new builds

[27:39] we want new builds to be this way, and I agree with that, but I don't think we

[27:44] should penalize thousands of residents um that now have non-conforming

[27:48] structures sitting in their backyards. Thank you very much, and again I

[27:52] appreciate all of you. to address the five-year mas- to address

[27:56] the five-year master plan. And I'm excited what I heard from all of you

[28:00] tonight. master plan. And I'm excited what I heard from all of you tonight. It

[28:05] was about It was about addressing the future of

[28:08] this city, and I realize addressing the future of this city, and I realize there

[28:15] always will be somebody that won't like what happens, but we can't only take

[28:20] care of only take care of and we must take care of the elder

[28:24] relations to and we must take care of the elder relations to

[28:30] garage garage roofs that are in in deplorable

[28:34] conditions, all the ways to roofs that are in in deplorable conditions, all the

[28:39] ways that we know exactly what the details are so that we can calculate

[28:44] what kind of clean up we're really going to take they're going to take in the

[28:47] next five-year master plan. Thank you for your hard work that you're going to

[28:51] have to in the next five-year master plan. Thank you for your hard work that

[28:54] you're going to have to do

[28:57] We're now working to restructure and rebuild the neighborhood block block

[29:02] watch program with the fire and police department, so they will become in the

[29:06] internal sections of each of our districts

[29:09] a part of our team, not to be whistleblowers, but paying attention to

[29:14] things that happen and give our staff uh, the ability and 1,200 more to be

[29:20] registered above that list. So every time we go into a rental property, we

[29:25] have the property rights to walk through that backyard and do blight on the

[29:29] exterior based on the new IPMC 2021. Soon as I'm in that backyard,

[29:36] I get to see down the backyards, and I can I can take a photograph from

[29:40] that. So if we give them more time to be clerks and answering conversations about

[29:45] every address, then we won't have time for them to be on the field. We've gone

[29:49] to a digital ticketing system so they don't have to be in the office writing

[29:53] them by hand. So, as they are in the field, if you need a specific cut up the

[29:57] concrete and put a smaller garage on. That seems very common sense for someone

[30:02] who's had already a disaster, but that's my thoughts. Other than that,

[30:06] let's just get ready for a great year. Keep focusing on our master plan. I know

[30:10] it's tough questions and people come before us.

[30:13] Um but that's the point of us having our administrative part so we can guide the

[30:18] build out. And the commission was quick not to

[30:23] and the commission was quick not to allow him to do that, which was fine.

[30:28] And I mean, I understand. But then tonight we was almost at the point of

[30:32] allowing this person to to make some changes to

[30:36] that would affect the rezoning. So, I think we just have to have clarity

[30:40] there and be more consistent in the things that we're going to do. And

[30:45] also have say, have a wonderful evening.

[31:03] God bless you.

[31:07] God bless you.

[31:11] Uh I have nothing to say other than

[31:15] uh I have nothing to say other than don't

[31:18] forget to lose don't forget to lose your hour of sleep this weekend.

[31:25] I want to thank everybody. I enjoy working with all of you.

[31:30] I think we have really good discussions and some of the decisions we wind up

[31:35] making maybe aren't always right, but we're doing the best we can. And I also

[31:41] want to congratulate Commissioner Stokes on his uh

[31:45] um that family has been spectacular

[31:48] supporters of the city of East Point. When so many businesses closed and moved

[31:53] away, they stayed

[31:57] and continued to put out a quality product that people will come from miles

[32:01] around because that's what they did with their grandma 50 years

[32:06] I got the gavel. I got the gavel.

[32:11] With that said, can I get a motion to close the meeting?

[32:13] So, motion. Support. With motion. Support. We have a motion by

[32:18] » [laughter] >> Ms. Moody and support by Ms. A motion by

[32:22] Ms. Moody and support by Ms. Ulinski. Secretary, please call the roll. Ms.

[32:27] Moody. Yes. Ms. Ulinski. Yes. Ms. Rayford Hall Rayford.

[32:31] » Yes. Mr. Stokes.

[32:33] » Yes. Ms. Naylor. Yes. Mr. Sassek. Yes. Chairman DeHaan. Yes.

Eastpointe Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2026

Transcript