Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Mr. Myers, are you and your team ready to go? They are ready. Okay, let's do this. Secretary, please call the role for 7:35. Mrs. Hall Raford, here. Mr. Stokes, here. Mrs. Moody here. Miss Naylor here. Mr. Have no public hearing. You have three minutes to have no public hearing. You have three minutes to speak on whatever you want to speak on. It is Please write your name on the sheet of Speak on whatever you want to speak on. It is Please write your name on the sheet of paper up there. Paper up there hopefully is up there. And you have three minutes.

Jennifer Nicholas, East Point resident. Um, I wanted to go back to Jennifer Nicholas, East Point resident. Um, I wanted to go back to a couple of to a couple of planning commission meetings last year. October 2nd planning planning commission meetings last year. October 2nd planning commission. Um, you were doing zoning ordinance changes regarding uh uh garage setbacks. At that time, Mr. Myers had stated that if a garage were destroyed during a fire, including language that would including language that would in effect grandfather existing garages to allow the original setbacks if the garage needed to be rebuilt needed to be rebuilt. Mr. Meyers stated that section 11 Mr. Meyers stated that section 11.07 07 part D part one already covers this in the event of a fire natural disaster. So no additional language would need to be added to this motion. The way I read this, uh, excuse me, the the the way I read this, section 11.7, I don't see that it guarantees that a homeowner can rebuild. Um, north of Stevens, east of Kelly, there's nine streets in that neighborhood, approximately 80 houses on each street, so say about 700 homes. I would say every single one of those homes, the garages are two feet away from this fence for the side setbacks. So, all of these structures are now non-conforming and if something were to happen, they would have to be built differently. They would have to be moved or possibly downsized. Um, definitely have problems on my block with renters. Um, there is a particular rental house that there's no certificate

of occupancy that has been current. The last inspection goes back to 2024. It looks like uh it's owing maybe about $950. Um these tenants are beyond horrible. Um they don't pay the water is dead and um you know the city definitely needs to do more about these rentals that they're not being inspected. They're not keeping up on the property. It looks disgusting. Uh, you know, the whole city is just like littered with trash. I invite anyone to walk from city hall and go from here, go down some all the way down to Cali and see all the trash all over. And then go down all the other side streets, too. Trash all over the place. It's not just limited to eight and grass. I mean, this will know whether you can attend or not. I don't know but if you can great if not please spread the word. Thank you

Mr. Regions information maybe contact tomorrow about this home please. Moving on to uh the approval of the minutes for the February 5th 2026 meeting. Chairman D Hunt. Uh the minutes from that meeting need to be amended though. It be corrected without within the minutes. We have a motion. Do we have support? I'll support that. We have motion and support. Secretary, please call the role. Mr. Sassic? Yes. Mrs. Hall Raford? Yes. Mr. Stokes? Yes. Mrs. Moody?

Mrs. Naylor? Yes. Miss Julinsky, yes. Chairman to Hunt, abstain.

We have no public hearing, so we'll move on to new. It spans the public alley and also incorporates the applicants. Uh the applicant owns the triangular parcels to the north. Um so this site sort of incorporates both of their parcels and the public alley. Um the applicant also, just for reference, owns uh this parcel here as well. Um [clears throat] this is the site plan you received in your packets. Um you might have noticed on the drawings that there are a few revision clouds. Um we did the staff did iterate this um reviewed the the initial submission uh the applicant provided a revision in response to the staff's original comments. Um but as I was mentioning the um this is a 2,800 foot building to consist of offices and storage. Um there are electrical vehicle chargers chargers proposed here uh with four spots dedicated for that purpose. Um landscaping as required by the ordinance. Um and then on that northern parcel a uh dumpster enclosure and a uh electrical transformer. My understanding is that is to facilitate the vehicle charging are proposed on that northern parcel. Um these are the elevations of the building. Since the land is zoned MU1 uh and this is a new development that is seeking site plan approval. it is uh responsible to the architectural standards and the building material standards that are in the ordinance. Um there are a couple there are a couple it it meets most of them. There are a couple items in which this proposal does not meet the standards. Um I will talk about those in a minute. Uh the items in which it doesn't meet the applicant is requesting a waiver from you and the

planning commission can decide um whether to grant that waiver. Um the building's composed of composite wood siding. Uh this lower left elevation is the proposed eight mile elevation. Um the entrance is proposed to be off the parking lot on the east. Um all of the elevations are essentially treated the same and have the same quality of design. Um which is I think appropriate and required by the ordinance. the uh so as I said there this has been through um two submissions already. Um there are a couple things a few things that remain unresolved. Um one of them is that the uh for the for the project to proceed exactly as was presented to you. Um the public alley must be vacated because the applicant is proposing to pave the public alley um is reszoned. the zoning map is amended is reszoned. The zoning map is amended to V1. Um there were some engineering comments that are still outstanding. I think those are appropriate to be addressed at the page. I think the most significant one that um is not a matter of more information or might require redesign is the item of impervious surface. Facade glazing must be 40%. Um it's currently at 37.2%. 2%. I think the um just our opinion about those waiverss the if they're sort of dependent on each other I guess the um I I would grant that as it currently stands 8 mile it's unlikely that someone's going to walk to this building from 8 mile um but the ordinance is trying to move development in the city in a direction where that is more pedestrian friendly than it has been in the past. Um, but I I think there's an

argument to be made about the side entrance. Um, the uh the glazing there if there should be a door there by ordinance standards and to um accept pedestrians uh from the 8 mile frontage. If there is not a door there, then I think the windows it's attractively composed. It's um the waiver request is only about 2 and a half% and that might be reasonable but I think that's sort of dependent on what you think about the um the entrance with that. I'm happy to answer any questions, but as it's drawn, it doesn't meet it. You all of this land is um outside of where the frontage landscaping is in this strip along the property line and then around this triangular piece. Um the rest of it is pavement. And the uh from an ordinance perspective, this building is overparked. uh it would only need three three parking spaces for its employees. Um my understanding is that the applicant because the EV spaces are um intended to be retail charging

walkable communities. Um if you keep making variance, we're going to never get there. Uh that's one thing. Um like I said, I've seen places there seem to be plenty of space on the front of that building to accommodate the lighting and the door and they still could have a side entrance. we just at some point in time have to just move in the direction of where we say we want to go or either we don't want to go there one of the two but I think that should be um a consideration that uh we should be you know asking for compliance because as it's a new construction it can combine the parcels together if they're not contiguous okay

um the uh I did talk to the assessor about Um and and we've had some conversation with the applicant as well about um whether or not the dumpster enclosure is necessary. I believe I think the applicant can clarify, but I believe that they would like to use that parcel at least for the electrical transformer um there might be a scenario if if it's not necessary for vehicular access um that the plan could be revised to not use the parcel for dumpster access. There are also overhead wires underneath the location of the dumpster as it's currently drawn. Um, and then in that case, I think the the city's position would be that um there would need to be access agreements. Perhaps a vacation wouldn't be necessary, but there have to be um easements, recorded easements, so that um the parcels are functional together, even if with a transfer of ownership,

utilizing nine spots, but four of those spots were um for the EV, and that's not in compliance with the ordinance either. Correct. Um the uh the number of parking spots the um it's a small business. The occupancy is less than 50 people. So the zoning ordinance only requires that it parks their employees. So um as it's drawn, it is compliant. Um I I [snorts] was suggesting that um from an ordinance perspective, [snorts] there's more parking than there needs to be. And that seems like a lowhanging fruit for achieving the impervious surface coverage maximum.

But the the um the revised So why are we reszoning the rear of the building? I'm asking is it just to put a dumpster back there? We're going to pave the alley just for a dumpster. There's no space on the side that the reasonzoning isn't necessary. I'm asking the question.

Um well, I I think there are alternatives. Um I think that the I guess the comment about combining is for this um if that and that triangular parcel would have to be reszoned. So it's not um splitzoned because if it if it's just sitting there and not being used then it can still be zoned residential and it's like nothing happens. But um

I guess I'm trying to understand still. So we're taking the parcel. Yes, it's residential small triangle and I'm asking the use of that triangle would be for reszoning it for a dumpster. And we talked and we talked about, you know, zoning areas that we've already have designated and we're we're combining parcels and we're going to reszone it. combining parcels and we're going to reszone it. You know, how many other spaces I want to say, well, it's, you know, how many other spaces I want to say, well, it's next door is adjacent. It's across the alley. Can I just res next door is adjacent. It's across the alley. Can I just reszone that? We can get into this spot res that we can get into this spot reszoning endlessly and we keep setting, you know, endlessly and we keep setting, you know, patterns for that. I'm just trying to understand with the amount of land that it seems that's held, do we really need do we really need to go down that pathway? And if we do need to go down that pathway and if we do keep doing this, I think we'll keep doing this, I think we'll just keep doing this, right?

Just closing it off and vacating it and then what we do with it. So those are the two issues I have. the property has the ability to put another dumpster or smaller supply unit of of waste management on it, but we're we're willing to listen to what the the owner of the property wants to do. Sir, if you wouldn't mind, just put your name on the piece of paper, please.

Put my name on Should be a piece of paper up there. Yeah, if there's a pen, just put your name on, please.

Residential zoning is my understanding. Um, and it was put back there on purpose. The in a perfect world, we would vacate the alley, but if you look, and um Paul, maybe you can point out, there's a a residential corner um on the upper left there. when you vacate the alley, um each side of the alley is entitled to the to half of the alley vacation. So, we kind of drew this up so the alley would not need to be vacated because we would risk not being able to use a corner of the alley. Um it could technically be fenced off. Now, um, uh, city, the city planner and I have talked electrical lines running along this alley, which we've met with DTE about where to put this transformer, and they they said, well, this is the bottom of the pole. this is like the most ideal place um and most economical and it's kind of for us it's out of the way in the back um to get away with not having to reszone that back parcel and vacate the alley. You know, that transformer could move across the alley to be behind the building if absolutely needed, but from our use perspective, it makes sense to have it in the back. Um, so that's kind of what our thinking was with this um, real estate company with three employees. There'd be a couple offices in the front. The door would not be used. We don't have people we're not retail. We don't have people walking in off the street. Um, the the only real access this that is from the parking lot. People park and they walk in whether we have clients or guests or it's just us coming in and out. So we we request to move the door to the side because of

that. We don't have anybody just walking in and you know to buy something or to to do anything like that. Um so that was the reason behind it. We could still put a door there. It's it's a much more expensive concrete. It's a much more expensive concrete. We were hoping to prefer not to have to do that and spend the extra money, but if we want we have to meet the city's requirements. Um, additionally, um, in the back of the building, so the top of the drawing, I mean, if if we weren't able to pave the alley or that back parcel, all that would stay grass and so there would be more um pviousness on the on the parcel or on the on the plan. it could comply with what those requirements are that we're asking that we should probably try and keep moving forward in the way that we want to bring the city and so if a door can be installed on the front I would my question would be why why wouldn't it be and that would put you without having to do you know the waiverss etc. So I I at first I was in agreement there and have a picnic. Um I but I I have no problem at first I had a problem with no door in the front but I really don't have a problem with that now. And I think about all of those commercial businesses fronting Verier. I I I don't have an issue with that. We also have other established businesses throughout the city that have doorways off of their parking lots, but not necessarily

and then we're removing and then we're removing them. I understand if it was a need or use um of something, you know, but this is just a building that's being erected for office and storage and so therefore we say it doesn't need to comply. That's how it translates to me. Then what are we going to do with the rest of the zones? But that's just my point. I'll get off my soap box.

Mr. Myers, your thoughts? That's what we have to think through. But if he's willing to move that triangle situation over and leave it green, that saves his pous issue. It keeps his parking space. And then the only last piece you have to address is whether you want a front door or not. And then I think he's got a compliance for us. So what what you're saying, John, that will alleviate the reasonzoning. Yes. Abs. Okay. and the and the freezing of the the vacating of the alley.

Okay, which is 40. So the intention is as I had mentioned is have offices in the front. It likely be a drop ceiling which would have glass above I'm sorry. So there'd be nothing in that above section. Um so this is the other thing we were asking for leaning. I don't mean to like flip-flop because I know we were moving on these other things, but this is the other that we were asking for a waiver on um was on the glass requirement. Um so yeah.

So Mr. Chair, if I can clarify inform in the maths for everybody at the table, you're asking for a waiver from 37 12 to 40 which is about 2 and 12%. I gave you two options because I was not I I don't think you can approve it conditionally if there's redesign that still needs to happen. So, how about we table this discussion and we tackle it next month? Is that is that would that be better to give you a month and come back with the revised site plan with all the changes? If that's what you wish, then yes, it would be much cleaner. Commission, how do you feel? Let's table it.

All right, there we go. Can I get a motion to table this discussion until the what is AP I'm losing track of time. A plan review approval can begin for the building of the of the of the structure. Why we're waiting for special land use approval of the variables that we've just discussed for him to create in drawings. That could be the conditional approval. Is that would that work better for you? Appreciate it.

Yeah. And they you you all can still work on what you just mentioned too. Even is is irrelevant. I I'm going to have it. If it had been 2.9, you're out of luck. Um but 2.8 I'm fine. I Well, I you know I I concede uh Commissioner Naylor's point on the front door. Uh, she is right. But I'm also looking at the front doors that are going along Veria right now and other businesses and it is an office. It's not a retail establishment and the family owns ch changing of the zoning. And number three, it would give him more room for pvious property. So those three those are the so the door and that back triangular piece are the big pieces that you have to wait for him to draw and and give recommendations of what your that the council is thinking the commission is thinking brings it up to 40%. Um, I guess my own personal feeling is that the the window like the facade is [snorts] designed there's not a lot more window to be had there since this is an office building. I think the percentage of glass is a reasonable waiver. Um, but I I also think there should be a door there. So, um, I I think it would improve it, but I I don't know.

Um, it's we would be okay with the 2.8% 8% and you would not touch the square that I mean the triangle which would not require any reasonzoning right so that will put us all on the same page so need to see that need to see that next month call the role dang secretary please be secretary I second that

we have motion we have report. Please call the roll. [laughter] Mr. Sassic. No, M. Chairman, we have a we have a nomination. I make a nomination that Mr. Sassic remain in his position as co-chair.

Chair support. I make a nomination for nomination for Mr. Stokes for Mr. Stokes.

Right. We've never had that before. We've never had that before. What do we Thank you, Mrs. Moody. Thank you, Mrs. Moody. Yes. Mrs. Hall Rafford. Yes. Miss Naylor, you were thinking about taking that back, weren't you? [laughter] Uh, Mr. Stokes, yes. Miss Julinsky, yes. Um, Chairman Deont, yes. And Mr. Sassic, do you accept? Yeah.

So, the new news is as of last month, we have a live active uh construction appeals board ready to be uh addressing the technology and the issues coming into our 5-year master plan. And a lot of our construction issues that we've been struggling with, they've been appealing based on codes, based on violence, and they don't agree that I'm there. Now we have an account

is with the understanding that existing buildings would be grandfathered protected under this section 11.07 07. And then I was very surprised to hear at the city council meeting February 17th very clearly our city manager Ryan Mattis in structure to be aware to give you a heads up that if something happens you cannot build it in the same spot that it is now. Um, I, you know, again, as a homeowner, I would be very upset if for any reason, whether it's a tornado, a fire, or if I simply want to rebuild my 70-year-old garage, and we all had two feet between the garage and and the fences, and somehow they managed to take care of their property. Um, so to say we're changing an ordinance to try and change irresponsibly property in my neighborhood that I can leave it where it is. So just something to consider in the future. I understand for new builds, we want new builds to be this way and I agree with that, but I don't think we should penalize thousands of residents um that now have non-conforming structures sitting in their backyards. Thank you very much. And again, I appreciate all of

to address the five-year max to address the five-year master plan. And I excited what I heard from all of you tonight, master plan. And I excited what I heard from all of you tonight. It was about it was about addressing the future of this city. And I realized addressing the future of this city. And I realize there always will be somebody that won't like what happens. But we can't only take care of only take care of and we must take care of the elderations to and we must take care of the elderations to garage roofs that are in in deplorable conditions all the way. roofs that are in in deplorable conditions all the way so we know exactly what the details are so that we can calculate what kind of cleanup we're really going to take going to take in the next 5-year master plan. Thank you for hard work that you're going to have to do in the next 5-year master plan. Thank you for hard work that you're going to have to do. We're now working to restructure and rebuild the neighborhood blockwatch program with the fire and police department. So they will become in the internal sections of each of our districts a part of our team not to be whistleblowers but paying attention to things that happen and give our staff uh the ability and 1,200 more to be registered above that list. So every time we go into a rental property we have the property rights to walk through that backyard and do blight on the exterior based on the new IPMC 2021. Soon as I'm in that backyard, I get to see down the backyards and I can I can take a photograph from that. So if we give them more time to be clerks and answering conversations about every address, then we won't have time for them to be on the field. We've gone to a digital ticketing system. So they don't

have to be in the office writing them by hand. So as they are in the field, if you need a spec,

cut up the concrete and put a smaller garage on. That seems very common sense for someone who's had already a disaster. But that's my thoughts other than that. Let's just get ready for a great year. Keep focusing on our master plan. I know it's tough questions and people come before us. Um but that's the point of us having our administrative part so we can guide the buildout and the commission was quick not to and the commission was quick not to allow him to do that which was fine. I mean, I understand. But then tonight, we was almost at the point of allowing this person to to make some changes to that would affect the reasonzoning. So, I think we just have to have clarity there and be more consistent in the things that we're going to do. And um also have say have a wonderful evening. God bless you. God bless you.

Uh I have nothing to say other than uh I have nothing to say other than don't forget to lo don't forget to lose your hour of sleep this weekend. I want to thank everybody. I enjoy working with all of you. I think we have really good discussions and some of the decisions we wind up making maybe aren't always right, but we're doing the best we can. And I also want to congratulate Commissioner Stokes on his um that family has been spectacular supporters of the city of East Point. When so many businesses closed and moved away, they stayed and continue to put out a quality product that people will come from miles around because that's what they did with their grandma 50 years. I got the G. I got the gavvel. With that said, can I get a motion to close the meeting?

So, motion support. We have a motion by [laughter] Miss Moody and support by Miss A motion by Miss Moody and support by Miss Yulinski. Secretary, please call the role. Mrs. Moody, yes. Miss Yulinsky, yes. Mrs. Rayford Hall Raford, yes. Mr. Stokes, yes. Miss Naylor, yes. Mr. Sassic, yes. Chairman Deont, yes.