Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call to order the East Point Planning Commission meeting for 7.01 Thursday, July 9th. Secretary, please call the roll as we have no secretary this evening. That is being played by Carlton. Mr. Woodset.

Okay.

Mary Rayford.

Really loud. Mary Rayford. Here. Wanda Moody.

Here.

Kimberly Naylor. Excused. Gary Sussick. Here. Alexander Stokes. Excused. Sheila Luzinski. Excused.

John DeHoy. Here. moving on to approval of the agenda for this evening we do have one change before I ask for a motion we need to remove item C under new business master plan updating discussion and we will replace that with a broad non-binding discussion on the ordinance that rich sent to us last night at 7 34 p.m go rich um can i get somebody to make that motion i'll make them moved support we have a motion by miss moody we have support by mr sasek secretary please call the roll oh okay mary mary rayford yes wanda moody yes

Gary Sassy. Yes. Thank you.

Yes. Moving on to the first hearing of the public. You have three minutes to speak. Please be nice.

Um, if you are here to discuss the projects, uh, specifically my code enforcement and the vehicles on people's proper public, public, private property, which is under the building official, if those two could be separated, um, you know, separate ordinances. Um, the one for the vehicles on private property, the way that vehicles on private property, the way that I'm reading this is that if everything was timed just right, that a vehicle that's non-operating that's in somebody's driveway or backyard technically could be removed or the owner could be fined or ticketed in 30 days really because it's saying can't be on the property longer than 48 hours. Um, you get a violation that you have to, um, do something within 14 calendar days, either remove the vehicle or repair the vehicle or store the vehicle. You can apply for an extension for an additional 40 days, 14 days. Um, And then at that point it can be removed by the city. A ticket can be issued. The fine for the first violation is $200. Then it's $400. And I just keep going back to if someone can't afford to fix their vehicle within 30 days or even 60 days or 90 days to penalize them with an extra 200 or $400 to me is just kind of burdensome. You know, I don't think that people, I don't think that most people choose to have vehicles that are not working. Um, I think that they do the best that they can. And I think that we really could find a way to show them a little brought before city council at the June 2nd meeting. And I, again, it's one thing with vehicles on the street because they had affects everybody. That's a problem for the police department. But when it's something that's on a person's property and you're talking about by not banning fireworks,

Um, they start by not banning fireworks. Um, they started two weeks early and they went all the way through the fourth and there was huge amounts of fireworks. And if this is a family town has stated on this placard on this podium, you ain't going to draw no families to this town with that kind of stuff. Uh, these people more, more often than not people, doing fireworks or get are either high or drunk. In my experience, this is not a thing to fool with. And they must be going out of state and buying them bulk or something because they really don't sell them around here that I know of. So we got a lot of people. We had a lot of people that had a lot of cheap Chinese explosives stored somewhere. That is a fantastic fire hazard. So, okay. When the city is inspecting a house for a rental certificate, I think it's every two years the city has to inspect. The city is doing a terrible job in not clearing the fence lines in these houses. They can often have 25...

Can the record reflect that was Mr. Solera? We don't have a piece of paper up there to write it down. Sir, when you get up, that was Mr. Solera. We don't have a piece of paper up there to write it down. Sir, when you get up there, if you would be so kind as just to state your name into the microphone.

Charles Anderson. When I bought my house, when I bought my house 30 years ago, There was a parking space 30 years ago. There was a parking space on the side that I would put blacktop or cement. I spent $2,000 for cement. I was grandfathered in when I moved. It was there. The rental property became a rental property next to me. They said they were going to put blacktop or cement. They put gravel. It's not fair. You can go on 10 mile and you can see driveways there.

Make mention of regarding the drive, the driveway situation and with the cars that's whether out of commission or waiting to be prepared or whatever the case, that's not causing any harm or problem to up on your own property. When you got houses in East Point, There's totally disasters that need to be not up to date, brought up to date, but totally condemned and torn down. If you drive on a couple of blocks over here, Pleasant, the road Pleasant, those are three or four houses and everything that need to be torn completely down. They wouldn't even be suited to be in the woods anywhere. But we were in about a driveway and what have you, where it's not a problem. and what have you. I think it makes a lot of sense.

Anyways, let's go to fireworks. I believe fireworks in Michigan is legal for anything. They passed that not too long ago. You could buy, I believe you could buy anything. But in East Point, they made it where you can't sell with tents. It has to be a brick and mortar store. So we're trying to stop it. But the state of Michigan, I believe, will let you blow whatever you want out. And I think the other cities, you could buy them anywhere you want. Just to get the record clear. Thank you.

Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? Anyone else wish to be heard seeing there are none I will close the hearing of the public while we had a full boat tonight five people Normally, we can't get two people in the audience We need more controversial projects in the future at least we get an audience all right moving on To approval of the minutes of the June 4th 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Can I get a motion so moved? Support we have a motion by mr. Sasek. We have support by ms. Rayford Secretary, please call the roll Lowne to defer to mr. Erbil to defer to mr. Erbil to lead the discussion here And this is not an official public hearing on this one specific point. There will be another time to speak to that Mr. Erbil Thank You mr.

Chair and I think mr. Chair if it's okay we we can and should hear comments just to be clear a decision won't be made tonight So this public hearing is regarding a request to rezone the property at this address, which is up there on the screen outlined in the heavier red. It is 15145 Topher, perhaps more commonly known as the caretaker house behind the Verheyden Funeral Home. reference crash it this rezoning from mu1 neighborhood neighborhood mixed-use to mu3 regional mixed-use is being requested to facilitate the applications that are further down on the agenda which is basically the development of the three additional parcels to the east and to the north into one facility that would be a car new vehicle sales and service facility Genesis Chevrolet so the I think the discussion is necessarily tied to the future of that project but when you rezone something you should consider all uses the If it is rezoned and the other applications go forward, then this land will be used as part of that facility in the future. In your packets... Excuse me. Mr. Irwin, I can barely hear you. Announce it, Paul. I apologize.

It's okay.

I'll lean closer. Is that better? Thank you. That's much better. Yes. So in your packets we have a review of the request there are several several criteria that the ordinance specifies that both the Planning Commission when they're considering this and eventually the City Council should consider we provide commentary the the the standards and the criteria the request is consistent with existing plans the master plan So it still has this property being designated in the future as residential. But as we said in our memo, there are a couple goals and objectives specifically enumerated in the master plan to take actions to allow the revitalization of East Point's commercial districts. And I think that this project Altogether is is definitely in support of that goal. There is a specific objective in the master plan and to permit retail and office expansion or redevelopment into adjacent residential parcels that are no longer viably used for residences. And while there's a house on this property, it has been vacant for several years. So I think in sum that you could find that the request is consistent with the goals of the master plan. The other criteria are about consistency with the ordinance consistency with the street system with public utilities and services. With regard to the zoning ordinance I think we have to arrive at a site plan and a redevelopment that meets the zoning ordinance but if that if we get there then. request and rezoning it can be consistent with the zoning ordinance because This adjacency that is being requested is fairly common Exists just to the north of here and basically up and down Gratia and in some other places This this is Altogether, this project would consolidate the operations of Genesis Chevrolet from the east side of Gratiot entirely onto the west side. So there's not a significant difference in this case or really in any of the uses in MU3 that would unduly burden public utilities and services that we're aware of. Think there's a few others here. We've written some comments. Just I think this is impertinent ones a map amendment is is Appropriate the alternative would the alternative request I guess would be to amend the ordinance to allow vehicle sales in mu1 which is contrary to the intent of mu1 and because of the adjacency on the map of the of the zoning district mu3 on two sides of this and and if you consider that in the future if everything goes through this will be one development parcel then it's not a spot zoning either which is the last criteria so it's not providing a condition that is not that is unique in the city or unduly favoring a particular landowner so with all of that impending public comments I think on as it stands right now we think that this this rezoning can be supportable but I'm happy to answer any questions you have about it and just for clarity this is the old Schultz house essentially okay

I mean, just speaking for myself, looking just solely at the map, it makes perfect sense to me to rezone this. Yes. I don't see any reason not to rezone this because it looks like a jerk. Does anybody have any questions up here? I totally agree. Ms. Moody?

If you... Okay.

Enunciate Wanda. Consider it outside of that context as well. If it does not happen... But I guess we're not trying to obscure the fact that it is being sought so that this development can happen and they can be tied together.

would use I guess my question maybe one is do you are you worried that we're setting a precedent for the future of other future developments absolutely okay absolutely so when I look at this development and if I were just to think around the city I don't know of many places that would have this type of Oddity for lack of a better phrase That would affect a parcel. Do we do you know of many that would have? this particular type of issue I

I think both conditions, there's a similar condition just to the north where the zoning here on the property that we will soon be talking about, the MU3 is adjacent to the residential and that condition exists, both conditions exist up and down Gratiot now. I think the way that this is zoned is an acknowledgement of its former use. and didn't contemplate development in a different way.

I, and I agree with the other commissioners. I think it's a, it's a great thing to do, but we have to be mindful that if something like this appear come before us further down the road, five years, 10 years, 15 years down the road, we want to make certain that it's not going to come back and bite us in the butt that we are permitted that for this particular project, but not the next.

Agreed and I think that I mean I the review that we provided evaluates it against all those criteria.

And we sort of came to that conclusion that even the circumstances, I think we've had one or two other instances where we've looked at a case by case basis. I think the one more recently was the eight mile project where there was that little piece of land behind it. Again, it's a, it's a unique situation. Under normal circumstances if that house hadn't been there that area saw I think again We have to have some latitude to look at a case-by-case basis Thank you Commissioner Rayford do have anything I agree with everything that's been said so far consent looked at this earlier.

Okay, I Remember what we've done so

since we are not in an official public hearing but we want to hear any residents concerns does anybody have any concerns specific to rezoning the old schultz house uh to mu three thank you if anybody has any please take the if you would state your name into the record please

Barbara Russen. I live in that zone next to the heavily dotted line. Questions we have are, well, I have for the MU3 mixed use. What are the rules around maintaining the property?

Mr. Myers. They would be tightly guided and restricted according to every other violation. They have to maintain grass and asphalt and a fencing post and it will be the responsibility of the building to do that as they redevelop and support the rest of the city but they'll have a responsibility to maintain it in how they package how these stores if that there's a parking space and parking facility they'll be required to stay inside their parking spaces instead of quad packet and just fill it all the categories in but they'll have to maintain a limited blight guideline of everything from condition of road hard surface fencing and grass moving forward

Is there a proposal that they have put out where we really are here for informational purposes, because we don't know what's going in next to us. So we don't know if they're going to put in another stone wall. We don't know if they're going to put in fencing. And when you say the zoning requirements, I'm looking at the back of this place right now, we've filled in the wall ourselves because there's a giant hole in it. It's not maintained. They've killed my plants. their fencing is not maintained where there's hurricane fencing, there's garbage everywhere. They have not maintained there.

You could lean in a little bit more.

They have not maintained their concrete. So we want to know what it's going to look like. We love what Michigan first credit union did, what their planning is at this point, because we do understand that they bought the property and it was not in good shape when they bought it. So we don't know if they have put together a proposal so that we know what's, what would go there.

That'll be coming soon.

Thank you.

Does anybody else have any comments? Anything?

Mr. Beal? Mr. Chair, I just wanted to point out we did receive a public comment via email. I printed it out and put it at your chairs before the meeting. Do you want to read it or shall we have Mr. Albright read it?

at an operational car dealership, repair shop, and their customer. I object to the devalue of our property, increased noise, additional traffic, and an eyesore with a possible increase in car thief and car insurance increase. With shady character increase on your block, with uptick in car dealerships being targeted by car thief rings, I object, and I am a voter. And that's the end of the comments, Madam Chair.

Thank you. So since we didn't have a motion to open a public hearing on that, we don't need a motion to close. So do you have any other feedback, Mr. Urbio?

No, not at this time. We plan to re-notice the hearing for next month.

Okay.

Commissioners, do you have any other feedback before we move on to the next hearing?

Okay, then we'll move on to item B if I could get a motion, please So moved So we have a motion to receive comments on the request for special land use approval at 2 1 8 0 1 Gratiot for a vehicle sales and repair establishment Support we have motion by mr. Sasek. We have support by ms. Moody Mr. Woodside, if you would please call the roll.

Ms. Mary Rayford?

Yes.

Wanda Moody?

Yes.

Gary Sasek? Yes. John DeHoyt?

Yes.

All right, Mr. Abil. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I had alluded to the... The applicant's ultimate desire is to get site plan approval to develop a new sales and service facility on the site of the existing Genesis Chevrolet Service Center truck center, the Verheyden Funeral Home, and the property we just discussed. vehicle sales establishments and vehicle repair establishments are both special land uses so in order to get that approval they also need the Planning Commission to consider and make a recommendation to City Council about whether this use is compatible in this in this spot so from the special land use perspective there as with the rezoning there are several standards the ordinance specifies or requires that you consider when you are making your motion about that in addition to hearing and considering public comment. The standards are that the special land use will be harmonious and in accordance with the general objectives of the master land use plan. I had mentioned the goals in the master plan that I would like to speak to allowing residential property to be redeveloped if it's in service of revitalization of commercial districts and the larger goal of revitalizing commercial districts and increasing tax base. The rest of the land that is not is designated on the future land use map as a regional commercial and so this use is compatible with the future land use map but for the current state of 1.15145 TOFR. The second item is harmony with the existing character. I think that we will talk about the the site plan application does has been submitted and it will be under discussion as part of this special land use request but My comment here is if we can come to an agreement about a zoning ordinance compliant site plan Then this will be in harmony with the existing character the third criteria is that the use will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses there's nothing apparent about this that that I think is Obvious in a way that it would be hazardous or disturbing That is also why we have the public comment to to seek that input from adjacent property owners number four is the special land use will represent an improvement to the property in the immediate vicinity and to the community as a whole again you'll see more about this soon but I think that it represents a significant amount of investment and again provided that we can come to an agreement and we can get to a ordinance compliance site plan I think that criteria can be met The fifth criteria is whether the special end use will be served adequately by central public services and facilities such as streets, drainage structures, sewers and water infrastructure, police and fire protection, refuse disposal. Or that the people responsible for the establishment shall be able to provide adequately for such services in this case This is a developed site already some of what is proposed to be on there is already on there It represents sort of a shuffling from one side of Gratiot to another of uses that are in there. So there are no obvious undue burdens on public services. Number six is that the request will not create excessive additional requirements at public costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. For the reasons I just stated I think this criteria can be met to the use will not involve uses activities processes materials equipment and conditions of operation that would be Detrimental to any person or property to the general welfare by reason of excessive smoke fumes glare noise vibration or odors The the proposed service operation is to be inside a building will have As it's designed it will have vehicle doors so there will be I think some associated noise Related to work being work happening in the building while those doors are open but again that function essentially happens at the site already, so I Guess barring anything that's outside of my understanding about problems now. I think it will only be improved with the construction of a new building and lastly consistent with the special land use will be consistent with the intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance and And this comment, or our analysis of this criteria is that the vast majority of the land is already contemplated in the master plan to support this kind of use. If the site plan meets the zoning ordinance, then I think the use can also meet the intent of the zoning ordinance. I'm happy to answer any questions about the special land use application. Commissioners?

No, no.

Don't have any questions, but I'm just gonna throw it out right right there.

That's a whole lot of concrete So I have no questions, so let's jump in provided I think there's just some procedural things that that if you if you agree, and if you are city council to approve this we provided a motion to that but also recommended that the special land use approval is tied or conditioned on the eventual approval of the site plan and any assigned conditions and those are met prior to building occupancy and that the zoning map amendment goes all the way through to completion and is approved by city council because otherwise the project would, the use would be happening on land that is not zoned for it.

I make a motion to remit to recommend approval of the proposed special land use for a vehicle sales and vehicle repair establishment with a showroom service center and outdoor inventory parking at Genesis Chevrolet. on the parcel 21801, Gratiot. Parcel 02-1431-155017. 21901, Gratiot. Parcel 02-1431-155022. 21705 Gratiot, parcel 1431-155021, and 15145 Topher, parcel 1431-155020. Based on the finding of fact in the Planner's Review letter dated July 1st with the following conditions, site plan approval is received and assigned conditions are met prior to building occupancy. And the requested zoning map amendment at 15145 Topher is approved by City Council.

We should have Mr. Albright read that. That's a whole lot of numbers. That's a whole lot of numbers. We have a motion. Do we have support? We have motion by Ms. Moody. We have support by Ms. Rayford. Secretary, please call the roll.

Mary Rayford.

Yes.

Wanda Moody.

Yes.

Gary Sassick. Yes. John DeHoyt. Yes.

First hurdle. Mr. Abil, item B.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know that the applicant has prepared several slides that they would like to present, but I will just start introducing the project. What is on the screen is a site plan that is not admittedly legible from the public. I apologize, but I can zoom in, or the applicant slides, I think, will be a little bit clearer than this. But basically the proposal is to redevelop and add to the existing service center to create a new Chevrolet dealership and then redevelop the parking remove the truck center that is currently on the north parcel here for inventory parking and add landscaping islands and new circulation and new pavement to the site. The site of the funeral home is proposed to be customer and inventory parking. We had received a full set of drawings that was different than this. I just wanna state that the review was based largely on a previous version of the site plan. This is the site plan that I think is enforced and that the applicant's materials will reference. the So the the remainder of the review that is not about the the area in bulk of the building is sort of dependent on a eventual coordinated set being received that is that meets the conditions or the zoning ordinance in a different way. As I mentioned, the applicant has renderings that will describe the building a little bit better, but it is a Chevrolet dealership. The elevation on the bottom is a facade that faces Gratiot. This is a metal panel and glass cladding that with the certified service sign over the garage doors for the repair center. I won't get into the details there because the applicant asked to present some renderings for your information. before we get into that I think there's there are still some unresolved items here this is this list is essentially the list of things that need to be resolved before we can full-throatedly endorse this proposal the couple the first couple are procedural that the zoning map amendment goes all the way through the it's currently for tax The site plan as it's designed has is 87% Impervious surface the maximum the zoning district is 80% So that is that's a gap this this site plan does represent an improvement from the first version that the administration received as part of that application, but That gap is still there and so that In order for you to approve it, either that has to be revised or the ZBA has to grant a variance which would allow it to go forward the way it is. mentioned just the complete and coordinated set of plans in the In an effort to get this moving there. We do not have a set of plans that matches that site plan quite yet There are a few Waivers that the the initial application would have required for landscaping. Those are in the memo I can talk about them if you'd like I think in summary the that's the middle aligned with nearly all the landscaping ordinance except the There was an issue with one species, which I think there's a justification for the way is designed and then the the required hedge that is in front of That would border Gratiot is not high enough in that landscape plan as it was presented And that is there's still landscaping there. It's just not Going to meet that requirement. That is the the land that is immediately in front of the new inventory parking So that is for your consideration that is within your purview to deliberate and decide There is a screening wall proposed just in in reference to the comment that was made during the public hearing about Topher there is There is a screening wall on the drawings, but we were just looking for some confirmation that it would be the correct height and is in the right repair all the way along the border. There's a trash enclosure that is proposed We're asking for a material change there and then There were some minor issues with the photometric plan and the lighting as it was presented and then the engineer had some comments as they always do and as we typically Finalize in in a more detailed permit set

So before we jump to this I just want to clarify so The plan that we the initial plan that you had on the screen is different than what you originally had had and we don't have all the new Documentation and in details on the newest plan. That's correct.

I would I think the the building is very similar the Circulation is very similar the configuration of the landscaping islands is different and Yes. Okay.

Who wants to start us off? Um, the store quite frankly underperforms for Chevrolet's requirements and it was a store that was under review to be shut down or moved. Um, so that process has been ongoing for several years with Chevrolet. we were able to get them to, um, after looking at other options, we were able to get them to allow us to stay in east point provided that we can figure out how to sell and service more vehicles. Part of the problem that we have is this an old store, uh, two sides of the street parking is tough. It's very inconvenient for customers, very inconvenient for my employees. Um, So I assembled the best team in the dealership construction business. Bloom Construction does many dealerships around Michigan. Studio Detroit, dozens of dealerships. Nowak and Frouse, everybody knows those guys. They design everything. so we designed a dealership that is a compromise between what chevrolet requires what the city ordinance requires and what we need as an operator so we're a dealership we are inventory is cars and our shelf space is the lot so we need parking and quite frankly chevrolet requires us to have 786 parking spots in total this site doesn't meet that as it is so depending upon what happens here today we will need a variance from chevrolet to go on with this project because we don't meet what we need for the required sales target for the store. So, um, so we're short 200 parking spots from where we need to be right now. So what we're doing here is, we have an existing building there that's our service center and we're basically capturing that building and going adding on to it on three sides so the main dealership service department that's their parts warehouse stays and we graft on a brand new state-of-the-art dealership showroom sales offices accounting offices service drive parts department wash area employee lunchroom so on and so forth so we have everything two sides of street on one side of the street this will be one of the first new image Chevrolet stores if it's built in the country so you're kind of used today you see like we have now the silver with the blue arch This store is their new design. So this will be one of the first ones built So it's a really sharp design very very modern contemporary look a lot of glass So we've done we feel a really nice job trying to balance all of the things Today we have an old building. We have no landscaping we have six acres of asphalt over there that's breaking up and potholed and and And so forth that we've done a lot since we've owned a dealership and fixing it up cleaning painting when we bought I think I took eight dump truck loads of garbage Probably a dozen or more abandoned cars that were parked out back fixed fences painted cinderblock walls patched removed junk and Because the intent with us was always to renovate and build so so we would try to you know Make it look presentable where we were going through this, you know whole process. So With that I'm open to questions. I have my team here. We've got drawings To give you an idea what it looks like so Eastside goes away We move everybody on the west side. So employees, we've got to accommodate service customers, work in process, new and used car sales. So pretty big operation. We end up with about 54,000 square feet of building when it's all said and done. State of the art, it's gorgeous as compared to what it looks like today.

So questions? I have one question before I cut the rest of these guys loose on you. Let' s say we work through Mr. Rebile's list of issues. Variances need to be done. Something that you said scared me a little bit honestly. Chevy wants 786 spots and you' re coming in 200 light. You put your many millions of dollars worth of investment into this.

Are you guaranteed the Chevy's not going to say, oh, Mr. Gagliano, you changed your mind, you're done? So in this business, you are, just like Monday, you're only as good as your sales. So we have to get in there and make it happen. they could come in and say two three years from now and say you' re not sales effective. We have to get the store performing and part of it is the facility the image Customer experience. So if we're gonna sell 150 200 cars a month. I have to have the inventory on the ground. We got to be looking right I have to have the people the facility to be able to accomplish that so It is a franchise so they can take it Yes, sir, but facility did have the greatest salesperson in history It would be nice to find another one

Commissioners do you have any questions for mr. Gagliano before we go on to his mechanical team?

All right, thank you

i' m shane burley owner of studio detroit architects and we have bloom general contracting here as a contractor and noah canfraus and i just want to say i worked on over 400 automotive related projects throughout my career I always love the challenge of trying to assemble these buildings and adding on and you know moving from the east side of Gratiot to the west side really consolidates everybody and it makes things safer no more taking vehicles across the road across Gratiot no more sending customers you know walking across that median and you know consolidate everything on site I also love the fact that we're reusing an existing building we' re not scraping this entire site and starting fresh we were able to encapsulate the existing service department that' s already in operation we' re going to take down that small truck center to the north not used currently in its best capacity but I think Chevrolet is exciting. They haven't done a new image in probably 10, 15 years. That old blue arch design is so outdated that this being one of the first ones in the country, it's exciting to see it a little bit more modernized, see it a little bit more glass and glazing and views into that showroom. I do have some materials here that we can talk about if you'd like to take a look at those but I can touch on the exterior materials are ACM which is an aluminum clad material so basically two sheets of aluminum sandwiched together and then we form panels out of that very durable easily cleanable it's a sharp looking product glass and glazing obviously showrooms vehicle sales that that's really the The songbird if you will look it into that space and then the the blue Vista portal just capturing your view focusing it down and kind of simplified We had a lot of excitement and fun. Rob has been touring other places throughout the U.S. and trying to see what is the best design and how does the flow and operation. When he says I have to sell these many cars I truly believe it and understand it because We've been talking about how to set this up for success and what you have in front of you is in my opinion the best plan to be able to set him up for success and to execute that and I think it's fun. I think it's exciting and that a lot of people talk about what's happening with the existing structure across the street. I'm not sure if you brought that up, Rob, but we are in talks with somebody to purchase that property and use it. So we're not abandoning something. We are trying to grow and be better and forward thinking. And I think this Chevrolet project and the team that we have and the builder who has decades of experience doing a lot of automotive throughout Metro Detroit, we can get this done and I look forward to your support.

Just so the audience can see him a little bit better.

Thank you. Good evening, everybody. I'm excited to be here. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Timothy Wood with Nowak and Frouse Engineers. I actually grew up in East Point. I graduated from East Detroit and I remember riding my bicycle past this dealership when I was a kid. So I'm excited to be here. It's kind of come full circle for me a little bit. So there's a lot of things that are planned, a lot of big improvements for the site that I just wanted to touch on a little bit. The existing site is basically all impervious it's a hundred percent impervious surface so the the other thing the other existing condition is that there's no stormwater pretreatment or detention or outlet control so some of the things that we're looking to improve with the site aspect of it would be improving the traffic circulation part of the project is to replace all the pavement the site so all the issues with the deteriorating pavement will be fixed will be solved it's gonna be a nice 100% new facility it's gonna look phenomenal. This project proposes to improve the site circulation and also the truck access making it safer for the general public who is utilizing Gratiot as a means for travel as well as those who are visiting the store. We're proposing stormwater pretreatment, detention and outlet control, which will meet all of the city requirements and all of Wayne County, I'm sorry, Macomb County requirements. And then also it's gonna increase the green space that's onsite significantly and add quite a bit of landscaping that will enhance the looks of this project. as previously discussed by rob we' re proposing 559 spaces this is going to require a little bit of a waiver from the brand they' re looking for 786 so we could have put some additional parking on here on the site squeezed it more to get more however that' s not quite what we' re going for we' re trying to and we have put forth quite a bit of effort into making that happen. With regards to landscaping we are exceeding the number of required trees. The number required is 75 for the site by ordinance we' re proposing 91. We' re providing a significant increase in landscaping compared to the existing We are fully landscaping all the parking lots with trees, shrubs, and ground cover. And if you have any questions related to the site or civil, I'd be happy to answer. Thank you.

Let me defer to Mr. Beal.

Let me defer to Mr. Beal and Mr. Myers. Do you have any comments before we cut loose the commission on this?

I have nothing further. No.

Okay. Commissioners.

There was a question that arose about the runoff. I'm not sure I heard you regarding that issue.

The runoff? Stormwater is going to be brought into full compliance with the city and county requirements. So pretreatment, detention, and outlet control.

Mr. Beal and Mr. Myers, the items on the checklist that are stumbling blocks at this point, are any of them major to block the site plan? Or is it something that if we approved the site plan tonight, that's something that city administration could make sure is in place before occupancy would be allowed?

I think, um, The vast majority of them are the latter. It's details or things that we can work out because it's a Ginkgo tree when it should not be a Ginkgo tree and things like that. The impervious service coverage is, Just and the other thing I was gonna say like those things the Planning Commission has some authority to consider waivers for The impervious service coverage is just a black-and-white requirement in the zoning ordinance So I think that is the one that is a stumbling block that we can't I think the solution to that or the the outcome of that is either a variance is received or the plan would have to be revised so significantly that it wouldn't be the same thing or Or I mean, I guess I know that the applicant did send a pervious pavement system to us and that is deployed in this plan in the walkway in front of the store. Just looking for solutions to this problem. I don't know if it's possible to deploy more of that to bring the pervious service into compliance. But I guess that would be one avenue where what you are approving and the design of what you're approving is really essentially what would occur and what would be built and you would look at it and say, yes, that's what I approved. Otherwise that one seems like one we can't get.

beyond at this moment so we're talking about what was it a 7% differential correct so who's this was our ordinance that is requiring 80% or was this something guided by the state by or is this just something that East Point said this is what we want this is the city of East Point zoning ordinance

The stormwater requirements are also a city ordinance, but it aligns with the county requirements for dealing with stormwater.

And the applicants, it sounds like, have that dealt with. Correct. So the stumbling block is, in fact, the 7%. Yes. Can we waive the 7%?

It does not work.

7% how are it? So just keep myself from using colorful metaphors just for giggles 7% would equate into 10 20 cars. What are we talking here? 60 cars God, I hate setting precedents. I hate doing one-offs and not being consistent. That's the only thing I, that's my only hiccup.

I can't see killing the project. 60 cards.

I can't either.

It makes no sense to kill the project for 60 cards.

Yeah. So, I mean. Really, it makes no sense. If the whole point was to provide an avenue to improve not only your business but benefits to the city, I'm having a hard time seeing why we would let that go. About 60 cars But then again, I'm not in the business so But I'm looking at what makes sense So it sounds like we're Willing to make an accommodation.

Yeah Such a project. I I would believe it will be in our best interest to to I'll make a comment. Absolutely.

So before we make an official accommodation, Mr. Albright, Mr. Myers, Mr. Beale, do we have any concerns about setting any sort of future precedent here?

No, every property is looked at individually. As Mr. Sask said, on a case-by-case basis, given the type of project proposed here, I would not think that it would set any type of a precedential standard.

Mr. Myers? I can hear the wheels turning from up here.

Yeah, I've never seen him at a loss for words.

I wasn't lost for him. I just didn't know how many I wanted to say.

Keep it short.

That's not possible. I have nothing to say at this point to add to the comment. Okay.

Mr. Erbil.

Letting us hang ourselves.

I mean, I think I did have a reservation, which is why I wrote that. That's why I said that was one that we couldn't get over. I guess if that is the way you're thinking... I think it probably behooves you to also sort of state the rationale for that so as to not set a blanket statement and or maybe talk about that requirement pretty soon and whether it's the right one in amending the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Meyers, do we have a bunch of people that are going to hate us right now because you've been making them remove some impervious material? Absolutely.

Unbelievable. But as has been stated from the beginning conversation to this conversation, you have the authority in your position to give clarification and give future guidelines of what allows you to have a taking away one zoning ordinance and putting another property in and crossing over such as the house and being added to it and what that would open up for mix changing zoning maps you have the same thing here you can write clarifications for where you're going to go and why you would do such a thing that violates or op lights the direction of your ordinances And so as you look getting ready for your five-year master plan, and you already are suggesting the courtesy of modifying your present day zoning that has been established only in 2023, you should be able to clarify your definitions and where it would take you into the future.

Mr. Albright. was just looking at the proposed motion so if that's the case then I think we the Planning Commission would want to move condition number three and make that a waiver of number four and then in there say that the, uh, as Mr. Obeo said, the rationale for including that as a waiver and also stating the, of the percentage that the planning commission is settling on for this particular project.

So we would have to state that we would be willing to accept 80% on this specific project? 87. 87. We would be willing to accept 87% specific to this project based upon the scope and size of the reconstruction and the redevelopment of the entire parcel?

Correct.

because this is not just a slapping pain on a wall and a lean-to. This is a multi tens of millions of dollars worth of development. Please tell me you're gonna hire a lot of people for the property too. Compared to what now? So you'll be adding a third more people? Oh. You want to say something, Mr. Rebile? Have at it.

I mean, I don't think it's appropriate to get into a deep discussion about what is possible. I just, it seems like The previous version of this plan not closer actually had a better landscaping plan. It had a green belt back there I completely understand that the applicant is under some Requirements for parking in in this plan. There are places like in this corner and in this corner It where it doesn't seem like the pervious service is maximized. I'm just wondering if if if the Commission is willing to I' m wondering if we can talk about that.

I didn' t want to speak out of turn. In answer to your question, the site was rearranged in order to move the landscaping towards the front where it' s more front heavy. Putting the inventory parking in the back, saving for maintenance, saving for mowing next to the new vehicles and so on and so forth. It was to relocate it where it was better suited for the site.

I guess I was just talking about the corners. I was literally only talking about the places where it's striped that seems like it could just as easily be rock mulch or some sort of pervious surface.

If you've ever plowed eight acres of snow, you'll know why those pictures are not landscaped. So when we get the big snows and we have to push all of that snow, that's where it needs to go.

Well, I think we're causing city administration some angst right now No, and I didn't want to like it's your decision.

I was just um, I was just trying to ensure that It's it's our responsibility to make sure that we are Following the intent of the ordinance to the maximum extent possible. So I I just wanted to make sure we were exhaustive.

And I understand that I'm wrestling with this because I don't know how we state this in a way that's not going to have six or seven people that you're stormwater runoff and things of that nature.

We could include that type of specificity if you wanted or I could keep it general based on the scope and size of the reconstruction.

Mr. Myers, would you like that information in the

His first motion would be as clear as your definition could get. Adding the clarification of brand new buildings is cluttering the topic other than the restructuring of the property to its significant intended value or purpose.

And it is in compliance and it is harmonious with the master plan? That is correct. So should we put that verbiage in there as well? You could. All right. I'm going to have you read that motion when you finish writing it. Does anybody else have any other questions? You're torturing us right now. Last time I saw you, we gave you a waiver for the trees on the other side. Please tell me you're building something beautiful on the east side of the road. Sir, we don't have any, I mean, you don't, I'm sorry, but you don't have standing for this. You have the hearing of the public at the end of the meeting. Ready?

Is there a motion? You're going to write it. Is somebody going to make the motion first or would you like me to just read the motion? Read the motion, then we'll let the commissioners go from there. Very well, Chair.

Thank you.

The motion is going to read as follows motion to approve the site plan for a vehicle sales and vehicle repair establishment with a showroom service center and outdoor inventory parking on the parcels 21801 21901 Gratiot parcel ID number 0 2 1 4 3 1 1 5 5 0 2 2 2 1 7 0 5 Gratiot parcel and one five one four five toll for parcel number one four three one one five five zero two zero based on the findings of fact in the planners review letter dated july first provided that a revised plan set is presented to the city planner to address the comments during the planning commission meeting and the required and recommended conditions in the planners review dated july first twenty twenty six and based on the fact that with these revisions the site plan will be in compliance the ordinance listed below are the conditions of site plan approval and waivers the conditions include the following eight number one the requested zoning map amendment at one five one four five Topher is approved by City Council number two the applicant combines the four existing tax parcels into one parcel number three The complete and coordinated set of plans is submitted that matches the site plan issued on July 1st, 2026, and complies with the zoning ordinance requirements. Number four, waivers for outstanding landscape items are granted by the planning commission. Number five, a revised submission provide details of the extent of existing and new screening wall to be constructed. and or maintained as well as details of the new construction existing wall for evaluation against ordinance requirements number six the trash enclosure must be constructed of decorative masonry number seven a revised submission must include additional information about proposed shielding and revised light levels to comply with allowable light levels at property lines and number eight a revised submission complies with the comments contained in the engineering review dated June 22nd, 2026. Additionally, we grant the following waivers, which consists of the following four waivers. Number one, a waiver from the requirement in section 9.04 M to allow Ginkgo trees in the landscape plan, given that the proposed cultivar is a male Ginkgo that does not produce fruit. Number two, a waiver from the requirements section 9.05 E that all building walls visible from the right away or publicly accessible area must have a three foot wide landscape area adjacent to them for at least 25% of their total width. given the building's configuration and use and considering the general compliance of the remaining waiver from the requirements in section 9.05c that parking areas must be screened from the public right-of-way by a compliant screen given the proposed partial compliance general compliance with landscape provisions elsewhere on the site and the nature of the product display For a waiver from the required maximum of 80% impervious lot coverage to allow 87% Impervious lot coverage given the scope and size of reconstruction of the site in accordance with the master plan So moved thank you Motion do we have support I said support we have motion we have support I

Mr. Woodson, if you would please call the roll.

Mary Rayford.

Yes.

Wanda Moody.

Yes.

Gary Susick. Yes.

John DeHoyt. Before I vote, I just need to state one very simple thing that we are thumbing our nose at a few things that is probably going to drive my building official insane. Um, please do everything else that man asks you to do. Because we're going in an area that is precedent it's this is not an easy vote and I'm gonna vote yes but this is not an easy yes vote because we are essentially telling everybody else that we've held their feet to the fire that oh it's okay for them but not for for you so we are doing something very dangerous here so I need to put that out there before I vote yes and I now will officially vote yes sorry moving on to unfinished business and we have none so oh I'm sorry we're gonna talk about the parking ordinance discussion sorry traumatized myself on that one so I didn't see parking ordinance discussion so mr. Albright provided us his information at 734 last night So what I'd like if we could mr. Albright if you would lead the discussion in this I

just do a just a cursory overview if you could please I'd be happy to do so mr. chair so the the ordinance of the proposed ordinance that's before the Planning Commission for review discussion and recommend a possible recommendation to the City Council is essentially identical with rigged but there are changes with regard to Disposition of vehicles on private property and what that provides now with the previous version did not it sets forth timeframes for what city administration has to do before it can tow a vehicle and it sets forth that number one the city administration has to provide the property owner after identifying either partially dismantled non-operated wrecked junk discarded or unlicensed vehicle that that vehicle has been on the property for more than 48 hours and no person shall leave that property on a person shall leave such a vehicle on the property for more than 48 hours and The city must then provide a notice of violation and it sets forth what the violation must include and then it orders correction within 14 days. Then state provides how the owner or occupant is to be served with that notice. then it states the time for compliance that they shall have 14 days to either remove the vehicle properly license the vehicle and repair the vehicle so that is an operating condition or store the vehicle in an enclosed building it also provides for an extension that upon written request the city may grant one extension not exceeding 14 additional days and then it sets forth after that removal by the city that the city can issue a municipal civil infraction, obtain an administrative search warrant, or remove or cause the vehicle to be removed by a licensed towing company. Then it also provides for the cost that would be reimbursed to the city. And then importantly, there's an exception provision in there that this is not set in stone, that if the planning commission wants to add certain circumstances, for instance, I know that some people have expressed, you know, if a vehicle is on a property and it is it is out of service for some reason and the property owner does not have the funds at the time to repair that to repair that vehicle that is something that perhaps the Planning Commission may want to have a discussion on and include some type of exception I know that miss Naylor also had that concern in an email that she sent to me today I indicated to her that I would share her concerns with the the Planning Commissioners this evening knowing though that this is going to be tabled for discussion And of course, Ms. Naylor can give her opinions and comments at the next meeting when the Planning Commission officially considers this proposed ordinance.

So do we have the power to call for a public hearing? We don't have the power to call for a public hearing?

We have the power to call for a public hearing.

Okay. So, and I've discussed this with the commissioners up here, individually so I think we need to table this to the August meeting and ask for a public hearing to be held to hear the comments of the citizens Lord knows that'll be raucous, but we need to do our due diligence We need to add our exceptions or do whatever needs to be done to keep it clean and I know that there has been some inefficiencies and some of the ordinances and Some excessive verbiage that doesn't need to be there and things like that. So let's get some clarity on that And let's just have a good old public hearing next meeting and then that hopefully we can come to conclusion and consensus and you can take to City Council for the meeting on the 11th of August and hopefully City Council will be able to do whatever it needs to do after we've done ours mr. chair I think that's a wonderful idea I would like to state though that the intent and purpose of this ordinance was by in no way targeting people that maybe do not have the financial means to

Fix a proper car on their property by that's absolutely not the case the intent was to go after Junk vehicles that are maybe sitting in the back of a lot that haven't been driven in years that there's weeds and grass growing Either around them or through them and I know that mr Meyers can can expand on that as to what why the city administration was requesting such an ordinance I

The City has designed a request for the Billing Department is to remove blight. The definition of that is distinctive in three different categories. One is structural, one is rodent or overgrowth of excessive illegal use of the land in other words the vegetation is overgrown the grass doesn't get cut and then the third one is blight of inappropriate unmaintaining of property or items on said property so when we put Vehicles that haven't been maintained haven't been used haven't been operative for a period of time They become part of that third level of blight that allows the rest of the community or the land or the water or the soil to be eroded by all the fluids it might be inside of that vehicle that is sitting on a property that erodes into the ground so the the issue was how do we address the building department's responsibility to Managed to maintain the minimum standard of state federal county and local law for the purpose of life health safety and the wellness of the whole community one parcel time when this type of blight or in used operable object is planted in somebody's private property for long periods of time and And so it has to address the not structural blight, doesn't have to address rodent or overgrowth blight, but it has to address the blight of something being unused and unmoved for such a period of time that it becomes unvalued to the property as it sits. And so that's the third category of removing and cleaning up a neighborhood, both for sanitation as well as lifetime conditions. of the whole neighborhood.

So are there state statutes ordinances mandates whatever you want to call them that apply to these as well?

There is in the international ipmc book of 2021 exterior issues dropping everything from everything from hard surface issues to trip hazards to such things as accessory or inoperable objects that are not being maintained to a healthy and safe condition and a vehicle

whether it be a recreational vehicle that is no longer operable or a car that is no longer operable becomes one of those categories in the 2000 and IPMC of 2021 and these are these are rules that you as a licensed city official are obligated to follow by state law and these are things that we have not been in compliance with in some areas for quite some time okay Can I get somebody to make a motion that we would table this? Oh, go on, sorry. Press.

No, my question is really simple. Did you say IMPC? IPMC, International Property Maintenance Code. Okay, that's all I want.

So can we get somebody to make a motion to table this and apply a public hearing for the next meeting?

So motion.

Support. We have motion by Ms. Moody to table. And we have support by Mr. Sassick. Secretary, please call the roll.

Mary Raiford.

Yes.

Wanda Moody.

Yes.

Gary Sassick. Yes.

The last item under new business was something that I asked Mr. Meyers to speak on and considering that we just flew in the face of it. It is still a very valid thing. We require used car lots to put fences around the front of them. That is what the new ordinance says. We did it. I drive has it, uh, the new gentleman who has had the old JC that's doing a beautiful job by the way of rebuilding that facility gravity. We've all, we've made them put the fences up. So I was driving past the lot in front of what was big boy and there was no fence. I'm thinking what the devil's going on. So I sent an email and I was told that the planning commission in 2008 granted a waiver. or a variance on this property. So here we've got three properties that we've forced them to put fencing up, but this fella doesn't have to do it and it just makes us look weak. So I thought it was important that we have just a little mini training on the importance of making sure that if we're giving a variance that we're doing it for the right reasons and not just doing it to do it. even though we just slapped you in the face. So Mr. Myers, if you could just give a little discussion on this, please.

And Paul may jump in and be able to define some of these things even clearer. But when a planning commission is asked to take a look at particularly automobile repairs, automobile maintenance, automobile used car dealerships, again the city is has struggled to help maintain a consistent profile but when they wavered it and what happened with this situation is they were wavered in 2008 by this commission for unexplained reason it's not reported why they just said no problem you can do what you got to do and in the last year and a half The property changed ownership and and in leadership So it went to a class a non non-conforming class a or B Category and therefore it was rich watch the phrase here It would have been grandfathered in because it didn't lose any time from the transition of ownership and operation so if there's a if in one of these non legal conforming positions classes that vacant building doesn't get used for a period of months or time period then it loses that class and therefore it has to go and comply completely to the ordinances that are presently existing. Because of this building and this virgin owner was granted that waiver in 08 It didn't lose any window of time between what we granted them and what is now in the ordinance They were allowed to start a new business redo the surface.

Give us the green belt but not put up a fence Yes, and I just small point in clarification they received a variance from the zoning Board of Appeals which I with the land through transfers of ownership. The zoning ordinance gives the planning commission the authority to grant waivers. You just granted some waivers. But those are specific to a site plan so those don't last long. I think the The ordinance also says, as Mr. Myers just mentioned, that when a building, when a reoccupancy occurs, the property should come up to the landscape standards that are current right now. And that property that you're referring to didn't do that in every way except for that. Fencing. Yes, the screening of the parking from the front.

And that's where, as we develop a five-year plan, a 10-year plan, and the next 20-year plans for revitalization of the entire city, not only residential but economic development, we need to make sure we can define those words correctly and anchor them to the land or to the moment of the use of that land. And that'll be a distinguishing training that we should address. We've done the same in a reverse. There's a property that's been vacant for almost three years in the city, in the business district, but it's been vacant for such a long period of time that they lost their non-legal property. Conforming status and so what they wanted to do with it and open it up in the business we eventually just locked the doors and would not permit them because they did not meet any of the current status of which the the zoning district would require them to do and so not real happy with the building department at the moment or the planning but the reality is their expansion of that that Variance was now null and void because they were empty too long before they bought another business in and established that facility So now they have to go back and design the next business in it that meets our ordinance completely Does anybody have any questions on waivers and variances I just think it's very important that we remind remember that

Things that we do and even the things that the ZBA when they do meet last forever and we just got to be careful of setting precedence even though we just did one.

That is a hardship that was not driven by themselves then the answer at the end of the meeting should still be no. But when we break that principle it affects the city for a lifetime. Thank you.

All right unfinished business we have known. Moving on to the building department update. Outside the fact that you probably want to kill us all right now.

What have you got let me give you a few updates the all be so exciting you'll be thrilled because we probably get to change something and I'm just kidding. number one in the next couple of weeks our favorite property will begin demolition that is common citizens they have met with us we have gone through it I have to finish the plan review of their entire details we have made them comply to a current status they have passed through the court system they do have a deadline and a timeline that they must complete the renovation of that property to clarify for them to clarify for them was the question they were challenging was did they have to own the property yet before they were responsible for cutting it and that is no because they have the lean on the property use of the building so we do not have to wait for their PTA to go through the system to be liable for property conditions All right, that's one number two You already know it. I want to just share it and give you an encouragement. If you're not doing anything, and if you are, you should cancel it. But on Friday morning at 11 o'clock, we were having the grand opening of putting a shovel in the ground because the new police department and courthouse will be having a beginning of their construction of the new facility there on Nine Mile. It starts at 11 o'clock. what that means what's still left to be done is a pre-construction meeting in the next week and then the project will begin and it'll be over in a couple months and well okay it won't be done in a couple months it's quite a large project but it'll take the next year plus to finish it to letting them build a business on that property we've seen a preliminary layout we've seen a preliminary design they're going to need some property rezoning. to get it done for what they're asking to do but they so far have agreed to work hand-in-hand with us the the administrative staff to get all the ducks in a row before they bring it to you and present but they would love to also see that project maybe begin before this year building seasons over and so on another significant project that would begin on the west side of the property. East. That is there now. East. Pardon? East side. Oh, the east side, that is correct. And it would be between the street that divides that east side property and south of it. so that hopefully you know I'll leave that company and that process done but we've had one preliminary meeting they've seen their drawings we've seen their scope of work we've seen their projection we gave them clarity of what they need to pay attention to if they want this to get through the door And they'll have to need some flexibility from their vision to what we can comply with in the city. The preliminary documents they need, but if you're familiar with the property, there is a repair shop on the corner beside them. They have the gas station to the south and they have a repair shop on the north. they're in negotiations to buy that property and take that land use off but they'll need phase one phase two and EPA approval with that being the kind of property that it is and they'll have to probably have a brownfield to make sure that gets cleared out one way or the other so that's in the process we've had one meeting I've had two other phone calls since our original meeting we're scheduling the next strategy meeting to help move them along as quickly as possible And then finally for tonight, there's a number of other issues on the table. Just so you're aware, we have met with the corporate organization that owns the CVS building on 10 Mile that is outside of the unit of Foreman Mills. They have a lot to do and they have a very short order of which to do it choosing concerns And we've agreed today that they will schedule a meeting They will put a paperwork together for public hearings for some of the issues they want but before they get that approval by me They will need to clarify some of the things and actions they have taken without all of my billing permits and so That is back on the table for us We've pushed and knocked it on the door many times over the last eight months nine months and they're now at the table for discussion and I won't be surprised if you see them back at your council here and within the next several months. So let's see if we can clean up some of the issues that are on their request and their table before they arrive and then be able to comply a little bit more with our zoning, our land use, and our building property use as they have requested in the past. Those are the six objects that we're talking about that are current and are in guidelines for cleaning up the parcel.

Are there residents in the housing on Topher and Kelly?

If there are, they are squatters. They have blinds up in some of the windows. Pardon? They have blinds up in some of the windows. Right. But at the last that I knew, which was over a week ago, there was nobody occupying the facility at this time. And so what we're wrestling with is this becoming a registered vacant business, a registered vacant property. So it may be by unit or it may be by building, but we haven't seen the end of that request yet. Thank you. Any further questions or comments?

You've got something I can tell. You know, there's so many people in need of housing right now and you've got eight units right there that are just doing nothing. That is correct. And it is a crying shame.

Because if you don't, if you can only make so much money, you can't, I mean, I wouldn't pay $1,300 for it. a two bedroom apartment.

Is there any ways somebody can light a fire under community housing network to just make this happen?

Possible we have a meeting with the county in housing development coming up soon and they'll be obviously a strong resident representation at that County housing revitalization project that they're working through if the county is the one holding this up Feel free to send them an invoice for all the time that the city has spent trying to get this project taken care of This is ridiculous.

And this is an aberration Sorry, I'm gonna get off that soapbox before I get a little emotional I All right. Anybody else have anything for Mr. Myers in regards to the building updates? Moving on, we'll open up the second hearing of the public. If you wish to be heard, you have three minutes.

Water damage that happened at some point also. Anyways, I drive past there all the time. Yes, there are some blinds and a couple windows there. I didn't know if that was... like a perk being thrown in To try and get somebody to move in or if somebody had actually moved in Regarding the vehicle ordinance. I've you know, never implied that it's targeting Poverty level people or low-income people. I think that it may be a little indifferent to low-income people You know again I understand that we're trying to clean up junk vehicles that have weeds and grass growing through them that have been there for years and decades and that, but this ordinance doesn't specify that. And my concern is that I've heard things here before where we say one thing, if it property, if it property, that is an issue for some people. So again, if there's some way to get that part done, we could have had vehicles off the streets two months ago, but we're still, we're still, Messing around with it.

Thank you Thank You John Solera Kelly Road The gentleman with the car dealership is the kind of gentleman you need to break every rule in the book for the people that think they have problems with giving a variance to someone because it might set this guy is risking millions of dollars a Car business is not an easy business. He's got all the foundations laid for water and whatever and you should thank you for actually approving it. And you should be glad you approved it. And you need to push these city officials to get the heck out of a hardworking businessman's way because this is animals, it's not good if I was, is somebody gonna buy a house in a neighborhood that allows that? Bunch of drunks and drug heads blowing off rockets from China, cheap rocks from China, I doubt it. That needs to be banned, fireworks need to be banned. I will also be looking at, the situation with the two black women employees, which I don't know that the end, the, the end game of the second employee that's been, uh, given a leave of some type. I don't know how that worked out, but we have to watch that. This is not going to become a pattern with East point. There's no room in East point. Yeah, there's no room in East point for this kind of stuff. And if a pattern is developing, it's gotta be cut off very quickly.

Does anyone else wish to be heard?

Larry Edwards, East Point Residence. I have to agree with Mr. John Solera in regards to the fireworks. looked at and what have you. Trailers can sit, for motorcycles, it's a season situation. And they could sit for a year, two years, or even longer and what have you. So, I mean, there is just a lot of loopholes and still not enough information and not enough and overbearing consideration for this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? Anyone else wish to be heard? Seeing none, we will close the last hearing of the public and we will move on to commissioner comments. I will start. Councilman for Shadlock. We'll mix it up.

I just want to mention that I won't make it to the next year, the next meeting in August, but I would ask one of my colleagues on city council to see if they could sub in for me for that meeting. But, I had a pre-planned vacation, so I just wanted to let you know ahead of time. That's all I have.

Thank you. Mr. Mattis, even though you're quiet, you're subject to comments.

All right. There is limited parking in the courthouse parking lot. Mr. Mattis, where else could someone park if they're not able to park in the parking lot? Okay, I did see him clearing it off today, okay. All right, Mr. Chair, that's all I have, thank you.

Ms. Rayford. It has been an interesting evening. Glad we were able to table the issue regarding the ordinance for the inoperable vehicles. And I think too that somehow we have to remember whoever is coming up with ideas for ordinances, that East Point is not a very affluent community. So some things would just make it really difficult for some people in order to come into compliance. You know, we talk about wanting to build the city, we have orders puppy, orders puppy, she was a nervous wreck. So I wish people would just be more considerate of everyone in their surrounding environment so that we don't have to have situations that are intolerable for pets and veterans. Intolerable for pets and veterans. And I think that's all of my soapbox for tonight. Ms. Moody. That's all of our soapbox for tonight.

Ms. Moody.

Well, Ms. Moody is not going to get on a soapbox. I just wanted to say that I'm not going to beat a dead horse because I'm so right on point with Ms. Nichols and with Commissioner Hall-Rayford with reference to the ordinance. So we will readdress that later. But in the meantime, I just want to say be safe and have a good evening.

Mr. Sasek. Well, first of all, I have to apologize because I am not available tomorrow morning to attend the groundbreaking. Unfortunately, I have a doctor appointment. And this is going to be shocking, but that's all I have tonight. Wow.

Community, as opposed to having them going off everywhere and people ducking for cover thinking they're in gunshots. Just a side note, but I'm not a politician. It's just a thought. So last meeting I went on a tirade. Maybe I shouldn't have gone on a tirade, but I don't regret going on a tirade. My commissioners might be older than me, they might be younger than me, but these are my people and I will defend my people if somebody is saying something stupid or hostile or angry or inaccurate. So you come after my people, I'm gonna get my back up. It's just the nature of the beast. I'm Italian. We believe in taking care of our people. That's the way it should be. You should look out for your people. I look out for my people in the city, even though sometimes they piss me off. And sorry for the profanity. But they do. The city ticks me off. City Council ticks me off. But we all have to move in one direction and we all have to get better. So Mr. Mize might want to grease or cut the brake line on my car tonight because we did something that is going to make it. I don't know who this John DeHoyt is, but if you're asking about John DeHunt, he says yes. Have a good night, everybody.