Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call to order the East Point Planning Commission meeting for October 2nd, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. Secretary, please call the role. Mrs. Hall Raford, here. Mrs. Moody, here. Mr. Sassic, here. Miss Yulinski here and Chairman Daant here. Moving on. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda for the evening? I'll move. We have a motion. Do we have support? Support. We have motion and support. Secretary, please call the role. Mr. Sassic? Yes. Mrs. Moody? Yes. Mrs. Hall Rafford? Yes. Miss Yulinsky? Yes. Chairman Dant? Yes.

Moving on to the first hearing of the public. You have three minutes to speak. Is there anybody wishing to be heard?

If you'd write your name down on the piece of paper, it will hopefully be there. We do not know who she is. Okay. If the record can reflect Jennifer Nicholas, East Point resident. Okay. Is that on then? Okay. Yes.

Yes. Jennifer Nicholas, East Point resident. Um, first of all, uh, the master plan open houses. I went to them as well as the residents meeting. Very informative and I saw a whole bunch of you out there also and hope that you got as much out of it as I did. Um I had one question on the agenda tonight with the ordinances. There was something about um buildings. I think you're referring to garages and the distance that they have to be from fences. And you know, my question is if there is an existing garage that is not uh far enough away from a fence, if that garage were needed to be rebuilt or something, does it have to be moved or is it kind of grandfathered in because it was an existing structure? Just because I know in my neighborhood, garages are closer to fence lines than I think three feet is what you're putting in the ordinance. Um, the other thing I'm sure everybody is all aware that there is a public forum on Wednesday, October 15th at 7 o'clock right here to discuss the potent potential road diet and roundabout um for Nine Mile Road, phase three of Nine Mile Road and a roundabout, I'm guessing at Kelly, although it doesn't actually specify that in the forum notice. Um that's a opportunity for residents and businesses to come out and give an opinion. These opinions are uh being collected by NEPA which is the National Environmental Protection Act that works with MDOT. um they are interested in residents and business opinions that weighs into whether um they will give approval for a road diet. So, um, and I'm sure most of you are aware of that,

but I just kind of want to put it out there, too, that this is probably our only opportunity, um, to to make, uh, your opinions known because, uh, prior to this, um, there has been no public hearing or, um, attempt to get a vote from from residents. And, uh, I think that's about it. So, um, thank you and hope you have a good meeting. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? Mr. Myron, [Laughter] oh, ye few but faithful.

I will move to close the first hearing of the public. Can we get a motion to approve the minutes of the May 22nd, 2025 meeting, the June 10th, 2025 meeting? So moved. The July 10th 25 meeting do them individually. Can we wrap these all up in one or do we have to do one each one separately? Leave it up the chair's discretion unless I have if you guys are all good with it. I say we just all wrap it up into one. So before So I'm going to Sorry. I would have to abstain from here and there's one meeting that I wasn't here but there would still be three people that would be a quorum that would that Okay. Yeah. Or a majority I should say.

All right. So, approval of minutes for May 22, 2025, June 10th, 2025, July 10th, 2025, August 7th, 2025. Secretary, please call the role. Oh, I'm sorry, Gary. Gary made the motion. Who seconds? Well, before I support that motion, um, I thought four was a quorum. Well, there's five people or three of you. If you if two of us were out because of abstension. No, but on that one month. Oh, all right. Do we have to go through these separately?

I did leave it up to the chair's discretion, but it seems as if it would be more advisable if uh each uh date for the minutes is uh voted on separately. All right, we'll resend it. We'll go one by one. So much for being quick. I will move for May 22nd. Do I have a second for the second? We have motion and support for May 22nd. Secretary, please call the role. Mr. Sassic, yes. Mrs. Moody, yes. Mrs. Hall Raford, yes. Miss Julinsky, yes. Chairman Dant, yes. Moving on to June 10th. Motion. Okay. Support.

Motion. We have motion from Miss Miss Moody. We have support from Miss uh Mr. Sassic. Miss Moody. Yes. Mr. Sassic. Yes. Mrs. Hall Rafford? Yes. Miss Zillinsky? Yes. Chairman Dant? Yes. Moving on to July 10th. Do we have motion? So motion. We have a motion from Miss Moody. Do we have support? Support. We have support from Miss Rayford. Paul Rayford. Mrs. Moody. Yes. Mrs. Hall Raford. Yes. Mr. Sassic. Yes.

Miss Yulinsky. Yes. Chairman D Hunt. Yes. Moving on to the final one. August 7th, 2025. Do we have motion? So moved. We have motion. Do we have support? Support. We have motion and support. Secretary, please call the role. Mr. Sassic. Yes. Mrs. Hall Raford, yes. Mrs. Moody, abstain. Miss Gillinsky, yes. Chairman Dant, abstain. Well, that wasn't half as bad as I thought it was going to be. Moving on to the first public hearing, of which we have none. Then we shall move into new business. Mr. Myers, you're on deck.

Um, planning commission and Mr. Chair, let me quickly highlight and then we're going to turn it over to Paul for a couple of highlights. These are beginning to do some amendments and some adjustments to the the planning commission or the zoning board of appeals document that was created and approved in 2024. Uh there's some of them and we're just amending some of the document pieces uh for more clarity and more definition and then the other ones have been completely left out of the or ordinances al together and we're putting them back in in uh some modified ways. So let me turn this over to Paul. He'll walk it through really fast. So you have each of you should have a a document of the flyers in front of you. Uh tonight what we'll be able to do since this is not a public hearing uh we'll give you a chance to have an insight and give us directions and modifications to change and then we'll bring it back to you for public hearing on November and then send it on to council if it's approved and amended by by this commission. Thank you again for your time and your service as we get ready for the master plan and the adjustments that we're now doing in the building department. We have uh made some great progress and this is one of those first steps that we need you to help us with in correcting some of our ordinances and zoning guidelines uh so that we can uh build a stronger and healthier and a safer community uh for tomorrow.

Before before we turn it over to Mr. Herbiel, just to confirm these items are bringing us in compliance with state standards. That is correct. As well as our modifications of definitions for our own ordinances. So it is cleaning up language that has been vague, extraneous, and well irrelevant. Some of them. Yes. Okay. Collection of all three of those definitions. Okay. And this will put us on deck for smooth sailing in the future with your department.

Yes. It's a lot smoother sailing in the fact that we'll be able to not have as much debate and definition and terminology arguments of certain types of businesses and standards going into the city. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll just I I think there's three things that we're trying to do. Um one is to clean up uh a couple errors and typos and omissions. Um the other is to change course a little bit. There were some regulations that made sense even 18 months ago but with the experience of enforcing um we think they could be worded a little bit more clear or differently um to make sure that the intention is maintained. Um and then also there's a couple things that we're just trying to keep current with with what is happening right now. the zoning ordinance is should be a living document that you check in with very frequently. So those are those are the things that we're trying to do here.

So I'm sorry to interject again. So we we all up here know the importance of the master plan and what we're about to embark upon over the next few months. Are these going to marry well with our future? Yes.

Thank you. and and you will when the master plan process is finished, you'll have another set of recommendations very likely to amend this ordinance again. In the meantime, we are not changing big picture things. We're trying to make this ordinance more usable and enforceable right now. Um there's a very wordy memo uh that was in your packets. I I've been told three times to be quick and I will be um the but just to reiterate that uh the memo has in the slides that I have um has the original ordinance text in gray font where where we're we're proposing the topic uh we talked about what the topic was but then we're also proposing how we believe that we're going to amend the actual wording of the ordinance. Um, so as you go through that memo, if you have not yet read it, um, any change from the what the ordinance says right now is highlighted in gray. Text that's proposed to be removed is struck through. Text that's proposed to add be added is underlined. Um, so if you use that sort of shortorthhand, you can see both what it is now and what we um believe it should be in the future. um not maybe at first glance, but it's all it's all sort of tracks. Um there's a list of topics and so these amendments are uh grouped by topics. I'm just going to go real quick about why and why we're trying to amend something and what we are trying to accomplish and then how we're going to do it. Um event halls are very popular land use. They are regulated in the ordinance. They have their place, but they are different than a lot of other commercial uses because they are not always active. Um, they are often blank uh storefronts that are not

um as lively or as contributing to a commercial district. Um there are because it's a popular land use and they are restricted to certain places that is certain areas in MU1 and MU MU3. Um people have come to the counter and and you you can almost see that people have that some people are anticipating the the uh resistance if they have a place that is not in this area and they want an event hall or um if it's not permitted or that somehow they know that it's not permitted. So, um, people have come to the counter and said, "Well, I'm not doing an event hall. I'm doing a experiential retailer. They're pulling another one of these uses out of the zoning ordinance and saying, "This is what I'm doing." And then in practice, it turns out actually it is an event hall. What we're trying to do with the edits that we proposed was to just clarify leave leave them permitted where they are just clarify the definitions and take out some of the definitions that are um very specific and sort of over overlapping with event halls and then um make a that's the strike those two terms business incubator and experiential retail. Um if something is truly a business incubator it would be regulated as an office use. If it was truly experiential retail, like painting with a twist for example, which is what's the example in the ordinance, um then it would just be retail. If that is its principal use and not something to be rented out as a event hall and then um we are offering a more specific definition of event hall that um I think is just it's clear as to what what is in that category and what is not. Um, I said in the beginning I'd go quick. Please stop me at any time. Otherwise, I'll just keep going.

Do we need to address alcohol usage within this definition? It says beverage. Are we talking are we serving Cokes and tea or we do we need to have verbiage about liquor being allowed or not allowed? We don't get that in the zoning ordinance. I guess ultimately whether or not there's liquor served as a matter of whether or not the caterer has a state license. Um so I would say no we don't have to address it in this definition. Thank you. Okay.

Um there are there are several edits and a bulk of that memo is about signs. Um there a lot of the amendments that we are suggesting is simply um clarifying or making consistent and reinforcing the intent of the ordinance. Um there's one point at which we are or one or two points where we are uh proposing to slightly change the meaning of the current ordinance um because of the um the conditions on the ground and the applications that we've received. Um so with regard to wall signs uh page nine

page nine. Thank you. The um currently on every commercial business is allowed two wall signs um that the area of which is calculated based on the frontage. Uh the wording of that of which frontage governs is is uh stated once but not consistent all the way through. So we'd like to make it consistent all the way through. Just again not changing the meaning, just making sure that it's explicit that this is how it's calculated. um on what what this this ex this building is an example of um there's a lot of commercial uh buildings in the city that front with a with a uh relatively narrow storefront and then if they're on a corner they have a large side street. Um, as it's currently written, the the frontage on the side street, which is much longer, allows a much larger sign than um what would be allowed by the primary street. Yes. Go ahead.

So, to give you a pictorial window of this, if that front of that building you see here is 40t wide, the standard says you're allowed to have a foot and a half square for every 2 feet of linear. So, out of 40 foot, you're only going to get down into the 20 square foot or less. But because you have a 80 foot long building, the side could be two a foot and a half square for every two feet of 80 feet long. So now that could be half the building almost. And that's what we're saying. It should be parallel down to 75% of whatever the front of the building is. So if the front's going to be uh let's just say 32 square, 70 75% of that size should be what the side sign is. It shouldn't be as big as the wall. So that's the dimensional concern. If you have a large 80 foot long wall building, it shouldn't be for 40 foot of it.

Mural. If a person wanted to make a mural, if it's if it is a sign painting, it should if it is a mural, we're talking about a different animal altogether. Okay. A mural does not advertise uh phone number, address, or business hours. It just has a it's a painting of character. Correct. Well, all right. So, to that point, there was a building in the old Circle K that painted their sign on a wall. That is no, that is not an allowed not not at this future, not where we are now and going forward.

Thank you. Okay. Um, in your memo are is the the areas I just pulled one of them, but the wall sign or all signs are regulated. Uh, residential districts one group um MU1 and MU2 in another group and then MU3 and light industrial in a third group. Um, so you have in your memo and this is an example of just where that uh where those regulations are proposed to be clarified and added on to a little bit. As far as poll signs, um the the ordinance as it's written requires that ground signs in their entirety are a minimum of 10 feet away from the rightway line, which is the property line that separates private from public property. So, in this case um of the CVS, the property line is right on the private side of the sidewalk. And this looks a lot like it's a conforming sign. Um I think that's a noble reg or it's a well-intentioned regulation that if you were starting from scratch is the way to go. Um what in practice there are many many many poll signs in East Point that are rendered non-conforming by this requirement. Um and the the consequence of that is that um we have had to reject sign permits because the sign is too close to the rightway. And the remedy or the way to get an approved sign permit, what we are saying is you have to take that pole out of the ground and move it four feet back. Um, so there's a couple things that we um there's a couple strategies to address this. Um, I think

the minimum what we'd like to do is just clarify that it's only the pole that needs to be 10 feet from the rightway. That was our initial hypothesis. Um, as we looked into it and as we looked at more poll signs, I think even that there there are many I think at one point it seems to me that at one point that was the regulation because there are many poll signs that where the pole was built 10 ft behind the property line and then the sign hangs over that. Um, so I think that's like a a initial step to just clarify that's the pole not the sign itself. Um, I think a better strategy might be to exempt any existing pole signs from this requirement unless there is a clear visibility problem or it is um in a clear vision triangle or or something that's causing a a safety issue. Um, still regulating that the sign can't encroach into the rightway. Um but making some of those existing poles usable and um taking some of the some of that expense of removing a sign and moving it only a few feet back if there's already a sign there. So, if a business is changing hands, changing functions, and they have a what would be considered a non-conforming poll sign, but the old business is going to it's going to get a a pass, are we going to require the people that are taking over the building with the poll sign and maybe changing the use of the business, are we going to require them to move it or will that poll sign keep its grandfathered in? As much as I hate that phrase,

that for anybody that's moving a new business and the pole is existing, the sign needs to be changed, but the pole shouldn't have to be moved if it's already been in the ground for that period of time.

Okay. Um, temporary signs. This one is just a quick edit. There's a uh there's a provision that temporary signs can only be six feet off the ground. It's really regulating ground signs only. Um it doesn't allow for someone the the policy of the city is not to issue a permanent sign permit until there's a certificate of occupancy for the business. So, if that person is issued a certificate of occupancy and they don't have a signed contractor that afternoon, um they're going to be for some period of time without a sign. And the the idea here is just to allow there to be a temporary sign for a period of 30 days that is mounted in the place where the wall sign will be as long as it meets the rest of the um requirements. um special land uses. Uh so special land use is a use that is not permitted by right. It's use that might be allowable if the applicant can come and demonstrate that um there's no nuisance and that it meets particular standards. And I know that um before my time here, you've had some uh experience with these uh things like gas stations are special land uses I think everywhere. Um, and there's a couple other land uses like smoke shops where they're always special land uses. Um, right now the way the ordinance is written, uh, if an applicant, if there's a reoccupancy of a business, the applicant and there's not a special land use on file, the applicant has to come and do the entire process. And it's a long process and it's um, arduous. I think it was more more uh it it takes more than just a certificate of occupancy process. Um

what we are proposing to do here is to keep that whenever someone is trying to establish a new business in a new place. Um but in those cases where if if a if a building if a business changes ownership but it is operating yesterday and tomorrow in the exact same way at exact same intensity but there's just new ownership. It's the same business right now because it has to have a uh certificate of occupancy so it can be inspected for life safety by the building department. Um they would also have to go through the special land use process. This amendment would say that in the cases of a change of ownership or if just um you know a someone's brother takes over from their brother changes management of the exact same business then in those cases change of management and change of ownership

that they would not have to get that special land use. They would just have to do the building process. Um everything else would stay the same. And if someone was trying to establish a new business or say, you know, I I took I I had 1,000 square feet where I was selling this and it's non-conforming or it it should be a special land use. Now I want to make it 2,000. That would still end up here and then eventually in front of city council.

So example, we have one coming to us. It will be here in probably a month or less where they want to bridge multiple parcels and put them together and it's the same business. They just want to expand it. that needs to come back here as a special land use because they're expanding their business with with the system that they're establishing. So, our unique categories of uh memorials, which are like smoke shops and gas stations, they will stay the same no matter what the category is coming. But we're asking you to consider if if they're putting a grocery store and they're doing a grocery store that's just changing ownership and they're it's changing not changing dimensionals and it's changing management, we just leave that land special land use alone and then bring them back into the building's life, health, and safety.

That's what I assume that's maybe an auto repair facility or more like a car dealership that's going to stay from one car dealership and it's going to stay a car dealership. They're not going to expand their property. We get to specialize. We get to put them into a zoning approval of property condition, but not have to go through the special land use. So, it's still businessfriendly, but it it is not bending over backwards. Not at all. But it's still business friendly.

So, if you expand it, you got to come here. You change it a bit, you got to come here. If you change your building structure, you got to come here. and you would still be required to do the the physical things and bring the landscape up to standard. Correct. That as is the case now. So yeah, I think it's a good way to put it. It's more businessfriendly, but not giving up the point of why we're doing all that in the first place. 17.

Um landscaping the there's a a clause that says landscape islands must be located below grade. This is just a detail, but um that is again like well-intentioned and a good goal to have the landscaping that we are compelling people to install within parking lots uh help with the storm water problem that um exists because there's so much pavement. Um, we're proposing just to modify the definition to remove the thing that says that basically in practice this means that you have to make the water go into the landscape island and that if a parking lot is always already built and you are installing landscape islands, you're punching holes in it. The the grading of that is not necessarily going to be conducive to that. Um, so this edit is just to say that that's still the goal and that's what it should be, but it allows some room to say um if that doesn't make any sense with the with the existing lot drainage or if um the lot does drain there and and it will have salt runoff etc. Um, and then it will kill the plants inside the landscape islands. Then there can be a little bit of discretion about whether or not they are traditional landscape islands or landscape islands that accept water from the parking lot.

Too bad we can't put a landscape island in the middle of flocks near Belleview School where it turns into a pond. What? That's correct.

Um, accessory buildings and structures there. There was a whole um we're proposing to essentially restore a whole list of specific regulations for accessory buildings and structures that were left out I believe to allow some flexibility for things like accessory dwelling units. Um but in practice makes makes it unclear if someone is trying to build a new garage, how far away from that lot line um can that garage be? And in practice, the way it's written now, it really is more restrictive to uh things like new garages than um it would be because those those structures are subject to the setback regulations of the principal building. Um so this is I didn't pull them all in. they're in your packet, but this is um basically a restoration of the the accessory structures before this recent rewrite, those regulations. Um, and we're happy to talk about them. This is uh I have gone through and done some editing. John has gone through and edited them to to tune them up even more. We're not just like copying and pasting. U but it's it's what we're getting at is just trying to make sure that there are specificity for questions like that. if I want to build a new shed, where can it be? How much of my lot can I cover? Um, and if I can just address the thing about non uh when where they're built and and uh do they need to move. If something is non-conforming, you can't the city can't and shouldn't really try to force it to be removed just because we're changing the law right now. that happens as um people try to rebuild their garages or um the the non-conforming structure clause in the East Point ordinance uh says that it can't be expanded in a way that makes it more non-conforming. So, if it's too close right now, you can't expand it. If

it's a foot set back now, you can't expand it to make it 6 in next to the lot line. You you could probably expand it the other way if all the other regulations were met. Um, where you would have to replace it is if it if it accidentally burned down and there was nothing left and it had to be rebuilt, you probably couldn't rebuild it in that same spot.

Clarify, and this is to answer your question, one has burned down in the last 3 months, four months, and they have to move it because this whole section of 16 articles in accessory is no longer in our zoning. We had to permit them to put it back on the same pad that the one just burned down on, which doesn't meet a healthy safety setback between border lines. So if it does burn down, your question was asked, do I have do I do we have the right to move it to proper boundaries for everything else that we already have as 3 foot 5-ft setbacks? How far away from the house? How far away from those guidelines? The answer would be yes. if it comes down by accident. Have fun. If you want to have fun with it, they did have a pool and a and a decking policy that we took out completely. And our city has an ordinance of 60% lot coverage. And they granted the right to um if you have want to put a pool, you're allowed to have an additional 40% lot coverage on top of your 60. Do the math. That means you could have your whole property covered and everything would have to run to the street. And so we just said, let's take that off and let's not make that an issue that we would deal with in the future. 20.

Great. Um, contractor's office. The intent here is again not to change the meaning or um change what is a pretty good regulation regarding outdoor storage where it can go and how it gets permitted. Um, it's more to make specific uh where the lines are and really selfishly to aid in the conversations when people say, "Well, I just have an office building." And then um they open their doors and actually there's a bunch of trucks back there and and it's in a spot where it's not supposed to be. Um what we're trying to do is just assign a definition to a contractor's office. um a place that does have their principal place of business there, but if they're a landscape company, they need to store wood chips and they have uh uh excavators and front loaders. um and say that those uses if they have outdoor storage are only allowable in um in the light industrial district or MU permitted by right in light industrial uh special land use in MU3 I think MU2 is an error in this in this image it is

um we'll strike that if they don't have outdoor storage then it's just an office and then it can be wherever else offices are Um and actually looking at this then there will be more P's in it. So sorry about the nonclarity in the use table thing but um basically we're just trying to give more specificity to a use that does it exists here already and there's a lot of inquiries on it. So we're trying to respond to those inquiries and keep them out of the downtown area out of the lesser um the lower intensity mixeduse districts. clarity for you. So, if you don't can't put it in your head, right across the street, there's a waterproofing company that did the same thing. They put a business building office in it. But in meantime, since we didn't have clarity in our system, they were able to put their buildings uh vehicles all through the back end of that property. It's just right across the street from city hall. But since we didn't have any clarity, we could not enforce that special land use guideline or that special uh zoning guideline for that particular business who just wanted a business building for his office. Called it that but he has vehicles for his company stored all through the back property packing it in. We have to clean that up so that we can get ready for a better downtown district. Um, this the the current ordinance in a as is exactly written prohibits the parking of commercial vehicles anywhere. And I I believe that was an oversight and so we're just restoring the original intent which is that um there's that prohibition in residential zoning districts unless there's it's winter and there's a snow plow. Um but otherwise commercial vehicles in residential districts have to be parked inside. But if it's in a non-residential district then uh we can acknowledge that people have people that are doing business have that equipment and there are places

where you can park it. Is a semi considered a commercial vehicle? Yes. Do we need to make that definition a little tighter? because I know that there are I don't know if they're still there but going down Stevens there are a number of uh trucks not necessarily with a the trailer but there are a number of trucks right and then I know I've seen a number of semis used to be parked over at was big lots now Foreman Mills right do we need to include a what a se a semi in there it wouldn't hurt us to take a closer look at it sure okay and bring it to you in November

right in regards to residential parking, too. So, say a person is a self-employed plumber and he's got his plumbing vehicle with all of his information on his truck and that parked in front of his house every day. Is that a violation of the ordinance?

Um, as it's Yes. I guess as it's currently written, as it was written before this overhaul and what we're proposing, yes, that would be true on a residential street. And the difference in that is is he the other part that's missing from that equation is he registered as a home occupied occupancy business. In other words, he run his own business out of his house and does he have his license in the city building department and the city clerk's office that says you're allowed to run a business and are you going to put your vehicles there? And is anybody coming pick up two of your vehicles? Uh do you have a crew that comes to your house and does this? Um, that's the still that's the other side of this equation that we have to address going forward about residential businesses.

I would be concerned that that would cause a problem. Yeah. Uh, does that include food trucks with trailers? Yes. Yes. And so we have I sorry that so we have to answer those in in the immediate future of which we have no guidelines to to to speak to them in in any level of enforcement. What about the the big trailers like especially that the scrappers use that they park in the street or they have a dumpster business and they leave their I think you know what I'm talking about by that look.

Yes. We need to be able to put enforcement behind that in our zoning that is not vague or broad. It needs to be concisely clear so that we can help put our our bedroom community back into bedroom communities and not into a district. We have a house over on another street that has been building and repairing cars. um now moved it from their back garage all the way to the front street and they're using their four tow trucks to bring them in, take them out, park them there. We have to make a we have to find a way to to stop that. Mr. Albert, the uh city actually has a separate uh not part of the zoning ordinance that uh regulates the parking of commercial vehicles in residential areas.

Correct. It's a section 44-58. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. And that that ordinance, I believe it was passed back in 2013, 2014, 2010. So, it's been uh it's been on the and we need to we need to back that match with our zoning. Yes.

We need to we need to bridge them together because what they're doing is competing one ordinance against the other. And sometimes we don't find um the phrase that says whichever is the most restricted in our zoning or our ordinances as we do in the state. State state code book says whichever is the most restricted is the one you lean on. But we need to make sure we can do that even if we don't write all of them in matching. But the attorney is correct.

Okay. Thank you. Um th this particular edit uh I won't spend any time on it because it's literally just removing the typo of an extra A there um and the redundancy of saying several floors of the building. Um, we put in there a a series of glossery amendments that support things that we've already talked about um and just sort of aligned if we do everything else that means that these uh definitions need to be added into the glossery so that any term that is used to regulate is defined. Um then finally there are two map amendments and this is where we really get into just like routine maintenance. Uh there were two projects that had approved site plan approvals. Um I think in both cases it was a condition of the site plan approval that the lots needed to be combined. Um what we're proposing to do is just to follow on with that and honoring the approved site plan uh use of the majority of the site with the result of that lot combination is that these lots are split zone. So you see on the prime storage site here um the portion you see that um the portion on the north is still zoned differently than the the bulk of the prime storage. There's not a meaningful difference in what happens on that those pieces of land. It's just a a vestage of it used to be two pieces of property. Now it is one and it used to have two zoning districts. And we're just trying to clean it up so it reflects the current uh use and can be regulated properly and doesn't cause problems if the property transfers or it changes hands. And um the city has to say, well, you know, it's regulated differently depending on where on the land you're sitting. That's also true of uh 17375 8 mile.

This was a condition of the approval of the marijuana business. Um it resulted in a split zone property because that's the property that they acquired. Um we're proposing to just make both of those parcels uh MU3 instead of one the northern one being MU1. Um that's the more intense zoning district. Um but it's not out of character. I I wouldn't say because it's still um adjacent to 8 mile and it's again reflecting the fact that that is now one legally legally one piece of land um which theoretically is going to have a one business uh conducted there.

The third property that is parallel to the same conversation is we're in litigations with private zone. It's the property just north of the Arbar uh lot coverage of land. The back half is a split different zone and we need to put those into the same page, too. You mean the junkyard? Yeah. No, no, no. The property that has a lot of vehicles all over it. The junkyard.

Well, we're in litigations right now with his his his the owner of that. Are there any questions that you'd like to ask? I don't have an actual question, but if you can um give me a little more in-depth information or explain more with reference to the dumpster and the refuge containers. You didn't mention anything about the dumpsters. Um so that not intending to change the meeting. We're just trying to make it easier to see and more plain to see and have something to point to in a conversation where someone's asking what the regulation is. Thank you,

Mr. Myers. I I have something and maybe it's off topic and but you know when I when I think of the the goal of of making the aesthetics of the city better through these amendment changes and through master planning. I'm thinking about right now at this moment drive time. God bless them for taking, you know, and and reusing the property, but they just laid down all that beautiful new sod in the right of way. and they have more weeds and garbage growing through the cracks of the sidewalk and on the uh concrete BMS that separate the so it's you know this the the landscaping that's been put in the rightway is like putting perfume on a pig right now because these parcels look wretched. I'm also thinking about the proposed marijuana facility on the same well blocked down weeds growing everywhere and it is an abomination. I understand there's litigation going on. I understand there's some contentious action. Doesn't mean that the properties can't be maintained.

Correct.

Um what is the building department's recourse with things like that? We're not too afraid of of the litigation on those fields simply because the subject that we're bringing to the table has nothing to do with the litigation and one of the properties is no longer being used or protected to be used as part of that uh marijuana facility. So, we have filed against that present owner to be responsible for cleanup. We've also um checked with uh Matt and made sure that there was no issues. The other one was, excuse me, it was Tim. We were checking with the attorney with going into the litigations with the um marijuana, making sure there was no problem for us to uh address that company who's owning that property to clean it up. So, that's what we'll be doing. We we already started the first letter this week and we'll begin to clean them up as we did with the prime storage uh south facility. We'll give them an ultimatum to do it or we will

drive time. Yeah, I'm saying yes, they'll do the same issues. So, we'll take on those same responsibilities. They won't we won't change those categories. Does anybody have any questions with regards to the Leave it there. You're not going anywhere. Does anybody have any questions? I don't want you to trip. All right. Looks good. Do you will you have finalized um We'll have a finalized copy for you for next month to to vote on and and send it to city council, make a recommendation and any things that you want us to change, please have it ready for then and then we will uh ask the council to to put it in the listing.

And if you guys have any concerns or if you want you have questions, something just remember do not do not send it to everybody. Just send it directly to John and Kim. Don't send it to us because we don't need anybody saying OMA violation. Yeah. So, all right. Seeing none, we'll move on to unfinished business. As we have none, we shall move on to Mr. Myers, you're on deck again. Building update.

Uh this is something if you would like because where you're at and involved in the building def department. We've really redesigned the building department extreme. Uh Carlton has now come in as the deputy and he's beginning to get his feet deep into the concrete that is still wet. I don't know if he'll be able to move soon. uh but he's going to take over our commercial businesses and his plate is plenty full. Uh but in the meantime, what we've done is we have tried to meet three obligations that I have that we're in the process of redesigning the entire building department. One is I'm responsible to put the building department in the economic black budget line, not into the red. Two, I'm responsible for all inspections um that they become life, health, safety, and the wellness of the whole community all the way across all of our building inspection departments, whether they be code, whether they be residential commercial uh uh uh rentals or they be blight or they be a commercial construction such as our our new gas station grocery store coming in, I mean restaurant coming in at Sheets. The third thing I'm responsible for is cleaning up all of our recordkeeping systems and processing. So, what we have done is we are one person short of having a full staff uh be back into our clerk's division. We've now been able to separate two of them to be administrative specialists to help us rebuild. In that process, we have now removed uh 38 letters from our system and we've re we've put that those letters down to seven. Uh we've also removed 119 categories so we can clean up the entire administrative documents in BSNA and we've now moved that down to 21. And so now everybody in the field will have a lot cleaner place to start from a new fresh beginning. The other thing we've done extremely different to do the time management and money ordinance is we've put the dis the city

in in five districts all roughly about one square mile radius and we've put one officer in each of those and those officers will now be responsible of a third of their responsibilities each day and each week each month each quarter they'll be responsible for onethird of it to be blight uh or code enforcement two they'll be responsible for doing the rental inspections inside of that district. And three, they'll be responsible for building violation structures, whether that be signs, they be building commercial violations and vacancies, or they be uh blighted construction issues inside a neighborhood district. Those are already actively involved. So, we're shifting that. We're waiting for one more person to join our team. So, we've really redesigned it. The design is there so that we could tell the city that we're a legitimate building department and you can trust us. Again, the goal is by the end of 2026 um to establish a request from the state to audit the city's books. Not so they can decided to fire me, but because we want to verify that we are fulfilling the goal and the obligation. You remember the last two audits that were given to the city failed miserably. Every category were within 20 or 30 points from passing. So, we didn't do well at all. So, rebuilding the whole system is where we're at. This is the closest we've had to a full staff with an intentional design. So, we're excited about where we're at. For the first time uh in the last five years that I've found the track record, uh we covered a revenue um that would meet somewhere between in the building season from July 1 till a till the end of September. Uh we we covered a revenue stream of about 380ome thousand which is meaning we're going out and finding work. Most of that is um in permits because we discovered that we're averaging about seven contractors a week right now that we're finding doing work without permits for

the last 3 months. So, we're making a headway in making sure that the city is safe again by making sure that contractors and homeowners and businesses are in accountable to the building department, to the state standards, and the local zoning. We've had a lot of help from the the the attorney's office. We're going to look at some changing in our in our ticket writing. Uh we are going to add a a program where we'll do digital ticket. Hopefully that'll be on the table very soon. That'll accelerate our process from our office directly to the court instead of going through the police department. So, we're making some significant changes. Hopefully by the time we get to November, I'll give you the a report of what we were a year ago and what changes we've made in the first year I was here and what the goals are between this year and the end of this fiscal year of what we want to change to see the improvement and structure of where we're building the building department. So there's a a brief highlight of where we have changed the direction. If you remember when I first arrived, we had to get approval to stop sending it by mail and use digital copies. and uh we've moved all the way across the board. So that's an excitement to me. Uh we have a long way to go, but if we can get a year and a half from now and ask the I personally can ask and accountability to my staff is they need to meet the demand because I'm the only one with the license that's going to jail if we don't pass the audit scale. So, they need to understand I'm trusting them to do the work that we're asking them to do to meet state and local standards and we're excited about that level and I'll put my my trust in this team that we're building at this moment.

I'll bake you cake with a file in it if you go to jail. Excuse me. I'll bake you a cake with a file in if you go to jail.

Thank you. Thank you. Just come to visit. I'm hoping the attorney will fight for me uh a little bit at least and see what happens. But but there's the a big picture and hopefully we can give you a direction. Uh we're going to comp compete with and support with the police department who is working on the um neighborhood watch. And so as they put police officers in their district, we'll have a matching code officer in our district. So now we'll have police and code working in the neighborhoods to strengthen the weaknesses and the communications between the city, police, fire and building department all together uh as we move forward. This is our first time in a long long time.

Do you have any project updates that you can share with us? Um anything that's exciting that's going to get us salivating up here?

Maybe not, but it it's exciting. We already have building drawings presently for the south side of the prime storage is now in our in our office. And so we'll finalize that drawing and see if that gets built. Um and hopefully once we can approve that, they can put a shovel in the ground even before the winter gets complete here and begin to address that project. Um we were near to the finish of the Moses Roses project. Uh they're looking right now to have us give them a final CO and look if they can get that building open before December 31. Uh that is on the near motion. The sheets is well ahead of the schedule of what we anticipated them to be about probably 3 weeks early of where they're going. We're now right now writing before the state to give us the approval on their underground tanks uh in doing such those kind of process. So that's going well. Uh we have a couple other meetings ahead of the way for the elderly uh division of uh PACE and trying to get them they are going to try to move from 21 units to 28 and uh so we have another meeting scheduled to get the next level of of approval. They had a little bit of a landsc um issue where they didn't have enough rotation for the fire department to get in and out and so they had to do some modification. But hopefully we can uh approve their 28 units and then see if we can get that finalized before the end of this f this this calendar year and they can get ready to plan to build uh in the spring.

Thank you. Quick question in regards to rental inspections. Are those rental inspections based on an annual or or is it based on you've got renters, they move out, property sits empty for a few months, and all of a sudden there's new people in. Should there have been an inspection in between those two families,

we're going to bring to you two things. Um, one, we're going to need some legal support so that we make sure the wording is right. But we want to modify our non occ res res owner occupied property issues. Right now it's a 2-year program. Uh it's designed and I probably less than 2% 3% actually gets done in a two-year program. We have a window that says for four months you can uh do nothing and then you get penalized if you don't get it done. So it really goes to a two and a half year program instead of a two-year program. We'd like to propose that we give them those people who hit the mark and done before the two years is over to grant them a three-year program and and then those who failed to do so invite them to do a one-year program so that we can keep a closer eye on how how unsafe the properties are. So, we're going to put that on the table in front of you pretty quickly so that we can address that issue. The other thing that we do not have, we're borrowing through vacancy uh violations. Uh we have no pre-sale inspection guidelines in our ordinance at all. So a house can be sold and we don't get to see it. They could do all kind of inside modifications. We don't get to see it. Uh because it might have been a present, it might have been a residential home. Uh it got lost in in foreclosure and somebody else bought it through the county. We never saw it. And since we don't have a pre-sale program, we don't get to see what they made as corrections and it gets sold then maybe puts right into another system. So, we'd like to recommend that we have at least some level of pre-sale inspection guidelines uh so that we can be of help to bringing the next generation homeowner to a safe home.

Thank you. Thank you.

I have a question on the vacant rentals. I know that code enforcement can't go in the backyards, correct? So the properties are kept up in the front and no work is done in the back. And I know there's one by me that does that has that issue. And with one of the last storms, one of the dead trees fell and it's still lying there. and it's lying on another neighbor's shed that that neighbor doesn't do anything either in the backyards. Do the neighbors just keep calling? If they do, we get a chance to ask them to let us see. The second guideline that's going to give us accelerated speed going forward now that we're going to put four, five people in a neighborhood. The example is they don't have to worry about having one person be a rental inspector and have 20 inspections a day. Now, we're going to average only a half of your day will be in maybe in a rental inspection. But the guideline now in our training is when you do get into a house as rental and you get to the backyard, you're going to take a few minutes and you're going to look left and right and you're going to find all the violations left and right across the backyards so that we can then come out of the backyards, have those photographs, and then go take care of the blight that is being taken care of. So, we're going to be able to add to that project by ministering a use of the rights to be in someone's backyard, whether it's vacant or it's a rental program. And we're going to use that right in the backyard to look down the street on left and right in the back and start making those violations. Then we can come back out to the front, have the proof and photograph, and then we can write the the violation in the backyard without ever getting in the backyard.

So, that's changing the policy. So, do the neighbors need to keep taking pictures and sending them in?

That would be if they could send it to to our office right away, then we'd be able to have a chance to confirm it. We've done it with a couple people. Example, right now, they did a construction job and they finally caught them. We put a red a stop work order on the table. They came in and said, "Hey, we're putting our driveway and a sidewalk on." However, the code officer at the field took photographs in the backyard of the rental property behind him and found out that they poured a whole they were they were digging out a whole sidewalk down the back of the driveway down behind the garage to the back porch and then put a back porch on and then put a 180 square foot concrete slab dug out in their backyard. And they said, "All we did is put a front porch on and a part of our driveway." And we went, "Try this again. Uh we have proof that you're not telling us the truth. go get this thing right. Give us the right fee. So, we're going to get a chance to be better at making the neighborhood healthy and safe.

Okay. And then, um, hate to beat a dead horse, but, uh, what about the rope lighting on the definition? We're going to cheat a little bit. We've just been talking about that yesterday. Was it yesterday or two days ago? We were just cheating. We're going to we're going to get to another fe another um zoning ordinance that describes blight and in light glare since the wording is locked into two types of of cabling of rope lighting. And they're going to argue, oh, this isn't really rope lighting. This is a different type of lighting. We're going to use the different uh approach just like we are with our vacant properties to get inside them. Since we don't have a pre-sale, we're going to use vacancy to get in. rope lighting is going to be identified by a glare or a me a use of lighting that is inappropriate and unacceptable in our city. So, we'll take a look at that in the very next future as we get ready this fall. We'll take a look at business science and rope lighting and training our staff how to identify it, how to write that letter, and how to shut those lights off.

That would be the Ulinsky rope lighting ordinance. Well, if I could use Kelly and if it didn't have the medium, they could land small planes with all the lights on Kelly. Yes, Mr. Albbright. And then I missed him. I'm sorry. I want to let Mr. Albbright jump in because he wanted Absolutely.

Yeah. I just wanted to address Commissioner Linsk's uh concern about uh backyards. Uh what the city has available right now is if any of the adjacent property owners give permission to go onto their properties so then they can the you code enforcement officer can look over the fence to see what is in that backyard. If there is some type of uh privacy fence and and the code enforcement officer is not able to look over the fence. Uh the city can also pursue um inspection of that rear yard through use of an administrative search warrant. So, if the building department has probable cause, um, they will then put together a packet to our office. We then put it into administrative search warrant form. We peer over at the 38th district court in front of uh, the judge and uh, the code enforcement officer swears to the uh, facts in the search warrant. Uh assuming the court is able to substantiate probable cause, uh the code enforcement officer can then go to that property and present a copy of the search warrant to the owner or occupant and then they can then enter into the backyard.

Good to know. Thank you. So those guidelines are are already in motion. As we get more staff, we get a chance to do more of those. We do the same thing. We're now already working on a few on residential that we haven't seen inside their homes that we have a right and they haven't let us in as rentals. We're going in under search warrants. And then my last question is the Moses Roses sign. I'm assuming that's all in compliance even with all its colors. Yes. I'll check a look and confirm with these two gentlemen. Uh that that is correct. The colorful box. That's all. Anything else? I can't think of anything else. I think we're good here.

All right. Let's move on to the second hearing of the public. You have three minutes to speak. Anybody? Anybody? Anybody? Buler.

Jennifer Nicholas, East Point resident. Um I still kind of question the um setbacks for garages. Um because it it seems like at least in my neighborhood if someone's garage burnt down unless they were able to rebuild it where it was it would you know shifting it away from the fence would put it too close to the house. um you know and that's that's a problem I think and kind of um ownorous right to have to um I don't know you would have to what make the garage smaller or that's again I I foresee problems with that for homeowners that are used to their twocar garage and you know god forbid something happens and then suddenly they have to build a one and a half car garage instead. Um but anyways um I'll talk with you about that at another time I guess. Um and again with the uh public forum on uh October 15th, 7 o'clock here. Um if people are not able to attend the public forum, um comments and opinions can be emailed to Kim Hman who left already at khman eastcity.org. And that's it. Thank you. Gary my East Point resident on uh the garages. What happens if there's not a building by the garage? Um so they really because that's what you were talking about fires of other buildings. So if that building is gone, they could put another one in its spot. uh might be without moving it

because there's nothing around it that would create a problem. Just a thought. Right. Since we have nobody else in the public, we're just going to close the public hearing. Moving on to commissioner comments. Mr. Myers, I have nothing. Mr. Herbiel, I have nothing further. Thank you. Carlton, forgive me, I don't know your last name. Witet Mr. Witet, any comments for from you? No. Mr. Albbright?

Yes. I just wanted to commend uh Mr. Meyers um on the leadership that I've seen in the building department and just the enthusiasm. Um and I haven't seen that in quite some time there. And I'm really really looking forward to working with you um in uh addressing various blight concerns in the city. Excellent. Thank you. That's all. Chair. Thank you, Councilwoman Pashadlac. I just have two quick ones. Um I hope I don't take your thunder, Wanda. Um were you going to mention AC/DC?

Okay, then I won't do it. No, that's okay. Um I'd just like to thank everyone here today for their service on this planning commission. It's very uh um very kind of you to volunteer your time and we appreciate it. That's all. Commissioner Ulinski.

Uh I just do wanted to commend the building department and Mr. Meyers for the properties that have been cleaned up. Um especially that eyesore that's been on 8 Mile which was the old Evergreen. Uh I think when the van finally left I I was shouting in my car on the way to work. I'm like, he did it. Um, so your department, you're doing a wonderful job and we're greatly appreciative of your efforts. Um, it's really great to see. And, um, that's all. Go Tigers. Commissioner Moody.

I just want to say again, same to you, Mr. Mayers. Congratulations what you're doing and we really, really, truly appreciate it. Um the AC/DC commission is having the uh their annual art exhibition on October 17th which is the opening reception and the youth art exhibit on October 18th. But at this moment we have uh a shout out for call for artist and uh they can submit their art up until next Friday, October 10th. So, I just want to make that known if we have any artists listening to get on the uh the website of East Point uh www. eastointmi.gov and submit your artwork and I look forward to everyone joining us on October 17th. It would be a grand occasion and on October 18th for our youth. Other than that, I'm all set. Thank you,

Commissioner Rayford.

Thank you. I would like to reiterate um and encourage people to show up for the um public forum, the public hearing on the 15th. And in addition to uh what the resident has said, I understand that if someone emails their comment, it has to be in before um the day of the hearing. Um, so if you can't make it, write, but please respond to that in one way or another and let your thoughts and opinions known. And I think it's going to be important for all of the city to do that. And I really appreciate it the um focus groups from last week. That was very helpful to me. And I think I'm done. Mr. Sassic,

I also would like to congratulate Mr. Meyers and the building department on the work they're doing. Um, I have definitely seen improvements. Uh, we've had issues for years in the city. And when I first went on parks, I said there was gaps where we didn't the city couldn't do things and you can't correct things overnight. So, you just continue to go steady and slow and stay the course. I really appreciate what you're doing. And I also found the focus groups very informative. And yes, absolutely. Please try to be out on the 7 on the 15th to make your voice heard. That's all I have tonight, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. I apologize if I'm verbose tonight, but Mr. Myers saved me a lot of time so we got some time to spare.

When I came back to Michigan in the summer of 88, I moved in with my great aunt and she would shepherd me around the city, various things. I would go with her and her girlfriends to the Sweden house and I was always introduced as my John. You are my peoples. You are my commission. I am possessive of you. I will defend you all to the hill. And I was beyond proud at the representation we had at the morning breakout groups last week. I know that everybody has a job, family obligations, doctor appointments. I drove back when I should have stayed out on the road because I needed to be at those morning meetings and at least one of the meetings at night. I was just I was overwhelmed with pride in our commission. My people showed up um and it was important to me. Um because this master plan is the single most important document we have outside of our charter. It is the it is the blueprint of the future. We, Commissioner Yulinsky and I were the only ones left that worked on the last master plan. That probably was probably a lot more difficult than it needed to be, but we didn't see anything done with it from this council or a council's prior and it's kind of a slap in the face that nothing was done. So now we have we're moving into the future with a new master plan. I had no city council representation at both of those breakout group meetings

yes or last week and it broke my heart. Not one representative. We had officials from the county. We had officials from the state. And it broke my heart because I felt like this is this is personal for us. I I mean I'm speaking for myself. This is important stuff that we were able to shimmy around schedules and and things like that. So going forward, I am imploring city council to be present, to be active. I can't go through that again because it will rip my heart out again. Um I again I know that we all have lives and jobs and obligations, but you ran for election to represent the city and you need to represent the city. We've got this god-awful nine mile nightmare going on that I have publicly never stated anything. It's a visioning. It it's a it is a reconstruction that completely changes the scope of the vision of the city. When we decided and when we recommended in the last master plan that was completely ignored, when we recommended Nine Mile to become the central business district, the vision was to make 9M pretty streetscapes, nice trash recepticles, brick pavers, lanterns, make people who had a business along 9M be proud and to attract people. That was the vision that never took place. It is a crying shame that that never took place. So, here tonight, I'm going to do something that I have never done before,

and I'm sure I'm going to have hell to pay for it. I am going to publicly come out and state I think that the nine mile concept of a road diet is absolutely ridiculous. Until this point, I have kept my mouth shut. I've not waited into anything. I've kept my mouth shut on the Facebook groups and I will continue not to say anything on Facebook, but I want it on the record right now that the majority of the people in the city of East Point have said no to this this road diet. It needs to stop. We need to stop wasting time and we need to stop wasting money. I hate to end a meeting on that type of note, but what the hell? I've gotten myself in trouble before. What's one more night? May I get a motion to adjourn the meeting?

So moved. I have a motion and support. Secretary, please call the role. Mr. Sassic? Yes. Mrs. Moody? Yes. Mrs. Hall Rayford? Yes. Miss Yulinsky? Yes. Chairman D Hunt? Yes. Good night, Rich. Have a good weekend.