Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's 700 p.m. on Wednesday, Thursday, May 1st, 2025, and I'm calling the East Point Planning Commission to order. Please call the role. Mrs. Hall Rayford here. Mr. Stokes here. Stokes. Oh, I'm sorry. I sit here. Miss Yulinski here. Kimley Naylor. Uh, chairman, Vice Chair Sassic here. Next, we have approval of the agenda. Would somebody like to make a motion? So moved. Is there a second? I'll second. Sec. The motion was made and seconded. Please call the role. Mrs. Mr. Hall Rayford, yes. Mr. Stokes, yes. Miss Yulinsky, yes. Vice Chair Sassic, yes. Next, we have the first hearing of the public, and this will be for anything that is not scheduled for a hearing of the public uh in regards to winter sausage and um common citizens. So, you'll get three minutes to speak and there will be a second opportunity at the end of the evening. If there's anybody who'd like to be heard, please go up to the podium and identify yourself. Okay, seeing nobody, I'm going to close the first hearing of the public. And are there any additions, deletions, or Okay. Or amendments to the minutes. Move we accept the minutes as presented. Okay. The motion was made by Ms. Hall Rayford. Is there a second? I'll support. The second was made by Mr. Stokes. Please call the role. Mrs. Hall

Rayford? Yes. Mr. Stokes? Yes. Miss Yulinsky? Yes. Vice Chair Sassic? Yes. Okay. Before we go into the hearing of the public, I would like to ask uh Mr. Meyers and Mr. I'm sorry, I'm going to pronounce your name. That's correct. I would appreciate it if you could in layman's terms explain to the audience and the public that may be listening in tonight why the recommendation is to deny the uh zoning change for winter sausage. Sure. Yes sir. Um so as you know the um the request is to zone the four parcels on Grashet where Winter Sausage is their parking lot uh adjacent on fronting Crescent Wood, the um parking lot just north of their main facility and then a new building that at one point was an apparel store. Um, per the East Point zoning ordinance, there's a set of standards that um, a resoning is essentially a um, a change from one district to another which would allow different uses. Um each zoning district is designated to have certain uses and is designated based on their um where they are in relation to things like uh residential uses and and um other commercial uses where they are in addition to roads how well the infrastructure can serve them. Um this resoning the petition is to change the resoning. Three of them are currently zoned MU3 which is a mixeduse district which allows retail and um residential. The other one the the

parcel that is fronting Crescent Wood is zone MU1 which is a less intense mixeduse district. The request is to um reszone all of them to light industrial which um would allow all of them to be used in the future now and in the future for a a range of industrial uses basically any industrial use that is permitted in the city of East Point. Um, when evaluating a request like this, it is the the the zoning ordinance um and really best practice says that you should consider um how the the requested zone interacts with the plans that are on the books. Um and the zoning ordinance also provides a series of standards that the that the planning commission cons should consider when making its recommendation um to just to think through what what the appropriate action is based on the zoning ordinance as it has been adopted based on the master plan um as it has been adopted. uh there's room to consider whether conditions have evolved since the master plan has passed that might justify a um a resoning. But the uh in in your packets, we put together a review that evaluates this request against um each standard. And the really the first and foremost one is um you have a future land use map in your master plan. that is the primary tool to inform decisions like this. Um when someone when there's a request to change the zoning that is on the books um the future land use map as part of the adopted master plan should provide some guidance. So, um, in your packets, we

we wrote a review about how this, um, the the future land use map in, um, in the adopted master plan designates this site as regional mixed use. Um, so it it is indicating that this land in the future should be used for commercial uses. It's also part of a central district business district. um potential change area and the master plan describes that change area sort of adjacent to to the intersection of 9 mile and Grashet going down Grasset and and North on Grasset as um an area where walkable commercial sort of uses should be encouraged to develop. So on on that standard, if you consider any all of the light industrial uses that might be enabled by the event by by the resoning of this, um in the short term, it would allow Winter Sausage to remain in operation exactly how it is. Um but the reasoning is permanent. So if they um sold off a parcel or or um moved somewhere else, that land would be reszoned without a similar hearing like this and another industrial use could by right be be moved in. Um there's several other standards um this proposal and the and by evidence of the fact that the business has been operating there successfully for a while. um things like compatibility with the street system, uh sufficient public utilities and services. We think that that um that those uses can be met. I think the main concerns are um the idea of an expanded industrial use across all of these parcels, um its proximity to residential uses, and really the the main thing is the incompatibility with the future land use

map. That's um very high level. I'm happy to answer any questions specifically about the individual standards. Do any of the commissioners have any questions for Mr. Beiel? Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Myers. Is there anything you'd like to add to that? You did a wonderful job. All right. Thank you. Then in that case, I will open the first hearing of the public up in regards to Winter Sausage. And again, you will get three minutes. and please identify yourself if you have anything that you'd like to say. So, the first hearing of the public regarding Winter Sausage is now open. Is your I'm sorry. Is her mic on? Sorry for I I have the house the first house off of Grass on Crescent one and that's what I was wondering is how it's going to affect the people on that street if they change it to a light industrial I don't see that much difference mixed use they can use as light industrial but I don't know that we want factory there something like And if they use the they're using the parking lot, I'm not sure where the building it says they want to build on to it. If they build over the parking lot, I don't know where their cars are going to be because that's they're already

parking on the streets when they can't fit into their parking lot. Did you have anything else? No. All right. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that wishes to be heard? Are you okay? Okay, thank you. Sorry about that. I'm Lee Stevens. I'm an architect that's worked with Winter Sausage for a number of years in their buildings and I want to thank you for having us tonight. You know, we were here a year ago and and proposed an expansion to the west. Well, we were all set to build that and ready to go and the property to the north came available. So, uh, Winter Sausage decided to buy that land and go in a little different direction. There a couple things I'd like. First, I want to just talk a little bit about Winter Sausage. Winter Sausage, as you know, has been here since 1950. So, this is 75 years they've been on this property. And they're uh probably before East Point was East Point. The facility is a food processing plant and it's USDA approved, which means they're working with meat and they're processing meat and that's what they process and that's the only thing they process. The USDA inspects their building all the time and all the work inside the building in environmentally controlled spaces. So, it's interior work. It's done in that way. And they have 50 skilled employees

that work with the food. So, they got 50 employees on the site and that not all at once, but all total. And they have this building that they've used for a long time and they would like to stay on this property and keep processing what they're doing for the next generation or two. which is for another long period. Now a year ago when we came we we are MU3 and we have this A classification which means we can stay there and we can expand tonight. I I'll talk I can talk a little more about them but I really want to talk about the zoning. We're really not asking for all of this property to be zoned like this. We don't own the motel. We bought the piece right north of our main building. So if you look at the west line that goes across, we don't want to change the parking zoning at all. That's fine. That's our parking. We own the house directly west of that parking lot. And so we're really not changing that at all. What we're really requesting is the what we'd really like to do, I guess, and really request is we'd like to get the piece of property with the little buildings on there. ends in 16 there. We'd like to get that zone so we can expand that way and that's where we would be able to expand our business. Now, the reason we want to expand our business is all I work in a lot of the food industry myself and what's happened really in the produce and meat and poultry and fish. The more we buy machinery, machinery takes space. So, Basco Pizza is a perfect example. They had building were making pizzas by hand on tables. So they're using a 8ft table making pizza. They moved and worn build a new plant and have all kinds of

machinery. So the machine that makes the pizza now is over 120 ft long. So what happens with machinery? It takes more lot more space really and it's uh and you get a better product because it's handled uniformly. By having that property allowing us to build over there allows us to use more machinery and and have a better facility and a better product. So what we're really asking for tonight is to have that property zoned or or allow us to build with that little that little building was in that parking there built on that property. Definitely not going back and definitely we don't have anything to do with the hotel hotel there that would allow us to expand our building some make it work better for us. Now we we uh know that your future plans and the zoning doesn't really exactly match up to us but we've been here for so long and we have buildings always look good. Our buildings are maintained well. They have a great business going. It's a great location. They'd like to stay in East Point, but they would like to be able to have more manufacturing going on. We are a regional distributor regional. And so we are close to our primary distributor which is Laari and we're also close to Eastern Market and all that by being on Grash and being close to 94 and 696. So, we like the regional idea. We like this the city here. We like what you've done with us always in the past. And we know we're asking for maybe something that doesn't exactly match your master your 2040 plan. We do plan on being here in 2040 though, so uh

we'd like to stay. Let me tell you a little bit about what um we think is the what we'd like to do. The L the uh light industrial zoning is allows us to be here. The M3 zoning with this class A nonconforming allows us to be here. But the problem we have the property we just purchased is not uh has not a class A on it. So I think we have a couple of ideas. One is can we can we zone it L1 like industrial for the life of of a winter sausage not forever for the life of them or can we do something different to allow us to expand to that piece right to the north. We've not taken down the there's a little building there now that's about 26 by 70 ft. We probably we'd want to expand that back connect to our building. So that's really where we are and we just like to kind of solve the situation. So we don't the the advantage of building there as building that addition that you approved is that addition you approved needs to be two stories to really make it work. One story obviously is better for manufacturing. So by going there, we can keep one story and it really works better for us. That's why we kind of put a halt on the other thing. So that's that's kind of where we are with it and that's what we'd like to kind of we'd like to solve it tonight on what's the best way to move and what's the best we can do because we'd like to stay here. Thank you. Anybody have any questions? Thank you. Okay. Thanks.

Oh, okay. Okay. Is there anybody else that wishes to be heard in regards to Winter Sausage? Hi, Jennifer Nicholas, East Point resident. Yeah, it's kind of confusing. That first that top building there, that's the Imperial Motel, the long skinny one. I think they're only talking about the little one, the second one down there is what they're talking about. Um, back in 2019 when the master plan was done, that land use originally was industrial for all of Winter Sausage. And I'm assuming historically it was always an industrial piece of property. Um, the zoning did in June of 2023, made it MU3. In uh November 2nd, 2023, they were approved for class A nonconforming designation to allow them to continue and have the building be eligible for expansion. So, I guess I have a question. Does that mean that they can expand their property to include that small building that they just purchased? is that covered under the original class A non-conforming designation that they already have. And then last year at the July 16th, 2024 city council meeting, uh, city council approved establishing an industrial development district to support Winter Sausage in their expansion project through the approval of an industrial facilities tax exemption from the city and state. Um Ian McCain spoke on this and he stressed how important Winter Sausage is to our community and to residents also spoke in support of Winter Sausage in their expansion. Um, you know, I did read through McKenna's reasons for not changing the zoning, and I know that they're talking

about this central business district with the potential intensity change area to create a walkable commercial area with diverse usages and increased nighttime population. This area is Winter Sausage. There's a car dealership. There's the Imperial Motel which I suppose has some nighttime population going on there across the street on Grashid. It's not an office building. That is Keystone Auto and the gravel parking lot that uh everybody's fighting over. Um and another reason was the proximity to existing residential uses. This does not look like it's going to make any of their facility any closer to residents that are already there now. I don't see how it would be impacting them. Um, you know, it's the same distance now if they're just taking that little building next to it. Um, you know, again, we've done this before. We just did it on 10 mile in Tuscanyany. We went from MU1 to Light Industrial to put a cell phone tower, which is right next to somebody's house. You can actually see on the picture that they had of the property someone's house right there. Um, you know, we we've done this for other things. So, I'm not sure, you know, if changing the zoning isn't the appropriate way to do it, is there some other way that we can get them this building so that they can expand and continue to be in our community? Thank you. Sausage is closed. Do any of the commissioners have any questions in regards to

this? Well, I guess I'll start then. Um, and I don't know if this should be directed to you, Mr. Myers, or Mr. or you, Mr. But um some of the concern I have from reading everything is that yes, I know that there have been some accommodations made in the in the past, but that was in regards to the main building with the light industrial that they're looking to have the zoning changed for the this building they just purchased. That is right next door. It's attached common wall to the motel if I recall right. And the light industrial has a little more restrictions when it comes to its uh proximity to residential areas if I recall right. So I'm plus there's some other things we we won't get into tonight, but some concerns about things that have occurred in the past. My concern is that if we make this ex a light industrial for that one building, it's going to open up a potential can of worms in the future when other buildings are looking to expand. The accommodation, if I understood it correctly, was to expand off the back and up and then it would still be within the MU3 and MU1 for the parking lot. So, is there a clarification that you'd like to offer us? Um, so I think everything that you said is true. Um, the it is that the small building in question does share a party wall, a common wall with the motel use

to the north of it. And um and I guess just by way of clarification, the the application was for to reszone all four parcels to light industrial, which is why we're talking about okay into the future and enabling the uses. Um perhaps there is a reduced approach or or something else focused to the north. Um, but we evaluated the application based on whether or not it's a good idea to reszone all four parcels as as a whole to light industrial. Um, so does that does that answer your question or I think a little bit. I I still have some real concerns about changing the zoning to light industrial. I'm just worried about the long-term effect it could have uh with other businesses deciding to use that as an example of well you did it here why can't you do it for me now and we really have to consider what the scope of the master plan is especially because we're getting ready to go into developing a new master plan for the community and yes I understand the business has been here for over 50 years but Like everything else in the world, you change and adjust and adapt to the new rules and regulations that come about. So what was acceptable 50 years ago certainly is not necessarily acceptable in this day and age. Um, so would somebody like to make a motion make the motion that we deny the reszoning for L1 in regards to this building? Mr. Yeah, Mr. Chair, this is

just the uh the public hearing portion of the meeting. We're not under actual new business where a vote would be made. I'm sorry. We're not under the actual section of new business where a vote would be made. This is just the public hearing section. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, then if there's nothing else, we'll move on to the next agenda item. There's more person. Oh, I'm sorry. Sure. So, I meetings again. So, I think what we're saying is that L1 zoning is really not the way to go. And I and I think we aren't really looking we were never looking at zoning at all L1. That apparently was a misinterpretation. But we're not really looking to say, hey, we want to zone at L1. What we're really asking for, we'd like to use that property to the north with our business. Now, if that if that it's already MU3, that piece of property, if we can add the uh if they can study it, can we add the uh what what is called the non-conforming part to that piece of property so it matches our piece of property then that really solves all we want to do is be able to use that piece of property adjacent to our building. Okay. So I don't know if that's something we can do tonight. I will have to verify with our building department manager and our planner. Oh, go ahead. I was trying to confirm something. I apologize. I did not hear the question. So he was wondering if there's an

option, you know, to keep that as MU3 and then have the the accommodation or whatever carry over to that piece of property also. I think we can study that. I I think um part of the part of the concern about utilizing the building that shares a common wall with a residential use to the north is that that residential use exists and um industrial industrial uses that um share the wall have the potential to impact it. So um I think maybe it's it seems worthy of further discussion for alternatives perhaps. Okay, Mr. M the subject again would really be on what we saw as the application and it was asking for all four and therefore there's the the dimension that goes way beyond simply the purchased building that they purchased without verifying if they could get it to be used prior to purchasing it if they could get it as a class A uh addition. And so again, the health issues or the safety issues is really being that that is a a line divided by only a wall. It's not a a parcel space. It's not a separation space. But the question would we'd have to go back and take a look at seeing what ordinances grant you that right to split the parcel and just give that one piece of building and that land over to a it would still probably have to go back to a light industrial a use not just an a extension and that's the concern that we would have. So, so basically you're saying there's really is no way to make it a mixeduse three

and light industrial A class. Okay. That would be for you to clarify. Well, yeah. Um it's zoned MU3. So, they were they were granted by the commission and council um the class A designation because if if If you were to try to open this use on this site right now, if it didn't already exist, they wouldn't be able to. But since it has been existing, the city said yes, we would like it to continue to exist in this space. Um I I think what I would say is consideration of expansion to the north only and not reszoning everything else. Um the implications if winter sausage were to close is that currently all of that space is currently still zone mixed use. So another industrial use could not come in and start um operating in this building or on this site. Um if if all four parcels were reszoned, it could um the I think I don't know that I'm prepared to recommend a path forward or I know all the implications of expanding to the north only or modifying that class A non-conforming status to allow the use of the parcel to the north. Probably worthy of study, but I don't think we can do it tonight. Lee Stevens. Again, I think because of kind of the confusion, we'd like to withdraw that our request. We'd like to withdraw the quest of reszoning the property. Okay. Um, is that doable? It would be

doable, uh, chair, but it would need to be done during, uh, the new best new business section of the meeting because we're still in the public hearing. Sure. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, that's okay. Then moving on to uh public hearing B, which is receiving comments from this for the special land use for common citizens in the medical marijuana facility on Graashia. Is there anybody that wishes to be heard? Um, thank you, Commissioner Mike Beck. I am the director of government affairs, government and community affairs for common citizen. Um, appreciate your time. Just wanted to kind of brief us to brief you to how we got here and what we're what we're looking you're looking at tonight. Um, we did have a site plan submitted. It was reviewed um and the council in its wisdom did approve a an adult use ordinance, but one of the caveats to that is you had to be open by December 31st. We brought our architect in or I mean our construction team and our architect team in to look at our plan to see if we could get it all done and we really came back to a conclusion that said that would be really difficult with the original one. So, we came in and talked to city staff and had a meeting and said, "Hey, if we can modify it and we can do this a little bit differently. Um, what do you think about that?" And then it was along the lines of, "Can you administratively approve that?" And they said, "No, we need to go back through the regular site plan review process." So, that's why we're here with the site plan review. Um, the big thing is we we believe it's be able to get open by the time now. If we can go with this site plan, uh, it'll rehab an existing building. It will create more of a buffer u than the original

plan actually to the group. I think it's to the south I believe. Um and uh and we aren't changing anything on the community benefits. We still have a pretty robust community benefit plan that uh is committing I believe $100,000 a year for the next five years to do parks or whatever the city needs to do. U and our team is here. I'm here to answer any of your questions. We've got our civil here as well. And we've got our architect here as well. So, if you got any questions for us, that's just wanted to let you know how we got here, why we got here, and we, you know, we're working with the city to try to get in front of you and hopefully um answer all your questions. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to be heard? Hi, Jennifer. president. Okay. So, when you have a special land use, you have to have a public hearing notice published two weeks prior, which was in the Mcome daily on, let's see, April 15th. The special land use approval um in the public hearing notice that it was for a medical marijuana provisioning center. Um the application that they have submitted is for medical and adult use marijuana. I feel that there's a big difference between the two. Not only the medical, you know, you need certain criteria for the medical, but those facilities close at 8:00 PM. Um Brian Utel, who is the attorney for Common Citizen, was one of the attorneys that asked that if it if they were going to be adult use that they be open later than 8:00 PM. And so, city council uh went ahead and uh made adult use facilities open till 1000 pm Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and midnight on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, which is kind of um out of the norm. I

mean, Detroit, Royal Oak, Harper Woods, they all close at 10 p.m. Roseville, Centerline, Hazel Park, Ferndale, they all close at 900 p.m. So, this public hearing notice is for five parcels. 24545 503 509 515 and 525 uh for Gratchet. The application is only for 24525 and the site plan has been changed to remove 24545 from the site plan which is the northernmost parcel which I'm kind of confused because I would think if we were going to remove anything it would be the southernmost parcel which is right next door to a licensed center. Um, you know, they received site plan approval back in March of 2023. Uh, January 11th of 2024, they received a one-year extension. They had until March 2nd of 2025 to submit a new site plan or begin construction. New site plan was not received until April 1 of this year. Um, I'm not even sure that you can really, you know, you the public hearing notice isn't accurate. It's for medical marijuana facility, period. They're asking for medical and adult use. So, um, I would think that either you would need to deny it or maybe table this and put a correct public hearing notice so people are aware of what it is that you are deciding on. Just my thoughts on that. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to be heard? Is there anybody else that wishes to be heard? Sure. And I appreciate the the homework, but

one of I believe we had until May, I think, to to return. We got our site plan in on time per the city. So, that was done. And um and uh the the medical versus adult use city council put an adult use ordinance in and the ordinance actually said the three medical marijuana conditional lences would get adult use if they were open with their medical marijuana. I I believe that's I'm correct with that. So it is started as a medical marijuana. There is no adult use until the medical marijuana facility is built. So it had to meet all the criteria, get done and be open by I believe December 31st to then apply for an adult use marijuana license and that was done by council. So, uh I do think there's some semantics in there, but um I do we did submit site plan in time. Um and uh and it is has to be medical, has to be opened as medical, licensed as a medical and then we can apply for adult use. Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to be heard? Seeing none, the second the hearing of the public for common citizens is closed. New business. Considered the motion um with recommendations from city for city council regarding the reszoning of 220001 and 2211 Grashet winter sausage. Are there any commissioners

that have any comments that they'd like to make? I think we heard a lot of comments during the uh public hearing public hearing but um I I just say my thoughts are I know we did the um the modification with the naga for me a and I'm not thinking we are complying with a one with the fact of the joining wall so um I would be in compliance to think that it would be denied as was recommend recommend it. However, we did get the request that they may, you know, resend it. So, we'll just have to wait and see. Right. Anybody else offer have anything to offer? I was going to say um if we're being asked to reconsider because Winter Sausage wants to withdraw the request. I'm not sure if a motion to deny. Right. Right. That's what I would say, Mr. Albert. Mr. Chair, if if the petitioner still is indicating to this body that it wishes to with uh to withdraw its uh application, uh somebody on the commission could simply make a motion to uh grant the request by the the uh petitioner to withdraw the petition. Okay. Thank you. Then I'll make that motion. Okay. So, the motion to grant the rescending of the petition, the um plan from the petitioner has been made by Mrs. Mary Hall Rayford. Is there a second? Second. I'm sorry. Oh, and that Commissioner Moody. Would the I'm sorry, Commissioner Naylor. Naylor, would the SEC would the secretary please call the

role? Mrs. Hall Rafford. Yes. Mr. Stokes. Yes. Miss Naylor. Yes. Minsky. Yes. Vice Chair Sassic. Yes. Okay. Moving on to new business B. consideration for uh the mo a motion with regards to the um recommendations of the city to city council regarding the uh medical marijuana recreational marijuana facility at 22 I'm sorry two uh I had the address here. Oh, here we go. 24525 Gratchet Avenue, Common Citizens. Um, I know that the recommendation was to [Music] approve, but I I have some real concerns and I'm really not comfortable tonight making a decision because first of all, I haven't been here from the get-go, but I understand that an original site plan was submitted. It went before the the steering committee for scoring and all of the applicants were scored and this was one of them. And now here we are basically almost two and a half years later changing that site plan and the other two facilities I believe have been moving forward. and I'm just concerned about the backlash.

Would it be pro appropriate for us to request a special meeting to discuss this further so that we can look more heavily into what the best way to go is the planning commission could schedule a special meeting. So this this this agenda item would be tabled and a special meeting uh sometime in the future would be would be scheduled to then accommodate that tableabling request. That's that's one option. Uh did the uh chair did the commission want to hear from the uh city planner regarding the uh the application first before making sure further decisions? Sure. Okay. Um the the applicant gave a uh gave an overview of what they're doing. I have the the new site plan that they submitted. Um, as was mentioned in public comment, it is true that the original application uh considered the redevelopment of the entire block that's shown on that um on that site plan. This is a landscape plan from the submission. But um what is different three years ago what was approved was a redevelopment of the entire block with I believe a new building, the construction of a new building. What is now proposed is to renovate the former Joe's Music Building, uh, leave the former car dealership on the north side in place and redevelop the the southern portion of the site um by removing the existing buildings south of Joe's Music and uh redeveloping those into parking and then similar to the original submission, redeveloping the um the uh rear parking lot on Bell Avenue. Um, from a site plan perspective, there are minor inconsist

inconsistencies that the that we put in your in your um packet and that the engineer also pointed out uh the applicant did send us a response. I think from the site plan perspective, those things can be worked through administratively, but I I do think it's appropriate to consider that the original special land use um approval was based on a larger project, a $700 million project. Um I think was the number that redeveloped the entire block. Um no. Okay. Okay. Okay, that was in the works. Um, regardless of the number, just just pointing out that it um this consideration is for not the same projects for the smaller uh redevelopment. I guess my concern still is what's going to happen to the vacant auto sales building then? We're going to have an empty building sitting on that stretch of the of this the block. I I believe it's it's been removed from this application entirely. So, no change, but the license was granted on a plan that said the whole block was going to be redeveloped. That's my understanding. Yes. And I have some I have some real concerns about the fact that if we grant this and we turn around and say, "Well, here we are three years into it, two and a half years into it, and now all of a sudden we're going to change the parameter for you." What does that leave the city holding when the other two lenses that have been

striving to meet the deadline? Mr. Albbright, is there a chance that they could turn around and possibly try to sue the city? Unfortunately, there's always a possibility that someone can sue the city. Um there is pending litigation involving the city's adult use marijuana ordinance. It was filed shortly after the city council u made a motion to pass the ordinance. Uh not too long afterward um a third party not affiliated with uh the existing medical marijuana permit holders uh file litigation in the Mcome County Circuit Court. That case is currently pending in front of Judge Bernett. Uh along with the uh complaint that was uh filed, the plaintiff also filed a motion for a temporary injunction or restraining order. Basically saying that uh while that litigation is pending, the city is not to take any steps with uh uh proceeding with uh implementation of its uh adult use marijuana ordinance. That hearing date, I believe, is scheduled for Monday, May 19th. Also, in the meantime, at least one party has joined the plaintiff as an intervening plaintiff, and I believe two, possibly all three of the existing medical marijuana permit holders have intervened as defendants in the case. Uh their position, of course, is that the ordinance is valid. It is constitutional and should be continually continue to be imple implemented. Uh but in the meantime uh city administration is not uh accepting any applications. In fact, city administration hasn't even taken the step to create any applications given this pending litigation because right now we just don't know what is going to happen with it. And so also that also calls into

question. I know I've had several people call me what happens with the the December 31st deadline that the council set with the existing uh medical marijuana permit holders. No one knows just because of this pending litigation. Uh, of course, we believe that the ordinance uh is constitutionally sound. Uh, it went through many many rewrites and uh many many uh hours being considered by the city council. So again, we believe it is lawful. Uh but again, it's in the hands of the circuit court. Uh there's also the issue of uh if the city is successful and I believe they will be successful in defending the litig litigation. I've already already been told by at least one party possibly affiliated with the plaintiff that they have every intention of filing an appeal of that circuit court decision and if they're not successful in the court of appeals they will um apply for leave with the Michigan Supreme Court. So again unfortunately this could be a very very drawn out process uh awaiting judicial decisions. Okay. So attorney Albbright let me make sure I understand this. So basically you're saying we can't do anything. You could because what the applicants are asking to proceed under is their existing medical marijuana uh licensing or permit. Uh that's not an issue. There's been no challenges to the city's medical marijuana uh ordinance. It's just uh it involves the adult use ordinance. Well, that was going to be another question because if the application is saying medical, you know, how do we get from medical to adult use, I would feel more comfortable if the application was at least um conforming instead of one a medical thing because that's confusing all by itself. Does the applicant want to

respond to that concern? Take the mic, please. Well, I mean I the application in in reality is only for medical because the way the and the attorney will have to correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the way the only way we can get adult use per the ordinance, which we have intervened on behalf to work with the city, in defending it. Um the only way that we could become adult use is if we were open as medical. So that you know the site plan review is for medical and that's with the conditional lensure when on December if by December 31st we're all open and I know the other guys are working. We anticipate being open first with this site plan quite frankly. Um but the is medical because there is no adult use unless we open with this site plan as medical. So you know the semantics of it we are designing it to be both because we believe it will get open in time and then apply to the city once we are open medically and then the council will review that application I believe and grant us the medical that's what the adult use ordinance says. U but it really is a medical site plan review because that's the only that we have available to us at this point. We can't even no one none of the three of us can be adult use without opening with medical lensure. So all of our site plans are medical and that that is a correct statement. So my my concern then to you is you've known since November of 2022

actually that you were receiving uh one of the medical marijuana licenses and you're saying now that if we don't agree to the revised site plan, you feel there's no way you're going to be able to open by December 31st. Am I am I correct in assuming that we feel it'll be awfully difficult. So we worked with our construction team and our architect team and we developed a different plan. We know that that building will still be there and it'll be available. I think with with our development that building will become very valuable to someone for another business whatever that business will be because our if you looked at the plans our our buildings across the state are are pretty well known for how nice they look. But we also think it's the rehab of the other building and this keep in mind this stuff our thought process was this even before tariffs. So we you know any of us that are looking to build right now we don't know how steel's going to get here and all those things. So it's a it's a rough time to try to do development of any sort in any community. my friends across the state that that work in municipal development, they're saying it's just a lot of things are on hold right now because people just don't know how things are going to work, right? Um so we do think it's a it's a great plan. It's a it's a it's a tweak to it. It's really we consider it more of a modification. We're not changing our community benefits. Again, the the the packet that we sent in contributing into the city that's with application isn't going to change. Um we we think it's going to be a wonderful uh project. We actually added buffer and landscaping to the south. Um that wasn't in the original site plan.

Um so we are really trying to aesthetically move forward. I don't believe I think the attorney attorney Albright said that anybody can sue for anything. I can't imagine anybody from the other two folks are are going to have any kind of complaints. It's just about the process. So, um, yes, but to your point all the way back to the question, sorry about that. I was rambling, but it is a medical site plan because that's all we can have right now. Correct, Attorney Albreight? That's correct. Okay. So, excuse me, sir. Yes. Is this still what the building is going to look like? And do you have possession of all the property? We have the property under contract to close once we move forward. So we've been paying we've been paying carrying fees on all the properties. Correct. Including the auto sales building. Including the auto sales place to a substantial amount. Yes. This is just this is just a a site plan that our team came together and said we want to get going. We want to move fast and want to get open in time and meet all the criteria. Um, you know, one of the people we've heard quite a bit about, you know, medical, we've had a lot of time. I can tell you the medical market right now in Michigan is 0.2% of the sales of the entire market. So the adult use market is 99 8% of sales. So there is no one building just a purely medical. Um so it's it's it's a difficult time in the in the market. One of the things we thought that we can get moving quicker even with the down market. We can keep our community benefits up. This is just we're excited. We want to come here.

Can't wait to get here. This was just a plan that we thought worked for everyone. So is this rendering still accurate? That that rendering on the new application is a new rendering that is still accurate to what it's going to look like intent. We do have flat on 2D elevations. Um that is a new rendering that actually is for the renovation of building. Okay. So it hasn't changed all that much. We did not change the look. We wanted to keep that with the same same look and everything as we had before. Yes. That was the intent. It's the branding of the common citizens. So, we wanted to keep the brand. Okay. So, I don't disagree with Vice Chair Sass again that you were approved for medical and yeah, I get the timing and you could have avoided all these terrors had you started on time. I also have a hard time with that. Mr. Vice Chair, if I may. I was just going to say, Mr. Myers, we heard from our our city planner. I would definitely like to hear from our building manager. Let me see if I can clear up some of the the conversation from my perspective as the building official and the developer of this these projects that we're working on. Um, I think your concerns rise in the fact that they have changed the site plan significantly from what they won in a a an elective of multiple businesses trying to get a a a seat in the in the city to run a business. Uh, and in doing so, they took it on what they presented previously almost two years ago. And that plan is now being asked to be changed. And your concerns would be how does that really fit? If this was this plan in motion two years ago, would they

have won the point of vote election to be one of the top three players? And now we're this late in the game and we're being asked this company is being is asking can we remodify the entire layout design instead of do what we said we'd do with the entire block. What's happening on reverse is now that it's in work of building each of the other organizations that are building are being held to the letter to what was requested of by their plans to be approved as a marijuana facility by the building department. And so I have not granted them any leeway from where they were supposed to demolish something originally and now they still must. And so I think your concern might have something to do with would this still be voted as the third chair or one of the top three chair uh off um corporations with this change of design, layout and reuse of the land compared to what they gave and offered and then were approved an extension a year ago to hold the same position. So I think the real issue isn't all the beautiful modifications. It's not even violating the zoning code of how he had to plan review it. It has to deal with we've now redesigned the entire intent of what we were putting on the ground and when the people who were making the voting commission were looking and deciding what was going to change in our city on that block and now that's changing and that's what I think you have to consider how far that would change. So, if you wanted to table this conversation to deep dive deeper into what would the other people that made this vote and how close were those votes and how much change of a numbers would this be if they said we're not taking that building down anymore. We're going to keep it and Max might even give it

back to the owner and do something with it later. I think that's your subject of of of of discussion as the planning commission more than beautiful designs well laid out meets our zoning code but a change from what they got their voting rights to be in the in this game in the first place two years ago one year ago and that's why they're at the table and that's what you have to consider what does that do in changing this layout from what they actually got the votes to be in the play in the game in the first place. Thank you very much. which I appreciate that. Does anybody else have any comments or or questions? I um have a question that was initially asked. What happens to the building that's no longer included and I know you said the community benefits stay the same, but now we have the beautifification less the one structure that um was part of the site plan originally. So, I think a bigger question to me would be what happens to that structure now that it's going to be abandoned if this site plan is approved. Um, whether or not your approval was based on that, I'm not certain. Um, in the top three selection, but I think the bigger picture for our city would be what happens to that building with the beautifification happening next to it. Um, and we have a community benefit packet in place. what could be used on that structure so it's not an isore after we were expecting some beautifification. Thank you. So it would not be our intent to close on that parcel at this point. We would just lose the money that we've paid for that owner. So that owner would still have that that property. I think we've paid some carrying costs. It's a lot. It's it's over half million dollars so far on that property.

So that's that's where we would be. It would not we would not close on that parcel. Okay. We would close on all the others and continue. So with that um chair I my my decision would be I think we move forward. Yes. There's a massive uh late hour change in the plans. Um I don't know what all the building costs you've reviewed. I'm sure that's contributed as well as uh materials you may get access to between now and the deadline because you're closer. I see some of the other projects are just starting. It seems that everyone's kind of at the end uh just getting started toward the deadline. Um but um I think um what you're rendering as what you will do uh is similar to the beginning and I think um it still would be of value to the city of East Point in that location. That's my We we agree. My biggest concern right now and I I really do feel we need to table this. We I would personally like to table this have a special meeting and at that special meeting I would really appreciate it if we could ask the member any of the members of the steering committee that you know granted these scorings to be present to just run this by them because we're talking apples and oranges here. What they approved is not what we're receiving. And we've got two other licences that are live living up to the letter of their commitment. So Mr. Albreight, would it be appropriate for me to make a motion to table? Chair, you could make a motion to table. I would if that's going to happen though, I would uh suggest that it be for a date certain as opposed to just put it out there indefinitely. So, if there's going to be a motion to table, it needs to be if if the maker of the motion is going to table it for a special meeting, then the that that motion should be two-part. It should be

to schedule a special meeting and then table this agenda item to that special meeting. Okay. So I will make I would like to make a motion to table this decision right now and then we will schedule a special meeting where everybody can attend and at that time also ask the scoring committee to be present. Vice chair, is that for the special land use or the site plan? Um it's actually going to wind up being both. Is it? I just think we need everything on the record. Mr. Vice Chair, I I just think you need to you uh make two motions for each agenda item. They could be identical. You should you should m chair, you should set a date for the special meeting. Okay. So, everyone can check their calendars. Like I said, it's a two-part. Sure. And then once we have that date then uh motion to table this agenda item to that. Okay. What do we all have? I think we need probably two weeks. I'm looking day or even it would be it would be the evening and I'm kind of looking at the week if it works for you guys. I'm looking at the week of um either the week of the 12th through the 15th or the 19th through the 22nd. Would you want to keep it consistent with Thursday then? Um that would probably work if it works

for everybody else. The the the 15th I don't know is are there any planning comm or ZBA is there ZBA meeting that on the 15th? Yeah, planning commission is always the first Thursday of the month in East Point and then the the third Thursday is always a ZBA meeting if there is going to be one if there's agenda items to be uh discussed. So how about the 22nd? There is one. Okay. There is a ZVA agenda for that Thursday on the 15th. Yes. Okay. So, does the 22nd work? It'd be open. [Music] 22 work for me. I was just looking, you know, for that entire week. Okay. I can meet the 22nd. Okay. Then I would like to make a motion that we schedule a special meeting in regards to the site plan and special land use for common citizens for uh 700 p.m. on May 22nd. Is there a second? I'll second that. Okay. Motion was made and seconded. Secretary, please call the role. Vice Chair Sassic. Yes. Mr. Stokes. Yes. Miss Mrs. Hall Raford. Yes. Miss Naylor. Yes. Miss Gillinsky. Yes. All right. And now we're going to have a motion to table a decision on tonight's discussion of the special land use and site plan. Would somebody like to make that motion or I can make it. And if we could just

say this is regarding uh under um uh new business uh it's going to be uh six uh sub um B and uh C. Okay. So, and this is in regards to six sub B and C D. I'm sorry. C and D. B. B and C. I had it. I did have it right. The first you did. So, we want another motion, right? Yeah. Okay. Motion to table uh under new business section A, B, and C. U we'd like to table that to a special meeting the 22nd. Oh yeah. That's for the 22nd. Let's be just tableing it. Is there a second? Second. Motion was made by and seconded. Please call the role. Miss Naylor. Yes. Mrs. Hall Raford. Yes. Mr. Stokes. Yes. M. Yinsky. Yes. Vice Chair Sessic. Yes. Okay. D. the 2025 master plan project. We met this afternoon um with the company that was hired and um that is officially uh been our starting point today. Uh the first series of informations will be gathering to create a list of stakeholders uh subdivision uh subcommittees from um multiple businesses, plans, citizens as well as a planning commission. Those things will be done in the next uh several weeks as we look at then having by monthly we'll have a meeting every

two weeks with the administration and where the team is going. uh and the really the first three to four months is impacting all the data information and gathering. It's all the surveying of different groups the stakeholders that we think we need to the population that we need to and then they can begin to grow from there. So the first launch is has started today um on May one and we'll begin to meet uh and organize the strategy starting with stakeholders starting with um people to put in subcommittees um departments and groups for surveying. They'll be beginning to evaluate what types of f surveys and where is the best way to present them, what is the best medium to present them, and how frequently do they need to present them. And that'll gather in the next couple months um statistics that they can begin to evaluate, process, and begin to to build a a program for the next five-year master plan. Maybe ask to the um company what we have contracted to work with for engagement. Pardon me. What company have we engaged to work with? Are you able to share um for community engagement? I don't know what the letters stand for. I just want to make sure I got them correct. TPMP and they are exciting organization. I we think at this point they have multiple members of staff working. Uh they'll put foot feet on the ground as often as they need. Uh they have two major um senior players that will work on two different dimensions. One obviously is the economic master plan, the economic development program in businesses and strategies and then they have a division that they'll be developing and creating and evaluating for um residential development as well.

Any other questions? Anybody else have any questions for Mr. Mayers? It's going to be a tough endeavor, but a good one. Anytime you get the chance to be a part of the city when they're ready to dream for the future and make a vision that can change not only our lives but strengthen the lives of the people that come after us. It should always be exciting to people. When you get the chance to plant something so solid in the ground that it changes and supports the lives 10 to 15 years from now, that should just make your life worth living. Thank you. Yeah, I agree. All right. Is there anything else, Mr. Myers? Not on that topic. Nope. All right. Thank you. Um, moving on to the building department update. Oh, that must be me. I knew there was something else. Uh, we have a number of things. Um, please understand we're I know a lot of citizens are frustrated with our building department at the moment. We're still understaffed um slightly, okay, a lot, but uh we're working on that uh aggressively. Um the sheets project is well underway. Um they're in the process of of making sure of their building and clearing that out and and structuring a demolition. their building plans have been approved by all departments. Uh so as they get the demolition process moving, uh that will be well underway um this spring and summer. Um we have cleared the path from the difficulties

we were struggling with with the prime storage and we are reasonably close to a site plan review. Is that correct? Um I think we're we're through the site plan. So we have a schedule for them. We're working on the schedule. So right now that you'll see the second phase of the site plan uh for that property on the south side of Stevens which has been sitting this way for number of years. Uh we've been pushing the buttons as hard as we can and we think we'll be bringing that to you folks in the next month or two and um beginning to have that building and that structure uh be underway. So we're excited about seeing that. There is a old business that you haven't seen for a while, but we've finally been charmering through it. There's a gas a car wash that was approved over a year ago in this building department in the planning that has been now cleared. I think we have have cleaned all their legal problems up. We've cleaned all their drawing issues up and hopefully we will see a a building permit established to put that on on 10 mile in the next 30 days or so. Um we'll see what that how fast they actually move. Um both of the other marijuana facilities are in their growing. The one on South uh Gratchet is um submitted. They have to find a couple pieces of paper for me, but they've submitted their demo work, but it's not ready until I see all the paperwork that they need to submit. Um, the one that's on 8 Mile is well underway. Um, they were going to make some adjustments, but we required them to hold true to what they said. And so, the bread basket is now no longer there. And they have one more building to remove. and they're probably 75 80% of the way done on the renovations on the inside of that

building. So, they're they're well established and getting their timelines underway. Um, other than that, we're continuing to work on our developing uh programming with our um vacant lots in our commercial buildings, trying to find out how we can create a cleaner record system and give you a better addendum of how many of our properties really are without businesses in them and how we can manage them going forward. So, there's some updates that we're really doing. If there's any questions for me, any particular topics, I'd be glad to address them as you ask them. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Myers? Thank you very much. You're welcome. Next, we will go we will open the second hearing of the public. At this time, the second hearing of the public is open. You'll I'm sorry. What? Yeah. No, I'm sorry. So, the second hearing of the public is open. You'll get three minutes. Anybody wish to be heard? Hi, Jennifer Nicholas, East Point resident. Um, just a couple of things. I hope you are able to figure something out for Winter Sausage. That is one of the businesses in this community that are beloved. And for some reason, it seems like the last couple years or so, are beloved businesses like Winter Sausage, East Detroit Bakery, Deron's Hardware, um have been impacted by some of the changes that the city is trying to do, whether it's um rerouting traffic away from their businesses or um messing with their parking or, you know, in this instance

um not facilitating their expansion. Um, I think it's important that we support our existing businesses as much as we can. Um, on the uh special meeting for the marijuana facility, is there going to be a notice of public hearing published on that? And if so, will it have the correct addresses in it? My issue with it is, you know, if you're putting something out for the public, which I assume is sort of kind of a legal document advising people of what is being discussed here, it's not helpful if you have an incorrect address included in it. you know, the the notice that was published clearly had five parcels and, you know, come to find out that um five par parcels for a special land use and come to find out they don't even want that fifth building. So, why would you be debating on a special land use? And why would you know, you be telling the public that you're having discussion on a special land use for a building that they no longer want? Um, other than that, looking forward to the master plan. Um hopefully uh we'll get some things um put together um a little more cohesively. And again, I thank all of you for all that you do. It's a lot of work here with the planning commission and I really respect the effort that you all put into it for our city and you too. Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to be heard? Is there anybody else that wishes to be heard? Seeing none, second hearing of the public is closed. Vice Chair. Yes. If I may speak one more time. Yes, you may. Changing of the season and since this is recorded and noted, maybe people are watching it. Um,

we have a grass issue that we begin to process. that'll start on Monday where we've changed some of the policies uh last fall. But at this point, uh the building department will be responsible for identifying uh grass that is too tall and needs to be maintained. Uh and then once that timeline of 48 hours has been given to each of those parcels, uh then we'll uh request a third party company to come in and cut if it's not been in compliance on that in reverse of what has been done in the last several years. That will hopefully begin to start uh next week and to see if we can get our team ready to go uh in addressing those subjects. So that's a new beginning for this this summer. We also have adjust uh modified and amended some of our rodent issues. And so my team is is prepared now to begin to do some of the preliminary prevention programming pieces uh to help uh maybe eliminate some of that as we get into the summer. That'll also begin on Monday. Uh, so those are some of the the in-house day-to-day routines that maybe don't hit your fan uh and played every day, but they're a part of uh helping us clean and straighten up uh the city going forward. I have a question for that. Go ahead. Just because it's all over. Are you still Ohio fan? Yes. All right, then you can ask. I will never stop being an Ohio State fan. Well, just want to make sure. Go ahead. Any question. Um, is the no mo may are we doing any exceptions? I don't even know what you said. Okay, that's what I thought too. I didn't say anything. I don't assume there's any exceptions. The the the rule that we're training the team to develop in their skills is consistency is the best

powerful approach you have to making everybody equally treated fair. It's a big city with in the sense of population we have, but I don't know of the no may mo may whatever mo. It's not in my knowledge. My guy was out last night and got my front and backyard for me. So, I'm a happy camper. All right, moving along. That out there in case, you know, all these people with it all over the news and I appreciate that. Uh yeah, that's just lazy people. I'm sorry. Um commissioners comments. We will start with Mr. Stokes. I have none. Good to see you all. Miss Naylor. Happy summertime. Just around the corner. Started getting warmer, which is good. We can get out and enjoy ourselves. But no other comments. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Hall Reefford. Um, thank you. I'm really appreciative of that clarification between the medical and adult use because it was confusing me as I was reading the information. It's like I didn't quite understand. So, I really appreciate that. Um, being new is not necessarily an excuse, but I try to make sure I understand what's going on before I take a vote on it. So, thanks for that and hope everyone has a good evening. Stay dry. Miss Yulinski. Oh, I just want to commend uh the building department and everyone involved with Auto Clinic. I have never seen it so empty. It's a beautiful site. Thank you for not giving up on that. I that had to be a battle. And again, I I just want to say we're

not hard to work with businesses, but businesses need to work with us. But yeah, it looks wonderful. Thank you for that very much. And thank you for all you guys do, Councilwoman Pac. I don't have anything today. Thank you. I'm sorry. I don't I don't Okay. Thank you, Mr. Albert. No comments. All right. Thank you. I would like to thank everybody for putting up with me tonight. Um, I have in my lifetime and career chaired a lot of meetings, but this is like the most extensive type of meeting I have ever had to um chair. And while I'm comfortable most times, this was a learning experience. I appreciate all of you and I really look forward to working with you in regards to a master plan because I we all care about this city and we really want to see it moving in the right direction. So that's all I have tonight. Thank you everybody. I was going to ask you if you sometime ask the um asked our if they wanted to have any comments Mr. Herbiel. Yes. Um, I'll just say it's nice to meet you all. I'm looking forward to working with you. Um, I felt like I jumped in in the middle, but um, I'm catching up. You're not alone. M. Hall Rafford said you're not alone and I'll second that. But, but now that you bring that up, I do have a request and we let you slide or I'll let you slide on this one, but I didn't get my packet until Monday. Yes. Well, yes, that was a miscommunication on my part about who was actually emailing the packets, but understood. Won't happen again.

And at this point, I would accept a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Would the secretary please call the role? Mrs. Hull Rafford? Yes. Miss Naylor? Yes. Mr. Stokes. Yes. Miss Yulinsky. Yes. Vice Chair Sassic. Yes. We are adjourned at 8:25. Thank you.