Detroit Planning & Economic Development Committee Meeting - May 14, 2026
Detroit Planning & Economic Development Committee Meeting - May 14, 2026
This meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Standing Committee covered a public hearing for a brownfield redevelopment project, a discussion on secondary street sign policies, and multiple property sales and contracts. The committee voted on several items, sending most to formal session with recommendations for approval.
Consent Calendar
- No consent calendar was listed on the agenda.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Gwendolyn Howard: Called in but did not comment on the project; her hand was raised for another item.
- Legendary Detroiter (caller): Expressed opposition to the project, calling it "BS" and alleging that city officials are corrupt. The chair ruled the remarks out of order for not being specific to the project.
- Carolyn Hughes (calling as "Owner Papa"): Questioned the definition of workforce housing, stated that $982 for a studio is "kind of pricey," and argued that the city needs family-sized units, not more studios and one-bedrooms. She also asked for clarification on utility allowances.
- Marguerite Maddox: Asked about the number of elevators, whether washer/dryers would be side-by-side or stacked, automatic door openers, and ADA parking.
Discussion Items
- 1025 Public Hearing – Brownfield Redevelopment (Gentleman’s Hotel): The project team (developers Jameson, Scott, and others) presented a workforce housing project converting a historic building into mixed-income units. Rents were provided: studio at 60% AMI ($982 inclusive of utilities), one-bedroom at 80% AMI ($1,423), and top-end one-bedroom at $1,802. The development includes geothermal heating/cooling, an elevator in an addition, universal design units, and one-to-one parking for commercial tenants. Councilmember Johnson asked about parking costs and their impact on the brownfield request; the developer stated interior demolition and reconstruction were the primary cost drivers. Councilmember Johnson also noted that the city recently installed parking meters in the area, and the developer expressed concern about ticketing residents.
- 1030 Discussion – Secondary Street Sign Process: Dr. Janice Chapman and Janice Tillman from the Historic Designation Advisory Board presented findings from a study of 16 cities’ honorary street sign programs. Key findings: 10 of 16 cities had no yearly limit; many required signature petitions or community input. Current Detroit process: 18 rollover applicants, no new applications this year, with only 5 selections allowed per year. Staff recommended not sponsoring new applicants for 2026 to reduce the pool. Councilmember Johnson proposed eliminating rollover, allowing one sponsorship per council member, reducing fees to $400, and making living seniors aged 80+ eligible with no sponsorship but still requiring signatures. Council President Pro Tem Young expressed preference for keeping the current system but with more flexibility. Council President Tate supported leveling the playing field by requiring signatures for all applicants, keeping the selection at 5 per year, and reducing rollover from 4 years to 2.
- Unfinished Business / New Business – Property Sales and Contracts: Several property sales and contracts were discussed, including:
- 8.2 – Sale of 16745 Lamphier to MSU Detroit Partnership for Food Learning and Innovation for $50,000 with a restrictive covenant.
- 9.7 – Transfer of jurisdiction and revised purchase price of 13809 Joseph Campau (Alibi Studios) – price reduced by $10,000 due to vandalism.
- Walk-on – Contract amendment for the Grow Detroit Youth Talent Program (GDYT) to extend time and increase funds.
Key Outcomes
- Line Item 6 (Public Hearing): Motion to send to formal session with recommendation to approve – passed unanimously.
- Line Item 7 (Secondary Street Signs): Motion to bring back as a discussion item in three weeks – passed unanimously. Council members reached a general consensus: no new sponsorships for 2026, keep 5 selections per year, require signatures for all applicants, reduce fees to $400, reduce rollover from 4 years to 2, and allow one sponsorship per council member. The Law Department will draft ordinance changes.
- Line Item 8.1 (Nuisance Abatement Policy): Brought back in one week.
- Line Item 8.2: Sent to formal with recommendation to approve.
- Line Item 8.3 (Brightmore DWSD Project): Sent to formal with recommendation to approve.
- Line Item 8.4 (10800 West Chicago): Brought back in three weeks.
- Line Item 8.5 (196 Vinewood): Brought back in one week.
- Line Item 8.6 (3452 Buchanan): Sent to formal with recommendation to approve.
- Line Item 8.7 (1310 & 13116 Kirchhoffville): Brought back in three weeks.
- Line Item 9.1 (Incentive Portal System Contract): Sent to formal with recommendation to approve.
- Line Item 9.2 (Quick Claim Deeds Report): Received and filed.
- Line Item 9.3 (Butzel Family Recreation Center Development): Brought back in three weeks.
- Line Item 9.4 (1755 14th Street): Brought back in one week.
- Line Item 9.5 (8107 Michigan Avenue): Brought back in one week.
- Line Item 9.6 (8386 Lifert Acquisition): Sent to formal with recommendation to approve.
- Line Item 9.7 (13809 Joseph Campau): Sent to formal with recommendation to approve.
- Line Item 9.8 (6209 Lawton Park Transfer): Sent to formal with recommendation to approve.
- Line Item 9.9 (DLBA Development Activities Memo): Referred to legislative policy division, to be brought back in two weeks.
- Walk-on (GDYT Program Contract): Walked onto the agenda and sent to formal with recommendation to approve.
Meeting Transcript
Planning and economic development standing committee meeting. Mr. Clerk, will you please call the roll? Councilmember Latisa Johnson present. Councilmember Gabriel Santiago Romero. Member Santiago Romero did indicate that she would not be present. Clerk will say no. Council President Pro Tem coming on the second. Yeah. Madam Chair, there's a quorum. Thank you. We are back in session. And we shall continue with our 1025 public hearing. And it is now a time for us to ask any questions. Pro Tim, I'm not sure if you have any questions. I will get us started. I appreciate the Universal Design and the Geothermal and the details that were provided relative to the project. I do have a couple of questions, noting that the focus is on workforce housing. Scott, correct, on our lot. It's on our property. That's correct. I still and then the parcel that you own, that is basically the overflow parking. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Further in terms of the pro forma and keeping consistent with sort of the goals and objectives be underneath the Mishta Housing Workforce Brownfield Program. The um seven units that are between 60 and not more than you know 80% AMI. There are no associated parking costs with those units that are going to be charged to the tenants. If I mean correctly answering that question. But the the second, and that that'll, I think, primarily help the commercial tenant um I believe, but it'll also uh have an effect on this. But also um, you know, we we've got uh other buildings uh in the area. We did a seven unit, no parking, uh, and it hasn't been a problem uh at all. Matter of fact, uh quite oddly, it's we have to find the space to put uh everybody's bicycle. Um that that's that's been similar to the issue storing them in the halls. Um but but the last uh point there is the city just recently came in and put parking meters there. It's if if you can Google Earth it right now, you'll see there's nothing down there. And um, you know, uh I know the rest of uh second here because the city again for whatever reason came and put in a bunch of meters. These are all apartment buildings here. I'm looking at them right now. Um, and these are residents uh that were were gonna get ticketed to death. I uh again, Sue Mosey. I I you know raise her every waking moment of the day. Um, that uh enough noise was made that these meters are not active between Canfield and Warren uh because of the uh apartment uh density here and um the city I understand was working on a residential parking permit plan. That was going to be uh the trigger to make these things active. I would similarly move that that meter not be uh you know made active because there's nothing but residents there, there's a handful of uh buildings, and um so that would be something else that that you know parking needs some some looking at in general and mr. Mr. Sorry for the rant. Yeah, yeah. Um I would actually encourage you. I'm not sure if you've had that conversation with anyone.
openpublica.com