I am not seeing a copy of that letter.
So, counsel, could you make sure as soon as we get off this, you send a copy of that letter over again?
Yes, I will. Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I do not see any hands raised, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Hello, Amy, vote for the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the RSA-5 single-family residential zoning application.
The proposed use to family residential
is consistent with documented prior use
and existing unique physical conditions of the property.
Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends
that the Board grant the requested variance
for two-family residential.
Thank you. MI 2024, 000258-5334 Pine Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
So number 14, MI 2024-000-316-1300-202 South 18th Street.
David Orphanides is the attorney.
There is a letter of support from Point Breeze Community Development Coalition.
Vote was 14 to 3.
Mr. Orphanides.
We'll be rejoining other panelists.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, counsel.
Good morning, counsel. Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Could you please state your name and spell for the court?
Certainly. My name is David Orphanides. The last name is spelled O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Do, sir.
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Certainly. My client is Brotherly Loaf, L-L-C. So that's B-R-O-T-H-E-R-L-Y, Loaf, L-O-A-F.
llc and they are the owner of the property our vice chair has a few questions for you certainly
good morning counsel do you agree to wait the reading of the refuse or stipulate to its accuracy
uh I do not stipulate to the accuracy of the refusal no understood I waived the reading of
it though understood uh have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing uh yes everything we uh updated with
interior photos i think it was yesterday or the day before okay thank you council please proceed
and share your screen certainly i'm actually i don't know what's going on right i have to shut
this shut down my uh adobe real quickly because it's for some reason it's it's uh doing something
Oh, let me just give me one second.
Second.
there you go all right thank you very much i wasn't sure what that is about okay um subject
property is 1300 to 02 uh south 18th street uh it is a double wide property you can see a photo
here taken from the corner of 18th and wharton uh 18th obviously running north and south and
wharton running east and west uh as you can see um from the mural on the side of the wall on the
south 18th street um the property uh it looks like a hamburger or a head coming uh there um
The property was zoned for a takeout restaurant in 2013 with the single-family dwelling apartment above.
The lot is 2,764 square feet in size.
It's very large.
It's a double-wide lot.
What's interesting is that it is similar to properties that we have on the opposite corner.
So we're here on the southwest corner.
CMX1 zone property. You have an RSA5 property directly across the street, which is a double
wide. You have a much larger former church property across South 18th on the southwest
corner, and then a large church property behind us to the west on the other side of the alley.
I actually handled variances for both the properties on the northwest corner and on the
southeast corner. On the southwest corner, similar double-wide lot, similar proximate size,
2,176 square feet. So for this property, which is 1254 to 56 south 18th, I secured a variance for
four dwelling units and commercial space on the ground floor. On the former church property here
on the southeast corner, I secured a variance for 10 dwelling units, obviously zoned RSA5.
Another attorney came back with a subsequent owner and secured a variance for 14 units.
And then again, the property, large property to the west of us is a church that has zoning
approval for a daycare. So we have examples surrounding us of variances having been granted
on the other two corners for more dwelling units than were permitted. And one of the refusals that
we have here is that we are applying for three dwelling units to take that very extremely large,
too large apartment above the takeout restaurant and to convert that into three apartments,
three dwelling units. Each one will be one bedroom. So in reality, it's fewer, the same
number of bedrooms, I should say, not fewer, same number of bedrooms are permitted as a matter of
right with the existing single family if all the occupants are unrelated. If the lot were to be
If the lot were to be subdivided into two separate lots, which would be an excessive cost, which isn't commercially feasible in this situation, you could have two units with six bedrooms.
subdivided into two separate lots, which would be an accessible.
So the density that we're proposing is reasonable and fairly low, particularly given what the surrounding properties are being utilized as and have been approved by variance for.
I may mention that I don't agree to the,
don't stipulate to the accuracy of the refusal.
There is a refusal aside from the refusal
for the number of dwelling units above,
because again, I'm gonna jump back to that.
Because under the zoning code,
and I provided all the relevant provisions
of the zoning code at tab three of my exhibit book,
CMX one I called zoning tofu.
From a residential standpoint,
it takes on the flavor
of the abutting residential properties.
And because of residential properties that have zoned properties that have but our property or RSA 5, only a single family dwelling is permitted at the property, regardless of the size of the property, which, again, here we have a very large double wide, almost 3,000 square foot lot.
But in terms of the refusal under 14305, 14305 has to do with non-conforming uses. And a non-conforming use, as I believe you were aware, is it could be a use, it could be a structure, it could be a lot, it could be parking.
But in this case, let's say we're talking about use. The use was either established before the adoption of zoning or they were legal when established, but it become non-conforming due to later zoning amendments.
I've had some interaction with this particular zoning plan examiner on this case and other ones regarding this provision of the zoning code.
And because this use of the takeout restaurant was granted by variance, and you can see here, like I mentioned back in 2013, you can see there's calendar number 17429.
2009, the data decision is 2513, that there was an approval for a takeout restaurant at
the ground floor, the code states that a nonconformity that would be permitted by the zoning
code but has been authorized through a variance or other action of the zoning board, whether
it has been authorized by court order, is not a nonconformity.
And the reason that's important is because under the zoning code, nonconformities can
be increased up to 10% of the original floor area. And we are increasing the floor area of the
takeout restaurant use. If you look back at the photo, and I'll show you other ones back here,
this area at one point was a garage and the takeout restaurant didn't extend into that area.
And you can see from our floor plans that I've provided at tab nine, that part of the arrest front will be in that area.
Now, again, that refusal would apply if this was a nonconforming use, but by the zoning code's definition, it is not a nonconforming use.
It's been granted by a variant, so it's not nonconforming.
And based upon my current conversations with this examiner and L&I, including the law department, attorneys who represent L&I, basically, if a variance is granted unless there's a restriction or a limitation on that use in either the zoning permit or the zoning board's decision, basically, that use could take place any place on the property, which I think is an interesting interpretation.
But here you can see that there's no restriction in the notice of decision from the zoning board regarding the takeout restaurant use.
With that being said, we do have the letter of support from Point Breeze Community Development Corporation.
We did send out a 14303 notice after PBCDC was designated as a coordinating RCO.
the list of addresses that we pulled from the planning commission link copy of our 14303 notice
is included here at tab 15c and we have the certificate of mailing and I was the one who
conducted the the meeting the virtual remote meeting I included a copy of the deed at tab 11
showing my my client brotherly loaf LLC is the owner of the property my clients just recently
purchased the property. So we've provided the tax center showing zero real estate taxes owed as well
as the HUD form, the closing form showing that all taxes were paid at closing. Here's the posting
photos on both facades of the property. And then again, back to the floor plans, just real quickly
to go over those um you can see the ground floor there'll be a takeout winner and account
You can see the ground floor will be a takeout winter and counter for when you first somebody first comes in take out winter window in this kind of recessed area at the ground floor level will be counter cooking hood here and then seating spread out throughout the ground floor kitchen in the bag storage bathrooms.
And then at the second floor, you can see that there'll be three units, each one being a one bedroom.
They're all just under 600 square feet.
The existing structure does extend all the way to the rear alley.
At the ground floor and the second floor, there's an open roof area here, and then there's a small court on the side.
We're not proposing any alterations or additions to the structure, so there are no dimensional issues or concerns or considerations at play here.
with that i would like to have my client um adopt my statements and it should be jeremy ash
hello they've been enough to speak okay good morning sir could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer hi my name is jeremy ash that is j-e-r-e-m-y and ash is a-s-c-h
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Jeremy, did you hear the statements that I made to the zoning board this morning?
I did.
And are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
They are.
And would you adopt them as your own?
I would.
And is there anything you would like to add about you're going to be operating the takeout restaurant that is proposed at the ground floor in the cellar, correct?
Yes, I will be running the restaurant.
And you live in the neighborhood presently?
Yeah, I live two blocks north.
Okay, thank you very much.
I don't have any further questions.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Ryan McSherry?
No, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
A new Board with the Planning Commission. The Comprehensive Plan recommends no change to the existing commercial mixed-use CMX1 zoning at this location. The proposed use is consistent with documented car use. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the requested variances for expansion of non-conforming uses and for multifamily household living for three units.
thank you mi2024 000 with 316 1300 202 south 18th street i vote yes thomas holloman my vote is yes
ishmael shaheed my vote is yes thank you counsel thank you uh that concludes my business may be
excused thank you absolutely thank you have a great day i'll see you this afternoon
Oh, good. So, number 15, MI 2024-003-17, 2400 West Oakdale Street. Bernard Astasio is the attorney. There's no RCO letter at this point, but notice was sent to nearby neighbors with proof of mailing. Meeting was held on May 11th.
i'll be coming back in as a panel sir
good morning counsel you you've already been sworn just for the record state your name please
sure verne anastasio i'm here representing mr martin frazier the owner of the property in
question. All right. And our vice chair has a few questions. Good morning, counsel. Do you agree
to win the read another refusal or stipulate to attack proceed? I do. Have you emailed in all
the required documents and exhibit that is needed and required to perceive it to stay five days in
advance of this hearing? Yes. Thank you, counsel. Please proceed. Thanks. Mr. Chair, just a point
of clarity uh there was no meeting the coordinating rco asked for a special walkthrough uh so that
that's what we did so that was on may 11th that's correct yeah they wanted to all in the family am
i right that's correct okay we did a special walkthrough this is a historic property i'm
going to share my screen that has been a duplex since 1968. And we have a copy of the actual
zoning map from 1968 that I've submitted to board council under separate cover. And I'm moving that
under separate cover, and I'm moving that into evidence, as well as the 57-page exhibit packet
into evidence as well as the 50.
I have here before you. And it includes the zoning refusal of the floor plan,
focus of the property, D, tax clearance, and all the other. Really, what happened was
my client purchased this property, which, again, historically has been a two-family dwelling.
it still was a two-family dwelling. When he purchased it, the spaces were small.
It was a small duplex, the first floor and the second floor. It had two separate entrances,
two utilities all set up, but the space itself was small. He believed he was able at that time
to add an addition to the property, and that's what generated L&I's interest, and then it turned
out that not only do we need to get the addition approved, but the two-family dwelling classification
lapsed because it was just over time, there was no rental licenses pulled for this,
but historically and continuously, this has been a two-family dwelling.
I'm going to pull out.
This is the side.
And this is the interior, the first floor unit and the second floor unit.
Trash storage is going to be interior in each of the units.
The other corners are all multifamily.
It's directly across the street from RM1, which you'll see in a minute.
And here's the property.
By the way, the addition, it's the nicest house on the block.
I mean, it's absolutely beautiful.
It's, again, an historic property.
All of it has been maintained and upgraded by my client.
As you can see, there's an entrance here and an entrance here.
Most of the other area corners are CMX1.
And again, directly across the street is a whole block of RM1.
this beautiful space at affordable price points
in a property that since 1962 according to the map that i submitted into evidence
has been a legal duplex
of course occupancy is subject not only to this hearing today
but also having a certificate of occupancy
from the Department of License and Inspection.