department you know hand wash things really not really not big enough and efficient for any kind
of eating establishment or cooking establishment the other thing is I keep hearing that the second
floor is going to be used for storage but is there any reason that that second floor couldn't
be used for something else since it has a completely separate distinct entrance from
the from the restaurant it's also listed as future commercial space okay so it's so
potential to be an additional commercial space okay i just wanted to be yeah it's it was kind of
you know intended to be overflow space for that's fine that's fine i just wanted to be because i
was hearing one thing but i'm seeing something else you know what i mean it was just for storage
for the for the um restaurant i would i would think that there would just be a door from the
restaurant but there's a door from the street so clearly you can have additional use for that space
it's certainly not intended to be any kind of like third party use um it was just intended to be kind
of an office space for mr mr star and and the business of the restaurant as well as any kind
of other office uses that he would be doing yep questions from our attorney hillary emberson
um two two things one in terms of the provisos that were suggested by the rco
i think the only one that's enforceable is that the hours of operation which i understand
is 6 a.m to 3 p.m um i assume that was would be seven days a week there wasn't i didn't see any
days listed for you know what specific days that that those hours would be yeah the the intention
is for seven days a week i mean obviously it's something that you know mr star intends to see
how how the business is going and and how um frequented it is on weekdays versus weekdays
so it's not set at this point but those hours were intended to be for seven days a week
okay um and then then sorry one other thing um the so i'm a little confused why the refusal
has the personal services and the business and professional office on it as primary uses if the
the office is just accessory to the restaurant and there's not going to be any personal services
so if all it's being requested here is is a sit-down restaurant um then there's only a
variance needed for a sit-down restaurant there's not a multiple principal uses issue um
is is that is that your understanding as well i'm just a little confused
yeah the personal services portion i'm not sure where that came from the business office
it was ancillary to the to the restaurant um but i believe that the board issued that refusal for
business office even though it was part of the restaurant so okay um i mean i so if if the board
is inclined to grant this i would i would just clarify the uses that are being granted um it
sounds like sit down restaurant and if ellen i indicated that there should be a separate refusal
for business and professional office, that's fine.
I think that does open the door to there being a separate business
on the second floor that's a business and professional office.
But I don't know that that is necessarily,
that does not seem to be an issue with the community
or something that, you know, is part of the provisals.
That's how the refusal is written is three different uses,
primary uses, so.
And we have a question. Since the two floors do not connect to each other, like currently, you would have to leave the restaurant to go around the corner to go up to the business office.
When those technically be two separate commercial condos or spaces like.
Or spaces like that may have been why L and I did it, did it that way.
That may have been why Elle and I did it.
That's what I believe that.
I believe that because there is no access from the first floor,
just intended to create more space on the, uh, on the first floor that they,
they issued the business office refusal as a separate refusal.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Charles Richardson just raised his hand
and we'll be allowed to speak
good afternoon Mr. Richardson
how are you sir
Charles Richardson
not representing the 8th district today
Richardson
first name is Charles
else you do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do uh i have an architectural question with regard to this uh second floor of the of this
uh built business i have family and friends that own and work at the date here that is next door
and attached to that uh building that they're going to be demolishing on the second floor there
is a window there. If Oleg could go back to his shot where he's posted the notice and things along
those lines, you can see that second floor window. And I'm just wondering how are they accommodating
that window or what are they doing with regard to that and how tall is that second floor going to
reach two.
Jared, is that something that you can answer for Mr. Richardson?
Our total height is 28 feet.
It would fall below the third floor window there, but the second floor window would need
to be addressed.
um it's technically not supposed to be there as it's on the property line um but that's something
that we'll have to figure out have you guys contacted the uh owner of the um take care
we have not we wanted to see how how this today's um hearing would turn out before
kind of making arrangements for that window okay uh i'll have them contact you olick
and um that way you can you know get something started with regard to that okay thank you thank
you thank you mr richardson yeah i would think they would probably want to address it at some
point anyway even if this doesn't get built if they have if they have windows on the property
line that's technically you can't have windows on the property line so they probably need to
address that sooner than later yeah i mean to be honest that we you know kind of didn't want to
bring that up to the board and and you know alert alert you guys of the issue of the daycare but
anyone else in the virtual audience
there are no more
thank you planning commission
amy board with the planning commission
amy boyd
i refer him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed
the comprehensive plan recommends
the changing zoning at this location
for the existing single family residential
rsa 5 to commercial
mixed use cmx 2
We note that the ball is proposed, if in the right-of-way, would require a street spill from City Council.
The proposed uses would be allowed by right under the proposed zoning.
The Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the requested variances for sit-down restaurant and business and professional offices.
Hillary, just the only proviso would be the time?
The time, and I would, if the board is inclined to approve, specify that approving the sit-down restaurant in the business and professional office uses only.
MI 2024-006-035-6632 Lamp-Kill-Pike.
I vote yes with proviso.
Time of operation, 5 a.m. to 3 p.m., seven days a week.
approval for
sit-down restaurant and business
operation. Michael Johns,
my vote is yes with provisos.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote
is yes with provisos.
Tanetta Graham,
my vote is yes with provisos.
Ayah Wynn, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ishmael
Shaheed, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you, Council.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you very much. And Hillary, I'll be in touch
Thank you very much.
Hillary, I'll be in touch about amended refusal if we need one, and I'll also send over the
But, um,
letter as soon as I can get it from the RCO.
Yes, thank you.
And I don't think we need to do an amended refusal in this case because it's just a change
of use.
I mean, well, there's plans and whatnot, but it's just the use that's being clarified.
And we were able to do that via proviso, so we don't need to worry about a new refusal.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, members of the board.
Number six, MI 2024-006-056-465 Parlin Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
There's a letter of opposition from Somerton Civic Association.
The vote was 12 in opposition, 7 in support.
There were a total of 35 people in attendance.
Alan Nockamson will be rejoining us.
Mr. Chairman, just state your name.
It would have been sworn.
Yeah, Alan Ockamson.
Would you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Yeah, my client is Lasha Kik Bidese, who is the owner of the property. He owns it in his personal name.
The chair has a few questions.
Counselor, do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Well, yes, we did thank the council, please proceed and share.
So this is a very straightforward matter, and I think the opposition is because they're opposing something we're not doing so for 65 parlin street.
is a duplex right now. It's an RTA-1 property. And what we're trying to do is take a portion
of that property and put a home office for unit number one. So I guess there's been a lot of just
issues with people taking, you know, these garages, converting them into livable space
and making them into a third unit, which is not our intention. And we stated that to the community
and that if we wanted to make it into a third unit, we would have to come back to the zoning board.
But that's the issue.
And there's no issue with converting the garage to livable square footage
because there's many instances of that in the neighborhood, even next door to us.
So we'll first review the notice of refusal.
And then the correspondence from the Somerton Civic Association, again,
they reference the fact that, you know, we're trying to make this into a third unit, which we're not.
There's like a utility room, which includes a washer and dryer.
We didn't have a picture at the time of the hearing, excuse me, at the community meeting
showing that.
We have it now.
We showed it to them after the community meeting, tried to explain to them, we're not trying
to make the first floor into a whole nother apartment.
My client actually, even though it's a duplex, he lives there.
He's in the restaurant industry.
He has his restaurant down the block, you know, from here, and he just wants to use this converted space into a home office.
So anyway, we'll look at the 400 block of Parlin Street where you're going to see nearby surface parking spaces, which is basically what we're asking for here.
Then maps of the area. Again, we're not increasing density here.
This is RTA1, which allows for two units, which we have right now and we hope to keep.
Photographs of the property are simple plans and drawings or RCO meeting notice or applications for appeal and the deed to the property, showing that Lasha owns the property in his personal name and he lives there with his wife and the certificate of tax clearance.
So the notice of refusal, again, RTA1, and it's for the removal of an existing interior parking space, right?
and basically we're going to have parking in front of our property like everyone else has
and we're just going to, again, have the two-family living, which is already legal as of right,
but we're just adding to the square footage, the interior square footage of unit number one.
So the correspondence from the Sermonton Civic Association,
they're in opposition to a variance that we're not seeking.
We're not seeking a triplex.
We're seeking, we have a duplex, and we just want to have a home office in there, in one of the units.
And then again, not out of character, we did an inventory of the 400 block of Parlin Street. And you can see there's 11 other instances, 12 is us, but we're number one, but two through 12, there's 11 other instances of properties which converted the garages to livable space.
And then, again, not out of character, we did an inventory of the 400.
And then they have surface parking in the front. So we're not doing anything different than what everyone else has in the neighborhood. Again, I think some of these people, not us, have converted that garage to another unit on top of there, and we're not looking to do that.
So here's 400 and 402 Parlin Street, service parking in the front, converted the garages.
404 and 406 Parlin Street, the same.
424 and 426 Parlin Street, the same.
436 Parlin Street, 442 Parlin Street, 446 Parlin Street, 452 Parlin Street, 467 Parlin Street, which is literally the house next door to us.
They're doing the same. They're doing the same thing.
456 Parlin Street, 474 Parlin Street, 499 Parlin Street.
So that's just our 100 block. I didn't even go past that 100 block.
I was just like, here are other 11 other instances.
And again, we're RTA one. We're allowed to duplex. That's what we have.
We're not trying to do a third unit. If we did,
we would have to come back to this board and seek variance approval.
And then photographs of our property. So the work was done already.
So, again, my client, not well-versed in this area, did the work, saw his next-door neighbor have the work, had 11 other instances.
So, again, you know, we're trying to legalize this, but this work has already been done.
And so, just so you understand, you know, the entry point for his unit, which is unit number one, is this side entrance.
And then you either go up a little flight of steps for unit number one, or you go down where you go up another flight of steps for unit number two.
But you can go down a little flight of steps.
And this is the home office that he's trying to legalize by way of removal of the garage.
Orange notice poster.
Parliament Street to the right of the property and to the left of the property, which also kind of shows some of the instances where the garages have been convertible to livable space.