as opposed to come back with more information, what type of restaurant, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Okay. All right. Sure. Okay. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
There are no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good morning, Chair. Jonathan Goins, City Planning Commission staff.
First name, Jonathan, J-O-N-A-T-H-A-N. Last name, Goins, G-O-I-N-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
However, the proposed use is consistent with the documented historical use and the existing layout of the property.
So the City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the use variances.
So, Vern, we're going to hold the vote on this?
We're going to close the record other than information from the RCO, a chance for you to respond, and then a chance for the public to respond where we stand.
But the record is basically closed.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Hillary, is that okay?
So, Mr. Terry, do you want to do a resumption hearing?
Well, I mean, I would think if he goes back to the RCO and we get an RCO letter, I don't think there's much more we would need other than the RCO and his response to the RCO letter.
And we took public testimony today.
So I don't think we need to do further public testimony.
We have planning's recommendation.
So we'll just, like you said, close the record and hold the vote for receipt of the RCO letter and response from the applicant.
Thank you very much. Thank you, counsel. Number five, MI 2023-000-631-2326 North Park.
Devin Ekata is the attorney for the owner.
He has been promoted to panel this year.
Good morning, sir.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Can you hear me?
I can.
Please state your name and spell for the court sonographer.
Devin Uqda.
D-E-V-I-N-U-Q-D-A-A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, chair. Could you turn your video in, please? Yeah, chair, just one second. I had to run to the restroom so I had got up because I was about to run. Could I go after the next person?
I had to run to the restroom so I had got up because I was about to run.
Could I go at the next person?
Well, I'll tell you what I'll do is we'll go to the next one,
then we'll come back to you, okay?
Thanks.
I appreciate it.
Number seven, MI20230025692036 to 48 North 2nd Street.
John Griffin is the attorney.
I'm searching for John Griffin now, too.
And I do not see a John Griffin in the audience.
He's under Jake Griffin.
He's been promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Good morning, counsel.
chair can you hear me i can okay could you please state your name and spell for the
court stenographer yes it's uh john griffin g-r-i-f-f-i-n chair i i have this matter and
Hold on. Hold on a minute. You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I do. OK, you have this case and then you have a second one.
I do, chair. And so let's talk about this case first.
Yes. We do not have an RCO letter, is that right?
That that is correct. But there was a meeting.
There were two meetings. OK. And we don't have deeds.
Am I right? For 2036, 2038, and 2040 North 2nd?
We have some deeds. We do not have all of them, correct?
Right. And we're also waiting for tax compliance. There may be taxes owned. Am I correct?
We're waiting for the clearance. My understanding is that there are no taxes owed.
All right. Hillary, we set the move on this?
um i mean we have proof that the the meetings occurred but we would not be able to vote until
we had the rest of the deeds as well as proof of tax compliance okay all right mr griffin you ready
to go on this one chairman i'll do whatever you want i i can move and then ask for it to be held
or i i'm a team player we submitted all documents yesterday so why don't why don't we do this why
don't we hear this case let's and then if we have to we'll hold it very well
may i uh may i begin yeah please and and chairman we're talking about 229-39 north
second street that's the one we're going to deal with right now i have 2036 to 48 north
second street okay so we're going to deal with what what what i have referred to in my packets
as the uh companion case uh so that case uh uh mr bergman involves a property that is across the
street from the why don't you share your screen counsel okay i have uh i have this up uh i guess
if i can just uh uh do this i'm going to need to uh
there it's coming up yeah i'm going to need to now just if you don't mind um i've got to get
into my other screen that deals with the case that's up okay why don't you do that okay
Okay, now, we're looking for 2036 to 48, right?
Okay, that's it.
Now I just have to get you back.
well we see you and we see this documents yeah unfortunately i don't see you so if you don't
mind i'll just uh you want to want to present your case okay so on on this one as we said uh
we are seeking a uh use variance for a non-accessory surface parking lot in conjunction
with the property across the street so in short uh this particular uh area right there is
essentially a parking lot uh it has you know mr griffin it might mr griffin it might be
easier if you show us a photo of the park line do you have photos i i do you know why don't you
show some photos and that way we'll be able to see okay i'm uh i'm circling down now and uh
okay can you see that i do okay so so that is a picture of the parking lot now what you see
right there are various paratransit vans which the current owners uh uh oh they they own a
paratransit company and they they park their vehicles in there. What's being proposed is that
that essentially be a parking area for customers that will come to the other side of the street,
OK, which is going to be a a food truck business.
The office to this paratransit company is the other part of the case across the street.
And what we would do is put a kiosk in there for parking.
Now, to the left of this photo where I'm showing my cursor is a high rise, fairly new residential apartment complex.
And there are a number of them that are sort of in the proposal package going up.
So this would afford people that would come to the parking to the food trucks and allow for a space for parking.
Now, we met twice with the RCO, and these proposals were very well met.
Now, to be completely candid, there was one representative in the audience who wanted not in this area to have a kiosk, just like you see on the parking streets in Philadelphia, but wanted perhaps a live person there monitoring the cars and the traffic.
We respectfully said that's not necessary, but we don't think that's the RCO's position.
But I just wanted to be as candid with this board as I possibly can.
But we met twice and there was no real opposition.
This is a closer view of this so you can get an idea.
Now, coming back here, plans, and they've already been approved essentially, is to beautify this. It would not look like this. There would be new fencing. There would be signage. So there would be a beautification of the place.
Because this is a bit of a rundown area that I think everybody in the community, certainly the high rise developers, are really targeting to try and make this a very attractive area.
we could tell from the RCO meeting, there were just a number of people there that were very
interested that went across the board, residents, professionals. There were two, I believe,
district attorneys that are living in this area. So the concept is to really try and beautify
this area and continue with its gentrification. Here is another little bit more of an expansive
view where the cursor is, is that high rise, is that high rise complex that I believe is only a
matter of few years old. Here are the zoning notices that were properly posted 21 days
in advance.
In advance. So what we're looking to do is have this use permit restored essentially to the previous use of the property.
So what we're looking to do
On March 14th of 2019, the L&I had issued a use permit number 941-491 for the same use that we're essentially shooting for in this appeal.
Uh, and, and again, this is essentially to go, uh, hand in hand with the property that would be directly adjacent to it. Um, and we would ask for that to sort of be approved.
If we if we sort of quickly scroll back and then we move kind of forward a little bit, we have the notice of refusal and we have site plans that were put together by an architect that would sort of design this.
talk about the posting uh when i say posting i mean the fencing and the area and and then ideally
uh what we would do is uh put a kiosk in there that monitors the parking and uh if they're
infractions there would probably be an employee um that would monitor that and and just like
anything else, you know, target the ticketing if necessary of people who expand that. Primarily,
the parking will be literally a half hour to 45 minutes that will be allowed. That will be free
parking so that the people that patronize the food trucks will be able to park not on the city
Street, go in, get their food, perhaps eat it there if they wished, and then move out. And
during that period of time, we're targeting roughly 45 minutes that they would not have to pay for any
fees. The reality is, though, when the parking trucks are finished for the day, or they're not
open on a particular day, there's going to be people who want to use that parking facility,
perhaps people that are guests of that next door complex. And that's where people will
essentially pay for their parking. So we've gone through that, the deeds that I'm sort of
quickly scrolling through that are in place. And again, it's a companion to
uh uh next stores so frankly i i guess they are different but really one does go hand in hand
with the other and um and at the proper time uh i can why don't why don't we handle this case first
and i think we can handle the other one a little quicker because we know where you stand
so let me ask you this do you have your client here uh in the audience i i know that he's on
Okay, why don't we have your testimony adopted for this case?
Yes, sir.
What's his name?
Hector Vicente.
Okay, Hector?
Hector Vicente is allowed to speak.
Good morning, sir.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Hector Vicente, can you please unmute yourself?
He's there. He's just muted.
Okay. Could you unmute yourself, please, sir?
He just unmuted.
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer yes my name is hector
l vicente last name v-i-c-e-n-t-y right do you swear or affirm tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes receive counsel hector uh good morning can you hear me i can hear you
yes sir hector were you able to hear my presentation to the board yes and did you
hear exactly what I said and how this matter was presented? Yes. What I said was that accurate to
the best of your understanding? Yes. If I was to assume that you were to testify, would you have
testified in accordance with exactly what I spoke with? Yes. Do you adopt my testimony?
what i spoke with yes do you adopt my testimony uh in this hearing as if it was your own
yes i have no further questions thank you questions from the board
no mr chairman no chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary ramson
um i just wanted to verify mr griffin um there in addition to the abuse there's also
a fence that's proposed. I see there's an existing fence, but I understood from the refusal there's
a new fence that's proposed, and that's also generating a refusal. That's correct. And if I
could just very briefly, Hillary, thank you so much. Hector, if you can hear me, just if you
could briefly describe what your proposal is for this fencing, if you can see my screen here.
yes the proposal for the fencing is to to put to rip down that fence and to put one um
i think it's like a fence um five feet that's the max five to six feet that's the max we can put up
now and put in more of an iron gate type of fence but a lot more eye appeal for the for for the
exterior and um and and it will be done according to to what the streets department asked for so
So, yeah, the fence is definitely going to be, you know, Ryan R and it's going to look very nice.
And and Hector, if this board approves this project of yours, you'd be ready to move forward on that fencing, correct?
Yes. Yes. Yes. OK. Thank you, sir.
Hillary, anything else? I know that was all. Thank you.
All right. Questions or comments? Questions or comments for the virtual audience?
yes chair i have a hand up from sloan folks and he will be allowed to speak
good morning mr folks good morning chairman bergman uh am i audible can you hear me
you're most certainly thank you very much you state your name and spell it please
yes uh good morning chair board and attendees my name is sloan folks i represent the office
of Councilmember Ketchal-Lazada, 7th District.
My spelling is S-L-O-A-N-E, F-S, and fire, O-L-K-S.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
I do so swear.
Yes, you're handling the cases separately, but my comments are basically for both cases
together.
Thank you very much.
I want to be sure that they can be accepted for both cases.
Yes, it can.
So I did just forward to Hillary and the rest of the other emails addressed, PCPC, as well as Ms. Tanya Sunken, a letter that we received on April 9th from North Square Community Alliance regarding this zoning variance application.
And the variance application, the letter does state that the applicant did meet for the community on Tuesday, October 10th, that may have been the first or the second, where the owner and applicant presented schematic drawings and details of the project.
the owner applicant uh as detailed in the letter did discuss the application uh for uh the permanent
placement of four food trucks uh for us to take our restaurant commissary and catering services
within the tax structure and this case right now we're discussing the creation of five parking
uh five parking spaces uh across the street uh as the attorney did not act accurately present