MI 2020-000725
North Howard Street.
David Garcia, are you the owner or applicant for this?
Here, I'm sorry.
I couldn't get through.
My apologies.
Yes, this is David Garcia, ID number 54351.
Okay, but are you the attorney?
Okay. But are you the attorney? Yes. Yes, ma'am. I'll promote you to a panelist.
Yes, yes, ma'am.
Can you hold one second?
I'll promote you.
Okay. Mr. Garcia, you've been promoted to a panelist. You can share your screen as necessary
and you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Good afternoon, Mr. Garcia.
Please identify yourself with a record name, first and last name, spell your last name.
Good afternoon.
David Garcia, ID number 54351, G-A-R-C-I-A.
I'm here as counsel for the owner and applicant.
Can I hear him?
Excuse me, can you hear him?
A little bit louder.
A little bit louder.
let me just see if I can get closer to the mic maybe you could turn your volume up on your device
that would also help yeah that's what I'm looking to do here let me just get here this is Sharon
can I say that we had a letter of non-opposition from Councilwoman Sanchez on this I'm sorry can
you hear me better now yes okay thank you I just have to keep part of this all right Mr. Garcia
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, sir.
Please proceed.
You agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
That is correct.
I agree.
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, or referral, photos, and plans five days prior
to this hearing?
Well, yes, but that was actually emailed August 10th by Mr. Luis Castillo and the applicant.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
I have the RCO letter.
I did not personally meet with them.
I believe Mr. Castillo may have met with them as well as the property owner, Mr. Echotwege,
Laura? I believe we do have a letter of support from the RCO in the file.
Thank you. Let me see if I can do this. I can pull that out.
We have a letter in our file that Sharon identified that.
Okay. If I might proceed, Mr. Chairman.
Please.
Yes, this is a single-family home, a two-story building.
We're appealing a denial of a variance wherein the client wants to reside on the second floor as a single-family dwelling
and operate a grocery with, in addition to the sale of beverages and food, also having takeout food.
and there's an issue here I wanted to bring up so that he wanted us to come off as possibly being
less than candid with the board in the initial applications with a notice of refusal
there was a proviso for a roof mount exhaust quite frankly the plans that were submitted
do not have that exhaust and i think there may have been some confusion this application this
variance that we seek is it's strictly for cold food um there's not going if you look at the plans
and if you look at the symbols on the plans with all the appliance and equipment that is going to
be installed um it's all refrigeration units it's not a stove there's no hot food that's going to
be sold from this location. Mr. Garcia, excuse the interruption. Do you have any exhibits you
can share with us? Yes, let me see if I can pull the plans here that I had. I know that were
submitted. This is Sharon Saleta again. This sounds very familiar to me. Has there already
been a hearing on this matter? No, there was a prior continuance on this matter.
well where was the proviso regarding a roof mounted it was it was on the notice of refusal
okay if you look at it it identified it as three use refusals and it had one zoning refusal
and it indicates a quote with a proviso roof mount exhaust
um and the plants just do not do not have that if i can i'm sorry is my screen coming up
No, we only have a partial letter Z.
Is the, but I'm sorry, is the, is the drawing coming up?
Is the, but I'm sorry, is the, is the.
Mr. Garcia, your internet is open with the screen of the Zoom and other windows that are open.
If you could unshare for the moment, go back to your actual documents that you wish to present
and share, click on that, then click on the green share button.
I'm sorry, how would it be that I could be flipped?
I mean, I have the, I thought I had the documents all loaded up.
Do you have them visible on your desktop at the moment?
Yes, I do.
So you can click on them so that they're open and ready to show, then go down to the share screen button, right?
And once you try to share the screen, those documents should be visible under there to click on and open to present.
This is Sharon Sellette if I can interrupt for a minute I understand now where the proviso
language came from. L&I does not generally impose provisos but they did include a zoning history
that indicates that in 2018 the board granted a variance for a takeout restaurant on the first
floor with single family dwelling above with proviso roof mounted exhaust commercial trash
pickup and that was on August 1st, 2018. That's correct. I'm sorry, the panel, are you seeing
the drawing that I just put up? Ms. Garcia, we see your drawings. However, if you could minimize
your boxes of the Zoom so that it's visible for the whole screen.
So you might see a little minus sign on your boxes of the Zoom. We're seeing those
and is interfering from the board
to view the whole plan.
I hope you didn't hear that.
Okay, I just requested control and I moved the screen so now the board can visibly see
the plant. Okay, we see you now. Are you okay? I'm actually trying to open up my screen.
Okay, Mr. Garcia, I gave you back control now.
Well, that's debatable.
I'm trying to bring in the entire, well, anyhow, I had put the plan up just to show if you
see the symbols on the left side of the plan as I'm scrolling down.
there's no kitchen, there's no stove that's going to be installed or fryer or anything of that sort.
But I just wanted to bring that to the attention because I saw that in the notice of refusal and
these drawings do not include that map that would have been at the very least on this portion of
drawing. We do have support from the RCO, I believe it was indicated before from 42nd
Democratic Ward zoning from Ms. Lindsay. In that report, if I could go through the report itself,
there are photographs which are attached which indicate and demonstrate or show the security
cameras both that will be registered with the city police department once assuming we get the
assuming we get the variance
Again, the first floor, the entire building will be owned by Mr. Leiva.
again the first
There's also tax clearances that have been attached for Leah Grocery Store, which is operated and owned, again, by the building owner, Mr. Etchetteghi.
We also attached the tax clearances for Mr. Etchetteghi himself.
12th the i would ask the board just to go back to the to the rco support letter which indicates
that i'm scrolling down uh or have all the photographs uh of the other property at least
like the exterior portion of the property um we also had approval and that was submitted from the
the Farmore Park Commission as well as the Park Commission.
A deed was also
submitted to demonstrate Mr. Levin's
or Mr. Etchetteghi's ownership.
The one thing we did not submit,
and I didn't know if it was necessary
and I can't submit that and amend it, is the lease.
That being that the grocery store is owned
by Mr. Etchettaggy, for whatever reason, that was not submitted, but to the extent that
you would like it to be submitted, I would certainly do that.
Aaron, is that necessary?
I mean, only if we do.
If we have a copy of the deed, we don't also need the lease.
Thank you.
Well, then I will, if with the board's permission, assuming the variance was granted,
then what I will do is I'll just email it or I'll upload it.
All right.
And I think if you can quickly just summarize,
I think we get an understanding of what you're trying to do here.
As Sharon mentioned, Councilwoman Sanchez, Letter of Mom Opposition.
Correct.
Basically, we just want a variance to allow my client in this case
to operate the grocery store with the sale of cold food and beverages
and use it as a takeout also for cold food only,
and approval of the awning signs,
which again were part of the drawings that were attached,
that would be on the first floor
and bolted in as set forth in the drawings themselves.
And again, the second floor will be occupied
by Mr. Etchotaghi, by his family.
Okay, thank you.
I'm sorry, Chair.
Can we just pause for a second while I discuss with the council?
Hold on one second, sir.
Okay, yes, sir.
This is Sharon Soletta again.
This is very confusing.
This is an existing use.
the takeout restaurant grocery is an existing use. I believe the applicant went in for signage
and a roof deck, but it appears that LNI once again refused the use, though that had already
been approved in 2018 there's also an open area refusal um is i is there construction being done
is this an existing building because i don't know why you would get i think what happened
before my client purchased a property the prior owner had done some so-called improvements on the
property and part of the work that's going to be done here is to um actually do what the proper
permitting so it can be accepted. I think that's what you may you may be referring to. There's
really no major modifications here that are going to take place. So the changes that were made by
the prior owner changed the footprint of the structure? I believe so. I think that's what the
issue was and he did it he did it on his own without any you know without following the
formalities of here but but the i'm sorry that's okay i'm so sorry i have a cat here that keeps
coming up on my keyboard but am i right that the use the takeout restaurant grocery
and single-family dwelling that was all approved in 2018 it's an existing use
I do not believe that the prior use was the restaurant.
I don't believe the grocery store operation has been approved.
So you were adding that and you were adding signage?
Correct, the awning.
correct yawning okay but the two-story addition it's not it's already a two-story building it's
but the two
already so this is a legalization of the two-story i believe so or addition rather i think there was
an addition to that second story the second story had always been there and is the use
it's the roof deck that's referred to in the refusal is that existing or proposed
um that is existing okay and it's only going to be used by the family nobody else
okay so you are legalizing additions and a roof deck that were at it without permits you're
proposing new signage and you are proposing that the retail sale of food beverages and
groceries be added to the existing takeout use is that correct that is correct okay thank you
And I asked, Chair, I'm sorry, if you could indulge me, we have a request from members of the Planning Commission to view pictures of the roof deck and back addition, if that is available.
Let me see.
You know, I do not think it is.
I've been through the photographs.
Can I just ask my client whether or not he has those available?
because i know i have not seen oh there you go i mean i know that's part of the roof but i don't
believe that there's any like a positive there's not any photographs of the um that's seems to me
like nothing it's not new it's not anywhere close to being new unless it's is there the addition was
put on the rear of the property i believe it was a rear part but could i just ask my client sure
let me just
your client on the line sir he should be on the line would he raise his hand if he could let me
just, Mr. Lord, Mr. Tatega, could you raise your hand so we could ask you a question?
Okay, so you're available to unmute yourself. You're going to wait for the cheer to square you
in okay okay hi hi please please please identify yourself spell your first and last name