where you expect to place dumpsters for the bakery.
Is that right?
Yes, sir.
And it looks like there are currently parking spaces right there, right?
now it's already in designated space for dumpsters in there yes yes there's dumpsters
for I think for the laundromat but I would imagine you need additional dumpsters for the extra use
well I'm going to need another extra dumpster will be a high volume dumpster and I think that
will be enough for us for the type of operation we're going to understood but you need to have
the uh what's required under the code so so i think you'll repeat you i mean my understanding
is that you would need to have a dumpster for this new proposed use and i think you'll need
to have it on site unless you get approval to have it someplace else and i believe it would
have to be outside so my question is if it's going to be on site where can you put it and
and avoid taking up more spots when there's already potentially a parking issue with that site.
If that's the case, we have it on the rear part of the building.
If you see on the building, if you can zoom in, we can put it on the rear of the building also.
All right, let me ask this.
How many customers do you have today, approximately?
Around 100 customers, from 5 in the morning to 9 in the morning.
You think you have around 100 customers from what time to what time?
9 in the morning, 3 in the afternoon.
From 5 in the morning to 3 in the afternoon, 100 customers.
And you have 10 spots?
The far I know, yes.
That's enough space for that 10 spots, yes.
Okay, and there's a potential that some of those spots are removed for the dumpster that might have to go outside, if there's a dumpster that has to go outside?
No, I don't think we're going to be able to use those.
We can use the rear part of the building if we request a permission for the owner of the laundry, who is the owner of the building, because we have plenty of space on the rear part of the building for that.
If you check the blueprints we have, we have an offset space over there to put dumps in there.
I see that.
I see that.
My concern is about whether there will be enough parking if you continue to take up spaces that would otherwise be for customers.
And just so you understand, Mr. Marin, because I'm not sure when you got on the line, I represent the neighbors who run the grocery store, and they're concerned about parking overflowing into their site.
okay so that's that's their concern um and i think that it's reasonable to think that if you
have a hundred by your testimony a hundred customers in a day in only 10 spots and you're
not open the entire day that you may have a bit of an issue in them especially in the mornings
with too many customers and they'll have to park on other sites okay what time the seven brothers
and start operation.
Do you know that?
Say that one more time.
One time the Seven Brothers
supermarket start.
It's actually one of the hours
for the supermarket.
I'm not sure of the hours.
I think they might open at 6.
No, no, no, no.
No, they don't open at 6.
I'm here in this neighborhood
before the supermarket
because I know the owners
of the supermarket.
They start operating around 8 in the morning.
That's the hours, 8 to 9 in the evening.
okay but i'm listen i don't think that's relevant i think the point is that uh we need to make sure
Okay, but listen, I don't think that's relevant.
I think the point is that we need to...
that there's enough capacity on your property we want to make sure that there are enough parking
spaces so but what i can tell it sounds like the board will need to make sure that there are enough
parking spaces i'm pretty sure that we have plenty of spaces in there all right i have no further
questions okay thank you thank you mr ball do you have anything else yeah i just wanted to ask just
couple of clarifying questions um you testified uh mr barrett that there's about 100 customers a
day is that retail or commercial customers i'm sorry hard i get it you're phased fading out
yeah certainly um was that retail customers or 100 customers that you have approximately 100 of
a day now they call customers who go in pick up and out and do you have any idea do most of them
drive or most of them walk? Most of them drive. Most of them drive? Yes, in the morning hours.
Okay. And do customers come in and leave or are these customers staying for, you know, an hour
each? I don't think we're going to have any tables inside for that reason. Why is the reason we're
not going to have tables in that because we have the high school in front of us okay thank you
you know what's going on with high school the only high school so we to avoid all that people
sitting in there and staying in there we have no sitting at all you eat pick it up and go okay so
if there's a hundred people a day you're saying that they're going to be in and out in a few
minutes it's not going to be um they're not going to be lingering so so so if people are in two
minutes you can have um i'll it's it would take a lot for those 10 spots to overfill
questions from the board uh yes mr chairman i think that we should hold it until we get
better information yeah i think what we'll do is let's get everybody's questions on the table
first time so if anybody else on the board has a question please let me know
no mr chair right and then questions from from the virtual audience
here we have Dylan Mahoney with his hand up okay Mr Mahoney please unmute yourself and wait for the
Chair. Mr. Mahoney you've already been sworn please just state your name. Good afternoon Mr.
Chairman to the board Dylan Mahoney from the opposite Councilmember Anthony Phillips.
So obviously we're potentially waiting on an amended refusal but with respect to the
application that's currently before the board the councilman has reviewed the neighbor's letter of
support through the RCO and the councilman has no objections. He's in favor of it right?
no objection yes sir okay okay thank you um hillary should we go to uh get a read from the
planning commission too yeah yes mr chair we can we can do everything i'll just double check it
and i just want to make sure this was okay with mr bowling as well um we'll just double check
with um l and i and make sure there wasn't a missing review of the parking requirements okay
thank you ron yeah thank you ron bednar city planning a city uh adopted comprehensive plan
recommend the change in the zoning at this location from medium industrial i2 to industrial
commercial mixed use the proposed uses would all be allowed under the proposed zoning therefore
we recommend that requested variances be granted thank you um we'll hold the vote till next wednesday
and by that time we'll have information additional information from uh from l and i am i right
hillary yes that is correct i will i will advise council um for for both parties in advance of
what information i received from l and i and then we can vote this at 2 p.m next week thank you
everyone. Thank you very much. Good. Number six, MI 2022, 004-949-4800 to O.T. Ogle Street.
Rachel Pritzker, Brandon Saverin are the attorneys. Let's see here.
Hold on one minute.
I'll be right with you one minute and then I lost my screen here
Oh, man, I lost my screen here.
We have applicant letter of support from Ridge Civic Association.
Good evening, Mr. Chair.
You've already been sworn to state your name, please.
Brandon Saverin.
and and could you identify your client in relationship to the property yes my client
is the owner of the property his name is Sanjeev Jain all right and our vice chair has just a few
questions for you sir good afternoon Mr. Saverin do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to his accuracy yes I do Mr. Vice Chair have you emailed all the exhibits that are
required to proceed with this case five days in advance to this hearing? Yes, I did. Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen. Thank you.
Okay, so the property I'm here to discuss has a dashed address of 4800-02 Ogle Street.
It is one legal parcel that comprises both this residential building that my cursor is on, that's sort of a sandstone color, and this lower commercial structure next to it.
These are attached, but not internally connected.
And we are proposing essentially to demolish the commercial part of the structure.
This used to be what we in our fine city would call a steak shop many decades ago.
We want to demolish that and then subdivide these properties so that they can be two parcels.
The residential portion, the residential building is currently a duplex, and we would propose
to build a new duplex, a second structure on the ground that would be available once
the former steak shop building is demolished. So I will, oh, pardon me one second, my computer,
my computer froze for a second. So this is the notice of refusal, members of the board.
Before I get into this, I'll just say that this refusal notes here that we are proposing
three dwelling units for what would be the new building, but because we have reduced our proposal
to two units in the new building and also relocated an exterior staircase, we would ask you to approve
our plans with a proviso for one page of revised plans this evening. So I already sort of talked
about the scope of the proposal, which is in a capitalized text up here. The refusals it drew
are as follows. One used refusal because having even two dwelling units, as we are now proposing
in the new building, is prohibited because we're in RSA 5. And then we drew four-dimensional
refusals. So those refusals actually pertain to both the existing building and the new,
what would be the new building and in each case they are for the lot area and the open area and
I'm going to walk through those in a second but what you'll see this is a survey when you propose
a subdivision and these by the way according to my historical research did used to be two locks
they were consolidated at some point so we'd really be returning to the original setup here
When you propose a subdivision, you have to have an engineer prepare a survey.
I'm going to mostly focus on the zoning plan since this doesn't show the structures, it just shows the land.
But as you can see here, in addition to the rear yards that both buildings will have, there's a three foot wide alley behind both buildings that will remain.
And here is the zoning plan.
So this zoning plan essentially can help me illustrate the cause of the dimensional refusals.
So in terms of minimum lot area, we are in the fourth district overlay, and that overlay requires, particularly for Roxborough, a very large lot area, 1440 square feet.
Now, both of these lots, I believe, would be in the 800s, but that is roughly, go back and get the exact size, 892 for one, 894 for the other.
It's actually closer to 900 square feet per lot. That is completely in line with the rest of the block.
And that makes sense, given that these used to be two parcels. So we're basically returning these.
And that makes sense, given that these used to be two parcels.
So we're basically returning these to their original form and to the form that matches the block.
There are very few parcels in the area, and I don't believe any on our block, that are even close to 1440 square feet.
So having to comply with that requirement is a hardship.
It would prevent us from subdividing a lot, and we'd be left with a very bizarre situation where we'd sort of be like attaching a new building to an existing building
to live on one parcel. That's ill-advised for both permitting reasons and financial reasons.
These should be two separate properties. And then in terms of minimum lot area, what you can see is
even the new building, which has a slightly smaller rear yard, would have a nine-foot deep
rear yard, which is noted here. And that's, if I was able to show you the homes down the line
on the rest of the block although only the neighboring building is shown that's consistent
more or less with like an average rear yard on this block so again we're matching the form of
the block um you know to to provide a more open area would require a bigger rear yard than is
typically found on this block and would require a very short building and that's exacerbated
because as you can see that the lot sort of tapers in the back but what we're proposing is sufficient
for, you know, quality of living and for safety, and it matches the block. So those are the
refusals. Let me just note that I have our architect on each of the two proposed dwelling
units in the new building would be approximately 1450 square feet. These are very nice sized units.
Each would be three bedrooms, three baths. There's no change to the existing two units in the
existing neighboring buildings. So I'm not going to talk about the interior of those because we're
not touching it. But due to the fact that we're running late, I will just say we are very proud
of the sort of exterior that we're proposing here, the layout. We're contemplating some very
high quality work related to water retention, which you can sort of see in the rear yard and
this sidewalk swale, but I will hold off on walking through that in greater detail.
And if you want to hear more about any of those features, since they're not subject
of refusal, I'll just allow you to tell me that you'd like me to bring the architect
on and I'll do so.
Brandon, I think we're fine.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate that.
The last thing I'm going to mention is just the sort of hardship, particularly with related
to the use refusal for the duplex. So very quickly, the existing commercial building,
it's dilapidated. It's been vacant, we believe, since a chiropractic practice left the space
in 2007 or 2008. I have some photos in our exhibit packet that demonstrate that.
It's been used for nothing other than occasionally unpermitted storage. It's generally been
completely vacant. So to comply with the code, we couldn't even reinstate a new commercial use here
because our commercial permit has lapsed. So that would mean even if we tried to put a new
commercial tenant in there, we need a variance. I have strong reason to believe that the RCO does
not want a commercial tenant in there and would potentially not support that variance. So given
that the commercial part of the building, the commercial building is in poor physical condition,
it lacks upper floors, it lacks essential utility systems like central air, we believe it has to be
demolished by any reasonable standard. And if you're going to demolish the structure, you got
to build something new. We believe that given the context here, this is a totally residential area
in the heart of Roxborough, needs to be residential, given that we have to pay for
demolishing that building, the special site work that's required when you're building on a slope,
the market is not going to sustain building a single family home. And the only way to even
attempt that would be to sell it for probably in excess of a million dollars. Extremely expensive
house. We felt that the RCO didn't like that concept, or at least many people at the RCO
meeting. It's not what we're going to do. And it's extremely risky financially. If it doesn't
pan out, which we don't believe it would very well, it would result in a huge loss to my client.
So that's why we're pursuing a duplex on that, you know, what will be the vacant piece of the
property after we demolish the commercial structure. And what was the vote of the RCO?
18 to 2 off the top of my head.
And if you want, I can verify that in a way.
That's fine.
okay um that that is my presentation again have the owner yes um so his name is sanjeev jane