HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1984-02-28 Planning & Development Board Minutes
February 28 , 1984
7 : 30 PM - Common Council Chambers
PRESENT: Chair Kramnick, M. Sampson , B. Romanowski , S.
Blumenthal , H. Gerkin, S . Jackson.
ALSO: Appellants , Appellants ' representatives , .Press ,
Other interested parties .
1. Call to order : Chairman Kramnick called the meeting to
order at 7:40 PM At that time he announced changes in
the agenda. The Board would cover Items 2 & 3 and then
move on to Item Ila. , followed by the regular agenda as
possible until the Zoning Appeals , scheduled for 8 : 30 PM.
2. Approval of Minutes : Jackson, seconded by Sampson,
moved to approve the January 1984 minutes . PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
3 . Privilege of the Floor : None.
lla. Commercial Avenue Rezoning: There were no public comments.
Paul- Tavelli , attorney representing Empire Building, Inc . ,
presented the background for the requested zoning change.
He stated that there had been a public hearing on the
issue and the Planning and Development Committee had
given its approval of the change at its February meeting.
Romanowski , a member of the Committee, said that indeed
the Committee had given the matter considerable time and
had unanimously recommended approval . Questions of
traffic hazards and site use/appearance were raised by
the Board and answered satisfactorily . The entrance/
egress will be located on Commercial Av. , not Elmira
Road, and future use of the property including screening
will be regulated by existing zoning ordinances . Roman-
owski , seconded by Sampson, moved that the Board recommend
approval of the rezoning. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 6-0 .
4. Communications : . Andrea Lazarski , Preservation Coordinator ,
was present to answer any questions regarding the trans-
mittals from the Landmarks Commission designating the
Cornell Pottery Site and Llenroc as City landmarks . The
Board should transmit its recommendation by April 15 to
Council , which then has 30 days to retify or disapprove
the Commission 's designations . Jackson asked what
advantages might accrue to owners when a property is
officially designated. Lazarski explained that there is
no monetary value to local designation . Sampson asked
what the reasction was from the fraternity which owns
Llenroc . Lazarski said that there had been no answer
yet , but that it would have to go through the fraternity ' s
national channels . The owner of the Pottery site has
wanted local designation of her property for some time .
Kramnick wondered if designation can occur without the
consent of the owner ; Lazarski said not . The dsignation
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
February 28, 1984
page 2 .
process ultimately rests with Common Council . The owner
does not have to initiate the designation process .
Sampson wondered how the State and National Registers
differed from the local register . Basically , local
designation keeps some control over exteriors of
designated properties , which is not the case with
national listing, unless an owner wishes to use federal
funds for alterations .
Jackson , seconded by Sampson, moved that the Board
recommend to Common Council that both sites be designated
local landmarks . PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 6-0
5. Chairman ' s Report :
a. Committee membership assigninents :
The only changes in the memo mailed to Board members
earlier, removed Romanowski from Codes and Administra-
tion to Human Resources , and Mo-r-a-n—t-e—Guess-- -d
Ae md--n4-st-r=at= o-n-.
b. Committee meetings ;
Kramnick corrected the misprint in the mailed
agenda from. . . "This process is intended to help
focus Board effort on zoning issues . . . " to read
"This process is intended to help focus Board
effort away from zoning issues . . His intention
Would be that the C & A Committee of the Board meet
one week before the regular Board meeting with a
staff member to go through the appeals and make a
judgment on whether they raise any specific issues
which should be discussed before the full Board.
This process should, in effect , flag controversial
issues and reduce time spent on routine matters .
Kramnick referred to the Marcham Report and its
recommendations that the Planning Board focus on
larger questions and future planning . There is a
need for increased use of the committee system.
Jackson was asked to make comment on his memo to the
Board regarding objectives for the Board . He felt
time should be put on the agenda regularly for open
discussion to guide Board direction .
Kramnick informed the Board that the Mayor has assigned
to them the review of the Marcham Report . The Board
is to report to Common Council regarding its opinions
of it with regard to .Planning. Board response was
positive concerning the C & A "screening" of
zoning appeals . Romanowski felt this would be a more
efficient method and fair since the Planning Board makes
on recommendations to the BZA, and does not officially
a
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
February 28 , 1984
Page 3 .
act on them. It was also decided to hear the
Zoning Appeals at 7 : 30 PM instead of 8 :30 PM.
6. Committee Reports : None.
7. Director ' s Report : None .
8 . Staff Reports : None .
9. ZONING APPEALS : 8 : 35 PM (see attached) .
llb. Broome Development Services :
The Chair read from Mayor Gutenbergers ' letter
asking the Board to provide a public forum for
hearing Broome Developmental Services ' proposal to
establish a community-based res-idence at 214-16
W. Lincoln Street . The Board was also asked to
make a recommendation to Common Council regarding
this issue. Mr . Larry O'Neil , 502 Utica St . , team
leader for Broome, was present . to give a brief
explanation of what Broome does , give a general
outline of their plans regarding the Lincoln Street
site, and answer questions of the Board and public .
O'Neil noted that they function under very strict
State codes and regulations . The State has been
concerned with the impact on property values
when a care facility has been located in residential
neighborhoods . A 1978 study revealed that there is
no impact on property values . He also indicated that-
the residents would be well screened.
Off-street parking would be provided in the rear .
O'Neil stated that he was sorry he had no drawings
to present at his point . He has also wanted to
organize a neighborhood advisory group to advise with
the developmental stages of the care facility , and
to handle an future problems in communication between
Broome and other residents of the neighborhood .
Board questions : Gerkin asked when a neighborhood
group could be organized. Could it be done immediately?
That was the hope of Broome , O'Neil said. Gerkin
would who would . be the screening of residents ; would
any local residents be invloved? O'Neil explained
Broome 's screening process . Other Board members
expressed concern in not being able to see architectual
drawings .
Public Comment : R. Wischhusen , 102 Frankin St . ,
appeared before the Board to present a petition
containing 79 signatures representing opposition
Planning & Development Board
Minutes
February 28 , 1984 -
page 4 .
to the group home facility , stating these
reasons : (1)loss of property value , (2)increased
traffic congestion and lack of parking facilities ,
(3) inadequate site size, and (4 ) dissimilar
architectural plans in relation to the neighborhood.
There was much public comment , both for and.Aggitn§t
the facility . Some .questions dealt with the issue
of density; .neighbors felt that there were
too many care facilities in the Fall Creek area
while other sections of the City had few or none .
Further Board Discussion : After all those in the
public that wanted to were allowed to speak, the
Romanowski asked O'Neil why more people had not
been informed of Broome 's search for a site when
that process had first started. O'Neil said that
Broome was following the State process of notification
and that the search had only begun in the Fall .
Romanowski felt that the recommendation deadline was
too short , and that not .enough information was
available concerning the building. Jackson did
not feel that dispersion was the issue, and that
sufficient information to make a judgment had been
provided. He strongly urged a neighborhood committee
be set up as soon as possible and include people
who had signed the petition in opposition.
Kramnick stated that it was his feeling that the
petition had been direct and specific. He felt that
the traffic/parking issues had been answered since
adequate off-street parking would be provided for
the staff and none of the residents would drive.
The question. of property values had been answered.
The question of adequacy of site size will be both
handled by zoning ordinances , and Broome ' s willingness
to adopt changes if necessary . The agency also
expressed willingness to recieve recommendations from
the neighborhood, and is sensitive to neighborhood
needs .
Jackson , seconded by Sampson moved that the Board
adopt the following resolution :
- -------------------------
A ,
Planning & Development Board
Minutes -
February 28, 1984
page 5 .
-PLANNING AMID DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RESOLUTION TO COMMON COUNCIL
BROOME DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES SITE
WHEREAS, the Mayor requested that the Planning and Development Board hear
the proposal of Broome Developmental Services for erecting a building
at 214-216 W. Lincoln Street to be used as a reisdence for the
mentally retarded and developmentally disabled, and make a recommenda-
tion to the Common Council, and
WHEREAS, the Mayor requested that the regular Board meeting be a public forum
for this issue, and
WHEREAS, the Board heard and received comment from persons both for and against
the proposed facility, and
WHEREAS, the Board has considered the pros and cons as presented by the Broome
Developmental Services and the public,
NOW, THEREFbRE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board recorrmend
UNANIMOUSLY, 6-0, that Broome Developmental Services receive City support
for their site location at 214-216 W. Lincoln, providing (1) special
attention is given to neighborhood architectural similarties, and
(2) Broome Developmental Services work to form a neighborhood advisory
group as. soon as possible.
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 6-0.
10 . Old Business : Route 96 .
Jackson, seconded by Sampson, moved to submit the
issue to the Board 's committee on Economic
Development and Transportation . PASSED UNANIMOUSLY,
6-0
i
11. New Business : Van Cort stated that the Stewart
Park Advisory Group has requested the Board select
a representative from the Board to attend its,�,,_yp
Blementhal volunteered.
Meeting was adjourned at 11 :45 PM.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
ZONING APPEALS
February 28, 1984
APPEAL 1547,1113 E. State St.: Appeal. of R. Kaaret for Area Variances
for lot coverage exceeding the maximum permitted, and deficient set-
backs for both front yards and one side yard, to permit construction
of a garage in the .front yards and one side yard, to permit construction
use as a single-family house is permitted.
APPELLANT COMMENT: Mr. Kaaret summarized the reasons for this
appeal and the placement on the site of the proposed garage. He
informed the Board that the garage was now planned to be 14' wide
instead of 12.' ; that it would be a hardship to place the garage
at any other location on his property; that trees now exist which
- ----
would serve to partially screen thegarage; an-d--that-since there
are no -sidewalks or gutters on the block, there_is_ inactuality
- more setback than officially allowed. He -has recievedpositive
neighborhood feedback.
- - --
----- ----- ----
PUBLIC COMMENT: The Board received a letter from G. Coles_,_ abuttor__-
on side where garage is-proposed, in favor of the request.
BOARD DISCUSSION: The Board ascertained that.the garage would be
located behind the present concrete slab used for parking which
would serve as an apron to the garage. They also confirmed that
safety requirements would be met as a car exiting the garage would
be completely out of the.garage before it entered the street.
STAFF RECOML`=ATION: Split. Adverse opinion was that the garage
could be placed elsewhere on the property requiring no variance,
and its proposed site would reduce the amenity of the neighborhood.
MOTION: Jackson, seconded by Blumenthal, recommended APPROVAL.
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 6-0.
APPEAL 1548, 810 E. Seneca St. : Appeal of J. Garrison for Area
Variances for deficient off-street parking, lot size and rear yard
depth., to permit conversion of an apartment house containing three
dwelling units to a cooperative dwelling. The property is in an R-3b
district in which the proposed use is permitted.
APPELLANT. COY ENT: Mr. Garrison described to the Board the changes
he would propose to the property which is currently being used
illegally. He wants to purchase the property if he can obtain
the variances necceary to bring the property into legal compliance.
The safety of the property will be greatly strengthened, and he
has provided for off-street parking for three cars. There will be
no increase in the number of tenants.
PUBLIC COMMN'NT: None.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Romanowski ffelt Mr. Garrison's proposal would
add to the safety of the property, and provide need off-street
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
ZONING APPEALS: 2/28/84
page 2.
Board opinion was that this was an_opportunity to bring the
property back into zoning compliance.- -
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None. BZA may act at its discretion.
There is no planning effect; the issue is post facto and
approval would set precedent for., future non-compliance.
MOTION: Jackson, seconded by Romanowski, moved to recommend
APPROVAL. PASSED 5-1 (Gerkin) .
APPEAL 1549, 340 Elmira Road: Appeal of R. Bartlett for Area
Variance for a deficient front yard to permit an addition to the
front of Burger; King Restaurant, permitted in the B-5 district in which
the property is located. Since the addition will extend into the
required front yard, the appellant must obtain variance for the
deficient front yard that will result.
APPELLANT CANT: Bartlett presented drawings of the proposed
addition, and explained that no extra seating is intended. If
the City grants the Variance, the restaurant will in turn go
through an approval process with its national franchisor.
Response from several commercial neighbors was positive.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Members of the Board questioned why the
addition must extend far enough to create a deficiency. Bartlett
explained the purpose of the addition to be a sunroom and would
need to extend in order to allow sunlight into the room. Also it
is designed to be in keeping with the present roofline.
STAFF RECOWENDATION: Split. Deficiency very slight, but
addition could be built without variance.
MOTION: Blumenthal, seconded by Gerkin, moved to recomend
APPROVAL. PASSED 5-1 (Jackson) .
APPEAL 1550, 103-09 Sage Pl. : Appeal of J. Novarr for Area Variance
for a deficient side yard to permit conversion of the single-family
home and attached structure to a rooming house. The property is
located in an R-3a district, in which the proposed use is permitted.
APPELLANT COM&-NT: . Novarr read a letter from Mrs. Mendenhall,
a neighbor to another of his rental properties, approving the --
the work done by Novarr and the type of tenants he selects.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Sampson expressed concern regarding preservation
_of_the-Bailey_ Hortorium where Liberty Hyde Bailey did_ so much of his
work. He questioned_ what was being done or would be done to protect
the interior of the building Andrea Lazarski, Preservation
Coordinator, informed the Board that she intends to work with
Novarr to restore the exterior and that the property is subject
to Landmarks review. Novarr stated that Cornell had already
removed most of the interior furnishings and books. He plans to
leave the interior essentially as it was adding carpeting and
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
ZONING APPEALS: 2%28/84
page .3
energy efficient features.
Jackson expressed concern about property taxes should the
property revert to Cornell within a short time. After
discussion, Sampson moved to recommend Novarr's appeal as
presented since he felt it was a better alternative; if Cornell
retained use'of the `Hortoruun, it might not recieve the care
appropriate to an historic structure. The motion lacked a
second. The Board was interested in receiving from Novarr a
com-nitment of length of time he would retain control of the
property because ownership by Cornell would mean no property __—
taxes and possibly lessen control ;by-the City over the appearance _——
of the building. - Jackson moved to recommend denial. There was
no second. Jackson then moved to make-no-recommendation.
Blumenthal seconded. The vote was 3 (Gerkin, Blumenthal, Jackson)
yes; 2. (Sampson, Romanowski) no; 1 (Kramnick) abstention; motion
failed for lack of affirmative votes.
Board discussion followed during which it: was stated that the
Board sought assurances from. the Appellant that he would promise
not to relinquish ownership of the building over a period of time
(hopefully. longer than 5--10 years) so that the property would
continue to pay local property taxes.
STAFF"RECOYMmATION: Approval. The proposal would increase the
housing supply and conserve structures of some architectural
and historic value. The landlord has demonstrated responsibility
and sensitivity to architectural/historic values of property.
MOTION: Romanowski, seconded by Sampson, moved to recommend
I
APPROVAL if Novarr would agree to make an effort to retain control
of the..property for 5-7 years. PASSED 4-2 (Jackson, Blumenthal) .
APPEAL 1551, 307-09 Warren Pl.: Appeal of W. Reed, et. al for
Area variances for deficient off-street parking, lot size and lot
width, to permit addition of an apartment to the single-family home,
located in an R=1a district in which the proposed.use is permitted.
APPELLANT.CCMN=: Reed explained to the Board that his family
had purchased the property from a bank after foreclosure, and
would like to continue to use the apartment as a rental unit
although a zoning variance had never been obtained for its use.
PUBLIC COMMENT: J. Russel, 310 Warren Pl. , stated that the
neighborhood was intended for single-family swellings only,
and that this property in particular was only large enough for
one family.- He related the parking problems that had occurred..in
neighborhood. because of this apartment use., The resident of
315 Warren Pl. spoke to the issue of non-compliance. He felt
that the present owners knew of this before purchase. J. Tempesta, -
!-- -- ---- --------- -- -- ---- -
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
ZONING APPEALS: 2/28/84
page 4.
301 Warren Pl., felt that allowing the continued apartment use
would alter the character of the neighborhood along the lines of
an original covenant that characterized the hones in that
area as exclusively single-family. The resident of 302 Warren Pl.
indicated that the property had become an eyesore in the
neighborhood, and she had not seen much improvement with the
new ownership.
Reed answered these com-nents:, explaining that his family had.only
owned the property for a short time but were making improvements,
and that it was their intention to renovate it for future resale.
STAFF RECOPMENDATION. Denial.
MOTION: Based mainly on neighborhood sentiment, Romanowski
moved, seconded by Sampson, to recommend 'DENIAL. . PASSED UNANIMOUSLY,
6--0.
APPEAL 1552, 510 W. Clinton St. ; Appeal of Rev. A. Binta Lloyd for
Area Variances for deficient off-street parking, lot area, lot
width, excessive lot coverage by buildings, and .deficient front,
side and rear yard setbacks, to permit conversion of the former
grocery store to a church., in an R-2b district in which. the proposed
use is permitted.
APPELLANT COMMENT: Binta-Lloyd and E. Heffron, owner,
appeared before the Board. Binta--Lloyd stated that there are
usually up to 15 people attending services of .her church three
times a week. The owner of the property also owns a vacant
lot next door from which the church could lease parking spaces,
and there was the possibility to making an arrangement with.
Clinton West shopping center for more parking in case of need.
Currently one church .member owns a car.
PUBLIC COD24EENT: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. The .main concern was with. handi-
capped access under the assumption that services usually involved
up to 75 people. The building is also deficient in too many
ways for church use.
MOTION: Based on the importance of such..use in the Southside
community, Jackson, seconded by Romanowski, moved to recommend
APPROVAL. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 6-0.
APPEAL 1553, 216 and 218 Second St. : Withdrawn by appellant prior to
meeting.
_ APPEAL 1554, 315-317 College Av.: Appeal of N. Plataniotis for Area
Variance for rear yard setback. to permit extension of .restaurant uses
into the rear building (now a two--bay garage) in a B-2b district where
y
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
ZONING APPEALS 2/28/84
Page .5
the-existing and proposed''uses are permitted. This appeal was heard --
-
by B.ZA at its February meeting and..denied. The,Appellant is
returning with new information.: --
APPELLANT COMMENT: W. Wiggins,. attorney, appeared for .the
appellant. He presented drawings for-the first time which
illustratedthe proposal.
PUBLIC CST: None.
BOARD DISCUSSION: It,was. pointed out that the Board has previously
recoiimended :.approval, and.there wasno further discussion.
STAFF'RECOMMENDATION; Denial. As when the appeal was .
-previously. heard, on the basis of concern for
public'property and safety,, and- the potential .impacts of a
160-seat restaurant in terms.. of. parking. demand.
MOTION: Romanowski, :seconded by Jackson, .moved to recommend
APPROVAL. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 6--0..
aph
3/2/84