Loading...
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