[4:42] everyone and welcome to this meeting of
[4:43] the Syracuse Planning Commission. With a
[4:46] quorum present, we will call this
[4:47] meeting to order. Shortly, we will begin
[4:50] our public hearings for this evening.
[4:53] However, ahead of that, we do have
[4:54] minutes from our first meeting of this
[4:58] month. Those have been circulated in
[4:59] advance to the commission members and it
[5:02] would be appropriate at this time for a
[5:04] motion for action on those minutes of
[5:06] our May 5th meeting. Is there such a
[5:09] motion? Oh yeah. I make a motion to
[5:12] approve the minutes as presented.
[5:15] Thank you. Discussion on the
[5:17] motion. There's no discussion. All in
[5:20] favor, please indicate by saying I. I.
[5:23] Those opposed, please say nay. Any
[5:26] abstensions? Our minutes are approved
[5:29] and we will move into our public hearing
[5:31] schedule for this evening. Just by way
[5:33] of introduction for those unfamiliar
[5:35] with our process. As each application is
[5:38] announced uh by a member of the staff,
[5:41] we ask that the applicant come forward
[5:43] to the podium in the center of the room
[5:44] using the microphone, provide your name
[5:46] and address for the record and then a
[5:48] brief summary of your application.
[5:51] Following questions from the commission
[5:53] members, we will then invite members of
[5:55] the public who wish to speak in favor of
[5:57] the application to do so. And similarly,
[6:00] we will invite members of the public who
[6:02] wish to speak in opposition to the
[6:03] application to do that. Where comments
[6:06] are offered in opposition, the applicant
[6:10] will be encouraged to return to address
[6:11] comments made in opposition. And we ask
[6:14] that all speakers for or against um keep
[6:17] their minutes to a concise three
[6:20] minutes. so we can uh accommodate as
[6:22] many speakers as
[6:24] possible. With that, I think we are
[6:27] ready for our first
[6:29] um application for this
[6:32] evening. Um so the first agenda items on
[6:36] the agenda is the resubdivision
[6:38] application
[6:41] R-25-9. It's a resubdivision application
[6:43] to combine 134 and 140 Lafia Road Rear
[6:48] into one lot. The uh owner and applicant
[6:51] is Paula um and James Carlos uh Sirios.
[6:56] I'm sorry about the names. It's in the
[6:59] R4 zone
[7:06] district. Uh James Kalisino's 134 and a
[7:09] half Lapia Road, Syracuse, New York. Um
[7:13] I want to do this. Well, first of all,
[7:14] 20 years ago I went through this. the property has been deed together for
[7:19] 20 years and had a survey done at the
[7:21] same time. I hired an attorney to do
[7:23] everything and we thought it was done.
[7:25] We bought a shed, put it on the
[7:27] property, and they said, "You can't put
[7:29] a shed on a vacant lot." And I said,
[7:30] "Well, it's not. It's one property." And
[7:33] so this I have to go through this to to,
[7:36] you
[7:37] know, make it
[7:40] right. I guess that's it. Okay. That
[7:43] simple, huh? It's that simple. Okay.
[7:46] Thank you. Let's see if there are any
[7:47] questions from the commission members.
[7:49] Are there any questions for the
[7:51] applicant? Everything seems in order.
[7:53] It'd be nice to know what went wrong in
[7:54] 1995, but I doubt that we're going to be
[7:56] able to do that. The attorney's not
[7:58] around anymore, right? I am curious
[8:00] about the the front property though at uh that address. Uh what's the
[8:05] disposition of that
[8:06] property? The 134 front because we have
[8:09] the Yeah, I own that too and I own 128
[8:11] and I own 124. I Okay.
[8:18] Yeah. Okay. Right.
[8:22] It's the subject of, right? 140 is our
[8:24] subject, right? So the 134, you own that
[8:27] one as well? Yes. Okay. Cool.
[8:33] Great. Thanks. Thank you.
[8:37] That it for me? Good. I think we're
[8:40] good. Thank you.
[8:42] Are there individuals who would like to
[8:43] speak in favor of this application? If
[8:45] so, please come
[8:49] forward. Anyone wishing to speak in
[8:51] opposition to the application, please
[8:53] come to the
[8:56] podium. We have no speakers for or
[8:58] against. So, we'll close public comment
[9:00] on this application and we will turn to
[9:03] our secret review. Has everyone had a
[9:07] chance to review the EF part one
[9:09] prepared by the applicant and contained
[9:11] in your packet? Yes. Has everyone had a
[9:14] chance to review the EF part two
[9:16] prepared by staff and contained in your
[9:17] packet? Yes. Does anyone believe that
[9:21] the pro proposed action will have a
[9:23] moderate to large impact under seeker?
[9:25] No. Having determined there will be no
[9:28] moderate to large impacts, I recommend
[9:30] that the commission make a negative
[9:31] declaration and prepare the part three
[9:33] EF accordingly.
[9:36] Thank you. Is there such a motion?
[9:39] Uh yes. I make a motion to uh issue a
[9:43] negative seeker declaration.
[9:45] Thank you.
[9:47] Discussion on this seeker
[9:49] motion before
[9:52] us. There's no discussion. All in favor
[9:55] of the seeker motion, please indicate by
[9:56] saying I. I. I. Those opposed, please
[10:00] say nay. Any
[10:02] abstensions? That seeker motion is
[10:05] approved. We can now proceed to the
[10:07] resubdion itself. This is
[10:12] R25-9. Is there a motion for action on
[10:15] this? I make a motion to approve uh
[10:19] application R-25-9
[10:23] uh with two conditions beyond the
[10:24] general conditions. One condition is the
[10:27] uh filing of the reubocate reubdivision
[10:31] uh approval with the county clerk's
[10:33] office within 62 days. And a second uh
[10:36] condition is uh issuing of the permit
[10:39] for demolition or for
[10:41] the acceler accessory building to make
[10:44] it appropriate shed. Okay. Thank you.
[10:49] Is there a second? Second.
[10:54] Is there discussion on the
[10:58] motion? If not, all in favor of this
[11:01] motion for R219, please indicate by
[11:04] saying I. I. Those opposed, please say
[11:09] nay. Any
[11:12] abstensions. Every subdivision for
[11:15] R219 is approved. Thank you.
[11:20] project completed after 20
[11:22] years and we move on to our next uh
[11:25] application.
[11:27] The next items on the agenda is a
[11:29] resubdivision application also. It's
[11:33] R-25-20. Um it's a application to
[11:36] combine three lots at
[11:40] 1062 and 2016 Bernardet Avenue into one
[11:44] new lot. Killing Wright, Greater
[11:47] Syracuse Property Development
[11:48] Corporation is the owner of 106 Bernett
[11:51] Avenue and applicant Mike Kersy uh
[11:56] 1012-1016 Bernard Avenue LLC is the
[12:00] owner of the 1012 and 1016 Bernard
[12:03] Avenue. It's in the MX3 zone district.
[12:07] Thank you. Good evening. I'm Terry
[12:10] Luckett with Syracuse Land Bank, 1941
[12:12] South Salina Street. Um 106 Bernett A
[12:17] has been in our inventory since 2018 and
[12:20] we just demolished a single family house
[12:22] there um just this past April. Uh 1012
[12:27] and 1016 is owned by Mike Corsy. His
[12:30] plumbing business is there. he would
[12:33] like to purchase the lot and um just
[12:35] keep it green space and try to take care
[12:37] of it so that the street looks good. Um
[12:41] in the short term and in the long term
[12:42] he might expand his parking for the
[12:44] plumbing business. Um the lot is is
[12:47] buildable. It's in MX3. It's 43x 125,
[12:51] but it's unlikely that any new
[12:54] construction will happen there on a very
[12:58] busy commercial corridor backing up to
[13:00] 690. Um
[13:03] it's, you know, relatively small for for
[13:07] um single family construction or even
[13:10] multifamily construction. Um three sub
[13:14] one won't alter the character. There's
[13:15] other lots that are um 200 feet wide
[13:19] just across the street.
[13:23] Thank you. Questions for the applicant.
[13:27] Yeah. I'm sorry. Could you explain again
[13:28] the demolition that occurred there? Was on 106 or 106 or which property was
[13:35] it? One Z6 land bank house. Okay.
[13:40] Right. Further questions for the
[13:47] applicant. Thank you,
[13:49] Terry. Are there individuals who would
[13:52] like to speak in favor of this
[13:53] application? If so, please come forward,
[13:55] provide your name, address, and
[13:58] comments.
[14:01] Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to
[14:03] the application, please come
[14:07] forward. We don't appear to have any
[14:09] additional speakers in this application.
[14:11] So, we will close public comment and
[14:14] turn our attention to our seeker
[14:25] review.
[14:28] Has everyone had a chance to review the
[14:31] EAF part one contained in your packet?
[14:33] Yes. Yes. Has everyone had a chance to
[14:36] review the EAF part two in your packet?
[14:39] Yes. Yes. Does anyone believe the
[14:41] proposed action will have a moderate to
[14:43] large impact under Seeker? No. No.
[14:46] Having determined there will be no
[14:48] moderate to large impacts, I recommend
[14:49] that the commission make a negative
[14:52] declaration and prepare the part three
[14:53] EAF accordingly.
[14:55] Thank you. Is there such a seeker
[14:59] motion?
[15:00] I make a motion to issue a negative
[15:02] seeker declaration.
[15:05] Thank you both. Discussion on this
[15:07] seeker
[15:09] motion. If there's no need for
[15:12] discussion, then all in favor of the
[15:14] motion, please indicate by saying I. I.
[15:18] Those opposed, please say
[15:20] nay. Any abstensions?
[15:24] The seeker motion is approved and we may
[15:27] now consider the reubdivision itself
[15:32] R25-20. Uh before forming a motion on
[15:35] this, I just have a clarifying question
[15:36] I want to make sure because in our staff
[15:38] recommendations, we have two conditions.
[15:40] A suggested one is the customary filing
[15:43] of the resubdivision with the county
[15:44] clerk. But the second was a comment
[15:46] about the uh a permit for demolition of
[15:50] 106 Bernett Avenue. But it's my
[15:52] understanding as a question that's taken
[15:54] care of. It's already been taken down.
[15:56] Okay. Right. Um so I make a motion to
[16:00] approve R-25-20
[16:04] uh with one condition beyond general
[16:06] conditions that being the customary
[16:07] filing of the reub uh with the county
[16:10] clerk's office within 62 days of
[16:12] approval.
[16:14] Thank you. Thank you. Discussion on this
[16:17] motion.
[16:23] And if there's no discussion, all in
[16:25] favor of this motion for
[16:26] R25-20, please indicate by saying I.
[16:30] Those opposed, please say nay. Any
[16:36] abstensions. This reubdivision is also
[16:39] approved. We move to yet another
[16:42] reubdivision this evening.
[16:45] The next uh application in on the agenda
[16:48] is
[16:50] R-25-21. Um it's a resubision to combine
[16:54] the lot at 105 and 106 Hatch Street into
[16:58] one
[16:59] lot. The uh 105 Hashry was owned by is
[17:04] owned by Kaling Wright, Greater Syracuse
[17:05] Property Development Corporation, and
[17:08] the 107 Hashry is owned by Greg Prouty.
[17:12] Uh the two of the uh lots are both in
[17:15] the R3 zone district.
[17:18] Thank you.
[17:20] Terry Luck at Syracuse Land Bank, 1941
[17:23] South Salena Street, uh 105 Hatch. This
[17:27] one was demolished back in 2020. Greg
[17:30] Prrowy is um a recent purchaser of the
[17:34] adjacent house. He would like to uh
[17:36] fence the property in for additional
[17:38] yard space.
[17:40] He already has a shared driveway on the
[17:43] with the property next door at 111. So,
[17:45] he doesn't need a driveway. He just
[17:46] wants additional lot space at this time.
[17:50] Um, the lot's not going to change the
[17:53] character of the neighborhood. Uh, it'll
[17:55] create a lot measuring 60 ft 68 ft by
[17:58] 165. And that's consistent with other
[18:02] sites in the area. Um, 112 114 has 66,
[18:06] 126 has 60, 133 has 70. There's lots of
[18:10] examples of wider houses. I'm assuming
[18:13] there's been other demolitions on that
[18:15] street. Um, that's it.
[18:19] Thank you. Are there questions for the
[18:22] applicant for this subdivision?
[18:28] Okay. Thank
[18:29] you. Are there individuals who would
[18:32] like to speak in favor of this
[18:33] application? If so, please come to the
[18:35] podium.
[18:39] Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to
[18:41] the application, please come
[18:46] forward. We have no additional speakers.
[18:49] So, we will close, excuse me, we will
[18:52] close public comment for this
[18:54] application and consider our seeker
[18:57] review next.
[19:00] Have all the commissioners had a chance
[19:01] to review the EF part one prepared by
[19:04] the applicant and contained in your
[19:05] packet? Yes. Has everyone had a chance
[19:08] to review the EAF part two prepared by
[19:10] staff and contained in your packet? Yes.
[19:12] Does anyone believe the proposed action
[19:14] will have a moderate to large impact
[19:16] under seeker? No. Having determined
[19:19] there will be no moderate to larger
[19:20] impacts, I recommend that the commission
[19:22] make a negative declaration and prepare
[19:25] the part three EAF accordingly.
[19:28] Thank you. Is there such a motion?
[19:31] Uh, yes. Yes. I make a motion to issue a
[19:33] negative declaration, a negative seeker
[19:35] declaration.
[19:37] Thank you both. Discussion on this
[19:43] motion. There's no discussion. All in
[19:45] favor, please indicate by saying I. I.
[19:49] Those opposed, please say
[19:51] nay. Any
[19:54] abstensions?
[19:57] Resubd 21 is approved. Thank you.
[20:03] We move to our
[20:05] next application.
[20:17] Just did the secret.
[20:22] Just did seek and resub.
[20:29] We just did the secret. We did.
[20:37] In that case, um, now that our secret
[20:39] review is completed, my apologies.
[20:42] Um, we will turn our attention to the
[20:44] reubdivision for
[20:47] R2521. And is there a motion for
[20:50] action for this reubdivision
[20:52] application? Sure. I make a motion to
[20:55] approve
[20:57] R-25-21 as presented with two conditions
[21:00] beyond a general condition. One is the
[21:02] customary condition for filing the
[21:04] resubdivision map with the county clerk
[21:06] office within 62 days. And the second
[21:09] condition is with respect to the
[21:11] necessity for a permit if the fence is
[21:13] to be installed on the adjacent
[21:16] property.
[21:18] Thank you both.
[21:20] Discussion all that there. We all had a
[21:22] little discussion here. Um but if
[21:25] there's no discussion, all in favor of
[21:27] the motion, please indicate by saying I.
[21:31] Those opposed, please say
[21:35] nay. Any
[21:37] abstensions? Now the reubdivision, she's
[21:39] left already for R
[21:41] 2521 is
[21:43] approved. And we move to
[21:46] another item on our agenda this evening.
[21:52] The following items on the agenda is
[21:56] MISPER-25-44. This is a minor site plan
[21:59] review application that was referred by
[22:01] the zoning administrator to the city
[22:03] planning commission. Uh this project was
[22:06] located is located at 294 Jefferson
[22:09] Street West to Warden Street. The
[22:12] property owner and applicant is Adward
[22:15] Godlip Pacific Properties in INC. Uh,
[22:20] this property is located in MX5 home
[22:22] district.
[22:25] Thank
[22:26] you. If the applicant is here, please
[22:29] come forward.
[22:32] Provide your name and address and the
[22:33] summary of the application, please. Yes,
[22:36] I'm Joe Gilagno. I am the registered
[22:38] agent for Ed Gotautle at 294 West
[22:41] Jefferson to Walton. Sorry, could you
[22:44] speak into the Oh, microphone. First
[22:46] time, right? Uh, so yes, I'm Joe Gil
[22:49] Vagno. I'm the agent for Edward Gotautle
[22:52] at 294 West Jefferson Street to Walton.
[22:55] Um, here for a change of use from a
[22:58] restaurant to a bar.
[23:01] Any other details or information that
[23:04] would be appropriate to share for this
[23:06] application?
[23:09] None. None that I can think of.
[23:12] Are there any questions from the
[23:14] commission members for the applicant?
[23:18] You want to go first?
[23:23] Okay. So, uh this is a minor site plan
[23:27] review which customarily does not come
[23:29] before the planning commission
[23:32] not get
[23:35] uh kicked up to you. So, it's
[23:37] automatically a major because it started
[23:39] out as a minor. I'm sorry in our
[23:41] documentation it's listed as a major. So
[23:43] the reason why it got kicked up is
[23:45] because we have a very long history of
[23:48] violations uh with this particular uh
[23:51] property and therefore we need to take
[23:53] care to make sure that since there is a
[23:56] provisional certificate of use in place,
[23:58] we need to make sure that if this
[24:00] business is to continue operating in
[24:02] this location uh that it's operating
[24:04] safely legally within the environmental
[24:07] context. And so we have a long history
[24:09] of complaints uh with respect to this
[24:12] property and that's why it's here before
[24:14] us right right now. So in dealing with
[24:16] those kinds of situations what we at the
[24:19] planning commission try to do because
[24:20] it's not our business to try and deny
[24:22] people the opportunity to operate a
[24:24] business. We just want to make sure the
[24:25] business can operate safely legally and
[24:27] within the appropriate context within
[24:29] the neighborhood. And so we have to
[24:30] address these issues. So that's why this
[24:32] particular application is before us
[24:34] kicked up from a minor site plan review
[24:36] to a major site plan review and our uh
[24:40] orientation in trying to deal with these
[24:43] kinds of situations is to use various
[24:45] tools that we have our at our disposal.
[24:47] In this particular case, there's a me
[24:49] memorandum of of understanding that was
[24:51] formed between the city and the
[24:54] proprietor of the business and also I
[24:57] would emphasize uh the owner of the
[24:59] property as well. Uh because with a
[25:02] special use permit that runs with the
[25:04] land, not just the proprietor, the the
[25:08] business specifically. So we have to
[25:10] address that issue with respect to the
[25:12] landlord as well. And so we're in a
[25:13] situation where we have to establish
[25:15] those conditions to make sure that this
[25:17] prop this this uh uh property operates
[25:20] this business operates within the
[25:22] boundaries of the code law and the
[25:25] expectations for the neighborhood. So in
[25:27] this case we have recommendation for
[25:30] nine conditions uh that have to be met
[25:33] in order for this business to continue
[25:35] operating. I think that given the
[25:37] circumstances, it's important to read
[25:39] those specific conditions so that
[25:41] they're absolutely clear and and and
[25:43] understood because again it's important
[25:46] to understand that in cases like this
[25:49] the planning commission is only making a
[25:51] recommendation to the common council and
[25:53] so in order to make that recommendation
[25:55] we need to make sure that the
[25:57] application is addressing all the issues
[25:59] that need to be addressed. So I would
[26:01] like to uh go through those nine special
[26:04] conditions in this particular case
[26:06] because it's it's important. Uh the
[26:08] first special condition would be that
[26:10] the business mustain compliance with the
[26:12] maintenance the memorandum of
[26:13] understanding signed on
[26:16] 32825. Uh and then the next five
[26:19] conditions are specifically related to
[26:23] that memorandum of un understanding. The
[26:25] second condition is that business shall
[26:27] control noise levels to a reasonable
[26:29] degree so as not to violate the city's
[26:31] uh local noise ordinance located in
[26:34] chapter uh 40 section 4016 of the
[26:38] revised general ordinance for the city
[26:39] of Syracuse. The third item is that the
[26:42] business does not have an entertainment
[26:44] license and may not have live
[26:46] entertainment. No live entertainment is
[26:48] permitted without an entertainment
[26:50] license, including but not limited to a
[26:52] dance floor, live music, DJs, dancers,
[26:56] and karaoke. Uh the the fourth
[26:58] stipulation is a business may not use
[27:00] amplified speakers to project music
[27:02] outside and will control any speaker
[27:04] volumes inside so as not to violate the
[27:06] city's local noise ordinance located at
[27:09] chapter 40, section 40-16 of the rise
[27:12] general ordinance. Five is a business
[27:14] shall not sell alcohol past the legally
[27:18] permitted hour of 2 am and shall close
[27:21] operation by 2:30 a.m. The business
[27:23] shall not shall make sure no patrons
[27:26] will be permitted to enter the premises
[27:28] outside of operating hours and all
[27:30] patrons must vacate the premises within
[27:33] 30 minutes of closing time. Six
[27:36] designated security staff shall monitor
[27:38] the exterior premises during operating
[27:40] hours after 10 p.m. and 4:30 minutes
[27:43] after closing time uh to prevent loing
[27:45] and disturbances. Seven, the business
[27:48] must strictly adhere to operational
[27:50] hours which are determined appropriate
[27:53] and approved by the city planning
[27:54] commission. And the hours that we have
[27:56] in our application are 4:00 p.m. to
[27:59] 12:00 a.m. for Monday through Wednesday.
[28:02] uh Thursday through Saturday at 11:00 am
[28:04] to 2 am and on Sunday from 12:00 pm to
[28:08] 900 pm. Item eight is the owner
[28:11] applicant shall work with the Syracuse
[28:13] Police Department to conduct a crime
[28:15] prevention through environmental design
[28:18] review of the subject tenant space and
[28:21] implement all of the recommendations in
[28:23] the SET. Um and then item nine is any
[28:27] violations of the conditions above will
[28:30] result in revocation of the land use
[28:32] approval. Uh so those are our uh
[28:36] recommended conditions if this project
[28:38] is
[28:47] approved comments or do you want to
[28:53] react to that? Okay. Can I ask a
[28:55] question? Yeah, please. Are you the
[28:57] property manager? I am. You are? Okay.
[28:59] Of the whole property? Yeah. Of the
[29:01] person, not just the Not just the bar. I
[29:04] do have uh I do have the tenant with me.
[29:06] Okay, great. Um so, you're representing
[29:10] God. Yes.
[29:12] I think that one of the things that
[29:14] everybody wants to make clear here is
[29:17] that the owner of a property as well as
[29:20] the tenant of a property has equal
[29:23] responsibility to adhere all of the
[29:26] rules and regulations ordinances that
[29:29] the
[29:31] municipality presents to the
[29:34] operation. So it's not just a tenant
[29:38] obligation, it's as well an owner
[29:44] public sure that everybody's hearing
[29:46] that. Understood. Okay.
[29:51] Okay. Additional
[29:54] comments, questions for the applicant.
[30:00] Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We'll pause
[30:04] now and ask if there are any individuals
[30:06] who would like to speak in favor of this
[30:09] application. If so, please come forward,
[30:11] provide your name, address, and your
[30:13] comments.
[30:15] Uh, my name is Randall Han. I am the
[30:17] minority owner at Top House on Walton.
[30:19] Uh, for the conditional of the space,
[30:22] uh, I'm located at 120 East Washington
[30:24] is where my office is here in downtown
[30:27] Syracuse. Um, I'd like to actually talk
[30:29] about some of these things is I think,
[30:32] uh, the level of proof in some of these
[30:35] accusations, as I call them, is uh, very
[30:38] minimal.
[30:39] Uh I have had calls since August to the
[30:44] state liquor authority. Um we were
[30:46] cleared back in October. I do have that
[30:49] here stated. Um I do see that the pro
[30:52] page that you guys provided of all the
[30:55] property checks
[30:56] between September 28th and March 8th
[31:01] that is provided in your zoning shows on
[31:04] the far when you see final action it
[31:05] says 41 and 06. that is clearing, making
[31:08] sure that nothing is going on at the
[31:09] property and in appropriate hours when
[31:12] those 44 calls at the bottom of the
[31:14] violation say that they were stated. Um,
[31:16] there was never any proof of any after
[31:18] hours. We've uh been able to debunk
[31:20] that. I think it's a a big following
[31:22] from the people upstairs. I understand
[31:24] that the blue tusk was a a huge thing in
[31:26] downtown Syracuse. We are a bar below
[31:29] residential. Um, the ticket that was
[31:31] issued was thrown out in court for the
[31:33] noise ordinance. Uh, that was that was
[31:35] thrown out. Um, I I have cameras inside
[31:39] the facility that actually record the
[31:41] audio. I also submitted to Amir Gathers.
[31:43] The city council requested all of the
[31:45] video showing for six weekends that we
[31:48] were out the door and out of the
[31:49] building by 2:30 a.m. I think a lot of
[31:51] this, and we're having this now, is due
[31:53] to the escalation of the exaggeration of
[31:56] stories. Um, and I understand that the
[31:58] tenants are upset. I understand that the
[31:59] former owner of the Blue Tusk was a
[32:01] resident up there. Um, we do, my
[32:04] business partner has started to buy
[32:05] properties up there, so I'm well aware
[32:07] of all the emails. I saw the one go out
[32:09] on Friday where they encourage people to
[32:11] come stand against us not to be open or
[32:14] be able to have live entertainment.
[32:16] We've lost employees on Friday and
[32:17] Saturday because we're not allowed to
[32:18] have a DJ, live entertainment, music,
[32:21] bands. We've had your own Joe Driscoll
[32:23] down there playing. So, we do a variety
[32:26] of things. As you see in your emails,
[32:28] they're starting to come through to Zong
[32:30] here. uh level of support from my peers
[32:32] in the area. The owner of Margaritas is
[32:34] wrote the owner of Touché and Nobodyies.
[32:38] Um Tom and Nelli from Next Door is
[32:40] sending an email right now from his
[32:42] office. So, we support everyone in the
[32:44] area. We provide a lot of jobs and we're
[32:45] just a bar just like everybody else.
[32:47] We've had no complaints except f except
[32:49] the Saturday from 10 to 2 a.m. The
[32:53] neighbors upstairs will just call and
[32:54] make noise complaints. Uh I don't think
[32:57] that's fair. is they've all been cleared
[32:59] as you see here in in the paper that you
[33:02] provided. Um, and I've been working with
[33:05] the police. We got together in November.
[33:07] I didn't, however, in the summertime the
[33:09] guys provided a base speaker that was
[33:11] removed back in November. Um, let me
[33:14] just say this. The last six weeks or
[33:16] eight weeks since this all occurred and
[33:18] we signed that paper uh under distress
[33:20] because you guys would not let us
[33:21] operate if we didn't sign it. that we've
[33:24] ran the same type of music just off of
[33:26] an iPad and there hasn't been one police
[33:28] call for a noise ordinance during this
[33:30] time and I have video of this. So, I
[33:32] just want to be clear that nothing's
[33:34] changed and how I understand that
[33:36] there's a level of support for the place
[33:37] and there's a lot of people like, "Hey,
[33:39] I'm not going to go down there because
[33:40] it's not the blue tusk." I understand
[33:41] that and I respect everybody's point of
[33:43] view. I just don't think it's fair that
[33:45] some of these restrictions are in place
[33:46] to to hinder us from being able to
[33:48] operate normally like everybody else. as
[33:50] long as we adhere to having all of the
[33:52] proper permits and uh everything else
[33:54] that's required of us.
[33:58] So what specifically are you objecting
[34:01] to if anything? So when it says the
[34:03] businesses cannot have an entertainment
[34:05] license, we do want to be able We don't
[34:07] use amplified speakers. Um I can't see
[34:11] all of that. Okay, let me stop you then.
[34:13] Doesn't say can't. It says does not. It
[34:15] says that you don't have one currently.
[34:19] And I believe the condition is intended
[34:22] to make sure that if you intend to have
[34:25] entertainment, you apply for the
[34:28] license. Yes. And we will we will do
[34:29] that. I just wanted to clarify that
[34:31] because when I talked to Eric, I was a
[34:32] little confused today. Eric, it doesn't
[34:34] say you can't get one. It just says you
[34:37] have to get one if you want to do it.
[34:40] Outside of our business hours. Okay. I
[34:42] just want to make that very clear. Okay.
[34:43] What was the last part? We've never
[34:45] operated outside of our business hours.
[34:46] Good. I even have you even have an email
[34:48] from an SPD officer that works the
[34:50] detail downtown. He sent an email in
[34:52] today, right, of support for us, right?
[34:54] We did receive that. Yep. So, there are
[34:57] noise ordinances in the city for
[34:59] everybody. Just for But what I'm saying
[35:02] is we're not exceeding the normal noise
[35:04] ordinance of what a bar would be. That's
[35:05] the goal. Yep.
[35:07] But the same speakers that I was using
[35:09] prior between November when that bass
[35:12] speaker was removed between prior and
[35:13] March um those same speakers have been
[35:16] used the last eight weeks and there's
[35:17] not been one
[35:19] call. Um and just like attribute that to
[35:25] um to be honest with you I don't know
[35:27] because it's the same music. There's
[35:28] just no there's not somebody standing
[35:29] there with a guitar or a DJ packet, you
[35:32] know? It's just that's the
[35:34] difference. But that's what draws. So,
[35:36] we do, as you see, there's an email
[35:37] there from the president of uh Upstate
[35:40] Medical. We do two events a month that
[35:42] fundra for their program at Upstate.
[35:44] They are uh a blackowned kind of
[35:47] business type thing. They do an Afrouse
[35:49] Beads. Um they come in twice a month and
[35:52] I allow them to charge at the door. They
[35:54] take that money and they put it towards
[35:55] Upstate Medical Program and he details
[35:57] that in his email to you guys. Um they
[36:00] do provide a DJ on their own. did used
[36:02] to use a bass speaker which I could see
[36:04] when I met with the city and the
[36:06] neighbors upstairs where that could be a
[36:08] problem. So we debunked all that but
[36:10] still after that I see that there was
[36:12] still 44 calls of noise complaints put
[36:14] in. But even if you see on some of them,
[36:16] even in the the police ledger, they were
[36:18] all cleared on the noise complaints,
[36:20] meaning that there wasn't a there was no
[36:22] noise ordinance.
[36:31] Well, I guess so just to clarify, I
[36:32] mean, your objection is to the issue of
[36:35] being able to have live entertainment
[36:37] and all the other stipulations. If
[36:39] everything is happening uh the way it's
[36:42] supposed to happen, there shouldn't be
[36:43] any problems moving forward.
[36:44] Unfortunately, we're not in a position
[36:46] where we we can determine which
[36:48] complaints in the past have been valid
[36:49] and which complaints have not been
[36:50] valid. We can only address what what we
[36:52] have before. So, moving forward, if
[36:54] there are no more complaints, it's not a
[36:56] problem. So, the issue is the
[36:57] entertainment and if you want to have
[36:59] entertainment, then you just have to
[37:00] apply for an entertainment license.
[37:03] Yes, that's fine. Maybe I missed just to
[37:05] make sure. Well, maybe I didn't read it
[37:06] correctly, but the point is correct. You
[37:08] don't have a license right now, so there
[37:10] can be no live entertainment. Now, if
[37:12] you want to have live entertainment, you
[37:13] have to apply for a live entertainment
[37:14] license. Yes, sir. And we do have
[37:17] security. Uh the the actual director of
[37:18] our security is the director of the mall
[37:20] security. Uh he should be
[37:22] here any minute now. He got the mall. Um
[37:26] but I'm sure he'll speak. And again,
[37:28] like I said, we hire him. So, he handles
[37:31] all of our security Friday and Saturday.
[37:33] Yes, ma'am. And actually, one of his
[37:35] security guards is here as well. So,
[37:41] Other questions for the
[37:47] applicant? Okay, great. We're good for
[37:49] now. Thank you. Are there individuals
[37:52] who would like to speak in favor of this
[37:54] application? If so, please come to the
[37:56] podium, provide your name, address, and
[37:59] comments.
[38:08] Hello. Hello. My name is Daniel Anger. I
[38:11] am one of the security guards at Tap
[38:13] House on Walton. I just wanted to take
[38:15] time out to say um we've made sure that
[38:19] Tap House is a fun and safe environment
[38:21] for everybody. That includes everybody.
[38:24] And in this time, I understand that some
[38:27] people have issues with uh alleged noise
[38:31] from downstairs.
[38:33] respect and understand people's
[38:34] boundaries and what they'd like. Same
[38:37] time, in the last couple weeks, we
[38:39] haven't had any issues as far as noise
[38:42] because we don't have any live
[38:43] entertainment. As he said earlier, we
[38:46] play music off of a iPhone or iPad
[38:51] uh so that people enjoy themselves while
[38:54] they're having their drinks. Um any
[38:57] events that we've ever had as of recent
[38:59] especially are to raise money for
[39:02] Upstate. Um any issues that we have had
[39:06] aren't our issues. Anything outside of
[39:08] the walls of TAP House, it's outside of
[39:10] our jurisdiction. And we have great
[39:14] relationships with SPD to take care of
[39:17] and stop any
[39:20] uh issues from starting before they even
[39:22] start.
[39:24] So, I just wanted to take time out to
[39:26] say um we've followed and complied with
[39:30] any rules or regulations that have been
[39:31] put in place and we'll continue to do so
[39:34] going forward.
[39:37] Thank you.
[39:39] There are other individuals who wish to
[39:40] speak in favor of the application.
[39:42] Please come to the
[39:44] podium, provide your name, address, and
[39:46] your comments.
[39:49] Hello. Good evening. Uh my name is
[39:52] Shantel Powell. I am the owner of
[39:54] East Coast Bandits. We are a vinyl shop
[39:57] downtown. We're also an event planning
[39:59] business. Um I have worked closely with
[40:02] the venue to host brunches, uh baby
[40:05] showers, various community centered
[40:07] events, um such as Syracuse's CBT Alumni
[40:11] Weekend. Um I can attest to their
[40:14] commitment to creating an atmosphere
[40:16] that supports small businesses and
[40:19] enhances the cultural atmosphere of
[40:21] downtown Syracuse. Um, uh, Tap House has
[40:24] partnered with us and many other local
[40:27] creators and organizations that reflect
[40:29] positively in our community.
[40:32] Um, allowing them what they need would
[40:35] allow them to continue what is already a
[40:37] space for music and creativity, which is
[40:40] important, and it also opens up more
[40:42] opportunities for responsible night life
[40:45] um, and economic growth in the
[40:47] neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you very
[40:49] much.
[40:51] Are there other individuals who wish to
[40:52] speak in favor of the application?
[40:54] Please come forward, provide your name
[40:56] and address for the record and your
[40:58] comments.
[41:00] How's it going? My name is Nike Evans. I
[41:03] actually run security uh for Tap House
[41:05] under Evans Security Services. Uh one of
[41:08] my guys actually just spoke um a moment
[41:11] ago. Yes. So I I think that the it
[41:15] should be approved. Um, I've been
[41:17] working for Tap House for
[41:19] probably maybe two years, uh, a little
[41:21] bit more. Um, I've actually known the
[41:23] owner as a personal friend for probably
[41:25] about seven years. Uh, I've been doing
[41:28] security for bars downtown. In my
[41:30] personal opinion, I would have to say
[41:32] his bar has been the safest I've ever
[41:34] worked at. Um, I've worked at, like I
[41:36] said, other bars, uh, ranged from CSP to
[41:40] margaritas, uh, different things like
[41:42] that. and uh my team put on the the most
[41:47] phenomenal
[41:49] uh staffing they can u when it comes to
[41:51] safety protocols, different things like
[41:53] that. Uh there has never been an issue
[41:57] uh with inside the bar. Um typically
[41:59] when things you know go outside the that
[42:02] bar, uh we handle it the best way we can
[42:04] even with the help of Syracuse police uh
[42:06] which also they do a phenomenal job with
[42:09] assisting me. Um, but I will say from a
[42:11] personal uh standpoint, we have never
[42:13] had any issue inside. Um, ever since
[42:16] November, uh, the loud music hasn't been
[42:18] an issue. Um, which is also good. I know
[42:21] sometimes, you know, people complain
[42:23] about that and, you know, living
[42:24] downtown and I understand. Um, but there
[42:26] has never been any issues, um, even from
[42:29] music
[42:30] standpoint. So,
[42:32] I, like I said, in my opinion, I would
[42:34] like it to be granted. Um, I've been
[42:36] doing work there for over two years at
[42:38] least, and I'd like to continue that.
[42:42] Um, the the owner has been exceptional.
[42:44] Uh, he he's done great things for this
[42:47] community, for this city. Uh, and and to
[42:49] see it to go opposite, it would I would
[42:53] be uh kind of upset, a little
[42:55] disappointed, but uh, like I said, my
[42:58] name is Nike from Evans Security
[42:59] Services. I do the security for Randy.
[43:02] Um, and that's all I have. Okay, thank
[43:05] you very
[43:06] much. Are there other individuals who
[43:08] wish to speak in favor of this
[43:10] application? If so, please come
[43:15] forward. So, next I will ask, is there
[43:18] anyone wishing to speak in opposition to
[43:20] the application? If so, please come to
[43:22] the podium, provide your name, address,
[43:25] and your comments.
[43:29] Hi, my name is Reagan Cuddi. I am a
[43:32] resident and owner uh in the uh center
[43:35] armory condominiums right above this
[43:38] establishment. Um and I have been one of
[43:40] the people who has been directly
[43:42] affected uh historically by some of
[43:44] these noise uh and vibration issues. Um
[43:48] I will I would like to acknowledge that
[43:51] yes we did have discussions uh in
[43:53] November of this past year and that the
[43:57] reduction in use of the DJ speakers did
[44:00] reduce the vibrational noise. So
[44:01] appreciated that change. I think my
[44:04] concern and why I wanted to make sure I
[44:06] was here tonight is just
[44:07] that this change and I appreciate there
[44:10] are the conditions currently there feels
[44:12] as though um the change from land use of
[44:16] a bar restaurant to bar with the
[44:18] accessory use for entertainment opens
[44:20] the door for um going back to live
[44:24] entertainment which is where we
[44:26] previously experienced these issues. Um,
[44:28] when I moved back to Syracuse 5 years
[44:30] ago and and bought downtown, it's
[44:32] because I care about and I want to
[44:34] invest in the city. And I would love to
[44:36] see these establishments succeed. And
[44:38] so, I'm not here
[44:39] to try and and squash this and squash
[44:42] progress. I just want to make sure that
[44:44] as residents, our investment and in our
[44:47] homes are still places that we can live
[44:50] and work and do all of those things and
[44:53] that it's it can be done in a way that
[44:55] we can coexist.
[44:57] Um, some things that came to mind for me
[45:00] in in addition to some of the staff
[45:01] recommendations were, you know, if this
[45:05] live music and live entertainment had
[45:06] not happened before, are there things
[45:08] that have been done in terms of either
[45:10] acoustical studies or soundproofing or
[45:12] other measures that could be taken?
[45:14] Because it feels like there there could
[45:16] be other options to explore. And at the
[45:19] end of the day, I think it's I don't
[45:21] want it to be an us against them. I
[45:23] think we all have a vested interest in this area being uh inhabited by
[45:29] responsible and collaborative owners and
[45:32] tenants. And that's I think why I'm here
[45:35] today to just say that as it was
[45:37] currently submitted, I felt like I
[45:38] needed to say something in opposition,
[45:40] but it's not in opposition to the change
[45:43] happening.
[45:46] So, thank you. Thank you.
[45:49] Are there other individuals who wish to
[45:51] speak in opposition to the application?
[45:53] If so, if so, please come to the
[45:56] podium. Provide your name and address
[45:58] and then your comments.
[46:06] Hi, Reynolds. I'm also a resident in
[46:09] Center Armory. Um, I want to echo a lot
[46:12] of what Reagan said and just saying that
[46:13] like this is by no means a complaint
[46:15] about progress and activity downtown.
[46:17] Living downtown for the last few years
[46:19] has been a joy. I love being down there.
[46:21] I work downtown. I live downtown. I like
[46:23] to spend my money and be an active
[46:25] participant downtown. It's really hard
[46:28] to do so though when you can't get sleep
[46:30] on the weekends because your house is
[46:32] shaking. And I think that that's just
[46:34] one of the things that I it has tapered
[46:37] certainly, but I think it's one of those
[46:38] things where the structure
[46:40] just maybe isn't built for that kind of
[46:44] m that kind of activity. And it's hard
[46:46] to acknowledge that there are still 38
[46:49] units upstairs who care and want to be
[46:53] downtown and they want to support. It's
[46:55] just that it's hard when you know you
[46:57] have a family and you're up all night on
[47:00] Friday, Saturday, Thursday sometimes. Um
[47:03] because it's just not it's literally
[47:05] shaking your home. I think that's the
[47:06] hardest part. The noise is something
[47:08] that's very common in downtown. You're
[47:10] used to it. The the people, the music
[47:12] outside, it's very obvious and you kind
[47:15] of expect that. It's just when it's
[47:17] literally below you that is really
[47:19] difficult to get past. And I think sort
[47:21] of I have a similar concern of like if
[47:23] these
[47:24] things aren't held to or if there isn't
[47:26] that acknowledgement that that kind of
[47:28] level of base and that shaking will
[47:30] continue. And that's just it's just
[47:31] incredibly disruptive to all of us
[47:33] upstairs.
[47:36] Thank you. Can I just ask a question?
[47:39] Have you noticed an improvement? I have.
[47:42] We've noticed an improvement uh
[47:43] specifically in the last eight weeks.
[47:45] Okay. Um I think that the core maybe of
[47:48] what the issue is is the live music and
[47:50] the or the kind of it. It's hard to
[47:52] tell, but I think that like when the the
[47:55] iPad music that they're talking about
[47:57] that's not bothersome. A touch tunes is
[47:59] not bothersome. I think it is just
[48:01] dependent on the sound and speakers and
[48:02] the system. Yeah. And and it's hard to
[48:05] tell. It's and it's certainly not
[48:06] constant, right? You know, to their
[48:08] credit, like they've made some changes
[48:09] and that's really helpful, but I think
[48:11] that it just is dependent on what's
[48:13] playing and who's in there and how late.
[48:16] Has there been a adherence to the hours
[48:21] uh to close it too? As far as we know,
[48:24] yes, the the quiet it gets really quiet
[48:26] after that. Yeah. Thanks,
[48:30] Thank you.
[48:31] Are there other individuals who wish to
[48:33] speak in opposition to the application?
[48:35] If so, please come to the podium,
[48:39] provide your name and address for the
[48:41] record, and then share your comments
[48:43] with us.
[48:48] Uh, good evening. My name is PJ Nolan. I
[48:51] am the owner of the Limick Pub located
[48:53] at 134 Walton Street.
[48:57] Um, I've had the privilege of running
[48:59] that business for about 20 years and we
[49:01] have been in business for 30.
[49:05] Um, I felt compelled to speak today
[49:09] because I am very committed to Armory
[49:12] Square. I also happen to live above
[49:14] margaritas.
[49:16] And the outcome the outcomes for Walton
[49:21] and Armory affect more than just the
[49:25] people upstairs, the people across the
[49:26] street like myself. It affects the
[49:28] surrounding neighborhood in its
[49:30] entirety. And that's what I want to
[49:32] speak to.
[49:34] Um, since the last maybe five years,
[49:38] Armory has been recovering from a
[49:40] reputation that is not a safe place to
[49:43] go. There have
[49:44] been there have been um some violence.
[49:47] There have been stabbings. There have
[49:49] been people have been killed. This has
[49:51] been an ongoing process where I have
[49:54] been to probably 20 different meetings
[49:57] with the Armory Square Association and
[49:59] we talk about security at every single
[50:02] one. So for
[50:05] me, I have live music twice a week. I
[50:08] understand the permitting. I understand
[50:10] the timing of that. I understand it is
[50:11] good for business. I also want to s see
[50:15] businesses around me succeed. I I don't
[50:18] think that anyone is here is coming and
[50:21] doing it out of spite or out of um
[50:24] dislike for successful
[50:28] businesses. I do worry about my staff.
[50:31] Uh I worry about them walking to their
[50:34] car at night when proper security
[50:37] measures are not being taken. We are
[50:39] very grateful for the police um in at
[50:43] the intersection of Walton. They do a
[50:45] wonderful job of making sure that we are
[50:48] safe while they are there. We understand
[50:50] that there has been a lot of
[50:51] conversation about when they are and and
[50:53] when they are not. But um that being
[50:55] aside, that is my number one issue. That
[50:57] is my number one concern. Um I
[51:00] appreciate these conditions being added
[51:04] as I hadn't seen them before.
[51:08] Um again, it's just about, you know,
[51:11] walking three blocks to your car. uh at
[51:15] 2:30 in the morning when you're closing
[51:16] up and making sure that it's not just
[51:19] inside your space that you're taking
[51:20] care of, but it's the surrounding area
[51:22] as well because we all walk those
[51:24] sidewalks and we all live in this
[51:26] neighborhood. So, thank you for your
[51:28] time. Thank
[51:30] you. Are there other individuals who
[51:33] wish to speak in opposition to the
[51:34] application? If so, please come to the
[51:37] podium, provide your name, address, and
[51:40] your comments.
[51:46] I don't see anyone additionally stepping
[51:49] up to speak on this application. So we
[51:53] will close public comment but as noted
[51:56] earlier at the outset of the meeting
[51:58] where comments are offered in
[51:59] opposition. The applicant has an
[52:02] opportunity to address comments made in
[52:04] opposition. So if you wish to do so
[52:07] um now would be the time to do that.
[52:18] It's
[52:22] optional touch on the noise level. Um
[52:26] the noise complaints that we have been
[52:27] getting. Um it's very consistent with
[52:30] Armory Square. I manage a significant
[52:33] amount of properties in Armory Square.
[52:35] Um and every weekend there is noise
[52:38] complaints. There's a lot of movement on
[52:40] the streets outside of these bars. Um,
[52:44] just coming from the homeowners
[52:46] association upstairs. I have multiple
[52:48] complaints on tenants here and there.
[52:51] One being the Crooked Cattle, one being
[52:53] LM Social. Um, I I think it's part of
[52:57] being an Armory Square. Um, our
[53:00] buildings are built pretty well. We have
[53:01] acoustical drop ceiling. We have
[53:03] insulation above them. We do everything
[53:05] in our power to keep the noise and
[53:08] vibration from going upstairs. Um, and
[53:12] that's really all I have. We're trying
[53:13] our best here. So, thank you guys for
[53:16] your time today. Thank you. Thank you.
[53:19] So, we'll close um or already did close
[53:23] public comment on this, but we will now
[53:25] turn our attention to our seeker review.
[53:30] Um, has everyone had a chance to review
[53:32] the EAF part one prepared by the
[53:34] applicant and contained in your packet?
[53:36] Yes. Has everyone reviewed the EAF part
[53:40] two contained in your packet? Yes. Yes.
[53:43] Does anyone believe the proposed action
[53:45] will have a moderate to large impact
[53:46] under Seeker?
[53:48] No.
[53:50] Having determined there will be no
[53:52] moderate to large impacts, I recommend
[53:54] that the commission make a negative
[53:56] declaration and prepare the part three
[53:58] EAF accordingly.
[54:01] Thank you. Is there such a motion?
[54:04] Sure. Make a motion to issue a negative
[54:06] seeker declaration.
[54:09] Second.
[54:10] Discussion on the seeker motion before
[54:13] us.
[54:16] There's no discussion. Then all in favor
[54:18] of the motion, please indicate by saying
[54:20] I. I. Those opposed, please say nay. Any
[54:26] abstensions? The seeker motion
[54:29] carries. And we turn our attention to
[54:32] the major site plan review MISPR
[54:40] 2544. Uh so question I guess before we
[54:43] form a motion I just make sure does this continue as
[54:48] MISPR-25-44 or should this be renumbered
[54:51] as a major site plan review? Just wanted
[54:54] to clarify that because we had some
[54:55] concession and to clarify for the
[54:57] audience that as a major site plan
[54:59] review the planning commission is the
[55:01] final decision on the application. So is
[55:04] that correct or do we need to change the we wouldn't change it just for our
[55:08] own recordeping. Okay.
[55:13] Yeah. Great. Okay. Thank you.
[55:17] I also have one quick question on the
[55:19] security piece. Part of the conditions
[55:22] or one of the condition discussions
[55:24] is your security, your inside security
[55:29] partaking in
[55:31] outside observing the security at from 2
[55:35] to 2:30. Is that something that you see
[55:39] possible?
[55:54] I understand that. Right.
[56:05] Right.
[56:23] also
[56:35] buddies. These
[56:47] guys, but it's just
[57:01] speaker. As far as the structure,
[57:22] That'd be great. I think to the woman
[57:25] from Limmerick's point, you know, if
[57:27] everybody's doing the same thing in the
[57:29] neighborhood, it's only going to help
[57:31] protect the neighborhood.
[57:42] I I have one more question. Have you
[57:44] applied for an entertainment permit
[57:49] until this? Until this.
[58:02] Okay. Obviously,
[58:43] Okay, there's a lot of lines in play
[58:45] here. There's a lot of stuff in one.
[58:47] Yeah,
[58:54] that's good.
[58:56] Okay. Sorry.
[58:58] So, I guess we're set for motion. We
[58:59] are. I mean, I just want to say I
[59:01] appreciate the comments both for and
[59:03] against the project because hopefully
[59:05] this is how we sort out these things and
[59:06] come up with an outcome that's suitable
[59:09] for everybody and it seems like things
[59:11] are moving in the right direction. So,
[59:12] the only issue now is if you get the
[59:14] entertainment license and can operate
[59:16] according to the guidelines, then
[59:18] everything will be hunky dory moving
[59:21] forward. Okay.
[59:42] Is there then
[59:45] a motion? So I I make a motion uh to uh
[59:50] approve uh
[59:53] MISPR-24-44 with the nine conditions
[59:56] that were read into the record earlier
[59:58] in the uh the meeting.
[1:00:01] And those conditions include the SEPTAD.
[1:00:03] Yes, they do. Recommendation for study
[1:00:07] as well as the general conditions. As
[1:00:08] well as general conditions. Correct.
[1:00:15] Thank you. Discussion now on this motion
[1:00:17] before us with the conditions enumerated
[1:00:25] earlier. If not then all in favor of the
[1:00:28] motion as proposed please indicate by
[1:00:31] saying I. I. I. Those opposed please say
[1:00:35] nay. Any
[1:00:39] abstensions? The major site plan review
[1:00:41] is approved with the conditions noted.
[1:00:45] Thanks to everyone who spoke on this
[1:00:48] application. Uh we move to our next
[1:00:51] project.
[1:00:56] Okay. The next item on the agenda is the
[1:00:59] SU Syracuse University hotel projects.
[1:01:02] Um it it includes two companion
[1:01:06] application. One is the resubdivision
[1:01:08] application R-25-22.
[1:01:12] Another one is the project plan review
[1:01:16] Z-2A98. It's located at the 600
[1:01:21] 602602.5 604 and 606 University Avenue.
[1:01:25] The Syracuse University is the owner and
[1:01:28] Jennifer C. Byby is the uh applicant.
[1:01:31] It's all the districts are in all the
[1:01:34] properties are in the P zone district.
[1:01:38] Good evening. My name is Joe Elf Fury,
[1:01:40] executive director of campus planning,
[1:01:42] design, and construction at Syracuse
[1:01:43] University. Jennifer could not be here
[1:01:45] tonight. We're here tonight to present a
[1:01:47] new hotel to be constructed. It's
[1:01:49] proposed on the university campus within
[1:01:51] the main campus PI subdist 12. The site
[1:01:55] is on the west side of University A,
[1:01:57] north of Adam Street and south of
[1:01:59] Harrison Street. The university owned
[1:02:01] and operated University Aar is directly
[1:02:04] across University Avenue to the east.
[1:02:06] new hotel will fulfill a vital need for
[1:02:09] both the university comm community and
[1:02:11] the larger Syracuse community as well.
[1:02:13] The hotel is designed to comply with all
[1:02:16] zoning requirements. The university has
[1:02:18] applied for both project plan review and
[1:02:20] a resubdivision applications. Please
[1:02:23] note the university is not seeking
[1:02:24] approval of zoning applications at
[1:02:25] tonight's hearing. Rather requesting
[1:02:27] that the planning commission equalist
[1:02:30] issue a seeker negative declaration
[1:02:32] tonight. As your packets show, we have
[1:02:35] submitted extensive analysis of
[1:02:36] potential environmental impacts,
[1:02:38] included third-party consultant analysis
[1:02:41] and have proposed measures were
[1:02:42] appropriate to ensure there are no
[1:02:44] resulting significant adverse
[1:02:46] environmental impacts.
[1:02:49] Additionally, uh despite the late
[1:02:51] breaking art news article, um Syracuse
[1:02:54] the univers Syracuse University has uh
[1:02:57] obtained capacity to serve letters from
[1:02:59] city water, uh Anadaga County, Aquep and
[1:03:02] National Grid like we would do with all
[1:03:05] of our normal projects, the preceding
[1:03:07] three you've seen uh
[1:03:09] recently. So, thank you for having us on
[1:03:11] the agenda for tonight. Um, with us
[1:03:13] tonight are Brian Merch, associate uh,
[1:03:17] architect and principal at
[1:03:19] DLR group architects, Sarah Sturz,
[1:03:22] associate principal at King and King
[1:03:23] Architects, and Greg Fuchche, partner
[1:03:25] from Whiteitman Osterman Hannah outside
[1:03:27] council for the project. I'll now turn
[1:03:29] over the presentation to Brian Merch to
[1:03:32] present the design of the proto proposed
[1:03:34] hotel. Thank you.
[1:03:38] Thanks, Joe. Good afternoon or good
[1:03:40] evening, everybody. My name is Brian
[1:03:42] Merch. I represent DLR Group. We're a
[1:03:44] national architecture firm and I'm one
[1:03:46] of the design architects working on the
[1:03:48] hotel. I've got a handful of slides to
[1:03:51] share tonight just to cover a couple
[1:03:53] bases for where we're at with things. Um
[1:03:56] first, a little context. Those five
[1:03:58] parcels being combined um currently
[1:04:01] parking lots in their existence and the
[1:04:04] thought here is to convert that into our
[1:04:06] new hotel.
[1:04:10] Next
[1:04:11] slide. Maybe a little more technical
[1:04:13] data just showing the site boundaries,
[1:04:16] the setbacks as well as some of the
[1:04:22] utilities. This is a jigsaw
[1:04:26] puzzle. Um, maybe a little too high res
[1:04:29] for Yeah, maybe a little
[1:04:33] refresh. Essentially, we tried to create
[1:04:36] a context map for the hotel just to show
[1:04:38] it in relation not only to the
[1:04:40] neighborhood but also its relationship
[1:04:42] back to the
[1:04:45] campus. We also indicated some of those
[1:04:47] roof heights just trying to capture the
[1:04:50] scope and scale of the new hotel in in
[1:04:52] relation to the buildings around us. Oh
[1:04:55] boy,
[1:05:01] this is going to make my job harder.
[1:05:05] We have it.
[1:05:08] Okay. Um, let's see where. Okay. So,
[1:05:11] then the site plan. Oh, here we go.
[1:05:15] Okay,
[1:05:16] cool. Context
[1:05:19] map. So, you can see the orange dot that
[1:05:22] represents the
[1:05:23] hotel again just in its conformance and
[1:05:26] just the bigger composition of the
[1:05:27] neighborhood around us.
[1:05:30] The next slide I think really highlights
[1:05:32] where we're at with the design currently
[1:05:35] in site
[1:05:37] plan. The middle section probably the
[1:05:40] most significant part is the hotel
[1:05:42] tower. Programmatically we have about
[1:05:45] 200 guest rooms in total. Um to go with
[1:05:49] that we have an extension of that lobby
[1:05:51] space which is the podium building or
[1:05:53] what we call our event space. We've got
[1:05:54] about a 4200 foot ballroom in
[1:05:57] preunction. Um, and then lastly, at the
[1:06:01] bottom of that sheet, there is
[1:06:03] a parking garage, an elevated parking
[1:06:08] structure. Um, a couple other points to
[1:06:10] make on this slide is the access points.
[1:06:14] So, just thinking about guest arrival
[1:06:16] and some of those peak times. Um, the
[1:06:19] black arrow there represents kind of
[1:06:20] that entry courtyard. We've created an
[1:06:22] autoc court for cars to be able to
[1:06:24] access uh from university and allow um
[1:06:28] ingress and egress to our to our lobby
[1:06:30] from there. There's a access point along
[1:06:33] University along the sidewalk just to
[1:06:35] invite people in from that
[1:06:37] point. And then lastly, the other u
[1:06:40] point of contention here would be our
[1:06:42] three bay truck birth in the back of the
[1:06:44] building. You can see it there on the
[1:06:46] left in between the Skyler Commons
[1:06:48] building and the new hotel.
[1:06:51] It would be accessed off of Harrison.
[1:06:55] Obviously, the last slide we have to
[1:06:58] share just tries to capture the scope
[1:07:00] and scale of the
[1:07:01] elevations. It's going through a lot of
[1:07:03] detail currently. But more importantly,
[1:07:06] I think the architectural inspiration
[1:07:08] was based on, you know, the campus
[1:07:10] buildings, what we're trying to do to
[1:07:12] marry that material pallet as well as
[1:07:14] just thinking about our context and some
[1:07:16] of the buildings around us and how we
[1:07:17] merge that all together as a
[1:07:19] composition.
[1:07:21] Lots of glazing and glass as you can
[1:07:22] imagine the views from the upper guest
[1:07:25] rooms as well as at the street frontage
[1:07:27] along University and Harrison our
[1:07:29] frontages. Just thinking about how that
[1:07:31] activity of the lobby space spills out
[1:07:33] onto the sidewalk and really creates an
[1:07:35] inviting environment for guests um and
[1:07:38] students and and everybody in Syracuse
[1:07:44] alike. That concludes the design slides.
[1:07:56] Is is that completes your presentation
[1:08:00] there? You're an additional speaker. I
[1:08:01] don't want to interrupt anyone with or
[1:08:03] with our questions. I'll turn it back
[1:08:05] over to you. So, but if you're finished,
[1:08:08] we'll open it up to questions from the
[1:08:09] commission members now.
[1:08:14] So, there's a grade on University Avenue
[1:08:16] that goes uphill. from Jennese.
[1:08:21] Um, this is being proposed called 13
[1:08:25] stories. Is it 13 stories at all grade
[1:08:30] math? Um, or are we So, we we used the zoning guidelines that talked about
[1:08:38] average grade plane. So you take the
[1:08:41] long elevation, divide it in half, hit
[1:08:44] that spot elevation, whatever that grade
[1:08:45] is there, and then that's where you
[1:08:47] measure everything from. In terms of
[1:08:52] stories, I would say it's fairly
[1:08:54] accurate. I know the lobby level with it
[1:08:57] being the same elevation across, it was
[1:08:59] going to provide challenges at the
[1:09:01] Harrison intersection just with people
[1:09:03] being up a little higher versus maybe a
[1:09:05] little lower. So I think the thought
[1:09:07] would be is that we step the floor
[1:09:09] inside. so that it follows that grade
[1:09:11] change down
[1:09:12] university. So the story levels would be
[1:09:15] equal. It would just be that that lowest
[1:09:17] level along university that would be
[1:09:19] stepped that will go down up and down.
[1:09:21] Exactly.
[1:09:23] Okay. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead, Joe. Can or
[1:09:28] maybe this is better for Joe. Can you
[1:09:30] identify what's the nearest 13 story?
[1:09:39] I think the Sheridan was 10 if I
[1:09:41] remember right.
[1:09:59] So that Oh, that was the biggest one,
[1:10:01] right? So that's 12
[1:10:04] Okay. Okay. Right.
[1:10:14] Which again is because of parade going
[1:10:16] to present as a much higher
[1:10:20] uh yeah uh I I can also add one point to
[1:10:23] that. So um I know based on that there's
[1:10:26] um historic resource assessment report
[1:10:29] prepared by the king and king architect.
[1:10:31] I noticed that um you designed the
[1:10:35] parking garage like you have the parking
[1:10:38] garage and the restaurant sections as a
[1:10:40] like stepping down designs to uh to
[1:10:47] accommod uh Skyler in the back and also
[1:10:51] that's why probably that's the reason
[1:10:53] why you have that to preserve the view
[1:10:56] plan for these hotel in the back the
[1:10:58] historic uh eligible buildings in the
[1:11:01] back and als Yeah. And also that's why
[1:11:04] maybe you have like a certain story uh
[1:11:07] hotel in the middle.
[1:11:13] Good for him. Thank you.
[1:11:18] So tonight we're we're just doing uh the
[1:11:20] seeker review. So I'm just wondering I
[1:11:23] mean is there a reason why we're just
[1:11:24] doing secret review tonight? We still I
[1:11:26] I'm guessing you still have details that
[1:11:27] you're trying to work out before you do
[1:11:28] the full plan review.
[1:11:41] Interesting. Great.
[1:12:03] Fine. Just wanted to clarify that and I
[1:12:05] know given the comment uh by the Andog
[1:12:08] County Planning Board and the
[1:12:09] unfortunate article in post standard
[1:12:11] today about that, but you have addressed
[1:12:13] all the the issues and uh it does go
[1:12:17] through department review. So that just
[1:12:19] for people in the audience and who may
[1:12:21] be watching online that the uh process
[1:12:25] does include all of the departments
[1:12:27] weighing on which is essentially what
[1:12:28] the county planning department said
[1:12:30] should happen. So that does in fact
[1:12:32] happen and is happening with this
[1:12:33] process.
[1:12:53] Thank you. Yeah. And also I can add on
[1:12:56] that. So uh this project will have a
[1:12:59] pre-development meeting on this Thursday
[1:13:01] with all city departments. So it's just
[1:13:04] like the uh common projects in the city.
[1:13:07] They will have um all the departments to
[1:13:10] review it, send the comments to them and
[1:13:12] making sure there are compliance with
[1:13:14] the city code. Thank you.
[1:13:18] Who wants to talk about the traffic
[1:13:20] study?
[1:13:25] Great. Um, I know that you did one.
[1:13:29] I'm not either, so that's okay. Um, do
[1:13:33] you have any comments on what the
[1:13:36] expectation is in terms of, if any,
[1:13:40] additional stress on the traffic side?
[1:13:44] We we hired a traffic engineer, Paso
[1:13:46] Associates. That documentation was
[1:13:49] submitted with our original application.
[1:13:52] Um they came out, they did a study, they
[1:13:55] examined how things work today, how much
[1:13:58] traffic was generated today from the
[1:14:00] parking lots. Um then and they looked at
[1:14:03] that at peak hour. Then they did what
[1:14:06] you normally would do with an analysis.
[1:14:09] Went to the I Institute of Traffic
[1:14:11] Engineers. what do you expect to be
[1:14:13] generated from a full service hotel,
[1:14:15] which is what we're going to have, which
[1:14:17] doesn't typically operate at peak hour.
[1:14:19] You know, their peak hours will be
[1:14:21] different. And and um what she concluded
[1:14:25] was that there would be no more than 66
[1:14:29] vehicle trips during the peak either
[1:14:32] peak hour, morning or afternoon. Um and
[1:14:35] that applying general traffic analysis
[1:14:39] criteria which is what the state and the
[1:14:41] city and the county all use since there
[1:14:44] would be less than 100 vehicle trips
[1:14:46] generated at the nearest intersection
[1:14:50] that you there won't be it's just
[1:14:53] industry standard that's not a
[1:14:54] significant impact. You don't need to go
[1:14:56] into any more detailed analysis which
[1:14:59] she referred to as a traffic impact.
[1:15:01] Right. Okay. Thank you.
[1:15:11] very much. Are there
[1:15:13] individuals who would like to speak in
[1:15:15] favor of either of these applications?
[1:15:20] Just as to the
[1:15:21] seeker, I wanted to point out that um um
[1:15:27] this action that you're taking tonight,
[1:15:30] the vote you're taking tonight is for
[1:15:32] seeker only. And so as you well know,
[1:15:35] but I want to make sure it's on the
[1:15:36] record that the vote is does not conote
[1:15:40] approval of the substantive act
[1:15:42] applications in any way. So people also
[1:15:46] can comment on the substantive
[1:15:48] application, but I presume we'll leave
[1:15:50] the hearing open so that um further
[1:15:54] comments can be made at the time that
[1:15:56] the council takes up the substantive um
[1:15:59] application. Yes. Agreed.
[1:16:03] Uh, sir, you wish to speak? Good
[1:16:07] evening. My name is Troy Wner. I'm the
[1:16:09] director of the Anadoga County Planning
[1:16:11] Department. Um, 335 Montgomery Street.
[1:16:14] I, you know, I felt the need to come
[1:16:15] today in part because I read the same
[1:16:17] article everybody else did in
[1:16:18] Syracuse.com and I think it needs a
[1:16:20] little bit of context. Thank you.
[1:16:23] Because, you know, this came before the the planning board, which I'm a
[1:16:27] staff member, and you know, it's we
[1:16:30] provide comment. We provide comment on
[1:16:32] every single pro referral that comes
[1:16:34] before us. And oftentimes, not to
[1:16:35] downplay the comments, but there's
[1:16:37] certainly a a context to those comments
[1:16:40] that if the reporter writing it didn't
[1:16:41] understand our process, he wouldn't
[1:16:43] necessarily under the understand the
[1:16:45] context in which we make those comments.
[1:16:47] in some cases are almost
[1:16:49] boilerplate comments. We ask we tell
[1:16:51] every almost every single referral that
[1:16:53] comes before us that they have to go to
[1:16:55] weapon do sewer uh flow and capacity
[1:16:59] asurances to to make sure that the
[1:17:01] system can handle it. We tell almost
[1:17:03] every referral that comes before us to
[1:17:04] look at transportation options, parking
[1:17:07] options and similar matters which are
[1:17:09] just part of the natural planning
[1:17:11] process that any project really
[1:17:13] undertakes. I mean, Syracuse University
[1:17:15] is certainly well ahead of the game in
[1:17:17] many ways in terms of providing the
[1:17:19] planning that's needed for this hotel,
[1:17:21] looking at the traffic, looking at the
[1:17:22] sewer control, looking at the sewer
[1:17:24] flow, all that. That's really what those
[1:17:25] comments are there for. We put them in
[1:17:27] everything. So, they're a little bit of
[1:17:29] boilerplate and I think they got taken a
[1:17:30] little bit out of context in terms of
[1:17:32] our process and how we handle it. I just
[1:17:34] wanted to clear that up to a certain
[1:17:36] extent. The other part of this I would
[1:17:38] say is I mean the the planning the
[1:17:40] county planning department I would dare
[1:17:42] say the county executive fully supports
[1:17:43] this this this hotel project. It is a
[1:17:46] needed project in the city. You know
[1:17:47] we've lost some hotel rooms over the
[1:17:49] last couple of years. This will replace some of those hotel rooms. And
[1:17:54] as the community grows and it's growing
[1:17:56] as we continue to grow and Micron comes
[1:17:58] in, we're going to need more and more of
[1:17:59] these hotel rooms to make up for it. And
[1:18:01] yeah, I think you know, the county has
[1:18:02] certainly invested the time and money
[1:18:04] into into putting money investment forth
[1:18:08] into these hotels. This is a great
[1:18:10] example of the dividends and it's a
[1:18:11] great example of Syracuse University
[1:18:13] having the foresight to give us more
[1:18:15] hotel rooms, more hotel options. You
[1:18:18] know, 200 rooms on University Hill with
[1:18:20] dining and event space is just what we
[1:18:22] need in this county. And like I said, I
[1:18:23] came here really to clear up some of the
[1:18:25] context in which we provide those
[1:18:26] comments as well as just to express our
[1:18:28] support for the project. Thank you.
[1:18:30] very
[1:18:31] much. Are there other individuals who
[1:18:34] wish to speak in favor? Please come
[1:18:36] forward.
[1:18:46] Rex Jardine, 112 Circle Road. Thank you
[1:18:50] for the opportunity to provide input. As
[1:18:52] an architect and resident of zip code
[1:18:55] 13210, more specifically University Hill
[1:18:58] since moving here, I'd like to provide
[1:19:00] some comments of support. The
[1:19:02] prominently located Sherin from my
[1:19:04] recollection was opened in early 1986
[1:19:07] and is nearing 40 years old. As I knew
[1:19:10] and actually worked for the designer,
[1:19:12] investor, developer, I can guarantee it
[1:19:15] was done on a cheap and shoestring
[1:19:16] budget. I reviewed the application and
[1:19:19] find the sighting and massing of the
[1:19:21] proposed 13story 200 bed hotel far more
[1:19:24] responsible use of the open land and the
[1:19:27] existing surface parking lots. The
[1:19:29] state-of-the-art hotel and meeting
[1:19:31] complex is overdue and welcome
[1:19:33] intervention. The hotel appears to be
[1:19:35] well positioned in what will be a more
[1:19:37] walkable core area for out of town
[1:19:40] visitors whether here for events,
[1:19:42] commencements, faculty job interviews
[1:19:45] for Syracuse University, Sunni SF or
[1:19:47] Upstate Medical University. Equally
[1:19:50] important to have a walkable place for
[1:19:52] family and visitors of patients at any
[1:19:54] one of the three fine hospitals that
[1:19:56] share our zip code. I like to see this
[1:19:58] sort of bold investment and hope the
[1:20:00] city itself somehow finds ways to
[1:20:03] complement the investments of others
[1:20:06] with similarly bold and visionary
[1:20:07] municipal projects that actually attract
[1:20:10] long-term and invested residents. Sadly,
[1:20:13] other than some sidewalks and curbs, the
[1:20:15] only tangible city investment I've seen
[1:20:18] was now 10 years ago in a mere
[1:20:24] 689,74143, the pitiful 3% local share of
[1:20:28] the half renovation of my children's
[1:20:30] elementary school, the now 107year-old
[1:20:34] woodframed prek grade school at the
[1:20:38] center of zip code 13210 in the shadow
[1:20:40] of three fine colleges and three fine
[1:20:43] hospitals. Maybe if the 53rd mayor had
[1:20:46] children in the schools, things would
[1:20:47] have been different. Imagine after
[1:20:50] seeing developers and institution com
[1:20:52] institutions commit billions, how
[1:20:55] exciting it would be to be at a planning
[1:20:56] commission meeting where some of that
[1:20:58] tax or deferred tax revenue from over
[1:21:01] 10,000 beds was being invested in a
[1:21:04] state-of-the-art elementary school
[1:21:06] proposed by this city. A school so
[1:21:08] fabulous Fagatville would be jealous. To
[1:21:11] close, I fully support what Syracuse
[1:21:13] University has proposed. Thank you.
[1:21:16] Thank
[1:21:17] you. Are there other individuals who
[1:21:20] wish to speak in favor of this
[1:21:21] application? If so, please come to the
[1:21:27] podium. Is there anyone wishing to speak
[1:21:29] in opposition to the application? Please
[1:21:31] come
[1:21:35] forward. I don't see anyone else rising
[1:21:38] to speak. Another question please. Joe,
[1:21:42] can you just confirm um for the seeker
[1:21:45] the number of parking spaces
[1:21:49] for somebody?
[1:21:56] Three to four floors on the garage. Did
[1:21:58] I read that
[1:22:03] right? Thanks.
[1:22:10] I'd just like to express my appreciation
[1:22:11] for the comments from the planning board
[1:22:13] clarifying the situation because we
[1:22:15] wouldn't have had to discuss it if it
[1:22:16] hadn't been the unfortunate out of
[1:22:17] context article
[1:22:21] that so we'll leave public comment open
[1:22:23] for the reason noted earlier and we will
[1:22:26] turn our attention to our seeker review
[1:22:28] first with the reubdivision.
[1:22:47] Yes. So the secret review is actually
[1:22:49] cover both the resubdivision and the
[1:22:51] project plan review. Um yeah so the full
[1:22:55] environmental assessment form part two
[1:22:58] on the page two
[1:23:00] 267 has been prefilled with suggestions
[1:23:03] from the staff. I'm going to go through
[1:23:05] the part two of the EF to see if you
[1:23:07] agree with these suggestions.
[1:23:09] Additionally, here is a proposed
[1:23:11] attachment for the part three
[1:23:13] determination of significance
[1:23:16] um and a draft resolution provided by
[1:23:18] the staff that you could use if you
[1:23:19] decide to act on secret tonight. Part
[1:23:22] two of the FEAF is a issue spotting
[1:23:25] exercise where the board will discuss if
[1:23:27] there are any potential impacts that
[1:23:29] need to be analyzed in more detail in
[1:23:32] part three of the
[1:23:33] FEAF. So the first question involves the
[1:23:37] impacts to land because this is a
[1:23:40] project that does involve construction
[1:23:42] and physical alteration of the land. We
[1:23:45] recommend that the board answer this
[1:23:47] question yes. Does the board agree? Yes.
[1:23:51] The sub question A through G are seeking
[1:23:53] about the depths to water tables, slope
[1:23:55] of the site, exposed bar rocks,
[1:23:58] excavation and removal of natural
[1:24:01] materials, potential erosions, duration
[1:24:03] of the construction and if the action is
[1:24:06] in a coastal erosion hazard area. Based
[1:24:10] on the information provided in part one
[1:24:12] of the FEAF, the response letter and the
[1:24:16] supplementary materials, the action
[1:24:18] would not involve construction on land
[1:24:20] with shallow water table, exposed or
[1:24:24] shallow bars, steep slopes or within a
[1:24:28] coastal erosion hazard area. and action
[1:24:31] will involve development of a sweep and
[1:24:36] um installation of an underground storm
[1:24:38] water detention system to control the
[1:24:40] on-site runoffs. Therefore, I recommend
[1:24:43] you check no or small impact for the
[1:24:45] subs question A, B, C, F, and G. Does
[1:24:50] the board agree? Yes.
[1:24:53] And then it comes to the subs question
[1:24:55] D. This question indicates that the
[1:24:58] project will involve the excavation and
[1:25:00] removal of more than 1,000 tons of
[1:25:02] natural material. This sub question
[1:25:05] triggers concern about the potential
[1:25:07] erosions, unstable land and disposal of
[1:25:10] materials. For the response provided by
[1:25:13] the applicant, the excavation will be
[1:25:16] accomplished by standard mechanical
[1:25:19] equipment in only one phase will not be
[1:25:22] multifaces and will not involve blasting
[1:25:25] or driving uh piles. The applicant will
[1:25:29] use sheet piling and shoring to stab
[1:25:32] stabilize the site and to mitigate
[1:25:34] potential soil erosion caused by the
[1:25:36] material removal. In addition, all the
[1:25:39] excav exc es excavated soils will be
[1:25:42] disposed offsite at the Hansen
[1:25:44] Jamesville coral
[1:25:47] facility. Therefore, I recommend you
[1:25:49] check no or small impact for the sub
[1:25:51] question D. Does the board agree? Yes.
[1:25:55] Sub question E indicates that the
[1:25:57] project is is expected to last for
[1:25:59] approximately uh 24
[1:26:02] months. Excuse me.
[1:26:06] The long-term construction triggers
[1:26:07] concern on the noise and dust impact on
[1:26:10] nearby properties. Per the response
[1:26:12] letter, all contractors will be obl
[1:26:15] obligated to comply with the city of
[1:26:18] Syracuse noise ordinance to mitigate the
[1:26:21] noise impact. An applicant will apply
[1:26:24] standard dust management practices such
[1:26:27] as watering watering down the site,
[1:26:30] stabilize stone construction entrance
[1:26:32] and stone drive lanes around the
[1:26:34] building to mitigate dust impact.
[1:26:37] Therefore, I recommend you check no or
[1:26:39] small impact for the sub question E.
[1:26:42] Does the board agree? Yes. The second
[1:26:45] question involves the impact on the
[1:26:47] geological features. There are no unique
[1:26:51] geological features within or near the
[1:26:53] project site. Therefore, we we recommend
[1:26:55] the board answer this question. No. Does
[1:26:58] the board agree? Yes. The third question
[1:27:01] involves the impact on the sub surface
[1:27:04] waters. There are no water bodies close
[1:27:08] to the project site and the project will
[1:27:10] not withdraw water from nearby
[1:27:12] subsurface water bodies. Rather, the
[1:27:15] project will utilize and enhance the
[1:27:17] existing water utility connections that
[1:27:20] connect to the city water. Therefore, we
[1:27:22] recommend that the board answer no to
[1:27:24] this question. Does the board agree?
[1:27:26] Yes. Yes. The fourth question following
[1:27:29] u the fourth question involves impact on
[1:27:32] groundwater. This project will be
[1:27:34] connected to the existing city water and
[1:27:36] sewer services. Also, it is it is not
[1:27:39] located above any aquifers that are used
[1:27:42] for drinking water and the usage of
[1:27:45] pesticides will follow the integrated
[1:27:47] pest management practices to minimize
[1:27:51] the reliance on the chemical pesticides
[1:27:53] and to mitigate the potential harm to
[1:27:56] the humans the and environment.
[1:27:59] Therefore, we we recommend that the
[1:28:01] board answer no to this question. Does
[1:28:03] the board agree? Yes.
[1:28:05] The fifth question involves the impact
[1:28:07] to flooding. The project is not located
[1:28:11] on a designated floodway, floodway or
[1:28:14] 100year or 500year flood plane while a
[1:28:18] um sweep contains construction of a
[1:28:21] on-site underground storm water
[1:28:22] detention system uh which also requires
[1:28:25] the compliance to an approval from the
[1:28:28] New York State DEC standards. this um
[1:28:32] detention system will be provided prior
[1:28:34] to building and site permit approval.
[1:28:37] Therefore, we recommend the board answer
[1:28:39] this question. No. Does the board agree?
[1:28:41] Yes.
[1:28:43] The sixth question involves impact on
[1:28:46] air. This project does not require
[1:28:48] federal or state air emission permits
[1:28:51] and does not include air emission
[1:28:53] sources. Therefore, we recommend that
[1:28:55] the board answer no to this question.
[1:28:57] Does the board agree? Yes.
[1:29:01] The seventh question involves impact on
[1:29:03] plants and uh animals. The property is a
[1:29:06] developed lot and has been used as
[1:29:09] surface parking lots for decades. Per
[1:29:12] FEF part one, the property is uh not
[1:29:16] situated in any habitat that contains
[1:29:18] the threatened or endangered species as
[1:29:21] listed by the New York State or the
[1:29:23] federal government based on the New York
[1:29:25] State DEEC database. There are no
[1:29:28] registered national uh national natural
[1:29:31] landmarks on the property and action
[1:29:33] will not require conversion of more than
[1:29:36] 10 acres of the forest, grassland or any
[1:29:39] other regionally or locally important
[1:29:42] habitat. Therefore, we we recommend that
[1:29:44] the board answer uh this question no.
[1:29:47] Does the board agree? Yes.
[1:29:50] The following question involves the
[1:29:52] impact on uh agricultural resources. We
[1:29:55] recommend that the board answer no to
[1:29:57] this question because there are no
[1:29:59] agricultural resources um on the project
[1:30:02] area. Does the board agree? Yes. Yes.
[1:30:06] The uh the next question involves the
[1:30:08] impact to the estatic resources. We
[1:30:11] recommend the board answer no to this
[1:30:14] question because there's no estatic
[1:30:16] resources recognized on or close to the
[1:30:18] project site. Does the board agree? Yes.
[1:30:24] The following question um involves the
[1:30:26] impact um to the historic and
[1:30:29] archaeological resources. The project
[1:30:31] will not occur on any lands that have
[1:30:34] been listed or deemed eligible for the
[1:30:37] national or state register and will not
[1:30:40] result in uh destruction or alteration
[1:30:43] of any historic and archae
[1:30:46] archaeological um
[1:30:48] resources. But it the the project will
[1:30:51] occur substantially contiguous to one
[1:30:54] property which is eligible for listing
[1:30:56] on the state register of historic
[1:30:59] places. Therefore, we recommend that the
[1:31:02] board answer yes to this question. Does
[1:31:04] the board agree? Yes.
[1:31:06] based on the information provided in the
[1:31:08] part one FEAF and the response letter
[1:31:12] and the
[1:31:14] um the supp uh the materials like uh the
[1:31:18] supple supplementary materials. action
[1:31:20] will involve um constructions neither on
[1:31:25] or nearby a sensitive archaeological
[1:31:27] site nor on a archaeological site that
[1:31:30] is not included on the New York uh ship
[1:31:34] hole inventory. Therefore, I recommend
[1:31:36] you check no or small impact for the sub
[1:31:39] question B and C. Does the board agree?
[1:31:42] Yes.
[1:31:43] Um the sub question A indicates that the
[1:31:46] project will occur substantially
[1:31:48] contiguous to the hotel Skyler located
[1:31:51] at 60 uh
[1:31:53] 601-15 Krauss Avenue South and Harrison
[1:31:57] Street. Per the response and the
[1:32:00] historic uh historic resources
[1:32:03] assessment prepared by the King and King
[1:32:06] architect. The hotel building is
[1:32:08] designed in a way to match the heights
[1:32:10] and characteristics of the surrounding
[1:32:12] properties. The three-story parking
[1:32:15] garage and twotory conference center
[1:32:17] section will be in a step- down design
[1:32:20] considering the story of the adjacent
[1:32:22] hotel Skylar and the Skylar Commons. The
[1:32:26] hotel building will follow a
[1:32:27] classicbased middle top massing and the
[1:32:31] ar um architectural design at street
[1:32:34] level will be consistent with the
[1:32:35] neighboring buildings. Also besides the
[1:32:39] assessment report by Kenyan King
[1:32:42] architect exams the historic properties
[1:32:44] in the surrounding neighborhood and
[1:32:47] points out that the surrounding
[1:32:48] neighborhood is a mix of numerous styles
[1:32:51] ranging from the neocclassical to the
[1:32:54] contemporary styles and does not present
[1:32:58] a co coherent or integrated historic
[1:33:01] scene. It concludes that the location,
[1:33:05] materials, scale and overall aesthetic of the hotels fits well with
[1:33:11] many of the adjacent properties. Also,
[1:33:13] in addition by imple implementing the
[1:33:16] sweep dust and um noise control
[1:33:20] practice, the sheep piling and shoring
[1:33:22] during the excavation and um uh the
[1:33:26] construction impact on the surrounding
[1:33:28] historic properties and district will be
[1:33:30] further mitigated. Therefore, I
[1:33:32] recommend the board answer no or small
[1:33:34] impact for the sub question A. Does the
[1:33:36] board agree? Yes. The 11th question
[1:33:40] involves the impact on open space and
[1:33:42] recreation. There are no designated open
[1:33:45] spaces or recreational resources that
[1:33:48] will be affected by this project.
[1:33:50] Therefore, we recommend that the board
[1:33:52] answer this question no. Does the board
[1:33:54] agree? Yes. The 12th question involves
[1:33:58] the impact to critical environmental
[1:34:00] areas. We recommend that the board
[1:34:02] answer no to this question because this
[1:34:05] project site does not contain or is
[1:34:07] adjacent to a critical environmental
[1:34:10] area. Does the board agree? Yes. Yes.
[1:34:13] The 13 question involves the impact on
[1:34:15] the transportation. The project will not
[1:34:18] result in a significant adverse impact
[1:34:20] on the existing transportation system or
[1:34:23] traffic patterns. The proposed parking
[1:34:25] garage of the hotel will contain 100
[1:34:28] about 100 parking spaces representing a
[1:34:32] reduction from the
[1:34:33] existing 124 spaces currently provided
[1:34:37] by the existing surface parking lots.
[1:34:40] Per the trip generation and distribution
[1:34:42] assessment prepared by the um traffic
[1:34:46] engineering. It uh concludes that the
[1:34:49] project will not result in significant
[1:34:52] adverse impact on the local traffic
[1:34:54] operations and the roadway capacity of
[1:34:57] the both Harrison Street and University
[1:35:00] Avenue is sufficient to accommodate the
[1:35:03] anticipated traffic generated by the
[1:35:06] projects. The project will not degrade
[1:35:08] existing the transit access and existing
[1:35:12] um pedestrian or bicycle accommodations.
[1:35:15] Therefore, we we recommend that this
[1:35:17] question be answered no. Does the board
[1:35:19] agree? Yes. The 14th question involves
[1:35:23] the impact on the energy. The project
[1:35:26] will cause an increase in the use of
[1:35:28] energy. Therefore, we recommend that the
[1:35:30] board answer yes to this question. Does
[1:35:32] the board agree? Yes. Based on the
[1:35:35] information provided in the part one
[1:35:38] FEAF and the response letter and all
[1:35:41] these materials, the project will not
[1:35:43] require a new or an upgrade to a um
[1:35:48] existing substation or create or
[1:35:52] extension of any energy transmission or
[1:35:55] supply system to serve more than 50
[1:35:58] single or two family residents or to
[1:36:01] serve a commercial industrial use. Uh
[1:36:04] use Therefore, we recommend the board
[1:36:06] checks no or small impact may occur for
[1:36:08] the sub question A and B. Does the board
[1:36:11] agree? Yes. Sub question C indicates
[1:36:14] that the project will will utilize more
[1:36:17] than
[1:36:18] 2500 megawatt hours per year of the
[1:36:22] electricity. Per the will serve letter
[1:36:25] the existing electricity infrastructure
[1:36:27] has sufficient capacity to accommodate
[1:36:30] the increased demand by the projects. In
[1:36:33] addition, the project will use the LED
[1:36:35] lighting to reduce the electricity
[1:36:37] demand. Therefore, we recommend that the
[1:36:40] board check no or small impact may occur
[1:36:43] for the sub question C. Does the board
[1:36:46] agree? Yes. Um, the sub question D
[1:36:49] indicates that the project will involve
[1:36:51] heating or cooling of more than 100,000
[1:36:55] square feet of the building area. Per
[1:36:58] the response letter, the project will
[1:37:00] use modern energy efficiency design and
[1:37:03] equipment, including a uh energy
[1:37:07] recovery ventilator type air handling
[1:37:10] units which can recover energy between
[1:37:12] the supply and exhaust air streams to
[1:37:15] the air handling unit to in order to
[1:37:18] reduce the heating and cooling loads.
[1:37:20] Therefore, we recommend that the board
[1:37:22] check no or small impact may occur for
[1:37:25] the sub question D. Does the board
[1:37:26] agree? Yes. Yes, the 15th questions uh
[1:37:31] involves the impacts to the noise order
[1:37:34] and the light. We recommend that the
[1:37:36] board answer yes to this question
[1:37:38] because the project will result in an
[1:37:40] increase in noise and outdoor outdoor
[1:37:43] lighting. Does the board agree? Yes.
[1:37:46] Based on the information um provided um
[1:37:49] the project will not involve blasting
[1:37:52] activity, will not result in routine o
[1:37:55] orders for more than one hour per day,
[1:37:57] will not result in light shining onto a
[1:38:00] drawing properties or creating like sky
[1:38:03] glow brighter than existing aerial
[1:38:06] conditions. Therefore, we recommend that
[1:38:08] board check no or small impact may occur
[1:38:11] for the sub question B through E. Does
[1:38:13] the board agree? Yes. Yes,
[1:38:17] the sub question A indicates that the
[1:38:19] project will produce sound above noise
[1:38:22] levels estim established by the local
[1:38:25] regulations. Per the response letter,
[1:38:28] all contractor will be obligated to
[1:38:30] comply with the city of Syracuse noise
[1:38:32] ordinance to mitigate noise impact.
[1:38:35] Therefore, we recommend the board check
[1:38:37] no or small impact may occur for the sub
[1:38:39] question A. Does the board agree? Yes.
[1:38:43] The following question involves the
[1:38:45] impact on human health. The project site
[1:38:48] does not have any history of
[1:38:50] contamination or spills and is not in a
[1:38:53] environmental site remediation database.
[1:38:56] Additionally, the project will not
[1:38:57] involve construction or modification of
[1:39:00] a solid waste management facility and
[1:39:04] the solid waste generated during the
[1:39:06] construction will be removed and
[1:39:08] disposed um in compliance with all
[1:39:12] state, federal or local laws and
[1:39:14] regulations. Thus, we recommend the
[1:39:18] board answer no to this question. Does
[1:39:19] the board agree? Yes.
[1:39:23] The 17th question involves uh
[1:39:26] consistency with community plans. We
[1:39:29] recommend that the board answer no to
[1:39:30] this question because the action is in
[1:39:33] is consistent with the development
[1:39:35] standards of the planned institutional
[1:39:38] district of the zoning code and the
[1:39:41] adopted district plan of the Syracuse
[1:39:44] University subd district number 12. The
[1:39:48] surrounding properties are occupied by
[1:39:49] the institutional uses, hotel and
[1:39:52] student housings. The proposed um the
[1:39:56] proposed hotel building are not in sharp
[1:39:59] contract contrast to surrounding land
[1:40:01] use patterns. Does the board agree?
[1:40:04] Yes. The uh the last question involves
[1:40:07] the consistency with the community
[1:40:10] character. The project will not replace
[1:40:12] or eliminating existing facility
[1:40:15] structures or areas of historic
[1:40:17] importance to the community, will not
[1:40:20] create a demand for additional community
[1:40:23] service services and will not interfere
[1:40:26] with the use of enjoyment of officially
[1:40:28] recognized or designated public
[1:40:31] resources and um is designed to be
[1:40:34] consistent with the predominant
[1:40:36] architectural scale and the character of
[1:40:38] the surrounding properties. Therefore,
[1:40:40] we recommend the board answer no to this
[1:40:42] question. Does the board agree? Yes.
[1:40:44] So, in conclusion, the commission
[1:40:47] as lead agency in this coordinated
[1:40:49] review under the state environmental
[1:40:51] quality review act has thoroughly
[1:40:54] reviewed all the relevant materials has
[1:40:57] taken a hard look and analyzed all
[1:41:00] aspects of the action. For all the
[1:41:02] reasons set forth above, the commission
[1:41:05] determines that action will not have any
[1:41:07] significant adverse impacts on the
[1:41:10] environment and therefore an
[1:41:12] environmental impact uh statement needs
[1:41:15] not to need not be prepared.
[1:41:18] Accordingly, the commission issues a
[1:41:20] negative declaration to be filled uh to
[1:41:23] be filed sorry and notice of the
[1:41:25] negative declaration will be provided
[1:41:27] pursuant to all applicable laws and
[1:41:29] regulations.
[1:41:33] Thank you for taking us through that
[1:41:35] detailed
[1:41:42] review. Okay. And because we've done
[1:41:45] that step by step, we don't require a
[1:41:47] motion.
[1:41:49] So, okay. Okay. And this will apply to
[1:41:52] both the reubdivision and the associated
[1:41:55] uh project plan review for the hotel
[1:41:58] project that we just heard
[1:42:02] about. That concludes our action on
[1:42:05] these applications for this evening.
[1:42:38] We normally don't take a vote once we've
[1:42:41] walked through all of the part two
[1:42:43] because they've already answered no. And
[1:42:46] we'll have a resolution prepared
[1:42:48] reflecting the board's action after this
[1:42:50] for signature by Mr.
[1:43:00] Um yeah, we prefer to hold this resub
[1:43:04] yeah with the project plan review beyond
[1:43:06] the next meeting.
[1:43:10] We expect to see you back next month.
[1:43:19] Yes.
[1:43:23] And he will receive
[1:43:26] and you'll be back
[1:43:31] um soon next
[1:43:33] month. Uh so I think that concludes the
[1:43:37] totality of our action this evening on
[1:43:40] these two projects. So we will now move
[1:43:43] to the
[1:43:44] next item actually related items
[1:43:49] uh for action. The next three items are
[1:43:53] related and the background or
[1:43:57] presentation I think will cover all
[1:43:59] three although we will certainly act
[1:44:01] separately um on the three.
[1:44:04] So the next uh items on the agenda is um
[1:44:09] three zoning map amendments
[1:44:12] Z-2A94
[1:44:14] Z-2A96 and
[1:44:17] Z-2A97. Um these projects happens at uh
[1:44:22] 9 uh 505 Prospect Avenue, 515 Prospect
[1:44:26] Avenue and 525 Prospect Avenue. Um the
[1:44:30] owner of the 505 Prospect Avenue is 526
[1:44:33] North Salina Street LLC and the
[1:44:37] um 526 North Salina Street LLC also owns
[1:44:41] the 515 Prospect Avenue. the Syracuse
[1:44:46] um flat flat uh flat taran LLC owns the
[1:44:50] 525 Prospect Avenue and um the city of
[1:44:54] Syracuse zoning administrator are the
[1:44:56] applicants for all the three zoning map
[1:44:59] amendment pro uh application and
[1:45:01] currently these um three properties are
[1:45:05] in a pending zone district and pending
[1:45:08] for assignment of the zone
[1:45:13] Son, just a question. Uh, the owner of
[1:45:16] the property you referred to and we have
[1:45:19] it's uh 526 North LLC. Is that correct?
[1:45:22] Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. I thought I heard
[1:45:24] something else.
[1:45:31] MX4.
[1:45:35] All three. All three are MX4. Correct.
[1:45:38] Yep.
[1:45:40] Do you have any idea how how long they
[1:45:42] have owned this property? I mean, is it
[1:45:44] a recent purchase since it's not
[1:45:46] considered it's not a right away or I'm
[1:45:48] just kind of curious.
[1:45:52] Um the property was created since uh
[1:45:55] 2023
[1:45:57] and yes that that that time the
[1:46:05] in the staff report the property became
[1:46:07] a new tax parcel in 2023 following the
[1:46:09] adoption of reszone right so there's a
[1:46:12] backlog of these reszone of parcels so
[1:46:16] um right understood that working so but
[1:46:19] it was owned by by the person even
[1:46:21] before
[1:46:23] that. Okay.
[1:46:38] Yeah. So, um as confirmed by the zoning
[1:46:41] staff, the properties are previously
[1:46:43] owned by the city and was also sold to
[1:46:46] these u currently property owners in the
[1:46:49] 2023. Great. Great.
[1:47:00] Further questions
[1:47:03] on any one of these three zoning map
[1:47:08] amendments for staff? If not, then are
[1:47:12] there individuals who wish to speak in
[1:47:15] favor of any one of these three zoning
[1:47:19] map amendments?
[1:47:22] Just provide your name, please, and
[1:47:24] address and comments. My name is Jamie
[1:47:26] Williams. I live at 729 Sumar Avenue in
[1:47:30] the city. Um, I'm an associate partner
[1:47:33] with Homeskin Cquest Architects and our
[1:47:36] office is 575 North Salina Street across
[1:47:39] the street from the Flat Iron Building.
[1:47:42] Um, I'm speaking on behalf of the
[1:47:44] ownership uh of the building. Uh, on
[1:47:48] behalf of Twin Gables Holding Company,
[1:47:50] the ownership entity of 575 North Salina
[1:47:53] for over 35 years. We enthusiastically
[1:47:57] support the revitalization of 53536
[1:48:00] North Salina.
[1:48:02] As the architects for that project, we
[1:48:04] were kneedeep in our clients efforts to
[1:48:06] secure ownership of the adjacent
[1:48:08] Prospect Avenue property so that the
[1:48:10] additional property could facilitate
[1:48:12] building egress, handicapped
[1:48:14] accessibility, and zoning required
[1:48:17] parking. These efforts began with the
[1:48:19] engineering engineering department, then
[1:48:22] on to the planning commission and
[1:48:24] ultimately to a successful appeal to the
[1:48:26] common council. Changing the zone
[1:48:29] district of the subject property to
[1:48:31] urban core MX4 will allow both
[1:48:34] properties to match zoning
[1:48:35] classification and will make it easier
[1:48:38] for this worthy project to proceed to
[1:48:41] completion. Thanks for your
[1:48:43] consideration. Carlton
[1:48:45] Holmes partner homes can conquest.
[1:48:48] Thank
[1:48:51] you. Are there other individuals who
[1:48:53] wish to speak in favor of any one of
[1:48:56] these
[1:48:57] three
[1:49:00] applications? If not, is there anyone
[1:49:03] wishing to speak in opposition to any
[1:49:05] one of these three
[1:49:08] applications? Don't appear to be any
[1:49:10] additional speakers. We'll close public
[1:49:13] comment and proceed with our seeker
[1:49:16] review. We're going to do seeker for all
[1:49:19] three. Um that's
[1:49:23] I think because they're all related. Um
[1:49:26] it is good similar. Keep them separate
[1:49:29] in your head.
[1:49:31] Has everyone had a chance to review the
[1:49:33] EAF part one prepared by the applicant
[1:49:36] and contained in your packet as to each
[1:49:38] of these parcels, each of these um
[1:49:40] resones?
[1:49:41] Yes. Yes. Okay. Has everyone nice had a
[1:49:46] chance to review the EAF part two
[1:49:48] prepared by staff contained in your
[1:49:50] packet as to each of these three
[1:49:52] separate applications?
[1:49:54] Yes.
[1:49:56] Does anyone believe the proposed actions
[1:50:00] any of the three reasons will have a
[1:50:03] moderate to large impact under seeker?
[1:50:05] No.
[1:50:07] Having determined there will be no
[1:50:08] moderate to large impacts for the
[1:50:10] reszone of any of these three
[1:50:12] applications, I recommend that the
[1:50:15] commission make a negative declaration
[1:50:18] as to each um project number separately
[1:50:22] and um prepare a part three EAF
[1:50:25] accordingly.
[1:50:27] Thank you. So we'll proceed one by one
[1:50:29] now through these proposed zoning uh map
[1:50:32] amendments. First, uh, taking up
[1:50:36] Z2895. Is there a secret motion for
[1:50:40] this?
[1:50:41] Yes, I'm prepared to make a motion to
[1:50:43] approve
[1:50:45] Z-2895 as presented. I'm sorry, we're
[1:50:48] still on
[1:50:49] seeker. Make a motion for issuing a
[1:50:52] negative seeker declaration for Z-2895.
[1:50:56] Thank you. Thank you. Discussion on this
[1:50:59] seeker motion.
[1:51:01] If not, all in favor, please indicate by
[1:51:03] saying I. I. Those opposed, please say
[1:51:07] nay. Any abstensions? The secret motion
[1:51:10] is approved. We might as well act upon
[1:51:14] Z28.995. Is there a motion for action
[1:51:18] uh to the common council for final
[1:51:20] disposition of the zoning map amendment?
[1:51:23] Z2895.
[1:51:25] I make motion for approval of
[1:51:27] Z-2895 with a recommendation for
[1:51:29] affirmative action to the common
[1:51:30] council.
[1:51:32] Thank you both. Mo uh discussion on the
[1:51:36] motion. All in favor of the motion,
[1:51:38] please indicate by saying I. I. Those
[1:51:41] opposed, please say nay. Any
[1:51:44] abstensions? That is approved. We'll go
[1:51:47] on to the council Z2896.
[1:51:50] Is there a seeker motion for this zoning
[1:51:53] map amendment? Make a motion for a
[1:51:56] minute. Affirmative issue an affirmative
[1:51:58] recommendation. Sorry, an affirmative
[1:52:00] negative decoration for decative ne
[1:52:04] affirmative negative secret declaration.
[1:52:06] Thank
[1:52:08] you. Negative secret. Yes. Too too many
[1:52:12] a negative declaration on Z 28. Let's
[1:52:16] try this
[1:52:18] again. And Is there discussion on this
[1:52:21] motion for seeker? If not, all in favor,
[1:52:25] please indicate by saying I. I. Those
[1:52:28] opposed, please say nay.
[1:52:30] Any abstensions? The seeker motion
[1:52:33] carries. And is there now a motion for
[1:52:36] recommendation to go to the council on
[1:52:38] this amendment Z2896?
[1:52:42] Yes. I make a motion uh for approval of
[1:52:45] [Music]
[1:52:46] Z-2896 with an affirmative
[1:52:48] recommendation to the common council.
[1:52:52] Thank
[1:52:53] you. Is there discussion on this
[1:52:58] motion? Not all in favor of the motion,
[1:53:00] please indicate by saying I. I. Those
[1:53:04] opposed, please say nay. Any
[1:53:06] abstensions?
[1:53:08] That recommendation for
[1:53:10] Z2896 moves to the
[1:53:12] council. Looking now at
[1:53:16] Z2897. Is there a seeker motion on this
[1:53:19] amendment? All right. Let's see if we
[1:53:20] can do it right this
[1:53:22] time. Um I make a motion for issuing a
[1:53:27] negative seeker declaration for Z-2897.
[1:53:32] Discussion on the
[1:53:33] motion. All in favor of the motion,
[1:53:36] please indicate by saying I. I. I. Those
[1:53:39] opposed, please say nay. Any
[1:53:42] abstensions? The secret motion carries.
[1:53:46] Is there now a motion for action
[1:53:49] uh by way of a recommendation to the
[1:53:51] council for this amendment Z2897?
[1:53:55] Yes. I make a motion for uh application
[1:54:00] Z-2897 approved with an affirmative
[1:54:02] recommendation for action by the city
[1:54:04] council or common council.
[1:54:07] Thank you. Second. Thank you. Discussion
[1:54:10] on this
[1:54:11] motion. If not, all in favor, please
[1:54:14] indicate by saying I. I. I. Those
[1:54:17] opposed, please say nay. Any
[1:54:19] abstensions?
[1:54:21] This recommendation will also go to the
[1:54:23] council. And I think that completes our
[1:54:27] hearings, but not quite our business
[1:54:30] this evening. We have an other business
[1:54:32] item. Yes, we have one um we have items
[1:54:37] in the out of business. Um the first one
[1:54:39] is the three mile limits subdivision
[1:54:43] uh review. is in the town of Dwit and
[1:54:46] it's for the lot line adjustment of the
[1:54:50] A12 and A20 Franklin Park Drive. The
[1:54:54] owner and applicant are the Stefan
[1:54:57] Oliver
[1:54:58] Jr. and this application has been
[1:55:01] reviewed um by the city of Syracuse
[1:55:05] Department of Engineering.
[1:55:08] Thank
[1:55:09] you. Is there are there any questions on
[1:55:13] this? item. No questions. If not, is
[1:55:17] there a motion for action on
[1:55:20] 3S2505 in DWIT?
[1:55:23] Make a motion to approve uh
[1:55:26] 3S-25-05 as presented. Thank you. Thank
[1:55:30] you both. All in favor of the motion,
[1:55:32] please indicate by saying I. I. Those
[1:55:35] opposed, please say nay. Any
[1:55:38] abstensions?
[1:55:39] That three mile limit in det is
[1:55:42] approved. And I think our last item
[1:55:44] before adjournment is
[1:55:47] um uh election of officers for the
[1:55:52] planning commission.
[1:55:58] I move the nomination of Steve as chair
[1:56:02] and Walter.
[1:56:07] A second.
[1:56:10] discussion on the motion.
[1:56:14] What was that?
[1:56:16] [Laughter]
[1:56:20] It could happen.
[1:56:23] Further discussion on the motion.
[1:56:27] Uh rush this. Okay. So, but if there's
[1:56:31] no but if there's no discussion, all in
[1:56:33] favor, please indicate by saying I. I.
[1:56:36] Those opposed, please say nay. Any
[1:56:39] abstensions? Any hold outs?
[1:56:42] Congratulations. Thank you. And thank
[1:56:44] you. And uh we'll convey this
[1:56:48] information to Walter. Yeah. Um in due
[1:56:53] time for the additional responsibilities
[1:56:55] that we added to the vice chair's
[1:56:57] position. Uh all seven pages of those
[1:57:00] duties we will convey to him. That's
[1:57:02] right. Our new job description. Right.
[1:57:06] And I think we're finished with our
[1:57:08] official business. Is there a motion to
[1:57:10] adjurnn? So move. Second. All in favor,
[1:57:14] please say I. I. Those opposed, please
[1:57:18] say nay. We adjourned and we will
[1:57:21] reconvene June
[1:57:25] 16. 16. Okay. Thank you. Well, we have
[1:57:27] our workshop. No, we have our workshop
[1:57:28] before. So the pregnant question is when are we going to get the amendments?
[1:57:35] very soon.
[1:57:39] Does that mean this week?
[1:57:44] The vice chair see