[0:11] Okay, I will uh now call this meeting to order. Uh we will begin tonight with an

[0:17] invocation. Jordan, would you mind with that? And then we'll be followed by a

[0:21] pledge. Paul, would you lead us in the pledge after

[0:24] that? Our father in heaven, we are truly

[0:28] graciously gathered together today to review the the issues before the

[0:34] city. Please bless us as we consider each of these items that we

[0:40] can be sympathetic to those that this will affect. And please bless us that we

[0:46] can know the best path forward that we can have wisdom granted from thee. and

[0:50] we are truly grateful for thy guidance in these things and ask a blessing upon

[0:53] all us the citizens of Syracuse that they can feel peace and understanding

[1:00] and through these difficult times as we navigate economic troubles and continue

[1:06] to bless us we can know the path forward and see the light at the end of the

[1:10] tunnel these things we pray in Jesus name

[1:13] amen please rise

[1:21] To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it

[1:26] stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice

[1:32] for all.

[1:37] Council, can I get a motion to adopt our agenda? Motion to adopt. Second. Uh, all

[1:43] in favor? I I. Any opposed? Okay. With our agenda going forward, item number

[1:49] two is recognition and presentation of the Utah Administrative Fire Officer

[1:55] Designation to our Fire Marshal, Golden Barrett. And for any public in the

[2:00] audience, let me just note that we have more people who have done the

[2:03] certifications in Utah than any other department. And I'm very proud of that.

[2:08] Yes. Thanks, Mayor Council, for letting me have a little bit of time this

[2:11] evening. I'd like to invite Fire Marshall Golden Barrett up and then read

[2:15] you a little statement here. So nearly 15 years ago, the Utah

[2:20] State Fire Chiefs Association supported by the Utah Fire and Rescue Academy and

[2:25] the Utah State Fire Marshals Office established the Utah Commission on Fire

[2:30] Officer Designation. It's a lot of Utah's. Since then, the commission has

[2:35] developed a three- tier designation system for fire officers in Utah. The

[2:40] first level is supervisory fire officer. The second level is managing fire

[2:44] officer. And the third and highest level is administrative fire officer. I'm

[2:49] proud to report that of the 175 supervisory fire officers statewide, 13

[2:56] are from Syracuse Fire. There are 15 managing fire officers statewide with

[3:01] five of them being from Syracuse Fire. Tonight, we're here to recognize an

[3:06] extraordinary achievement. Golden Barrett has earned the title of

[3:10] administrative fire officer to the highest designation the highest

[3:13] designation and is only the second person in the state of Utah to do so.

[3:18] This accomplishment reflects thousands of hours of dedic dedicated to

[3:22] leadership development through education, hands-on experience,

[3:26] certifications, and training across all three designation levels.

[3:30] Golden's achievement demonstrates not only his personal commitment to

[3:34] professional excellence, but also his deep dedication to serving the Syracuse

[3:39] community and supporting his fellow firefighters. Please join me in

[3:42] congratulating Golden on this outstanding accomplishment.

[3:55] They sent us with a nice little plaque and a pin that he will have for his

[3:58] uniform and uh like to give that to you. Congratulations.

[4:05] Thank you. Thank you.

[4:14] The next item on our agenda is public comment. And this is a chance for you to

[4:17] bring forward something that uh you'd like the council to be aware of either

[4:20] on tonight's agenda or something that uh you'd like us to consider in the future.

[4:25] It is not an open discussion, but is there anyone here that would like to

[4:28] make public comment?

[4:39] You'd please state your name for the record. Yeah, my name is Matt Swain. Um,

[4:44] I'm one of the owners of the Shadowpoint Shopping Center and just wanted to take

[4:47] a quick minute during the public uh uh comment session here to to discuss an

[4:52] item that's later on in the RDA agenda tonight. Um, just wanted to speak uh

[4:58] quickly about uh the situation there and also offer up my time to answer any

[5:03] questions during during that time when the RDA is is hearing uh that item on

[5:08] the agenda to amend the current RDA agreement with uh relation to the EOS

[5:15] construction. Um, recognizing that there were two

[5:20] technical non-compliance issues within the RDA agreement, I'm here tonight to

[5:24] just talk through uh the position of of the owner and hopefully uh talk through

[5:31] any concerns uh that you might have relating to our performance on actually

[5:37] delivering the EOS building to the s city of Syracuse. As you can see, as you

[5:41] drive down analopee drive, you can see that all the building is moving forward.

[5:45] the walls are up and it's it's obviously moving forward toward completion. Uh

[5:50] we've made a very significant investment in the in the city and have tried really

[5:55] hard over the years to try to entice an anchor into the Shadow Point Shopping

[6:00] Center which is kind of at the gateway of Syracuse City and finally got one and

[6:05] then it took years to actually get it built based upon COVID hitting which uh

[6:10] dismantled the healthc care industry and also created chaos and construction

[6:14] costs and capital markets etc which delayed the project for years. the RDA

[6:20] as it was outlined in the agreement was um instrumental and really the catalyst

[6:26] that allowed us to move forward on that project and we we wouldn't have moved

[6:31] forward without that agreement and and the the joint cooperation with the city

[6:36] and the RDA. And so my hope tonight is that we can have a discussion and and

[6:41] work through any concerns relating to those two technicalities. One of which

[6:47] was the fact that the 100% of the foundation wasn't in by a certain date.

[6:52] That obviously has been rectified and we're we're showing good faith is moving

[6:56] forward in building the building. The second was the size and dimensions of

[7:00] the swimming pool. Uh there was some changes during CO with the EOS prototype

[7:06] and the prototypical building. So, it is slightly smaller by only a couple of

[7:10] feet, but the the um the intent of the structure is in place, and I feel like

[7:16] we've we've put millions of dollars in good faith into the project uh in

[7:22] participation with the RDA, and would hope that we can agree to a simple

[7:27] amendment that would allow that RDA to perform as it was outlined to do uh

[7:34] initially. Again, we're here as long-term partners with the city. We've

[7:40] made a very significant investment uh based upon that agreement with the RDA,

[7:44] and I think the end result is going to be very positive. Uh the city's going to

[7:48] get what they wanted, which is a uh a full service gym and swimming pool and

[7:54] we're willing to perform. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to

[7:59] address council with public comment tonight?

[8:05] Seeing none, I will close public comment. Item number four, we have uh

[8:10] five items of uh common consent agenda. The first is proposed resolution

[8:16] R25-17 authorizing the mayor to inter to execute an interlocal agreement with

[8:20] Davis County for third-party building inspections. The second is proposed uh

[8:25] resolution R25-18 establishing a temporary free

[8:28] speech zone at Kentterbury Park North. Uh the third is proposed ordinance

[8:36] 2514 amending Syracuse Municipal Code Chapter

[8:40] 4.50.30 pertaining to hardship waiverss for monthly charges for collection of

[8:45] solid waste, green waste and/or recyclable materials. Uh the fourth one

[8:49] is proposed ordinance R25-15 uh amending the Syracuse city code title

[8:55] 7 chapter 25 pertaining to the regulation of fireworks and other

[9:00] ignition sources. And the last one tonight on our common consent agenda is

[9:04] proposed ordinance 25-16 adopting Syracuse Municipal Code

[9:11] 4.35.225 regarding the new Happy Tales Dog Park. These have all been discussed

[9:16] in work sessions at great length and found to be uh unanimous support. Is

[9:21] there any that anyone would like to take pull off common consent before we move

[9:27] forward? Seeing none, I would accept a motion to adopt these five items.

[9:34] Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept the items on the consent agenda as outlined

[9:39] in on the agenda. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor? I I any opposed?

[9:47] That passes unanimously as expected. And item number five is consideration of

[9:52] possible action to authorize execution of a proposed development agreement

[9:57] between Syracuse City and Costco Wholesale Corporation. Uh this has been

[10:02] uh something that's gone on for a great deal of time and we just finally have

[10:06] the last uh version of that development agreement. Uh, I will open it up to

[10:11] council if you have any discussion before we consider a possible action

[10:15] here

[10:21] tonight. If uh there's no discussion, could I get a

[10:27] motion? Mr. Mr. Mayor, I move that we go ahead and um authorize execution of the

[10:33] proposed development agreement between Syracuse City and Costco Wholesale as

[10:37] listed in the packet. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

[10:43] I. Okay, that passes 4 to one. We'll move on to number six. Authorize

[10:49] administration to award contract to West Averick's corridor aesthetic

[10:54] improvements project. Uh Steve, thank you for coming forward. This is a

[10:58] project we've had uh on the books for some time and uh just barely getting

[11:04] through the the holdup's really been uh UD do folks and I just want to be clear

[11:08] about that. the people that we've worked with other outside of UD do have been

[11:13] great to keep on top of this but as you can see we have some budgetary issues

[11:18] and so uh with that um we have to decide uh which options within this bid you

[11:26] would like to move forward with who would like to start the

[11:32] discussion I will if no one else will and I will say that uh I think it's

[11:38] important that this project was always planned to use UT betterment money that

[11:42] was uh from the West Davis project and to do that we are not going to be able

[11:48] to get the full uh measure of the possible bid. Um I am comfortable

[11:56] uh cutting the bison not because I don't love them but because they go over

[12:01] budget. I I feel like I feel like with the sod Yeah. I Why aren't we just using

[12:08] natural? I'm okay with that, too. Yeah. Like, instead of using sod that we have

[12:13] to maintain, why can't I mean, we It's out there with bison. Why would we get I

[12:18] agree with you. What falls under budget is the signs, including the bison and

[12:22] the and the Syracuse side. That is totally in in budget. And I'm I feel

[12:27] like all this extra like it's going to take a lot more extra effort just to

[12:32] keep it maintained rather than just use like natural native plants and wild

[12:35] flowers and things like that which is free from the state if no if you don't

[12:39] know that. Well, and for that reason I would agree entirely with you that the

[12:43] boulders and sod could be cut as well. Um the the real issue is the extra bison

[12:49] uh that would be on the uh left hand side of the exits. So there would still

[12:54] be the bison by the sign. Yes. The bison by the sign would still continue, but

[12:59] the uh bison on the hillside go over. So if we get rid of the sod, can we get the

[13:05] other bison? Not entirely in budget. If you look at the budget, the outline

[13:10] would still go over a little bit and the rocks, the boulders,

[13:15] nix. Yeah, that's what I'm suggesting is I agree with that. I think I don't

[13:21] think the sod boulders is necessary. And those the sod would be hard to add

[13:24] later, but the the boulders and the bison could be added at a later date. It

[13:28] could. It's so pointless that sod it's going to it takes so much to maintain in

[13:33] that area. And it it the manpower alone that you're going to have to use from

[13:37] now until we rip it out because everybody's going to get tired of it

[13:40] probably. Look at Roy and Riverdale. They did they pulled theirs out. This

[13:45] the sign and the area around the sign, I think, is the critical part. And I would

[13:49] I would lean towards uh making sure we have the sign at both exits as opposed

[13:54] to having the bison at the one exit. That's just my Sorry. Which option is

[13:59] that? Can we pull that up? I like the bison. I think they mean I like that as

[14:04] well. You got behind the bison everywhere. We love them. I

[14:08] agree with you. It's a matter of what's in budget. We need more bison. Could we

[14:12] pull this up from the packet so that we can look at the And they eat of grass.

[14:16] Agree. so that we can get the actual numbers

[14:19] because I did not write them down outside of the packet. I can Oh, I got

[14:24] them here, but Okay, you want to talk to that?

[14:29] Yeah, Cassie's pulling it up here. Meadow grass irrigation and including

[14:33] filter control. It's grass. Oh, goodness. So, we would be uh

[14:39] over Yeah. I don't think either of them say like what this so we can afford with

[14:47] the betterment money the signs without the bison the change is if

[14:53] you have the 410 bison without the holders we would need

[14:59] 76,000 to make up the difference to me that's as far as I would that's without

[15:04] the holders and without saw but keeping the vice keeping the vice I'm and I'm So

[15:10] where are we where are we pulling those funds from then? And if we don't pull

[15:15] any funds, we eliminate the bison. So because we do have some

[15:21] I do not believe we can use impact fees on this because this would be a freeway.

[15:27] Yeah, that wouldn't work. This is one of those questionable moments when you know

[15:32] you got to make the right decision because you're like it could be but

[15:34] we're like no. Well, also you need to do it. Go ahead. Chances are you won't come

[15:39] back to it. So I think it needs to be done right the first time. I agree. I I

[15:45] agree with that. But I I don't think something that you're promoting like

[15:49] Analopee Island is a nature reserve. I I feel like the sod and the things it's

[15:54] just excessive. It's like let's get bougie was our nature reserve. Why?

[15:57] Okay. So can we agree that the sod and boulders are unnecessary? Yes. Okay. I

[16:02] get a sense that that's that's decided. But but even if we just go with the the

[16:07] extra bison,

[16:11] it's still an additional 70,000. So we have that would be the question. We'd

[16:14] have to know where we're getting those funds from. Why need boulders? We don't.

[16:19] Well, and isn't that something that could be brought in later? Easier

[16:23] spaces. There's got to be boulders. We can just have them reload. The boulders

[16:27] can be easier brought in than sculpture. I agree with that. Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I do

[16:32] have some information about the boulders if you'd like me to share. Yeah, go

[16:35] ahead, Noah. So, uh, the boulders were a significant amount if you look at the

[16:40] details of it, but we have been talking with Analope Island. They have a

[16:44] construction project with their visitor center. There's a possibility that we

[16:48] might be able to get them for free to get some for free. Yes, please. But uh

[16:53] that would, you know, that might include some creative thinking to be able to

[16:59] save that money since we don't have equipment to transport it. But it's

[17:02] something that could be done after is my point. And we may be able to get them

[17:05] for free. They they actually offered their timbers for the a museum project

[17:10] because they're uh age relevant for what they were doing. So they're really great

[17:14] about reusing stuff and not They've been awesome. Yeah. Really kind. Yeah. I

[17:19] think I like the idea of authentic boulders because as opposed to what?

[17:24] Nonauthentic ones. You're going to mold it out of crepe paper an authentic

[17:30] antelope island boulder. We only use local boulders. Local locally sourced

[17:35] localally locally relevant. So with our natural grass. Let me bring this back. I

[17:40] believe the only real discussion point is whether we do the additional C10

[17:45] steel bison as were originally designed or not. We do. I feel like we should.

[17:51] Yes, I feel like we should as well. Where is the money? Where's the money

[17:54] coming? There they Sorry, just to be clear, you're you're talking about

[17:58] option four or you talking about three without boulders?

[18:03] Three without boulders. Four sides. Three without boulders and then we find

[18:07] boulders. Well, three without boulders for now. But but three without boulders

[18:12] still we have to come up with $76,000. That's correct. Where are we getting? So

[18:17] that would be the second part. Question of the hour. Will we take a motion?

[18:22] 76,000. Yeah,

[18:26] but they're like these signs are going to be there. That's correct. They are

[18:30] very nice and they have been a theme of our city. Again, we need to have that

[18:35] our welcome signs. So, so the one place I know of was we approved uh 50,000 for

[18:41] art in the roundabout in front of the fire station if you wanted to make a

[18:45] trade and do this one now and that one later. I feel like that's good

[18:49] suggestion. It's going to take them a while to put that roundabout in. No,

[18:56] it's really want to put art in there while they're building things or we

[19:00] after. I just wanted to open with it because if we Well, we put it in this

[19:05] budget side. I doubt we'll use it before. Do we have Okay, so let me point

[19:10] of clarification because I know we have money from the bid. Do we actually have

[19:14] money in our budget for that? You're talking about the roundabout,

[19:19] Steve. Do we actually have money in the city budget? Uh for the pit or for the

[19:25] No, for the city budget. City budget. I don't think we do. um not without all

[19:30] reallocating money. The the probably the best you best source would be our

[19:34] capital projects fund. So it' be use postponing or changing priorities in

[19:39] that to do my money for the artwork comes from the PID which is not eligible

[19:45] to be moved because that is specific to that property. Yeah, mayor. For the for

[19:50] the roundabout project, um whether the city fronts some of the

[19:55] money for for design and that sort of thing, um should be reimbursed by the

[20:00] CRA, right? From the from the organization of the PID. So, that would

[20:06] not be eligible to be moved. Different color of money. Yes. you you did

[20:11] previously talk about uh to help you out with the $76,000, you did previous talk

[20:16] about maybe making amendments to um the irrigated meadow grass. Um that

[20:23] would be an option. I feel like that's probably reason you're saying in this

[20:28] bid this right? Mhm. So you're saying option

[20:33] three without boulders and then also take off the irrigation around the signs

[20:40] themselves which we don't know exactly how much that will take off if that will

[20:44] be equal to 76. So if you I mean if we end up using natural prairie grass like

[20:50] they like that's out on analopee island just

[20:54] uh that won't that takes care of itself. You don't need to water maintain it.

[20:59] Yeah. Uh, no. I think we're I think we're talking mainly the grass. Wasn't

[21:03] there going to be grass around the bison?

[21:06] Yes. The the plan includes grass around the bison on the side slope and then it

[21:13] also includes grass and landscaping around

[21:17] the sign itself. Sod or it's called biionative sod. It's a native grass.

[21:23] It's not like Kentucky blue grass that you have to mow. It's it's like

[21:26] wildflower stuff. Okay, you got me there. Awesome. And I think but you lay

[21:30] it down and you have to fine. It has to be irrigated. Okay. So, let's

[21:38] let me be clear on option number two. That takes out the sign

[21:46] from that takes the signs off of 2000. But in option three, they're in.

[21:53] Correct.

[21:56] That That's correct. Okay. because that's I'm feeling like the signs at

[22:01] 2000 are more important than the bison because that's another entrance to the

[22:08] city

[22:14] that No, I don't think so because I I I understand why you say that but we're

[22:18] kind of catering around this area of of you prefer to have So I feel like if

[22:24] people are coming off of that highway to come in to write in here Costco i.e.

[22:29] Costco um it wants to be welcoming. Okay. So if I understand correctly then

[22:35] let me just be clear then there is an option that we don't do signs at the

[22:41] 2000 exit only signs at the antelope interchange without the boulders and the

[22:48] difference is only $642.50.

[22:53] Okay. I support that. That's that's close to our budget on the 2000 because

[22:58] we can always add those later. They could be added later.

[23:03] They're a little bit smaller than the ones that are going to be at the the

[23:06] Analopee exit to begin with. That's why there's less money. So, but they could

[23:09] be added later. If we did the Analopee exit in its entirety first and then the

[23:16] 2000 exit later to add those signs. If we vote for that now, the difference is

[23:21] $642, which is not that much to find somewhere.

[23:26] Is that what I I support that? Then we just put the the 2,000 on the five-year

[23:33] plan. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I'd rather do that because we don't have a clear

[23:37] answer on when where we'd come up with six. That makes sense to me. I'm good

[23:41] with that. And then as long as we actually put it on the plan, I I think

[23:45] 2000 is going to be changing a lot over the next few years that area get a

[23:52] a see that develop a little bit more before we start putting stuff in. And we

[23:57] still have a freeway exit that goes right onto 2000 as well. Yeah. Okay. So

[24:02] I guess I'll take a motion to that effect. How are we how Okay. It would be

[24:07] option two without boulders. Okay. I move that we approve Wait a second.

[24:19] Where's the number for it? Uh, this would be just West Davis aesthetic

[24:24] improvements option two. Okay. Without boulders. That we authorize

[24:28] administration to award contract for West David course corridor aesthetics

[24:32] option two without the boulders. Okay. Without paying for the boulders.

[24:41] Side note, so that would be a separate project if we could get holders. Is that

[24:45] correct? Asterric is what you without including in this project bid. Okay. Do

[24:49] I have a second? Second. All right. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay, that one

[24:55] is decided and I am excited to have that go forward. That's I'm excited for the

[25:00] bison. It'll be nice to have one whole exit area completed. Okay, instead of

[25:05] little here, a little there. Item number seven is proposed ordinance 25-17

[25:09] amending the Syracuse city zoning map to approve 1.7 acres of real property

[25:15] located at 3281 West 700 South. It's currently res or uh zoned as A1 and they

[25:23] would like to move it to R3. Uh this is that uh odd little piece

[25:28] of property that was a U dot remnant and um this has been discussed before. Is

[25:33] there any further discussion on this particular

[25:40] property? If not, I'll take a motion. I motion that we accept the proposed

[25:46] ordinances 25-17 amending the Syracuse city zoning map for approximately 1.7

[25:52] acres of real property located at 320 3281 West 700 South Agriculture A1 to

[26:01] residential R-3 applicant Land and Costley

[26:07] and do I have a second? Second. All in favor? I I Any opposed? Okay, that

[26:13] motion passes unanimous. Item number eight is part of the shoreline

[26:18] development agreement part 5A and this is in two parts which I believe we can

[26:24] take an action together. Correct? Okay. So this is in two parts and let me

[26:28] explain the two parts. Part A would be taking this one parcel out of the

[26:34] development agreement from the shoreline development phase 5A. Part B would be a

[26:40] proposed ordinance 25.18 amending the zoning map for

[26:46] approximately 1.5 acres of real property to make that take it out of the RPC zone

[26:52] and move it to A1. This would be a down zone.

[26:57] This is so nice to finally see this on here. Oh my goodness, this property.

[27:01] We've been waiting for this for a minute and this is this is turning this back

[27:05] into a horse property. if you if the rest of folks to my left don't know

[27:09] that. Yeah, it's but it's zoning it back too so they can legally have horses on

[27:14] the property and it's correct. Wonderful to see this on here. Fine. Would you

[27:18] like to make a motion then? I would if if nobody else has anything they would

[27:21] like to Yeah, go ahead. Um, I would like to move that we approve the proposed

[27:26] amendment to the shoreline da reszone from PR from RPC to A1 and as well as uh

[27:34] the part B to that uh part A was the development came out of the development

[27:39] agreement and part B is the resone. That's what I said. Okay, then in that

[27:44] case I'll second. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay, that passes

[27:51] unanimously. That property is now A1. Congratulations applicant in the

[27:55] audience. Good luck to you. Um item number nine, proposed ordinance 25-9

[28:02] amending the Syracuse municipal code chapter

[28:05] 10.75.30 and

[28:09] 1030.20e pertaining to planned residential development PD zoning. Noah,

[28:15] can you give us a quick recap of this one?

[28:19] Uh yeah, the proposal is to be able to put ADUs, accessory dwelling units in

[28:23] the PRD zone. Planning Commission reviewed it. They're recommending no. Uh

[28:30] we've reviewed it in our work session. Um the applicant is Mike

[28:36] Bastion. Um but yeah, I don't know if you have any other questions. I'd be

[28:40] happy to answer them. Nope. Um, I'll just begin by saying I think this is a

[28:44] horrible idea and I I hope that we do not make this adjustment.

[28:50] I do have a couple of questions. What what is the difference between

[28:55] uh the RPC zone and this zone? Why why is there a difference?

[29:03] So, one of the biggest difference between the RPC and the PRD zone is the

[29:06] PRD allows town homes. RPC doesn't. But the uh the RPC does allow a similar

[29:14] housing type than what you're seeing in some of the PRD developments, especially

[29:18] the single family portions of the PRD developments where uh an RPC might have

[29:24] a lot as small as 3500 square ft. And if you read through um the RPC, they do

[29:30] allow ADUs, but the lot has to be bigger than that's in the reports, 5,400 square

[29:35] feet, I think. 52. Thank you. Um, so that's that's part

[29:41] of the logic that the applicants is is asking. You know, I think he's willing

[29:45] to limit the PRD allow if they were if it were allowed into the PRD. I think

[29:50] he's willing to have some qualifi qualifiers on there

[29:55] like lot size or something like that. But the thing we have to consider as a

[30:00] city is whether or not there's going to be room for parking and the added people

[30:05] and the overall density of a development. There's some give and take

[30:09] there. The parking is uh set to a threecar garage though based on the

[30:14] ordinance. Is that right? Yeah, that could be a qualifier or a minimum lot

[30:18] size or both. So I I still don't understand the

[30:23] distinction between property that's quarter mile away or half a mile away.

[30:28] Yeah. Most people when they drive through a development, they don't know

[30:31] what zone it is. And if you're looking at a single family home in an RPC zone

[30:35] with the third car garage in the ADU that's 5200 ft² or if you're driving

[30:40] through a neighborhood that's zone PRD with the threecar garage on a 5200 foot

[30:46] that there's no difference in the actual end. But the the difference in a PRD

[30:51] area, you may have town homes nearby and the overall density may be slightly

[30:57] higher, but the density is simply people. It's not actual structure. I

[31:04] mean, so an accessory dwelling unit is not considered a unit of density per se.

[31:09] There they do add people, but the principal structure is still the unit of

[31:13] density. Um, if that makes sense. It's a little

[31:17] bit confusing, but um it does add more people. And when we count number of

[31:25] units per acre uh for an overall development, like for example, village

[31:31] at the bluff, it has town homes and also on the south end, it has some single

[31:35] family lots. The the overall density um is

[31:42] probably only four or five, which is very similar to RPC. It's just the

[31:47] housing types a little bit different. And then sometimes the town home areas

[31:50] have more people. And obviously if you were to look just at the density of the

[31:56] town home area, it's probably closer to, you know, 10 or 12 maybe units per acre,

[32:02] but because of the southern part of it is single family, it lowers the and they

[32:07] have some open space and stuff, so it lowers the overall units per acre down.

[32:13] So it's all all relative. Most people when they drive through a neighborhood

[32:16] don't look at a neighborhood as a whole what's on the platted subdivision and

[32:21] what zone it is. They usually just kind of determine what they're seeing right

[32:26] in front of them. Is there an inconsistency with the 5200 square feet

[32:31] from the ordinance? And is it 5600 in the RPC? Is

[32:38] that right? Uh, I'd have to let me I can pull up the

[32:44] I'm just looking at the packet. Yeah. What does it say in the packet? I

[32:48] forget. Agenda item number nine in the summary says ADUs are allowed in an RPC

[32:54] at 5600 and the ordinances proposed is

[32:58] 5200. Oh, okay. Yeah, I would I mean if we were interested in looking at this, I

[33:03] would recommend making them the same just for administrative purposes.

[33:08] I my thinking behind this is I I don't like the inconsistency that's there. So,

[33:13] if they were not changed, I would not go for this. Uh I do think that there is

[33:17] some reasoning behind this. Uh allowing an ADU to a property like this could

[33:24] allow a family to come in and purchase a property that they would not otherwise

[33:31] be able to purchase. uh that would allow people to come into

[33:36] Syracuse that may not otherwise be uh it may not be open to that and would also

[33:44] provide an additional dwelling unit which would be different from an

[33:47] apartment but a similar kind of arrangement uh without the the issues

[33:52] that have arisen from the apartments that have come in. you have a a family

[33:58] that owns a a property with potential other people that are there that would

[34:04] be under the un the oversight of those uh property owners. Uh I don't see how

[34:11] this adds to physical density very much. It may add a person or two to a location

[34:18] which may be there anyway. Uh, I see this as an alternative to apartments.

[34:24] Uh, that is, at least the reasoning makes sense to me. If the reasoning does

[34:29] not make sense, I'd like to hear why. I I'll chime in there. Uh, Brett, I I

[34:35] appreciate your reasoning and I understand the logic. Um, I will

[34:39] respectfully disagree on a couple of points. Uh number one, when we have a

[34:44] interioronly access ADU, then that's very hard for any form of deliveries.

[34:50] They don't have a front door. The second pro property, nobody knows where that

[34:54] is. It doesn't bear a second address. So that's always a challenge. The other

[34:59] thing is that in this particular case, the property in question that where the

[35:03] applicant is referring to uh already gained additional density um that is

[35:10] already built on the basis that he would not have qualified for that density had

[35:15] this been factored into the equation. So we're giving him additional density

[35:22] after the fact by allowing ADUs. Now the other thing that I would like to point

[35:27] out is while there is a technical allowance for uh the 5600 size lot or

[35:34] larger in RPCs, we do not have any that were designed uh from the inst or from

[35:39] the onset as ADUs. It was an allowance that after the fact

[35:45] if somebody wanted to modify a property to have a mother-in-law type apartment

[35:51] within the same dwelling, it would be allowable only if the lot was large

[35:56] enough for that. Uh I it's never been used and I'm against that option, but it

[36:01] was there. So, I think that more consistency would be to make sure that

[36:06] that never happens in the city because effectively what we're doing is we're

[36:10] creating illegal duplexes. We're creating a duplex apartment for a house

[36:15] for two where they are not authorized because they weren't proposed in the

[36:20] original. Um, this was proposed. This is also the one project where I get the

[36:27] most complaints for dense lots because it has more dense uh buffer zones

[36:33] between houses than we have ever allowed in this city. So, we're already at a

[36:38] higher density. Um and and I feel like we're doubling that with the remaining

[36:44] lots because they've had a hard time selling the lots. I don't think that's

[36:48] the reason to allow an ADU because they struggled to sell the lot at the price

[36:53] they proposed. Well, and and and I think that it does

[36:59] even though even though you may initially have someone that you know

[37:04] maybe rents out the accessory dwelling unit

[37:08] uh and is the primary occupant when they sell that if it's ever sold to an

[37:12] investor or anything like that like Dave said, it's going to create illegal

[37:16] duplexes and the the already dense PRD, especially with town homes and adding a

[37:21] PRD to a town home is definitely going to is definitely going to cause parking

[37:26] challenges because if you've got one family unit or, you know, renting the

[37:30] main unit and then another family unit renting the ADU, you're going to have

[37:35] the potential for more cars that can that can fit on on the property. So, I I

[37:42] mean, I I'm concerned with with the density. We've had an we've had an

[37:46] outcry from citizen citizens that they they want less less density, not more.

[37:51] And so I I I don't see any benefit for us adding more density to a PRD zone.

[37:57] And that may be the case, but I still don't understand the reasoning with a

[38:01] with a threecar garage. Uh there should be parking that's there. And if we're

[38:07] dealing with ADUs, uh we keep talking about illegal ADUs.

[38:12] Well, then outlaw them totally because why is that not creating a duplex on any

[38:17] lot where that's allowed? because it's permissible as long as the primary

[38:21] occupant is is in part of the the building. I don't think the ADU gets a

[38:26] threeU threec car garage also. No, it gets it gets. So, I'm going to I'm going

[38:30] to be Captain Obvious because that's what I'm known for. Have any of you

[38:34] driven through there? Yes. Yes. Okay. So, the thought of allowing any any more

[38:42] vehicles to be piled up in that neighborhood is insane. It is so hard to

[38:48] get through there already at any point of the day, let alone after work when

[38:53] everybody's coming home or on weekends. It's it's it's a nightmare. It's a

[38:58] nightmare. It I think you you'll see that especially apparent when we get

[39:03] into snow season. We're telling them none of them can park. Exactly. And it's

[39:06] so dangerous for those kids and at summertimes darting between those cars

[39:11] and people driving like jerks down those roads. It's a nightmare. And my point,

[39:16] my comment is that I just feel like Syracuse has turned a corner here and we

[39:21] don't want to continue that trend of identity overload. We don't want to keep

[39:26] doing that. Well, I think for me it's I think there will come a day when we'll

[39:32] be looking for more places to put people. I don't think that day is today.

[39:37] Well, and it's not tomorrow either. And remembering what we have coming in the

[39:41] next five years, you know, we're far from that. So, okay. I feel like

[39:44] everybody's had a chance to weigh in. Do I have anyone willing to make a motion?

[39:48] Yes. Okay. I move that we decline proposed ordinance 25-9 amending

[39:55] Syracuse Municipal Code Chapter 10.75.030

[40:00] uh pertaining to the planned residential development PRD zone. Second. Moved and

[40:05] seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Nay. Okay. That will pass or is declined

[40:11] four to one. Item number 10 is proposed ordinance 25-20 repealing and reenacting

[40:18] the Syracuse Municipal Code Title 4 Chapter 30 pertaining to cemetery

[40:23] regulations. This has been a great deal of discussion on this. Um the logical uh

[40:30] option here is that we totally uh reenact the code uh because there are

[40:35] some significant changes. Uh, do we need to go over those at this time or are we

[40:39] okay with what we did in the last work session? I mean, are we saying it's the

[40:43] same? I It just wasn't in the packet. All we had was a factual summary. Yeah,

[40:48] we haven't changed from the what was in the work session. There there were two

[40:51] issues raised in the work session. One was increasing the penalties for second

[40:56] offenses. That's in there. The other one was that uh Jordan wants to be buried

[41:01] with his clothes on. That's now in there as well. What about me under the tree?

[41:05] Rude. No. No, Jennifer under the tree. Sorry, I meant this just so you know.

[41:09] Okay, so I guess my only issue is I didn't get to see it, but I wasn't Okay,

[41:15] I think I would like to actually look at it before I approve it.

[41:20] Um um I mean I I would I would fully support that. You know that we do have I

[41:28] have a summary of a couple of people considerably uh upset about the

[41:33] management without the Penins. Could we just have somebody read that to those

[41:37] changes to us? Yes. Could I Colin will do that for us? If we could bring those

[41:42] up, I would appreciate just so I can see the changes.

[41:45] You will agree, Jordan. And I I hope I will. I'm happy to do that. I try not to

[41:51] approve. Go ahead. All right. The the original language on the interament of

[41:56] human bodies only was to the effect that nothing other than a human body can be

[42:00] buried in the cemetery. Human remains only. Yes. The revised version is only

[42:05] the remains of human bodies together with burial clothing and accutrants may

[42:10] be interred in the cemetery. Okay, that was for you. So you can keep your

[42:14] clothes. I appreciate that cuz the other one and what's the violate? What's the

[42:19] what's up in the fee? What's the fee? The increased penalty. The original

[42:23] paragraph said up to $500 for per violation. Now, there is additional

[42:28] language that says, "For any second or subsequent violation, persons or

[42:33] companies that violate any provision of this chapter shall be subject to a civil

[42:38] penalty not to exceed $1,000 per violation, plus the actual costs

[42:43] incurred to by the city to remedy the situation or violation." So, my petty

[42:49] self, okay, just hear me out. I feel like anything that happens to any

[42:54] headstones by a company should automatically warrant a cleaning bill.

[42:58] Like if you leave any marks on a headstone,

[43:02] it should automatically warrant a cleaning bill. Well, doesn't it already

[43:05] address that? Because they're responsible for correcting any damage

[43:08] they caused. Wow. So, we just said there's no surprises. We just said

[43:11] remediation was only on the second and third offense.

[43:15] That's what I just heard. The first one was 500. 500, but without remediation.

[43:19] Yeah. up up to 500 for a first violation or a second or subsequent violation up

[43:25] to a thousand. But do they both include any things that have to be fixed? They

[43:30] both include repairing the damage or paying the cemetery personnel to repair

[43:34] the damage. Yes. Okay. As long as that isn't both of those. It is because um we

[43:39] have some damage over there that needs to be repaired. I I have received more

[43:43] pictures yesterday of a different one uh that is damaged. Turns out it was my

[43:48] uncle also is driven over. Do I have anyone

[43:53] who's ready to make a motion? Me. Go. I move that we approve proposed ordinance

[43:58] 25-20 repealing and reenacting the Syracuse Municipal Code, Title 4,

[44:01] Chapter 30, Cemetery Regulations and its changes. Do I have a second? Second. All

[44:07] in favor? Any opposed? That post or that passes unanimously. We now have our

[44:12] second period of public comment. If anyone would like to bring to our

[44:16] attention something maybe for a future agenda. Okay. If not, we can uh move

[44:21] into our I don't have the other agenda for

[44:24] our RDA

[44:27] meeting. Do I have any public

[44:34] comment? Okay, I will close public comment. And can I get uh Cassie, will

[44:40] you pull up the agenda for the Thank you. Okay, so we will now move

[44:45] temporarily into our RDA meeting. Uh this is I call this meeting to order.

[44:51] Can I get uh motion to adopt the agenda? So moved. Second. Second. All in favor?

[44:57] I. Any opposed? Item number two is consideration of a possible action to

[45:02] authorize execution of the proposed interlocal tax sharing agreement between

[45:07] Syracuse City RDA and the Gateway uh public infrastructure district. PID

[45:14] number one. uh this would uh this has already been

[45:18] talked about and in place but it is a formal uh agreement that the RDA will uh

[45:24] repay the PID. So I I have so many problems with this

[45:29] right now. Um first of all there was no where was this two like where was the

[45:34] conversation two weeks ago when we were discussing this and there wasn't really

[45:38] anybody here with us. Um if you wouldn't have moved forward with this we did our

[45:43] part. We did our part. You guys moved forward with it because we agreed to

[45:48] terms and the pool having chang this one isn't the pool. This is this one is this

[45:55] is the P. This is the CRA that we created a few months ago. So this isn't

[46:00] the one we were talking about earlier. Yeah, that that's Oh, you don't want to

[46:03] hear my side of the story. This one. You guys go ahead. Thank you. Mayor,

[46:07] can I give you a quick update? Yes. The version of the agreement that was in the

[46:12] packet had some bracketed areas. is they were highlighted in yellow. Yes, those

[46:16] have all been resolved. The only two remaining issues are the effective date

[46:20] on the cover page which cannot be determined until the market study is

[46:25] complete and that same date in the text of the agreement. So all of the issues

[46:29] have been resolved. It's now as you saw it but the yellow brackets are missing

[46:33] except for those two things. So this agreement has to be in play council.

[46:37] this agreement has to be in place so that we can allow that bond to go to

[46:41] market so that we can proceed. So I would ask that we take a motion to uh to

[46:48] authorize this execution of this agreement that we have been working on

[46:52] for uh quite some time. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Any

[47:01] opposed? Okay, that m motion passes 4 to one. Now, the second item on our RDA

[47:08] agenda is request from Matthew Swain of Perry Commercial to amend the first

[47:13] amendment to the agreement of the tax increment rebate for the EOS gym. And

[47:19] Jen, if you'd like, I'll continue now. Thanks.

[47:23] Um, talking about how this pool was offbalanced in CO. I was not on the city

[47:29] council when CO hit and we discussed this since I was on the city council. So

[47:35] co had nothing to do with the pool size. I understand at the last our last

[47:41] meeting we discussed how there was something brought up that um the

[47:47] developer building the pool said that the other ones were this size and it was

[47:51] okay there. Well, those other EOS gyms didn't have an agreement with our city

[47:57] and our city agreed to certain stipulations under a legal binding

[48:02] contract. Nobody showed up beforehand to say, "Hey, there's a little bit of a

[48:06] hold up." It's only after the deadline does anybody care to come forward and

[48:10] say, "Hey, by the way, we didn't make it, but we want you to make an exception

[48:14] for us." And I feel like this is what developers do all the time. And I'm so

[48:20] frustrated over this. It's not hard to communicate. It's not. It isn't. You

[48:24] just pick up a phone, send an email. It's super simple. But the fact that

[48:28] none of this was communicated until well after it was supposed to be done for me

[48:34] that's ridiculous. And it's and then holding it to us telling us that well we

[48:38] set up a thing with the city so we are doing great business with the city. I

[48:42] love some of the little shops you have in there. I I patron them frequently but

[48:46] coming to us with this that there's a problem on your end and then trying to

[48:51] make us seem like it's we're responsible for it. It's a no for me.

[48:56] Hey, would anyone else like to comment on this?

[49:01] So I so I'll I'll comment a little bit. So I I understand that there were delays

[49:08] in moving forward and I think that is the portion that probably was impacted

[49:14] by CO because gyms were not allowed to be open and things like that. So there

[49:18] there was a delay but we addressed that by extending the agreement. We extended

[49:25] it. We set new deadlines. We increased the

[49:29] incentive and then the new deadline was not met and the stipulation of the pool

[49:35] size was not met as well. And so yeah, I I while again I think Shadow uh

[49:42] Shadowpoint Shopping Center is great. I think it's it's great to have good good

[49:47] partners in the city, but I also think that we both have to be up we we both

[49:53] have to uphold our end of the agreement. And I I just don't see that that that

[49:57] was done in this case. Okay. Anyone else? I mean, I I think they've

[50:04] largely said it is at the end of the day, contracts matter and words matter.

[50:09] Um this was reviewed by both parties. It was signed by both parties. I agree that

[50:15] the uh it the part that is as far as building that has largely been

[50:24] remediated. I mean they are definitely out of the ground now and and I love

[50:28] that. But if I do not see where they have fixed the pool size. I

[50:36] mean, the reason why we kind of went into that was to allow

[50:41] um hopefully some of our student athletes, we don't have a pool for them

[50:44] in the city. This what we are trying to get at least somewhat of a a regulation

[50:50] size pool in there to to fulfill a public need for which we are spending

[50:56] public dollars to

[50:59] to incentivize and that need was not met

[51:04] and and it is I've never even heard someone make an offer to change it. It's

[51:08] probably too late at this point. Um, we've tried to be upfront, but at the

[51:14] end of the day, the agreement was not upheld by the end of the recipient. I I

[51:21] I guess I I I wish I could go back and say, well, I didn't really look at this

[51:26] part of the agreement or I didn't like this part of the agreement, so I just

[51:29] didn't do it. That that would not hold up in any court of law that I know of.

[51:34] And so, I'm just going to say at the end of the day, words matter. And in this

[51:39] case, the words were the the the stipulations and the other words were

[51:45] the signatures. It's just a great disappointment. I feel

[51:49] like the reduction in the pool size has to do with wear and tear on the pool and

[51:53] to discourage the high schoolers from using the pool. I think it's a it's it's

[51:57] sad for our city that that that didn't happen. It was promised.

[52:03] Any thoughts, Brit? I I guess I have two concerns. one it's already been raised

[52:07] is the notice issue. Um this is something that may have been able to be

[52:11] addressed had we known beforehand. The second one which is even more

[52:15] challenging for me is is that if we go back after the fact and and make

[52:21] adjustments that sets a course of dealing from the for the city in my

[52:24] opinion where it would be hard for somebody else had they had somebody come

[52:29] in in the future and uh if a similar situation arose where uh different terms

[52:36] had been reached or different um performance had been done, they could

[52:41] point to another situation and say, "Well, you did it here or you did it

[52:45] here. Um I feel a bit constrained even though some of this may be minor, some

[52:49] of it may not. I don't like the the precedent that is being set moving

[52:54] forward. So that's my opinion. Uh having heard from all the council, can I get a

[52:58] motion?

[53:02] I move um that we deny the request for the first amendment to uh

[53:10] agreement for tax increment rebate for the EOS gym facility.

[53:15] Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed? That passes

[53:20] unanimously. No. Well, it's denied. It was the motion. So that Okay. Uh item uh

[53:29] number four is to adjourn from the RDA meeting. I will now adjourn us from that

[53:32] meeting and resume with our regular business meeting. At this time we have

[53:38] uh mayor and council announcements. Um I'll start with you Brett. Do you have

[53:43] anything for us tonight? Nothing for me. Thank you. Okay. Gosh, I don't have my

[53:48] We've been doing great work with the CTC and um addiction recovery and

[53:54] prevention. Yeah. Okay. Well, nothing from me,

[53:59] Jordan. Yes, I have something. Go ahead. Finally. Um, so coming up in April on

[54:07] the 26th, we will be having our annual disaster preparedness exercise at 8:00

[54:14] a.m. We are asking. You already laughed. Well, because you schedule a disaster

[54:20] and I really think that's a little funny. I I sleep through stuff like

[54:23] that. I'm sleeping through this. So anyway, so we will be having a a um

[54:30] disaster scenario where we are going to have uh red envelopes strategically

[54:36] placed throughout the the city. Every district will have a red envelope with

[54:42] some puzzle pieces in it and we are going to see which districts can find

[54:46] all the red envelopes in their district areas and put the puzzle together. Uh

[54:53] what we are hoping to do by this assessment is first of all practice uh

[54:57] the rapid disaster assessment program uh also known as ARDAP. We are also trying

[55:03] to work on the communications so that in the event of a real disaster and instead

[55:08] of red envelopes we have you know fires or injured persons. We want to be able

[55:12] to assess those areas get that data get them to the people who can communicate

[55:17] it to city so in a disaster we know how to allocate our resources. Um, that's

[55:22] really the critical part here. So, super excited. We ask everyone please

[55:26] participate. We will also be testing out our Everbridge program, also known as

[55:31] reverse 911. Uh, a call out will be going out

[55:35] the night before. So, uh, listen for that. If you don't get that call out, it

[55:40] means either you're not registered or your information is incorrect. So, if

[55:44] you don't get that call out, please double check that information to make

[55:47] sure that the next one we do, well, hopefully not a disaster. um you will

[55:52] get and have the information necessary. Uh there is also a post online as part

[55:58] of the city newsletter uh for all this information. Go ahead and take a look at

[56:02] that. It is there as well. So super excited to do this and as a city we we

[56:06] are always trying to plan for the future and this is part of that. Make sure we

[56:11] have one. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Um I got a

[56:17] couple things. So, the CTC had a they were invited to the police department to

[56:22] do a mental health class there for the police officers and some of Clarefield's

[56:26] people came and I got to attend that and it was wonderful and amazing and they do

[56:30] great things and I love that our police are starting to f like they're putting a

[56:34] lot more focus on their mental health. Um, so your mental health has improved

[56:38] as well. No, but that's that's irrelevant. Um but um

[56:45] and the other thing was I have been stopping in some of our cute little new

[56:49] stores here in Syracuse. And before I offended you, sir, like I said, there is

[56:54] many adorable little places that I frequent in that parking lot. And

[56:57] there's a cute little solstice store. So if your wife's like tea tasting, they do

[57:02] that there. And that's the only place in Syracuse that really does it. So send

[57:06] your wife on a little ladies night. They do that there. It's so wonderful. Um and

[57:10] there's a couple other And I went to Morty's just recently. If you haven't

[57:13] been there, go there. It's delicious. Thood crearyy is always on point. Yep.

[57:18] Um Oh, in Old School, they have some great stuff going on there. Those are

[57:22] just the places I frequented lately. The only issue I have with Thood Crearyy is

[57:25] it's on my regular walking route and I'm not losing weight anymore. So, just so

[57:30] you guys know, I I set up a thing. So, if you are ever around on Thursdays,

[57:35] stop by Thood Goods at 3 and I'll be there. You can come hang out, have a

[57:39] conversation, and an ice cream. So, yeah. that. And um the dog park, the I

[57:44] keep getting questions about that. The grass is still not rooted in, folks. So,

[57:48] you can't go there yet. Um but when it does open, again, my apologies to the

[57:53] police department. Good luck on that. Uh that's all I got, though. Okay. Uh I

[57:58] will draw your attention to the fact that I sent an email today after I uh

[58:03] attended a meeting with Wasatch Front Regional Council. Uh a couple of details

[58:08] from that meeting. I'll just let you read the real details, but it addressed

[58:12] the Analopee uh bike trail and in that meeting. So, that's an update and uh

[58:19] also a note in there regarding uh possible alternative funding for parks

[58:24] that I've been working on for about a year now and got some real traction with

[58:28] that committee. So, still working on other ways that we can improve the city

[58:32] without uh using our own funds in every opportunity.

[58:38] Um, I want to draw your attention to the fact that we will have our budget

[58:42] meeting on Friday. So, hope you're all going to be there. It be overly

[58:48] exciting. And um, other than that, I will take a motion to adjurnn. So,

[58:54] moved. Second. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

[59:00] We are adjourned right before 7. That's awesome. So, our budget meeting will

[59:05] start at 9. 9:30. It was 8:30. Huh? The appointment at

[59:11] 8:30. My agenda said 9:30. You know, I was

[59:15] wondering where all of our city managers were at, all of our department heads,

[59:18] and then you guys all popped in at once. It is 9:30. Okay.

[59:26] All right. I know.

[59:31] So, I looked in the says 8:30. The agenda says 9:30. They

[59:38] need to Yeah. Yeah.

[59:46] So, it's 9:30.

[59:52] You

[59:59] guys need some

Syracuse City Council Business Meeting, 04-08-25

Transcript