You know, I saw it here.

It's been there a couple of years.

Clearly not a concerned enough citizen because I didn't call.

Thank you.

As much as we're going to be.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Syracuse Planning Commission.

We'll begin our public hearing schedule in just a moment.

First, we'll take action on the minutes of our previous meeting in November in October.

Minutes have been distributed to the commission members in advance.

And we are prepared to entertain a motion for action on those minutes.

Thank you both.

Discussion on that motion.

If not, all in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

Our minutes from October the 20th are approved.

And we'll move into our hearing schedule.

An update though, first on the agenda for this evening.

I think we have two items that we will not be proceeding with this evening and have been postponed.

I believe the first one is SP 2513 at 4100 South Salina Street.

It's a special use permit.

That has been held or postponed at the request of the applicant, I believe.

And then secondly, there's a three-part application also under new business for the Spencer Street concrete facility.

R 2547, SP 2527, the special use permit that corresponds to that, and then MASPR 2523, the major site plan review, also associated with that.

So in all those three instances for that one project at that location, applicant has requested that we postpone action, so we will not be hearing those three hearings this evening, nor will we be acting upon them.

Pardon me?

Whether or not the applicant chooses to participate.

Whether or not the applicant will logically could advertise it, open a public hearing, let the public participate.

And if the applicant wants to wants to postpone or they don't want to participate, that's fine.

Well, we could, but that's not how we operate.

And we will not allow it to be heard unless the public has had notice.

So on those items, we will not hold public hearing, nor will we act this evening.

We will attend to other items on the agenda uh just by way of guidance for anyone who may be here for the first time in terms of process.

Um, as each application is announced by a member of the staff, we asked that the applicant or the representative come to the podium in the center of the room, provide their name and address for the record, and then a brief summary of the application involved.

Following questions from the commission members, we will invite members of the public who wish to speak in favor of the application to do that.

Again, coming to the podium, providing their name and address for the record, and then we will invite members of the public who wish to speak in opposition to the application to come forward to do that as well.

We ask that speakers keep their comments to three minutes so that we can accommodate all speakers and get through our agenda this evening.

And where comments are offered in opposition, the applicant will be afforded an opportunity to address the comments made in opposition.

So is with that as uh little guidance, we are ready to begin with our first public hearing for this evening.

Well, and actually, uh, if you announce it, and we actually had the hearing that's more of an update, I think we're having this evening after holding this last time.

But if you would please introduce it.

Yes, uh, old business item, the Onondaga Hotel and Convention Center.

It's a resubdivision with a companion major site plan review.

Um this is an MX5 zone district uh represented by CHA consulting.

Thank you.

And just to frame this a little bit, um, there was a presentation by the applicant uh last meeting in October.

There was a lot of discussion uh around the application, and the commission did not act at that time, and uh created a little space where there might be some dialogue and discussion amongst the um most interested parties with that.

And we're here back tonight to hear new information that may have arisen from those conversations.

So if you would please correct.

Uh Brian Bouchard with CHA Consulting, we're the project engineer working on behalf of the applicant and developer.

Uh Dave Newman, who's also here with us tonight.

Um, quickly just mentioned, as you said, uh, that we did have a very detailed discussion on all the various site plan elements and floor plans and architectural elevations and building materials that we can reference in the prior meeting minutes.

Um after that discussion, there were no outstanding comments from the commission members, but we did hear from the public, uh specifically some comments that we heard during the public hearing from our directly adjacent neighbors.

Uh 310 Montgomery is the uh St.

Paul's church.

Generally described as some questions regarding their existing internet cable, cable service that appears to be attached to the existing parking garage and what would happen when the parking garage comes down.

Um, and then also mentioning of some overlap of property lines that the church's parking vehicles on.

Um, and then also the Fayette building owner, which is 210 East Fayette Street, so it's also our direct um neighbor to the north.

Uh more generally the concerns were related to the new construction and their existing property.

Um topics such as the traffic impacts or building height, building setbacks, etc.

Um, as you noted, the planning commission did close the public hearing but left the um action pending for this evening in order to give the project team and the neighbors time to um directly converse with each other.

Um Tony uh D'Alier, uh our land use attorney is also with us here tonight, representing the developer um for the project.

Did submit to the planning commission uh last Thursday um a summary letter uh with direct copies to each one of the neighboring property owners essentially summarizing the discussions and conclusions from different meetings that we've had um since the last hearing, essentially what the planning commission asked for in terms of a good faith effort.

Um as stated in our letter, uh it's our position that most of the concerns expressed by the neighbors uh have already been addressed as part of the city's review process.

Some of these would involve the department reviews, such as the requirement to provide a traffic impact study that was reviewed or other things related to the zoning requirements, right?

So building setbacks and building height and the types of uses that are allowed in the building.

Um, and that essentially some of the other concerns that are noted in the letter continue to be dealing with rights or disputes between private property owners and not necessarily anything that can be addressed or rectified by the planning commission as part of your approval process.

I do want to note as staff has put up on the screen here that we did make one revision to the site plan that was based on our coordination with the city DPW transportation planner, and that's specifically to minimize the amount of driveway openings and curb cuts necessary to support the project.

Obviously, as the commission knows, one focus of urban downtown projects is essentially the pedestrian realm and maximizing the available space along the city streets for pedestrians.

And we did go back and confirm that the driveway width for vehicles at the South Warren Street garage opening is wide enough to accommodate both entering and exiting vehicles.

So we did remove the exit driveway that was previously shown on East Fayette Street.

So now that's just been converted into sidewalk.

And the revised plan has been accepted by the city, is essentially addressing their comments and are now presented to you as part of the materials.

Some of the more boring things were including a couple of uh additional bike racks along the facade, both at the restaurant entrance along Warren Street and also the hotel entrance.

We did talk last time about how we have already addressed the interior bike parking, but there was a request for potentially visitors of the restaurant and such to store their bikes outside along the street as well.

So we did accommodate that too.

I was provided a copy of a comment letter from the Lafayette building owners, uh, which was a few hours ago, which I think came through the zoning office, and hopefully uh the planning commission has as well.

If not, I have copies and I'm sure they have copies.

Um it appears as though we've indirectly addressed at least one of their comments uh regarding the removal of the East Fayette Street driveway, although I would like the record to show that that was removed obviously prior to their letter, um, but not as a requirement or necessity to address those specific concerns, but rather to accommodate that recommendation to minimize driveway openings for the project, which is consistent with similar requests made essentially on all projects to keep the driveways as narrow as possible without encumbering um you know any of the sidewalk space where feasible.

The other requests of which there are three that I reviewed in the neighbor's letter, simply just really aren't feasible or not necessarily required for the project to accommodate, since we are building uh the project within the rights and limits allowed by the city ordinance and the building codes, right?

So the other three bullets that you'll see described as suggestions essentially and some recommendations to change the design, deal with garage wall openings, which is obviously a requirement of building code to which our building will comply.

Um we're not obligated to address any inadequate drainage on neighboring properties.

There's some grading issues with the existing driveway over there and the potential for that owner to have to make some improvements to the driveway if there's drainage issues on his property.

Um and then lastly, some suggestions on how we could essentially kind of rearrange portions of the building and floor plans that just aren't feasible for the project to construct.

So our project does comply with all the required codes, um, including the operation of a parking garage right in the downtown district, and also complies with our ability to construct a certain setbacks and building height within the MX5 zoning district and also codes required by New York State Building Code.

Lastly, uh I will say that we have also met with the church.

Um in particular, they invited us to a meeting on Friday with the Spectrum Internet provider, um, and we were able to attend.

It does appear that there are several um feasible alternatives to reinstate the cable service to that church, uh essentially at no cost to the customer.

Um, and there are also um even an option for them to discuss upgrading their cable service to the more elaborate fiber optics service, potentially at no cost to the church, uh, but would also require some um permitting efforts and installation of some conduit along Mount Gomery Street that spectrum would handle on behalf of the customer there too.

Um, unless I guess there's any other questions that we can answer from the planning commission or outstanding comments related to the zoning compliance, we do believe that the planning commission continues to be in a position to grant the necessary approvals for the resubdivision and site plan applications that we submitted, including the changes that were presenting here this evening.

Thank you for that update.

Are there any questions regarding this new information from the applicant?

No questions.

Thank you.

I guess the only question just to uh a little bit uh discuss the garage wall issue because it was indicated that the developer is gonna continue to consider other options for that wall, or is that you've decided that that's that's it, what you've done now is is good enough.

So um when you read through the suggestions, which I had a very small amount of time to, it was basically to construct a solid wall.

Right.

There's a lot of issues with that in order to still comply with certain codes related to whether this is an open air garage or a mechanically vented garage.

Um of the indirect um comments gathered from the letter is that the a portion of the parking garage will present itself to his property.

Um certainly the applicant is willing to look at options for extending the parapet wall up a certain height to shield headlights.

That's something that doesn't drastically change the scale or scope or functionality of the parking lot that I think we can work into the plans um, you know, at some point prior to the permitting, but the wholesale changes of essentially making it a wall creates some issues with you know the code compliance that we would have for that.

But that was the nod to accommodating things where we could without drastically changing the design.

Thank you.

Sure.

Okay, thank you for that update.

Um other individuals who are party to these conversations.

Um I think you're the only one from the applicant side.

Um sure.

New your name and address, please, and then the new information that we should know about based on what transpired since our last meeting.

Sure, thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Brad Hunt.

I'm uh an attorney at McKinsey Hughes, representing uh Fred Davies, who's the owner of the Lafayette building.

Um we did have a meeting with the attorneys for the developer and appreciate that.

And uh I want to say I appreciate the uh removal of the uh exit on the Fiat, which was a significant concern, and this is the first we've heard of that tonight, so uh thank you for for that.

Uh one particular issue I do want to discuss is uh the drainage question, because I do think that uh you know that raises a uh a legal issue.

Um the current situation is that Mr.

Davies at the Lafayette building has a driveway and a patio that drain into the park.

And that situation came about uh when SIDA knocked down the buildings that were previously where the park was, and uh you know, as part of that demolition damaged uh adjoining wall that connected to the Lafayette building, and then to resolve this issue, gave Mr.

Davies a little bit of property where his uh that's now used for his driveway and patio, and that does drain into the park.

Um so all the current situation came about, my point is through a negotiation and agreement with Sida in the city, uh, you know, with Mr.

Mr.

Davies.

This was not you know something he did unbeknownst to uh to the city.

And uh, you know, we asked the question uh to the developer on this project, you know.

So you're building a big hotel where the park is.

Uh you know, will this uh impact our drainage?

Will it will it cause a problem?

Um, and uh, you know, are or does your drainage plan you know address address the uh this issue?

And they haven't really answered that question.

You know, the answer that they gave in uh the letter from uh from the lawyer, Mr.

Delia, and uh and the answer that we just heard from Mr.

Bouchard tonight is that they're not obligated to uh address a drainage issue on neighboring property, and uh and that we don't have an easement to drain into their property.

And I think that's wrong uh legally, uh because right now there are there isn't any drainage issue on the Lafayette building property at this time.

The drainage works just fine.

The possibility that we've asked about is will the the construction of this hotel create a new drainage problem?

And I mean I think it's a pretty you know basic principle that when you do a new development, you shouldn't cause, you shouldn't make drainage worse.

Shouldn't cause a problem, um even a problem for your neighbors.

And again, it may be that their drainage plan does address this already, but we haven't heard an answer to that question yet.

There's no drainage problem currently, and you know, I do think they have a responsibility to do this project with the drainage infrastructure that will avoid causing problems to neighbor neighboring properties.

Um, we would ask that that uh that issue, that question be answered and that issue uh be addressed if it's not already being addressed.

Um so that's the specific that that's the really the specific issue I wanted to highlight.

Mr.

Davies is also going to speak and talk a bit about the uh the design of the building.

And I will just conclude briefly by saying, you know, in terms of where we go from here, um, we appreciate the discussion we've had.

Um we're not trying to stop this project, and we have no objection to the issuance of a demolition permit uh uh tonight if that's what the commission wishes to do.

Yeah, we do have this question about drainage that hasn't been answered yet, and I think it's an important one that's part of the site plan process.

And uh Mr.

Davies is going to mention his issues about uh the design of the building, which I think you know they they acknowledged in our discussion, raised some good good points, but then they came back and basically said they can't can't do anything about it.

Um so we would we would ask that there be uh you know some time for further discussion, even if the demo permit is issued so that they can go forward with that, which uh I would expect would be the first uh phase of the actual uh you know construction of the project.

Um so that's really all I have to say.

Thank you for listening.

And I know Mr.

Davies also wanted to speak.

Thank you.

Good evening, Fred Davies.

I'm a single member of uh Putnam Properties LLC, which owns the Lafayette building, 210 East Fayette Street, Syracuse.

Um thank you for listening.

I did hand you uh some documents when I came in that really uh addresses a lot of the things I'm gonna talk about.

So I'd ask that you take the time to read those.

Um I realize that you can't read them right now.

I did try to send them later, but this has been happening very, very quickly.

Um when I first heard about the construction, this was in January, based upon a a um uh newspaper article in uh Syracuse.com.

And I had never I hadn't been notified at all about the fact that they were going to do a building or anything else.

I contacted SIDA and I spoke with Eric Ennis, who is the head of SIDA, and had been talking with him throughout this period, except that he did go on um paternity leave, not that he had a baby, but his wife had a baby.

And the idea is that that that dropped off.

But I was not aware that there was a seeker meeting.

And I I understand that you don't have to um invite somebody, but it would have been very helpful.

So I'm coming in here very late in the game trying to catch up as fast as I can.

Now, um thank you very much for the for the garage.

That that's that was a big issue, and and we appreciate that.

We didn't realize that until we walked in.

They hadn't told us, which is a little curious, but that's all right.

Uh the garage is a is a major issue, and that I'm not opposing the garage.

But if you put the garage 10 feet away from my building and you have cars going in and out, it's sound.

And you create an echo chamber all the way up through the walls on both sides.

Um my windows are standard windows, so potentially there's going to be a lot of noise in my building because of cars going in and out, starting cars, whatever.

So I have a very big concern about that.

When I spoke with Mr.

Ennis early on, he told me that it was understand his understanding was the idea is that it would be a solid wall all the way up.

So I'll just leave that.

I'm not I'm not speaking out of turn.

That was what I remember him saying.

Maybe that wasn't the case and it was a misunderstanding.

But that was my understanding way back.

Uh, because again, we we have an echo chamber of 10 feet right next to my building.

So I have a big concern about well.

Also, parking garages.

I I've looked at some of the other parking garages in the area, and you'll find that there's a solid wall between a parking garage and a building.

It's rare that you see an open parking garage right next to windows of another building.

Just it doesn't make sense.

If my concern would even be a fire if you get one of these electric cars, it goes on fire.

It's only 10 feet away, and my windows are not fireproof.

So I I think it's it's a safety issue, it's a sound issue, dirt.

I think there are a lot of things that are involved here that I I'd hope that you'll uh consider and allow me to continue to talk with the applicant.

I really haven't had much conversation with the applicant.

Uh the other day was the first time, and it went for a little while, and I spoke to their two lawyers.

Uh I didn't speak to their architect, didn't speak to their engineer, I spoke to their lawyers, which is okay.

Those were their representatives.

But it didn't give enough time to start fleshing this out and going through it.

And as I said up late in the game, even though I was early in the game with Mr.

Ennis, I didn't understand some of the things that were going on.

So that's my concern about the wall, uh, the the garage.

I think it's a legitimate one, it's a safety issue, it's a sound issue, it's dirt and dust.

Our windows open.

If we if we open our windows, it's all this dirt and dust coming off of cars.

We can't open our windows.

So it it's it's a big concern of mine, not just for my uh folks that work for me in the top two floors, but other tenants that I hope to have in the future.

I don't have any at this point, though.

Be freely to admit that.

Um after that, my concern is just that there has been very little discussion about the design of this building.

Uh, for example, if if you look at it, it's essentially a brick that's being put down, but then they cut hollowed out the back of the brick.

So we've got all of this extra nothing.

It's just nothing there from from the fourth floor up in the back of the building as an enormous area that's not being used.

So what I did was I had a friend of mine.

We took a look and said, well, all right, how would we best utilize the space?

And this is something I did talk with the uh with the attorneys about for a little bit, because I understand it, they looked at it, but there wasn't any discussion.

So what I did was I came up with an option.

And the option would be is to take the rooms that would be here from five to nine, which works out to 13 rooms, and move them here.

Now, what it would do is there would have to be a courtyard, but it's a little bit more like some of the fancier hotels that you have with um embassy suites, various things like that, where some people like the idea of being in a room in the center of the building with a nice little courtyard.

It's quiet, they feel safe.

They're not really all that keen on having a room that looks out onto South Warren Street with traffic.

So it seems like this is certainly technically feasible.

I mean, there's nothing that is not feasible.

So my my thought was you do that, and then they had a ballroom here.

Well, we doubled the size of the ballroom by putting it up here.

It still has beautiful views, it's up high, but you can even split that, and now you end up with two ballrooms.

So it's a matter of looking at the design and saying, how can we utilize all the space that these folks are getting?

And there are a lot of options here.

I'm not saying that this is the option, but I'm saying let's talk about it.

Because the idea would be is that this section here would go up four floors, and then you'd have a green area up there.

It can be a save the rain, it can be all sorts of fun things that you can do here, which would increase the interest in the hotel as more of a destination rather than just a room that's a sleep building.

So there's more to it.

That would, of course, allow the front of my building now, the side of my building, to still have access, the top three windows of work.

Can we do the little screen?

This is not a history lesson, I promise you.

Just a very quick thing on this.

Is that the pictures?

There we go.

This is what the corner used to look like.

Back 426, there was a three-story building.

This was the Eccles Theater.

Uh, this building shows up a couple of times, but this is the corner.

And it was a three-story building.

That's it.

Then we go to the next one.

You can see it's still low throughout here.

You can see now that the uh Lafayette building is now here, but these are low buildings throughout the whole thing.

And of course the street was quite good.

Next picture.

Now here's the Lafayette building.

There's always been buildings here.

These two buildings were knocked down by Sil because this one had been on fire, and this one they didn't want to.

But we can see we still have these windows of the Lafayette building always accessible.

It's always been open since this building was built 99 years ago.

It's always been open.

The next picture.

It's open.

It's always been open.

This was the American Airlines building.

So this particular intersection has always had low buildings.

Maybe one tall, but it was always low.

So the idea is that it was the American Airlines building.

But each time for over almost a hundred years, this building had access to light and a kind of view, but air, because all these windows open.

These are not fixed windows, they opened, which is one of the reasons that the utility and the value of this building is high.

Because you can actually open your windows.

So next slide.

That's my Halloween decorations.

But I thought to myself, you can see the Lafayette building.

But can you imagine if you're in a hotel and you're 10 feet away and you open up your curtains, and there's you're now looking at somebody through an office window sitting there staring back at you.

This doesn't make sense that we would put two buildings that close together, 10 feet apart, with looking at each other's windows.

It doesn't make sense, and we don't have to do that if we rearrange the rooms.

Because then all of these rooms would have a very nice view through the parking lot of the church and have light, air, whatever you want, of course, they're mostly sealed windows.

But rather than do this, if you look here, you can see that's where the buildings have always been, is down here.

They've never come up higher.

So the reason for all of this is simply to ask the developers to give it some thought that I wish that they had talked to me back in January and said, well, all right, let's let's take a look, Fred.

Let's see what other options there are available.

Also, too, is if you do have this area open, it really does improve the hotel.

I mean, you can have uh weddings, you can have conferences there, you can all of a sudden this this uh little restaurant here now has above the ground all sorts of amenities, different things you could do, dog walking, a putting field.

I mean, it's incredible the things you could do, and it's not unlike a lot of the buildings in the area.

If you, for example, the my building has a little tow that sticks out, two floors.

Look at the State Tower building.

It has the tower, but it has still has something that stick out.

If you look at the icon building, it's a big building, but then there's a side that sticks out.

So why not do that?

You'll still have all of your rooms, double the size of your of your ballroom, have act have the ability to attract a lot of people because you have a recreation area, it all works.

So that's what I'm saying.

Is that I'm I'm not saying that this is the answer, but why not talk to me about maybe we change it a little bit?

Maybe we look at it so that ultimately their people, their their tenants, their guests, aren't looking in the windows of my office building.

So that's why I'm asking to for it to absolutely agree on demolishing the garage.

Yes, that needs to get done.

Uh merging the different lots, sure, no problem.

The first four floors of the building, actually, the the the two things were the exit, which has been resolved, and then walling out that.

All right, let's talk about it.

But this is the perfect time now to take a look and see how can we configure this building so it includes it actually will improve the building and still allows my building to have to function without people looking 10 feet into my offices because that's where I work.

This is my office.

I've owned the building for 22 years.

Uh uh for lack of better uh appointment.

I'm I'm there more than I'm home.

Uh so it it is extremely important to me that we try to work together.

I'm not saying this way of the highway, nothing like that.

It's more a matter of can we still keep talking?

So my request is go forward, uh approve the uh garage, knocking down the garage, go forward on the merging of the lots, but leave this open for some legitimate good faith discussion on what we can do.

And I it is certainly technically feasible, whatever I'm asking.

Absolutely feasible.

The question is questions?

I probably talked more.

I was just gonna ask if the commission members had questions are there of either speaker.

I'm all set.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I would ask you to read the booklets because it does give you a lot more information.

Uh I don't I realize that I require you not to make a decision tonight, but I think you would find the information.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Yes.

Good evening.

There you go.

Oh, okay, thank you.

Yeah.

One page.

Uh good evening.

My name is Doug Muncy.

I've been a member of St.

Paul's Church since 1975.

St.

Paul's is 310 Montgomery Street.

I currently serve as the volunteer parish administrator and as the treasurer.

I'm speaking on behalf of Father Philip Major and our parish leadership.

Subsequent to the hearing of October 20th, we have reviewed the feasibility of pursuing legal action to address the questions related to the easement that abuts our parking lot.

We have decided not to pursue any legal action at this time.

Second, we have met with the with a representative of Spectrum and the developers to ensure that we will not have a loss of communication services when the grudge is demolished.

And the essence of Mr.

Pitcher's summary of the November 7th meeting.

Mr.

Bishard was with us and also received a copy prior to this meeting.

So there are three three things of essence in that summary.

First, we believe that there's a temporary solution to address this by running cable above ground from the YMCA across common space apartments to St.

Paul's.

This will require the consent of the other organizations.

Okay.

Second, there are many wires running through and on the exterior of the parking garage to the adjacent buildings.

There is concern that the adjacent organizations, including St.

Paul's, may be negatively impacted if these questions are not resolved before the demolition is initiated.

Okay.

Third.

We're wondering if the emergency exit from the common space apartments is through the courtyard behind the YMCA or through the gate into the easement area in question and through St.

Paul's parking lot.

At this time, if through the area behind the YMCA, due to overgrowth and litter, responsibility for maintaining it as a safe means of egress needs to be clarified.

In summary, we anticipate that the identified concerns will be addressed by the developers prior to the demolition if approved, and all parties will be positioned to be good neighbors.

In the long term, we feel that there will be opportunities that will be beneficial to the to the developers and St.

Paul's, which we will be celebrating our 200th anniversary in downtown Syracuse beginning next May.

So we're looking forward to that long-term relationship.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So for the commission members, any questions from those who spoke and provided updates.

Hi.

Hi.

My name is Joe Sisko.

I represent Common Space.

We own uh the apartments uh at 320 Montgomery Street as well as 349 to 353 uh Warren Street.

So we're quite literally two of your neighbors.

Um we've honestly this is the first time we've uh seen any plans.

Uh we haven't been contacted uh at all.

Um so very late to the game.

Um I I really uh we're we're extremely in favor of the project.

It's uh you know I think it's fantastic for downtown.

So yeah.

I didn't understand your role, but we did close the public hearing at the last meeting last month and asked that the parties who just spoke, uh three parties to have some conversation amongst themselves and then report back at this meeting.

So we're not reopening the hearing this evening.

We were getting updates from those parties um most directly involved.

I would say we're very directly involved.

We're they're literally attached to our building.

Right, and we're and spoke at the last public hearing before it was closed.

Okay.

So this is the first time we're getting notice that we haven't had notice of it, and one of our tenants let us know.

So our our egress is literally being destroyed, uh you know, based on this site plan.

So if you receive notice for this meeting, uh you didn't.

No.

And and uh the owner the owners, developers, representatives have never contacted us.

This meeting and the last meeting and the site of meetings were all publicly noticed in the new newspaper in accordance with the legal requirements.

There have also been um since the CITEM meeting, all uh agendas posted.

So um unfortunately we can't uh direct people to read the paper or look on our website, but if you have concerns about issues downtown, it's important to look at those resources.

That is it is a bit comical.

I mean, we're we're we're literally attached in two locations to a but uh we'll we'll we'll we'll connect offline and thank you.

Yeah.

Just uh one other thing.

Are you the owner of the building?

Okay, so you should have also got in a postcard in the mail.

Um again, if we don't have the correct address for you, for example, if your address has changed over the years, um the postcards go to the last known address that the city has for an owner.

Do we use the tax records?

Yeah.

So we also send a postcard.

So the hearing was closed at the last meeting.

We accommodated some conversations or hope to facilitate some conversations.

Those conversations have happened in various forms.

We heard some updates this evening.

Umdating your update uh for us.

I I feel like it's appropriate, right?

I talk and then they talk, and I think I can at least add a little bit more comment to it.

Um specific to common space, understanding that they don't have the right to speak now.

I can say that we have reviewed the title, or not me personally, but the land use attorneys working for us, have reviewed the title for both the existing parking garage and the common space building.

There is a documented egress pathway that benefits the YMCA that leaves their back door and continues through an enclosed hallway between the existing parking garage and the Pafones building that we are obligated to maintain because it's a path of egress for that building that's documented by way of an easement.

And the YMCA and the developer have met and discussed the way that they can still continue to maintain egress from that rear door to the area that would be a gap between the proposed building and Pavone's building.

It's about seven feet, and would still be able to egress towards South Warren Street.

The common space building does appear to have, I don't know this for fact, but it does appear that there is an egress door on the back of their building that enters the same basically vacant courtyard space that's in the rear.

Um two things to note.

One is that a portion of their building is actually existing on the property to which there isn't any documented easement right, and there isn't any egress rights anyway.

Um to the extent that which common space chooses to engage the developer to request a solution to that, um, it's very feasible that they can simply leave the same way that the YMCA will.

Um again, though, that's kind of private property issues dealing with the code compliance of their building and the obligation for the developer to entertain that or request that they may make to continue to use the property under a documented fashion, right?

A new easement essentially.

Um but the option is certainly there to do that.

Um I wanted to mention that just because he didn't have a chance to talk, and I think that that's what he was gonna say.

Um so we can certainly continue to coordinate that with them and make sure that um there's some way to resolve that, which feasibly there certainly is based on the plan without having to change any of the plan.

Um the church, thank you.

Obviously, um, you know, he talked a lot about the coordination that happened, which I think was fairly accurate with my description that I provided to you earlier, so I won't um continue on that.

And also between um Mr.

Hunt and Mr.

Davies, I'm not gonna belabor those points either because I already addressed them.

Obviously, that is a desire by the neighbor to change the size and scale of the building, but it's certainly our intent to maximize the the size and scale of the building for what we're allowed to construct within the um you know the zoning rights and rules that we have to develop, and that we are not going to entertain rearranging any portions of the building or making it smaller or bigger.

Um, you know, I'm not gonna get into some of the things that yes, maybe it's technically feasible, but there's certain loss of space and other things that would happen by rearranging it, and it's not a requirement, so we're not gonna entertain it with the drainage.

Um, if there is some litigation that happens that obligates us to maintain that drainage, we'll obviously have to.

Um I'm a licensed engineer in New York State.

My focus is civil site land development.

I've provided professional testimony to drainage disputes between neighboring property owners, and there is a lot of case law dealing with upland owners versus lowland owners and the obligations for one to provide drainage accommodation for another, neither of which are the purview of this board related to the zoning entitlements of the project.

But obviously, if we are obligated to, or if it's necessary for us to manage drainage from another person's property, then we'll have to.

It's my opinion that we don't have to.

We are treating and managing all of the drainage and runoff that comes from our site within our stormwater structure and won't have any drainage that's trespassing off of our property as results of the project.

So that's all.

Thank you.

So I I would like to just clarify a few things and weigh in um please from a staff perspective.

So as uh the chief building official and the zoning administrator for the city, um, I can confidently say that what Brian just stated is accurate and true.

Um I heard Mr.

Davies attorney say there is quote currently no drainage problem, but um under the City of Syracuse Syracuse Property Conservation Code and the New York State Property Maintenance Code.

Um you cannot discharge onto an adjacent property, and I I'm not aware of any legal arrangement in place to uh allow for such thing.

It would be a violation of our local property conservation code and state code um either way.

So that's problematic.

But um, I I just want to go through that.

This this is a site plan review process that we're under, right?

This is a proposed use that is allowed by right.

It triggers major site plan review and review and decision from this board.

And I just want to cover what our code says as far as the purpose and the criteria.

The purpose is to ensure that the proposed development is reviewed for compliance with the development and design standards of the zoning ordinance.

Okay, so that's one.

And the approval criteria is that it's consistent with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance.

It's consistent with the dimensional design, development, and other standards of the zoning ordinance, and that it's generally consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted city policies and plans.

Staff still recommends approval even after all the testimony and comments given tonight.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

Thank you.

Any further discussion from the commission members or information needed or questions?

I'm good.

The commission is at liberty to act at this point.

And if there is a motion, we will consider that.

We have three different um uh steps before us, and we need to do those separately if there's a motion for that.

Um two steps resub and master plan review, cited sector seeker.

CR.

Seeker site edit.

Special permit, special use permit.

Oh, excuse me, I'm in I have my glasses on, but I'm looking at the wrong application.

You just have the re resub and master plan review.

You are correct.

Let me adjust my glasses once again.

Two steps, and they need to be due to be done separately.

So that's correct.

Site plan review and the resub.

Okay.

Okay.

And you know what?

I will ask staff a question.

I I heard Brian talk about the easement.

The easement with the YMCA, it's recorded.

Is that right?

We where the city's aware that there's an easement recorded, and that'll be preserved during the demolition and reconstruction.

Yes.

Yeah, and I I uh forgot to mention that all the drainage comments and concerns are also addressed under the site work construction permit process where the city engineer's office will review the stormwater police uh pollution prevention plan, aka SWIP, um, and all that will be reviewed for compliance uh before any sort of construction permits are issued, and I can uh verify that it's a very thorough process.

Thank you.

Thank you for letting me ask the question.

Absolutely.

Any other points of clarification needed not for the resub.

Not for the reset.

Okay.

Okay, so I'm prepared to make a motion if please go ahead.

Uh okay.

Um I uh move to approve uh resub R-25-48 as presented with uh one condition.

The applicant shall successfully file the resubdivision map of R-25-48 with the onadagi college county clerk's office within 62 days of uh approval of the resubdivision.

Thank you.

Is there a second to that motion?

Second thank you.

Discussion on the resubdivision motion.

If there's no discussion, all in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

R2548 is approved.

You also have a motion for the major site plan review.

I make a motion to approve uh major site plan review MASPR-25-24 as uh presented with uh one special condition.

That special condition being that should the property owner propose any changes to commercial tenancy or the addition of hotel units as part of the future development.

Such modifications will be subject to the review process and require uh site plan approval in accordance with the application procedure.

Should also note that the staff had made a recommendation for special condition regarding 53 parking space bike parking spaces.

However, we discussed that issue at both the last meeting at this meeting is incorporated into the plans, so it's unnecessary to state that as a special condition.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion on this motion for the major site plan review.

MASPR 2524.

If not, all in favor of this motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions.

Review is approved for this project.

Thank you to all the speakers.

We move on to not the next one on the agenda because that's when I was reading incorrectly.

That is on hold.

And to our next resubdivision, please.

Yep.

Next up is resubdivision R25-49 at 610, 612, 614-16 Carbon Street.

This is in the R2 zone district.

Hi.

I own the properties.

Okay.

Any questions for the applicant?

So I just have one quick question.

So the stated purpose of the resub is to combine into one lot, and then you will eventually fence.

Yeah, yeah.

Right now there's like a retaining wall with like a large dangerous straw.

Right.

Right.

So we just want to put a tech.

We can't put a high fence there, so I think it has to be whatever the it's the front, even though it's not really the front of the property, but the code allows.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Just in terms of the fencing, what what what do you have in mind in terms of are you planning to fence in the whole lot or what?

Um so we want a like uh whatever we can.

Yeah, I mean, so we have had an issues with like trespassing, and um and so I think just like privacy.

We also own 620 carbon, so um but obviously we can't extend the fence over.

So just kind of getting um that area kind of a little bit more private, but it shouldn't affect anybody down on pond lane, which is comes up or yeah, or carbon.

They can barely see it from the sidewalk.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Are there individuals who would like to speak in favor of this application?

If so, please come to the podium, provide your name, address, and comments.

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application, please come forward.

Good evening, Councilor Martin Nave.

Um District Councilor.

Um I somewhat do approve of what you're doing.

Uh my understanding is you're going to take down two properties.

Is that correct?

No, no, no.

Okay.

The lots are vacant.

I think I have a burn public law.

Okay.

Right now it's a top car.

Okay.

Okay.

So uh you know, and in this regard, uh, so much property on the north side when they were built, they're very tightly together.

So this is an opportunity for our homeowner to expand her property.

Um we have an issue with people at the park both sides of the street, maybe with this area.

I'll assume you may want to have a driveway, more land.

Uh no, I kind of have a weird property.

I don't know.

I could address no rock.

Okay.

So you're wanting to get more space on the property.

Mostly we can build a fan.

I understand that.

Okay, I understand that.

So you want to make it look better, more presentable.

Yes, honestly.

Okay.

So I uh you know, in this regard, I believe what she wants to do as a homeowner is correct.

And we have a lot of issues on the north side, but here's our homeowner that she wants to take this property, wants it, you know, make a pull.

It's on Carbot Street.

It's a very large street.

So I would consider, unless there's someone who's against it.

Uh I would favor her proposal.

Uh as much.

Okay, I don't know.

I don't we've never met before, but I would support this proposal.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of or opposed to this application?

I don't think we have any additional speakers here, so we'll close public comment and we will turn our attention to the seeker review for this resubdivision.

So Marg, if you wouldn't mind stepping up for a second for just some quick clarification.

We have three parcels.

As I heard you say there's one house on the three parcels.

Correct.

A duplex.

And then that house are the other structures that are like a large garage.

The large garage.

And are you keeping that garage?

Uh yeah, for now.

Yeah.

I mean, yes.

Okay.

Probably indefinitely.

Right.

And then yeah, but that's that's actually that's all one parcel.

The garage and the um and the house are and the two other parcels are just the vacant parcels.

Yeah, yeah.

The house and the garage are one parcel.

The other two parcels are vacant.

Right.

How big is the garage is the question?

It's uh it's kind of like we don't use it for parking.

Um it's like a two-car garage, I guess, but it's kind of an odd shape.

You know, it's like a big sort of like workshop sort of space.

Small when I drove by.

Yeah, I mean like I don't know.

Today's two-car garage and yeah, somewhere.

It's a useful amount of space, but yeah, I don't we we've only had the property for yeah, I don't know, a year or two.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Okay, we're good.

Seeker, we need to seeker.

We're just trying to make sure the issue is okay in terms of coverage.

Black and not to create a non-conformity.

Um reviewed the EAF part one prepared by the applicant and contained in your packet?

Yes.

Yes.

Is everyone familiar with the EAF part two also contained in your packet?

Yes, yes.

Does anyone believe the proposed action will result in a moderate to large impact under CECRA?

No.

Having determined the proposed action will not result in a moderate to large impact under CECRA.

I recommend that the commission make a negative declaration and complete the EAF part three accordingly.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to that effect?

Make a motion to uh issue a negative seeker declaration.

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion on this seeker motion before us.

If not, all in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

Seeker motion carries, and we may now consider action on the resubdivision itself.

R25-49.

Is there a motion for action on this?

That condition being the applicant shall successfully file the resubdivision map of R-25-24.

In the on dog county clerk's office within 62 days of the approval of the resubdivision.

Thank you.

A second?

Second.

Thanks.

Discussion on this motion.

If there's no discussion, all in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

There is subdivision for Carbon Street is approved.

Thank you.

We move to our next application.

Yep.

The next application on the agenda is a resubdivision application, R-25-52.

It's a uh application to combine 1502 to 1510 Burnett Avenue into one large parcel.

The owner is Mary M.

Pascarilla, and the representative is Joseph Riton.

It's in the LI Zone District.

Thank you.

Good evening, sir.

Good evening.

My name is Joseph Britton.

I reside at 219 Gillis and Salvay.

Um I am the manager of Pascarella Stowing, and I have been appointed by Mary Ann Pascarella to represent her today.

Um essentially we have five parcels that are all adjacent.

One parcel has a structure, which is our um garage for the company.

Um you can see a impound lot area that's fenced around 1502, 4 and 6.

I don't know if you can show them with the cursor or not, but there is an impound area for the vehicles.

Um where the cursor is right there.

Uh the intent.

Uh the intent, um, the city of Syracuse has made some changes when it comes to um the release of impounded vehicles that are not recovered by the owners.

So there's a process, a legal process involved that requires uh the city to do some paperwork uh before they can turn ownership of that vehicle over to us so that you can win uh we can then dispose of the vehicle.

Um the city of Syracuse in the last I think year, uh there was a lawsuit that involved a vehicle being destroyed after uh garage obtained ownership from the city of Syracuse from one of the police tows.

The vehicle was never recovered by the owner.

Um there's a process, there's a form called the 907A form, which goes through the uh motor vehicle department that transfers that vehicle ownership uh from the city of Syracuse police towing to the impound lot impound owner, which whatever city uh garage it is, and then we can then dispose of the vehicle in a junkyard or uh uh uh auto parts uh salvage yard type of thing.

Since that lawsuit, the city of Syracuse uh traffic division has stopped issuing 907A forms.

So that results in the impound lots filling up with vehicles because normally you can rotate them out every 60 or 90 days.

You're always bringing some in, but you have to also get rid of some.

Um so we're really pushing these car owners trying to make deals, cut them brakes to get these vehicles back out of our lot because we need the space for new vehicles coming in.

So these properties were all acquired uh at different years.

Uh the 1508 and 1510 on the right hand side towards Pete Street were obtained uh roughly three and a half years ago.

Uh there was a um on 1508, there was a uh two-story dwelling that was raised this year.

Um with the intent of expanding the impound yard all the way over to Pete Street to make room for these vehicles that are now sitting abandoned on our property that we can't do anything with yet.

Um there is an intent to put a fence, not the entire property of 1508 and 1510.

Do you mind if I step over to the map?

No, go ahead, please.

Currently, the impound lot ends here.

We want to extend this corner of the gate.

If we want to keep our gate to enter the impound lot, stationary border as well.

We want to run parallel with our property line from the edge of this gate post straight to Peach Street, and then this would all become usable inpound yard.

Here we'll still be access parking for our vehicles, tow trucks.

Uh there is an intent not only to run the fence from the gate straight over, but to carry this as close as we can legally to the property line because we do have quite a few school students who are trespassing on the property.

One of them is actually fallen.

We haven't heard anything back about an impact of that.

We're hoping that there was nothing major.

Um as it stands right now, this being old, the school students every single day are crossing across that.

We try to deter them out of there, but uh, I'm sure you've got some teenagers just day and age that don't really care at all.

No way.

Um but that's our intent.

Our intent is to subdivide all of them to uh uh one property, one tax parcel at 1504, which is the current business address, uh, because we can't put a fence over there without a dwelling or a structure being on that property.

So without the structure being there, we need to subdivide everything so that we can extend our fence over and protect the property.

You'll be able to get a bigger impound area and fence it in.

Yep.

And then hopefully after that's done, uh we do intend to expand our building size so we can accommodate our trucks indoors out of the elements.

Um that is it's crucial that we're able to move that impound yard east and uh maximize that space.

Okay, thank you.

Are there questions for the applicant?

Well, so today's action is just for the resubdivision.

This is just for the resub right now.

So I'm just wondering what your you know projected timeline is for the other.

Well, we wanted a fence up before winter got here, but snowing now.

Um I mean, it depends on how fast the timeline moves along and how frozen the ground gets.

Really?

I mean, we could start it uh as early as you know the first of the year, you know, being in November now, depending on how quick the city moves along with the process of getting everything stamped and approved.

Uh we could start it now, it depends on how bad the winter is.

We may have to hold off until spring on the fencing area.

Right.

Um and then once the fence is erected, we'll move our focus to uh getting an architect involved for the building.

Right.

Okay, thank you very much.

Sure.

Other questions?

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Are there individuals who would like to speak in favor of this application?

If so, please come to the podium, provide your name, address, and comments.

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application, please come forward?

Councilor Nave.

So I know the Pascarola family for many years.

Uh they've worked through triple A.

I've been over to the property multiple times.

And uh what they are doing for this community, they throw a lot of illegal vehicles when they get called as well.

So I do support this extension of this project.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councillor.

Bless you.

Any additional speakers for or against this application?

If so, please come to the podium.

I see no additional speakers rising, so we will close public comment and turn our attention to the seeker review for this resubdivision.

Has everyone reviewed the EAF part one prepared by the applicant and contained in your packet?

Yes.

Is everyone familiar with the EAF part two also contained in your packet?

Yes, yes.

Does anyone believe the proposed action will result in a moderate to large impact under CECRA?

No.

No.

Having determined the proposed action will not result in a moderate to large impact under secret.

I recommend that the commission make a negative declaration and complete the EAF part three accordingly.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to that effect for the seeker review?

Make a motion to issue a negative seeker declaration.

Thank you.

Second.

And the second, thank you.

Discussion on the seeker motion.

If there's no discussion, all in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

Seeker motion carries, and we may now turn our attention to the resubdivision itself in the 1500 block of Burnett Av.

Is there a motion for this?

Uh yes, I make a motion to approve uh resubdivision R 25-52 as presented with one special condition.

That special could condition being that the applicant shall successfully file the resubdivision map of R-25-52 in the County Clerk's office within 62 days of resubdivision approval.

Make a special note because there actually was a resubdivision that was approved years ago that didn't get filed.

And so you file.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah.

1508 and 1510 cent by one parcel.

Okay.

Well, let's get it straight this time, I guess.

Yeah, I'm gonna make sure it's documentation that it's final.

Great, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Is there a second for that motion?

Second.

Discussion on the motion before us.

If there's no discussion, all in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

So the resubdivision for R2552 is approved.

Thank you very much.

And we move to our next application.

Thank you, Amber.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

So the next item on the agenda is a zoning map amendment Z 2912.

It's uh at the 100 Elizabeth Elizabeth Street, and it's owned by Greater Syracuse Property Development Corporation.

It's in the R3 zone district.

I'm Terry Luckett from the Syracuse Land Bank, uh 1941 South Celina Street.

Uh the land bank owns both of these lots.

190107 South State Street is in R2.

Um we also own the non-conforming vacant lot at 100 Elizabeth Street.

It's small, it's zoned R3, it's 33 by 51.

It's non-conforming.

Our strategy is to combine them both.

Um to move the lot line between the two lots to create two almost equally sized uh lots.

That'll be a resubdivision later, but for now, since they're two different zones, we're requesting to change the 100 Elizabeth Street from R3 to R2 so that we can later re-subdivide and um sell the lots for new construction.

Thank you.

I'm just gonna put them on, get them ready and put them on the market.

Questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there individuals wishing to speak in favor of this application?

Please come forward, provide your name, address, comments.

Anyone desiring to speak in opposition, please come forward.

We have no speakers.

We will close public comment and turn our attention to the seeker review.

Has everyone reviewed the EAF part one prepared by the applicant and contained in your packet?

Yes.

Yes.

Is everyone familiar with the EAF part two also contained in your packet?

Yes.

Does anyone believe the proposed action will result in a moderate to large impact under CECRA?

No.

No.

Having determined the proposed action will not result in a moderate to large impact.

I recommend that the commission make a negative declaration and complete the EAF part three accordingly.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to that effect for SECRE?

Make a motion to issue a negative seeker declaration.

Thank you.

Second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion on the seeker motion now before us.

If there's no discussion, all in favor of the seeker motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions.

Seeker motion is approved.

And now we move to a recommendation that will be that will go to the council for final disposition on the proposed zoning map amendment.

Is there a motion for such a recommendation to the council?

Make a motion for approval of the application for Z 29-12 with a affirmative rec uh recommendation to the common council for approval with one uh special condition.

Uh the special condition being that the applicant shall successfully file the residential the re resubdivision map of the companion lot alteration map R-25-51 in the ondugg county clerk's office within 62 days of administrative approval.

And just clarify that for the purpose of everybody present and listening.

Uh the companion application for this uh amendment zoning map amendment is something that needs to be approved by the administrator.

It will be approved by administrator after the zoning map amendment is approved by the comedy council.

So the 62-day clock does not begin until after the administrator approves uh the uh companion application, not today.

Good clarification.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion on this motion now before is for the zoning map amendment recommendation.

If not, all in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye, aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

Motion carries, and the recommendation will go to the common council for final action.

Our next uh application, please.

Thank you.

The next items on the agenda is the value drive resubdivision.

Uh it has two applications.

One is presubdivision, R-25-27.

Another one is the zoning map amendment.

Z-2913.

It's at the 1940 and 2004 Valley Drive, 1944 Valley Drive Rear, and 200 Bostwick Road.

It's owned uh by Jennifer Simmons, Angela's Association of Onadaga Inc.

And um Nolan uh as the representative.

Good evening.

Uh Nolan Kakoris.

I'm an attorney with Bon Shenik and King.

Uh we represent uh the applicant Jennifer Simmons.

Uh this project uh proposes to um uh resubdivide what's currently four parcels into two parcels.

Um there'll be a 3.6 acre parcel and a 1.7 acre parcel um that'll conform with the existing uh land uses of the property.

There's no new construction proposed.

Uh this is just to um amend the lot lines and uh the corresponding zoning district map uh to conform with current conditions on the properties.

Thank you.

Questions for the applicant.

So I just I'm curious.

The so the effect of this the resubdivision and the zoning change will actually make the property next to the lake all part of the uh anglers association property and the property for the residents will then be you know back further.

Is that that correct?

Understanding that?

Yes, that's correct.

And if you look at, I think you have uh the current um boundary lines.

I thought I saw it on one of those.

You'll see the um the parcel with the residents currently cuts down into the um Anglers Association property.

So to get to the back of that paved area that's along the pond, you actually have to cross through all of these um different property lines.

Right, good.

Thank you.

Bostwick Road is associated with this application.

Is that a paper street?

Uh yes, that's correct.

There's uh a whole subdivision uh map for that um uh westernmost parcel that um there's paper lots and paper streets, so those will be um going away with this proposed plan.

Thank you.

Additional questions for the applicant.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this application?

If so, please come to the podium, provide your name, address, and comments.

Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application?

Please come forward.

We have no additional speakers, it seems, so we will close public comment.

Uh turn our attention first to the resubdivision application and more particularly to the uh seeker review for this proposed resubdivision.

Has everyone reviewed the EAF part one?

Yes.

Yes.

We just we're eager to tell you yes.

Is everyone familiar with the EAF part two?

Yes.

Well, hurry it up here.

Does anyone believe the proposed uh action will result in a moderate to large impact under CECRA?

No.

No.

Having determined the proposed action will not result in the moderate to large impact under secre.

I recommend that the commission make a negative declaration and complete the EAF part three accordingly.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to that effect for seeker?

Make a motion to issue a negative seeker declaration.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

Discussion on the seeker motion now before us.

If there's no discussion, all in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

Seeker motion is approved.

And now we move to the resubdivision itself, R2527.

Is there a motion for action on the proposed resubdivision?

Make a motion to approve uh the resubdivision R-25-27 as presented, with uh one special condition, that being that the applicant shall successfully file the resubdivision map of R-25-27 in the Honor Dog County Clerk's office within 62 days upon the common council's approval of the companion application Z-29-13, the zoning map amendment.

Thank you.

A second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion on the motion.

There's no discussion.

All in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

The resubdivision R2527 is approved.

We turn our attention to the zoning map amendment and particularly the seeker review associated with that.

Do we need to do it again?

We don't cover but we only need to see.

I know just so in that case, um we will entertain a motion for the zoning map amendment recommendation that will go to the common council, much like the one uh application just a few moments ago.

Is there a motion for the zoning map amendment?

Make a motion to approve zoning map amendment Z-29-13 with a uh uh affirmative recommendation to the common council for approval and one special condition the applicant shall successfully file the companion resubdivision of R-25-27, the on dog county clerk's office within 62 days of the resubdivision approval.

Thank you.

Sarah's second.

Second.

Thank you.

Any discussion on this motion for the zoning map amendment?

If not, all in favor of this motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

That motion carries, and the recommendation will proceed to the common council for a final decision.

Uh our last uh public hearing this evening, I believe.

Yes, the last new business on the agenda item is um R 25-42.

That's a resubdivision application.

The property is at 111 Essex Street and 917 Milton Avenue.

That property is owned by PDF Group L L C and it's both properties are in our full zone district.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Uh Ed Kaplinger, coupling of Freeman Associates.

Uh we're representing the PDF group.

Uh Katie Smith is here from the PDF group if you have any questions.

Uh this resubdivision uh starts the process of cleaning up some zoning issues that occur at 11 Essex Street or Essex Street.

Um the purpose of it is to move some lot lines around to um allow 917 Milton Street to still comply with the current zoning code, but allow allocate more land to 11 Essex Street so that it can uh come closer to complying with the current zoning.

The way the lot is configured, the lots are configured now, a dumpster enclosure and some parking occur on the 917 Milton Ave parcel, and that would be cleaned up as part of this.

Um that's that's really um the biggest uh item to be addressed.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any questions for the applicant concerning this resubdivision?

Uh yeah, could you just clarify where the lot line will actually be between 11 and 917?

It's just kind of hard to see on the renderings I have.

Proposed lot line?

Yeah.

Proposed a lot line for the bridge here.

So it's 120 feet back above that.

Thank you.

Further questions for the applicant.

So on the Milton Ave current parcel.

The dumpster and the grass, I guess a little bit of clarification on the cleanup.

Well, with the clarification on the cleaning up of I did bring a site plan.

And this is what we're um, and this is what we're proposing.

Okay.

Thank you.

We got this.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Actually, what we're looking to provide uh is 10 parking spaces for the 10 unit apartment complex.

Um, and then there will be a dumpster enclosure in the back corner.

It's not labeled, but it's that dark gray uh rectangle, and that will be uh dumpster enclosure that would be fenced in and gated.

No, and there's proposed landscaping between the two buildings.

Between it, right?

Uh there is a vegetation there now.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, there really uh except for cleaning up the parking and whatnot, there really isn't any changes occurring between the two buildings.

Landscape um from a vegetation standpoint.

Thank you.

Any additional questions for the applicant?

Yeah, so I just I just have a question about uh the the parking situation and and bike racks because this is involving two different properties with two different sort of parking aggregations.

I just wanted to.

I mean, normally we require one to six ratio of bike racks for parking spaces.

I'm not sure how that applies in this situation though, because you're looking at two different properties.

Okay.

So I don't know if we could just we'll work with uh Z Tong and working that out, however, whatever complies, whatever we have to do to comply with the city requirement.

Right.

So you have an are there any bike park bike racks right now?

I don't believe so.

Right, no.

But we can add them.

That's not a that's not an issue.

Sorry, what was that?

We can add racks.

Sure.

Yeah, okay.

It's a little bit of a different situation because you had two properties and it have been existing.

What we're really looking at doing is there's a uh some paving along the uh along Essex Street we'll remove that's in the right-of-way.

We'll uh define parking behind the building and we'll clean up the dumpster enclosure area.

Those are those are really the major site plan um elements that we'll be implementing.

So I believe, and I'll defer to staff that there is an overage of parking on proposed on the site plan, which could require a variance.

Am I reading correctly the notes?

Yes, correct.

So uh what uh ad has just distributed to us is the proposed site plan.

Um so the current, I can explain the um the uh situation about this property.

So the first thing is uh let me just so this is the current what the property looks like and uh zoning office we do did did a historic uh research on this property.

Um the parking the front parking space and with the building here is approved by a building permit back in 1960s, so they are legal, um even non-conforming, but they're still legal.

And the rear parking here, as you can see here, they are constructed illegally.

We don't have any permit or any zoning approval on that.

So um, and also it's already encroached into the 917 Milton Avenue.

That's the previous zoning uh lot line here.

And this resubdivision is the first step for them to correct all the trying to correct all the illegal stuff on the property.

So the what they are proposing right now, they move the parking uh the lot line here so that they can give more space to the Essex property and allow the parking space to be within the one property with the building.

They will all stay with Essex is what we're the goal is.

Yes.

And if the resub is approved, are you recommending then they go to the BCA or not?

Um right now they have two uh options.

First, they make the they try their best to make their uh parking surface coverage comply with the zoning code.

If they cannot, they have to go to the BZA to get a variance.

I just want to be sure everybody got understood it and that is that remains to be determined.

Right, yeah.

So that'll be determined after the reset.

Yes, yep.

Okay, uh so do you have any any concern or question about how we should handle the bike issue just in terms of stating that because there's two properties, there's different numbers of parking spaces for both properties, but neither of them mentions anything relative to bike parking.

Oh, you mean the bike parking?

Yeah, and bike racks, and there's number there's different numbers of cars on the on the different properties.

Um so I would say for the ASIC streets, since they are having more than um six parking spaces.

I think we yeah, we should require bike parking.

Okay, we're fine with that.

Okay.

Yeah.

Good discussion, good clarification.

More uh questions, okay.

Okay, thank you very much.

Great, thank you.

Thank you.

Are there individuals who would like to speak in favor of this application?

If so, please come forward, provide your name, address, and comments.

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application, please come forward, provide your name, address, and comments.

We don't appear to have any speakers uh for this application, so we'll close public comment, turn our attention to the seeker review for the resubdivision.

Has everyone reviewed the EAF part one prepared by the applicant and contained in your packet?

Yes, yes.

Is everyone familiar with the EAF part two also contained in your packet?

Yes.

Does it make low with you guys are out of control?

Does anyone believe the proposed action will result in a moderate to large impact under secre?

No.

Having determined the proposed action will not result in a moderate to large impact under secret.

I recommend that the commission make a negative declaration and complete the EAF part three accordingly.

Thank you.

Is there a motion for such a negative declaration?

Make a motion to issue a uh negative secret declaration.

Thank you.

Second.

Thank you both.

Discussion on that seeker motion.

If there's no discussion, then all in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

Seeker motion is approved.

We can turn our attention to the resubdivision R2542 at Essex Street and Milton Ave.

Is there a motion for action on this?

A motion to approve re-subdivision of R-25-42 with two special conditions.

One special provision being that there needs to be a staple bike racks for a ratio of one to six uh bike racks for each uh parking space on the Essex Street property.

And the second condition is the applicant shall successfully file resubdivision map of R-25-42 in the on dog handing clerk's office within 62 days of approval.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second discussion on this motion.

If there's no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

The resubdivision R2542 is approved.

Thank you.

And I think we have one more item on our agenda tonight.

Yes, correct.

We have one other business item, Sri Mao limit 3S-25-20.

Uh this application application is in a ton of dewitt and it's reviewed and approved by the engineering.

Great.

Uh with that information in hand, is there a motion for action on this three-mile limit in DeWitt?

Make a motion to approve uh three s 25-20 as presented.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion on this motion for the three-mile limit in DeWitt.

If not, all in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

My limit case for DeWitt is approved.

Are there any other items for us to consider this evening?

No, that's it for tonight.

And that case a motion to adjourn would be in order.

Is there such a motion?

So moved.

Thank you.

A second.

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion.

All in favor of the motion to adjourn, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

We are adjourned until the first of December.

Wow.

Okay.