City Hall Commons application.

One which is listed was the resub will be a zero lot line resum.

And the second, which I think we just forgot to type, the rest of the sentence is that we will change number five in our recommendations from the staff.

The affordability requirement shall be effective, shall be in effect for the term of the regulatory agreement, which is what we did in compliance with our text amendment.

Whenever that was a month ago.

Yeah, two other ones.

Uh relatively minor but important words.

We we don't really check for spelling on words throughout, but important words they do catch my eye.

So on page seven in the uh third paragraph down, refers to Commissioner Murphy asked for confirmation of the word is house.

It would be open until Monday, Friday to 8 a.m.

That should be ours.

It was a uh discussion about the hours of operation.

And the uh second item is on page 18.

There is a reference to uh Mark Caitlin that actually should be Mark Cass in that discussion.

It's on page 18 of 16, maybe 16, yeah, sorry.

Correct.

Written down wrong.

It's in it's in the uh the third paragraph or the third sentence as the case may be.

It starts out, Mr.

Mark Caitlin spoke in favor of the application, and that should be Mark Cass.

Great.

Thank you.

Any further corrections for the minutes from December one?

Uh so we have those and with those corrections noted.

Is there a motion for action on the corrected minutes?

Move approval of the amendments uh uh the minutes as corrected.

Thank you.

Second any discussion on this motion.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions minutes from December 1st are approved.

Uh before I offer a little background on our public hearing process, uh, I think there's a little update to the agenda.

And could um a couple of items we will not be taking up this evening.

Um Jay, could you just maybe mention those changes?

So if anyone is here for those, they might want to not wait for the whole meeting.

Yes, uh, the first one is an off-promise sign application.

Uh it's postponed by the applicant.

This is uh project AS-25-03.

Again, this is for our billboard at 617 North Gaddish Street.

That is postponed for this evening if anyone is here for that.

Uh the second item that's postponed uh for this evening is uh new business item at 201 South Krauss Av, the apartment project.

Um that is postponed for the re-subdivision and the site plan review.

Um pending uh uh revisions and design element changes with the landmark preservation board.

Um once the landmark preservation board is complete, um we'll bring it back to this body for our review and decision.

Thank you.

And next we'll begin our meeting with old business and just by way of um reference for those not familiar with our process as each application is announced.

We ask that the applicant or their representative come to the podium, provide their name and address for the record, and then a brief summary of the application.

And an opportunity for those who wish to speak in opposition to the application to do that as well.

In all cases, we simply ask that you provide your name and address for the record and then limit your comments to three minutes.

Where comments are offered in opposition, we will afford the applicant an opportunity to address to the commission the comments made in opposition.

So with that, I think we're ready for our first application this evening.

Yes, first up under old business is a special use permit.

SP-25-30 located at 4400 South Salina Street in West Glen.

This is owned by 4400 South Salina Street LLC.

Applicant is Dave Colgrove.

This is in the MX1 zone district.

Hi, I'm Dave Colgrove from Labella Architect.

Did you want to meet present the project again?

No, that's probably not necessary.

Okay.

So if there are any just what I can um just for the record, what I can explain to the board is um what we wanted to make sure is that uh the record was accurate and fully complete uh and that your decision was based on that.

So uh I've explained to the owner what uh we were missing in the staff report.

Um all that is now added um for us to make a uh correct decision uh based on the finding of facts and the and everything in the staff report.

So uh that's essentially what this is, and we did not do seeker last time, so we would have to do that to make a decision.

Um the only other update I have, and I believe public comment period was closed, but we we did receive a letter in opposition um I think is that distributed?

Do you have copies of that?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, we have it.

That's it.

That's all I have.

Okay, and so then from the applicant's perspective, no change from what was presented the previous meeting.

Correct.

Right.

Okay.

Any questions of the applicant by the commission members at this stage?

I guess the the question I have lingering question from from last time, and and it was addressed in the public comments, is there's some concern about the parking situation and the driveway situation, a curb cuts, et cetera.

Uh and so we we do have two conditions that would be added to address the curb cut and a driveway situation, and those two conditions would be the applicant should evaluate if three curb cuts are necessary for their lot circulation.

Typical sites utilize one or possibly two under certain circumstances, and the other condition that refers to the parking and driveway situation.

Uh, the one-way drive aisle parallel with Glen Avenue West should have corresponding one-way entry exits shown as two bidirectional openings, uh, utilizing narrow curb cuts to help the uh channelization and vehicle flow through uh lot for procession events.

And the other question that is sort of is related to that has been raised, is just in terms of the parking that's going to be available when you have a funeral that has a large, larger collection of uh congregants.

And so some clarification about what you anticipate, how that uh would be handled with respect to the parking situation.

Because there's concern about whether there's enough parking.

I mean, if you have a funeral whether it has there's going to be 150 people there, that's a lot of parking for the area, and how is that going to be accommodated?

What are your expectations for that?

Right.

Um, generally speaking, I don't think that we'll be crowds that large, anywhere near that large.

Um generally these ceremonies are fairly small.

Um it's not typical that what I've seen with a typical Christian burial where it's a long receiving line or basically a but for the most part um there is space next door.

I know the owner has a relationship with the neighbor next door if they need extra parking.

It's not parking lot that's generally used the for the hotel.

It's not really, it's not a hotel, actually, not currently being used as a hotel.

Um it's not a formal relationship necessary necessarily, but their properties are so tightly intertwined that it's hard not to have relationship with the owner.

I mean, their sign is actually on the the adjacent, you know, the sign that represents this building is actually on the adjacent properties.

It's kind of an odd situation.

And the parking lots are absolutely connected.

Right.

But we've put every bit of parking we could put on there.

I know when the previous tenant was there, there was it looked like a lot of asphalt, and there was probably a lot of area to park, but when you actually try to stripe out an aisle and parking spaces, what we have on there is pretty much what you could get out of it, even when it was when it was per sales when it's operating at a paint as a paint business.

Right, right.

Okay.

So and I guess last time we we did have some discussion about this, but I'm not sure maybe it would clarify.

Uh this is not just going to be uh Muslim funerals.

It could be Christian funerals or any denomination or you know, non religious, or is it specifically?

Because when you mention small crowds, that's small crowds generally, but it's uh the the uh but the Muslim, more like the Muslim burial preparation, the Muslim it's all something that happens fairly quickly.

I think initially it is will be primarily a Muslim funeral home.

Primarily, yes.

So it's suited for that type of burial process where it's something that happens within the span of 24 hours, and it's a small ceremony before they move out of the building to go to the mosque and or the cemetery.

Additional questions for the applicant.

Okay, I guess we're set.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well, there I did notice there, so we didn't would should we have received uh one of the letters uh if there's a if there is a um Oh, the letter in opposition.

Um technically, since the public comment period was closed.

Um, I'm trying to just put out the facts that we received this.

Um but I'm not sure if you were copying on it.

Um we can we can give you a copy.

Okay.

Okay.

By and large are the same things that she uh raised at the hearing.

Okay.

There's just more detail about the parking situation in the proximity.

And the um curb cuts.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, and that's something we are anticipating needing to work out with DPW.

Right.

Right, yeah.

Yeah, we understand some of that gets gets worked out through the permitting process, not necessarily the right here.

Okay.

So is there before you leave the podium, is there an openness to changing the number of curb cuts potentially?

Well, I have to talk with I have to talk with the owner and we have to talk with them to see what they're actually.

I think we're we need to get two ways into the back portion of the lot where there's a where they have an existing overhead door.

Um the Salina Street one curb cut is actually the one that was actually the only actual legit curb cut as far as I can tell on the on a property.

It's only when we could find actual actually curbs in that location.

Um the other the other curb cut onto Glen is something we'll just have to discuss with them and say, okay, maybe that maybe that could be one one way coming out of there, if need be, if that helps something.

But um, that's something we need to I'd like to discuss more with DPW to make sure we're actually getting on the same page before we're committing to something to if that I'm not sure if that actually solves what their concerns are.

There are does there are some, I mean it is difficult getting in and out of there any way you look at it just because of the offset streets, even if you're just coming down Glen Ave, it takes a while to get out of there sometimes.

So there is some concern about that, but I don't know if necessarily know that it's particularly I think our lot is just in a tough spot any way you look at it to get off of that site.

So yeah, there's openness, and we're gonna talk with them about talk with DPW and see what they think would alleviate their concerns.

So thank you.

So with the public uh comment closed, we should now address the environmental review.

Has everyone had a chance to review the EAF part one contained in your packet?

Yes.

And has everyone reviewed the EAF part two also contained in your packet and prepared by staff?

Yes.

Yes.

Um does anyone uh believe there'll be any moderate to large impacts?

Having determined that there will be zero moderate to large impacts, I recommend that the commission make a negative declaration and prepare the part three EAF accordingly.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to that effect for secret purposes?

Uh make a motion to issue a negative seeker declaration.

Discussion on the seeker motion.

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

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Any abstentions?

Seeker motion carries.

Is there a motion now for the special use permit recommendation that will go to the common council?

Um I make a motion to uh that finds the application in compliance with special use permit criteria in section 5.4B 7A through H and recommend approval by the Common Council with six special conditions beyond the general conditions for special use permits.

Those six special conditions are one, the applicant shall obtain necessary approval before commencing the work on the site in the public right away.

Two, the applicant should evaluate if three curb cuts are necessary for their lot circulation.

Typical sites usually utilize one or possibly two under certain circumstances.

Three, the one-way uh drive aisle parallel with Glen Avenue West should have corresponding one-way entry and exit uh shown as two bifurcated openings, utilizing narrow curb cuts to help with uh channelization and vehicle flow through the procession of events, and four the applicant shall provide at least five bike parking spaces on the property.

Five uh the proposed commercial business hours shall not use amplified speakers to project music outside and shall control any speaker volume inside so as not to violate the city's local noise uh ordinance, and six, the proposed commercial business must uh strictly adhere to operation hours, which are deemed appropriate and approved by the common council.

And just remind everybody this is a special use permit, so ours uh action is a recommendation to the common council for approval.

Thank you.

Is there a second to the motion?

Second.

Thanks.

Now discussion on the motion before us for the special use permit.

Um I I want to comment on the condition that pertains to the parking and the curb cuts or maybe more the curb cuts than the parking.

I can accept the wording of the condition, and I'm hopeful that the applicant will take it really seriously.

I am concerned about um it's a relatively small lot and two points of entry onto Salina Street, probably only 50 feet apart.

I think could be problematic uh during periods of time when the traffic on Salina Street is um at peak or even below peak, but still considerable, considerably more than what would be on Glen Av.

So I'm encouraging the applicant to take that condition very seriously and and look for means if possible to reduce it to two curb cuts.

Um I think that would make a safer uh intersection at that area.

Um that's my comment on one of the conditions, but I encourage my colleagues to weigh in with anything else that might be relevant in terms of the motion now before us.

Thank you.

Second.

Okay, now we're good.

Now we're really good.

Thank you.

All right.

Um if there's no further discussion on this motion for the special use permit.

All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

That motion carries, and the recommendation is noted earlier.

We'll move to the common council for a final decision.

Thank you.

Our next item, please.

Uh again, the 201 South Cross is postponed.

So if you're following uh on the agenda, we are now to the resubdivision R25-59 Grant Boulevard.

Uh this is Sky Shop City LLC as the owner.

This is in the CM Zone District.

Hi, good evening, uh Pat Reynolds with INUsine Romans Land Survey and representing the applicant.

Uh address is 5251 Wits Drive in North Syracuse.

So uh what we're looking to do is just uh subdivide this existing parcel into two.

Essentially just want to cut out the parcel for McDonald's, give them their own little thing.

And um they are currently working on uh reciprocal easement agreement for the access to the parcel at the time of the meeting.

They haven't had anything firmed up that they were willing to share with that.

So I I guess that was gonna be something that I was gonna recommend to the board or maybe you can answer.

Uh if this were to go through and you were to finalize this, it would it would essentially uh eliminate your legal access in and out, right?

So is I don't know.

Is there is there at far as I can tell, there's no intent to ever have a landlocked or inaccessible parcel.

No, and and they are uh the applicant is working with the McDonald's corporation on that.

Um it's just I guess what they were thinking their time frame for wasn't necessarily to get something in place before the meeting.

So uh it was brought to my attention last week.

We might want to have an answer for that when I reached out to them.

They just said it was in progress, but they didn't have a draft that was worthy of sharing yet.

Um I tried to get something before tonight, and unfortunately.

So is the property owned by McDonald's corporation, or is it a uh independent owner that's just operating the franchise?

Who do you need to make the re the amusement with?

So I'm not sure who's running the McDonald's, if it's franchisee, if it's McDonald's.

I was told that they're working out an agreement with the McDonald's corporation.

Uh-huh.

Um as far as the property itself, the property itself is owned uh by a third party and they're just leasing everything to the ones operating the McDonald's.

Okay.

So will the easement be with a third party or with McDonald's corporation, or is that part of what the problem is in working it out?

So I'm not in conversations as far as what the reciprocal easement is going to be.

The reciprocal easement would be for the property owner that currently owns everything and is going to control the ingress and egress.

Right.

And then whoever it is that is operating the McDonald's and is going to receive that new parcel.

Whoever that's going to be conveyed to, it's going to be between those two owners as far as that goes.

Okay.

We wouldn't normally knowingly approve a inaccessible landlocked parcel.

Yep, yep.

That's uh that's understandable.

Um I think as one might want to be about the success of negotiations.

Sometimes they don't turn out as successfully as you might wish them to.

And that could leave the applicant in an even more challenging predicament.

Yep.

And uh unless legal counsel advises otherwise, it seems as so we might want to hold this until we um I would advise you to hold it until they have the easement document.

I know there's conditions in the staff report, but um uh you're otherwise creating an illegal parcel.

Right.

That's my advice.

Yeah.

Okay.

We haven't had no.

So um, see what James doing.

Could be is there some sort of time constraint with with this like that you're aware of or anything pressing, like why not get that in place and do you know?

I mean, I I would imagine they're looking to get the deals set settled sooner than later.

Um I like said I really wish that I would have got something to bring to you all uh even before tonight.

I just I know we were getting some pressure just to get the survey done and the application in, but uh outside of that, I don't know what their time frame is, what their deal is um that they have going on.

I think that I would consider a 30-day approval that is conditioned on the easement being negotiated and filed or ready to file.

And if that's not possible, then going back to the zoning staff and administrator or whatever remedy is appropriate based on the condition.

What do we think of that?

Sounds workable.

Yep.

Okay.

If that meets corporate council's concern.

Yep, I think that's fine.

I think a conditional approval, um, giving them a sunset essentially to get their documents in.

Otherwise, they they will come back.

The approval will expire.

So you might say that in the motion that the approval expires in 30 days unless the easement documents have been submitted to staff for review.

You followed that.

I think that's uh fairly.

We have a uh workaround, I think, uh given the circumstances.

So uh okay.

Well, let's proceed then um and ask our applicant if we have any if we have any questions as ask the applicant now.

Were there additional questions beyond uh easement?

Um status.

Okay, thank you.

So now we'll see if there are any individuals who would like to speak in favor of this application.

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

Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to the application?

If so, please come forward.

We have no speakers, it would seem.

So we will close public comment on this application and turn our attention to our environmental review.

Has everyone had an opportunity to review the EAF part one contained in your packet?

Yes.

Has everyone reviewed the EAF part two contained in your packet?

Yes.

Does anyone believe there'll be a moderate to large impact under CECRA due to this action?

No.

No.

Okay.

Having determined that there will not be a moderate to large impact under CRA, I recommend the commission make a negative declaration and prepare the part three EAF accordingly.

Thank you.

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

I make a motion to issue a negative seeker declaration.

Thank you.

Discussion on the seeker motion.

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 now turn to the resubdivision itself.

And who is there someone willing to offer language for a motion that navigates the circumstances before us tonight?

I'll take a shot at it.

Thank you.

Uh make a motion to conditionally approve R-25-59 with the condition that upon complete that the uh reciprocal easement agreement will be completed within 30 days of today's date.

And beyond that condition, we have the condition also that the applicant shall successfully file the resubdivision map of R-25-59 in the on dog county clerk's office within 62 days of the re-subdivision approval, which is today, plus also filing the easement agreement, which must be completed within 30 days.

Thank you.

Is that working?

Is there a second?

Second before we begin our discussion.

I just wanted to ask legal counsel if you caught the wording of that.

That did that seem to be adequate in terms of what we just discussed earlier with the various conditions that commission Commissioner Lentz outlined.

30 days uh the approval expiring within 30 days of today's meeting.

Okay.

All right.

Discussion on our on the motion before us now.

Thank you.

With no discussion, all in favor of this motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

Subdivision is approved with the conditions noted.

And we move apparently to our last item.

Yes.

This is at 153-55 phageav uh in the R2 zone district.

Good evening.

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

Our vacant lot in yellow there is um zoned R3.

It's irregularly shaped.

It's 49 feet wide in the front and 69 feet in the back.

We'd like to sell a triangular portion to the neighbors next door at um 159 phage that'll square off their lot.

Their lot is zoned R2.

So I'm here today to request that a zone change of 1535 phage to be rezoned from R2 to R3 to facilitate that resubdivision.

So if I may, um there's a companion lot alteration.

Take the the square that encompasses both of those parcels, make a more perpendicular line down the middle, and it basically creates the rest of the block.

Somewhat equal two lots and then make them both R3.

If that helps explain what's what's happening here.

Yeah, a question for the zoning administrator.

If if you go back far enough in your knowledge, that area has all these weird property lines.

Lots of property lines at weird angles.

Yeah, I'm not sure why.

Actually, um it's hard to tell.

Maybe maybe you know, it even looks like a portion of the triangular lot may go into the backyard of the house right now.

Do you know?

A portion of the triangle?

Yeah, or what not triangular, but the defense runs along the owners are here.

Yeah.

It doesn't encroach onto it.

Currently, I don't think so.

Okay.

Well, either way, yeah.

I'm not to answer your question.

I'm I'm not sure why.

It's a curiosity question.

I don't know.

It's just weird.

Looking at the map in that area.

Yeah, you wonder if there had been a previous resubdivision that gave that.

Yeah, it almost an angle.

Maybe there was a garage there or something at one point in time that everything else on the block seems to be parallel and perpendicular.

I agree, it's weird.

We're fixing it.

Any questions for the applicant?

Good.

Woodbury.

Yep, I'm good.

All right, thank you very much, Terry.

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 your comments.

My name is Supremo's Bay, where the it's my wife Jelanda Smith Bay.

We own that property at 159, 161 Fage.

And we just like is listed on the application.

We like to expand it.

Obvious reasons that he brought up.

Everything else out there is kind of either square or rectangular, not triangular.

And we currently we have a chain leak fence that's there that goes this way.

So naturally, um we like to square it off and you know, expand it, fence in it, makes a neighborhood look nice, and it keeps um trespassing down.

Right.

Absolutely.

So that's pretty much it.

Um I guess the other question, I don't know if um you guys are able to ask it, or it's a little different.

How um or gotta be asked um if we award it to property?

How does it affect the uh taxes as far as the uh current property?

Um once is added on, is I know it's gonna be some effects, but I don't think we're well equipped to address taxes at this point.

Okay, I figured that, but we could answer that, but all right, thank you.

She gives good advice.

Are there other individuals who wish to speak in favor of the application?

Please come forward.

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

Please come to the podium.

Yeah, I saw that.

I think we have any additional speakers for this, so we'll close the public comment on this application.

Turn our attention to our seeker review.

Has everyone reviewed the EAF part one contained in your packet?

Yes.

Has everyone reviewed the EAF part two also contained in your packet?

Yes.

Does anyone believe there'll be a moderate to large impact under CECRA due to this action?

No.

Having determined that there will not be a moderate to large impact under CECRA.

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

Thank you.

Is there a motion to that effect?

Make a motion to issue a negative secret declaration.

Second discussion on the seeker motion.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Are there any abstentions?

So the secret motion carries.

And we may now entertain a motion for the zoning map amendment.

Is there a motion to that effect?

Make a motion to approve Z 2916 with an affirmative recommendation to the Common Council for approval.

This being a zoning map amendment requires common council approval, so we just recommend that action.

And there is one special condition attached, that being the applicant shall successfully file maps at Onadaga County Clerk's Office of the Companion Lot uh alteration application R 25 53 within 62 days after the zoning administrator makes the approval.

The zoning administrator cannot make the approval until after the common council acts.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thanks.

Discussion on this motion.

As noted, the action by this body tonight is a recommendation.

The five common council will make the final determination.

Further discussion on the motion.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Are there any abstentions?

The zoning map amendment recommendation is approved by this body.

It will go to the common council for a final uh determination.

So thank you.

Um is there anything further to come before the commission this evening?

That is it for 2025.

Wow, it was a great year.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

Discussion.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

We are