Syracuse Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2026
Syracuse Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 2026
The Syracuse Planning Commission met on April 6, 2026, to consider five applications: two resubdivisions, one resubdivision paired with a zoning map amendment, a major site plan review for a grocery store, and a companion resubdivision and major site plan for an apartment building. All items were approved with conditions after public comment.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of the March 2026 meeting minutes was moved, seconded, and passed unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Regarding the Valley Plaza grocery store (MASPR-2026-13):
- Kathy Stravely (316 Monticello Drive North) spoke in favor, noting stormwater issues and the need for landscaping islands to absorb runoff and shade the parking lot. She urged careful snow storage away from City Line Brook and requested more trash cans.
- Lisa Lambert (194 Maplewood Avenue) expressed strong support for the grocery store but criticized the landlord's neglect of the parking lot, calling for full repaving rather than patching. She stated the neighborhood deserves a well-maintained plaza.
- No public comments were made on the other agenda items.
Discussion Items
- Resubdivision R-2026-5 (346-48 Elm Street): Owner Seth Rutledge sought to combine two lots into one to resolve non‑conformities with a porch and driveway. Staff clarified that a statement about two future houses in the application was erroneous; the sole purpose is the resubdivision. Approved with conditions.
- Resubdivision R-2026-11 (808 Velasco Road and 100 Ethel F): Terry Leckett of the Syracuse Land Bank explained a two‑foot‑wide strip of land became tax delinquent; the owner of 808 Velasco Road wants to combine it with their lot to regularize the driveway. Approved with conditions.
- Resubdivision R-2026-19 and Zoning Map Amendment Z-2919 (234 and 300 Marguerite Ave): Reginald Ware requested combining two parcels and changing the zoning to eliminate a split‑zone condition. Staff noted the zoning amendment must be approved by Common Council before the resubdivision can be filed. Both approved with conditions; the zoning recommendation will go to Common Council for final action.
- Major Site Plan Review MASPR-2026-13 (4141 South Salina Street – Valley Plaza): Jeremy Mossel (Elk Development Company) presented plans for a new grocery store, Imperial Food Market, occupying approximately 30,000 sq ft (85% of the former Tops space). The project is supported by a $1.7 million state Food Access Expansion Grant. Immediate improvements include parking lot patching and restriping, and lighting repairs before opening. A full parking lot redesign (including landscaping islands, compliance with current code, and a bus stop coordination with Centro for the BRT line) must be submitted to the Planning Commission within one year of the opening. Operating hours set at 9 am–9 pm Monday–Saturday and 9 am–5 pm Sunday. A separate pharmacy will open earlier in a nearby suite. Public speakers raised concerns about parking lot deterioration, stormwater, and snow storage near City Line Brook. Approved with seven conditions.
- Resubdivision R-2026-21 and Major Site Plan Review MASPR-2026-11 (411-413 University Ave): Brian Bouchard (CHA Consulting) presented a redesigned three‑story, 30‑unit apartment building (all one‑bedroom units, approximately 400–500 sq ft each) replacing a previously approved nine‑story project that became unfeasible due to tariffs and construction costs. The new building will have a stone water table per the Landmark Preservation Board’s request, and materials changed from vinyl to engineered wood (LP SmartSide). A bike rack was added, and driveway dimensions were clarified. 10% of units (3 units) will be affordable for 30 years. Ground‑floor commercial space for future tenant. No public comments. Approved with conditions.
Key Outcomes
- All applications received negative SEQR declarations (no moderate to large environmental impact).
- R-2026-5 (Elm Street): Approved with two conditions: (1) file resubdivision map within 62 days; (2) obtain a retroactive building permit for the porch reconstruction.
- R-2026-11 (Velasco Road): Approved with two conditions: (1) file map within 62 days; (2) comply with staff analysis.
- R-2026-19 (Marguerite Ave): Approved with condition: file map within 62 days of Common Council approval of Z-2919.
- Z-2919 (Marguerite Ave zoning amendment): Recommended to Common Council for approval with condition: file map within 62 days of council action.
- MASPR-2026-13 (Valley Plaza): Approved with seven conditions: (1) general conditions; (2) parking lot striping and lighting before grocery store opens; (3) full parking lot redesign plan submitted within one year of opening; (4) snow storage not encroaching on right‑of‑way or City Line Brook; (5) licensing for on‑site alcohol/tobacco/lottery; (6) operational hours as specified; (7) loading hours only 7 am–10 pm.
- R-2026-21 (University Ave): Approved with condition: file resubdivision map within 62 days.
- MASPR-2026-11 (University Ave): Approved with seven conditions: (1) general conditions; (2) 10% of units designated affordable; (3) affordability compliance regardless of ownership; (4) 30‑year affordability term from certificate of occupancy; (5) ground‑floor commercial use to obtain appropriate approvals before operation.
Meeting Transcript
To this meeting of the Syracuse Planning Commission. We will begin our public hearings in just a minute. Uh first though we have minutes from our previous meeting in March to address those minutes have been distributed in draft form to the commission members in advance of tonight's meeting. And we are in a position to um take action on these minutes if there is a motion to do that. Is there such a motion? Make a motion to approve the minutes as uh presented thank you. Okay. Thank you. Discussion on the motion before us regarding the minutes. If there's no discussion, then all in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye aye. Those opposed, please say nay. Any abstentions? Minutes are approved as distributed. Uh as we move into the public hearing section of our meeting, uh, just a few ground rules, if you will, for those who might be unfamiliar with our process. As each application is announced, we ask that the applicant or the representative come forward to the podium in the center of the room, provide your name and address for the record, and then a brief summary of the application involved. Following questions from the commission members to the applicant, we will then open up the floor to those who wish to speak in favor of the application, and likewise we will offer a similar opportunity for those who wish to speak in opposition to the application. Where comments are offered in opposition, we will encourage the applicant to return and address the comments made in opposition. We ask that all speakers address the commission members rather than other members in the um in the audience. And we also ask that everyone keep their comments either for or against uh any given application to three minutes so that everyone has um an opportunity to speak and share their opinion. With that, are there any last minute additions or changes to the agenda? There are not. Okay, perfect. In that case, we can begin with our first public hearing. Uh first up is a resubdivision R-2026-5 at 346-48 Elm Street. Uh Seth Rutledge is the owner applicant. This is in the R2 zone district. Um, yeah, so I just want to uh combine the two lots um because the um the porch on the back is too close to the other lot. So um code says that I just need to combine the two lots, and then um I can get the permit to repair the porch. Sorry, well and that's the entire project. Yeah, that's it. Okay. Questions for the applicant? All said, thank you. Yeah, I have a question or I guess a clarification. Uh if anybody has any questions, at least in the material for the meeting tonight, uh, this particular application under the scope of work. Uh this application is for a resubdivision, and we're uh creating one lot out of two to get rid of some problems with non-conformities, the porch, the driveway, you know, etc. So you're creating one lot out of two under the scope of work for this particular application. It it it asserts that uh that you eventually want to do two single family houses on the separate properties. Is that correct? Or is that a miss statement? No, I I don't know where that came from. Okay. I understand because that's not relevant for tonight anyway. We're doing the resub, so that statement is in air, it's not relevant for this application. So we're just doing the resub two lines. I don't know why that's on the application. That's strange. Sorry about that. Yeah, that's okay.
openpublica.com