2026-10-29 - Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board

00:16the board to do. So,

00:17>> do we need a vote to hold that open? No.

00:20Okay. So,

00:21>> so we'll we'll move that on to the next

00:23uh the next board meeting.

00:25>> Okay.

00:25>> Um our second one, CA-26-25,

00:30certificate of [clears throat]

00:31appropriateness

00:33for 923-27

00:35Comtock Avenue. Um this is the addition

00:38to um the mosque on Comtock Street. Uh

00:42Comtock A. Uh they have also asked the

00:45owners have also asked uh for uh the

00:49board to hold it open pending revisions

00:51to the design and more uh public uh

00:55interactions. So, um, we did, uh, in

00:59the, uh,

01:01I did receive the the office did receive

01:04earlier this week, uh, some

01:06correspondence from some of the

01:08neighbors in regard to the, uh, this

01:11application that they wanted to make

01:12sure got into the record. Um and it is a

01:16letter from a group of neighbors and

01:18they are

01:20um really uh talking about what they see

01:23as some of the impacts of the proposed

01:27uh project and uh wanted to make sure

01:30that the board had their comments. Um

01:32but again the the applicants have asked

01:35for this to be held open and um if that

01:39is the pleasure of the board then we'll

01:41we'll we'll do that again uh till the

01:44next meeting.

01:45>> At their request

01:48that's fine on hold.

01:50>> All right. And so now we come to

01:52CA-26-27

01:55again a certificate of appropriateness

01:57for 101 Hampshire Road. This is the

02:01reinstallation

02:03of uh balcony railing as well as some um

02:07work to the uh some foundation work. It

02:11is uh property that is located in the

02:14Cedric Highland James Preservation

02:15District and the owner and applicant is

02:18here to talk about his project.

02:21>> Okay. Good morning. Thank you for

02:22coming. May I have your name and address

02:24for the record? And

02:25>> William Appalledo, 101 Hampshire Road,

02:28Syracuse, New York, 13203, Sedwick

02:31Preservation District.

02:33>> Thank you, sir. And uh can you just um

02:35tell us what your plans are here and we

02:37can scroll through your application?

02:39>> There's uh two parts to this. Uh you can

02:41actually see on this first picture the

02:44both of them. First, I'll talk about the

02:46foundation work for the vestibule, uh,

02:49which is just behind the front door, but

02:51also you can see the second floor porch.

02:54Uh, we'll talk about a second if you

02:56could scroll down a little bit.

02:59So, if you can see where the red arrows

03:01are, there's a gap, especially on the

03:03picture in the upper left. Um, that's

03:05because the floor inside the front door

03:08in the vestibule has a 5° slope about

03:11almost 9%. Uh I did have a structural

03:14engineer come about a year and a half

03:16ago. Um it is actually a different slope

03:18than even the front steps. It's not the

03:20correct slope and that's because the uh

03:23where you see the brick, it's actually

03:25the footing underneath there is sinking.

03:27He believes most likely that while the

03:29steps footing was deep enough, the

03:32footing put in for the vestibule was not

03:34deep enough. And so it's been sinking

03:36since 1927.

03:38Uh, and the reason why we're going to go

03:40through, remove the bricks, try to jack

03:42up the floor is because of mosaic tile

03:44just inside the front door. We'd like to

03:46keep it if we can. I'm not exactly sure

03:48if it's original, but it is been there

03:50for quite a long time. Uh, and then uh

03:54the lower two pictures are just pictures

03:56of the gaps in the uh molding around the

03:59floor.

04:01Uh, next page.

04:05Oh, and just on that as well is once we

04:07jack up the floor, put the footing, we

04:09will return the original bricks on so

04:11it'll look exactly the same. Uh here is

04:13the the porch on the second floor. At

04:16some point, uh the floor the porch

04:19railing was actually replaced. Uh and

04:22they put on a plastic type of rallying.

04:25Uh, and if you could scroll down,

04:28what I would like to do is to replace

04:30that railing um with something that

04:32matches more the historical character of

04:34the house when it was built in 1927. Uh,

04:37you can see from the upper picture and

04:39the one on the left, uh, that is the

04:42proposed railing we would like to put up

04:44there on all three sides. It'll be a

04:46steel uh, powdercoated black railing.

04:49Uh, it is meant to match the picture in

04:51the lower right. That is an original

04:54railing that was from the house. The

04:55only original one we have left. Um if

04:58you scroll down a little bit,

05:02uh what I have provided is actual design

05:05on the lower right. But on the lower

05:07left is actually a picture from 1927

05:10when the house was in the house of the

05:12week in the local paper. Uh if you can

05:15see the railing in the center of the

05:17porch, it actually looks black.

05:19Unfortunately, because of the quality of

05:20newspaper, I can actually tell the

05:22design. Uh, but if you actually look in

05:24the lower left of that picture where the

05:26arrow is pointing, that actually is the

05:28same rallying that is in the upper right

05:31picture. And so, I'd like to replace

05:32that railing with something that's more

05:34historical character uh in order to keep

05:36the overall impression of the house

05:38without uh and replace the old plastic.

05:42Uh, it is actually deteriorating. The

05:44plastic starting to crack. So, with

05:46that, I'll repair any wood post, but

05:49I'll keep the center post.

05:52>> Excellent.

05:54Okay. Uh, with this being a public

05:57hearing, I need to check to see who in

05:59the audience here is wishing to speak in

06:00favor of this proposal.

06:04Hearing none, seeing none, is there

06:06anyone here wishing to speak in

06:07opposition to this proposal? Please come

06:09forward.

06:11Hearing none. Seeing none, uh we will

06:14close the public comment and board. You

06:16got any questions, comments on this

06:19application?

06:23>> Great.

06:25>> Who's making the railing?

06:27>> Uh it is

06:30>> I always forget the name.

06:32>> Probably don't. Uh it is

06:39Iron Hill Fabrication LLC. Uh Rali's no

06:42longer does residential work. That's

06:44what they told me.

06:45>> I I tried them first.

06:48>> Uh I just have a couple of

06:49clarifications. Uh so your uh vestibule

06:54leveling, that's all exterior work. So,

06:56you'll be digging everything out and

06:58then

07:00>> um raising the foundation or you're

07:02putting a new foundation in and jacking

07:04the floor,

07:05>> correct?

07:05>> So, it's level.

07:06>> We'll jack the floor up, put a a 48 in

07:09footing, which should be the correct

07:11level, and then I'll replace the brick

07:13so it looks exactly the same on the

07:14outside.

07:14>> Right. So, you're going to peel the face

07:16brick off and then reset that once

07:19foundation is set

07:21>> um to preserve the mosaic and um

07:25and to uh solidify that front. Uh and

07:28then the stairs on this are not

07:30impacted. You said

07:31>> not impacted. Apparently, they must have

07:33the right footing because they're at the

07:35correct

07:35>> I think it's maybe 3° or 2°.

07:38>> Yeah. Okay. Um the the installation of

07:42the porch, the balcony railing, you've

07:46um what's the material of those corner

07:48posts? Is that's a wood?

07:50>> It's a wood post.

07:51>> Okay. Uh, and there is some damage or

07:54deterioration on some of the It's

07:56actually a wood post and it's got wood

07:58that surrounds the post. So, we might

08:00have to replace some of the wood that

08:02surrounds it, but it'll be painted the

08:03same color.

08:04>> Do you know if those are the original or

08:05are those

08:06>> I They are not the original because

08:08actually, if you scroll down, you'll see

08:11the picture. It actually was more of a

08:13Juliet balcony when it was built.

08:16>> See that? Okay. All right.

08:19It was all it was projected out to.

08:22>> Correct. The actual vestibule, the

08:25reason why it's sinking and nothing else

08:27in the house is really as bad is because

08:29that actual footing is outside the

08:30actual uh foundation of the main house.

08:33>> Yeah. Well, sometimes those are just uh

08:36uh just almost cantalvered too.

08:38>> Yeah.

08:38>> Uh since they went out two or three

08:40feet, you see some of that cantalvered

08:42out from the main floor. Okay. All

08:44right. So, um, and then the height of

08:47that railing, are you trying to match

08:49the original? I I know it's not, um, a

08:53balcony, per se. Correct.

08:56>> That has access, so it doesn't have to

08:57meet current code.

08:58>> It It does have access. Um, the double

09:02doors that you can if you scroll up

09:08>> coming.

09:09>> You can see the double doors. One of

09:11those doors opens up. Okay. So the the

09:13railing will meet current code.

09:15>> Okay. So that will be a 36 inch high

09:18railing to meet code

09:24>> and the manufacturer of the railing is

09:27willing to make any adjustments that

09:29might be needed based upon the board's

09:31input.

09:33I I think you've done the right um

09:37process of taking your ex extinct

09:39historic railing and and trying to match

09:42um scroll work on that. So, kudos to you

09:45on that design to to bring that forward.

09:48Uh my only comment just the height of it

09:49is going to um

09:52uh changes the scale of that second

09:54floor. Um but that's current code. I

09:57just make that comment and um that's all

10:00I have to say on it. So, uh, any other

10:04board comments? If there aren't, if we

10:05can, uh,

10:08get a motion on the floor and move on.

10:13>> I'll motion to um, accept the motion to

10:17approve the project as submitted. There

10:19we go.

10:19>> Do I have a second? Thank you.

10:22>> Second.

10:22>> Second. Okay. Any additional comment,

10:25modification?

10:27All in favor?

10:29I

10:31>> oppose abstain. Motion carries.

10:34>> Thank you.

10:34>> Thank you.

10:35>> Thank you very much, sir. Good luck.

10:37>> Thank you very much.

10:38>> Great house.

10:41>> All right.

10:44Uh the next application

10:47on the second page of your agenda, uh

10:51CA-26-28.

10:53It's a certificate of It's a certificate

10:56of appropriateness for 113 Berkeley

10:58Drive. This is a front step repair and

11:01partial replacement. Uh it is the the

11:04property is located in the Berkeley Park

11:06Preservation District.

11:07>> Hi Guy. Kate,

11:10>> good morning. How are you?

11:12>> Morning.

11:13>> Name and address for the record, please.

11:15>> Guy Azeline, uh 4976 West Half Road,

11:21Liverpool, New York.

11:23Welcome. Uh, go ahead and describe the

11:25project at hand.

11:27>> Well, initially it was a repair. Uh, we

11:30were just going to repair the sidewall

11:32of the steps to the left was completely

11:35blowing out. We were just going to do

11:37that because the budget that's what his

11:40budget

11:42>> called for. And we were also going to

11:44fix some of those steps in the front.

11:47And once we started digging into the

11:49project, the substructure was so

11:51compromised that we ended up doing a lot

11:54more. But we did it peace meal. First

11:57the left wall, created a new footer

12:00there because the wall was so just

12:03complete concrete cancer going on. And

12:06then we did the we were going to fix the

12:08right wall, but I decided to look at the

12:10steps first and the substructure there.

12:14And the first three steps was

12:16you know, non-existent.

12:19So then it turned into a com complete

12:22structural

12:24fix except for the landing.

12:27So all the stairs, the substructure and

12:30the walls, one walls complete

12:32substructure was redone. But the right

12:36wall, we were able to save the back part

12:38next to the landing. So the landing and

12:40the back part of that wall, we're able

12:42to save the substructure. the rest of

12:45the substructure was redone.

12:47And what if you could stay on that

12:49picture just a second? Um you'll see

12:51that the they they have some blue stone

12:54caps

12:55>> on there and those are in the

12:59contain the aesthetic of the original

13:01steps and the blue stone and the

13:05styrated uh brick which is on the left

13:08or the right. This the brick in the

13:09middle is all uh wrong brick that was

13:13used and uh to do a repair. uh numerous

13:17repairs have happened on those steps and

13:19I don't believe the steps were even

13:21bricks because the way they did the

13:24bricks where there is a couple of the

13:27original

13:29uh they didn't they didn't go all the

13:31way back with the bricks and they kind

13:32of broke cut bricks in half and tried to

13:35uh save brick whatever you know what I

13:38mean so we think uh we think there was

13:41originally the caps of the bricks when I

13:44when I say there's some originals in All

13:46right. You see how they have there's a

13:48top layer to the step and a bottom

13:49layer.

13:50>> The bottom layer is what I'm talking

13:52about. And that are there's some

13:55originals in there. What um what I think

13:59is they had a cleft blue stone going on

14:02the top. You know how they got the thick

14:04grout lines? They have a more aesthetic

14:06appeal to them. And this is a corner

14:09house. And at the time it was probably

14:11the,

14:14you know, the the house of the area, you

14:17know what I mean? It goes all the way,

14:18it wraps around the whole corner,

14:20>> you know, before some other nice nicer

14:23houses late that were later on, 30 to 40

14:26years later can't cropped up in that

14:28area. So, we tried to stay with the blue

14:31stone and we put the styrated brick like

14:34you see on the right and left and that's

14:36what we did there. But I put blue stone

14:38caps but with striated

14:42uh uh brick along the bottom with just

14:44the caps on top. I know that's I I don't

14:48know if I communicated that quite right.

14:50There's a picture of the bricks matching

14:52up with the existing ones.

14:54>> If you go up a little bit more

14:56>> No, I'm sorry. Go down.

14:57>> Sorry. Down. Yeah,

14:58>> I'm sorry. If you'd see that and if you

15:00were to turn it up, you'd see they're

15:02they're they're very close. You know

15:04what I mean? And that's what what we're

15:07offered nowadays.

15:09>> I'm trying to get there. There we go.

15:10>> So, what you're saying in the picture on

15:12the right, the brick on top, that new

15:14wire cut brick is the new brick.

15:16>> Yeah. Both both new bricks are and I'm

15:18just comparing it in different ways. You

15:20know what I mean? I'm just uh

15:22>> I was trying to get a a long one with

15:25the long on the bottom on this second

15:27one to the left. If you look below the

15:29cap, you know what I mean?

15:31>> You're saying

15:37No, that's that's the original mason.

15:39Those are complete whole bricks and

15:40they're they're going all the way back

15:41into the house. And what you do is you

15:44see the flow of the grout line go all

15:46the way into the house. [snorts] And

15:48when I looked at the older steps, I seen

15:50that they broke them and they put grout

15:52behind the brake and the step. So I knew

15:55I knew that the whole tops of those

15:56steps were wrong that how that it wasn't

16:00how it originally was. And since they

16:03had the blue stone, you keep things

16:05simple. I just put a blue stone cap on

16:08it. It's nice and solid. It's going to

16:10be harder for it to break over time. And

16:13it keeps the the spirit of the the

16:16original

16:19uh let's say artists

16:22>> putting the you know the aesthetic of

16:24the time period.

16:26>> All right.

16:27>> And this is just articulating what was

16:30existing and what we changed. the caps.

16:32We're gonna He's going to keep the old

16:33caps,

16:35you know, just clean them up. And then,

16:38uh, we put in new treads, new stone

16:41treads, and then there's the brick going

16:43across the bottom like you seen in the

16:45original picture. Uh, but they had

16:48turned one brick sideways and created a

16:51top to it to give it the right height,

16:54you know what I mean? When they did the

16:55repair,

16:57and that's exactly how it looks right

16:59there now. But, uh, we're going to put

17:02railings in, and they haven't chose the

17:04railings, but they're leaning towards

17:06the iron railings. I'll try to steer

17:08them into an aesthetic that's that'll

17:12work with it, but I don't, you know,

17:14well, you're limited nowadays, you know,

17:17unless you have them custom made, I

17:19don't think their budget would call for

17:21something like that. You know what I

17:22mean? But, um,

17:25that's where it's at.

17:29>> Sure. I'm clear on.

17:31>> Yeah.

17:32>> So, the the sides

17:35right side pretty much in good shape.

17:37Left side

17:39and then uh on the steps themselves

17:44removing some and puts

17:48>> all the steps have been removed.

17:49>> So, everything is

17:51>> all the steps have been removed. But

17:53you're going to create a a foundation

17:57for the treads to set

17:58>> already been created

18:00>> and and the blue stone is already on top

18:03>> and it looks like that picture, you

18:05know, the the design of it. You see how

18:07they only have one

18:09>> some of the older brick along the

18:10bottom. It's just one and he flipped the

18:12repair on its side to give it the height

18:15>> of the original step. You know what I'm

18:17trying to say? So I put it back to blue

18:20stone, kept everything blue stone,

18:22everything

18:23brick,

18:25you know, which is all the stuff. Blue

18:27stone brick on the side is just blue

18:28stone and brick

18:31and that's that's because that's how I

18:34visualized it. I've you know, I've

18:35worked a lot of mason.

18:38So,

18:39>> all right. Thank you very much.

18:40>> Yep.

18:41>> Is there anyone here wishing to speak in

18:43favor of this project? Please come

18:45forward.

18:46[clears throat]

18:47Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to

18:49this project, please come forward.

18:52Hearing none. Seeing none, public

18:54comment is closed. Um, board comment,

18:57questions, clarifications.

19:01>> It's already complete. Um, it'd be great

19:04to see a picture of the completed

19:06>> It's not complete. It's not complete. He

19:08kind of held up a little bit, but all

19:09the

19:20>> You have a picture of it?

19:24So all historic material

19:27>> pictures of the steel that was put in.

19:33>> So [clears throat] your the existing

19:35blue stone caps that we see the one kind

19:37of slanted over pushed over.

19:39>> There we go.

19:44>> Sure. Thank you.

19:47So the original stone was kept on the

19:51cheek walls.

19:53>> On the cheek walls. Yeah.

19:54>> Okay. And then the original stone was

19:56also kept at the threshold at the front

19:58door. Was that replaced as well?

20:00>> No, we they had put a red concrete.

20:04>> Yeah. It's tough to It's tough to tell.

20:06It looks like a flag stone, but maybe

20:07it's just

20:08>> No, it's not. It wasn't wasn't original.

20:10>> Yeah. Okay.

20:12So, so all treads, all treads and

20:15landing have been fully replaced with

20:16new blue stone.

20:18>> Yeah, all the treads were replaced.

20:20>> Okay. [clears throat]

20:21And that's the image that's going around

20:23right here.

20:24>> Looks great.

20:26>> Thank you.

20:30Um,

20:34>> I'd say a wonderful job on matching the

20:36brick with the uh the wire cut brick.

20:38That looks that looks really great. So

20:40that meets um historical standards. Uh

20:43you mentioned a railing. Any metal

20:45railing would be sufficient. Um metal

20:48was available at the time and was a was

20:50a typical design uh typical material of

20:53the time. Uh so any if it's

20:58just anything uh metal was at the time

21:02very popular and so it's an accepted

21:04material for for that time period. Um so

21:10Yeah, shouldn't be really much an issue.

21:12Once you figure that out, if you want to

21:14send that to

21:15>> to Kate, just

21:16>> if you could send the ra the what you've

21:19selected for the railing,

21:20>> I'll give you updated pictures.

21:22>> That would be great.

21:25>> Okay,

21:25>> beautiful. Okay.

21:27>> All right. Um, that's

21:29I have any additional comments? If none,

21:32I'd like to have a motion.

21:34>> I'll motion to approve the project as

21:36submitted. Do I have a second?

21:38>> Second.

21:39>> Okay. All in favor

21:44>> to the

21:45>> valid point

21:47>> uh just to submit the the railing when

21:50it's um for the applicant to submit uh

21:53an image for the railing to staff.

21:56>> I'll motion to approve the project as

21:57submitted um and the applicant will

22:01submit the railing design to the staff.

22:05>> Okay. All right. Are you good with that?

22:07>> I'm great with that.

22:08>> Okay.

22:09>> Looks great.

22:10>> All in favor?

22:11>> I

22:12>> opposed

22:13>> abstaining. Motion carries. Great job.

22:16>> Thank you.

22:17>> Thank you very much.

22:17>> Appreciate you.

22:18>> Yes. Thank you.

22:20>> Clunking along this.

22:21>> All right.

22:23>> Thank [clears throat] you.

22:26>> Sorry.

22:35Okay. Yes. Yep. Uh okay. So, the uh our

22:40we have no old business. We're going

22:41directly to new business. Uh this is um

22:45a minor site plan review 2026.

22:49It's the minor site plan review. Uh 500

22:52Plum Street, which was the former new

22:54process gear factory number two. Uh this

22:58is a project for bridge demolition and

23:01replacement.

23:03Uh the property is part of a National

23:06Register eligible historic district

23:11and the and the applicant's

23:13representative is here.

23:16>> Good morning.

23:17>> Good morning. Dave Chavis, Pioneer

23:18Companies, 333 West Washington Street,

23:21Syracuse.

23:25>> [cough and clears throat]

23:29>> Yeah, if you can describe the Go ahead

23:30and describe the project.

23:32>> Some additional

23:33>> Yes, absolutely.

23:34>> Yep.

23:48>> Do you have enough?

23:50[laughter]

24:04making strides on our end here. I want

24:07to say completely digital, but

24:10>> making improvements.

24:12All right.

24:18>> Some additional pictures. You have the

24:20deteriorated pictures.

24:59as well.

25:00>> Yes.

25:34Unlike the uh previous applicants, I'm

25:37not looking to recreate the history

25:41uh with our new design. It's to meet the

25:44needs of the building and the tenants

25:46which in this case the bridge was

25:49designed to carry equipment,

25:52vehicles

25:54and so on through for the manufacturing

25:57plant. In this case now the building is

26:00completely occupied by office space. So,

26:05the new bridge design is it matches the

26:09face of the building while hopefully

26:12disappearing into the neighborhood

26:14rather than becoming a presentation

26:17piece. It's not going to be an

26:19obstruction to the history.

26:26And as you can see by the photos, the

26:29existing bridge has

26:31is in u horrible state of disrepair to

26:36the point where it's actually been

26:37condemned.

26:39and also the new design of the bridge.

26:42When we recreated it, there were issues

26:45with the um flood plane department

26:48because

26:50the tenants on the opposite side of the

26:52court are within a tenth of an inch of

26:55the flood plane. So, it became tricky to

26:58redesign the bridge where we've

27:01decreased the flood plane and increased

27:03the floodway to of course protect the

27:06neighborhood.

27:14engineering.

27:18[clears throat]

27:27>> You want to talk about the the actual

27:29design of the of the new bridge?

27:32>> The br is a steel rail design. We do not

27:37have the big trellis system over the

27:40top.

27:42Visually, it'll match the neighborhood.

27:43All the paint will be done to match the

27:46existing colors, the existing Syracuse

27:48railing at the edge of the creek. So,

27:51again, we're trying to make it blend

27:53into the area. You scroll down to the

27:55renderings

27:57if you would, please.

28:03This is the information that we have

28:04from the from your application. So, are

28:07there additional drawings?

28:10>> Nope. The renderings would be if you

28:12look on the paperwork I handed out, it

28:14would be the very last of what the new

28:16bridge will look like.

28:18>> So, this is in your

28:20>> I wasn't sure if you had them one here

28:21or not.

28:22>> We don't have that one. Okay.

28:23>> We don't have that. No. So the the last

28:25two pages

28:27would show what the bridge looks like

28:29now from front and side view and then

28:31the proposed new design.

28:46>> Howard, would you mind? I'm talking into

28:48the microphone. Sorry. is uh the new

28:51design

28:53already existing on another part of the

28:55building.

28:56>> It is not

28:58>> like

29:17to the left of this.

29:20picture. There's a

29:22looks like there's a railing.

29:28He's talking about

29:38[clears throat]

29:43>> here. I'm sorry.

29:48You got to speak into the microphone.

29:50>> Yeah. Is that similar to the new design?

29:52The the one that you're referencing it

29:55doesn't have a number on the the rest of

29:57us don't know what you're talking about.

29:58>> Oh, this

29:59>> the other bridges maintain the trellis

30:02look. [clears throat]

30:03>> Looks like it's behind the trellis, but

30:06>> it looks like a bridge behind the behind

30:08the handrail within.

30:10>> Yeah, there's three here. Hold on.

30:12>> Top left.

30:13>> Top left. Top left.

30:14>> No, no, no. Bottom right. bottom right

30:16image. Uh in the back behind the uh

30:20bridge, it looks like there's another

30:21bridge.

30:22>> Yes.

30:22>> So if you go in the top left, you can

30:24see that pedestrian bridge.

30:25>> If you go to one of the

30:26>> Yes. Yes.

30:28>> So that's why I was wondering if that

30:29was me,

30:30>> right?

30:31>> If that was going to match that

30:32>> that particular one.

30:33>> There's another picture though. If you

30:34go to one of the emails we got, there's

30:36a

30:37>> right there. You can see the

30:39>> the new bridge design.

30:41>> Yep.

30:41>> You can see the old one there. The new

30:43bridge design. The railing will match

30:45that city of Syracuse fence that runs

30:47along the front face of the creek.

30:50>> All right. Thank you.

30:52>> I understood what you were saying. Thank

30:54you.

30:54>> Sorry for the confusion.

30:56>> I said the the proposed design looks

30:58nothing like the bridge on the left.

31:01Getting rid of this bridge is something

31:02I I can't sanction. This is an iconic

31:05structure in Franklin Square.

31:08>> No, it's not. It's not a hearing.

31:09>> Oh, it's just comments.

31:11>> Go go go.

31:12>> Yeah. This this this struck Franklin

31:15Square's redevelopment in the 1980s is

31:17one of the first redevelopment projects.

31:18New process here. A historic indust

31:21industrial space for Syracuse. These

31:23bridges are iconic to the residents. I

31:25give tours. Getting rid of this bridge

31:27is is we've got to find a way to fix

31:29this bridge. The proposed design to me

31:31doesn't fit with the character. It

31:33doesn't even match the bridge to the

31:35left of this bridge which I've walked

31:37over many times. Um I just to lose this

31:40bridge is something we're talking about

31:42historic preservation. This bridge is a

31:44iconic structure in Franklin Square

31:45which is a major redevelopment of the

31:47city and I getting rid of it is

31:49something that I

31:50>> I I just I can't I I I just can't I

31:53can't sanction. I'm sorry. I can't.

31:55>> Okay. Well, new process did leave in '

31:5861 to go out to

31:59>> Dwit.

32:01But with that, the cost to replace the

32:04bridge as is would be almost $2 million.

32:08Um that is also this is privately

32:11funded,

32:12>> right?

32:13>> And

32:16uh [clears throat] right now the bridge

32:17is eligible for the historic register

32:20but is not. So again, I was trying to

32:23maintain the harmony of the neighborhood

32:25while having the bridge meet the needs

32:28of the building as well.

32:30understand

32:31>> there will never be a piece of heavy

32:32equipment running across that bridge.

32:34>> It seems like if I

32:35>> understand that. Thanks for that tip.

32:36>> It doesn't need to do the industrial

32:38heavy lifting anymore. So, could there

32:40be a repair to this bridge that

32:42understands that only people are

32:44traveling over top of it? I think we

32:46have comments from another board member

32:48that's not here today.

32:49>> Yes, I want to read.

32:50>> Yeah. You want to start with that?

32:51>> Yeah. So, I was just [clears throat] one

32:53of our board members who's an architect

32:55isn't here, but uh the synthesis of what

32:58his his statement I'll just highlight.

33:00The proposed design does nothing to

33:02respond to the massing character or

33:03industrial architectural language of the

33:06existing bridge or its sister structures

33:08along the creek.

33:10With while the current structure is

33:11state of disrepairs evidenced by the

33:13photographs, I feel it's worth noting

33:14that the adjacent bridge to the

33:16southwest was extensively restored

33:17several years ago, including replacement

33:20of its historic wood roaded in kind,

33:23subsequently covered with that as well.

33:25So where [clears throat] Kyle is going

33:27on this is what's here is kind of a

33:31legacy of of industry and massing and

33:33design.

33:35And what I'm hearing from board members

33:36is the proposed design's slim, sleek,

33:39and minuscule, right? It's nothing uh

33:42there's there's no correlation to its

33:44history. So, we as a preservation board,

33:46we're looking at can we save, you know,

33:49preservation preserve what we have and

33:52if not replace kind of in kind. So, as

33:55uh Hillary just mentioned, my same

33:57thought, [clears throat] is this bridge

33:59repable?

34:00>> No. to the level of service for

34:02pedestrian only if it were to lose its

34:04brick floor like has that study

34:07>> there should be um

34:08>> that study's been done

34:10>> attached in the documents the letter

34:11from Kluchi Engineering

34:14>> do we know who repaired the third bridge

34:17you know the bridge that vehicles

34:19actually travel over

34:20>> street bridge I don't know

34:22>> that would be good information to have

34:24>> one on the upper right

34:26>> yeah actually the plum street actually

34:27carries traffic right And

34:30[clears throat]

34:32>> even if we were going to take this

34:33trellis bridge down, why why don't we

34:35make it look like that one to the left,

34:38which is much more in character with

34:40what is there? I just don't nothing this

34:43this design that's proposed to me is not

34:45in keeping with the nature of what

34:47>> So you're suggesting rather than

34:48matching the railings, matching a much

34:50smaller trellis structure.

34:52>> Honestly, bridge that exists. That's

34:54what I'm saying. And I I cannot I cannot

34:58vote for any project that would take

34:59that bridge down. I just can't.

35:01>> And well, we're unable to fix it as it

35:03is. And that would be because of the

35:06Anadiger Creek and the flood plane.

35:08Anything that anything that adds

35:10underneath the bridge or to the peers or

35:12footings

35:13>> would then diminish the floodway. So

35:16that would be absolutely not possible.

35:23>> The new structure

35:26Looks like your your girders, your

35:28trusses are lower than existing. Is that

35:31is that right?

35:32>> No. What we've done is we've shrunk the

35:34peers underneath and it's because the

35:38bridge is smaller able to go with

35:39smaller steel and then you have the X

35:42cross bracing

35:44underneath.

35:46So you're

35:49the clearance from top of wall or mean

35:54elevation of water is greater with this

35:56new design than the existing

35:58>> yes slightly

35:59>> slightly. Is that is that your tenth of

36:01an inch?

36:02>> What's that?

36:02>> Is was that the

36:03>> tenth of an inch is the flood plane? So

36:05between that and making the peers

36:07smaller which they could be to support

36:10the smaller bridge structure.

36:13>> Okay. So part of the advocacy here is

36:15that the smaller impact

36:17increases capacity

36:18>> call the flood plane people.

36:20>> Yeah.

36:22Increases capacity within the flood

36:23plane.

36:26So your your bottom of truss here is

36:29higher than exist than existing for

36:32flood plane capacity.

36:34>> Correct.

36:34>> And do we have that dimension?

36:37>> That would be on the drawings.

36:41Do we know if this made it onto the

36:43National Historic Register? Would there

36:45be some exemptions for No. Okay.

36:48>> Um,

36:49[snorts] no. Okay.

36:53We did look into seeing if if

36:57uh the the owners could get tax credits

37:00for if the building was on the National

37:03Register, but they but the Shipo

37:06actually was clear that um the tax

37:09credits go to buildings and not to

37:12appendages uh on buildings. So

37:14unfortunately,

37:16even though I uh we were trying to make

37:18the argument,

37:20>> do we know if this is the original

37:22bridge?

37:24>> Cuz in the photo, it doesn't look like

37:26the original from 19 whatever this old

37:29photo is.

37:34>> The original bridge appears to be a

37:35triple decker, right?

37:37>> So it's this is the foundation of that

37:40triple decker. I think that's why it was

37:42just removed. parts of it was just

37:45removed and they just left that as the

37:46guts.

37:47>> The second and third tier may have been

37:49of wood wood uh construction that was

37:54set on top of this extent bridge,

37:57>> right? As you know,

38:02[clears throat] structures modified

38:04>> to meet the demand or growth of the of

38:06the company and building across the

38:07street which is no longer at stamp was

38:10connected. Yeah.

38:11>> Um, you know, you make your

38:12modifications, make your business work.

38:14So, what we have left, from my

38:17understanding, my perview is the base of

38:20that threetory structure. And that's I

38:22think that's why it's so um

38:25>> heavy uh heavily designed to carry loads

38:29um that they're no longer uh no longer

38:32there.

38:32>> If I can jump in. So, this is the

38:34original bridge and then I'm not sure

38:36the timeline, but they removed the upper

38:38decks that used to service um

38:40pedestrians and presumably pedestrians

38:43as well. I'm not sure how they get the

38:45trains up that high, but this deck here

38:47was originally for trains. That was in

38:49the on the cultural resource. There's a

38:52report from the '9s that talks about

38:54this bridge and how in then it was in

38:57perfect repair. They talk about how

38:58great repair it was in and I guess in 30

39:01years it's drastically deteriorated. So

39:05>> this is the original, right?

39:08>> So that's why it's uh so so hefty.

39:10>> Yeah. So that's why it's so hefty to

39:12carry rail cars. And then on the back

39:14side along 690 were rail cars up on the

39:17on the third floor of the building.

39:22[clears throat]

39:24Any other comments? Is this comment

39:27only? Are we voting?

39:29>> This is com This is for comment. Uh

39:31comments that get sent back to to

39:33zoning. Um I would also like to mention

39:37that we did receive um some public

39:39comment regarding it. Um much along the

39:42same lines that the board is

39:46commenting on today.

39:48I agree with the

39:50with the residents when they say that we

39:53think the proposed bridge is a totally

39:54inappropriate design in this location in

39:56its neighborhood.

39:59>> I I would say so.

40:01>> Anybody else on the board for additional

40:03comments?

40:07I would agree with my colleagues that

40:10the proposed design does not reflect the

40:14industrial character of this historic

40:16neighborhood and would urge the

40:19applicant to revisit um ideas for

40:24repairing the bridge or at the very

40:26least looking into design options that

40:29would be better in keeping with the

40:31sister bridges.

40:35Before you go to vote, may I ask a

40:36question?

40:37>> Sure.

40:37>> Um,

40:40>> right now, would a smaller trellis

40:42design to match that end bridge that you

40:45see in the photo, something that would

40:47keep with that design, but of obviously

40:50much smaller, much lighter. Would that

40:52potentially satisfy the board?

40:55>> I think that's a good direction, but it

40:57might be helpful. There's a lot of um

41:00design focused people in the

41:02neighborhood that live there. it might

41:04be useful to, you know, have some kind

41:06of meeting with a group of the residents

41:09to talk about the feel of the bridge.

41:13>> I think

41:14>> I support that. Um,

41:17we're a board. We all have our

41:18individual comments. Um, I think

41:21anything that would that would relate to

41:24the existing bridge in scale and mass um

41:28would be appropriate if you wanted to

41:30come back and and and show something

41:32new.

41:33um given uh given the history of this

41:36space, we can't fix it. It's going to

41:38cost too much. So,

41:40coming back with some with a new design

41:42that doesn't uh reflect the the modern

41:46treatment of the existing building, but

41:48something that

41:51has scale and mass and industrial

41:54architecture has been commented by

41:56various board members. I think that

41:57would be a more appropriate route um to

42:00proceed with. and then we can make

42:03comment on that and then from that you

42:05know you can have our project would move

42:09forward.

42:10>> Okay.

42:11>> Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

42:12>> No. Are we saying that the material

42:14doesn't necessarily need to be the same

42:15but just the mass and and the design of

42:17it?

42:19>> I think this bridge is a landmark and so

42:22what we want to see go back here is not

42:24an invisible bridge. It's something that

42:27is significant. So I don't know that we

42:29are designing it but

42:30>> matching the scale and character

42:32>> of what is there right like

42:35>> uh not the proposed design

42:36>> yeah uh the proposed design is quite

42:38minimalist

42:39>> compared to I don't want to say this is

42:41maximalist but it's compared to this

42:43hulking structure that is um this kind

42:47of a icon of of this industrial core

42:52>> so the the landmark preservation board

42:54uses the secretary of the interior

42:56standards for rehabilitation

42:58uh in its review and I think that

43:00standard number six is what is most

43:03germanine to this

43:05>> um and if it's okay if I could just read

43:07that out so it's kind of clear where

43:11from what this is from what the board's

43:13um comments are sort of originating. So

43:18uh standard six says deteriorated

43:20historic features will be repaired

43:21rather than replaced where the severity

43:24of deterioration requires replacement of

43:26a distinctive feature. The new feature

43:29will match the old in design, color,

43:31texture and where possible materials.

43:34Um and

43:38so I think that there is flexibility. Um

43:41but this is uh not to speak for the

43:45board but um where you are talking about

43:48massing and just the presence of this

43:50bridge is very significant in the

43:52neighborhood.

43:57>> Does that clarify your question or

43:59>> Well that that clarifies the question. I

44:01have some other documentation I'll send

44:02over with a couple of the other

44:04regulations as well. But keep in mind we

44:07do also have a demolition permit already

44:09in hand. So for safety and preservation

44:12of the creek, we will probably be

44:14demolishing the bridge very quickly and

44:18then we can go through and figure out

44:20design for the building permit.

44:26>> How do they get a demolition permit for

44:29what's the point of this board if

44:30they're going to demolish structure?

44:32>> I don't think there'll be a the

44:35first needs to go through zone. First

44:38they needs to go through the zoning

44:39process.

44:40>> Yeah, the demolition did I have I have

44:43the placard. I have a demolition permit

44:45in hand.

44:47>> Um

44:48>> this is the building permits

44:50>> that we needed the minor site plan

44:52review for.

44:54>> I will have to uh confer with my team,

44:57my department on this. You know, I'm not

44:59quite sure of the procedure that

45:00happened here. Um, but I can shoot an

45:05email out with some more information on

45:07this after the meeting.

45:13>> That's the case. There's some hiccup in

45:15the process here. So,

45:17>> yeah,

45:17>> we'll let zoning and council handle

45:19that. But from our point of view, we've

45:22made our comments from the historic

45:23perspective and I think

45:27I think we're good on that end. Doug

45:29Sutherland agrees that this proposed

45:31design is an abomination,

45:34>> which I would use the same language.

45:36>> Um, prior to any demolition, can we

45:38request um extensive documentation of

45:41the of the bridge in its current state

45:43so that that can be paired with I think

45:45the CLR that was prepared in the '90s.

45:50>> Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that would be

45:52uh one piece of mitigation if the the

45:55bridge could not be saved.

45:57>> Yeah.

46:00as well. I

46:01>> think he said he has that.

46:04>> Okay.

46:07>> Fuchi who does the um city of Syracuse

46:11inspections.

46:17>> Okay.

46:19[clears throat]

46:21All right. So comments will follow up

46:22from Kate from staff and we have this uh

46:27demo issue on hand. So that's in zoning

46:31department. So I think anything else? I

46:36think we're good.

46:39>> Yes, that's

46:41>> all right. Thank you for your time.

46:43>> Thank you.

46:43>> Thank you.

46:50like to see how that happened.

46:53>> Okay.

46:54>> Um All right. So, moving on.

46:56>> Layers.

46:57>> Uh oh. Sorry. Do you want

46:59>> Oh, yeah.

47:00>> Should we do would you like your images

47:02or

47:02>> your photos back?

47:05>> These are all the compromised parts.

47:06>> I'll keep them. Okay. Thank you.

47:10>> All right. Kate, anything else for

47:12discussion?

47:12>> Um, so we have uh Yeah. Uh this is just

47:16for discussion. Um the

47:21uh oh first of all um I did send around

47:24uh the schedule for next year's meetings

47:29um starting on I believe the 24th

47:31January the 24th. So I will put in for

47:34those of you who use Outlook I'll put

47:36something on your calendars. Um

47:39otherwise

47:41uh the

47:43let's see and then we do have board

47:46training that is going to be starting

47:49soonish.

47:51>> Um but but um Bob Saring OA uh has one

47:56piece of that training and so really Bob

47:58wanted to find out what would be useful

48:00>> what would be useful for you. I feel

48:03like I'm preaching to the choir

48:06>> as much as I love preaching

48:07[clears throat]

48:08>> trying to tailor it for training for

48:12historical aspect. So

48:15>> yeah and and [clears throat] so perhaps

48:17that's something that that people can

48:20think about what they would like in

48:22particular, but what type of I mean I I

48:24think that you do many different types

48:26of of you know presentations and or

48:30walking tours if people want to get out.

48:32Sure.

48:33>> Um uh we can do that too, but um

48:39>> I mean I'm I'm open to do just

48:44waste people's time.

48:47>> Well, it won't be a waste of time.

48:49Whatever. Whatever.

48:50>> But I'm just trying to think of uh like,

48:53you know, here we're architectural

48:55review history board history. Um

49:01big time. Um, not high times of

49:04Syracuse, but like where do most of our

49:06buildings come from, what years?

49:08>> Okay.

49:08>> Uh, because then that helps us

49:10understand what what we're trying to

49:12protect.

49:12>> Well, I mean, we can do we can do well,

49:14we could do a nice little walking tour

49:16of the city and cover a lot of ground

49:17that way.

49:18>> Yeah, that's good.

49:18>> I'll throw all the information at you

49:20that I have.

49:20>> Personally, my my registration ends in

49:23like in the 40s. So any architecture

49:25moving forward as we hit you know as we

49:28go into the future here 50 years ago

49:30apparently it's not that long ago now

49:32>> apparently is

49:33>> so all those buildings are coming

49:34through as eligible

49:36>> okay

49:36>> and so I feel personally I have a blank

49:38slate

49:39>> okay

49:39>> you know from the 40s and 50s onward of

49:41what we have and you know we have James

49:43Street of all 60s and 70s designs that

49:46are now coming under our architectural

49:48review and their historical status um so

49:51we have we have those components the

49:53history of Syracuse that

49:55>> I'd like to see.

49:56>> Okay.

49:57>> Some more information on it.

49:59>> That sounds good.

50:00>> That's my

50:02>> my personal thought, but you know,

50:03>> sounds good.

50:04>> Yeah. Kool-Aid of of what? So we could

50:08drink it.

50:09>> Oh, yeah. [laughter] Right through the

50:10wall. It'll be great.

50:15>> Um I don't

50:16>> And are we shooting for a walking tour

50:18this fall on that?

50:19>> Yeah.

50:20>> Before it snows. I mean, I'll still have

50:22flip-flops on, but [laughter]

50:25>> yeah,

50:26>> we we have some flexibility with the

50:27timing, so we can kind of what um I

50:29think what I'll do is I'll get something

50:32on the calendar and if and if it starts

50:34to snow, we'll [laughter]

50:36>> dress warmly.

50:37>> Well, we'll do something else. So,

50:39>> so yeah, with within the [clears throat]

50:40next two weeks,

50:42>> if that works for people,

50:43>> that works for

50:45Thursday.

50:46>> Okay.

50:46>> We're looking at a Thursday morning,

50:47correct?

50:48It will be like a th a Thursday morning

50:50if that if that works. Keep the

50:53schedule.

50:53>> Yep.

50:54>> Okay, that sounds [clears throat]

50:55>> excellent.

50:56>> That's what I That's what I have

50:58together.

50:58>> Dig it.

50:59>> I look forward to it.

51:00>> Me, too.

51:00>> All right.

51:02>> All right. Any else?

51:04>> That's all I have.

51:05>> Excellent. Any comments from the board?

51:07Any questions?

51:10>> Motion to adjurnn.

51:11>> Motion to adjurnn. Second that.

51:14>> All right. All in favor?

51:16>> Oppose? Carries. Thank you very much.

51:18Good job.

51:23>> Say that again.

51:25>> Reverse this stuff.

51:26>> It might be coming down today.

51:29frustrated.

```*