[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6615577,"mediaKeyId","2862381-b61f945ee219288c1cf57967137bc5e5","parentId",2862381,"title","Board holds two applications: window restoration at 409 Sedgwick and storefront changes at 400 Burnett","audioSeconds",597,"startMs",436000,"endMs",1033000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2862381-b61f945ee219288c1cf57967137bc5e5&start=436&end=1033","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2862381-b61f945ee219288c1cf57967137bc5e5/thumbnail_436000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6615577/Syracuse-City/Onondaga-County/New-York/Board-holds-two-applications-window-restoration-at-409-Sedgwick-and-storefront-changes-at-400-Burnett","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6615577-63765ab1fc306c15e7fc5c53f87c4357/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448537&Signature=KJGdX5zjVKFa9K-hwTKwzFAMvwk6kTXSIdSt9wMLhROV8cu5Ti0HIcbU5o5T4VApmzmFkh5TBTO1wS484yYRYWv4V167T29mxWuyD2EyqNHC7W566VE12fvrbA9kmW2bj7KP8vVFhrFi7fgqx2GE6ihHFe3KB6IhJ4v74duqm~WLsh-dOs~PhsedmLXU2sqXV5O-ctF-vXRcbIFlWLo1MDYRfYdalPAuRNUOdZ9V2vUncOQ~ImrwhEATIflZk9qUn9~vgyBK8hpT6VZ05EfaLkIK0W~awz6HCNj5QKpHTjFXF4ZgwPeD4yflthhTS5XJjLLAZq2bvjlVpgWn7vxPxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Syracuse, NY","date","2025-04-03T14:29:20.243Z","article","The Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board on April 3 held over two unrelated applications while the applicants supply follow‑up information.

For 409 Sedgwick Drive (Certificate of Appropriateness CA‑25), board members who conducted a site visit reported the windows appear to be original wood and “in pretty good condition,” but in need of cleaning and minor repair. Jeff Romano, one of the board members who inspected the property, said the windows “operated fine” overall and that the owners were pursuing a local window‑restoration business to refurbish sample units. The owners asked the board to keep the application open while they test one restored window and pursue a contractor; staff said the certificate could be withdrawn if the owners decide to refurbish rather than replace windows.

Separately, the board held over a major site plan review for 400 Burnett Avenue, where the property owner described past occupancy, a small interior fire in May and ongoing negotiations with the city over curb cuts and storefront openings. Owner Tom Hornstein told the board the building had been vacant for decades and that recent tenant activity and a modest fire prompted the city to require a major site plan review. Hornstein said he had included optional aluminum storefront entrances on the plans “just to make the building look a little nicer for the tenants” but that those entrances were not mandatory; he said he could remove those optional doors and return later with more detailed elevations if tenants requested them.

Board comments on 400 Burnett requested enlarged elevations and more specific material information if the applicant wants the two proposed aluminum storefront doors to remain part of the plan. The owner said he will remove those optional elements for now and return if tenant needs require new storefront openings. On the related questions about curb cuts, the owner said he planned to seek a variance for a second curb cut to serve an eastern garage door because the property spans multiple street addresses and a single curb cut would not provide access to all units.

Both applications were continued to a future meeting with requests from staff and the board for additional documentation: for 409 Sedgwick, a sample restoration by the new contractor and confirmation of materials; for 400 Burnett, enlarged storefront elevations, material specifications and clarification on curb‑cut/variance needs.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board Meeting - Thursday April 3rd, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board carried over a certificate of appropriateness for window work at 409 Sedgwick Drive pending contractor restoration samples and deferred a storefront/entrance proposal for 400 Burnett Avenue until the applicant provides enlarged elevations and materials.","taxTitle","Syracuse City, Onondaga County, New York","taxId",3762,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6615581,"Developers scale back Gateway Syracuse: east wing removed, basement added to access brownfield credits",318,3388000,3706000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2862381-b61f945ee219288c1cf57967137bc5e5&start=3388&end=3706","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2862381-b61f945ee219288c1cf57967137bc5e5/thumbnail_3388000.jpg","/articles/6615581/Syracuse-City/Onondaga-County/New-York/Developers-scale-back-Gateway-Syracuse-east-wing-removed-basement-added-to-access-brownfield-credits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6615581-e273fe12ee95ac77158d4250f35f1841/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448537&Signature=AasxaBN1gSZUTXycorZZzQFLtMy6I4s4SBrUS0z3e1Ad-KY~AI1~oB9GxqOZo0PRedilR7sdp~HOa59zcI2j3Q01LKdzVF9DFWijkzi35MEXIxE7H3n770BiEEsWWqQIivwT2zzsqV3VE4eJM0v28ocaEjORqrYi5FyPfHSUhJzEmD8R~WOf0KIliV9YHGXnnHbfNey3FPl1WD6zsGbv7WhNy4BNQUzdrKxFFKWTeIBei-blAPpZxb~lewL9J9rAwOnt95nlDAYbA~T8i2X4hWFOiTgDZKkmXCCTaQfsRwO6Zu~EpJ59~gBFGep5dCHazQV2dwtkbf~f~KIKHfNzJg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Developers presented a revised design for the Gateway Syracuse project at the corner of Fayette and Almond and told the Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board on April 3 that the changes reduce cost and lessen the building’s impact on the adjacent AME Zion Church.

Brian Bouchard, project engineer with CHA, said the team removed the narrow easterly wing and added a basement level to the previously approved seven‑story building. “We have gone through those exercises working with general contractors to come up with a total project cost,” Bouchard said, explaining the changes were intended to make the proposal more financeable. He added that adding a basement allows the project to pursue a more favorable track within the Brownfield Cleanup Program: “The cost of actually excavating and providing basement foundations allows us ... to access greater amounts of the Brownfield Cleanup Tax Credit program.”

The design change reduced the project’s residential unit count from 291 in the earlier approval to 259 units in the revised plan, the project team said. The developer kept the building at seven stories overall but retained a stepped‑down corner treatment and a notch at lower levels to preserve views and diminish massing next to 711 E. Fayette, the former AME Zion Church, which is a locally protected site.

Board members responded positively to the revisions. Multiple members said removing the east wing and stepping the mass down near the church restored the church’s presence on the streetscape. One board member said the change “releases the church from captivity,” noting the revised massing and additional set‑backs made the bell‑tower and steeple more visible from the sidewalk.

Other project details the team presented included:
- Program and materials: the project retains mixed‑use residential programming, fiber‑cement cladding in light and dark tones with copper‑tone accents, and glazed openings where the prior design had blank garage walls.
- Parking and grading: by adding a basement the team adjusted the podium and parking approach, and said the new configuration allows more glazing and architectural detail on what had been garage elevations.
- Zoning and setbacks: the project remains in MX‑5 zoning and the team said the building footprint shift was nominal; one presenter described the building as “4 inches” closer in one measurement but noted the overall separation to adjacent properties and the church remains consistent with prior submittals.

Bouchard and the architect said the changes were driven by investor and construction‑cost realities, and they described the adjustments as improving both the project’s financial feasibility and its impact on adjacent historic properties. The project team said they had entered the Brownfield Cleanup Program after phase‑1 and phase‑2 investigations identified contamination associated with a former gas station on the site; removing contaminated soils and installing a basement foundation makes the project eligible for greater cleanup tax‑credit reimbursement, the team told the board.

Board members recommended continued attention to corner detailing, step‑downs toward the church, and street‑level materials. The board’s comments are advisory; the project will proceed to the planning commission and permitting where those agencies will consider zoning entitlements and detailed plan revisions.

","Project team told the Landmark Preservation Board it removed an easterly wing and added a basement to a previously approved seven‑story Gateway Syracuse project, reducing unit count from 291 to 259 while seeking brownfield cleanup incentives; board members said the revisions improved sightlines to the nearby AME Zion Church.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6615586,"Preservation board finds 318 Euclid lacks integrity for local protection, reviews 7‑unit replacement plan",782,1220000,2002000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2862381-b61f945ee219288c1cf57967137bc5e5&start=1220&end=2002","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2862381-b61f945ee219288c1cf57967137bc5e5/thumbnail_1220000.jpg","/articles/6615586/Syracuse-City/Onondaga-County/New-York/Preservation-board-finds-318-Euclid-lacks-integrity-for-local-protection-reviews-7unit-replacement-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6615586-5e4f87ce7258f60d066be9f64266d371/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448537&Signature=PbIR-J2NKGKwcagwDirlw9Kv~HWYCTXnic760eFqzXwF1v597QUdo3zNm-tT7tu-cdfDtGmhwhsoEfnJRqI2vt7vMMz0b4EuPhFwrr5BLvQbWK-~zlhTbJ5cDDqkMvHOoZaNu2doQYVQ0op2sDJ-zF5-qOutsHbJb2AHajBih9ClWD6q9dKFfFK2ftMgwlsUlAPwGcWejN73JgTGEILa0efu6KHJspL4ICecacTf7KsmFGSLq7sqbUPd0Kusi9AcQX9zoynIyw~a4XZ~I~paNqXB4uKg3JC72gqdb09aCvqOvqi8d55PCWp1-eRhYXolkuMv98RToz8QRLAL0WVWtw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board voted April 3 that 318 Euclid does not meet the criteria to become a locally protected site and lacks the historic integrity required for designation. The board then reviewed a separate major site plan for a proposed three‑story, seven‑unit residential building on the same parcel.

The board’s vote to decline initiation of local protected‑site designation came after staff and applicants answered questions about the house’s history and current condition. Jared McCormick of DM Architectural, the project presenter, said the building was “built in 1910” and described exterior alterations, vinyl siding, and window replacements that he said had substantially changed the house’s original exterior. “The windows have all been basically, I think, replaced within their original openings,” McCormick said during his presentation.

The decision matters because the parcel sits inside the recently designated Westcott University neighborhood National Register District; the board’s determination affects whether the property would proceed to an individual local designation process. Preservation staff told the board its role was to determine whether the property possessed the significance and integrity necessary for local designation and that the package before the board included the criteria for that test.

Board discussion emphasized the difference between district contribution and individual significance. Staff and one board member noted the building “illustrative of historic growth” when considered as part of the district, but several board members said the house has been altered enough that it no longer retained the materials and workmanship needed to convey individual significance. One board member observed that, while the house “still reads as an old structure in the neighborhood,” it has been “highly altered” and thus does not retain the level of integrity required for local protected‑site designation.

The motion recorded by staff stated that the property does not meet the criteria for local designation and does not retain sufficient integrity to be designated as a locally protected site. The motion was seconded and the board approved it; staff recorded the motion as passed.

After the designation vote the board moved to the major site plan review for a proposed new building at the same address. Jared McCormick described the replacement as a roughly 4,400‑square‑foot, three‑story building sited close to the former footprint, with parking partially tucked underneath the structure, a shared driveway to the rear, and a design intended to align with the street’s existing front yard setbacks. “We’re using the front and the west side to provide landscaping and green space,” McCormick said, outlining a design with fiber‑cement clapboard, shake, trim, and grouped double‑hung windows.

Key project details discussed by the board and design team included:
- Unit mix and footprint: the plan shows a studio, a one‑bedroom and a two‑bedroom on the ground floor and four units across the second and third floors, totaling seven units.
- Parking and access: the proposal includes four parking spaces (one accessible) and relies on a shared driveway; the design tucks most parking beneath the building.
- Building scale and ceiling heights: designers proposed 9‑foot finished ceilings on each floor. Board members urged lowering the third‑floor ceiling (for example to 8'‑0\" or 8'‑6\") and adjusting cornice/eave details to reduce perceived massing on the street. One board member said lowering the third‑floor ceiling would be “an easy” means to bring the roofline down by inches that would improve the building’s scale relative to neighboring houses.
- Site adjustments and materials: the team noted a small lot expansion to the west to better meet MX‑1 zoning lot size expectations, proposed cantilevering on upper floors over the parking, and emphasized that windows, siding textures and colors would be refined for staff review.

The board offered detailed design and code comments rather than a formal approval or denial of the site plan. Comments included requests to: provide enlarged elevations and material samples; verify egress and emergency‑escape window dimensions; confirm structural span and column details for the parking area; and show lighting plans for the underside of the parking area. Board members also recommended exploring whether the third floor’s clear ceiling height could be reduced to reduce the building’s apparent height.

Applicant representatives said they had not pursued historic tax credits for the existing building because they judged the remaining materiality insufficient and expected that retaining the existing exterior would limit a viable expansion. The applicant also said the existing building has had maintenance issues and been unoccupied for roughly the past two years, but did not present evidence that the house was structurally unsound.

The board’s action on the designation and its comments on the site plan conclude the board’s formal review for the designation question and provide advisory comments on the new construction. The site plan will proceed through the city’s zoning and permitting process where required refinements — including the requested enlarged elevations and material samples — will be considered by staff and other review bodies.

","The Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board voted that 318 Euclid does not meet local designation criteria and lacks historic integrity, then reviewed a proposal to replace the building with a three‑story, seven‑unit residential structure.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board holds two applications: window restoration at 409 Sedgwick and storefront changes at 400 Burnett

Developers scale back Gateway Syracuse: east wing removed, basement added to access brownfield credits

Preservation board finds 318 Euclid lacks integrity for local protection, reviews 7‑unit replacement plan