Syracuse council approves multiple development and code measures, denies amendment tied to Eos gym rebate

Syracuse — The Syracuse City Council on Monday approved several ordinance and contract actions affecting development, streetscape improvements and cemetery rules while rejecting a request to amend a tax-increment rebate tied to the Eos gym project.

The council voted to authorize a Costco development agreement, approved option 2 of the West Davis Corridor aesthetic improvements (excluding decorative boulders), enacted a rewritten cemetery code, and approved multiple consent items that included interlocal and public-safety-related resolutions. Council members unanimously denied a developer request to amend the Eos gym tax‑increment rebate and narrowly rejected a proposed change to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the Planned Residential Development (PRD) zone.

Why it matters: The votes shape near-term development incentives and streetscape work funded in part by Utah Department of Transportation betterment funds, set stronger penalties and procedures for Syracuse’s cemetery operations, and signal council reluctance to alter previously negotiated incentive or zoning commitments after project deadlines were missed.

The Eos gym rebate and public comment

Matt Swain, identifying himself as one of the owners of Shadow Pointe Shopping Center, spoke during the public-comment period about the Eos project and asked the RDA and council to amend the tax-increment rebate agreement to accommodate two technical noncompliance items. Swain told council that the RDA agreement “was instrumental and really the catalyst that allowed us to move forward on that project” and said, “we wouldn't have moved forward without that agreement,” while describing construction progress and pandemic-related delays.

Councilors responded that the agreement’s deadlines and specifications must be enforced. During the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) session the agency authorized execution of an interlocal tax‑sharing agreement with the Gateway Public Infrastructure District by a 4–1 vote, but later voted unanimously to deny Shadow Pointe’s request for the first amendment to the tax‑increment rebate for the Eos gym. Council members said they were concerned by the timing of notice about missed deadlines and that contractual terms had not been met, including a pool-size stipulation the city had required as part of the incentive.

Streetscape: West Davis Corridor (option 2 without boulders)

Council discussed multiple options for the West Davis Corridor Aesthetic Improvements project, which the city expects to fund in part using UDOT betterment money from the West Davis project. Bidders included combinations of signage, native-sod or prairie-style plantings, sculptural bison, boulders, and irrigation. Staff and councilors debated maintaining sod and the additional cost of bison sculptures and boulders.

City staff reported that removing boulders and certain irrigation items would reduce cost but still leave a funding gap of roughly $76,000 if extra bison sculptures were retained. Council agreed to proceed with option 2 without the boulders (and not to fund the boulders within this contract), prioritizing the primary interchange signwork and deferring added sculptural elements to a later, separate project. Council moved and approved the award of the contract for option 2 without boulders.

Costs and sourcing notes discussed during the item included: the city may be able to obtain authentic Antelope Island boulders or timbers through coordination with Antelope Island’s visitor‑center project, which could reduce later costs; the difference to include smaller signs at the 2000 South exit immediately was described as approximately $642.50 and council indicated the smaller 2000‑South signs could be added later if needed.

Rezones, ordinances and other votes

- Consent agenda: Council adopted five consent items unanimously. Those items were: proposed Resolution R-25-17 (interlocal agreement with Davis County for third‑party building inspections), proposed Resolution R-25-18 (temporary free-speech zone at Canterbury Park North), proposed Ordinance 25-14 (amending municipal code provisions for hardship waivers on monthly solid-waste/green/recycling collection charges), proposed Ordinance R-25-15 (amending fireworks/ignition-source regulations), and proposed Ordinance 25-16 (adopting code language for the new Happy Tails Dog Park).

- Costco: The council authorized execution of a final development agreement with Costco Wholesale Corporation. That authorization passed 4–1.

- Rezoning and development agreements: The council approved Ordinance 25-17 rezoning about 1.7 acres at 3281 West 700 South from A‑1 (agriculture) to R‑3 (residential) (unanimous). The council also approved a two-part shoreline development action (removing one parcel from the shoreline development agreement and rezoning roughly 1.5 acres from RPC to A‑1) unanimously.

- PRD/ADU ordinance declined: After extended discussion about density, parking and precedents for accessory dwelling units, council declined proposed Ordinance 25-19 (which would have allowed ADUs in PRD zones under modified lot-size rules). That motion failed/was declined by a 4–1 vote; council members who spoke cited concerns about increased vehicle parking, enforcement of interior‑only ADUs and preserving neighborhood character in already denser PRDs.

Cemetery code rewrite

Council repealed and reenacted Syracuse Municipal Code title 4, chapter 30, governing cemeteries. Key changes discussed and included in the new code language: the code clarifies that interment may include human remains together with burial clothing and accoutrements; civil penalties for violations were raised from up to $500 for a first violation to up to $1,000 for second or subsequent violations, and the code explicitly allows the city to recover actual costs incurred to remedy violations. Councilors noted the code also clarifies repair/remediation responsibility for damaged headstones.

RDA interlocal tax-sharing agreement

During the Redevelopment Agency portion of the meeting the RDA authorized execution of a proposed interlocal tax‑sharing agreement between the Syracuse City RDA and Gateway PID #1 by a 4–1 vote. Staff said the agreement needs to be in place to allow bonding to go to market; the agreement’s effective date remains to be finalized pending completion of a market study.

Meeting context and next steps

Council used time in the meeting to highlight upcoming items and community events, including an April disaster-preparedness exercise, and staff noted follow‑up items such as sourcing local boulders and confirming funding sources for prioritized elements of the West Davis Corridor project. Several items approved at tonight’s meeting were described as already vetted in prior work sessions; councilors repeatedly emphasized adherence to contract terms where public funds or incentives are involved.

Votes at a glance

- Consent agenda (Res. R-25-17, Res. R-25-18, Ord. 25-14, Res. R-25-15, Ord. 25-16): approved unanimously - Costco development agreement: approved 4–1 - West Davis Corridor aesthetic improvements — option 2 without boulders (contract award): approved (motion carried) - Ordinance 25-17 (rezoning 3281 W 700 S A‑1 to R‑3): approved unanimously - Shoreline development part a/b (remove parcel from D/A; rezone ~1.5 acres RPC to A‑1): approved unanimously - Ordinance 25-19 (allow ADUs in PRD): declined 4–1 - Ordinance 25-20 (repeal and reenact cemetery regulations): approved unanimously - RDA interlocal tax‑sharing agreement with Gateway PID #1: authorized 4–1 - Request to amend first amendment to tax-increment rebate for Eos gym (Shadow Pointe): denied unanimously in the RDA session

Ending

Council members said they intend to follow up on the West Davis Corridor fund‑source questions and the potential to add decorative boulders later if funding and sourcing permit it. The RDA will proceed with the tax‑sharing agreement necessary to take bonding to market; the Eos rebate amendment was denied after council concluded the project had not met agreed conditions and that precedent weighed against after‑the‑fact changes to signed agreements.