Planning commission recommends rezoning and preliminary plat for 22‑lot Stillwater subdivision near new charter school

The Syracuse City Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that city council approve a request to rezone about 14 acres from R‑1 to Planned Residential Development (PRD) and to approve a concurrent preliminary plat and development agreement for a 22‑lot subdivision adjacent to a charter school.

Staff said the application, identified in the packet as Stillwater and located north of the recently started charter school campus and the public works building, is intended to provide small‑lot single‑family homes and open space that connects to nearby recreational facilities. "This is a request to rezone the PRD. So that makes it a little bit more complicated than other rezones because the PRD zoning requires that there's a concurrent zoning and preliminary plat together," the city planner said during the Jan. meeting.

The rezone and plat, which staff described as consistent with the city's general plan for medium‑density residential, were the subject of an advertised public hearing. No members of the public spoke during the hearing. Staff described the preliminary plat as showing 22 residential lots, a school site (labeled C3), and a proposed trail connection that would extend the city's trail network to the BMX park and the equestrian park. Staff also said 3060 South will be dedicated as public right of way as part of the project.

Why it matters: PRD zoning allows slightly greater density than standard single‑family zoning in exchange for planned open space and infrastructure commitments. The commission's recommendation moves the application to city council, where elected officials will review the development agreement, conditions and final approvals.

Key details and discussion points - Density and zoning: Staff said the project’s density aligns with the PRD allowance of up to 6 units per acre; when counting the project parcel alone staff noted the figure was just over that maximum by "a few decimals," but that the combined joint development acreage brings the overall density within acceptable limits. - Uses and buildings: Staff and commissioners clarified the residential component would be single‑family homes ("No townhomes. All single family."), and noted many units are expected to be two‑story houses built by the proposed homebuilder, Woodside Homes. - School and jurisdictional limits: Staff noted the adjacent campus is a charter school and observed that, under state law, certain city aesthetic and site‑plan controls do not apply to that school site because it is a charter institution. The planner said the school has already started construction and will occupy C3 on the plat. - Access and safety: Staff described a private drive north of lot 22 serving the school and a secondary fire access south of lot 12. - Open space and trails: The applicant proposes widened sidewalks, landscaped park strips, on‑site open space and a trail connection that staff said would be dedicated to the city and maintained by the city long term. - Development agreement: Staff said a draft development agreement is included in the packet to address site‑specific items that PRD zoning does not automatically resolve, such as access locations and minor technical items identified in staff review.

Formal action The commission's motion — recorded by the chair — recommended approval to city council of the zoning amendment from R‑1 to PRD and the preliminary plat with the development agreement for the property identified in the packet (approximately 31100 South / 23100 West, about 14 acres). Commissioner King moved the recommendation; Commissioner Johnson seconded. The motion passed with all commissioners voting in favor.

What happens next The commission's vote is a recommendation to city council. If council takes up the matter, it will review the development agreement, final plats and any conditions before a final decision. The staff packet and plat materials will accompany that review.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified in the meeting record and include the city planner who presented the item and the commissioners who moved and seconded the recommendation. The full staff presentation and the plat were included in the meeting packet sent to the commission.