There are several myths floating out there in Syracuse that somehow mistakenly are taken as “fact” concerning the Walkable Eastwood group of neighbors:

Myth: Redevelopment at the northeast corner of James and Midler (the former location of Steak & Sundae ) is being prevented by the Walkable Eastwood group.

Fact: The . . . → Read More: Urban myths about Walkable Eastwood]]> Written by Maureen Harding, published with her permission:

There are several myths floating out there in Syracuse that somehow mistakenly are taken as “fact” concerning the Walkable Eastwood group of neighbors:

Myth: Redevelopment at the northeast corner of James and Midler (the former location of Steak & Sundae ) is being prevented by the Walkable Eastwood group.

Fact: The owner of the building at that location, Mike Muraco, has a vacant building because he had doubled the former restaurant’s rent.  The restaurant owner decided to leave and build his own restaurant on Teall Ave.   There were no other tenants even though there was vacant space. After that, Mr. Muraco submitted a request to the Planning Commission to have the building demolished (this falls under the City Zoning Code and NOT the James Street Overlay District).  The Planning Commission denied the request because, under the City of Syracuse Zoning Code, you must have a site re-development plan in place before you can demolish.  The owner did not have a plan.  The owner retaliated against the Planning Commission with a law suit and he lost.  The owner has yet to bring a site plan application under the James Street Overlay District standards to the Planning Commission.  Therefore, the Walkable Eastwood group is absolutely not at fault since they had no control over what the owner does with his property, including failure to upkeep the property, failure to pay taxes on the property, or failure to lease the property (which would ONLY fall under the guidelines if there was any rehabilitation and new use in the old building).

Myth: The Walkable Eastwood group is responsible for the tattoo parlors, bars, salons, and pawn shops.

Fact: These land uses are permitted as-of-right under the City of Syracuse Zoning Code regardless of the Overlay District Design Standards.  Therefore, the Walkable Eastwood group is absolutely powerless over what or who decides to open a business on James Street.

Myth: The Walkable Eastwood group is against development of any kind on James Street.

Fact: There has been one development application for site plan review on James Street that falls under the James Street Overlay District Design Standards (other than those by Mr. Pomphrey of Pomco) who generally complies with the spirit and the intent of the standards), and that is Walgreens (Five Points Development formerly HDL).  The developer of Walgreens, Guy Hart, Jr.,  was on his own schedule and failed to submit a sign plan with his original site plan back in 2005 (the sign plan was NOT approved before).  Therefore, the Walkable Eastwood group simply made sure that the design standards were complied with when he did submit his sign plan four years later. The hold-up was entirely self-created by the developer as he requested 11 waivers from the design standards.  Had he complied (as Mr. Pomphrey does) he would have been through the process in a matter of weeks (as Mr. Pomphrey is).

Myth: The Walkable Eastwood group is responsible for that “hole in the ground that used to be the Bowling Alley” (the southwest corner of James and Midler).

Fact: The owner of that property, Tino Marcoccia, had worked with the original James Street Overlay District Review Board back in the early 2000 period (prior to the review board being dissolved by the City) on a site plan.  The funding for Mr. Marcoccia’s project fell through and he did not return with a site plan.  Therefore, he never went through the review process to have it denied or granted.  The owner was approached with purchase offers, the owner refused to sell.

The Walkable Eastwood group is simply a grassroots volunteer organization of neighbors who value pedestrian-oriented development. This type of development is what is revitalizing Syracuse’s downtown as well as many other cities and towns in the country. It is 21st century-style development. Unfortunately for Mr. Hart, the Walgreens development was the antithesis of a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented, traditional neighborhood Main Street design of which the Overlay District Standards require.

Some of the Eastwood residents are willing to settle for less…or are desperate (which is not a requirement under the Eastwood Overlay Design Standards).  The Walkable Eastwood group is willing to hold out for something better because it knows that it’s possible to develop something uniquely Eastwood that looks and is cohesive, pleasing to explore, and diverse in its businesses. The group, comprised of people from a wide variety of backgrounds, includes professional urban planners, civil engineers, landscape architects, architects, and college professors who know by their training, education and expertise that the alternative, design centered on automobiles, is no longer acceptable. Auto-centric design is unhealthy, unsustainable and bad for property values. Thus they are protecting their own property values as well as those of their neighbors by using the tools and resources available to them. Nothing more, nothing less.

How about at night? Remember: this sign is changing all the time:

The purpose of this sign’s being brighter than everything else around it, . . . → Read More: Those pesky – and dangerous – LED signs]]> Picture the driver navigating this intersection, kids being a distraction, cell phone ringing, a cup of coffee in one hand, and an LED sign brighter than everything else changing from one message to another:

How about at night? Remember: this sign is changing all the time:

The purpose of this sign’s being brighter than everything else around it, day or night, is to get you to look at it, and to gaze at it while it changes to a different message. Why else would they make them that way?

An Eastwood neighbor tells us about what’s being voted on at the planning commission meeting this Monday, July 20 at 6:00 pm in City Hall:

I just want to make sure everyone is aware of what is being presented to the Planning Commission on Monday night….

The proposed sign would be mounted on the James Street side of the building, well to the east side of the structure (I believe this is near to the Hickok intersection) perpendicular to the building.  The term is ‘projecting sign,’ in that it physically projects out from the building.  It would be nearly 17 feet off the ground and would be 5 feet nine inches wide by 4 feet tall.  The top half would be an Walgreen’s sign and the bottom half would be an LED sign. The LED sign would have changing copy.

I hope to see some people there to express their opinions.

The following is based on and quotes a study conducted for the Federal Highway Administration: Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs, Prepared by Jerry Wachtel, CPE, President, The Veridian Group, Inc., Berkeley, California, April, 2009.

This year in the Netherlands, guidelines have been developed to be used by the Dutch Ministry of Transport. The guidelines will be initially applied to motorways, with later extension to other roads in The Netherlands.

The following are some of the recommendations resulting from recent studies:

-  There should be no information that actively attracts attention; this includes  no moving objects, no LCD or LED screens, and no moving or changing pictures or images.

-  No distractions should be permitted at merges, exits and entrances, close to road signs or in curves…

After a moratorium period, the Flowery Branch (Georgia) City Council, on June 4, 2008, amended Article 24 (“Signs”) of its Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 348-7) to define and regulate CEVMS.  Based on its review of the literature (several articles were cited), the language of the ordinance, in Section 1, offered the City’s rationale for its  actions, described as its findings. Those findings read, in part:

Changeable electronic variable message signs, (CEVMS) … have been shown to create possible threats to public safety. Such signs are erected for the purpose of trying to hold the attention of motorists by changing messages and pictures for short durations using a series of bright, colorful images produced mainly via LED (light emitting diode) technologies. Brightly lit signs that change messages every few seconds compel motorists to notice them, and they lure the attention of motorists away from what is happening on the road and onto the sign. Such signs pose safety threats because if they attract a motorist’s attention, the motorist will look at the sign and not at the road. (CEVMS) are also a threat to public safety because of their brightness, making them visible from great distances. Due to their  nature of brightness and changing displays, changeable electronic variable message signs are more distracting than signs which do not vary the message. …

Unless otherwise regulated, such displays can be extremely bright since they are designed to be visible in bright sunlight and at night. Furthermore, the human eye is drawn to them far more strongly than to traditional illuminated signs. Such electronic LED displays can be seen from as far away as six-tenths of a mile, making them distracting. It takes a minimum of six seconds to comprehend the message on an electronic sign, which is three times the safe period for driver distraction.

So why would we want a huge LED blade sign jutting out from the side of the Walgreens?

This sign is NOT a “deal-breaker.”  We have already been assured by Walgreens’ corporate office (back in May) that they are moving in.

As you may know, the . . . → Read More: Proposed POMCO signs and parking lot]]> This letter was sent to me by James Creveling, who has been vitally interested in development in Eastwood for many years.  James has a BS in Environmental Studies and has completed coursework, with a focus on land use and design issues, for a Masters of Regional Planning (MRP), University at Albany.

As you may know, the Planning Commission is holding a public hearing at their June 8 meeting about a new POMCO development.  It includes a resubdivision, a project site review, and sign waivers.

FACTS

The project involves demolishing the buildings between Walgreens and POMCO’s “Ausman” building on the NW corner of North Ave.  Also to be demolished is the house at 119 North Ave.

In the space between Walgreens and the “Ausman” bldg., POMCO proposes a new 2 story building — office space on the second floor, and a parking garage (17 spaces) on the first floor, car entrance in the rear.  There will be no gaps in the “street wall” of building facades.  The rear lot area, including the demolished 119 North Ave. lot will be parking lot and connect with the Walgreens lot.

The resubdivision combines 5 parcels into 2: 1 Walgreens and 1 POMCO.  There are two (2) proposed signs: one wall sign on the James St. (south) facade, above the 2nd floor windows (3′ x 9′ “POMCO”); and another wall sign on the rear, parking lot (north) facade, also above the second floor windows (2′ x 6′ “POMCO”).

MY OPINION

This project has many positives, including a two story building replacing buildings that need attention.  Parking is in the rear (and inside).

There are also negatives or concerns.

• A house is lost, and remaining houses are encroached by parking lot(s). There is more parking than required, arguably more than needed (especially when combined with Walgreen’s), but apparently what POMCO wants.
• Awnings would be nice.
• The signs are not large, but are too high, and unnecessarily so.  They may be acceptable, but for what reason is unclear – “practical difficulties” are not apparent.
• The sign in the rear is not allowed, but may be justified — but would seem to be “needed” to locate an entrance, not ID the whole building.
• My main concern is how the first floor addresses the sidewalk..  The building comes to the sidewalk, has windows, and puts parking in the rear (and inside), but it still essentially turns its back on James St. Having the first floor used as a parking garage means all the first floor windows either look into the garage or are not transparent glass.  The building’s first floor offers no interaction between the building’s interior and the outside sidewalk.  This is a nearly 100′ length (95′?).  The one door proposed on James St. is a single, small door, with little articulation as an entrance, and leads into a stairwell space where one can access the garage, the stairs, and the first floor of the “Ausman” bldg.  It has the appearance of an “emergency exit only” door, and that may be what it is.

The proposal has some major positives, but the relationship between the sidewalk and the building — especially the first floor — is not trivial.  POMCO may want 17 indoor parking spaces, but this design’s effect on the street is unfortunate, to say the least.  It’s not a blank wall, but there will be only that one small (exit?) door, and it appears that the “windows” will provide little interest to the pedestrian.

On its building to the east of North Ave., POMCO fairly effectively created the appearance of multiple, narrow facades using varying colors, awnings, windows, rooflines, etc..  For the new building west of North Ave., I haven’t seen a color rendering, but I’m not sure it tries to continue that effect.  The new building attempts to mimic the “Ausman” building in some ways.  The new facade has several “steps” or “zig0zags” to it — I guess because the “Ausman” bldg is 6 or 8 feet closer to James St. than the Walgreens.  This may achieve some of that breaking up of the long facade, but it alone seems inadequate, and I’m not sure there are any other methods being employed to that end.

SIGNAGE

The signs are contrary to the Overlay, thus the waiver application. The James St. sign is just in a location (above the second floor windows) that violates the regulations — without any real justification.  It could be above the first floor windows, above the door for example, but they may not want anyone actually using that door.  They’re proposing a number of “gooseneck” lights between the first and second floor windows, as exist on their other buildings.  They could provide exterior lighting for a sign, either wall or projecting (nicer than interior-lighted signs).

To my knowledge, neither the Sign Code nor the Overlay say anything about internally-lit vs. externally-lit signs, though external lighting is arguably nicer.  The locations of the signs are higher than permitted in the Overlay regulations without strong justification.  Surely signs at the top of the building would identify the whole building as POMCO better than a lower sign would, but that does not seem to constitute the “practical difficulties” required in the Code.  Is it worth arguing to bring the signs down to the first floor?  Maybe it is if only for the precedent.

The rear facade doesn’t face a street so a sign would not be permitted under the Overlay.  Even though the whole building(s) is POMCO, and there’s just one entry visible from the parking lot, it’s understandable that an identifying sign would be desired on the rear of the building.  The application states that both signs are “to be seen from a distance,” and their location is “a natural” because of the space created by the shape of the roofline.  Though this sign is only 12 sq. ft., this location seems intended to be seen from Eastwood Ave..  A sign simply marking the entrance door would seem more appropriate.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The underlying zoning does have parking requirements:  minimum number of spaces per square foot of a use.  I don’t have exact numbers, but a Zoning Office employee estimated the requirement for this proposal to be no more than 30 spaces.  The plan shows at least 30 spaces outside, plus 17 inside.  In combination with Walgreen’s larger-than-required lot, it looks like a lot of parking.  Also, the abundant parking in the rear could offer more greenery/screening for the neighboring residential property(ies).  Of course, they are also owned by POMCO, but they are still residential.

The indoor parking is a surprising feature on James St., and it’s interesting that POMCO desires it enough to commit half this building to creating 17 spaces.  It’s not the parking per se, but its location that bothers me.  Long facades with few if any entrances are not good for the street. Office use in the first floor is OK, but often not as engaging of the street as retail (the neighboring Walgreen’s notwithstanding).  A parking garage in the first floor is a problem.  Even better (big) parking garages have other uses lining the sidewalks.  Syracuse University is fronting one of their new garages with other uses.

As I’ve said, the project is a welcomed idea, but there should be a better way.  In the design, POMCO fulfills its internal program wishes, but fails some basics of urban design.  Its inward attention fails James St.  The “dead” first floor along the whole facade is antithetical to pedestrian-oriented design. The Overlay requires clear glass on the first floor, but clear glass would only provide a view into the garage.

Even with a parking garage in the first floor and up to the sidewalk, I think the new POMCO facade will be no worse than the Walgreen’s — maybe better.  But is that good enough?  Is that the standard?  Is the garage necessary?  Can it be reduced, or pushed back, or put below grade?  Can the design be changed to put some office or retail in at least part of the facade along the sidewalk?

If you would rather these signs did not grace our . . . → Read More: Common Council meeting re: billboards]]> At last night’s planning commission meeting, reference was made to the electronic billboard that sits in Dewitt but “graces” the eastern entrance to Eastwood. It was used in an argument as a precedent for allowing the LED sign at Walgreens. Oh boy. Got that slippery-slope slidey feeling?

If you would rather these signs did not grace our city at all, might be a good idea to let the Council know by showing up tonight at the meeting: 5:30 pm in City Hall.

There are actually four of these billboards around. They contribute to visual clutter, they are light pollutants, and they are distracting to drivers who are already talking on the cell phone, eating a McFood-item and trying to get the kids to behave. At this rate, we won’t be requiring people to actually pay attention to the road, cars or pedestrians!

From Lance Denno, 5th District Councilor:

The Lamar “trial” electronic billboards are located at:

I-690 Westbound nr Teall Av
James St, Westbound nr the City Line (Friendly’s Ice Cream)
E Brighton Ave, nr Ainsley Dr
West Genesee St at Erie Blvd West (Eastbound)

The proposed changes to the sign regulations are complex, but among other things they would prohibit most “animated” signs, and the Electronic Billboards (EBBs) would only be allowed to change the ad copy every 8 seconds.  Even so, I am concerned that the reason that these bright, changing, electronic billboards are effective advertising tools is because they attract your attention.

The federal gov’t has studies that clearly indicate that any “eyes off the road forward” for two seconds more than doubles the probability of an accident. They are currently conducting a study specifically designed to see whether EBBs cause drivers attention to stray in the vicinity of these billboards.  The study will be completed this year, and the results will be published next year.  There is at least one study that finds a direct correlation between an electronic sign and accidents, and several industry reports urge state and local governments to await the findings of this new study.

Although the current moratorium has expired, I am urging that we not permit any new billboards until the test results are known.  If a company invests millions of dollars in a big new EBB that the city has authorized, and then we find out that they double the chance of an auto accident, what will we do?

On Wednesday May 6 the Post Standard published an editorial also urging caution.  You can read it at   http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2009/05/digital_danger_syracuse_should.html

As I look into this I find more and more problems. Next Monday, as most of you know, there is a Planning Commission meeting at 6 pm.  One item is the “monument” sign for Walgreens.  The next item on the agenda is a zoning change request from Lamar.  They want the City to change the zoning on a parcel at 117 Butternut (Veteran’s Fastener, on 81 North) to make legal a billboard that has been there illegally for many years.

The city has won several court decisions on this case, Lamar does not have a permit for the sign, the zoning does not allow for a billboard.  But it is still there, Lamar still makes money off of it.  You can see it currently displaying a liquor ad.  What you can’t see are the American and POW/MIA flags that are now obscured by the billboard.

I am concerned that the city needs to create an effective enforcement mechanism before authorizing any more billboards.  Many of the billboards in Syracuse do not have current valid permits.

The Onondaga County Planning Board has recommended that the Lamar zoning request be denied at 117 Butternut, and added to its statement this comment:

“The City is encouraged to uphold its sign ordinance.”

I hope to see a full house at the Monday Planning Commission (6pm) meeting and at the Tuesday Common Council meeting (5:30).

Enough said.

Lance Denno
5th District Councilor

From debates heard in the United Kingdom’s House of Commons:

3 Feb 2009 : Column 194WH …over Fowgay hall—admittedly, it was an unlovely property—on the site of which now stand 14 flats. It is a 0.17 acre plot, every inch of which has been built on, with the car park having to go underground. . . . → Read More: We’re supposed to knuckle under]]> Any of this sound familiar?

From debates heard in the United Kingdom’s House of Commons:

3 Feb 2009 : Column 194WH
…over Fowgay hall—admittedly, it was an unlovely property—on the site of which now stand 14 flats. It is a 0.17 acre plot, every inch of which has been built on, with the car park having to go underground. It is so out of kilter with the area that it beggars belief that it was approved on appeal. Builders wear down local communities by persistently reapplying. They make an application knowing that it will not be accepted. They then re-submit and re-submit, causing tremendous stress and worry in local communities, and in the end they slip in just under the bar. And that is the end of a happy residential area and, often, of its character.

We need properly planned communities. The Government should consider strengthening legislation to facilitate a much more holistic approach to our planning system. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives said, local communities need a much greater say in decisions affecting the character of their area.

I have three suggestions that I hope the Government will consider. On the ability of developers to continue re-submitting applications, should we not have a “three strikes and you’re out” system to prevent the constant worry?

Mr. Hoyle: Two!

How about this one, from the archives of Property Week:

Local authorities permitted to refuse repeat applications; government clamps down on developers that try to ‘wear down resistance’.

Source: Property Week
Publication Date: 12-AUG-05

THE GOVERNMENT HAS UNVEILED planning powers to stop developers pressuring local authorities into granting consent for unpopular schemes.

Phil Woolas, a minister at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, said last week the clampdown was necessary because developers tried to ‘wear down resistance to inappropriate development’ by submitting repeat applications.

Now take a look at this one, titled “Developers Wear Down Opponents“:

That was taken from The Evening Independent, St. Petersburg, Florida… December 23, 1972.

It’s an old… old! … tried-and-true tactic being used against the good people of Eastwood.

What do you think? Will it work here?