Walkable Eastwood » smart growth

Urban myths about Walkable Eastwood

Lonnie — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:31:10 +0000

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.

Other cities series: Buffalo’s Elmwood Village

Lonnie — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:02:49 +0000

Dave and I just got back from a visit to Buffalo, another much-maligned city in upstate New York that has, nevertheless, managed to move forward in its thinking about sustainable urban development. While the addition of one more national chain in Eastwood has caused much furor, Buffalo’s Elmwood Village is just a step or three ahead of us. They’ve lived through the installation of a Kentucky Fried Chicken and its demise. Now take a look at what’s replacing it – photo taken directly from this article in Buffalo Rising:

Looks pretty much like the kind of buildings that used to be built in cities where people walked. There are many reasons for this design choice, and a quick search on “walkable” in your favorite search engine will provide them. But a quick review:

Density (numbers of people living in the buildings above shops) creates walkability – the people want to walk to businesses nearby so businesses get built for them.
Transparency from the street and sidewalk to the interior and also back out creates safety for the same reason the elevators are made of glass in malls: you can see what’s going on outside and people outside can see what’s happening inside.
Natural surveillance from the upper floors where people live 24/7 keeps eyes on the street at just about all hours.
Parking is located in such a way as to make quick getaways difficult, resulting in lower crime rates.

There’s a lot more to it than that, but let’s take a look at one more fascinating aspect of a densely populated urban community: real estate value. Buried in the comments of the above article is something we might want to pay attention to:

If you want to buy anything within .5 mile east or west of Elmwood you will pay through the nose.

Elmwood does not have a lot of the kind of gorgeous buildings we see in Skaneateles, Geneva or Canandaigua. It’s quite similar to Eastwood’s James Street business district, and I’d be willing to bet that it wasn’t all that long ago that it looked much the same, struggling to shift from the downward spiral to becoming the interesting and walkable destination district that makes it the most desirable neighborhood in Buffalo.

Now look at the home values. Two-family homes near this project, similar to the many we have within blocks of James, are going for $160,000 to $206,000 (according to zillow.com). By national standards that’s still wildly inexpensive. But it’s about 25-50% greater than what we have in Eastwood.

How does this kind of good development happen? In part, help from enlightened government. From yesterdays’ Buffalo Business First site (bolding mine):

Plans to demolish a vacant Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet along Elmwood Avenue and replace it with a mixed-use building have cleared another hurdle.

The Erie County Industrial Development Agency’s directors, Monday, unanimously approved an inducement package that will help the development trio of Orchard Park’s Krog Corp., Buffalo architect Karl Frizlen and lawyer Michael Ferdman construct a three story, nearly 20,000-square-foot building at 448 Elmwood Ave.

… The building will house a Coffee Culture outlet on its first floor and upscale apartments on the its second and third floors.

So how do we entice a developer like Krog Corp to build correctly on James and Midler?

All mayoral and Common Council candidates may now weigh in. :-)

Done our homework

Lonnie — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:58:48 +0000

When it comes to approaching the Planning Commission about waiver requests, we hear a lot of conflicting messages about the role and power of the residents:

The PC likes to hear from “just plain folks,” the kind who show up in their paint-spattered work clothes, heavy work boots, medical uniforms and office attire. Let’s call them the “JPF” for short.
The more of these JPF, the more powerful the message.
The PC cannot make decisions based on the popularity, or lack thereof, of a waiver request. So actually, numbers of JPF at the meetings can’t count.
The JPF actually don’t understand all the legalities, so while their interest is much appreciated, it doesn’t stand a chance against a legal technicality.
How the PC votes on a waiver request is very much affected by what the JPF say.
If the JPF haven’t come in with new information for the PC to use in figuring out how to vote, or if their information is ill-informed, then the hours they spend at these meetings is all for naught.

Okay, so at tonight’s Planning Commission meeting where waiver requests for an LED sign are to be considered, we’re going to see some JPF. Some will be quavering at the microphone because they are unaccustomed to public speaking, some will be thrilled to have a few minutes (2 or 7, depending on… nobody knows) to get their point across. Some will be there with their common sense, some with memories and current understanding of a city on the brink of decline (or not). And some will come with appropriate degrees tacked onto their names and legal or learned points to make.

None of these people should be despised – those with or without degrees. The diversity of viewpoints is to be appreciated. The JPF deserve the opportunity to bring up points that the PC might overlook. This is all well and good, for we know that Eastwood, in all its diversity of opinion, is united in its desire for good development that will knit the community back together after being falsely divided over a supposed “deal-breaker.”

But just to make sure that in the future we are not accused of not doing our homework, or not being prepared to inform the PC of the issues it must consider, I append here the final conclusions made by professional urban planner Maureen Harding in her letter to the Planning Commission. Her entire 9-page letter can be read here.

Please, Eastwood, do not despise Maureen for doing her homework, just as you do not despise your doctor, accountant, or attorney who has earned a degree in his or her field and continues to practice in various counties. Be grateful this woman takes the time she does to clarify things with plenty of back-up from acknowledged sources (which sources are included in the downloadable file).

Final Summary

Practical difficulties arise out of an applicant’s inability to utilize the property due to a physical or dimensional condition of a substandard lot that relates to the land or in this case, the locations of a proposed and prohibited additional projecting wall sign.   Practical difficulties arise when the ordinance deprives the applicant of all viable economic use of the land.   Since the applicant is able to make reasonable economic use of the property, practical difficulties do not arise for the applicant with regard to the “size, configuration and depth of the parcel” or the obstructed visibility of the proposed projecting wall sign (fails to satisfy practical difficulty in both economic and functional utilization standards).

Therefore, keep in mind none of the following conditions sustains a warrant for a waiver or exception:

1. Mere inconvenience does not rise to the level of meeting the requirements of the ordinance for both the economic and functional utilization of the lot.

2. Mere financial loss or insufficient return on investment is not a “practical difficulty.” The applicant must not be able to make reasonable use of the property in order for a practical difficulty standard to apply.

3. Size, configuration and depth of an oversized (setbacks do not apply to the sign waiver application) and an atypical parcel do not bear a logical relationship to the applicant’s need for area variances in general nor is it required by statute or the James Street Overlay District standard of review for the waiver of requirements.

4. The applicant is not automatically entitled to benefits of additional waivers or exceptions as-of-right if he has previously been granted waivers or exceptions on the subject parcel.

The Planning Commission must make a finding based on the fair preponderance of the record on each and every waiver requested.   If the Planning Commission arbitrarily grants wholesale exceptions to this single applicant, the cumulative effect will substantially derogate the underlying intent and purpose (meaning to take away a part so as to impair) of the James Street Overlay District Standards and the Zoning Ordinance.

Thus far, not including the current three requested waivers, the applicant has applied for and has been granted (9) waivers. The Town of Lockport granted a series of (14) waivers and variances in total to the 185,000 square-foot Walmart supercenter proposal to date (case on appeal cited above). I would therefore, would like to add the following:

If the ordinance itself is unreasonable or because of changed conditions, it becomes unreasonable, the long recognized remedy is to change the zoning law ( Clark v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, 301 N.Y. 86, 91, 92 N.E.2d 903, cert. denied 340 U.S. 933, 71 S.Ct. 498, 95 L.Ed. 673).

However, each request of the zoning authority to circumvent the zoning law by issuing ad hoc variances or waivers dilutes the effectiveness of the municipality’s land use authority. Legislative action is preferable to piecemeal exemptions that could ultimately defeat the purpose of the ordinance ( Otto v. Steinhilber, supra, at 77, 24 N.E.2d 851).   Therefore, the Planning Commission is duty bound to protect the district from undesirable changes in a traditional main street character or that are inconsistent with the spirit of the law creating the James Street Overlay District.

Finally, it is with weary resignation that I must repeat that the spirit and intent of the JSOD is pedestrian primacy, not automobile primacy. The purpose of this sign is to capture the attention of auto-traveling public. This single developer knows not what he does and this particular development is the antithesis of mixed use, pedestrian oriented, traditional main street development that can easily be achieved through simple compliance with the JSOD standards and the enforcement of those standards through the Planning Commission without granting every request for a waiver of the requirements. Good urban design derives sustainable economic benefits for all (likely into the next century). However, it is well-recognized within the professional planning community the short-term benefits derived from single-purpose, single-use developments such as Fays, Eckerds, Rite Aid, etc. I hope that Walgreens will last longer.

I urge the Planning Commission on behalf of the Walkable Eastwood community to deny the application for waivers regarding the projecting wall sign at the Walgreens store at James Street and Grant Blvd.

Respectfully submitted by:
Maureen A. Harding, AICP

They didn’t pave paradise

Lonnie — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:18:52 +0000

Anyone crazy enough to read all these posts knows I grew up in Manlius, so walkability was normal for me. My dear ol’ dad was a member of the Village Board for quite some time and I recall fights back in the ’60’s when he and others were trying to prevent the village from tearing down its historic buildings. For the most part, they were successful. And if you walk around Manlius today, you’ll see that there’s still a “there” there. You’ll know, from the quaintly mid-century Sno-Top to the Swan Pond to the ancient Masonic Temple and the early 19th-century homes near the gazebo, that you are in no other place than Manlius, NY.

They didn’t tear it down. They kept it walkable, despite the pressures of all that oh-so-annoying traffic. They “allowed” old people to grow old right there in the village, unlike Fayetteville, which couldn’t have any of that. There’s a senior center and a senior home in the heart of the village of Manlius. And now they’ve somehow found a developer stupid enough to build according to the village’s stupid plans. Who do they think they are? Another Skaneateles? You know which one I mean, the town so stupid it figured out how to get people to drive for 40 minutes just to take a walk in it.

Sorry, I get worked up. This article in today’s Post-Standard upsets me. The things they say! Look at this (bolding mine):

“In 2008, the village adopted its comprehensive Vision Manlius plan for development. The plan is a set of guidelines for fostering a pedestrian-friendly village with a rural feel, vibrant downtown business core, mixed residential and commercial development, plus parks and natural areas.”

and

“A key, said Dougherty, was to create a project that would encourage foot traffic through it and into the rest of the village. “It is nearly the inverse of how a typical developer would approach this prime site,” said Dougherty.”

and

“Parking would be in the rear and would accommodate more than 350 cars. A new road, called Village Road, would line up with Manlius Mart. It would be closed off to vehicular traffic in the summer for pedestrian flow and to allow the restaurants to open up for outdoor, patio seating.”

So what if traffic doesn’t flow rapidly through Manlius? It doesn’t do that in any town worth living in. That’s because people find it so rewarding to live there, they put up with the inconvenience of having to take just one aspect of their lives a little more slowly (examples: Newport, Boston, all of Europe). If traffic discourages one more developer from turning one more of Pompey’s farmer fields into a mass of McMansions, all the better for Manlius.

Let’s see, then. Eastwood has had its own visionary overlay district guidelines for eight years. It has had development on James Street during that time, and most of it pretty good. It has suffered from a planning commission still subject to pressure from a mayor who has publicly come out against the guidelines. It is mired in a system that that allows developers to toy with (read: divide and try to conquer) the property-tax-paying residents. It is facing the same problems Manlius faces. But oh, what a difference when you have plans in place that will be enforced. Look at the kind of developer you get: one who will do the inverse of what has brought Eastwood to the brink, Butternut to the pit and Salina-Ballantyne over the edge.

Makes it kinda tempting to consider moving back home.

They paved paradise

Lonnie — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:56:25 +0000

Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you got till it’s gone
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot
………….From “Big Yellow Taxi” by Joni Mitchell

I’ve been reading a lot about upstate New York lately, in particular Carl Carmer’s books. But I recently got a different kind of book from the library: Dispatches from the Muckdog Gazette: A Mostly Affectionate Account of a Small Town’s Fight to Survive, by Bill Kauffman. The small town: Batavia, NY.

Same view, but now there’s no “there” there:

“Beth is of the opinion, ” says Steve (on p. 162 of Kauffman’s book)… “that with the demolition of downtown Batavia, it lost so much of its character that there was not enough left to hold people, to give them a feeling of community and of belonging.” Anchorless, unmoored, Batavians cast about for any port in a storm.

One paragraph in this book sounds so much like Syracuse in general and Eastwood in particular that I just have to reproduce it here. It is simply a quote by Kauffman of a letter-to-the-editor that Don and Teresa Doran of Batavia wrote:

In reply to why Batavians mock out Batavia instead of being proud and trying to make Batavia big, Batavia is funny. What other town would destroy a possible tourist attraction on a continuous basis? Batavia could have been a tourist attraction with all the wonderful history that this town had, but instead every ounce of history is being destroyed by the great community leaders. Why bother publishing flashbacks from the past? It only shows all of us how stupid Batavia is….Books and articles are published about the history of Batavia. People just laugh at that. They say, “If Batavia cared so much about its history, why did they tear everything down?” Do you have an answer? I don’t! I am disgusted with Batavia’s great plans! They have turned a once beautiful city full of history and industry into a junk city full of modern, no-class buildings and retail stores that benefit no one and they wonder why so many people laugh at Batavia and move away.

Do you remember Wittigs Ice Cream? The building is still there. I’m told they used to make their own corned beef right there, in a special cooker. That and pastrami, too. And they served some very good hamburgers and pistachio ice cream.

Let’s not tear down our built history. This building had a long-time restaurant in it up until just a couple years ago and it conforms to the overlay district guidelines. It has ample parking behind it and it holds the corner. It’s walkable. Anything is possible where there’s vision and a will… and a mayor willing to exercise both of those rare traits.

Making Eastwood look like every other place is not sustainable. It makes money for the few and deprives thousands of residents of a feeling of community. People move away. And property values fall.

Let’s not pave our piece of paradise. It’s all that makes Eastwood unique.

A last-century response to a current problem

Lonnie — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:02:35 +0000

Sean Kirst recently wrote an article, The Dinosaur: More success by design, citing one of his previous articles, The Dinosaur, by design, that reinforces that idea that we have a prime example in our town of a business that works, despite all the ways people think it should not work. And that’s the Dinosaur, now the #1 barbecue in the country. And it’s working by design.

Sean said in 2005:

Sitting in the car Thursday, watching as men and women flowed in and out of the Dinosaur, it struck me that people go there because it offers something unique – and because it embraces, rather than fears, authentic city ambiance. The funny thing is, if the Dinosaur went by the Walgreens rules (referring to Walgreens “need” for suburban, big-box style development – ed.) , a true Syracuse phenomenon would probably dry up and close its doors.

Sean reminds us that many of our pre-conceived notions of what makes a business work just fall apart in the face of this reality: a restaurant putting out top-notch food that caters to a serious diversity of people can be a destination. It doesn’t need to demolish a building to be successful. It doesn’t need acres of blacktop in front of it. It doesn’t need to alter the streetscape. It fits right in with the city and people come from all over to be there. And they aren’t afraid, and they don’t complain about having to walk a few blocks from their parking spot to get there. (They gotta do something to burn off the calories they’re about to eat!) This is what a real city is about.

But, sadly, Mayor Driscoll is singing the old last-century tune that has ruined much of Syracuse (and the fabric of countless cities across the country): demolish, demolish, demolish. Pave paradise, put up another drug store, and… you won’t know what city you’re in any more. And you certainly won’t have economic development, because your money will be siphoned off to the coffers of a big corporation in another state.

We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again:

Mayor Driscoll has been talking out of both sides of his mouth.
There IS a developer who can take the existing Wittigs Ice Cream / Steak & Sundae building and turn it into something great.
And the Dinosaur Barbecue is just the type of destination we can have in Eastwood if we’ll just stick to our standards.

How difficult is that?

Keep up the good work Sean! We need you!

We’re supposed to knuckle under

Lonnie — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:07:29 +0000

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?

Mayor does/doesn’t support design guidelines

Lonnie — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:03:43 +0000

If we do a reading of the numerous ways in which Mayor Driscoll has supported the concept of design guidelines, which are necessary to sustainable development, then we get one picture:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 4, 2007
CONTACT: Media Center
Colleen Deacon (315) 448-8005

City of Syracuse Receives $100,000 Quality Communities Grant

Syracuse NY- Today, the City of Syracuse Departments of Economic and Community Development received a $100,000 Quality Communities Grant from the New York State Department of State (NYS-DOS) for the City’s Design Guideline Component of the Comprehensive Plan. The program awarded grants to municipalities for projects related to smart growth, development planning and open space preservation.

Mayor Matthew J. Driscoll said, “We are very excited about this money that will further strengthen the Comprehensive Plan and are encouraged that our community groups will be involved in the reshaping of their neighborhood business corridors.”

These funds will be used to create design guidelines that will address Quality Communities Principles and ultimately improve four key Syracuse business corridors by developing them into thriving, economic centers. These corridors include:

1. Geddes Street Corridor (from West Fayette Street to Fitch Street)
2. Butternut Street Corridor (North Salina Street to Carbon Street)
3. South Salina Street Corridor (From Taylor Street to Kennedy Street)
4. South Avenue Corridor (West Onondaga to Hovey Street)

But a different picture emerged in Eastwood, on April 7, 2009, at a Neighborhood Watch Meeting, Mayor Driscoll stated that he wanted to be “on record” as being willing to revise or do away with the James Street Overlay District design guidelines – the only ones this city has, and has had for the past eight years.

A member of the Walkable Eastwood email group, upon learning of the mayor’s April 7 statements, sent in this quote from the mayor, referencing THIS ARTICLE at the American Planning Association’s website:

“This [design] process will not only offer new looks for certain city streets, but also is a real sign that our university and city are collaborating in ways to benefit the entire city and the wider region,” says Mayor Matthew Driscoll.

The Eastwood resident concludes:

“Let’s hold his honor’s feet to the fire. Lets compel him to uphold the Eastwood Design Review regulations. Let’s keep Eastwood Walkable.”

We can safely assume that Mayor Driscoll rightfully and proudly supports the city’s Comprehensive Plan. So let’s see some of the elements to that Plan (reading the whole Plan is strongly encouraged):

From the The Commercial Areas Component: City of Syracuse Comprehensive Plan

Under Planning, Zoning and Land Use, on p. 27:

Analysis
~ Problems ~

3. Lack of design standards
The current ordinance fails to adequately address aesthetics or the effective use of new design practices. Without a comprehensive set of guidelines it is
difficult to ensure high quality physical character.

5. Lack of guidelines to assess appropriateness of variance requests
The absence of objective standards by which to evaluate requests has led to an over-use and over-approval of variances. Without an adequate set of guidelines it is difficult for the Board of Zoning Appeals to discern between variances that are augmentative and those that are detrimental to their context.

6. Inadequate public notification/participation regarding variance applications
Current notification procedures reach only the closest properties to a location under review by city review bodies. Additionally, the information received is relatively vague and it is cumbersome to obtain clarification. This inadequate notification process leads to a situation in which not all businesses and residents who are affected by the property in question are aware of the zoning modification.

11. Absence of professional planning or design qualifications for appointees to the central Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals.
Many cities require that some members of planning and zoning bodies have
professional qualifications in order to serve. Syracuse, however, has no such guidelines, which at times can hinder decision-making.

On p. 29:

~ Opportunities ~

5. Use overlay zoning classifications to address commercial area aesthetics
Expanding the use and type of overlay zoning districts can more effectively
protect preferred commercial character. Combined with increased and well-defined regulations for aesthetics through the zoning ordinance, specific overlay classification can provide optimal oversight for development in many city neighborhoods.

On p. 31:

Physical Form
Inventory
~ Problems ~

3. Overall physical development strategy based on a suburban model.
The current zoning provisions allow for suburban-based development, that is physical growth focused on vehicular circulation while marginalizing the role of the pedestrian. The result is physical densities substantially lower than those typically associated with cities, and based on large lots and buildings, surrounded by ample parking.

~ Opportunities ~

8. Promote neighborhood contextual identity within business districts
By encouraging business owners to take into account the physical character of the surrounding area, and to compliment this character, a neighborhood contextual identity can be established.

So where does the mayor stand on the importance of enforcing design guidelines?

Somebody please answer this question in the comments section (below).

Planning Commission meeting re: sign waiver

Lonnie — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:20:18 +0000

FOR PUBLICATION FRIDAY, APRIL 17, 2009

PUBLIC NOTICE
CITY OF SYRACUSE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that a public hearing will be held Monday, April 27, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the Common Council Chambers, City Hall, Syracuse, New York to consider in full or in part the following applications:
. . . . . .
7) Application No. AS-08-33, for a Sign Waiver of area, type, and number, on property situated at 2327 James Street, owned by Five Point Development Grant, zoned Local Business, Class A, pursuant to Part C, Section X, of the City of Syracuse Zoning Rules and Regulations, as amended.

(See notification of complete meeting HERE.)

Look familiar?

Yep, we just went to the same meeting on April 6. What happened in that meeting? No decision was made. After three years of not communicating with the community and only one whole business day before the April 6 planning commission meeting, the developer requested and was granted the opportunity to meet with community members before a decision would be rendered. So he didn’t show up or even send a representative to the April 6 meeting where one person, Minch Lewis, spoke in favor of the waiver, one person offered a compromise (and was told this was not the meeting in which to do that), and over a dozen people spoke against it.

So what are we to do now?

Let me quote Frank Coon here. Frank, owner of CareFree Realty, grew up in Eastwood and has been responsible for the design, permitting and development of more than 120,000 acres, more than 18,000 homes being sold and/or built, and several million square feet of all types of commercial properties in New York, Texas and Florida. He knows the developer game. Frank says:

If their requirements are reasonable, a good developer knows that they will be able to attract quality businesses and tenants. These will last for years.

Especially in today’s economy, and some of these do this even in good times, there are the “vultures” out there who will do or say anything to get things their way – and all “on the cheap”. Nothing is left unturned to accomplish their goals – political manipulation, bullying tactics toward the residents and other business people, etc. Sound familiar ?? That type of “cheap” development may work for a couple of years, but will not last.

This is primarily due to the fact that this type developer ends up with a similar class of tenants who run their business “on the cheap”, end up running them into the ground and leave owing all kinds of money. Then the community is left with buildings that not only do not fit with the rest of the community, but will not and do not stand up to the elements – and good quality tenants turn their noses up at that type property – and it can turn them off to the community. That’s because that type development tells them a lot about the quality of the community and their prospective customers.

The “birds of a feather” thing does apply.

Frank

Eastwood is full of people who do not have the experience with developers that Frank has. They haven’t had to think like a developer to get their work done, so they cannot necessarily conceive of the game that’s being played with this last-minute meeting and the offer of one more “compromise” when in fact we’ve already been compromised to death. Too bad we have to be that cynical just to protect ourselves from the type of developers whose deeds on James St., present or future, would contribute to the kind of destruction of the social fabric that has taken place at Salina and Ballantyne streets.

Streetscape design includes lighting, sidewalks, where buildings are placed and how transparent they are to the street. If streetscape design were not beneficial, the City of Syracuse would not have invested over three hundred thousand dollars in the sidewalk improvements we’ve gotten in the past three years. Yet all this can be overshadowed by poor building design. In other words, if we allow the guidelines to be disregarded, we have essentially thrown away all the money spent on sidewalks and other beautification.

The unraveling of the fabric of our community starts by allowing one hole in the enforcement of the guidelines. Strong guidelines attract good developers.

No ground signs. Period.

Frank would concur. And so would the public.

So far, forty-six people have voted in the public survey about the sign waiver (top right sidebar). The results:

79.55% chose the following options :
- Absolutely not. The signs on their walls are more than enough.
- No, that kind of sign shouldn’t be there.

The remaining 20.45% was evenly divided between “I like it”, “It’s okay”, and “I don’t care either way.”

What do you think?

ESF Eastwood Neighborhood Study

Lonnie — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:30:12 +0000

It’s important to understand where we’ve come from to have a better grasp on where we’re going. The James Street Overlay District Guidelines have become very important because of the many challenges we face in maintaining their enforcement. Understanding the process that went into their creation and their adoption as an ordinance in the City of Syracuse may shed some light on why they are so important. Here I reproduce the words from this brief description of the ESF study that got things rolling (bolding mine).

Assisting a community to address change was the focus of the fifth-year, spring semester Urban Design Studio. The Eastwood Neighborhood, located on the eastern boundary of Syracuse, NY, has been challenged with a changing population base, and an increase of development types that threaten its historic and pedestrian character.

The students worked closely with area residents, nonprofit organizations and elected officials to conduct an in-depth analyses which included the neighborhood’s history, land use, open spaces, circulation, and architectural character, in order to develop guidelines for future development and strategies that address specific economic and community goals. An independent village before its incorporation by Syracuse in the 1920s, Eastwood retains its strong sense of community identity. Students were able to generate a unique design vocabulary through resident involvement and extensive research into the area’s history. Site details were an important component of the proposal, a family of site furniture that draws on the area’s prominent role in the Arts and Crafts Movement–the early Stickley Furniture Factory was located in Eastwood, and the Eastwood Chair was one of Stickley’s most popular designs.

This project generated so much excitement evidenced in the way the residents have engaged the project and carried it forward into implementation. Two of the design proposals were submitted for funding from the Syracuse Neighborhood Initiative, the Eastwood signage proposal received $25,000. The proposed James Street Corridor Zoning Overlay ordinance was approved and adopted by the City of Syracuse. The neighborhood even adopted the above logo, designed by the students, as their own.

The Center for Community Design Research
Faculty of Landscape Architecture
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
One Forestry Drive Syracuse, NY 13210 – 4721
ccdr@esf.edu

So what happened? Here’s a New Times article written in 2000 that sounds exactly like what we’re still talking about. It’s as if time has stood still and we’re still back in the 20th century trying to convince our planning commission and our mayor that autocentric design is passé, unsustainable and simply not what works best to maintain property values and a desirable place to live in Eastwood.

Why is Syracuse unable to move forward when so many other cities are? What is keeping us mired in the designs of the past?