Kathleen Joy

proposed signage

This is the lastest proposal submitted by the developer for the Walgreen’s signage. It will be this version which will be discussed at the Planning Commission Meeting on Monday, May 18th at 6:00.

The Eastwood Design Guidelines allow no signage of this type and therefore, waivers must be sought by the developers. The waivers must include both the monument sign and the mortar & pestle. They have already received waivers for the script “Walgreens” signs on the building along Grant Blvd. and along James Streets.

On  April 22d, Guy Hart, Jr. met with approximately 30 residents to discuss his proposal for a monument sign in front of the Walgreen’s on James Street. 

Early in the meeting, Mr. Hart told the audience that he agreed with the neighborhood advocates that the sign, as originally proposed, was too big. He also told us that if it were “Guy’s Pharmacy” he would not have the monument sign at all; but because it was in the lease with Walgreens, he had to comply with the lease terms. 

It was also clarified that the 2005 Planning Commission decision did not rule on any sign waiver although the site plan did indicate a sign location.

The developer told us that he planned to sell the building to out -of-state investors as soon as Walgreens occupied the building.

I was disappointed, at times, with the behavior of Mr. Hart.  During some questions, he was distracted and responses to others were insulting.  Toward the end of the meeting he got off point and created a more combative  atmosphere than was necessary.  At the same time, there were audience members who seemed to be there to reargue the appropriateness of the Walgreens in general. 

In hindsight, there should have been a moderator because the intent of the meeting was to share ideas on whether or not a sign should be allowed and if allowed, what it should look like.  The meeting got away from that purpose.

However, the developer has proposed a new version of the sign.  A copy should be on file at the Planning Commission Office. The Planning Commission must rule on both that new proposed sign and the proposed mortar & pestle sign above the entry.

To be granted a waiver of the Eastwood Design Guidelines, he must show, among other things, that the circumstances are not a self created hardship. Isn’t it self created when a) the developer himself wouldn’t install the sign  b)the lease was signed before the Planning Commission ruled on the signage & c) in 2005, the Planning Commission expressely stated that any signage would be addressed later.

Further, the Planning Commission itself must determine if it will continue to errode the Eastwood Design Guidelines by granting waivers.  As a colleague stated, its like pulling a thread out of a sweater, you might think that one little pull wont make a difference, but one pull leads to another and soon the entire sweater has unraveled.  The design guidelines were put in place to establish the look and feel of a village within a city.  It captures the intent of the area to create and maintain the pedestrian ambiance. The guidelines do not address the types of uses along James Street but how they are oriented and their exterior design.

Granting a waiver for these signs without  clear and compelling reasons required by law and articulated in the record flys in the face of the long range planning that this community has fought so hard to maintain.   As the City develops its Comprehensive Plan and continues to create Neighborhood Plans , will the Planning Commission render them moot because it fails to enforce them? 

Public input is critical to this decision making process. Let your opinions be heard. Put it on record before the Planning Commission either in writing or by making statements at the meeting.

The next meeting before the Planning Commission is April 27th at 6:00 pm at City Hall.

A meeting was held with Guy Hart, Jr. and certain neighborhood residents (including me) on April 6th.  The status of the sign proposed by Walgreens was discussed.

An option was introduced, reducing the size to about 7 feet, Red LED lighting for messages 1/3 Walgreens and 2/3 community announcements which would change about every 10 seconds.

The developer is selling the building as soon as Walgreens occupies the space. The sign is a “deal breaker” according to Mr. Hart.

I offered to relay any suggestions or comments on the sign, any design suggestions or other solutions that the public may have.

So, I need your opinion before the next meeting to be held on 4/22 at 7:00 at the Palace:

     Should any sign be considered (in violation of the Design Guidelines)?

     If no sign is permitted, can the residents accept a different tenant such as a Dollar Tree (which was suggested as an example by Mr. Hart)?

     Would a scaled down sign be acceptable? What could you live with?

     Would a different type of sign be acceptable, what suggestions would you make?

As the song continues, “blocking out the scenery breaking my mind…”

Walgreens in Eastwood is proposing a 10′ high by 8′ wide sign with red LED advertisements which change every 8 seconds. They propose this sign directly across from the Veteran’s monument at the corner of Grant Boulevard and James Street, at the gateway into the Eastwood neighborhood.

It also proposed two large “script” signs on the two front building facades and a sign referred to as the “apothecary” over the front door.

These signs  are not permitted under the City of  Syracuse Zoning Ordinance, James Street Overlay District.

The applicant applied for waivers from the design guidelines based on the 1)Area, 2) Number of signs, 3)Type of sign.

The Syracuse Planning Commission approved the waiver of the two facade signs at ts meeting of March 17th.  The public hearing on the waivers for the apothecary sign and the towering LED sign have been continued to April 6th.

I am strongly opposed to waiving the overlay requirements which would allow these signs. I have received no correspondence from any constituent supporting such waivers, however, I have received at least 40 comments from neighbors in opposition to the waivers.

There are certainly legal arguments that the applicant has not shown practical diffulties which would occur if the signs were not permitted. They have not shown that the waiver would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood.

But there are civic objections as well. Imagine a beaming, suburban style sign with LED advertisments towering over the Veteran’s Monument. Disrespectful.

Moreover, the developer promised the neighbors , on the record in 2005, when the entire site plan was being reviewed and approved, that it would not have a pylon  (ie, large) sign or any rolling or scrolling sign. Nothing in their plan showed the apothecary sign over the door (also illuminated) They are now turning their backs on the neighbors and breaking their word.

The Design Guidelines state that its intent is to “protect and enhance the traditional neighborhood main street character … [and] maintain and stimulate an pedestrian friendly environment while encouraging business and civic growth.”

Two extra large, illuminated script signs on two walls of the building is enough of a waiver to accomplish these goals.

I urge the Planning Commission to review this application carefully; review the prior records, re-read the Zoning Ordinance and listen to those most affected. If they do, their only conclusion must be to deny these waivers.

Have you used the free parking offered in our City Parking Garages?  I’d like your feedback.

The Common Council adopted amendments to the  City’s parking ordinance and other initiatives to promote downtown parking.. The goal is to increase parking options for visitors, residents and the business community.

Highlights of the ordinances are to allow for one hour free parking for patrons of retail, service and cultural establishments in the Central Business District when they park in one of the five City-owned garages (Washington Street, Fayette Street, Onondaga Towers, Harrison Street and AXA). The second hour is only $1.00.  All patrons must have their parking tickets validated. The program will run for 6 months and then be evaluated  by the Administration and Common Council.

Another component is to encourage garages which are privately owned but open to the public to have electronic monitoring and enhanced emergency systems. This will allow those garages to expand their hours of operation to the general public.

The City has also  added diagonal parking on certain one-way streets. The vehicles will back into the spots as if they were parallel parking. This increases driver and pedestrian safety as well as create the additional spaces.

I have proposed better use of public art along corridors, better lighting and overall enhanced “walkability” between parking areas and the general business district.  I have asked the City to look into use of EZ Pass for parking and garage fees.  We are also hoping to update the existing parking meters to allow credit and debit cards.

What else should we be looking into? If you don’t visit downtown because of the parking situation, tell us why. If you do park downtown, what is on your “wish list”.

As of December 31, 2008 the City collected close to $800,000.00 in outstanding water bills through its first water bill amnesty program. 

The water department is also being aggressive in turning water off for outstanding delinquencies.

From August 11- November 1, 2008, anyone who appliled for the amnesty program  had the fees, charges and penalties waived, provided that the principal balance is paid in full at that time. Anyone needing a structured payment over time to come current could still enter into an agreement with the Water Department but the fees, charges and penalties werel not be waived.

I also proposed and sponsored action to  add outstanding water bills to the next year’s real property tax bills.  Beginning with the ’08/’09 bill, delinquent water bills are now shown on your bill and becomes a lien against the property.   Collections through the tax office has also been very successful.

A “PILOT” ( “Payment in Lieu of Taxes”) is used in circumstances where the real property would normally be exempt from paying real property taxes but the owner and City agree on a schedule of tax payments.  They create a steady tax revenue to the City through a structured tax payment.  The amount paid is generally less than what the project would normally pay if the property were assessed at full value but more than if the property were left in its present condition.

It’s time to change the way we structure these PILOTS.

For many past administrations, PILOTS were proposed by the developers with little to no supporting documentation for the figures or even as to why the PILOT would be needed.  There was never a set of criteria or guidelines for the creation of PILOT payments. As a result, outcomes have been mixed, or at the very least, the benefits have been debatable.

PILOTS have been used as a tool to stimulate economic development by providing developers with incentives to create or retain jobs, build or renovate properties that otherwise would be underutilized , revitalize distressed neighbhorhoods and further economic growth.

With many urban projects, there is a gap between the cost to develop the project and its long term sustainability. PILOTs can be used to lessen that burden while still preserving the City’s tax base. On the other hand, some PILOT payments may not cover the increased costs of municipal services which the project requires or may not produce the desired economic results.

In my opinion, if successful economic development in the City of Syracuse necessitates tax abatements in the form of PILOT agreements, then we must develop a uniform policy.  A variety of factors must be considered and applied uniformly to each project.  Such a strategy would provide developers with a frame work in which to “run their numbers”. It would also provide the City with objective criteria upon which to base any tax incentives.

I have been working with developers, my colleagues on the Common Council and the current administration to design PILOT criteria. Public input is also vital to creating a strong policy which achieves our goals.

I believe that all PILOTs should be based on a negotiated assessed value for the property. The City tax rate would be applied uniformly across the City.   

I believe that all PILOTs should have a set time period. If additional years of tax abatement are contemplated, then the developer must present proof of the need for those additional years.

Some of the factors which should be analyzed include the following: Does the project benefit from any other State or local abatement benefits such as the Empire Zone or residential construction abatment. Is the project located in an area targeted for redevelopment and follow the City’s comprehensive plan for that area. Does the project rehabilitate an existing structure; is that structure historically significant; is the area considered a “brownfield”.  Will the project create new jobs or maintain existing jobs. Will the project use local labor, minority or women businesses. Does the project meet an existing, identified need or goal (such as residential downtown housing or high tech business opportunities). Does the project include environmental components such as LEED certification. The City must also consider the developers anticipated reasonable return on its investment but also the burden on City resources such as its roads, sewers, fire and police protection and public works.

Each benefit and burden should be quantified and carefully analyzed for each proposal.  The public must also be given the opportunity to comment. These factors then support the terms of the PILOT. 

Structured tax payments through PILOT agreements can be used successfully to stimulate and promote growth. They must be used prudently and consistently. The City must develop the qualitative and quantitative criteria it will use when entering into PILOT payments.

I will continue to work with developers, tax payers and public officials to create this new PILOT policy.

In a collaborative effort between the Mayor and Common Council, many new initiatives are underway, concentrating on our neighborhoods.  

Gateway: On April 7th, the Common Council approved the use of $500,000 to build five single family homes on West Kennedy Street on the City’s south side. Properties will be constructed by Home Headquarters and sold at market rates. 

This the first phase of revitalization efforts in the Gateway area. Neighborhood design and land use plans are being considered now and will be on the Council’s agenda on April 21st. Additional mixed use residential, mixed income residential, commercial and retail uses are also in the planning stages.

1% Home Improvement Loans:  The Common Council also approved the use of of $1.2 million from the Syracuse Neighbohood Initiative Round VIII. These funds shall be used specifically for home improvement loans in specific neighborhoods and to support other housing efforts across the City. 

Eastwood, Valley and Upper North Side will each receive $200,000 to be used to provide 1% interest rate loans to owner occupants for home improvements.  $250,000 will be used to foster new homeownership opportunities on Prospect Hill (around St. Joseph’s Hospital). $137, 500 will be used in the Tipp Hill neighborhood for vacant property rehabilitiation.

Real Property Tax Incentives:  As part of the Mayor’s State of the City, he announced a bold tax incentive plan for newly constructed and substantially repaired single and two family housing. Working with the Common Council, we outlined the terms of those exemptions. It must now be approved by the State Legislature to be enacted into law.

It may have taken three year of “nagging” but Eastwood is getting its very own rental rehab program.

When I took office three years ago, I continued my advocacy for a “rental rehab” program where a revolving low interest loans would be available to landlords to improve their investments and, in turn, improve our neighborhoods. As my great grandfather used to say “the squeeky wheel gets the grease.” And I, joined by advocates in Eastwood, squeeked pretty well.

The Mayor, in his State of the City Address, committed to create such a rental fund. It was approved by the Common Council Agenda on April 7th and proudly co-sponsored the ordinance with Councilor Van Robinson.

The program will be administered through ENA and available to landlords in Eastwood for just about any type of improvement.

Studies abound on how to stimulate developement to Downtown Syracuse. Groups have formed, and community leaders have been engaged. Once common element to each has been parking. Now its time to take action to address it.

I am forming a working group to create specific solutions to downtown parking. The City has been presented with a Downtown Parking Study which included general recommendations. There are numerous other studies on parking, traffic and downtown revitalization. This group will bring all of these studies and recommendations together.

We will formulate actual, workable, specific solutions to downtown parking.

I am asking a wide variety of people to join this working group. Do you hate coming downtown because of the parking? I invite you to share your opinions.  Do you use on-street parking or lots? Do you mind walking a few blocks to your destination? We need to know what works and what doesn’t.

Please contact me through this blog and once the committee is formed, we’ll meet and use this forum to share our ideas.