Lockport NY

Zoning changes are being proposed along the city's waterways (Erie Canal and 18 Mile Creek). The maps (current and proposed) are shown here.

Looking at the maps (especially the city view shown in the insets) show a big possibility for a hiking/biking trail looping along the canal, along 18 Mile creek, thought the wilderness preserve and down the bypass back to the canal. As plots are remedied etc it should be long term item of interest.

I've also envisioned the west side of State St. as ripe for canal side housing as opposed to more "parkland". It is right on the water, walking distance to Main St, and an easy drive out of the city SW on state to the bypass. Keep the west side of the canal for an eventual extension of the canal trail and possible buffering to the industrial areas to the west.

I haven't looked though the actual zoning descriptions in a while, especially the central business area (B2). I'm curious what it allows in regards to mixed uses and primarily any residential aspects.

A lot of conversation happens over zoning requirements, zoning variances, planning board decisions etc. The conversations are usually full of misunderstandings. A lot of it stems from zoning codes that are number based, confusing and based solely off of what some other place did "just because". Even when followed, they do not result in a project we are happy with a majority of the time.

The Buffalo News and LUSJ Reporting.

Some quick thoughts on why I voted yes.

• • The residents’ concerns were heard. I believe that HV has the track record to alleviate most of them on the type of tenants. Police, Credit, Sex-Offender and Current Home Visits along with zero tolerance on police visits or breaking lease rules. If there is to be low income in the neighborhood these are the people you want to be running it. They will also have staff in the area and have local people involved. This is not some guy from Texas who bought sight unseen houses off E-bay. They are a non profit that was started by people from a neighborhood with similar conerns to this one. I can not think of anyone better to head this type of project.
  
  • One must realize that the whole district was zoned the same as new build neighborhoods (subdivisions). Not one existing property there meets current zoning to begin with (maybe except the vacant lots). Nor do I believe that it should since it is an urban neighborhood. It illustrates the problem with number based zoning. All it guaranties you is ratioed junk. If they met all the requirements all we would have is a small apartment house surrounded by asphalt parking. Or even like the duplex on High near Locus, something that does not fit in at all.
  
  • The parking is more than is currently there. Owners will go in knowing they only have space for one car it is up to them to decide if they want to rent. With 99->97% occupancy and waiting lists they have elsewhere I don't forecast them having a problem renting. The one spot each residence also opens up green space. It discourages long term overnight unchecked visitors. They mentioned trying to possibly create a lot on Locust if they could contact the overseas owner.
  
  • All housing must past state requirements for historic districts. Front porches and hardboard composite siding are items you don't even find on new build suburban houses. These will blend in with the existing housing and hopefully give other owners some security in bringing their rentals up to the new par.
  
  There were a few others I now forget without my notes at hand. Maybe I'll update it with more later
  

This is a huge investment that sets a foundation. The next challenge is how to get other owners who are slacking to step it up and how to encourage private investment and more home ownership. The meeting was full of people who love their neighborhood and were passionate as they should be. They should be commended for sticking it out and trying to make it better. I believe this is a step in making it better and one with the biggest chance of initial success.

The LUSJ  is reporting that I will continue to be spending my grocery money in Erie County for at least another year.

Legal papers filed this past Monday with the Rochester-based Fourth Department, Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, show Smart Growth wants a rehearing on a portion of its earlier appeal to that court, which claims the town planning and zoning boards violated various laws by approving the Supercenter site plan and associated documents.

If the Fourth Department declines to recommend the waiver question to the Court of Appeals, Smart Growth may then appeal to the court directly. An attorney with knowledge of the process said Wednesday that Smart Growth didn’t have to ask the Rochester court for a referral, but in doing so is able to cause a lengthier delay in Supercenter development.

And so it goes. If it has been kicked out and the confirmed by the appellate court how can they ask for another rehearing? Maybe the town would have it easier just changing the law in question? ;)



In other news  Niagara Falls has a nice new one with wide aisles, skylights etc. If anything this delay will ensure we have the most up to date store layout which has changed a lot since the one in Clarence went up.
 
Having a place to do a majority of grocery shopping near home is the big missing key for us right now. I know we will not be getting a Wegman's ever, but at least get the new Wal-Mart Supercenter going. Aldi and Sav-a-lot prices are not worth the experience and the prices at Tops and Quality just aren't worth it.
 
Maybe the city could strike a deal for the farm land between Summit and Ruhlman?
 
Post and Comments from last year.
 
UPDATE (07/17/09):
The Buffalo News now has an article with some additional information.

Mark Davison, a motions clerk for the Appellate Division, said the court is in its summer hiatus and won’t consider the case until September. He said the soonest a decision could be issued is Oct. 2.
Town Attorney Daniel E. Seaman said that although Wal-Mart hasn’t moved to complete its purchase of the Lockport Mall on South Transit Road and is not doing demolition work, the retailer is working behind the scenes to advance the project. “Everything will come together at once,” he predicted

Davison said further oral argument in the case will not be allowed. The judges will make their call based only on the papers submitted by Seaman and Smart Growth’s lawyers, Daniel A. Spitzer and Jill L. Yonkers of Buffalo’s Hodgson Russ firm.

“If they find something they’re interested in, they’ll just run with it,” Yonkers said

It also seems as if all the points are only technicalities as of now. I wonder why the town just doesn't change the two points that smart Growth is asking to be reconsidered. My thought is it may open the town to a whole new round of lawsuits.

The plaintiffs zeroed in on two aspects of the June 5 ruling. First, the Appellate Division ruled that there was no need for Wal-Mart to obtain a variance from the town’s rule that no more than 75 percent of a lot in its commercial corridor may be covered with buildings, parking lots or “other impervious surface areas.”


However, Smart Growth asserts that the town and Wal- Mart agreed such a variance was needed, but the town never actually granted it, and neither side submitted an argument about it to the court before June 5.

The other point is that the town’s waiver procedure, allowing the Planning Board to give applicants a pass on certain requirements of its Commercial Corridor Overlay District, confuses the functions of the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals.

In effect, the plaintiffs argue, such waivers are variances given by a board that lacks the power to grant variances, and thus, they violate state law. That’s why the Court of Appeals should take the case, Smart Growth asserts.

Image - Old Harrison Building, Walnut St. Lockport NY

It's really true. Stores like Walgreen's etc are capable and willing to design stores with urban site layouts if we are wise enough to require it. We need to enact legislation that guides development to meet our master plan.

Imagine this sitting at West Ave and S Transit instead of large parking lot. Opportunities were missed with Rite Aid, Walgreen's and most recently Family Video. Let's make sure we do not miss anymore.

Here's what we got:

A rework of a post over on the LUSJ Forums pertaining to the debate on rezoning S. Transit.

"the cost is the sacrifice of good housing stock and neighborhoods." - I do not agree.

I think the biggest fear of the zoning change stem from current anti-urban developments such as Autozone, Lockport Plaza, Rite Aid, etc. Massive parking lots over the whole property and up to the street blighting them and the properties abutting them. Being on a busy commuter street is not a plus for single residential or high quility buisness development.

Look at Elmwood Ave in Buffalo. A vibrant mix of business and residential. A lot of the businesses are in old homes and some then built out to the street. This is the goal of this zoning change. The streets that run parallel to Elmwood are in high demand because people see the investment and are lured to an interesting active people-centric area with unique older homes. Elmwood even "survives" with only 2 lanes in each direction, street side parking and no turning lanes. It is actually the taming of traffic that adds to it. It makes you go slow and take in the shops and activity around you.

The 4 lane stripping with no street parking currently on S Transit is a waste. It promotes a pass thru culture that is only good for writing speeding tickets. I'll create a separate post on this.

The idea here is sound. Business uses like the 245 Snow Board shop are wonderful reuses that make for a quaint mixed use street (Street front entrance would be nice). I have not read the proposal and no proposal is ever perfect. Fears need to be answered by legislating urban development along this stretch with monetary incentives to go mixed use. Strip malls and street side parking lots need to be outright prohibited.

If businesses do grow along here there is a subset of people that would love to live in such an area with multiple amenities and life outside their front door. Others would prefer a street or two over, still in walking distance but a bit "quieter". People who want to race through can use the Rt 93 by-pass. It's what it is there for.There needs to be some long term plans for "reclaiming" the section from Gaffney to Willow which is gorge of asphalt. The rest of the street still has nice building stock to create a great bridge between the auto-centric town and Main St. I'm surprised how many mature trees still exist along this stetch forming a semi-canopy in the summer. A plan is needed in addition to the zoning to provide a bridge to future growth instead of a long slide of disinvestment.

I am one street over from S. Transit and would welcome a slower street of smaller shops to walk over to and enjoy. It's what makes urban living so great. I do not want anymore suburban layout drug stores and auto parts stores with endless parking lots greeting me the whole walk. If they really really want to be on the street make them build up to the street/corner, etc. It is done elsewhere in this country. We just accept the base model of developments around here in the name of any "progress". Let's not be so desperate. ;)

This disregarded?

For this?



A great local example of my last post "Smart Code- Form Based Zoning" has just popped up in Buffalo. Here is the Buffalo News article. A 4 story highway off-ramp hotel with surface lots was chosen as the preffered option by the "Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency" while a 10-story mixed-use hidden-parking competing proposal was not allowed to present based on not meeting current zoning codes for the strip of land; even though the design nicely meets the goals for the site listed in the award winning Queen City Master Plan accepted by the common council in 2006 and preffered by the nearby waterfront condo owners.

Discussions/Images/Commentary on Buffalo Rising:

Zoning Inspired

Planning Inspired

Even though there may other underlying factors here (political insider/build the easiest/quickest before next elections, etc), the vote was rested on the current zoning requirements. It reinforces how all those "pretty" visions we routinely see in plans for an area almost never come to be. The Zoning is either against, or not defined enough, to produce what we plan and envision for an area. (See Chapter 3 of the Smart Code Slide Show)

It will be interesting to see what happens when it reaches city council vote since the three dissenting votes on the board came from city council members. It appears many residents are already writing in.

As Lockport moves ahead will our city codes give us more of the types of environments that we enjoy or will we continue to get auto-centric islands? If the ice rink, Flight of Five and any other future development ever give rise to a new hotel downtown, etc will we get an island off by itself or something that becomes a dynamic part of Main St./downtown/street scene?

We don't know what the future will offer us. but for now, we can help ensure if it does offer us something, our codes will help ensure it moves torward a "whole greater than the sum of its parts"

Since I was young I have always been fascinated with the built environment around me. Growing up on the east side of Buffalo, I was cradled in a mix-use environment that was very stimulating and that still holds endless curiosity with me.

I, like many others, pine for the "old days" of a vibrant mixed use living environment (for me it was still there in the 80's ;). See my recent Nostalgia post. The question is how do we get back there? As we can see form recent development on Main St, current zoning can give us projects ranging from the people and car friendly Ulrich City Center to the typical auto-centric site plans of the Walgreen's and Family Video properties.

There is a push in Buffalo to institute a "smart code" to be ensure that the award winning city master plan that was adopted a few years back can actually be implemented. It is a form based code system which goes beyond the usual "use, density, and parking" defined in most typical zoning ordinances. The ordinances which have shown to give auto-centric site plans which consume vast amounts of land, offers little long term benefit to the area, and often depresses the value of the surrounding neighborhoods (NIMBY lawsuits anyone?).

I'd ask those interested in what our streets and neighborhoods look like to watch this slide show. It is put together for Buffalo and thus offers an example that is tangible to all of us. It gives a wonderful history lesson of development and examples from Buffalo's current "outdated" zoning and examples of successful form based coding in other cities. It takes about 20 minutes to skim through and get the jist of it depending on how fast you click through it. I found it easy to "study" many of the slides and took more time.

Please comment on what you think of the proposed code system and its goals and how you think something like this would apply here in Lockport. I sent this slide show of to Mayor Tucker also. Our DT was dismantled parcel by parcel (or block by block during urban "renewal") and it will also be put back together parcel by parcel. What do we want the sum of the parts to be? If you have a counter point link showing how great auto-centric planning is, please feel free to share it.


Lockport Zoning for comparision. I have yet to go completely through it.

Here are several quotes from the


:

Cities have to move to a new system. They should look at the streets they like and the public spaces they like and then write the rules to get more of what they like and less of what they don’t. Conventional zoning doesn’t do that. It just gives a us a use and a density and then you hope for the best.

In the US, types of form-based coding go back to the colonial days. The 1733 Plan of Savannah Georgia laid-out by General James Oglethorpe, is one of the most studied and celebrated city plans in the world.

Conventional zoning typically regulates three basic metrics: use, density, and parking. However, to produce great public spaces, regulating only these three things has proven insufficient. A fourth metric is necessary: design. Form-based codes add that necessary fourth dimension to the development process.

Unified codes are effective because they integrate different elements of a project usually spread across several municipal departments – agencies that often to not communicate with each other under the current system.

It is important to note that FBC’s do not specifiy any particular style. As along as the basic scale, proportion, and siting requirements are met, buildings can be any style….historic districts may have some finer control…”

UPDATE: 12/05/08 - Added sample slide images