Position statement by board member Mike Rostron

[Mike]

As a board member it is my intent to do what I can to preserve the
character of the Sunnyland neighborhood, improve it when possible, and
resist the efforts of those who would change that character in
negative ways, especially with regard to changes in existing zoning or
building ordinances that do not take into account current property
owners desires.

Regarding proposed the city proposed infill toolkit:
Why not have some areas with lower density? Shouldn't we wait until
existing multi-family zoned areas are near capacity before encroaching
into single family neighborhoods?  We should be talking more about
adding trees, shrubs, and green areas to our beautiful city, and less
about cramming shabby tract style housing into our unique single
family neighborhoods. The city can't even regulate the many existing
illegal rooming houses. Imagine the new triplex looming over your back
yard, which is then later divided up internally to house double the
original permitted residents, complete with all their cars zooming up
and down your alley. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this
picture if you enjoy it and consciously buy into such a neighborhood,
but to have it shoved down your throat after supposedly buying into a
single family zoned area is another thing entirely. Imagine what might
happen if the city were to propose such infill into the Edgemoor
neighborhood!

If you are a property owner in a single family zoned area of Sunnyland
(the area north of Alabama street), I would love to hear your views on
this issue. You should also make your views known to our association,
the mayor, and city council as well.

Regards,
Mike Rostron Sunnyland at large representative
Disclaimer: The above are my personal views, and may or may not
represent the views of other Sunnyland Neighborhood Association Board
Members.

[Josh Parrish]

I suggest that perhaps it's the "tract-style housing" that most folks are opposed to, rather than the higher density. Personally, I wouldn't mind allowing my Sunnyland neighbors to infill, provided it were done tastefully in a way that maintains the unique character of the neighborhood. Of course, setting up a design review process sounds like a lot more work than just outright banning mulit-family dwellings. However, tasefully done infill that preserves the character of Sunnyland seems like something worth pursuing in both "Edgemoor" Sunnyland and the south Sunnyland alike. ;-)

--
Josh Parrish
key...@gmail.com

[Ken Mann]

I appreciate Mike's efforts and willingness to put his opinions out there.  I am all too aware that stepping forward on community/political issues is an invitation for criticism!

 

I have discussed this topic with Mike before.  In general, I support higher densities within the cities as a means of preventing sprawl out into our rural and resource lands.  Of course there are fears about what "infill" can mean and the changes it brings to a neighborhood.  I love Sunnyland - we have a great situation!  But I believe we must, as a community, make compromises and take some risks if we are to preserve our community and county as a whole. 

 

I don't agree with Mike's characterization that the city is "cramming shabby tract style housing into our unique single family neighborhoods" but I DO agree that we must avoid the illegal rooming houses, cars zooming up and down the alley, etc.

 

The infill toolkit is a small step in the right direction, and I hope that we as a neighborhood support the city and demonstrate that, under the right circumstances, we are willing to accomodate our share of population growth.  I support allowing "Accessory Dwelling Units" - basically a technical term for "mother-in-law" apartments or apartments above the garage, etc.  As long as the owner occupies either the main house or the ADU, these are a great tool for acheiving gradual infill, providing affordable housing (for the property owner, whose mortgage payments are helped), and protecting our neighborhood.

 

I do not expect that our neighborhood will be overrun with college kids and thugs.  More likely, we will have older, single folks (ie, a mother in law), single college students, visiting professors, etc, gradually incorporated into our community.  This is a good thing!

 

Design standards are essential.  If the city allows garage-dominated streetscapes, pink stucco and eastern-bloc architecture, it will be a disaster!  But I do believe that the city understands those concerns. 

 

I support the infill toolkit and I hope our neigbhorhood is willing to be a partner with the city as we work on the issues of sprawl and resource preservation.

 

Thanks again to Mike for opening this discussion and for representing the neighborhood.

 

Ken

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Mike <mero...@comcast.net> wrote:

--
Ken Mann
360.483.6020

[Ken Mann]

Well said, Josh

--
Ken Mann
360.483.6020

[Mike]

"I suggest that perhaps it's the "tract-style housing" that most folks
are
opposed to, rather than the higher density."

With all due respect I must disagree with the above statement. It is
the higher density itself that folks don't want, specifically in areas
currently zoned as single family. In those areas already zoned for
multi-family we don't want ugly tract housing, obviously (unless we
are developers who hope to profit). Your argument is a classic red
herring. We do not want or need high density in all areas of the
city. Some areas should serve as the "lungs" of our city. Much as
the Amazon and Northwest forests should not all be clear cut, so some
areas of the city (not just parks) should be allowed to develop with
more trees, gardens, and vegetation. North Sunnyland is a perfect
location for such development - as Ken Mann's own yard admirably
shows. Do not misconstrue my argument: some areas are appropriate for
use of the new city infill toolkit, and some areas are not. This was
the point of the recent MNAC resolution which was supported by at
least two other Neighborhood Associations. There are plenty of areas
left in our fair city that should receive the higher population
densities the infill toolkit provides. Even in our own neighborhood
James Street, and currently zoned multifamily zoned areas should be
the first trial areas for the new toolkit, if and when it is
officially written into city code. Many of us who bought homes in
upper Sunnyland and similar areas consider ourselves stewards of the
property, and wish to help preserve the character and integrity of our
homes and lots for future generations.
To be blunt: I am in favor of outright banning of multi-family
dwellings (which includes most of the infill tool kit) in all
neighborhoods currently zoned single family.

[Ken Mann]

Speaking for myself,I agree with Josh - I fear the "tract-style housing" more than "higher density."  

I am not advocating for rezones of entire single-family neighborhoods.  I am advocating for flexibility in the code so that we can have creative designs that allow for infill.  An example is the ADUs/Mother-in-Law apts/garage apartments, etc that I would like to see allowed in all neighborhoods, with guidelines such as owner-occupied, etc.  

Again, thanks for the discussion

Ken

--
Ken Mann
360.483.6020

[Mike]

I might agree with you about ADUs if such additions did not bring the
inevitable increase in automobiles and traffic, as well as usually
resulting in the uprooting of established vegetation. I don't care
about the noise of people going about their business (afterall, I'm a
rock musician and building contractor, and should not throw stones!),
but additional automobile traffic really degrades the quality of of
life where increased density is allowed in areas such as ours. (Look
at Grant, where speend bumps became necessary)

If you want to fence off upper Sunnyland and ban all cars from the
neighborhood (perhaps using the DOT site as a parking lot), then I
would be in favor of increasing density perhaps, but why bother, when
there are much better areas than ours for such development. Where
current infrastructure does not well support increased density, it
should not be done. The horse should be in front of the cart, as they
say, not vise versa. Let's encourage more density down town, in the
designated "urban village" areas, existing multifamily zoned areas,
and in the Georgia Pacific site as it is developed. Let us strive to
preserve the character of neighborhoods such as Columbia and
Sunnyland, as part of the historical and unique character of our
city. This is not a "not in my backyard" argument; it is an appeal to
preserve some measure of the diversity we have at present.
This is a discussion we should have started months ago, but it's good
to get it going any time.
Mike

[ttr...@yahoo.com]

Sure is nice to see a discussion on the google site...I think this a
great way to keep a discussion and ideas circulating for all neighbors
to jump in and discuss. Don't feel shy it is a good way of expressing
some of your ideas, frustrations or thoughts on this in-fill toolkit.

So now here is my two cents worth. I am for in-fill but I have
decided my part of the neighborhood does NOT need anymore as far as
ADU's or Multi-family units. The first reason: I am already disturbed
by traffic on my alleyway enough that I calculated: If an ADU is
allowed on each property on the alleyway that would be 28 units (I am
sure this would not happen but I am going for an all out picture
here) And if there are 28 units and the allowed maximum amount of
parking - of two cars (offstreet mind you) times a conservative two
trips a day that would be a total of 56 trips in my alley
alone...definately NOT acceptable for my standard of living. I
thought I was pro-infill in my back yard but after paying more
attention to the what ifs and my alleyway...I am now totally against
it. I am now more for in-fill within areas such as those areas on
James Street "the urban village" plan at that end of the neighborhood
or some such other acceptable idea without building on alleyways.

The second reason: As I see it...the city currently doesn't even (I
could be wrong) have a code enforcement employee to make sure that
compliance is being enforced and if you put all the regulations that
are on such dwellings in the in-fill kit -specifically owner occupied
units...who's going to enforce it, how's it going to be enforced, and
what will be the consequences for non-compliance? Too many unanswered
questions in my opinion to be comfortable with the tool kit as
written. As it is, I have enough poorly maintained rentals surrounding
me and I just can't do with anymore. I have a lot of neighbors in my
vicinity that will agree with me on this subject but really even if
you call the litter control officer it has taken up to eight weeks for
the properties to get rid of the garbage piles on properties owned by
Dave Hansen of Lakeway Realty. So, as you can understand, I have no
faith in the current system the city has for compliance...and this has
nothing to do with the officer who is doing his job he is good at it
but his hands are tied until the owners of the property do
something.

Other questions arise such as water, sewer, drainage (more impervious
surfaces create more surface water run-off) and we currently don't
have acceptable drainage systems in most of the neighborhoods for more
surface water run-off the system can barely handle the current run-
off...some neighborhoods don't even have proper drainage, these issues
will impact everyone in the city not just the places where in-fill
will be allowed. Just the many questions that I have concerning the in-
fill tool kit which, in my opinion, is similar to the port
fiasco...the cart is coming before the horse or should I say
donkey...once again.

Just my two cents...Theresa Tripp

> > 360.483.6020- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Patrick McKee]

Ken,   The Sunnyland Neighborhood has been using Infill Tool Kit designs for decades. The neighborhood has small and smaller lot detached single family homes, and duplexes. Sunnyland is a compact neighborhood of mostly 40ft wide 5000sf lots. Many houses are just ten feet apart. You could say that Sunnyland has been preventing sprawl, and saving farmland for a long time.   You and I live in the single family area of Sunnyland north of Alabama St. I have enjoyed living in this area for thirteen years. I believe that the current density is just right. Not too high, and not too low.   The introduction of legal alley access rental units (detached ADU/carriage house) would upset the delicate balance of people, structures, and land, which now exists in our single-family detached neighborhood. Anytime you add more structures, people, and all of the things that people bring with them (cars, pets, trailers, etc.) to a defined area, you change the look and feel of that area. Increased density, no matter how well it is done, changes the character of a neighborhood.   Back yard rental homes, and garage apartments will turn our alleys into public streets. A function they were not designed for. Ripping out gardens, and trees to cover our already compact single-family lots with parking spaces and rental buildings is a real bad idea.   Patrick McKee   --- On Thu, 4/23/09, Ken Mann <kenth...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ken Mann]

I totally understand your points (and Mike's).  I completely understand the concerns that the prospect of change creates - I share those fears.  In a perfect world, our neighborhood would not change at all - I love it the way it is.  However, I feel an obligation to accept some growth.  I believe that everyone needs to compromise - including those of in nice single-family neighborhoods.  It is impossible to protect Whatcom County's farmlands, forests, rivers, mountains, and lakes without compromise.  If we do it well, we can accept growth.  I strongly agree the urban villages and intensification along major arterials and commercial districts should be a primary target for infill.  I just do not believe we can accomplish all of our goals that way.  Essentially - I don't think we can have our cake (beautiful, clean, natural county environment) and eat it (untouchable single-family neighborhoods), too.

Theresa, I appreciate your example and the "math" regarding your alley.  My observation is that very few, if any, people will build ADUs overnight.  These things take time.  The real estate market is dead.  If we add the requirement of an owner-occupied dwelling, it will not destroy the neighborhood.  The Hansens and others like them will NOT be able to further degrade your block (unless they move in!).  Again, enforcement is a component of doing this well.  If we don't create good rules AND enforce them, I oppose all of it, too.

This is not the first time we have disagreed over this topic.  I am really glad we can all discuss it.

Ken

--
Ken Mann
360.483.6020

[Mike]

Here is the text of the recent MNAC letter: I see no reason why we
can't all agree with the spirit and content of this letter. It asks
only that the city wait before implementing changes in the single
family zoned areas. I intend to bring this up to a vote at our next
neighborhood meeting, and would hope to get your support for a
resolution supporting it.

CITY OF BELLINGHAM
MAYOR’S NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY COMMISSION

April 15,2009

Hand Delivery

To: Mayor of Bellingham and,
Bellingham Planning Commission
210 Lottie St
Bellingham, WA 98225

RE: Proposed New Code BMC 20.28 Infill Housing

Dear Mayor Pike, and Planning Commissioners,

This letter is submitted seeking to encourage and convince the City to
revise the proposed new code BMC 20.28 Infill Housing. The Mayor’s
Neighborhood Advisory Commission has voted to recommend the following
changes.

The BMC 20.28.010 PURPOSE paragraph should be revised to read: (new
wording underlined) This chapter establishes special development
regulations for a series of housing forms that are different than the
traditional single family dwelling unit. These special regulations are
not intended for use in single family zones. These regulations are
intended to gradually implement comprehensive plan goals and policies
encouraging infill development, and protection of environmentally
sensitive areas. Use of these new housing forms in low-rise multi-
family zones is intended to demonstrate more efficient use of
developable land, and provide opportunities for more affordable
housing. The housing forms listed in this chapter are intended for use
in city multi-family neighborhoods, urban villages, and in
Bellingham’s urban growth areas as described in BMC 20.28.020.

The BMC 20.28.020 APPLICABILTY paragraph should be revised by
DELETING the following sentence from paragraph A. In single family
zones, these housing types may be permitted if approved as part of an
amendment to this title through a Type VI process. “The purpose of
the sentence is to be open and transparent about the city’s infill
strategy and policy, and to clarify that any one of the nine infill
housing forms could be used in appropriate parts of single-family
areas.”(City of Bellingham Staff Report, page four, 4-16-09 Planning
Commission Public Hearing)










Page 2


The Mayor’s Neighborhood Advisory Commission has concluded that there
is no pressing need to place multi-family housing forms into single
family areas. The city is actively planning three urban villages.
These new villages need to be infilled with new housing. The city’s
downtown area needs more infill housing to survive as a vibrant urban
center. Land in low-rise multi-family zoned areas of the city can
yield more infill housing by using Infill Tool Kit designs.

There may be a time in the distant future when Bellingham’s
distinctive single family neighborhoods disappear into a mixed-use
urban landscape. That time has not yet come.

The Mayor’s Neighborhood Advisory Commission wishes to remind the
Planning Commission that the city’s Comprehensive Plan clearly states:
“It is the City’s overall goal to preserve and protect the unique
character and qualities of the existing neighborhoods. All policies,
proposed development code and zoning changes should be reviewed with
this goal in mind.” (FLU-1)


Resolution authorizing this letter passed by the City of Bellingham
Mayor’s Neighborhood Advisory Commission April 15,2009.

[Mike]

My previous paste did not trnslate the underlined text. The underlined
text from the MNAC letter is below:

These special regulations are not intended for use in single family
zones.

Use of these new housing forms in low-rise

multi-family zones is intended to demonstrate more efficient use of

developable
land, and provide opportunities for more affordable housing.

[Mike]

Very good points Theresa!
I am not against in-fill as a principle, idea, or even as it is
currently advocated by the planners. I only wish to see it tried in
urban villages, down town, and current multifamily areas first. These
are areas where people already live in more densely populated areas,
either by choice, or because of economic considerations.

[David Donohue]

There's an interesting divide on the infill question.  There appears to be a broad, but not complete, consensus that the neighborhood will go along as long as the single-family zoning remains untouched.  Please note Theresa's and my households are both in area 4, zoned multi-duplex, and border the residential/industrial boundary. 

   There is constant pressure in this area from realtor/developers like Hansen that will, if left undisturbed, will degrade the neighborhood character and lead to pressure from developers to rezone residential areas to other more profitable uses. 

Compliance down here is non-existent.  We have complained to the city multiple times about violations, but nothing happens. 

  While I strongly support infill, it is likewise very difficult to do so if the home and neighborhood my family and I reside in is relegated to "has-been" status by the omission of the same sort of compliance support a single-family neighborhood receives.

When Theresa talks about cars zipping up and down the alleys because of increased infill, she's not actually theorizing, she's presently living it.   If that sort of activity increases, the value and quality of life of all this part of the neighborhood will degrade further. 

I agree with Ken that good compliance is key.  It is also not something we enjoy in the "multi-zoned" areas.

[Ken Mann]

I am very unhappy with the compliance issue.  While i have heard about it for years, i didn't quite know the extent of it in our area.  Compliance is a non-negotiable for me - if there is no enforcement of the rules, people (such as TT and DD) lose faith in the city and oppose any further ideas such as infill toolkits.  And who can blame you?  If we don't have buy-in from the current residents, we are never going to innovate.

This is an element that deserves more explanation and reassurance from the city.  I am a property owner/developer myself, and have always kept a sharp eye on my tenants by talking to their neighbors.  I have never allowed a complaint, even a poorly mowed lawn, to go unresolved.  I supported a proposal by the city a number of years ago to license landlords.  it sounded onerous and landlords opposed it - but they are the ones that give the rest of us a bad name.  

While I feel the position statement as it currently stands is too extreme in its opposition to the toolkit in single-family areas, I understand why.  I really do.  I guess I just have more faith (naivete?) that the city has good intentions and will do it right this time.

If the position statement conditionally accepted ADU's in SF neighborhoods with a CLEAR enforcement mechanism that ensured the owners live on the property I would support it.  

I am beginning to see that the opposition isn't always to density itself, but to density as it is currently allowed to occur.  Let's focus on the enforcement solution instead of a blanket rejection.  I still feel strongly that if we don't allow some infill we are going to lose the rest of the county to pavement and Mcmansions.

Ken

--
Ken Mann
360.483.6020

[Mike]

"While I feel the position statement as it currently stands is too
extreme in
its opposition to the toolkit in single-family areas, I understand
why."

Ken:
What is so extreme about wanting to wait to see how the roll out works
(including the enforcement issues) before we allow parts or all of the
plan in single family zoned areas? You will not get away with painting
those of us who wish for a more time to evaluate the changes as
extremists. In fact, it is those who wish to try the new increased
density tools everywhere and all at once who are, in fact the
extremists on this issue. A more prudent course of action would be to
see how it works in one or two existing multifamily or business zoned
areas first.

"...we are going to lose the rest of the

county to pavement and Mcmansions."

There is absolutely no proof that changes in density zoning and
building ordinances within the city limits have any effect on what
goes on in the rest of the county. Folks buy up land and build
Mcmansions in the county because county codes allow it and they want
to live a more rural life style. This argument is a classic red
herring and only serves to stir up emotions in the populace, while
adding nothing to the discussion. It is just as important to preserve
and increase green areas, city gardens, diversity of neighborhoods,
and to address ground and air pollution issues in the city, as it is
in the rest of the county.

The fact remains: we have existing areas that could hold thousands
more people that can still be developed without messing with single
family zoned areas. Moreover, I question the legal right of the city
to change building codes in single family areas without due process,
as this effectively changes the areas into a multifamily zoned
neighborhoods without permission of existing property owners. I see a
class action legal challenge in the offing if this code change is
attempted as written.

[Ken Mann]

Mike - I did not mean to imply that you are an extremist.  I apologize if my use of the word "extreme" was offensive.  

There are some high emotions around this issue.  I think we can agree to disagree.  We obviously aren't going to persuade each other.  

Thanks for the discussion,

Ken

--
Ken Mann
360.483.6020

[Mike]

Ken and all here:
No offense taken. It just seems more logical to me to try this out
first in areas that will be less radically impacted, and areas that
truly desire such development. I fail to see why anyone would be so
intent on insisting the proposed new tool kit should apply everywhere
immediately. As a builder I could make a lot of cash adding units to
my lot, but it's not the kind of neighborhood I chose to live in, so I
would consider that to be unethical, and would expect most of my
immediate neighbors to have every right to protest such development.
On the other hand, I would feel no ethical reservations about building
such structures in areas currently zoned multifamily, commercial,
business, etc.

I don't think the discussion or controversy has ended by a long shot.
Objections to the tool kit are very specific and mostly apply only to
where it will be implemented.

[Patrick McKee]

Ken,   The first and most powerfull measure to stop urban sprawl, and to protect farmland is for the Whatcom County Council to down zone land outside of the current cities. The County Council can not muster a majority to do the right thing. Another step would be to increase money available to by deveopment rights on farmland.   Placing detached ADU's on small Sunnyland lots should not be the first thing you think of to accomplish your preservation goals. Bellinngham has better places to place higher density infill housing.   Patrick Mckee

--- On Thu, 4/23/09, Ken Mann <kenth...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Ken Mann <kenth...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Position statement by board member Mike Rostron To: sunn...@googlegroups.com

[Ken Mann]

Patrick - ADU's are not the first thing I think of when it comes to preventing sprawl.  I think it is a reasonable strategy - one of MANY reasonable strategies that we in the city/county can implement.  Perhaps we will someday have a County Council willing to take the necessary steps to stop sprawl.  Until then, I am willing to do my part, to compromise, and accept what I feel is a tolerable impact - owner occupied ADU's.  Really - are they that horrifying?  What am i missing? They address infill in an incremental manner and help homeowners pay their mortgage.

Everybody, in every neighborhood, thinks infill is great in theory, as long as in reality it goes to somebody else's neighborhood.

This county and the cities need to cooperate and develop a coherent long-range plan to accommodate growth. Clearly, the city has not done a good job of persuading the people on this board that such a plan exists.  As such, it appears the sunnyland neighborhood will oppose any kind of infill in the SFR areas.

I have said my piece.  We can agree to disagree on this topic.

Thanks,

Ken

--
Ken Mann
360.483.6020

[Mike]

"Everybody, in every neighborhood, thinks infill is great in theory,
as long
as in reality it goes to somebody else's neighborhood."

Manifestly untrue. Downtown is begging for more residential infill.
The urban village areas also desire a good percentage of residential
housing. People want high density in the Georgia Pacific site when it
gets underway. Even those of us in Sunnyland mostly are OK or even
like the idea of infill around the perimeters of the general
neighborhood.(As for me - I'd love to see a neighborhood pub on James
St, and can't imagine why zoning does not presently permit it). We're
talking about room for thousands more people, and we haven't even
began to broach the subject of just how fast we want growth to occur,
or strategies for controlling growth - but that is a subject for
another, even longer and more passionate discussion!

[L. Borealis]

I appreciate the passion of my fellow neighbors and the respectful
debate filling my inbox, but can not help but question the motivation.

Someone doesnt want their neighbor to have an ADU because there
will be additonal cars in "their" alley - (check your title, its not
yours -
doesnt your neighbor have rights to their property and making the
decision
that is right for their family? )Someone else doesnt want a "tract"
home in
their vision. Someone else says its all well and "as long as its
tasteful" - which
of course means their taste only.

I hate to burst anyones bubble over the cause of sprawl but
the reasons that people choose to move outside the city limits
is neighbors. People chose to live outside of a neighborhood because
people are
judgemental and impress their own beliefs and expectations
onto everyone around them.

(As a long term Sunnyland resident, I see this far too much. Its sad
because this
used to be a very friendly and welcoming community)

I grew up in the 60s in the Columbia neighborhood. It was not the gem
it is today.
We had an ADU which housed my great aunt, a survivor of 5yrs
in a japanese prison camp for women during WWII - and a valuable
contributor to the neighborhood. The "quaint" neighborhood that you
see
in Columbia and South Hill includes a variety of housing styles and
types.
This didnt happen overnight. It grew organically as the needs of the
people,
the community, and economics dictated.

A strong neighborhood follows the exact same replication, formula,
as a strong city. Growth should be fractal in nature, or "organic" if
you prefer
buzz words. Diversity includes economic diversity. A strong
neighborhood consists of some SFR, some ADUs and some
multi-family dwellings. Allowing for diversity in housing allows for
multi family types and a diverse socio economic neighborhood.
It accomodates and welcomes singles as well as the elderly which
occurs more frequently with the opportunity of an ADU.
To suggest that the neighborhood will become over-run with ADU units,
that alleys will become thoroughfares is fear mongering. Its simply
untrue.

As someone who has been in the real estate industry for decades, I
agree that builders should not be allowed to run amuk through a
neighborhood but I would sure appreciate some good old fashioned
tolerance for your neighbors and the ability to see the benefits
of diversity and organic growth when contemplating the face of this
lovely neighborhood.

[Larry]

As I see it there are __ key issues:

1) Is implementation of the Infill Toolkit necessary AT THIS TIME to
accommodate Bellingham’s projected growth?

2) Will implementation of the Infill Toolkit in existing single family
(SF) zoned neighborhoods prevent rural sprawl?

3) Will implementation of the Infill Toolkit in SF neighborhoods
adversely impact the character of those neighborhoods?

Issue 1: No, increasing the zoning density of existing SF
neighborhoods is not necessary to accommodate the city’s projected
growth. In fact, based on the updated land supply analysis conducted
jointly by the city and county, Bellingham’s UGA is more than adequate
to accommodate projected growth (even without the recent addition of
the King Mtn UGA).

Issue 2: No, rural sprawl will occur regardless of how dense city
neighborhoods become because of the thousands of existing lots
currently available for development in the county. Eventually
(perhaps in 20 years, perhaps in 100), homes will be built on these
lots, regardless of how many people we cram into our neighborhoods.
At the end of the day, we may end up with the worst of both worlds –
rural sprawl and overcrowded neighborhoods that were not designed to
accommodate such density.

Issue 3: Likely. Most existing SF neighborhoods have a delicate
balance in terms of character that can be easily disturbed. Some
neighborhoods may be able to accommodate ADUs or carriage houses
without absolutely destroying their character; however, many residents
who invested significantly will be adversely affected. And for
what?

If it’s not necessary and won’t resolve the rural sprawl issue, why
do it?

[Mike]

"Diversity includes economic diversity. A strong
neighborhood consists of some SFR, some ADUs and some
multi-family dwellings. Allowing for diversity in housing allows for
multi family types and a diverse socio economic neighborhood.
It accomodates and welcomes singles as well as the elderly which
occurs more frequently with the opportunity of an ADU."

Larry:
This is the most intelligent argument I have seen so far in favor of
the ADUs, but if I understand you correctly, even you are not
advocating all forms of the tool kit in SFR zoned areas. I also agree
with you about the history of development in neighborhoods like
Columbia and Sunnyland where there is already quite a mix of home
styles, sizes, and even some diversity in lot size. However, it is
still a fact that the majority of homes in these areas are on similar
sized lots with roughly equivalent house footprint sizes and so
forth. The exceptions prove the rule. Generally, if you walk around
these neighborhoods you get a sense of some sort of consensus, albeit
short of covenants, about what the neighborhood should look and feel
like. This is one of the reasons why so many folks were against
allowing the DOT site to develop in a radically different way than the
surrounding neighborhoods.

As for ADUs specifically; the city already has a process that allows
for exceptions to the building codes. Some years ago a previous owner
of the house next door to me managed to get permission from the
owner of my house to build within five feet of the lot line. I'm not
happy with the results, but apparently all the folks involved when it
happened were on friendly terms and no objections were raised. I
doubt I would raise any objections if one of my neighbors built a
garage with a studio apt. over it and moved mom in. I would object,
however, if that same neighbor wanted to create a rooming house, or
turn his house into a 4-plex. To some extent it is a matter of degree
and pace of change, as you correctly point out. Again, I am only
advocating caution and prudence in implementing the infill tool kit
with regard to SFR zoned neighborhoods. It is one thing to allow
exceptions to the building codes through due process, and quite
another to encourage it, especially without consensus of those home
owners affected.

In any case if the economy continues to go down hill these may all be
moot points. Folks will do what it takes to survive, and if that
means moving mom and dad, the kids and grandkids, and uncle Bob in to
make the mortgage payments there will be nothing the city (which even
now has no control over rooming houses) can do about it. Still, we
must fight the good fight to keep the character of our neighborhoods
intact and to strive to be better stewards of our property and
neighborhood than previous generations might have been. We learn and
evolve, hopefully. Just because previous generations used DDT on their
gardens, dumped their changed oil into the drains, and in some cases
built without regard to the impact of traffic or liveability, does not
mean we have to follow suit.

[Larry]

Mike,

To clarify my earlier post, I am against the implementation of the
Infill Toolkit in SFR zoned areas at this time for the reasons given:
1) It is not necessary to upzone any SFR areas to accommodate
projected growth; 2) It will not prevent rural sprawl; and 3) It will
likely cause unmitigated adverse impacts to existing single family
neighborhoods.

As you know, the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the city to
adopt a comprehensive plan housing element that ensures “the vitality
and character of established residential neighborhoods” and must
include “a statement of goals, policies, objectives and mandatory
provisions for the PRESERVATION, improvement, and development of
housing, including single-family residences.” (Emphasis added.) [RCW
36.70A.070(2)]

This GMA requirement did not exist in the original act; however, the
state legislature found that efforts to prevent rural sprawl were, in
fact, adversely impacting existing single-family neighborhoods. So,
in 1995, the legislature amended the GMA to make preservation of these
neighborhoods a requirement rather than a goal.

The city should not retreat from this 1995 GMA amendment; but should
enforce it enthusiastically. It is well understood that many of the
GMA goals conflict with each other; and not all can be met
simultaneously. The pursuit of these goals is a balancing act and
many compromises must be made. One such compromise must NOT be the
sacrifice of existing neighborhoods. The GMA doesn’t allow for it,
and we shouldn’t stand for it. Besides, if existing neighborhoods are
ruined, a mass exodus to the county will occur. How does that solve
our long term problem with rural sprawl?

[Ken Mann]

Hi all -  As I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong)  as currently proposed, the Infill Housing ordinance would NOT be allowed in any single-family areas, and could only be added subsequently, to an entire subarea (or a neighborhood plan amendment would be required), through a legIslative process.  That process will require two public hearings, notice to all property owners and those 500 feet around the affected area.  

Another option might be to only allow the single-family forms in the toolkit in existing single family areas.  That would include small lot and smaller lot (both detached single-family forms), cottages, detached ADUs and Carriage Houses (so some of you will have a problem with that option because of your opposition to owner-occupied ADU's).  This is why the ADU issue has been a focus of this board lately - it seems to be the one possible optional change to SF areas that people are opposed to...

Ken

--
Ken Mann
360.483.6020

[Larry]

(This is a reply to an email from Ken Mann to the Sunnyland Google
Group. Ken's email follows my reply.)

Ken,

Item 3 of the Infill Toolkit FAQ Sheet states "one or more Toolkit
forms COULD be proposed by a neighborhood association OR by a property
owner or developer for addition to existing an single-family zone
using a Type VI legislative rezone process." In other words, the
Infill Toolkit sets in motion the process to upzone (rezone) single
family neighborhoods to include these new forms.

Because most establish single family neighborhoods have developed a
delicate balance between the amount of people, cars, and open space,
such an upzone will likely disturb this balance, and the process
itself is a slippery slope to adversely impacting neighborhood
character. I believe that many of us who living SF neighborhoods are
justifiably concerned about privacy, traffic and noice issues that
will arise if the Toolkit is implemented in our neighborhoods. As I
have stated previously, there is no need to do so and doing so will
not prevent rurual sprawl. People who purchase homes on acreage in
the county are not likley to be satisfied living in a small lot home,
cottage, detached ADU or carriage house. They will build on existing
developable lots in the county. Imposing the infill toolkit on SF
n'hoods provides little benefit with potentially great costs.

Currently, attached ADUs are allowed under BMC 20.10.035. Detached
ADUs are unlike attached ADUs in a number of ways. That being said,
they may be appropriate on certain, unusually large or unusually-
shaped lots. Same with carriage houses. However, will these forms
result in a multi-family setting within SF zoned areas?

Regarding small lot homes, if the zoning is presently in place,
nothing prevents the development and construction of small lot homes.
Further, as we have seen time-and-time again, nothing prevents a
landowner from applying for an upzone (even though further uzpones are
not needed to accommodate projected growth based on revised land
capacity analysis).

One item might be worth mentioning. In 2008, the city adopted an
updated Park, Rec & Open Space Plan which reduced the city's level of
service from more than 47 acres per 1000 people to 35.8 acres per
1000. As a result, the city will acquire 1,100 fewer acres of park
and open space. These 1,100 acres that were previously to be
preserved and not developed are now available for development. How
many thousands of people will these 1,100 acres accommodate? In light
of this additional land available for development, do we really need
to destroy the existing single family neighborhoods that we value so
greatly?

Larry


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Mann
To: sunn...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: Position statement by board member Mike Rostron

[Ken Mann]

Thanks for the dialogue, Larry.  I don't know how I came to be in the center of the discussion over this toolkit.  I am saying that in my SF neighborhood, on my block, I, PERSONALLY, AS A RESIDENT, am willing to accept owner-occupied ADUs.  I am not worried about the impacts.  I think they will be minimal and have some benefits, too.  We can agree to disagree.  

If there were any factual inaccuracies in my summary of the currently proposed infill toolkit regarding process, please correct me.  Otherwise, I believe there is a massive public process required before it could be allowed in a SF zone.

Ken

--
Ken Mann
360.483.6020

[Larry]

Ken,

Thank YOU for the dialogue, and good luck with your campaign. Jason
Heck is a great choice. If he can manage a campaign as well as he can
serve a tennis ball, you’re a shoe-in. (He has already shown his
political prowess, and his debating skills are well known.)

I respect your opinion on this issue and your willingness to allow
owner-occupied ADUs on your block.

Regarding the infill toolkit, the only issue relates to the city’s
confusing remarks that these forms are NOT allowed in single-family
areas; HOWEVER…

In fact, with a rezone request, they ARE allowed in single family
areas. Many of us believe they should not be - at least not at this
time.

Take care,
Larry

[Mike]

Larry:
Yes, exactly. I began this thread for several reasons:
First; because I think there has not been enough attention to what the
effects of the proposed infill tool kits might be in neighborhoods,
and I believe there should be a trial period in existing multifamily
areas first at the very least.
Secondly; to inform the neighborhood and Sunnyland board that I
intend to call for a vote to support the MNAC proposal, and to make
that an official S.N.A. board position, in sympathy with the Cornwall
Park resolution.
Thirdly; I believe the legality of allowing such changes in SFR
neighborhoods is questionable, may conflict with state guidelines, and
will expose the city to expensive legal challenges.

More generally I believe as a city we are becoming overly concerned
with "infill" as a buzz word, and less creative and open minded in
what our vision for the future of Bellingham might be. Why must we
continue to duplicate the patterns of other larger cities such as
Seattle. Why isn't there more discussion of how to limit population
growth here, or at least slow it, which poll after poll shows we
desire?

The following quote is from the latest National Geographic article on
living roofs (They should be required by law on all new suitably
pitched roofs here as in many cities in Europe. I hope everyone
concerned with city growth and planning, especially those involved in
the Georgia Pacific site planning stages, reads this article).

"It's no longer wise or practical, or for that matter ethical, to
think of the city as the antithesis of nature. Finding ways to
naturalize cities --even as nature itself becomes more urbanized--
will make them more livable, and not only for humans."

The SFR neighborhoods are great places for planting air-scrubbing
trees and shrubs, growing organic gardens, and encouraging variety
and diversity of plant and animal life in our cities. We need these
less densely populated urban oasis' of green just as we need our
parks, and where parks are in short supply, or contain mostly large
stretches of turf, the SFR neighborhoods become even more valuable.

[Ken Mann]

Thanks Larry.   I appreciate that.  And yes, Jason is very competent.  I am very, very happy to have him on my team!

Ken

--
Ken Mann
360.483.6020

[Mike]

Much of this letter is taken from my submission to the Planning
Commission before their April 16 meeting.
The Planning Commission is currently listening to comments from
citizens about the Infill Toolkit designed by the City Planning
Department, introducing housing forms and new zoning that will change
the face of Bellingham neighborhoods if passed. My opinion is that
the
Toolkit is not a response to Bellingham Citizen’s desire for new
housing designs, but rather the agenda of technocrats. Our Mayor and
Planning Department want to rule us, not represent us. They refer to
the Planning Academy for validation, but it was a carefully crafted
event orchestrated by the Planning Department to advance the agenda
of
Building Association members, realtors, and developers and not driven
or predominantly attended by citizens without a financial interest.
I bought a house in a single-family neighborhood. I have a
right, supported in the Growth Management Act, to continue living in
a
neighborhood that is zoned “single family.” The only neighborhoods
in
Bellingham that will remain single family if the Toolkit passes will
be those with covenants, specifically Edgemore and Barkley. Once the
Toolkit is applied in a neighborhood, the zoning is changed. What is
the rush to do away with single-family neighborhoods?
At the March 16 meeting to present the Toolkit, Tim Stewart,
Planning Director, says that it is an opportunity. I need to ask,
“An opportunity for what?” It appears to me to be an “opportunity”
for more traffic, noise, crowding, and money for developers, and less
peace and quiet, parking, single-family neighborhoods, predictability
about the future of our neighborhoods and value of the property where
we have an investment.
The City is already unable or unwilling to enforce the codes
that
are in place. Can the City be trusted to enforce the laws and
regulations, or will this be one more laughing matter that the
Citizens of Bellingham and the City employees can joke about in the
not so distant future? Nicole Oliver and the people at the City-run
meeting about the Toolkit on March 16, found the statement about
seventy-one registered ADUs to be laughable, because it is only a
fraction of how many there actually are. There is no track record of
enforcement, so why would we think that would change because we are
told so in the language of the Toolkit? How can we expect that the
new
regulations will be enforced? I have not heard any details about how
this protection will be provided. Is there a plan? Where are the
details?
We only need to look at the situation at a property on Iowa
Drive
where the owner was recently allowed to build an ADU and has already
failed to comply with the conditions, to see what the future of
enforcement will be. Although neighbors have complained, nothing is
being done.
Tim Stewart maintains that the Toolkit is not intended for single
family neighborhoods, but the Applicability paragraph (p.1, 20.28.020
A) states that “In single family zones, these housing types my be

permitted if approved as part of an amendment to this title through a

Type VI process.” The City would have us believe that a type VI
process is difficult to get. It’s not. The Planning Commission,
Planning Commissioner and the majority on the City Council, are pro-
development and I take issue with City staff characterizing the
process as problematic. It’s ludicrous to think that people in
neighborhoods will respond to every building proposal of the Type VI
legislative rezone process. Who has the time and energy? Everyone
in
the City government knows this and so do we. The intent here must
certainly be to wear us down and carry on with what they want.
Another sad truth that needs to be addressed is the idea that
allowing infill will prevent urban sprawl. There is no proof to this
assertion, and belongs to the realm of Urban Myth. Repeating an
untruth does not make it true, although it has proved to be an
effective strategy in politics for many years. Ditto for the myth put
forth by the WTA that housing density will increase bus use. Adding
service is what has proved to increase use, not few extra apartment
units.
The Planning Commission will listen to more public comment on
April 30th. Please educate yourselves about the Infill Toolkit, and
let your voice be heard. Think about how your neighborhood would
change is your neighbors decide to put in apartments over their
garages, or if someone were to build a triplex on your block. There
are still those of us who want to live in single-family
neighborhoods. I encourage you to educate yourself now and let the
City Council know your views.
Judith Green
Bellingham
See the toolkit proposal on the City of Bellingham website
(www.cob.org/government/departments/pcd/urban-infill-toolkit.aspx),
See the Video of the March 16 presentation of the Toolkit by the
Planning department
http://www.cob.org/services/education/btv10/online.aspx

[Mike]

I neglected to state I posted the above letter from Judith to include
it this discussion thread. She makes some very good points.
Mike

[Margaret M Lyons]

Thanks to everyone for great thoughts and eloquent posts!
I like the Toolkit; it's not a perfect document and it has flaws but I truly believe it's a step in the right direction.  I don't feel as put upon by what IS happening (growth) as by what's NOT happening - mostly, code enforcement and county planning/growth management.  I agree with most of your letter, Mike, but I have a very optimistic and hopeful nature, and so don't believe it will get so bad, with ADUs on every lot and tract home on every corner.  On the Development subcommittee, we worked at length on design overlays and I believe we're fairly clear on the process, and how to incorporate them into our neighborhood plan, with the "why" being to preserve our neighborhood.  Do I understand correctly that the Toolkit would override the Neighborhood Plans?  If so, with the dismal lack of enforcement, it really worries me.  That being said, I think we may be getting into oppositional territory not based on things like ADUs, density, etc, but on HOW those things affect us: increased traffic, trashy or noisy neighbors (both renters and owners), more children in classrooms, ugly architecture, etc.  I think rather than throwing our weight against the Toolkit we should focus on working on the above issues (I don't have a lot of experience on this, but perhaps by changing new development parking requirements, green space, code enforcement, landlord rules, etc.) rather than our fears.  I'd love to see us (SNA and citizens) focus on supporting and creating urban villages, and on putting this growth where it is more appropriate and desired.  The "us vs them" set-up, where it's us little citizens against the big bad government, does not provide or allow for positive energy and attention, collaboration and cooperation.
There have been many, many great ideas put forth in this discussion; we are a truly dynamic and energized community!
As a Board member, I still feel strongly we are out of bounds sending a position statement.  We can't speak for the community without surveys, meetings, newsletter announcements, whatever, as we discussed.  I would definitely be willing to sign an opinion letter, perhaps written simply as "majority opinion and minority opinion", but not as a statement.  Your points, Mike, are excellent and valid, as are everyone else's, and I do absolutely want to see them expressed to the City.  However, we can't speak for the neighborhood.  I'm excited to hear what else is going on in people's minds, and how we can incorporate all of the ideas. 
Thank you, everyone,
Margaret Lyons
Secretary, SNA Board of Directors

[Mike]

I am sorry Margarot, but while I respect your opinions, your arguments
do not persuade. We most certainly do not need surveys and research
on this topic. The comments we received concerning the DOT property
proposals indicated a neighborhood consensus that density was fine at
present and people do not support the utilization of the infill tool
kit within the SFR areas of Sunnyland. No one, including myself, is
opposing their roll out in multifamily zoned areas, urban villages, or
commercially zoned areas. There simply is no need to try the infill
tool kit in SFR areas, nor would it be prudent to do so in SFR areas
until we see how it works in the appropriately zoned areas. We are
not "throwing our weight" against the tool kit. How many times do I
have to say I only oppose it in one very specific instance. I am
merely proposing we support Cornwall Park, MNAC, and other SFR
neighborhoods in asking for language to delay, at least for the time
being, the building code changes as they would apply to single family
residential neighborhoods. It seems a very simple and prudent request.

As for ADUs: like many of you I too would love to build an ADU on my
property and use the income to pay my mortgage, but alleys were not
designed for this use, and the resulting traffic would change forever
the complexion of our neighborhood. Such construction and
modification of existing garages is merely "back door infill". You
might as well allow folks to move trailors and motorhomes into the
alleys as well. In any case enough people are already doing this quasi-
legally without the city further encouraging it. As a steward of my
property and neighborhood I feel it would be irresponsible to build
such a unit and rent it out.

I also object to your suggestion we don't have the right or duty to
take a position as board members without knowing the exactly how many
in the neighborhood support us. We could spend years on such surveys,
and still get inconclusive results. We only need speak as conscience
directs. If neighborhood residents don't like the idea of supporting
the Cornwall and MNAC resolution, they can show up at the meeting next
month and tell us so. They also can join the association and vote in
or out board members.
As I said at the beginning of this thread, I feel it my primary duty
to protect the integrity of our neighborhood to my best ability, and I
don't need a survey to do that.

I will be calling for a vote to support the MNAC resolution, and
regard this resolution as a positive and complimentary addition to the
infill tool kit package, encouraging infill where it is appropriate,
while protecting SFR neighborhoods; as well as allowing for future
naturalization of Bellingham by keeping large areas open for the
planting of trees, city gardens, and additional wild and domesticated
vegetation.

My vision is of a "rural city". If you will, imagine-- a city with
tremendous neighborhood diversity-- urban villages and commercial
areas broken up by neighborhoods full of air scrubbing vegetation,
where it is sometimes hard to see the homes for the vegetation, and
folks willingly give up their cars for bicycles and the simple joy of
walking through delightful neighborhood vistas.

As John Lennon once sang: "...call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only
one..."