This Topic: Building Size Limits

[Lou Malzone]

All you have to do to answer your question, or to realize that being ugly isn't the objection, about storage facilities is visit the Library and witness what is going up next door. Then visualize something else, housing - a business complex - multiuse housing/retail - anything but a storage facility, and your question will be answered.

The whole concept of a storage facility at that location is objectionable. The surrounding businesses and the Library are diminished by its presence. Freeland lost a wonderful opportunity to have something there that actually contributes to the community. The only benefactor is the developer, period.

That is what is bothering the majority of people in Freeland - the lost opportunity to do something better than that. Any argument supporting a storage facility as a community asset has no basis in reality.

Enough said on the subject, please.

[leanne finlay]

Enough said on the subject? You and I are going to disagree on this issue, maybe forever, but that doesn't mean the issue makes full sense or is resolved. It's not so simple, and I don't mean to beat this into the ground, really ...

You talk about "lost opportunity", and I definitely agree that to have had housing or a business complex next to the Library would have been great, but how many years do you really think it will be before that particular lot will have sewers? There is no "lost opportunity" when something of the density that you suggest is impossible to build now, or even for what might be a decade/s or more.

It's just as great of "lost opportunity" when limbo makes land sit vacant, or underutilized. When an sad, old building that was built cheaply, to last maybe 20 or 30 years doesn't get torn down, or remodeled, because of the long, long wait for sewers, that's "lost opportunity" too.

The "lost opportunity" to a property owner by not being able to build something that makes economic sense is just as critical to a community as "lost opportunity" in what does get built or developed. We are all partners in building strength and viability for Freeland's business district, are we not? By putting so many properties into basically an undevelop-able limbo, are we really helping Freeland grow well or properly?

Basically, when we implement code too far before an appropriate/realistic time, I think we take away the economic rights of individual property owners, and we take away the economic liveliness of a balanced town that wants to grow. By creating code that is impossible for many properties to economically meet, we create a long-term limbo period where many property owners simply can't afford to develop anything at all; essentially we keep them "stuck" in an economic limbo where nothing makes sense to develop or build.

While that may seem like great news to those who don't want to see much if any growth, to me I also see the reality that old, run-down buildings may not get replaced or fixed up, and that is where economic stagnation occurs. Is that healthy for any business district?

In a perfect world, we'd have enough money for sewers, and we could really plan well, and property owners could build what would be the highest and best use for their properties, and old-fashioned market demand would dictate against oversupply.

Instead, it looks like we're going to have only one section where sewers come in, and that's the main section of the BV district, which certainly will get developed, while most of the rest of the BG areas sit in limbo.

How to prevent that sense of limbo? I'd suggest more flexible codes for the BG areas that are not likely to have sewers for decades.

Perhaps I am incorrect, and we'll have Freeland fully sewered in all the BV and all the BG areas much sooner than 'decades'; in which case, I would feel a whole lot better about stringent code that is well suited for sewered areas but not well suited for non-sewered areas.

We have no "lost opportunity" when there is no economic sensibility.

Focusing development into the BV and BG areas is exactly the mandate of the GMA. Want to stay small? Well, then the GMA needs to be repealed.

[Dean Enell]

A strong argument against fast food restaurants is that they generate a lot of traffic - hence the name 'fast food' which manifests itself as a drive up window. If I'm not mistaken, we're trying to promote an urban area were people can get out of their car, walk to different shops and stores and mingle in the process. Ever try walking around in Lynnwood? It's a sobering experience, believe me.

Dean

[leanne finlay]

Dean, we'll never be Lynnwood. To compare us to Lynnwood is a misdirection. There are going to be cars in Freeland, and many people in those cars, both locals and visitors, might appreciate being able to use a drive up window to order something to eat. That doesn't say "national franchises" or "heavy traffic". I've seen many drive-thru windows in many small, small towns, and they seem to be pretty popular, I guess because people like the convenience of them.

Walkability will only come when we have a strong mix of businesses and housing. The BV Business Village area will likely grow fastest, and always be the most dense, and most walkable. So fine, no drive-thrus there.

I support drive-thrus in the Business General area, and I definitely support walk up sidewalk windows in the Business Village areas. I really doubt that having a few drive up windows is going to create Lynnwood .

[Dean Enell]

Leanne,

As I said they do promote traffic and the car alienation we are (at least me) trying to avoid. the only way we will not end up a Lynnwood is if we take steps to go in another direction. The general market course of development is in that L. direction as near as I can tell.

Dean

[Anne Pringle]

People in Freeland, or who use Freeland 'downtown', are DEPENDENT on automobiles, as housing areas are far flung from the center. We cannot consider a 'walk-only' Freeland Center, where you have to park in a designated area and then walk all over the place. Cars are necessary here.
As far as Fast Food places with drive-up windows - we already have one - Whidbey Coffee in Payless parking lot. What's the matter with that? Does it generate lots of traffic? I think not. Using a drive-up window is handy sometimes when one is in a hurry.
(We must avoid big apartment buildings, too. THAT would be crowding and traffic.)
Anne Pringle

[Susie Yeilding]

Hi Anne,
I completely agree with what you say about cars being necessary. People must use automobiles in order to live on South Whidbey Island - it is a pipe dream to think people can live outside of town and actually do business here day-to-day without transportation.

While it is a nice idea to have an area that is car-free we cannot exist without them in our area. I completely disagree with the notion that Freeland could end up like Lynnwood. That is an extreme viewpoint and there are some who seem intent on trying to scare the people (especially those who haven't been part of the discussion). We simply don't have any of the things here that makes Lynnwood the place it is. And we won't.

Further, Leanne's comment about drive-through windows has strong merit. Not just for coffee shops and the like but for places like banks too.

Like it or not, in order to have a viable community here we rely on cars. Pushing them out of the town is NOT the way to thrive. I am beginning to question the motives of some that insist we should not drive or park in our village.

Susie Yeilding

[Dean Enell]

Susie,

No one is trying to get rid of all cars on Whidbey nor forecasting the transformation of Freeland into a Lynnwood. I'm merely suggesting that the future designation of a one block, no car zone in Freeland could be a tremendous idea. In previous posts I've sent info on similar such movements throughout the county and how successful they have been for the businesses and people. We might see significant benefit from such progressive planning.

Dean

[Susie Yeilding]

Greetings Dean,

The idea of a "town square" that is free of auto traffic is one that most of this community whole-heartedly supports. It is indeed an opportunity not to be missed and one that could certainly enhance our area.

The real question is not whether its a good idea but how to intergrate it. It can certainly be done.

I would ask that we quit making comparisons to Lynnwood. It's become a bore and we've all heard it over and over. Your recent comment "the only way we will not end up a Lynnwood is if we take steps to go in another direction" perpetuates the notion that we'll become a horrible, scary place that is un-walkable, un-drivable, and distasteful with flashing neon signs among other undesirable things. I have yet to hear any of our neighbors say they want that kind of community. If I'm not mistaken, this whole exercise is about thoughtful contributions on "progressive planning".

Lastly, as an informed person, you undoubtedly know that extensive market research clearly shows this is not a place that supports the needed profit margins for fast-food restaurants (national or regional even in years to come).

As a community we will decide what kinds of businesses we wish to attract and support. Let's please move on.

Susie

[leanne finlay]

Dean, a one block car free area means we should have a park there too, the 'town center' that Susie describes.

When we plan for such an area, how to we 'place' it? Who will pay for the park? Where will businesses that may have established themselves in the park area go? How do we plan for the feasibility of what timeframe the County or future City of Freeland could pay for a town center land aquisition? Closing off any street means we have to have a 'go around' route. Where would that be best placed? How does that get paid for?

I certainly can't envision closing any part of Main Street to cars for example. A side street could work, but since we have so very few streets anyway, it seems we'd need to really think out how the new traffic flow of the future would impact the streets around the closed street.

To me, this long range planning is good, but I fear the real life implementation. If for example, we pick a proposed 'town square' area today, that essentially dooms that property owner who cannot feasibly develop it, as well as negatively impacting all the property owners around the future town center by having no one want to rent or buy those properties for their businesses because of a fear of the unknown future impacts? How do we create long range without financially hurting today's owners? If we (the County being we) could purchase a town center land parcel within the next 3 - 5 years, then I'd say it makes sense. Otherwise, I think we cause too much negative financial impact on a few of our property owners.

How do other towns write long range code like this and yet not create an area that becomes unsightly for too many years (due to not being developed?). Obviously, if such a lot is nicely wooded & green, it stays beautiful until the day it gets made into a park/town center, but if it's got an old, under-utilized building on it, that building is very likely to be let to decline by a property owner who has no financial incentive to rebuild, update or remodel.

[leanne finlay]

I am sorry to have gotten off topic here. The question of building size is the topic of this section.

[Susie Yeilding]

Leanne,

Please forgive me for being so simple and basic - many of you have likely already had verbal discussion about this but I haven't seen anything written yet with an actual "vision" described unless I missed it - which is certainly possible. Some time back there was a post about an area in Millcreek that has been nicely done but there isn't much mentinoned beyond that.

The town square has been a very popular concept throughout the world and in "Main Street America" too. Our community could greatly benefit if we do this correctly. Envision if you will, a square (or circle or some other shape) that has shops, stores and offices below and living space above (a mix of affordable and other). A central area in the middle which might have a live "Christmas Tree" planted into the permanent landscape which could be decorated and lit each winter. Perhaps and old fashioned "bandstand" area where music and concerts could be played . . .within that "square" the park you mentioned earlier (or at least some greenspace via landscaping), a fountain and or flagpole. How about statuary? I'll get to building size in just a moment. . .

The Freeland Chamber and other groups have organized events for years. Folks folks always attend but presently there is not a very good place to gather and a lot is lost in translation. Ours could become the "hub" of South Whidbey simply by having a "hub" in Freeland via a town square (call it anything you like).

In my view, the idea of having buildings that could be as high as 3 or 4 stories tall in the core could actually make the village quite charming if the architecture is well done. Because Main Street is the center of town now and is far enough from the water and would not block the view it seems logical to me to enhance, replace and repair the exisiting infrastructure in ways to get rid of the "old uglies", and add the needed hardscape and landscape. It would be far more cost effective to do this when the potential sewer construction happens if it actually does. In fact, this dovetails nicley with Dean's idea about a car free zone.

Close your eyes and consider that the "town square" would be the hub of our community with larger structures radiating out around it. Or, for those that would prefer to see vehicle traffic close in - it could be done - the square in the middle, thoughtfully arranged parking around it (maybe a loop) and buildings grouped to the outside of the parking areas. . . Anne is quite correct about folks needing acess via their cars. Or perhaps the cars could be parked on the other side (out of view of the town square) of the buildings - with walkways between so one could easily access the town square. In fact the buildings could be "double sided" so they are of similar styles on the front and back so there aren't unattractive sides.

The who, what, where, when and how remains to be answered. How to pay for it is quite another question. But we certainly have the ground and while it isn't likely we'll have a benevolent benefactor waiting to donate their land, if we decide this is the sort of area is viable then we can move forward to include it in our plan. After all isn't the idea of writing code now the objective?

Further, your comment that "walkability will only come when we have a strong mix of businesses and housing. The BV Business Village area will likely grow fastest, and always be the most dense, and most walkable. So fine, no drive-thrus there" makes perfect sense.

This is a wonderful opportunity. My greatest desire is that we as a community don't squander it by not being able to agree.

Susie

[Dean Enell]

Susie,

OK - no more comparisons to Lynnwood. Having spent my life in the Puget Sound I've just seen so many unplanned growth areas loose their attractiveness, I'd sure hate to see an area that has lagged such growth (for geographic reasons), follow a similar path.

It seems to me that creating a small car free area would be a unique attraction to bring people to Freeland. Granted, not all people, but it would certainly be a magnate for many. We're awash in transportation problems in the Puget Sound, have been for many years. Ask someone their hesitation for moving to Seattle (for example) and the horrible traffic is generally at the top of their list.

That previous post were I gave some examples of cities that have tried car free areas can be found at :

http://www.freelandcommunityforum.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=394&highlight=car+automobile+free

I'm not proposing we designate right now. I'd opt to state that we include language in the regs to allow such an adoption in the future.

Dean

[leanne finlay]

Let's move the car-free discussion out of the building size discussion.

Here is the link to an already established discussion regarding car-free:

http://www.freelandcommunityforum.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=394