The York neighborhood plan still under review

Proposed changes to the York neighborhood plan are still being reviewed by planning staff and the Planning Commission. Deciding what to do regarding the neighborhood plan remains a hard task to accomplish.

At the City of Bellingham Planning and Development meeting on May 27, the commission, city planners, York residents and property owners came together again to further discuss the proposed amendments to the York Neighborhood Plan.
The meeting included continued discussion about the proposed amendments that affect different areas throughout the York neighborhood.

“Area 9”, the area of most controversy

The most controversial changes up for consideration are to the area referred to as Area 9, an area which is designated on the York Neighborhood Zoning Map. This area starts past Gladstone Street along Ellis until Lakeway Drive and then continues again on the other side of Lakeway along Franklin Street until Edward Street. According to the zoning map, this area is now currently referred as a multi-family residential zone.
Submitted proposal changes to neighborhood plans can be reviewed on an annual review basis and adopted as part of the city’s comprehensive plan. According to the Planning and Community Development Department’s website, the York Neighborhood Association submitted their proposal letter in 2008.
Due to the lack of staff, the plan amendments for the York neighborhood were put on hold. Starting in January 2010, staff were assigned to the proposal and the amendment process began.

The proposed changes

There are a number of proposed changes to areas throughout but the changes to the neighborhood plan that will change this area in particular the most are the suggested changes to the density. The neighborhood is hoping that the density in Area 9 be reduced from 1,000 square feet per unit to 3,000 square feet per unit.
York Neighborhood Association President, Anne Mackie, said that some have the desire to replace the historic housing in that area with apartment buildings or offices. Mackie does not feel that the city has embraced the historic district of the neighborhood, which half of Ellis Street properties now falls under.

Impact on the neighborhood

The suggested density changes would prevent lot combinations and the potential demolishing of existing historic housing, according to Mackie in an article in the spring 2010 edition of The Yorker Newsletter.
In regards to the potential changes to the density requirements in the area, Mackie said, “Three thousand is still considered high density, it just isn’t as high.”
According to the City of Bellingham’s website, a majority of the houses built in the York neighborhood were built between 1890 and 1910. To change the density in Area 9 would make it harder for apartment or office buildings to be built where these existing historical houses are now and it would limit the number of units that would be allowed on a lot.

The city finds itself torn

The goal of the city is to create a plan for the York neighborhood that works with the city’s comprehensive plan, said Chris Koch, city planner assigned to the York neighborhood plan.
Under the City of Bellingham’s comprehensive plan, conflicting issues make it difficult for the city to come to a conclusion on the amendments to Area 9, in particular.
Koch said, there are contradictory statements within the city’s comprehensive plan that make it difficult for the city to come to an easy decision.
Within the city’s comprehensive plan, the conflicting goals that have to be considered are the idea to direct growth to the city and urban areas and the goal to preserve older neighborhood’s heritage, like the historical houses that are along Ellis Street.

There are two sides to every story; those for the proposed changes

The original proposals that the York neighborhood submitted to the city kept with the city’s comprehensive plan, said Mackie. She added, that the neighborhood’s original proposals accommodated infill growth, promoted reduced vehicle use and protected the character of the neighborhood in the preservation of historic housing.
Now that York residents have been working on these amendments for many months now, Mackie said, “I feel that the Planning Department [staff] has proposed things that are far removed from the concepts the York neighborhood originally envisioned.”
Mackie added, “We are not at all in agreement with elements of the staff proposal. Some of the proposals, now, should require public notification and additional public meetings.”
“We [the supporting residents of the neighborhood] and the minority of [opposing] property owners have distinctly different motivations,” said Mackie.
In regards to part of Ellis Street belonging to the National Historic District, Mackie said, it does mean there is any protection from the demolition of housing in that area.
“A local historic district would have protection and perhaps in the future we will become a local historic district,” said Mackie.

Some property owners on Ellis among those who oppose

Cal Leenstra, a John L. Scott real estate agent and owner of 4 contiguous lots along Ellis Street, said, “The proposed down zone would significantly reduce the value of my property.”
Leenstra said, he thinks zoning in this area should stay the way it is. “Ellis Street is unlike the interior of the York neighborhood because it is along a busy arterial.” He does not feel that area is suited for owner occupied single family housing.
According to Leenstra, the city had spent thousands of dollars and hours on professional studies, which concluded that high density residential zoning is best for Area 9.
“Nothing has changed since then, expect that traffic had become even heavier, which thereby reinforces the original conclusions of the study,” said Leenstra.
What Leenstra feels perfectly describes Area 9, is the first principal of the Growth Management Act. He said, “We aren’t necessarily for change right now but the GMA concentrates on development where urban services and urban infrastructure already exists.”
“This [area] is an ideal area for future multi-family housing and it can be done in a way that would be complimentary to the neighborhood,” said Leenstra.

An on-going issue, so, what happens now?

At the meeting on May 27, the YNA proposed a work group be created to continue working on a consensus for this area of the neighborhood. According to Mackie, this work group would consist of various stakeholders from all groups involved in this issue.
“Opposing property owners represent a minority of the owners on Ellis Street. Most do not live there, they are in the rental industry and this is about their ability to maximize profits,” said Mackie.
Mackie added, “The remaining property owners on Ellis Street and the YNA are proposing the rezone as a mechanism to assure a certain level of quality of life and historic preservation of our neighborhood.”
According to Koch, planning staff are now trying to put together this group of stakeholders, to see if any progress can be made on specific recommendations for Area 9 before the issue returns to commission.
Koch believes that this stakeholder meeting will be held sometime around the week of June 14.

Can a decision be made, regarding “Area 9”?

The Planning Commission does not have the final say on proposals presented to them. The commission will pass on recommendations to the City Council and the Council will make the final decision.
According to Mackie, the proposals for the York neighborhood plan will likely to make it to Council sometime this coming fall.
“I’m not sure what the city will decide but if they adhere to the principal concepts of the GMA, they would vote to leave the zoning as it is,” said Leenstra. He worries that, “Any other conclusion [made by the city] would be the result of political and not the result of concern for the greater good of the entire city.” Which he added, “I do not think [that] should be compromised.”
One potential option mentioned at the May 27 meeting, is that the commission will recommend to City Council to leave off any amendments to Area 9 from the York Neighborhood plan.
If that is the outcome, Mackie said, “We will continue working on expanding the historic district designation to the west side of Area 9 and into Area 4 and a section of Area 5 [south of Lakeway].”
Leenstra said that property owners opposing the plan amendments have testified at city meetings, attended neighborhood meetings and have written letters to the city. It is likely that if this issue continues, these opposing property owners will continue to keep getting their voices heard.

City hopes

At the May 27, Planning and Development meeting, after hours of discussing the York plan, tired commission members, planning staff and residents came to an agreement that more time was needed before the commission would pass on their recommendation to City Council.
The neighborhood and all involved members need more time to do work and narrow down the options. There are two very opposed sides and the pros and cons need to be looked at.
A Planning Commission work session is scheduled for August 12, 2010. Written public comments are still accepted; however the public meeting process regarding the York neighborhood plan amendments has been closed.
“We need both [sides] to be as happy as possible,” said a Planning Commission member at the end of the May 27 meeting. “It is hard to do, half will be mad, half will be ok. These are two groups that will never come together.”