TOWN PLANS ON WHIDBEY ISLAND...
and how they relate to Weston, CT issues - how about infrastructure and stormwater?

Some subjects:
This (above) is a classic planning exercise.  At right, West-coast Carpenter Gothic.  See info and comments below on:

Zoning code will be tossed out in Langley
By BRIAN KELLY, South Whidbey Record Editor
Dec 16 2009, 4:17 PM

While city officials struggle to get in tune for the work that’s needed to lift Langley’s long-standing moratorium against new subdivisions, developers won’t hear the same old song once the ban on new neighborhoods is lifted.

Since Langley extended its moratorium on Dec. 7, city officials have made it clear that the new regulations being written will go well beyond what was imagined when the moratorium was first adopted in June 2007, and further, as well, than the rewrite of rules that was proposed when the moratorium was previously extended six months ago.

Langley leaders say a major restructuring of the city’s regulatory approach to development is under consideration. It will include a remapping of primary and secondary zoning districts, as well as changes to how zoning is applied throughout the city.

City Planning Director Larry Cort said the new approach stems from the realization by some at city hall that simply rewriting rules for how land is subdivided in the city — which was the reason the first moratorium was adopted 30 months ago — wouldn’t result in the wholesale changes that were prompted by the last update to Langley’s comprehensive plan. The plan sets out how Langley is expected to grow in the next two decades.

“Our current subdivision standards don’t do a good job of steering the division and development of land that really sustains our comprehensive plan,” Cort said.

“It truly now is a recipe for sprawl.”

But the work under way will also include changing zoning in town. The city will adopt a “design district map,” where parts of Langley will carry new regulatory labels, such as “conservation design” and “rural village.”

“It is a remapping. The old zoning map is proposed to be gone,” Cort said.

“Everybody kind of agrees that they [current zoning designations] don’t serve our community well. The question is, what should those become.”

City Councilman Robert Gilman has promoted the idea of “sub-area plans” that will guide development on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.

PAB review under way

Pieces of the new approach have been under review by the city’s Planning Advisory Board, which has also been working for months on new rules for subdivisions.

The new subdivision rules, currently in draft form, will add an extensive list of new requirements that developers must meet. Included in the new rules: Developers will need to design their housing projects to protect views of treelines and the night sky, install utilities underground, build homes so front doors and porches are visible from the street, clump houses together to save open space, remove invasive plants from their property and create monitoring programs to protect native plants and critical areas. In larger subdivisions, land would be set aside for parks, common areas and community agriculture.

Development rules will be more stringent depending on the design district.

In the historic neighborhood district, 10 percent of land in new subdivisions will be set aside for open space. In the rural village district, 45 percent of the land in each new neighborhood will be preserved as open space, and in the conservation district, 70 percent of the land for new subdivision will be set aside for open space.

How the work on rewriting subdivision rules will fit with sub-area planning — which will set limits on the number and size of homes in neighborhoods — plus new policies that would cover the transfer of development rights, has created a cloud of confusion at city hall. It was apparent at the city council meeting last week when the moratorium was extended until March 2010, and the fog had not lifted by the time the city’s Planning Advisory Board met later in the week.

Members of the Planning Advisory Board asked Cort and Gilman what would happen to the work the board had already done on the new subdivision rules. Gilman couldn’t provide a firm answer.

“I can’t tell you in detail at this point,” Gilman said, adding that he hadn’t yet met with the city’s planning director to sort it out.

Still, it was clear some “harmonization” was needed, Gilman said, between the work done by the Planning Advisory Board and the neighborhood-level approach the councilman is advocating.

“I think we’re actually going to get some quite good results out of this whole process, even if it does have its moments of [gasp] along the way,” Gilman told the Planning Advisory Board.

Some were unsatisfied with the vague description of the next steps forward.

“It’s almost like there is an issue, but there’s not an issue,” said G. Raymond McCullough of the Planning Advisory Board.

“I’m really confused. I literally am confused,” he said. “It’s like there is this issue that somebody thinks is important. It’s a conflict between the city council, and the PAB, and what people want. And it’s not being talked about.”

Cort indicated it was a question of what should happen when. Planners typically take a citywide approach on zoning, for example, but Langley’s preferred path is now one that lets the neighborhood “sub-area” plans guide housing density, development and zoning.  What, one PAB member asked, would happen to the work already done by the board on zoning?

“It’s impossible to answer that question right now,” Cort said.

In the end, Gilman asked the board to continue its work on the new subdivision rules.

Gilman takes lead role

Gilman said later that he expected that much of the work done by the board will still be used when new development rules are written. His expectations matter, of course, because it is Gilman who is going to write the basis of how the neighborhood-based approach can be melded with the work already done.

He’s expected to come up with a baseline for the council to consider within the next month.

“My sense at this point, from what I know of the existing draft, is that there’s a great deal that we all agree on,” he said. “Will there be someplace where what I will be suggesting will be different from what’s in the current draft? Well, that’s the way drafts are.”

“At the end of the day, we will find that the PAB’s good work is going to wind up in code,” he said.

Gilman said his view takes a cue from the current trends in progressive planning circles, an approach usually called “Smart Growth.” At its core is development that’s environmentally responsible and uses resources efficiently.

“This is not stuff that I am just pulling out of my hat,” Gilman said.

City officials say continuing to use the existing zoning could lead to suburban sprawl, a future Langley wants to avoid. Existing regulations aren’t designed to support the more charming aspects that exist in Langley, but instead are geared toward suburban development.

“We have seen what traditional planning approaches have delivered us,” Gilman said. “There’s a pretty strong sense in Langley that we don’t want to be Anywhere, USA.”

“The new system, one way or another, continues to supply the kind of land-use controls that people actually want. Or at least they want their neighbors to have,” he said.

Little time to dawdle

The city faces a daunting punch list to finish by the time the moratorium is scheduled to end in March, including the creating of a dozen or so sub-area plans for different neighborhoods in town. That’s not a lot of time, considering the effort to create a plan for the wharf district took two years.

Gilman, however, said he expects the work will be done in time.

“We can get the bare bones of a functioning system together, and then from there, with the moratorium lifted, we can take more time to refine and flesh things out.”

Gilman added that it wasn’t unusual for a council member to be taking on the work usually expected from professional planners.

“We are legislators,” he said of council members. “I’m doing what you see senators and people in the state Legislature do; they have policy ideas and they work on them.”

Picnic puts focus on beach access
By JESSIE STENSLAND
Whidbey News Times Assistant editor
Mar 17 2009, 4:03 PM · UPDATED

A community picnic planned for Saturday is shining a hot spotlight on an unresolved controversy over beach access in Greenbank.  Glen Russell, founder of the Save Our Beaches group, organized the gathering at the beach at the end of Wonn Road, near the Greenbank Farm. The picnic is scheduled for 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. March 21.

“It’s the site of the old community picnics in Greenbank up through the 1960s,” Russell explained. He’s frequented the site, which is the only public beach access in Greenbank, for the last 38 years.

The problem is that the adjacent homeowner, Bruce Montgomery, believes the beach belongs to him and was never in public ownership. He even put up a rock wall to keep folks out and to stop them from driving over his septic system.  Montgomery could not be reached for comment this week.  Russell said he’s frustrated that the issue hasn’t been resolved by Island County officials even though it’s been ten months since the wall went up. The county hired a legal consultant and the prosecutor’s office has been researching the issue, but nothing has been decided.

“It’s a priceless piece of property,” Russell said, “and I don’t think public property rights are being defended here.”

County Commissioner Helen Price Johnson said the commissioners are having an executive session today to discuss the issue. At this point, it’s unclear what would happen if Montgomery were to call the police to remove the picnickers.  Price Johnson said she understands the frustration of people like Russell, but she said the issue is very complex and contentious.

“There’s a lot of history on that little stretch of beach,” she said, adding that the commissioners are committed to preserving public access.

County Prosecutor Greg Banks said he can’t discuss exactly what the legal research has uncovered, though he said there was a “strange set of conveyances.”

“There’s a question of exactly how much of the beach is available to the public,” he said.

While the picnic has forced the issue to the forefront, Russell said the purpose is really to have a peaceful gathering and to show folks where the access is located.

“We’re asking people to bring daffodils to put on the wall,” he said. “It’s pretty ugly.”

Report urges seven-fold rate increase in stormwater fees
By ROY JACOBSON, South Whidbey Record Reporter
Mar 15 2009, 10:10 AM · UPDATED

Six years from now, city property owners should be paying more than seven and a half times as much as they do now to get rid of stormwater, according to a preliminary report prepared for the city council.  The study is one of a series planned by the city to gather information in an effort to bring its infrastructure into the 21st century.

“We’re looking to see where we’ve been, where we are and where we need to go,” Mayor Paul Samuelson said Thursday.

The stormwater study will be discussed at Monday’s city council meeting, 6:30 p.m. at city hall. It will be part of a presentation by the mayor of his 2009 Annual Plan for the city. Samuelson urged residents to attend.

“This is a discussion everyone in the city needs to have,” he said.

“The annual plan guides the city staff’s work for this year and gives the community an understanding of the city’s priorities,” Samuelson said. “It addresses both improvements in internal systems as well a strong focus on economic development.”

The stormwater report suggests gradually raising the residential fee to support and improve the city’s stormwater drainage system from the current $2.90 per household per month to $22.10 by 2014.  The suggested fee for this year is $10; for 2010, $14; and for 2011, 2012 and 2013, $21.60.  Over six years, the annual residential rate would increase in increments from $34.80 to $265.20.

The increase would help make up the $115,000 per year deficit for maintenance, operation and debt service for the current system, and to help finance $2.3 million for 20 expansion and improvement projects over 20 years, Samuelson said.  The report said the city collects $25,000 per year from existing rates, well below actual annual expenses of $140,000 per year. The difference has been coming from the road department budget, Samuelson said.

He said the stormwater rate structure has been in place since 1994.

“We need the stormwater department to stand on its own,” Samuelson said. “We need every department to stand on its own.”

The $90,000 report, which the city borrowed to pay for, was prepared by URS Corporation and Katy Isaksen & Associates of Seattle.  It said that last year the city had 615 stormwater accounts, including single-family and multi-family residences, and commercial, public and undeveloped property.  While suggested rate increases for single-family residences were the only ones broken down year by year in the report, rates in the other categories would increase by the same percentage if the fees are adopted, said Challis Stringer, Langley’s public works director.

Currently, those rates range from $1.50 per month for undeveloped property to $6 for multi-family buildings of more than two units, and for public facilities.  While Langley residents are paying $2.90 a month for a stormwater system, residents in Anacortes are paying $4, those in Mukilteo $7.85 and those in La Conner $11.55, the report said.

Langley’s current stormwater system was built in the 1960s and serves the 644 acres within the city limits. Because of the city’s bowl shape, most of the drainage flows through ditches and storm drains along roadways, converging at drains along Anthes and Park avenues downtown.  Stringer said the city has identified five or six trouble spots in the system that need work, including roads washed out and standing water in some yards during heavy rain.

“We don’t have the resources to maintain them as they should be,” she said.

Stringer said the city hopes to acquire grants to help pay for improvements in the next few years, and probably would look to borrow additional money, if the economic climate eases.  Samuelson said the city is long overdue for an update of its infrastructure.

“We’ll be reviewing all systems in all areas,” he said. “There are things that haven’t been watched that need to be watched.

“We have issues we need to put in front of everybody so we can deal with them collectively,” Samuelson added.

Whidbey PUD backers say they are close to reaching petition goal
MICHAELA MARX WHEATLEY, Langley, Island County
mmarxwheatley@southwhidbeyrecord.com
Published: June 26, 2008 10:00 AM
Updated: June 26, 2008 11:56 AM

FREELAND — A crowd of more than 50 showed up at a meeting Wednesday night to discuss the future of energy on Whidbey Island Wednesday in Freeland.

“People For Yes on Whidbey PUD” want to form a public utility district on the island. In order to get the issue on the ballot this fall they have to collect 2,392 signatures from registered voters living on the island — or 10 percent of all registered voters — by July 4.

Island voters would decide if they want to locally control their energy supply and maintenance, or if they want to continue to be served by Puget Sound Energy, the state’s largest electric and natural gas utility. PSE currently serves Whidbey and more than 1 million electric customers in 11 counties.

Organizers said their signature campaign was going well and they were close to reaching their goal.

They would not say how many signatures they had collected, however.

Organizers also remained tightlipped about the cost of the venture.

A panel of experts answered question from residents that included islanders from Clinton to north of Oak Harbor. However, they did not reveal an estimate on what the local PUD would cost islanders.

To cover start-up costs, potential lawsuits and to get the PUD off the ground, "People For Yes on Whidbey PUD" organizers said they would consider a property tax levy that could be as high as 45 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value.

Board tackles toned down fair zone proposal
South Whidbey RECORD
By Michaela Marx Wheatley
May 31, 2008

LANGLEY — Langley’s Planning Advisory Board is concerned about impacts that new zoning for the fairgrounds could have on Langley.

Fair officials have been pressing for years for new zoning that would bring all of the activities at the public property in line with city rules, as well as zoning that would allow year-round use of the property. Langley officials took the first steps this week on its review of its regulations covering the fairgrounds.

“Our concern is not with the existing round of uses,” said Planning Advisory Board member Jim Sundberg. “There are maybe three concerns a year, but also a thousand happy campers.”

Planning board members said limitations to future events should be explored, however.  Fair officials have been eager to get zoning changed for the property that is home to the annual county fair in August, saying that expanded uses at the fairgrounds are necessary to keep the fair financially afloat.  City planning director Larry Cort and fair board chairman Dan Ollis presented a shortened list of potential uses to the planning board Wednesday.

Almost two years ago, fair officials submitted a fair zone proposal that included controversial uses such as motorcycle races. Nothing of that nature can be found in the latest version of the proposal.  Cort said instead of creating a completely new fair zone, the city is considering an “overlay” zone. The property would continue to be zoned as “public use,” but additional, fairgrounds-specific uses would be permitted.

“We, as the city, didn’t want to lose the fact that it’s primarily a public facility,” Cort explained. “The overlay zone creates individual standards that only apply to the fairgrounds.”

Ollis said the county only appropriates money for capital improvements, but not for maintenance or operating expenses of the fair and that the fair association has to make enough money to become self-sustaining.

“It all flows through the county fund,” Ollis said. “But whatever goes in traditionally comes back. We don’t control the checkbook, but we do, if you know what I mean.”

One source of income is allowing events and other activities at the property.  The fair association has been doing that for decades, but it isn’t sanctioned under Langley’s rules.

“One of the things we have been doing is boat storage. It’s not allowed under current zoning,” Ollis said, adding that the city has been tolerating it, but that the fair board wants to “legalize” some of these activities.

“We’re trying to do what we’re doing with your guys’ blessing,” Ollis said. “We’re not asking for motorcross.”

Cort also said that even though some existing activities at the fairgrounds aren’t specifically allowed under the city’s current public zoning, things like 4-H activities or dog and livestock shows are permitted because they are tightly linked with the fair itself.  According to the draft document prepared by the fair board and fair consultant Norm Landerman-Moore, the fair is asking for uses that are already occurring, such as therapeutic horseback riding, but also wants other things like financial services such as ATM machines, rodeos, concerts or circuses, childcare facilities and a youth hostel.

Cort said the draft proposal has flaws because it lacks standards. For instance, a concert may be fine, but not a three-day rock festival.

“It’s the standards that regulate how the use happens,” he said.

City Councilman Robert Gilman agreed.

“What the surrounding community cares about is the impact,” Gilman said. “As long as the impact is low, the use can be just about anything.”

Ollis, however, noted the fair’s long history in Langley.

“The Island County Fair was in existence actually four years before the city of Langley was incorporated,” Ollis said, adding that numerous longtime fairs are being pushed out by new development.

“As we go down the road of impacts, we also have to stay economically viable,” Ollis said.

Ollis added that he was open to alternative ideas for uses and that the fair board was somewhat flexible.

“I don’t think the board is hammering down on any of these issues,” he said.

Ollis also said that standards for some activities made sense, especially for entertainment such as concerts.

“You definitely want to be able to control that,” he said. “I think it would be absolutely reasonable to have limitations.”

Board member Craig Moore said neighbors of the fair should expect some noise.

“The people who bought houses there probably knew what they were getting themselves into,” he said.

Sundberg said one limitation that comes immediately to mind was parking for bigger events.  Ollis said that visitors to most of the events at the fairgrounds park on site and parking rarely spills out onto city streets.
The planning board also considered restrictions on commercial uses of the fairgrounds, such as trade shows.  Gilman said too much of that could take away from the downtown shopping district. He said the city had intentionally centered all high-traffic commercial activity in the city center and only allowed offices and home businesses in the outlaying areas.

Sundberg viewed the issue similarly.

“Because it is supported by taxpayers’ money, we may want to steer into the nonprofit direction,” he said.

Sundberg also said it may be worthy of consideration to link a commercial show to a local sponsor. For instance, Virginia’s Antiques holds an antiques sale each year which would be appropriate, but big vendors without an island connection may be a different story.  Another concern was the size and duration of future events.

“There is the occasional Woodstock, where 10,000 are planned and 100,000 show up,” Moore said.

City planner Fred Evader said when considering a campground, which is one of the uses the fair suggests, open fires should probably be banned because the city doesn’t allow open fires except barbecues within city limits.  Evader also said security is an issue.

“I don’t think (Langley Police) Chief (Bob) Herzberg wants to patrol 100 campsites,” he said.

Other standards that should be considered would address issues such as odor, noise, bathrooms and sanitation, public health standards, emergency services and frequency of events, the planning board said.  The Planning Advisory Board will work through the fair board’s draft document and come up with a list of acceptable uses and standards for its next meeting June 11.

Affordable housing is the topic for the next Record Exchange
South Whidbey RECORD
By Spencer Webster
Mar 12 2008

While house prices continue to rise on South Whidbey, workers’ paychecks are not increasing.

Add to that a lack of high-paying jobs and it’s easy to see the cause of the affordable housing crisis that’s gripping Island County.  For some, there is hope that solutions can be found in time to revitalize a housing market that would cater to middle income families and first-time home-buyers.

Experts in housing issues will lead a discussion on affordable housing at the next Exchange, a series of issue-orientated public forums sponsored by The South Whidbey Record.

Goosefoot Community Fund, which has a mission to create affordable housing opportunities on Whidbey, is co-sponsoring the Exchange, which is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, March 18, in the Front Room at the Bayview Cash Store.

At next week’s forum, a panel of affordable housing experts will start the dialogue on affordable housing and perhaps provide some answers.

Sherry Mays, publisher of The South Whidbey Record, will also serve as host for the forum.  Mays said rising costs in the housing market are having a negative effect on South Whidbey.

“I think the South End, in particular, is facing a real housing crisis,” she said. “Our median house prices have gone through the roof, there aren’t enough rentals and we’re losing key people in our community.”

Debbie Torget, who serves as Goosefoot’s chief operating officer, agreed.

“What happens when people can’t afford a simple necessity such as a home and what does that do to a community?” Torget asked. “We don’t want to live in an abandoned community where people can no longer afford to live here.”

The housing issue has become an unbalanced equation for Torget.

“As we become a more desirable community, land prices will keep up with that desirability,” she said. “It really starts to close opportunities down. You need that diversity of young families, first-time home-buyers and blended families. We all lose something in that.”

Mays said she hopes the Exchange will foster a deeper understanding of what affordable housing is and what it isn’t.

“’Affordable housing’ is often misunderstood. I hope the forum helps our neighbors understand what it means to them and the entire community,” Mays said.

“There are many people who tend to think affordable housing means diving home values and rampant crime. I think there are enough good models of well-thought-out affordable housing communities that will prove this to be a myth,” she said.

Torget said the panel will answer questions during the evening about who would benefit from low-cost housing and what it is.

“The thing we’re looking forward to with the forum is to have a more common understanding of mainly, ‘What is affordable housing?’” she said. “Affordable to whom, who needs it? What we’re learning from the Housing Authority of Island County is that they have identified working families as being the most severely under-served population on South Whidbey.”

Steve Gulliford, the executive director of Housing Authority of Island County, said one solution to getting more people into less expensive homes might be to get more housing. Lots more.

“There is not enough of it. Our units in Langley (Brookhaven) are serving seniors and persons with disabilities,” Gulliford said. “They are not serving families. That leaves just Saratoga Terrace, which serves 24 families.”

Because of a serious lack of low-income housing facilities,  Gulliford will speak about other organizations that are attempting to fill gaps, he said.

“I am going to discuss the organizations and programs that are available in Island County, such as Habitat for Humanity, Whidbey Island Share a Home and Saratoga Community Housing,” he said.

Not even Island County workers are immune from the issue, said Island County Commissioner Phil Bakke, who will also speak at the forum.

“I don’t know what the answer is going to be,” Bakke said. “It’s tough for our county staff to find affordable housing. Not everybody has $350,000 laying around and that seems to be the average price of a lower-end house. Not to mention if you got something with a view; heaven forbid.”

“The county has been wrapped around this from time to time, trying to think of what the county could do,” he said. “Under Growth Management Act rules that we have to follow, it’s difficult to do affordable housing on 5-acre lots. And that’s a lot of what we have in the county.”

To Torget, even $250,000 for a home is too high for younger workers who return to the island.

“Most starting wages don’t support you getting into a $250,000 home comfortably and being able to keep it,” she said.

Commissioners OK Freeland growth plan
South Whidbey RECORD
By Spencer Webster
Dec 12 2007

FREELAND — Island County commissioners unanimously voted to designate Freeland an urban area after a public meeting at Trinity Lutheran Church Monday night.

The vote brings to an end an unexpectedly long process to adopt Freeland’s future growth plan. And more recently, the lack of an urban designation for the South End’s commercial and financial hub have prevented supporters of cityhood for Freeland from getting the incorporation issue before voters.  County commissioners said they were happy to finally finish the work on Freeland’s growth plan.

“It’s kind of ironic that I started this in the planning level with 74 meetings and then elected to the position where I can adopt it,” said County Commissioner Phil Bakke, the county’s former chief of planning. 

“I truly believe it is the right thing to do, to move forward and work collaboratively with the community. The plan provides that framework,” he said.

The guide for future growth, officially called the Freeland Sub Area Plan, has been under intensive scrutiny for months now. The Island County Planning Commission recently wrapped up its review of the plan, and the county planning department forwarded the document to county commissioners on Nov. 21. 

With Freeland designated as a “non-municipal urban growth area,” or NMUGA, the way is clear for Freeland residents to vote to make Freeland a city at some point next year.  Once urban-scale infrastructure is put in place, mainly a sewage treatment system, the area would then be able to develop under the more intensive zoning set out in the sub area plan. 

About 40 percent of the land in the NMUGA is currently zoned “rural.” More homes can now be built in Freeland. The residential “build-out” capacity of the NMUGA under current zoning is between 1,650 to 2,730 new homes, or an additional population between 3,861 to 6,388 people. 

Under the sub area plan approved by the commissioners, Freeland could have between 1,290 and 2,800 new homes, not counting new residences in the “business general,” “business office” and “Freeland village” zones.  Freeland’s population would increase between 3,019 and 6,552.

There was still criticism as commissioners moved to adopt the Freeland plan, however.  Mitch Streicher said the plan is different than the one a volunteer growth-planning committee submitted to the county.  Much of the early work on planning revolved around design and aesthetic issues, and some had hoped the new plan would require a design review committee that would sign off on proposed development projects.

“The devil is in the details. If the county ignores the Freeland Sub-Area Planning Committee regarding design standards, then the people who drew up the plan have withdrawn their support and there is no (plan),” Streicher said.

“To the extent there is any plan at all, it’s a county plan without input from the people of Freeland. When the county’s plan is challenged, that will be the reason for which it is challenged,” he said.

Lou Malzone of Freeland questioned the county commissioners’ reasoning to change the content of the plan from what the Freeland Sub-Area Planning Committee forwarded to the county.

“How can the commissioners justify changing Freeland from a rural area of intense development to an NMUGA without meeting the directions of the Freeland Sub-Area Planning Committee based upon incorrect findings?” Malzone asked. “This plan simply does not represent the work of the people who participated over the years in the planning process.”

“I have mixed emotions about the vote,” he added. “I think that it is important that they get the policy in the plan which says there will be design review standards. I am not 100 percent satisfied but glad we’re moving forward.”

Freeland Incorporation Committee chairman Dean Enell agreed.

“I think they made the correct choice. We’ve had a long time for this to happen. There has been a lot of talking,” Enell said.

“They’re finally taking some action, taking that first step to give Freeland a chance to determine its own future; to be treated differently than the rest of the county, because we are different from the rest of the county.”

“The heavy work for the NMUGA starts now. We have to get into writing the regs, the code and the zoning,” said Freeland Chamber of Commerce president Chet Ross.

“It was pleasant they acted on it.”

“Now we wait in terms of the incorporation exercise,” Ross added. “If there are no appeals or there is nothing that would slow it down, in February, we can get back to moving forward.”

Comp plan group looks at city vision
By MICHAELA MARX WHEATLEY
South Whidbey RECORD
May 24 2006

During Langley’s next town meeting on its growth plan, residents and friends of the seaside town will have a chance to discuss their vision for the city.  The comp plan group is holding the meeting from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Thursday in the Fellowship Hall, Langley Methodist Church.

Anybody can be part in planning Langley’s future. Work is already underway to update the city’s comp plan, the document that will guide growth in the city for the next two decades.  Langley Councilman Robert Gilman said brainstorming is key and the group is open to any suggestions.

“I am somebody who thinks this is all about ideas,” he said. The meeting will focus on the community’s vision for its future, said Gilman, who is the comp plan group chairman.

“We know from past work on the comp plan and the Imagine Langley interviews that there is broad consensus on many aspects of the vision,” he said.  For example, Langley citizens like being a small-town community in a semi-rural setting. They value downtown and want to keep it vital, and they like Langley being pedestrian friendly. 

“We aren’t going to go over that common ground,” Gilman said.

“Instead we will focus on the places where community consensus is not so apparent, either because there is a diversity of views or because the issue is new. Our goal is not to necessarily ‘resolve’ these issues, but to clarify them,” he said.  The comp plan group will have posters with various “vision ideas.” Participants will take part in small group discussions on the hot issues.

After the discussion, a “sticky-dot” session will help to make sense of the findings, Gilman said.  Among the questions to consider at the meeting are:


* Should Langley be strengthening its specialization as a tourist town, or should it be diversifying its economy?
* How big should the marina grow? What scale for the marina is the best match to the rest of the community?
* Should housing of the same type be grouped into zones or should different types be mixed in neighborhoods?
* Should Langley be doing more to encourage/enable more people younger than 50 to live in Langley?
* Is it time to get serious about becoming more efficient in energy use and strengthening local energy independence?


This is an open public meeting and everyone is welcome to come and participate.  The comp plan group is off to a good start. More than 120 people attended the first town meeting in April.  So far, the group has 84 members and they are just starting to form 12 committees, Gilman said. There are five comp plan element committees that are focusing on land use, housing, transportation, economic development, parks and open spaces.  Other committees will discuss what Langley should do with its waterfront, watersheds and bluffs, as well as tackle topics such as energy use, food and agriculture.

Also on the list are issues concerning Langley’s demographics. Another committee deals with arts, culture and education and their role in life on South Whidbey. The regional relations committee will discuss Langley’s role on the South End.  Gilman said the group is fortunate to be starting with a comp plan that already meets all state requirements.

“This gives us a good foundation to build on and means that the work of the committees can focus on those areas that we feel need improvement and that are of particular interest to us as a community,” he said.


Shoreline plan developed
Whidbey News-Times
By Nathan Whalen
Aug 24 2005

If current plans become law, Coupeville residents could see a new list of regulations they have to follow.  After 18 mo
nths of work, the Town of Coupeville is preparing to present a draft of the Shoreline Management Plan to the public.  The plan outlines new regulations that affect structures near the shoreline. Those regulations provide more consistency with the town code and comprehensive plan.

Donna Keeler, a consultant hired by the town to help develop the plan, said there are three issues that people are concerned about. Those issues relate to building on historic Front Street in downtown Coupeville, residential setbacks along the shoreline, and bulkheads.  Buildings on the north side of Front Street are built over the water, but don’t have a water dependent use — something that is discouraged by the state Shoreline Management Act.

There are currently four lots in downtown Coupeville where buildings could be constructed over the water.
 
Keeler said the town has a long history of building over the water and future construction wouldn’t cause any further adverse environmental impacts.
To allow development of the vacant lots, the town is proposing that buildings can be built 15 feet beyond the ordinary high water mark. Keeler said that limit would provide future developers with a reasonable standard that isn’t excessive.
 
“The end result to is not to deny people the reasonable use of their property,” Town Planner Larry Kwarsick said.  Any builder wanting to develop one of the shoreline lots in downtown Coupeville for a non-water-dependent use, then would also have to contribute financially to a shoreline restoration project elsewhere within town boundaries.

One of those areas is at Captain Coupe Park. Kwarsick said other restoration projects could include removing relic structures such as concrete paths from various areas throughout the town’s shoreline.  He added restoration projects would be proportional to the environmental impact of a proposed building.  Another aspect of the town’s proposed Shoreline Management Plan relates to residential development. The plan calls for a 75-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark, unless neighboring structures within 200 feet have a narrower setback.

The Shoreline Plan also revises bulkhead regulations. Bulkheads can’t adversely affect nearby shoreline, beaches or aquatic habitats. The plan prohibits construction of a bulkhead seaward of the ordinary high water mark, according to a draft of the Shoreline Management Plan.
Town officials have worked on the Shoreline Management Plan for more than a year. Officials have held meetings with groups and the Planning Commission has been talking about the plan in workshops held during their regularly-scheduled meetings.

The Town is paying $28,950 to develop it’s own master plan. Of that amount, $14,475 comes from a grant.
The public will see the first draft of the Shoreline Management Plan during a meeting Thursday, Aug. 25, 7 p.m. at the Coupeville Recreation Hall.
Keeler said she hopes to have the plan approved by the end of the year.



Langley, Port to work on harbor issues

By BREEANA LAUGHLIN
Aug 24 2005

Port of South Whidbey commissioners have agreed to a mediated public session with the city of Langley officials to resolve any disputes over the boat harbor project and other port-city issues. The two sides have not always seen eye-to-eye in their collaboration to improve the harbor. But both sides are making progress to set aside their differences and move forward with the project.

Port commissioners agreed to meet with the city during a special port meeting Aug. 19. The decision followed a short commissioners retreat.
Earlier this month, Langley officials asked the port to meet at a public session, mediated by a neutral third-party. Port commissioner Lynae Slinden said a mediated meeting would be an opportunity to start anew, “to come to the table as a group and try and find some common ground that sets common goals.”

“We need to make it clear that we’re trying to work together,” Slinden said. “I think a new approach is something that we should entertain,” she said. Port commissioner Gene Sears has volunteered to work out the details of the meeting with Walt Blackford, Langley’s city administrator. He will report back to his port counterparts about when the meeting will be held, who will mediate the meeting, and other details at a later date.

Ed Field, the port’s manager, said their has been a lot of discussion between the two groups about what steps they should take on the Langley boat harbor redevelopment project. But both parties agree improvement of the harbor would be a key asset for Langley and South Whidbey. The port co-owns two parcels of land on which the boat ramp sits, and has $100,000 dollars designated specifically for ramp improvements.

At last week’s meeting, port commissioners also decided to allocate $4,400, the first portion of the already agreed upon funding, to help move the harbor project along. Port commissioners had voted in July to increase their contribution to the project - roughly an additional $100,000. But Field said action concerning those funds has been halted until the two groups agree on an approach to provide the funding.

“We needed some sort of valid funding mechanism to allow that money to be spent on the park since we don’t have ownership in the park,” Field said. City and port officials met earlier this year to discuss possibilities for the additional funding. But after that, Fields says, the city indicated they didn’t want to address the funding issue at that time.

Timing was likely a large factor in the decision. The city would have had to include details of the extra funding in a proposal to get state grant money to pay for improvements at the Langley harbor. But the grant application has a fast-approaching Sept. 1 deadline.

As for now, Slinden said: “I think the stage is pretty much set for the grant application.”

“We are still a co-applicant but they are the leading agency,” she said. “And we are helping to fund what we can.”


Don’t knock history on Whidbey
By JENNY MANNING
Whidbey News Times Reporter
Today, Monday, April 13, 2009, 8:08 AM · UPDATED

Don’t knock the historic structures on Whidbey Island. Why? The knocker may risk a run-in with angry island history buffs - or worse - the coveted structure could come crashing down.

“In an age of rapid change and unstoppable growth, a century-old home or classic storefront links us to our past,” Maribeth Crandell, Oak Harbor environmental educator, said. “The pioneering families that came to Whidbey Island built our communities from scratch. Now their homesteads wither under the strain of long exposure to the elements and the pressures to make a profit.”

In addition to private individuals who have stepped in to preserve the one-of-a-kind pioneer homesteads, Ebey’s Landing National Historic Reserve was established 30 years ago in an effort to preserve the historic, working landscape.

The reserve makes it possible for farms to remain farms, instead of being razed and converted into housing developments or shopping centers.

The reserve includes more than 200 buildings on the National Historic Register, Fort Casey and Fort Ebey State Parks. Historic preservation is an ongoing process: the Admiralty Head Lighthouse, built in 1901, is slated to receive a new roof and windows. More historic construction may be seen at Deception Pass State Park, where the Civilian Conservation Corps built rustic-looking rock and timber frame picnic shelters and restrooms.

In recent years some of these structures, including those on Ebey’s National Historic Reserve, received a needed boost from Harrison Goodall, an expert in the field of historic preservation, with over 30 years of experience in 46 national parks, 49 national forests, eight Bureau of Land Management locations, 90 museums and numerous historic sites throughout the country. While Goodall continues to work internationally, he makes his home on Whidbey Island.

Goodall will share tips on historic structure preservation during a free seminar, Tuesday April 14 from 7 to 8 p.m., and Dave Bennick, founder of Re-Use Consulting, will offer advice on ways to salvage historic building materials for use in other projects.

“We help building owners find sustainable alternatives to demolition and often save them money,” Bennick, who travels nationally to train and supervise deconstruction efforts, said. Re-Use Consulting has also offered assistance and materials to flood victims in neighboring counties to help them rebuild.

According to Goodall, historic preservationists and building salvage professionals are often at odds with their differing views on the treatment of historic structures.

Crandell said the building salvage industry is booming.

“In this slow economy, it makes perfect sense to shop for used materials, which also saves our landfills,” she said.

For example, Island County collected 173 tons of wood waste last year, King County has an on-line exchange for used building materials and do-it-yourselfers often list needed or wanted items on craigslist.com. Whether you’re in the market for building supplies or you have a building in question, you could learn a lot from these two pros, Crandell said.

The seminar, “Don’t lose it. Re-use it! Preservation and Deconstruction” takes place at 7 p.m. Tuesday night at Oak Harbor City Hall, 865 SE Barrington Dr. Email digital photos of your building ahead of time to mcrandell@oakharbor.org for expert advice from Goodall and Bennick. Call 279-4762 with questions.