Your perspective and constructive recommendations regarding the proposed Residential Infill zoning ordinance amendment is important! Please consider looking into this issue --it affects all property owners.
I'd like to hear what parts of this ordinance amendment you think are positive/negative and what you would recommend (changes, additions, deletions)--please be specific.
You can see the proposed Draft Proposal documents at:
http://www.pwpds.slco.org/pdf/infill/ProposedMillcreekResidentialInfillDevStandards.pdf http://www.pwpds.slco.org/pdf/infill/MTRIDevStandardsTableFormat.pdf
Link to the current ordinances: http://ordlink.com/codes/saltlkco/_DATA/TITLE19/index.html
--Leslie
10 comments:
Heretofore I have not taken sides on this issue, because I can see merit in the perspectives of those who support it and those who oppose it. I am particularly concerned that we're trying to impose stringent regulations that will drive those out of our township who really want to stay here. Recently we observed a remodel done in our neighborhood. From the exterior it appears only a facelift was done, which greatly enhanced the property and, hence, the neighborhood. Inside, however, major upgrades were made, WITHOUT RAISING THE HEIGHT OF THE HOME. I applaud such homeowners. They were able to accommodate their family's needs while not building a "monster home" that doesn't fit in with the homes surrounding them. On the other hand, one can certainly see examples of homes that clearly do not fit into context and justifiably have neighbors up in arms. For me, the bottom line isn't numbers, but common sense.
If a house such as ours, which has been here 25 years but is noncompliant with the proposed ordinance, is compatible with other houses surrounding it, it is not out of context and therefore "fits." If, on the other hand, a homeowner decides to build a 2- or 3-story home on a street full of 1950's single-story homes, he is insensitive and definitely out of context. He will certainly raise the ire of his neighbors and detract from the overall value of his neighborhood. With careful planning, he could probably expand in the backyard or basement such that his needs are met, without being out of line or offensive to his neighbors.
The proposed ordinance does not seem to take CONTEXT into consideration; that's my concern.
What is 'compatible?'
For example, we see many new, larger homes labeled as incompatible, yet numeous homes on my block are only a shawdow of what they once were in the 1950's. Many are in need of repair, landscaping is unmaintained, cars and junk may litter the yard. I think if the new homes are 'incompatible' with anything, it is the run-down properties they replace.
I personally am tired of all of this...the meetings, the petitions, the arguing...leave things the way they are! I live next to a two story what people are calling "monster home" (which is rediculous by the way) and I think it only improves our neighborhood and the FAMILIES that it brings into our community. These 1950's houses NEED major updating. The home we bought is less than 2000 square feet. We have 4 children who love the yard and are growing FAST. There is no way that we are going to live uncomfortably in 3 bedrooms with teenagers and giving up the yard is not an option...that leaves going up. Restricting height only takes character out of the building. People will still build 2 stories but just put flat roofs on which is very hard to do and have it look right. It will give a very modern feel which is definitely not the feel of Canyon Rim or Millcreek. I know that Canyon Rim "Opted Out" and I get tired of having to keep fighting for my property rights that I bought years ago moving here specifically because I knew that I could build the home that we wanted to down the road. We have already spent thousands of dollars in plans and engineering and changing the rules on home owners now is just not playing fair and we WILL see families moving out of our areas if this is passed!!!! Don't ruin a good thing!
The whole point of having a master plan and various zonings is to control how dense an area is to be populated. If the residents decide to change the zoning of a neighborhood, as the millcreek area did some years back, then so be it but adding an ordinance to be applied on top of zoning regulations is just redundant. If you do not want big homes then change the zoning to another zone or buy your home in a zone that meets your personal requirements. Changing the rules after residents have already made their largest investment is not right. And what really is so bad about having a large home on your street. Certainly a 7 figure home will help increase the value of your home more than a functionally obsolete, run down, repo would.
In addition, large homes including 2 story homes can be made to blend into the context of a neighborhood feel. There are two expensive 2 story infill homes on Kirk Cir that would not meet these criteria yet they fit into the neighborhood beautifully and dont seem to be out of scale. Neither appear to be of the gargantuan 2 story variety of stacked boxes but instead tuck in the second story into the "attic" spaces just like the homes of the 1920's did. The most disconcerting part of the ordinance is the basement section. The setbacks and the footprint of a home are the most important factor relating to any neighbors. Why should an owner who owns a sloped lot be effectively forced to decide to either forgo a basement all together exposing a concrete wall or include one at the expense of main floor footage. If they chose a walk out basement then they would be forced to create anew a home likely as functionally obsolete as its replacement. And is it really egalitarian to penalize the sloped lot owner over the flat. Or conversely should the flat lot owner not be allowed to add light to his basement by tastefully excaving a little. Proper design is the answer. Or go back and change the zoning wholesale and see what residents think of that. Dont circumvent the process with an ordinance. As in any opinion there will always be too sides. I cannot understand however, how an existing homeowner could be disappointed to have their neighborhoods receive (for free), massive improvements from people who actually value the strengths and amenities of the very neighborhood they will share enough to make such a substantial investment. Wouldnt it be a more effective use of time to lobby for increased crime prevention, school achievement or infrastructure improvements rather than fight against compliant and expensive homes which help pay for all of the above with the property taxes they generate???????
I want to know what is going on since April! I keep hearing that they had another meeting and that nobody showed up! How about letting the residents whom this is effecting know so that we can attend and let you know that this is indeed not the majority vote?! This infill is rediculous! I live on 1/4 acre and have a little bit less than 2,000 sq ft house with NO garage. so is what you are telling me is that with this new "COMPATIBLE infill" I can't add on at all!? That is rediculous! We have had multiple petitions signed, attended countless meetings (that have all been in favor of leaving things the way they are), our community coucil even "OPTED OUT" of this whole thing!!!! Why is this still being discussed? Why can't you leave our happy community alone!? We love the building in our neighborhood in Canyon Rim! It is majorly improving our neighborhood and bringing new FAMILIES in. Don't fix something that is NOT broken!
The MTRI proposal is important for the long run of our aesthetics and character of Millcreek, Canyon Rim & Cove. It is obvious the 50's homes will be rebuilt, obvious there are community members who choose to build quality homes consistent with current aesthetics.
However there is no guarantee all home owners will build tasteful aesthetic solutions. More importantly a large percentage of new homes in our area are built by developers who do not live in our area and could care less about our important neighborhood quality aesthetics.
I moved to this region for the open space quality of life and great community sprit. However in time this area will resemble a hodgepodge of development with home density similar to the avenues or Daybreak.
Additionally, if I compare the extreme population density of Daybreak, the planners there have incorporated tremendous amounts public green space. The green space in our area is already developed with little option for new green space. As we greatly increase the home size and density we compromise many important elements that make our area what it is in the first place. The current code promotes less residential yard space for kids to play, less sunlight, additional noise, less backyard privacy, less mature trees, and in some cases unattractive architecture, etc.
The MTRI proposal does not prohibit development, rather it is designed to preserve aesthetics with moderate density development, common to the original character of the area. One can still build a giant house if desired as long as there is adequate property to balance aesthetics. This proposal adds long term continuity to a potential master development plan of the MIllcreek Township.
New development can improve any street, hopefully we can maintain all the great aspects of this area in the process... together as a community.
I agree with everyone's comments except mtfan's.
I grew up in East Millcreek and now live here with my family. As I look at how restrictive MTRI is, 85% of the homes on my parents' street would be in violation if built today. That doesn't sound very compatible to me.
The new version of the ordinance is being presented tonight at the EMCCC meeting
http://www.responsiblerenewal.com/new-infill-ordinance-to-be-presented-at-emccc-meeting
I also agree with all the comments except for mtfan. I grew up in EMC like AltJ and came back with my family for the schools, accessibility of the location, style of people, and sense of community spirit and tradition felt here, however I do desire a better home that often can't be found in our area so that I can stay and enjoy my home the next 50 years. The options then are remodel or build. I would only hope we are doing things to encourage this rather than deter from it. This is the only way to sustain the value of an already desirable area. As said by others, there are more homes that are decreasing the value of our area because of the lack of maintenance than those "monster" new homes being built.
I very much agree with mal who made the comment that we need to use more "common sense" when building. We don't want one home on a street to stick out like a sore thumb, but making blanket requirements for every situation doesn't make sense either. People do live differently now than in the 1950's by spending more time indoors and also in how are homes are laid out and used. Therefore, many desire to change their out of date homes to fit current lifestyle. Again, there needs to be consideration on both ends of the spectrum in encouraging remodel and building that continues to increase the value of our area and being tasteful in how it is accomplished and not restricting peoples desire and choice to the extremes.
FYI....It doesn't surprise me that the last meeting (or any for that matter) have had little attendance. I don't think enough people even know what this issue is or what is at hand. There are so many people involved in so many good causes in our area, that my guess is that several simply don't have the time to give to one other thing even though they may care. (like myself) Unfortunately these are a lot of the people this is effecting. Getting dinner on the table with a traveling husband, driving kids to soccer, baseball, piano, volunteering at the school, Dr. appointments, serving in a church calling, yard work, taking care of sick parents, and making sure homework is done is hard enough to fit into one's schedule, let alone attend one more meeting on a school night or send a comment on a blog. Our processes and explanation of the issues need to be extremely simplified and less complicated if you want the true silent majority to stay involved.
Speaking only as a private citizen, I am very concerned about the lack of accountability of the Millcreek Planning Commission. At our last East Mill Creek Community Council meeting, a member of the Planning Commission spoke to us. She emphasised several times that this was not a democratic process, and that the Planning Commission was no longer taking public input, having made up it's mind. She also stated repeatedly that "everyone wants some kind of change", upon challenge switching to "the overwhelming majority want some kind of change." In subsequent discussions, she made it clear that she did not consider the option of "leave the zoning as it is" to be legitimate, and when I pointed out that she had defined my viewpoint away, her response was "Yep". She, and by extension the entire Planning Commission, has ignored the viewpoint of a substantial number of Millcreek Township residents. Faced with that kind of mindset, our only option is to directly petition the County Council, with particular attention to the perceived bias of the Planning Commission. Watch for the upcoming Council debate on this proposal, and make plans to attend. It is the only way our voices will be heard, and we need to let the Council know what we think about this process. Don't let the other side frame this debate.
Post a Comment