Old Town Aesthetics

After hearing of the planning committee's decision to entertain ideas concerning the architectural styles allowed and prohibited in the Old Town area (12th Street and north), I had to post. Be it known that I am a 16th Street resident, so may not even have an iron in this fire.

Regardless, why must I post? First, because I find it interesting that the city is creating a group to determine guidelines that affect an area that isn't even defined on any piece of paper currently on the books; at least to my knowledge....it is merely understood. They are taking an area, creating an off the record community which is currently without guidelines, defining it geographically in some way, then attempting to place guidelines and further restrictions on it. Interesting indeed. After this post, I will be calling the planning commission to insure this is the case.

Secondly, I question the clarity of the city's goal, since we may be talking about future guidelines....merely things from which to deviate....right? Or, on the other hand, it may be about future restrictions, and if defined in this way, a potential problem could very well exist.

For the discussion, we need some background.

What defines Old Town? Geographically it is generally considered that area west of Commercial and north of 12th Street. It is a quaint, hodgepodge of typically older homes that create a sense of history and small town feel. Those who live in or near Old Town, enjoy a small town, turn of the century feel, where the sidewalks are abundant, and the variety of homes encompass Craftsman to Victorian and milltown bungalow to Dutch Grambels (sp). Additionally, living in this area provides easy pedestrian access to Historical Downtown, further solidifying its moniker.
Personally, I enjoy venturing from block to block either while on a run with the Mooser (my lab) or on my bike heading to my Sweetie's place, where I catch sound glimpses of beautiful older style homes that truly provide comfort and serenity to my mind. It is this sense of history and style that the city officials are attempting to preserve and promote.

Other characteristics of the area include the lack of convenants, codes and restrictions associated with the newer subdivisions on the island. Thirty Five feet height restrictions allow for one level homes to be remodeled into two-story homes with gorgeous views of the Guemes channel. You can park in your garage on Mondays and Tuesdays, but choose to park along the curb in front of your home during the rest of the week if you so desire. Many properties have smaller lot sizes where the home itself covers the majority of the properity; thus maximizing interior space, while minimizing yard upkeep; while an equal number have large, manicured lawns with wrap-around porches. Also, the variety associated with most of the homes give solace to those who despise the standard, cookie-cutter style of neighborhood; homogeneity is not a word for Old Town except in the sense that most of the homes there are, in fact, 'old.' Many of these characteristics will be considered benefits by some and detriments by others depending merely on your perspective.

That is our background.

The aforementioned committee has been tasked with developing a set of ideas, which may eventually become mandates, that will ultimately place restrictions on some of these characteristics. All in all, the intent seems benign and in keeping with the historical heritage of the area. However, as mentioned in the opening statement of this diatribe, Old Town is not a community defined by the city persay, only word of mouth. It is an area without definition and some, if not all, of the publicized ideas may be just a bit too broad in scope and too restrictive. Some include the following: Restrict overall footprint of home structure to maximize yard size and further curb appeal; promote turn of the century architectural styles, limit multi-family structures, prohibit the cutting of designated 'heritage trees', and limiting some lots height restrictions to 25 feet.

Again, all seemingly in good faith, however it just doesn't seem to pan out in the grand scheme of things. Those who currently own, bought under a set of guidelines that were loose and without architectural committee.....basically there were no guidelines, just the restrictions on height and setbacks existed. I would bet that some families may have grand plans to one day utilize this lack of guidelines to the fullest extent possible. They may plan to maximize their investment and increase their style of living through adding a garage, a second level, or simply a sun room for morning coffee. To deny their right to do so through 'legislation' creating restrictions for an area not even currently defined by the city, could be a heavy blow to many of the homeowners. Especially seeing that one's home may very well be their largest investment.

So, what should we do? Well, as I stated previously, I feel the city's intent is good. And first, they should officially designate, by street, what area the moniker 'Old Town' will encompass.

Most would agree that west of commercial, south of Guemes Channel, north of 12th street are some very solid boundaries, but what about the area that is just west of D Ave, yet north of Oakes...?? Still seemingly part of the 'Old Town' swing, but truly, where does this area cease to exist??

Once done, then instead of creating restrictions, promote a standard that is created by this committee.......and promote is the key word. As a resident of Anacortes, I have no problem with having a 'concierge of taste' so to speak, whereby we are asked to participate and receive some type of benefit if we choose to do so.

Some possible examples of this are the following: Resident X wants to tear down a small home and build anew.... X agrees to build in a turn of the century style, maximizing front yard space and curb appeal, and the city in turn puts in his/her sidewalks and allows them to have their detached garage directly on the alley line. This is an example of complete give and take, seeing that the owner is pushing their home back on the lot, giving room for kids and dogs to stroll, but then the city is understanding their is still a need to help them maximize their lot size and give them a bene' in back.???? Make sense.

Although I prefer the positive reinforcement method best, another example could be that the city could create penalties, whereby if residents choose to stray from set guidelines, they must put in sidewalks at their own expense.......And although some will complain about being penalized, at least there is an option and the homeowner is still in control of their home and its style.

To wrap up, I understand and tend to agree with the direction the city is going on this issue. However, in order to curb skepticism, maintain the integrity of the city's intent and make the process as equitable and non-restrictive as possible, the committee should ultimately make its decisions and present them all as promotable rather than mandates. Get the community involved by having a few well publicized meetings, or even merely a website for postings so that they get a better feel of what the current residents of the undefined 'Old Town' want. Get the area firmly defined, then roll out the red carpet for compromise and good will. Remember, more bees are attracted with honey than with a net. Mandates on homeowners could turn honeybees into yellowjackets just as Dr. Jekyll morphed into Mr. Hyde.

Resepectfully,
Troy