[0:20] All right. Uh

[0:23] welcome to the tonight's meeting, May 21st, 2026

[0:29] of the Bellingham City Planning Commission.

[0:32] I'm filling in for the chair and vice chair tonight. So, Heather, can you

[0:36] please call the roll?

[0:40] Claire Swingle. Here. Mike Estes. Here. Eric Richmond.

[0:45] Here. Lisa Marks. Here.

[0:48] Um I don't think no minutes. And

[0:54] uh so, tonight's agenda is a work session, I believe, on um

[0:59] general strategy for changes to residential zoning related to the comp

[1:04] plan and state law changes, missing middle implementation details

[1:09] around our residential zoning. Uh so, we'll get into a conversation and

[1:13] presentation from staff on that topic in a few minutes. Before we do that,

[1:17] um opportunity for the public to give any

[1:20] general public comments um on any topic. So, if you're here to give

[1:25] public comment, come on down to the podium. We'll do 3 minutes.

[1:28] Um tonight doesn't have a hearing, so there's no other opportunity to give uh

[1:33] public comment on anything. If you're on Zoom, please raise your

[1:37] hand. And um

[1:40] we'll do 3 minutes and state your name and your neighborhood and

[1:46] Heather will uh bring you in to do comments.

[1:50] Go ahead, Miles. Hello, Miles Silverman from the Cordata

[1:53] neighborhood. I'm calling in to talk about the new zoning changes and

[1:56] specifically single stair or scissor stairs small apartment buildings because

[2:01] my understanding is that there are state level building code changes happening

[2:05] and underway to make these more feasible to build than they have been in a long

[2:10] time and this presents a huge opportunity that the new residential

[2:14] zoning code low middle and high should all be jumping on and I want to explain

[2:19] why that is. Um, first of all these small apartments are often better to

[2:25] live in because there's you don't have to do the double loaded corridor thing.

[2:30] There's more light, more air. It's easier to do family size apartments and

[2:34] because the individual buildings are relatively small, it can be easier to

[2:40] know your neighbors within your building. Um, it also these smaller

[2:45] apartments also can fit more easily into existing residential neighborhoods to

[2:52] reduce neighborhood opposition. The buildings are very human scale. They fit

[2:57] They fit well into the rhythm of any streetscape and particularly if paired

[3:02] with thoughtful objective design standards,

[3:05] they work really well with vernacular architecture as well. So, again, great

[3:10] for fitting into existing old street grid neighborhoods. Um, they're also

[3:17] more feasible to build more quickly. You because they're smaller, you only need

[3:22] one lot. Um, so you don't need to buy up a bunch of houses which could take more

[3:26] time. Because they're smaller, that also makes them easier to finance which means

[3:30] that you don't need to rely on large investment banks to fund them which

[3:36] should mean in addition to making them quicker to build, this should also mean

[3:40] they're more resilient to the state of international finance. They also of

[3:46] course have all the benefits of density that we would expect. More housing with

[3:51] a single stair four-story building with three units per floor, you could easily

[3:58] be doing basically a 12-plex on a lot where you used to only be able to

[4:05] put one house. If with a larger lot and six stories with scissor stairs, you

[4:09] could possibly do twice that. This means that you can really help with the

[4:15] housing shortage quickly with these buildings, um better support

[4:19] neighborhood commercial, and better support transit, and better support city

[4:22] budgets. So, all in all, small apartment buildings can be a great tool to help

[4:28] solve this housing shortage while improving our neighborhoods. So, please

[4:33] make sure there's space for these in the new zoning code to take advantage of

[4:38] building codes now allowing them. Thank you. [clears throat]

[4:42] Thank you, Miles. Anyone else on Zoom for public comment?

[4:55] Last call in-house, in person, for public comment.

[5:02] Seeing none. Okay, we will close our public comment portion,

[5:06] and I'll turn it over to Chris and staff for our presentation.

[5:12] All right. Good evening, commissioners. Thanks for being here tonight.

[5:16] Let's see if I can turn this.

[5:22] All right. Uh so, Chris Behee, uh I'm long-range division manager in planning

[5:27] and community development. I'm joined tonight by Chris Cook, who's

[5:31] our planner, who's well-versed over many years in the

[5:36] depths of our residential housing code. Um so, he's here to answer questions

[5:41] that might get down further in the weeds than I'm comfortable going.

[5:45] Um As we indicated earlier in um in the

[5:49] description, uh we are talking about kind of general high-level zoning

[5:52] concepts. Over the past several months, you've had briefings on some of the

[5:56] interim measures and a few of the permanent measures that were passed near

[5:59] the end of last year that dovetail with the comprehensive plan that implement

[6:03] the variety of state requirements that were passed in 2023 and 2024 around

[6:09] middle housing, accessory dwelling units, co-living housing, um and uh and

[6:14] also the parking reform uh

[6:17] um uh

[6:18] interim measures. So, uh this is kind of the next step in that conversation. It's

[6:23] again a little bit of a high-level briefing, but we'll get down in the

[6:26] weeds on a few of the topics. Um and in advance of this and then after

[6:30] this uh internal staff teams in our department have been working for the

[6:35] last several months on the strategy for the new residential zoning. Um and so,

[6:40] we'll be covering again some kind of contextual pieces for that and then

[6:43] asking for thoughts and and uh feedback from you on a couple of specific things.

[6:49] Uh and then you can anticipate over the next year that we will be coming back to

[6:52] you a variety of times for similar uh more feedback on these things as we as

[6:58] we work our way through them and then eventually what will have is a that type

[7:01] six process as we bring forward the new residential zoning code that that

[7:06] includes a lot of what we'll be talking about tonight, but also all that the

[7:09] detail for the pieces.

[7:14] So, we'll talk about some of the background and history behind the rules

[7:17] that we have today. Um and then again, the policy direction we'll touch on uh a

[7:21] lot of you're familiar cuz you had a hand in developing the Bellingham Plan.

[7:25] Um just touch base on on a few specific pieces there related to the future land

[7:30] use map. I'll review some of the community feedback from the surveys that

[7:34] we conducted during the the Bellingham Plan public engagement process that

[7:37] relate just a a few of the touch points that are specifically related to housing

[7:42] types, densities, the nature of residential zoning,

[7:46] and what the community's preferences, concerns,

[7:49] those kinds of things were. We'll just focus on the map for a few

[7:53] minutes and walk through some of the geography of how today's existing zoning

[7:58] map relates to the future land use map and then what we anticipate these future

[8:02] residential zones will look like. And how some things might be changing

[8:06] categories or shifting shifting around. We'll look a little bit at some of the

[8:12] the statistics. Won't spend too much time on that, but

[8:14] just kind of give you a a primer on what some of the existing platting patterns

[8:18] are throughout the city and how those relate to residential densities and

[8:22] zoning. And then again, we'll have a couple of

[8:25] things we'll touch base on near the end to get some feedback and generate some

[8:28] conversation so that'll help us inform again the the

[8:31] ongoing work that our our team is working on.

[8:38] I think this is a slide we showed you guys

[8:40] a year or two ago during the the process. It's something that was

[8:43] developed quite a while ago and we updated it, but it's not something to

[8:47] spend too much time staring at, but it kind of it basically from left to right

[8:50] kind of gives you that that long history we've had of zoning in Bellingham. Our

[8:55] first zoning ordinance was passed in the 1940s

[8:59] and before that we'd had regulations that were more general in

[9:02] nature. You can see the the evolution of the the

[9:08] 25 neighborhood plans that Bellingham developed in the 1980s.

[9:13] In the 1990s, we had the Visions for Bellingham process that fed into our

[9:18] first growth management comprehensive plan. That was the 1995

[9:23] 1995 plan and then we've updated that plan three times since then in 2006,

[9:29] 2016, and then most recently just this last year.

[9:33] Um And then there's been a variety of uh

[9:36] broader community discussions around growth that uh were actually outside of

[9:41] those comprehensive planning cycles, but but informed them and related to them.

[9:45] Uh the most notable that I'll talk about in a few more minutes uh in another

[9:49] slide is that community forum on growth in the early 2000s. That was a point

[9:53] where Bellingham had and while of Whatcom

[9:56] County had been growing much like Western Washington as a whole at a

[9:59] pretty steady clip through the 1990s, and by the end of the '90s and the early

[10:02] 2000s, we were really feeling a lot of those infrastructure pressures. And so

[10:07] we we uh along with Whatcom County and Whatcom Transportation Authority uh

[10:12] spun up a a community-wide conversation on growth. So, that was a a significant

[10:17] kind of a watershed moment and was a kind of a pivot point for our local land

[10:21] use policies. Um and then you can see again just this

[10:25] doesn't show anything by show all of the the things uh

[10:29] but it does show that there's this been this very busy time within the last say

[10:33] 2 to 3 years of uh very uh um aggressive state legislative

[10:38] sessions and then a lot of local uh things handed down to local

[10:42] jurisdictions to include in our comp plans and implement. And you are keenly

[10:47] aware of that of having been through the again the recent comp plan update

[10:50] process.

[10:54] So, again just to kind of hit the the main pieces that have been driving a lot

[10:59] of this change um were again some of those house bills and Senate bills that

[11:03] were passed uh a couple of years ago by the state. Um the main ones being that

[11:08] House Bill 1110, which is the the middle housing bill, 1337, which is the

[11:12] accessory dwelling unit bill. And then we've got um

[11:16] uh 1998, which was the co-living, and then

[11:19] House Bill 1293 is that uh design review uh and permit streamlining bill. All of

[11:26] those together are really what was addressed in that November-December push

[11:30] as we had those either permanent or interim measures that were um brought

[11:35] forward and and passed along with the Bellingham plan.

[11:39] In general, if you were to look at those from a very high level, it's it's a

[11:42] shift from the sort of I guess binary is a good way of thinking about it,

[11:46] residential single residential multi land use model that we've had for

[11:49] decades in Bellingham and which a lot of communities have had and really going

[11:54] for a more towards a more inclusive model which includes certainly

[11:58] residential single and the larger multi forms as well, but also in the middle

[12:03] those middle housing styles that kind of continue or fill in that spectrum of

[12:08] housing between the larger buildings and single detached forms and also include

[12:13] just a wider variety of smaller housing forms

[12:17] whether they be smaller cottages and just small lot single family development

[12:22] or the duplexes, townhomes and other attached forms.

[12:30] And just reflecting back to the main kind of policy areas within the

[12:34] Bellingham plan that this more inclusive more broad type of zoning that we're

[12:41] talking about and we'll be talking about more

[12:44] throughout the evening here really hits on a on kind of four main policy areas.

[12:49] One is the the idea of housing for all meeting that House Bill 1220 requirement

[12:54] where we plan for housing for all income segments in the community.

[12:58] Providing really just more opportunities and more options for people whether it

[13:02] be owner oriented or rental style housing.

[13:05] Overall, we're looking for that compact development form really trying to keep

[13:10] Bellingham's boundary from growing out as much as possible

[13:14] for again for meeting our climate action goals

[13:18] reducing carbon emissions reducing not just the number of trips people need to

[13:23] take but recognizing that vehicle trips are a necessary part of all of our lives

[13:27] at various times that we can maybe keep those trips to be as short as possible

[13:31] by connecting where people live and having housing being closer to services

[13:35] and those kinds of things. Again, that direct relationship between density and

[13:39] kind of efficiency that way. Um environmental protection um through a

[13:44] whole variety of things. One, again, not expanding our our community footprint,

[13:48] so kind of the big like countywide picture, having fewer impacts on those

[13:52] rural and resource lands. And then also um just within the city doing things

[13:56] like using clustering to kind of strategically place development in areas

[14:01] that has minimal environmental impacts and leaves natural areas natural to the

[14:04] greatest degree possible. Provides that protection there.

[14:08] And then sustainable urban services. Um if you've again listened to any of the

[14:12] conversations, particularly around annexation,

[14:15] uh the cost to not just put pipes in the ground and build streets, but also to

[14:20] provide public safety services um and all the the related uh elements of of

[14:26] maintenance of city facilities. Um the greater distance that we have to travel

[14:31] or the more miles of those facilities that we need to maintain, just it's a

[14:34] greater burden that the entire community bears. The the closer we can get people

[14:38] living to services and the closer to each other, all of those [snorts] things

[14:42] are made more efficient and they they can be smaller. So just the again the

[14:47] the cost model that goes along with that.

[14:49] So those are just again just kind of connecting the dots. It's intuitive, but

[14:53] it's helpful to just vocalize that and really point it out that those are all

[14:56] very intentional choices that our community has made. Um and a lot of

[15:00] those code updates on those timelines relate to

[15:03] uh those four things in particular.

[15:08] This is that again hearkening back to 2004 and then um when we had those uh

[15:13] community conversations. If if some of you in the room may remember those, but

[15:18] if you if you can imagine the Bellingham's

[15:20] uh Bellingham High School's auditorium, which you know, seats over 1,000 people.

[15:24] We had that packed on a number of occasions during those community forum

[15:28] on growth conversations and had large large cross-sections of the community

[15:32] there to learn um get kind of the same kind of information that you as planning

[15:36] commissioners get on a frequent basis, gain a better understanding of how land

[15:40] use and transportation intersect and inform each other um and uh to kind of

[15:44] portray in that early 2000s context what growth pressures Bellingham and Whatcom

[15:50] County as a whole were feeling and to ponder those things and to come

[15:53] up with uh with potential solutions that we could

[15:56] use as a community. Um

[15:59] after those conversations, a couple years later, uh Bellingham hosted the

[16:03] Bellingham Planning Academy sessions, which were smaller, more focused growth

[16:07] sessions, again with a good cross-section of the community.

[16:10] And the conversations that came out of that effort really were sort of the the

[16:14] early stages of what would eventually become the Infill Toolkit that

[16:17] Bellingham then uh formally got into the Bellingham Municipal Code in uh 2009.

[16:23] So, it was a kind of a evolving organic community conversation about how we

[16:28] address those growth pressures. And then the other key thing that came

[16:31] out of both the for the the growth management uh community forum on growth

[16:36] and then also those planning academy conversations was the urban village

[16:39] concept. Um and [snorts] that would played right into the 2006 comprehensive

[16:44] plan update when we formally adopted those those urban village concepts and

[16:49] then those later became urban village master plans over the the ensuing

[16:52] decade.

[16:56] This is another timeline with a lot of a lot going on on it, but if you just um

[17:00] again, it's really just uh to indicate that Bellingham has been heading in this

[17:05] direction for quite some time and that while there's a lot of change that we're

[17:09] having to digest as a community in the last few years around middle housing, um

[17:13] that that the um the direction is not new. It's just

[17:18] a a greater emphasis on it in the last few years. And you can see again this

[17:23] kind of takes off where the previous slides left off that 2006 comprehensive

[17:27] plan and those early [clears throat] conversations that we looking at the

[17:31] just the green things here. We passed in 2009 the initial infill toolkit. Um

[17:37] Originally it applied only in the residential multi and urban village

[17:41] zones. And that really didn't have a a great

[17:45] deal of uptake for the a number of years. There were people were unfamiliar

[17:49] with the code. There weren't as many builders in town that were familiar with

[17:53] middle housing forms. Um took a while for people to understand that code and

[17:57] get used to it. Around 2014-15 we started to see the first few projects

[18:02] come through that were utilizing that code. Um and then you know by 2018 or so

[18:08] there were quite a few projects that we were seeing land in different

[18:11] neighborhoods utilizing the toolkit code. In 2018 along with the update to

[18:17] our subdivision code that the application for the infill toolkit the

[18:21] area was expanded into residential single zones that had the cluster

[18:26] provision. So that included a lot of the areas in North Bellingham where we had

[18:30] annexed land in recent years and then also some areas around the edge that had

[18:34] the the cluster provision in them. So that was an expansion.

[18:39] And then in 2021 there was a really significant update to a lot of details

[18:42] in the code around pedestrian oriented design.

[18:46] And that was a a big improvement as well again based on experience learned

[18:50] through previous projects brought through that that code and then just

[18:53] kind of planning best practices. And then most recently the adoption of

[18:58] the interim middle housing ordinance in December

[19:01] that that really expanded that citywide and aligned us with House Bill 1110

[19:07] where we're requiring up to or we're allowing rather up to four

[19:13] four homes per lot or six if they're in proximity to transit or provide an

[19:17] affordability component. Um The other things on here I'm not going

[19:22] to dwell on a lot, but you can see the urban village plans after that 2006

[19:26] comprehensive plan with the kind of formalized urban village concept.

[19:30] We had a variety of extended public conversations for each of these

[19:34] districts most recently just this last year for the Barkley area formalizing

[19:39] that in an urban village code update. Um but you can see each of

[19:43] these took a year or two to finish. There was a lot of public outreach and

[19:47] engagement as we had a different visioning process for each of those.

[19:52] As you're familiar with these areas, they all have similarities as being

[19:56] being areas of increased urban density and intensity, but also they all have

[20:00] very unique characters and their own own unique aspects to them.

[20:05] And so the conversations varied for each of those areas as well.

[20:10] Um and then again just calling attention there's a few things you can see also in

[20:14] here are various multimodal infrastructure plans getting initialized

[20:19] and then updated throughout this time period and our climate action plan.

[20:23] Those things all all again kind of getting into those four points on the

[20:26] previous slide all playing together to kind of form our community-wide growth

[20:31] strategy aiming for being more sustainable, more efficient,

[20:36] and and providing opportunities for people around the city.

[20:41] So again just kind of a talking point to show how a lot of those things relate to

[20:44] each other and how we've had this steady progression of of um

[20:49] kind of evolvement on the land use front.

[20:54] Also just as as you know we've had conversations over the past couple years

[20:58] about the 25 neighborhood plans that importantly were were not adopted under

[21:03] the most recent comprehensive plan this last

[21:06] December. They had been under previous ones.

[21:09] And that's really just largely out of um one recognition that the the zoning that

[21:14] is um uh envisioned within those plans is not

[21:19] consistent with our new middle housing and uh middle housing regulations and

[21:23] other state requirements. Um

[21:26] Also, again, uh just from a practical standpoint, they represent a uh

[21:31] a complexity in our zoning code that is just not sustainable for us to manage

[21:35] anymore or for the community to really use in a in an efficient way. And so,

[21:40] for all those reasons, um we decided at that point to uh retire the plans

[21:45] themselves. Um that's not to say they have not been

[21:48] enormously valuable over the past number of decades as Bellingham has grown and

[21:52] thrived. Um I think what we've we've uh talked in

[21:56] front of City Council and the um Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory

[22:00] Commission and other bodies in recent years about

[22:04] how um a lot of the really good stuff in those neighborhood plans informed our

[22:08] first bike plan, our first pedestrian plan, um our infrastructure plans. And

[22:13] um we've really really used um a lot of the guidance in those documents over

[22:18] many, many years to do a lot of great stuff in the community.

[22:22] But they are now um really out of date. A lot of the things

[22:26] are out of sync with our current plans. And we just don't have the the

[22:29] horsepower to nurse along that many different vision documents for the city.

[22:33] So, we're relying on the community-wide comprehensive plan and our development

[22:37] code together to work together to realize the vision now.

[22:41] » [snorts]

[22:45] » One of those things um that was pulled out of those 25 neighborhood plans in

[22:51] the early 2000s, in 2005, were the actual development regulations for each

[22:56] subarea in those neighborhood plans. And those were moved into the Bellingham

[23:00] Municipal Code under Title 20. If you've ever popped open one of those

[23:04] 25 tables in the in the BMC, you're familiar with the format. You've got sub

[23:09] areas listed and it's kind of a grid of columns that talks about the general

[23:14] zoning type, use qualifiers and the density that's allowed if it's a a

[23:19] residential zone. And then there is these three columns

[23:22] that follow that that are special

[23:26] regulations and prerequisite considerations.

[23:29] And those really encapsulate a lot of those legacy infrastructure components

[23:34] or other special requirements that a lot of them, for instance, like around

[23:39] environmental protection, that we back in the '80s when these plans were

[23:44] drafted, we didn't have separate code pieces to address. And so it was

[23:48] appropriate to do that in a neighborhood plan. And over the ensuing years, we did

[23:52] things like adopt a critical areas ordinance that applies environmental

[23:55] protection regulations consistently across the city for every development

[23:59] project. Um, we did things like adopt those bicycle

[24:03] and pedestrian plans and a park and recreation open space plan that have

[24:08] current thinking on all of those infrastructure pieces across the city.

[24:11] Again, a lot of their the first drafts of those plans pulled a

[24:16] lot of information out of the neighborhood plans. Um, but maintaining

[24:19] those two systems in parallel to each other is not an efficient way of working

[24:24] and so our goal is to simplify the zoning

[24:28] tables in the municipal code to eliminate those last three columns.

[24:33] We have an internal process that we have a staff team working on to evaluate

[24:38] every one of these entries and every one of those cells in those 25 tables and to

[24:42] point to the current place that those concerns are addressed. And some of them

[24:46] have already been built. Some of them are actually addressed in, like you

[24:50] said, in the critical areas ordinance or other pieces of our of our municipal

[24:53] code. And to search for anything that's a a

[24:57] nugget that has value that isn't addressed anywhere and to make [snorts]

[25:01] a list of those things. We don't know how many of those we might find going

[25:05] through all of these, but when we do, that will be a project unto itself unto

[25:08] itself to decide, "Okay, these are things that maybe haven't been addressed

[25:12] anywhere else and what's our strategy for addressing those and have a a

[25:17] process spun up for that." Um but once that work is complete, then we will be

[25:22] able to simplify these tables. And not just drop some columns off of

[25:27] here, but also as you'll see in the the coming slides,

[25:31] the goal is to also simplify the number of zoning subareas that we have so that

[25:35] instead of a couple hundred residential subareas, we just really have four or so

[25:40] types of residential zoning and that they are consistent across the city. Um

[25:45] again, for simplification and predictability, transparency,

[25:49] both for the broader community, for a builder, for us as administrators to to

[25:54] be fair and equitable in how we administer the code.

[25:57] All of those reasons.

[26:04] This is taken right from the land use chapter of the new plan. We've got our

[26:06] land use map and then we have a policy for each of

[26:10] land use types which correspond to the colors on the land use map.

[26:14] And the types that we'll be talking about tonight, we'll just touch briefly

[26:17] on the residential watershed. That's a a future project defining what that zone

[26:22] entails, but for the most part we're looking right now at the residential

[26:26] low, medium, and high land use categories and again those

[26:31] correlate or will be the replacements for the existing residential single and

[26:36] residential multi zones that you'd see on our existing zoning map in the BMC.

[26:41] Um so again it's a recasting of those

[26:45] regulations into these categories. And again with that goal [snorts] of not

[26:50] having that binary separated single and multi-housing types, but a a broader

[26:55] zone that relies more on levels of intensity and allows a wider range of

[27:00] housing types.

[27:04] Just wanted to focus on a couple of different things. Um first the watershed

[27:09] uh zone permits a limited range of small-scale housing. Again, uh looking

[27:14] for low-intensity impacts within the watershed to protect water quality. Very

[27:18] intentional. Uh we haven't had a specific watershed zone previously, and

[27:22] we felt again the the logic being that um knowing that we're trying to focus

[27:27] uh more housing and development in all other areas of the city that the

[27:30] watershed zone would be something we would very specifically spell out that

[27:34] its intent is to minimize impacts on the lake.

[27:38] And then looking at the low, medium, and high in sequence that we'd have uh a

[27:42] small permit a range of small-scale housing

[27:45] types and densities in the low, mid-scale housing types and densities in

[27:49] the medium, and the same range of uses in the high that are allowed in the

[27:55] medium, um

[27:56] but that we would allow a higher density in those areas.

[28:00] And then just flipping these ones, you can see again the density. Again, low

[28:04] density [snorts] for the watershed, um

[28:07] minimum density standards in the low zone so that we don't underutilize uh

[28:12] what constitutes a very large part of our community.

[28:15] And then um in the medium and the high, progressively larger minimum densities.

[28:25] Last thing I'll touch on just briefly on this slide is that we also have our

[28:28] transit-oriented development. Um we did not in the Bellingham plan update

[28:33] process designate these specific uh areas where that as an overlay would

[28:38] apply, but we did talk generally that that would relate to our high-frequency

[28:42] transit routes. Um what we haven't done is the work to decide how wide should

[28:47] those corridors be, should there be different types of TOD corridors, and

[28:51] what some of the standards that could be employed in those areas are. That's

[28:54] something we'll touch on later during our discussion.

[29:00] Again, that's these are just some referencing some pages in the

[29:03] transportation and land use chapters that relate. Um, I think you probably

[29:06] remember in the land use chapter we have the concept of those transit-oriented

[29:11] development or TOD corridors, looking at some of the major destination nodes

[29:16] within the community, um, the urban villages, our institutional campuses for

[29:21] the colleges and also the hospital, the airport, and and some of the major park

[29:25] and recreation sites as well. Um, and then again, the uh, modal

[29:30] hierarchy pyramid pyramid, rather, the inverted pyramid that we have in the

[29:34] transportation chapter, and committing to, um,

[29:38] that as an overall growth strategy and how that relates to the land use the

[29:42] land use map.

[29:48] All right, I'm going to pivot just a bit to some of the engagement that we did,

[29:51] those surveys that I was talking about. We had three major surveys, uh, done in

[29:56] late 2023 and into 2024. Uh, the community vision survey, we had the

[30:01] housing preference survey, and then a growth survey. And I'll just step

[30:04] through those in sequence and just highlight a couple of things relevant

[30:08] for tonight's discussion. The vision survey was, uh, a broad

[30:12] survey. It was mailed out to every household in the city. It was also, uh,

[30:17] uh, shopped around at all of the tabling opportunities and other public, uh, open

[30:21] houses and, uh, community events that, uh, over a couple of months in 2023.

[30:27] Um, trying to get responses, uh, from as many people, including visitors to the

[30:31] community, uh, that we could. And we also collected demographic

[30:34] information with that to really understand who we were hearing from and

[30:37] how that compared to Bellingham as a whole for the community.

[30:41] Um, we had a Spanish version and had some uh Spanish-speaking community

[30:44] members respond. Um, and it was also distributed in a

[30:48] paper and online form at a variety of events. We had over 4,000 uh responses

[30:55] to that, which when you think about it, that's 10% ish of the community. That's

[30:59] a really good response rate. We were super excited about that. Um, and uh

[31:04] felt like it was really valuable information.

[31:07] Uh this is just one of the summary slides. Basically, it was about uh

[31:11] concerns and kind of rating uh like a report card for the community in that

[31:15] 2023 time frame. And really addressing what what are the main concerns or you

[31:20] know, what do you think Bellingham needs to improve on and what are the things

[31:22] that we do really well. Um, the top concerns are the things that

[31:26] were more on the the red side of the ledger that were things that we need to

[31:30] do better on. Um, housing for all incomes was clearly articulated as as

[31:34] the the biggest uh concern and home ownership was right behind that. Um,

[31:40] also living wage job stability. So, those three things together um, just

[31:45] really indicate that a large large segment of the of our community is

[31:48] really struggling um to find housing, to keep uh having an income that keeps pace

[31:53] with the cost of housing. Um, and so those are again, none of us was

[31:57] surprised and and certainly wouldn't be a surprise to anybody that keeps track

[32:00] of what's going on in Bellingham or really uh

[32:03] across the country and the state. But um it was good to get some some hard data

[32:08] that correlated that so that we could focus our policy work.

[32:14] The housing preference survey was um a little bit uh it was a smaller survey.

[32:19] It was very focused on housing types and conversations around housing. It was a

[32:23] statistically valid survey as opposed to the vision survey, which was just a mail

[32:28] out and mail back and we um didn't really do any any uh serious

[32:33] control over who we we back from. Uh this was intentionally mailed to um a

[32:39] random selection of addresses throughout the community.

[32:42] We we did some balancing at the front end. So, for uh

[32:47] uh typically underrepresented respondents

[32:50] that we find in the community. So, folks with lower incomes,

[32:54] BIPOC community members, um uh young people in particular, people

[33:00] that are 24 and under are typically ones that are underrepresented in surveys.

[33:04] And so, census tracts that we know had higher concentrations of those folks, we

[33:08] oversaturated with the mail out. Again, to try and balance out, make sure what

[33:13] we got back was a closer sample to what our community demographics are.

[33:17] And that was where we had a consultant help with that. That was a little bit

[33:20] more than we were willing to do on our own.

[33:23] Some of the main takeaways were that residents prefer the small-scale and

[33:28] urban residential neighborhood types. And I'll touch on what those are exactly

[33:31] on the next slide. Um that people definitely preferred

[33:35] owning over renting. Again, no surprise there.

[33:38] Lots of challenges around that, obviously. But that that's given a

[33:41] choice, most people would rather own a home than rent a home.

[33:44] Um and then when considering a wide variety of trade-offs, so trying to kind

[33:48] of bring a little bit more of reality into it and just saying instead of just

[33:51] saying what's your ideal, people had a indicated a preference for

[33:57] homes on smaller lots and closer together. So, greater density in

[34:01] exchange for getting better access to things like multimodal infrastructure,

[34:05] amenities like parks, and proximity to services like groceries and pharmacies

[34:10] and daycares and those kinds of things. Also, when we talked about home sizes

[34:15] and configurations, the two-bedroom unit was something that everybody felt we

[34:20] didn't have enough of in town, and they felt like that was a good compromise

[34:24] between on the size range between affordability

[34:28] and what they would like, livability. So,

[34:31] that was something that was very interesting to us was that two bedrooms

[34:34] are very popular. They go very quickly in the community when they become

[34:38] available for rent or for sale. Um, and that um, that's just something to pay

[34:43] attention to as we uh, develop our code.

[34:49] Again, those it just seeing here that the the two types of neighborhoods

[34:53] people were most interested in living in, not saying that they live in those

[34:58] neighborhood types today, were the small-scale residential and the urban

[35:02] residential type neighborhoods. I've just plopped these kind of circles on

[35:06] top of the the Opticos uh, missing middle housing diagram that

[35:10] I think a lot of you have seen many times before to just put a little bit of

[35:14] a visual to it, but the small-scale residential is that kind of up to

[35:19] three-story sort of moderate density with the wide mix of housing types, and

[35:23] then the urban residential is uh, more the the smaller block size or

[35:29] quarter block size type buildings that are maybe up to five stories. Um, which

[35:33] we see a lot of in our urban villages um, and in in a few other parts of town,

[35:38] but those were the the kinds of neighborhoods again with a mix of things

[35:41] happening within those neighborhoods that people indicated a preference for.

[35:48] These are kind of complicated statistical summary things from the the

[35:52] uh, report, but I just want to call your attention to um,

[35:57] on the left here, these are the percentages of the neighborhood types

[36:00] that people are actually living in today. So, you can see we had kind of a

[36:04] spectrum of uh, uh,

[36:06] maybe 12% living in kind of the more dense urban core areas,

[36:10] um, and then kind of a even split between

[36:13] our very suburban kind of uh, low-density neighborhoods, and then the

[36:17] medium-density neighborhoods. And then going across, these are the types of

[36:21] neighborhoods that people said they would prefer to live in.

[36:25] Um, and so it's no surprise people that live in fairly suburban areas tagged the

[36:30] suburban type of neighborhood as an area they'd like to stay in. But what what we

[36:35] felt was kind of a revelation or an important key

[36:38] point to key into were that the people that maybe live in the more dense areas

[36:44] now um

[36:45] were not necessarily all keyed into living in a low-density suburban area.

[36:50] That their preference aimed more for those kind of moderate-density,

[36:53] mixed-use, more variety of housing types neighborhoods, which is that small-scale

[36:58] and urban residential. So again, that kind of

[37:01] intuitive recognition that while I might maybe I would want to live in a large

[37:07] home on a large lot at the edge of town, I understand that there are some some

[37:10] costs that come with that in the transportation realm, also environmental

[37:14] impacts, um

[37:16] and and [snorts] the like, and that maybe they were willing to compromise

[37:19] and live in a denser environment with a more variety of housing styles in

[37:23] exchange for those amenities and services that come with the denser

[37:27] neighborhood.

[37:31] And again, just on this side over here, this was indicating again the strong

[37:36] preference for owning your home as opposed to renting, and then also

[37:41] just again willing to compromise on or to accept living closer to others in

[37:48] exchange for having things like access to transit, access to other community

[37:53] amenities.

[37:57] So that was the housing preference survey, and then the last survey we did

[38:00] was conducted largely online, and that was the growth survey, and this we ran

[38:04] off of our Engage Bellingham page, and also did some postcard mail outs with a

[38:09] QR code on it. Um, and again, this was done in in English and Spanish, and we

[38:14] had a lot of outreach through our project email lists that were fairly

[38:18] well developed by this time. Um, several thousand went out that way, Um, and also

[38:23] it was promoted on social media and at community events. We had over 3,000

[38:26] responses, which we felt was again a really good response um, for the for the

[38:31] effort. And

[38:34] uh, a lot of the responses echoed what we'd seen in the vision and the housing

[38:37] preference survey, but we did ask some of the questions in different ways. And

[38:41] um, again, there was that smaller housing closer to amenities was a value

[38:45] that people had. We again saw a preference for two-bedroom formats um,

[38:50] as opposed to larger homes farther away from the core of the community.

[38:55] One of the interesting things we asked about was um,

[38:58] we asked a variety of urban village questions about where people liked to go

[39:02] in the community, what they liked about urban villages, or maybe what they were

[39:05] concerned about about urban villages. Um, you could see one of those comments

[39:09] was that our urban villages are too auto-centric for some folks. Uh, they'd

[39:13] like to see more pedestrian infrastructure in those areas. Um, one

[39:17] of the key things we asked was where where should we have more urban villages

[39:20] in Bellingham? And we had a kind of a heat map that people were able to drop

[39:24] points on. Um, there were some interesting locations around town next

[39:28] to people's favorite park and those kind of things, which maybe maybe or maybe

[39:31] not as practical. But Cordata and the north part of Bellingham came out as a

[39:35] clear preference where people were like, "Hey, we really need to have uh, that

[39:39] there." And that's the sentiment we've heard in public hearings and through

[39:42] other kinds of um, not necessarily surveys, but other other That's another

[39:47] uh, point that we hear frequently at the city is that they'd like to have a

[39:51] mixed-use urban village in the north part of the city. And so that's

[39:54] something that we're putting putting a pin in that conversation. We're doing

[39:57] this residential zoning code update first. When we do again pivot to looking

[40:02] at more urban villages, we'll pay close attention to that and really look at

[40:05] that area out in Cordata as as maybe one of the next potential areas to do that

[40:09] kind of a kind of a district.

[40:17] Okay, looking at the future land use and zoning maps.

[40:20] Um this is just

[40:23] basically looking at our existing uh zoning map and turning off the

[40:28] » [snorts] >> uh the the non-residential categories,

[40:30] so you don't see the green parks, the the blue institutional

[40:35] uh campus zones, or the the gray industrial or red commercial zones, but

[40:39] what you see is the existing residential single zones that are the yellow areas,

[40:43] and the existing residential multi, which are the orange, and then our urban

[40:47] villages are the pink areas. Um again, we've you know

[40:51] we're in this kind of transition time. We have interim middle housing

[40:54] regulations that apply across all of these zones,

[40:58] um with the exception of the areas in the Lake Whatcom watershed.

[41:01] Um so, while these are zoned residential single in our zoning code, there's an

[41:05] interim ordinance that overrides that and allows people to develop middle

[41:08] housing in these areas. But, this is just the lay of the land from a

[41:11] geographic standpoint.

[41:15] Oops.

[41:17] So, there's the zoning, and here's our future land use map, again with just the

[41:21] residential colors turned on from our the Bellingham plan.

[41:25] And you can see instead of that residential

[41:28] single multi paradigm that you have on the existing zoning

[41:32] the new land use map has that residential low, and then a residential

[41:35] medium, and the residential high zone. You can see the lighter color out here

[41:39] for the residential watershed, and then the urban villages are uh the same

[41:43] districts as they are on the on the zoning map and on the future land use

[41:47] map.

[41:49] Just focusing on each of those individually, uh the residential low

[41:54] zone, first and foremost, it's it's all of the residential single zones from the

[41:58] current zoning map. And then a few other things, um namely, you see these

[42:03] highlighted uh kind of turquoise or blue areas that we brought in. There's a big

[42:08] one out here in uh Barkley, uh one along um

[42:13] uh the edge of the Birchwood neighborhood

[42:15] that fronts the the bluff there by the waterfront, and then

[42:19] a couple of small ones in the uh Whatcom Falls, and I think it's the Samish

[42:24] neighborhood. These are the few existing residential medium zones that have a

[42:29] low-density designation in the zoning code. Um we did the kind of pondering

[42:35] this as we were pulling together the draft land use map. I think it's

[42:38] something it's something that we brought forward to you uh when we were going

[42:41] through the different residential policies in the land use chapter.

[42:46] And uh council agreed as well that those were most appropriate to land in the

[42:51] residential low zone because they already had that low-density identifier

[42:55] on them. And that with the middle housing

[42:58] ordinance coming forward, that it was likely that that that would be the best

[43:02] fit. So, it's all the residential single zones, and then those low-density

[43:06] residential multi zones.

[43:12] Looking at the medium zone, these are um all

[43:15] uh what would formally be residential multi zones with the medium density

[43:20] designation in today's zoning code. So, just saying instead of residential multi

[43:26] medium density, we're just calling them residential medium.

[43:29] And then the allowed uses as per our current interim and eventually our

[43:33] permanent residential regulations, they would allow not just the multi uses, but

[43:37] also the range of middle housing. Um and they have an appropriate minimum density

[43:43] um as they do today to make sure that things get developed in an efficient

[43:46] way.

[43:50] And then the residential high is again for the most part, today's residential

[43:56] multi high-density zones. And then we have a series of mixed-use zones which

[44:03] allow um out at north end of Cordata here, in the middle of Cordata, right

[44:07] next to the Cordata Park. Uh Those are areas that are designated commercial,

[44:13] industrial, residential multi. If you were to go out to those areas

[44:17] today, the developed properties are for the most part all residential.

[44:22] There are a few non-residential uses, but not many that have been developed in

[44:27] those areas. So, we felt the best fit looking at

[44:30] existing development, the few vacant properties that are left in these areas

[44:35] was to to drop them into the residential high category because that was

[44:40] the most the closest fit for those. And then,

[44:45] you can see next to the hospital, there is a commercial, or rather an

[44:50] institutional residential multi zone. And so, we felt again that the best fit

[44:54] for that would be the residential high zone. So, those are ones that they show

[44:59] up as mixed on the current map, but we would anticipate that those if we were

[45:03] to pick between the low, medium, and high, it would be most appropriate if

[45:06] the most appropriate if they would land in the high zone.

[45:13] And then, looking at the residential watershed, again on the zoning map,

[45:16] there are residential single and residential multi zones in the

[45:21] watershed. If you recall in 2023, the residential

[45:26] multi zones were all down zoned to the low density category.

[45:30] And so, we felt again it was most appropriate to just capture all of them

[45:35] in that residential watershed zone. That's a conversation for a future time

[45:39] as to what exactly is allowed in that zone. But again, the the clear guidance

[45:44] from the the Bellingham plan from a policy standpoint is that it be low

[45:49] density and have minimal impacts on water quality in the lake.

[45:53] And again, there's a a variety of ways we could approach that, and that'll be

[45:57] something that we'll bring forward to you for for detailed conversation when

[46:01] we get our different experts in the city together and come up with some

[46:04] recommendations.

[46:09] One of the just details that is left to figure out about that is just the

[46:13] boundary for the watershed. We have a couple of different um

[46:17] different um things to ponder. We have the red Silver

[46:21] Beach neighborhood boundary here. And then we have the uh this is the the

[46:25] black and white map in the background here is taken right from the municipal

[46:29] code related to the Silver Beach overlay zone and which controls when certain

[46:34] things can happen for development in the watershed to minimize impacts on the

[46:38] lake. And there's the gray area which is all within the Lake Whatcom watershed

[46:41] and then the cross-hatched area is within the watershed but drains to um

[46:47] the area uh that goes to Whatcom Creek as opposed to the lake. So, it all the

[46:52] drainage all comes down to the west of the Electric Avenue bridge there.

[46:56] Um so, there's some choices to make there. Again, we haven't haven't made

[47:00] those choices yet, but that'll be part of that conversation when we decide what

[47:04] will be allowed in those zones and how how that will be crafted in development

[47:08] code.

[47:15] One more loose end that we'll need to figure out um

[47:18] and again this is something our our team is talking about internally, but we

[47:21] don't have a a strong recommendation yet um but we'll bring back uh when when we

[47:26] do have some some options for you guys to to discuss and talk about. Um

[47:31] within each of the urban villages there are these transition zones which are

[47:35] highlighted there in the darker pink. They generally

[47:39] uh but up against adjacent residential low or medium or high density areas. And

[47:44] so, we what we want to avoid at least for a great length of time is setting up

[47:49] a situation where you might have higher density just outside of an urban village

[47:53] and then a lower density or lower level of intensity allowed within a transition

[47:58] area and then back up to a higher level of intensity in the core of an urban

[48:02] village. So, those are things that we'll have to we'll have to navigate that and

[48:05] figure out how we're going to designate those areas.

[48:08] If they'll become part of the adjacent residential medium or high zones or

[48:13] maybe they will be redesignated as high. Um there's a variety of things there,

[48:17] but we need to do some more thinking on that. We'll come back to you with some

[48:20] recommendations. That will likely happen alongside [snorts]

[48:24] these code updates.

[48:30] This is just illustrating the wide variety of existing zoning densities

[48:34] that are applied in the current residential single zones. So, all of the

[48:38] stuff that's uh shown in color on the map here is is

[48:41] inside that residential proposed residential low zone.

[48:45] Um and you can see there's some definite

[48:48] patterns of the core areas are are older gridded neighborhoods having higher

[48:52] densities. Um lot sizes allowed lot sizes that are

[48:57] as small as 3,000 square feet in the York neighborhood and then um as you go

[49:01] towards the edges um or the example of Birchwood, you have

[49:05] densities that go up to those in some cases almost a half acre lot size, the

[49:10] 20,000 square foot areas. And then we have quite a few that are in

[49:14] those around the 7,000 square foot lot size in different parts of town. Um

[49:19] but it is interesting to see what the pattern is and how that relates.

[49:25] And then also these are the densities that are listed

[49:28] in those zoning tables and then as as the

[49:32] note says here, some of these zones um in particular some of the ones that

[49:37] we've annexed over the last 20 or so years from Whatcom County have

[49:41] opportunities for uh bonuses for clustering

[49:45] um or other kinds of uh provisions to increase density. Um some of them

[49:49] through like a TDR transfer of development rights kind of program um or

[49:54] other kinds of kinds of options. Um so there's some level of complexity

[49:58] there, but this is the base the base density that's that's

[50:02] referenced. Wait, can I just cut in for a second? It

[50:06] is what was um this is being proposed going forward, not was in the previous

[50:10] one. This would carry forward with us or something we're trying to simplify.

[50:14] Uh so these would be again in that the kind

[50:17] of 97 unique zoning subareas. This is one of those things we're looking to

[50:21] really simplify. Um and I'll we're going to jump into

[50:24] some of uh existing platting patterns next. Just making sure. The residential

[50:28] low confused me I think versus residential single whether it was the

[50:32] previous or the proposed. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah, so great observation that

[50:37] it's I mean it's uh I'll clarify that that yeah, so these are existing

[50:41] densities in the Bellingham municipal code for those residential single zones.

[50:46] Um and again just just in the past couple

[50:49] of years that we've had just since we've had the interim middle housing

[50:52] ordinance. Um

[50:55] previously this was your minimum lot size and it corresponded to one home per

[50:59] lot. And now now that we allow four or in some cases up to six per lot, that's

[51:04] really changed the landscape. Um and then accessory dwelling units as

[51:08] well as another another variable in there. Uh so those are where

[51:13] again we're we're um stepping back, examining the landscape, looking at

[51:19] these areas in context of also the medium and high

[51:22] uh proposed zoning areas and trying to

[51:25] figure out what makes the most sense as a recommendation for a more uniform

[51:29] density across the city.

[51:37] So these are I'm just going to step through a few of these and not not dwell

[51:40] on them for a long time, but just to give give you an idea. Um these are all

[51:43] of the tax parcels or lots throughout that same set of zones. Um

[51:48] you know, you can't see a lot of the detail here, but you can you can see

[51:51] some of the large unplatted areas around the edges.

[51:55] Um, and then as you get into these gridded neighborhoods, you know, a lot

[51:58] of these are are those like 4 or 5,000 or maybe 7,000 square foot lots. Um,

[52:05] overall, the entire entire set of zones contain just under 16,000 tax parcel

[52:12] parcels covers about um, 5,800 acres.

[52:17] Uh, that's that's a good section of

[52:20] Bellingham. It's about 70% of our residential zoning as far as acreage

[52:25] goes. Um, it's about uh, roughly a third of the city's land area.

[52:31] Um, of those 15,900 uh,

[52:35] nearly all of them about 90% are platted lots.

[52:39] Um, and that makes up uh, about 75% of that total area. The 300 unplatted lots

[52:45] are about 25%. And again, you can see that

[52:48] those are the unplatted ones are not insignificant. It's it's some of them

[52:52] are quite large. Um, but [snorts] they are for the most part

[52:55] those those areas around the edge.

[53:02] Doing a little bit of uh, digging uh,

[53:06] comparing some of our GIS data about a majority, just a little bit over half of

[53:11] those platted lots are less than 7,500 square feet. Those have all been

[53:15] highlighted here so you can kind of see where they are. Predictably, a lot of

[53:18] our core neighborhoods with those those uh, defined gridded blocks and regular

[53:24] lot lot rectangular lot sizes um, are are where you'd see a lot of those and

[53:29] you're probably familiar with, you know, the the lettered streets and uh,

[53:33] Columbia neighborhood, South Hill, um, Happy Valley, a lot of those areas where

[53:37] you'd experience those kind of blocks. And then just from a statistical

[53:41] statistical standpoint, the 5,000 square foot lot is is the most common platted

[53:46] lot size. There's a lot of, you know, again,

[53:49] between the the five and the kind of 7,000 square foot size, there there's a

[53:53] lot of a lot of them in there. Yes, yeah.

[53:57] I'm squinting [clears throat] at that chart. It it Is there much below 5,000?

[54:00] I I I I saw you we have like some 3,000 and 4,000 zoned areas, but it kind of

[54:06] looks like there's nothing at all lower than the 5,000 hash. This is it's

[54:11] basically 5,000 and uh the the

[54:16] smaller ones, it's the label is somewhere in

[54:20] the range there. The um I'll Next time we come back to you, I can

[54:25] pull up or I can send you guys the actual table with the occurrences on it.

[54:28] Um but that gives you the from a frequency standpoint, um

[54:33] those that's the most common size. This is looking at the

[54:39] uh And then again, these highlighted ones

[54:42] are are everything 7,500 below, which would include all those ones that are

[54:46] like in York that are 3,000 or 4,000 square feet.

[54:57] Looking at all the the lots again in that same collection, um

[55:02] again, of just under 16,000 total, about 13,500 or about 85% have a single

[55:07] housing unit on them. Um and of all those ones with just a single housing

[55:12] unit, the majority of those, clear majority,

[55:16] um have less than 50% lot coverage. Um and so that's using our our buildings

[55:21] layer that has, you know, if you have a lot with a building and a garage, it's

[55:24] got two two polygons on it. Single Just single

[55:27] home by itself, it's a single one. But we When we add up the square footage of

[55:30] those and compare it to the square footage of the entire lot, um and so

[55:34] that's, you know, that's not accounting for driveways and other hardscape

[55:37] features, but it gives you some idea that there's definitely a fair amount of

[55:41] development capacity for adding middle housing

[55:45] on areas without really impacting existing the existing housing units on

[55:49] those lots or there's there's definitely some opportunities there.

[55:53] That's the kind of analysis that was incorporated into the land capacity

[55:58] estimate that informed the comprehensive plan to make sure that we have enough

[56:01] land to accommodate the projected growth. Um, this is just but it just

[56:06] from a very general standpoint, it's a useful thing to know.

[56:09] Um, about 850 of those lots accommodate

[56:13] multiple housing units. So, a lot of those would be like a single home with

[56:16] an accessory dwelling unit. Um, could be a duplex or other kind of housing form

[56:22] that's that's uh been built previously in those zones.

[56:26] And then just under 1% about 120 accommodate non-residential uses and so

[56:32] those are things like schools or churches or maybe a corner market or

[56:35] some other some other commercial or non-residential use

[56:40] that's in one of our one of those zones. And then around the edge, uh, there's

[56:45] about 1,500 or so that are vacant. So, about 10% overall.

[56:54] I'm just going to step through a series of images that that give you the pattern

[56:58] in these 5,000 square foot increments. So, what you're seeing here and I'll go

[57:03] through it a couple times just so you kind of see, but these are all the lots

[57:06] that are less than 5,000 and then you can see between 5 and 10.

[57:13] And then 10 to 15. 15 to 20

[57:18] and then 20 to 25. And then anything greater than 25,000.

[57:25] Um, and these are the uh these are the lots that are platted. So,

[57:29] you're you're seeing the vacant uh unplatted stuff show up like on

[57:33] Sammamish Hill or some of the other edge areas. These are just the platted lots.

[57:37] Um So, I'll just go back through that in

[57:39] sequence. What I want to Basically, what you're going to see is that the pattern

[57:43] is that you get those those ones that are between

[57:48] 5 and less than 5 and up to maybe 7,500 are for the most part in a lot of these

[57:54] core areas. And then we start to get a more

[57:57] distributed pattern for those larger lots.

[58:00] Um but you do also see, for instance, that Birchwood is an area that shows up

[58:05] with a larger number of the those big like 20,000 square foot, 15,000 square

[58:10] foot, or even larger lots.

[58:18] And then the last kind of lot pattern thing I wanted to bring to your

[58:21] attention just because when you're doing those infill housing

[58:25] infill toolkit style projects where you're adding uh adding units to a lot

[58:29] that may already have an existing home on it, um a couple of things make that a

[58:34] lot easier. One is if it's a corner lot because then you have a couple of

[58:37] different access points to the lot. Um and oftentimes those are just by nature

[58:41] sometimes larger lots. Uh but having a having two points of

[58:45] access is an important one. And then in that same vein, access lots that are

[58:50] along an improved alleyway. Um again, because you can get in

[58:53] oftentimes without Maybe the home is situated in such a way that you can't

[58:57] get a driveway by the side of the home, but if you get to the alley, you can add

[59:01] a town home or an ADU or something like that in the back. Um

[59:06] And so again, it's you know, for the particularly for the platted alleys um

[59:10] that are improved, again, it's in some very focused areas of town.

[59:15] Um corner lots, we have those obviously in a wide variety of places, but again,

[59:19] you could see because of the gridded streets, those those interior

[59:22] neighborhoods, you do see a lot of opportunities there as well.

[59:27] So again, just something to be thinking of. Um That's one thing that

[59:31] our staff has pondered quite a bit in the past 6 months or so are where we do

[59:37] have things like platted and improved alleys, where do we have platted alleys

[59:42] that aren't improved, and what kinds of opportunities those present. And then

[59:46] where do we not have alleys platted, but we might have deep lots that could

[59:50] really benefit from having alleys at some point. Or

[59:54] to just broaden that a little bit, maybe not necessarily an alley, but an

[59:57] improved lane or other small some kind of small street form that could be used

[1:00:02] to to provide access for fire, to provide just access for again residents

[1:00:08] in their daily lives. Also things like access for SSC for

[1:00:12] garbage collection, just the whole variety of things where

[1:00:15] it's it's challenging sometimes when you only have one way of getting in to a

[1:00:20] property. So those are all all things we're trying to ponder and

[1:00:23] work with our friends in public works and try and figure out what's what are

[1:00:27] some strategies for the variety of neighborhood forms

[1:00:30] that we have that could really where we could leverage some of these things. Um

[1:00:34] all of which we have to balance costs with those things and impacts to to

[1:00:39] neighbors. But but again, it's something that we're

[1:00:41] talking about.

[1:00:46] So before I just open it up for discussion, I just wanted to touch on a

[1:00:49] couple of things and the discussion can be on of course anything we've talked

[1:00:52] about or any other related questions you have, but just a couple of things it

[1:00:55] would be great to get some initial thoughts on.

[1:00:58] The idea of for those for those proposed low, medium, and high zones that we

[1:01:03] would bring code forward for just having a framework

[1:01:07] for how we differentiate those zones. And one of the ideas that we're

[1:01:13] pondering is for the low zone having both a minimum and a maximum lot size.

[1:01:19] So that the minimum or rather the maximum lot size is effectively setting

[1:01:22] kind of what your minimum density is, so that we are able to um

[1:01:28] uh make the best use of the limited land that we have in town, and understand

[1:01:32] that we don't have too many more opportunities to expand our boundary

[1:01:35] before we run into watershed or agricultural land, or we have saltwater

[1:01:40] and hills. So, we we just don't have that much more many more places to grow

[1:01:43] over the next series of decades. We want to make the best use of the land we

[1:01:47] have, and so setting a a minimum density is a a common way for communities to

[1:01:51] really curate that limited land. And then also, um

[1:01:57] having a uh uh for the medium and high zones,

[1:02:02] um having at least uh we have for those areas today a minimum density, and so

[1:02:06] maintaining that, um and not worrying as much about the lot sizes in those areas,

[1:02:11] understanding that they're really going to be accommodating more of those

[1:02:14] multi-multi-story forms, um but really just focusing on

[1:02:19] what's the established minimum for those areas from a performance standpoint.

[1:02:23] Again, to make sure that we're getting the um

[1:02:27] the amount of development that we are are anticipating, um so that the

[1:02:32] infrastructure we provide is used to the greatest degree possible, whether that

[1:02:35] be transit or parks or other kinds of urban amenities.

[1:02:39] So, so that's one kind of framework

[1:02:42] conversation and point that we'd like to get feedback on.

[1:02:47] Another is just looking at our existing interim rules, um where we allow um

[1:02:53] up to, for instance, if we're looking at like the townhome form, we allow up to

[1:02:56] four units to be attached in a row, um under the interim uh infill rules.

[1:03:03] Is that appropriate to hang on to that? Is that a number we want to make bigger?

[1:03:07] Um should we allow five or sixplexes?

[1:03:10] Um and uh you know, that they would

[1:03:13] obviously that that would fit within the agreed-upon low zone standards for like

[1:03:18] height and open space standards. Um

[1:03:21] and is it really about the number of units? Um or is it more about the bulk

[1:03:25] and mass of the overall building itself? Um

[1:03:28] aiming you know, leaning towards more of a form-based approach um as opposed to

[1:03:33] just controlling the number of units. So, those are again kind of open-ended

[1:03:36] questions, but things that we're thinking about. And if if you all have

[1:03:40] thoughts or questions related to that that that's that's um helpful for us as

[1:03:46] we go through these these conversations.

[1:03:50] And then the last one I touched briefly on those uh TOD transit-oriented

[1:03:54] development corridors. We have not delineated those yet. We we

[1:03:58] know that they're likely going to be along uh Whatcom Transportation

[1:04:01] Authority's GO lines where they have their uh fifth currently 15-minute

[1:04:05] service intervals for transit. Um they're in the midst, if you've been

[1:04:09] watching recent council meetings, of uh

[1:04:13] um working with the city uh to move forward

[1:04:17] with uh um shortening up those service intervals

[1:04:20] along those GO lines. Uh there's now an agreement between the city and Whatcom

[1:04:24] Transportation to work collaboratively towards that goal. Uh picking off some

[1:04:28] easy or relatively achievable uh things along those routes to take about 5

[1:04:34] minutes off of those headway times. Um and that's one of those necessary

[1:04:38] ingredients to really make transit-oriented development successful.

[1:04:41] And it's kind of a feedback loop that that it makes the transit successful,

[1:04:45] too, cuz you have ridership. Um so

[1:04:49] to think about what those corridors might look like, whether they're

[1:04:52] occurring in a low, medium, or high zone. Um what kinds of additional

[1:04:58] um what kinds of flexibility should we include in those areas?

[1:05:02] Um whether it be height or reduced setbacks or other kinds of things. So,

[1:05:07] those are those are some of the things we'd like

[1:05:11] to have feedback on and again, like I said, I'm we're happy to respond to

[1:05:15] any questions you have around those things. Also, any of the other material

[1:05:19] and like I said, my friend Chris is here who's well versed in the the the BMC and

[1:05:24] also is heavily involved in the team working on the residential zoning stuff.

[1:05:28] So.

[1:05:32] Great. Feedback? Questions?

[1:05:39] I have a question for either Chris.

[1:05:43] Um I'm curious uh

[1:05:46] with uh with the low

[1:05:49] um the low zoning

[1:05:53] um and and maybe I'll just phrase it in a question. Um if I if I owned a 5,000

[1:05:58] square foot lot and I was thinking about building a fourplex

[1:06:03] uh and I went to the building department to obtain a permit. Um

[1:06:09] if that fourplex took up 4,000 square feet of impervious

[1:06:14] surface am I eligible

[1:06:17] for a permit? Uh did the new middle housing

[1:06:22] um requirements supersede what our local stormwater regs are?

[1:06:32] Uh right now, there is an open space requirement. So, if you don't meet the

[1:06:36] open space requirement for your development, regardless of the number of

[1:06:38] units, then it would not be allowed. So, is that open space uh requirement

[1:06:46] changing or is it the same formula that we've been using?

[1:06:51] Uh it's a formula that was adopted for the middle housing

[1:06:57] ordinance. Um

[1:07:00] and uh again, we are evaluating that right

[1:07:04] now. So, we don't know if it will change or if we've actually got it dialed in

[1:07:10] where we want it to be at this point. We're

[1:07:12] looking at the projects that are coming in right now under the current interim

[1:07:16] ordinance and the the previous interim ordinance

[1:07:19] and um just

[1:07:23] we'll we'll evaluate that and come up with a proposal

[1:07:28] or recommendation.

[1:07:31] Um

[1:07:35] on the graph that when the poll was taken and an

[1:07:39] overwhelming amount of people said, "Hey, it'd be great to own a home and

[1:07:42] not rent a home in Bellingham." And that's, you know, we

[1:07:46] hear that all the time. And making housing affordable, which seems to be

[1:07:51] the biggest challenge with not much developable land. Um when we move to

[1:07:56] this would it be fair to say if somebody in

[1:08:00] the Birchwood neighborhood um that had a 15,000 square foot lot

[1:08:04] would there be a minimum lot size where instead of just developing an ADU,

[1:08:09] something that they could rent, would that person be able to subdivide their

[1:08:13] property into three 5,000 square foot lots and sell those two lots for

[1:08:19] development so somebody might be able to afford

[1:08:22] a smaller home on a subdivided lot? Yes, you would be able to subdivide. You

[1:08:28] are able to subdivide right now under the current uh interim ordinance. So the

[1:08:33] current one, depending on what neighborhood you're in, uh the graph

[1:08:37] that Chris showed. So if you were in a neighborhood that said, "Hey, your

[1:08:39] minimum lot size in this neighborhood is 8,000 square feet." Are we going to have

[1:08:44] a new minimum lot size for middle housing?

[1:08:48] Uh we're looking to come up with a

[1:08:53] minimum lot size that would apply citywide. Universal. Universal.

[1:09:01] Um say right now under say a single-family

[1:09:06] 5,000 zone, you can put four to six units on that.

[1:09:11] You can subdivide those four to six units into four lots.

[1:09:15] So, for example, a townhouse lot where the townhouse is only 16 ft wide,

[1:09:21] you're creating a very small lot. The end units tend to take up

[1:09:27] the open space on the outside. So, those lots tend to be a little bit larger.

[1:09:32] So, a 5,000 sq ft lot could be subdivided into four to six units. A

[1:09:37] 20,000 sq ft lot could be subdivided into four to six units.

[1:09:43] Potentially, if you know, if we do come up with this universal

[1:09:47] mm minimum lot size parent lot size, uh in the Birchwood neighborhood, if

[1:09:53] that that lot size is 5,000 sq ft and you

[1:09:57] have a 20,000 sq ft lot, then you could create four parent lots.

[1:10:03] Each of those parent lots would be eligible for four to six units.

[1:10:07] Each of those units could be subdivided onto individual lots.

[1:10:11] So, basically, it it gets to a point where

[1:10:16] you're not able to keep subdividing

[1:10:20] into smaller lots. Or there's a there's a point where you just can't subdivide

[1:10:24] it further. Sure. And when you see people applying

[1:10:27] for that sort of development, is the biggest hurdle then

[1:10:32] uh pervious surface? Stormwater?

[1:10:36] That that is one of the bigger um roadblocks. The others are, you know,

[1:10:42] existing trees on site for preservation. Um

[1:10:48] sometimes it's existing homes on site that

[1:10:51] they want to preserve. So, there there there's

[1:10:54] all kinds of variables. Um

[1:10:57] but stormwater's definitely one of the bigger ones.

[1:11:02] Yeah, thank you. I guess that following on to that

[1:11:05] is there a reason there should be any minimum lot size

[1:11:11] given the confusion it causes when we're I guess looking at community goals of

[1:11:16] increasing um access to ownership and increasing

[1:11:20] affordability minimum lot size obviously tends to correlate with increasing

[1:11:25] property expenses and price. Um

[1:11:30] so yeah, wondering if we if it's possible to just not have a

[1:11:35] minimum lot size recognizing that we're not talking about the

[1:11:39] watershed and that any that it would be form base. You'd still have to uh comply

[1:11:45] with the impervious surfaces and the setback and the heights and everything

[1:11:49] else. Um and assuming connected to sewer and you

[1:11:54] didn't need enough space for a septic and all of that stuff.

[1:11:57] Have you thought about just not having a minimum lot at all?

[1:12:02] That's a possibility. That's an option.

[1:12:10] Do you know any reasons your staff has talked about why that's a bad idea or

[1:12:14] why that shouldn't move forward just out of curiosity?

[1:12:21] It's one of those where it's it's an unknown. It's it's something we have

[1:12:25] never had before. So it's you know, right now we're operating

[1:12:30] under this uh interim ordinance and we're able to see

[1:12:34] how it plays out on this, you know, short-term basis and

[1:12:39] then explore options based on what those outcomes are and that's that's kind of

[1:12:44] the beauty of it. Um if we just jump to something that we

[1:12:50] It's don't know um we don't know what the outcomes are.

[1:12:56] That that's a little more challenging.

[1:12:59] But I think I think to your point though, the um

[1:13:03] the idea uh

[1:13:07] we we've talked about, you know, the range of potential values to consider

[1:13:10] for both a minimum or a maximum. And in our conversations

[1:13:15] um it's been uh and again set up by the

[1:13:18] policies in the the land use chapter, the the maximum lot size is really the

[1:13:23] the one that we feel is is um that's the one that really helps you

[1:13:27] achieve that minimum density threshold to make sure that again that we're we're

[1:13:31] making the best use of the areas we have left to develop in town.

[1:13:35] Um But but that's a that is an interesting

[1:13:38] idea to just say maybe maybe if you only need a maximum, can you accomplish what

[1:13:42] you need? So.

[1:13:47] Chris, you mentioned TDR transfer of development rights. I'm not familiar

[1:13:52] with that. Can you explain it to me? Yeah, it's a it's a program that the

[1:13:56] it's been a county-wide program for a good number of years, um over 20. And

[1:14:01] it's not anything that's really caught on locally. We've studied it uh the

[1:14:06] county and the cities have studied it jointly a number of times over the past

[1:14:09] 20 years. And it's really been uh we haven't had the market to support it.

[1:14:14] But it's basically in concept, you have areas in rural areas uh

[1:14:19] that you want to limit development in and it could be the watershed, it could

[1:14:22] be the agricultural zone. Those are kind of the two most common that are talked

[1:14:25] about. And to effectively move development

[1:14:30] rights out of that zone or either of those kinds of areas, you

[1:14:34] set up receiving zones in areas like a city where you're willing to increase

[1:14:39] density in exchange for a property owner or developer buying development rights

[1:14:44] out of those areas that you want to preserve. And in that exchange, there's

[1:14:48] some negotiation that happens. There's an agreed-upon price per unit. And then

[1:14:52] the the deed for the property out in the area you want to remove units from,

[1:14:57] there's the deed gets modified to say the property rights have been purchased.

[1:15:01] They've been used in, you know, Bellingham or wherever, or they've gone

[1:15:04] into a bank for further use somewhere generically.

[1:15:07] Um It's it's something that really has

[1:15:10] never taken off. There are a few examples in Whatcom County where it's

[1:15:14] happened, but in general, the market has not been there um

[1:15:18] to really force the issue on those. A simpler program is what we've had

[1:15:24] um running beside that and is in our zoning as well. It's a purchase of

[1:15:28] development rights program, and we've had that in a in some areas we've

[1:15:32] annexed from Whatcom County where you can do TDRs or PDRs.

[1:15:36] We've had one example in the last 15 or so years where some uh

[1:15:40] a project was built. I think it was out on Telegraph,

[1:15:44] where someone was able to purchase some development rights and able to add

[1:15:48] additional units on a multi-family project um just by, you know, basically

[1:15:52] much simpler. You don't have to negotiate back and forth with

[1:15:54] development rights. You can just write a check. It goes into the watershed

[1:15:57] purchase fund, and you're granted it additional floors or additional units in

[1:16:01] a project. Um

[1:16:05] Yeah, and it goes into like, you know, it's designated for a special fund, and

[1:16:08] in exchange, you're given additional density. Um the only place that

[1:16:13] one of the only places in the state that programs like that have worked very well

[1:16:18] were were in the kind of boom years of when the South Lake Union projects

[1:16:21] around Amazon were developing, and you had

[1:16:25] towers over 20 stories going up, and in exchange for buying agricultural

[1:16:30] development rights or watershed development rights in King County,

[1:16:33] developers were able to add 10 or 15 floors to a building. In that kind of

[1:16:37] environment, it definitely made sense. It penciled out for them.

[1:16:41] The environment in Whatcom County, it's the market's never been there to really

[1:16:45] make the development rights valuable enough to force that.

[1:16:48] Um the other thing, again, just given the last 3 years worth of state

[1:16:53] legislation, we've just been given a huge

[1:16:57] density boost in in Bellingham in particular because

[1:17:00] House Bill 1110 applies here. And so that just makes it even less likely

[1:17:05] that a developer isn't going to be able to build as many units as they want and

[1:17:08] they're going to pay extra to get that. So it's just again one of those things

[1:17:14] um that just from a market standpoint has never really made sense here. Um

[1:17:18] great great policy and laudable cause, but it's just not a mechanism that's

[1:17:23] been able to work.

[1:17:30] Um looking through the map, it I think

[1:17:34] we're I'm curious at how rigid we need to be about mapping current RS to low

[1:17:39] and current RM to medium. And what

[1:17:44] what the philosophical difference between low and medium is given

[1:17:49] 1110 applies in both. Um

[1:17:53] we've got your your

[1:17:57] uh lot size analysis is only in the low.

[1:18:01] And if you >> Yeah, I I what we showed you tonight is

[1:18:04] in the low zone. We've got we've got that for the whole city, but it's yeah,

[1:18:07] you're right. It's we've we focused on for instance

[1:18:10] again, because we were less concerned about lot sizes in the medium and high

[1:18:14] zones. It's more about setting a minimum density threshold Yeah. knowing that lot

[1:18:20] sizes work differently with with residential multi projects in

[1:18:23] particular. Um But I

[1:18:26] I mean I I I just observe that there's there's some areas that are lower lot

[1:18:31] size like 3,000 lot size that are going to get tagged as low and some areas that

[1:18:35] are 5,000 lot size that going to get tagged as medium

[1:18:39] and they're like across the street the same distance from a transit center.

[1:18:43] Like it's it's arbitrary. It's the historical layers of, you know, decades

[1:18:48] of built-up decision-making. The built environment

[1:18:54] may be more appropriate in some cases for a medium

[1:18:58] if for something that might get tagged as low. And so

[1:19:01] kind of going back to what um

[1:19:04] he was asking is there other dimensions around open

[1:19:08] space requirements or setbacks or other fact- limiting factors like that between

[1:19:14] low and medium that maybe makes sense

[1:19:17] to cuz inside the

[1:19:20] existing built neighborhoods you've got a whole street of 3,000 ft

[1:19:26] lots and a whole and a whole street of 5,000 ft lots. That's not going to

[1:19:28] change very much. Oh it's going to be very very slow for any sort of bundling

[1:19:32] to happen. Um

[1:19:36] if any redevelopment is going to happen, does

[1:19:38] it come down to things like open space requirements? And do we have any

[1:19:44] are those are we anticipating those being different at the medium and high?

[1:19:50] Well, you you have the the building envelope that you can build within based

[1:19:53] on the standards. So for the middle housing

[1:19:56] um you have your floor area ratio. And it's um

[1:20:01] it's scaled so that it if you're just going to build one unit on site you get

[1:20:05] a 0.6 FAR. Um based on the the lot size. If you

[1:20:10] build six units on it, you get 1.6. So it's for every unit you add, you get a

[1:20:17] 0.2 bonus. So that is one of the

[1:20:22] things that are limiting your envelope. You have your setbacks. You have open

[1:20:27] space. You have height limits. Um

[1:20:31] those are those are really the the main factors there.

[1:20:35] Are there credits between four and six?

[1:20:39] Uh yes. It It Again, at four, you're at 1.2, at five, you're

[1:20:45] 1.4, and at six, you're at 1.6. So, you get a credit of 0.2 FAR

[1:20:51] for each unit.

[1:20:57] I I'd say that with the low zones, um

[1:21:02] you know, Portland has uh

[1:21:05] been doing this for a while where they created these zones, and in the low

[1:21:11] zones, it's the FAR that is actually

[1:21:15] creating the incentive for more building more units.

[1:21:20] If you only have, say, a a single FAR uh that allows

[1:21:28] um a

[1:21:30] a 1.6 on a lot, regardless of the number of dwelling units,

[1:21:35] you're going to have developers building the largest single-family home that they

[1:21:38] can. And, you know, we have developers in the city that just focus on

[1:21:42] single-family. That's all they want. Um

[1:21:45] but if you have a this progressive scale starting at 0.6 at one unit and

[1:21:52] um tapering up to the 1.6 for six units, there is an incentive to build [snorts]

[1:21:58] more units because you get more floor area for each unit that you add to the

[1:22:02] site. So, it's it's more likely that you're going to

[1:22:06] get those units. And the

[1:22:09] um medium or high zones, where typically

[1:22:13] it's a multi-family zones at this time, looking at

[1:22:17] uh limiting development size just by

[1:22:22] the building envelope, not by a floor area ratio. So, if you have a 35-ft

[1:22:27] height limit in a medium zone or a 45-ft height limit in a high zone,

[1:22:32] it's more of the the building height limit, the setbacks,

[1:22:37] open space. It's not based on the FAR. And again, in those zones

[1:22:43] those are just hypothetical throwing out those numbers of 35 ft and 45 ft.

[1:22:49] Those are recommendations that we're looking for from the commission of what

[1:22:52] is the appropriate height limits for those

[1:22:55] for those zones.

[1:23:04] With the Yeah, it

[1:23:11] The thing that I really have been drawn to this idea of

[1:23:14] like the the density model the low, medium, high isn't really the

[1:23:20] it's not the biggest factor for the density anymore. Um,

[1:23:24] but being stuck in the old

[1:23:28] mental model. Like like I'm really drawn to the idea of like proximity to

[1:23:34] interesting things. Proximity to commercial, proximity to schools, parks,

[1:23:38] trails, and like that's the TOD strategy kind of misses

[1:23:43] that general proximity to amenities. Um,

[1:23:48] and I just I see a lot of yellow where we have low lot

[1:23:53] small lot sizes, and that kind of doesn't make sense. And and you see

[1:23:57] yellow touching urban villages.

[1:24:00] And and it kind of doesn't make sense. It's It's a low, medium, high is going

[1:24:03] to be like a height differentiator. Graduated heights.

[1:24:08] You know, I I think one of the I think we're

[1:24:10] trying to map the the residential transition urban village solution that

[1:24:15] we've had over the last 20 years.

[1:24:18] And maybe maybe it's a different way of

[1:24:21] approaching that is like stepping down from urban village to high then medium

[1:24:26] then low. And and having like

[1:24:29] radiuses of of And because right, if you have like as

[1:24:34] Chris pointed out, a low zone next to an urban village, that's that's a

[1:24:41] conflict. But if

[1:24:43] fourplexes are everywhere, does that conflict really matter? Well, maybe

[1:24:46] maybe the height distinction is what matters.

[1:24:51] I think and that's where I think maybe this is just the detailed like uh

[1:24:57] interactive version of the land use map from the Bellingham plan. And so this is

[1:25:00] where you're, you know, we still got the urban villages wrapped in these pink

[1:25:03] lines here, but we've exposed those transition areas

[1:25:07] you're talking about. And so that might be

[1:25:09] again to that that one slide we talked about where we need to figure out what

[1:25:13] are we doing with those transition zones as these code updates occur. Um but I

[1:25:18] think that gets at, you know, looking at Fountain, for instance, you've got that

[1:25:21] kind of core commercial corridor. And then

[1:25:25] and then a fairly substantial transition zone that that brackets that before you

[1:25:29] get into the the other neighborhoods around there. So I think that probably

[1:25:33] is that's where some of those

[1:25:38] some of those considerations can play out. Um

[1:25:41] the other thing I would offer is we have that low, medium, and high

[1:25:46] uh name that we've applied to these land use areas.

[1:25:50] And particularly with the new interim middle housing regs, it's it's helpful

[1:25:54] to think of it There is definitely a density correlation there. But it's

[1:25:58] almost it's it's almost more helpful or realistic to think about it as low,

[1:26:02] medium, and high form. Because those examples like in

[1:26:07] Birchwood, the the example Chris was talking about where maybe you can get

[1:26:11] three parent three or four parent lots, and then you have the the

[1:26:15] middle housing units allowed on each of those lots

[1:26:18] Um um that it is

[1:26:20] » The capacity to subdivide, not necessarily the unit count. Yeah. That

[1:26:25] those three zones dictate. >> Yeah, and there's definitely a

[1:26:28] relationship there, but that it's fairly disconnected from the old residential

[1:26:33] single patterns that we've had in up to this point. Yeah. And so that's that's

[1:26:38] just how transformative that that middle housing legislation really is. And so it

[1:26:43] is again just in in our minds when we're talking about the development standards

[1:26:47] that kind of thinking about the form is is instructive and and what those

[1:26:53] standards are and how they vary between the low and medium and high.

[1:26:57] But that would be for us to to change. Right now it's still proposed going

[1:27:01] forward based off of the square foot of land area per unit. So it is still unit

[1:27:07] based. So I think it's one I mean to your points of the specific heights

[1:27:11] and recommendations from us. I mean I I I think staff is probably much more

[1:27:16] expert in this than us and well better positioned to come up with some of those

[1:27:20] specific numbers, but in terms of broad principles, I would say I would suggest

[1:27:25] it being form based, not unit based per our discussions of the height

[1:27:30] transitions and recognizing that middle housing allows, you know, four units or

[1:27:35] six if it's affordable in every location where single family housing is allowed.

[1:27:41] So that already disrupts all of this. So I think shifting to that kind of

[1:27:46] thinking rather than unit size, which is kind of what I was trying to get at with

[1:27:49] the the minimum lot size kind of becoming a a confusing barrier that

[1:27:54] would you know, add confusion and time to construction costs. So so form-based

[1:28:00] thinking I would suggest would be one principle to think about as you move

[1:28:04] forward. Um No maximum density I I

[1:28:09] said before um and then just yeah, simple

[1:28:13] what can be done by right clearly communicated I guess would be three

[1:28:18] principles on this that I would just um support for kind of that that ease of

[1:28:26] of development um to expand housing options for community

[1:28:32] members keeping with kind of the community forms we have.

[1:28:40] Thank you. That's helpful. I

[1:28:43] I'll tell you it's it's a tough, you know, just the should it be a four unit

[1:28:47] or a six unit um I've had the opportunity to walk around

[1:28:52] some neighborhoods in Seattle like the Ballard neighborhoods where this is

[1:28:55] zoning's already been implemented and the neighborhoods have changed radically

[1:29:01] and honestly I don't know if it's for the better uh for the people who

[1:29:06] live there for a long time. Uh there's a house and now there's a house in the

[1:29:10] backyard of a house and a lot of it's planted with an alley so there's two

[1:29:13] houses in the back of a house and then if a developer who's able to buy two

[1:29:17] houses now it's a 12-plex there and there was the promise of light rail and

[1:29:21] less cars needed but honestly you can't park anywhere. Um it it's been a a

[1:29:26] disruption and I I understand why we need it. Um

[1:29:31] I don't know if I would jump on board with just maximizing units um with the

[1:29:36] caveat of maybe maybe you keep it at four if it's going to be an apartment

[1:29:41] but if a developer wants to do a six and a townhouse

[1:29:45] uh format to a to be able to supply more affordable housing towards people maybe

[1:29:51] that's a an incentive that we could work on.

[1:30:04] I I idea if this is legal. Um wondering about

[1:30:11] yeah, the legality possibility of um I get for instance um that our short-term

[1:30:18] rental Airbnb policy um doesn't allow for detached

[1:30:26] dwelling unit short-term rentals um tied to this could be reevaluated if

[1:30:32] the Bellingham vacancy rate rises above 4%.

[1:30:36] I think it says so it's tied to a community value.

[1:30:41] We value um

[1:30:43] having housing here for people who are living here and that's a value we've

[1:30:47] decided as a community. So we'll reevaluate this if we feel that need is

[1:30:51] being met to open up more investment opportunities and I'm wondering if

[1:30:55] there's some equivalent possibility within the

[1:30:59] space that we're talking about here of cons- I'm hearing a lot of concerns

[1:31:03] about change and unknowns and and things is there a way to mitigate that with a

[1:31:09] proposal kind of like the interim of let's do this for a few years and then

[1:31:14] come back and and reevaluate or tie it to a marker like affordable housing for

[1:31:19] the community, you know, um we're going to allow

[1:31:23] expanded or remove minimum lot sizes and this will be reevaluated at a point at

[1:31:29] which housing the average price of the house

[1:31:33] sold is only 10 times

[1:31:37] area median income or only eight times or only five times.

[1:31:42] I won't get down to three which would actually be affordable, but maybe you

[1:31:46] know, five or eight or something and then that way we've tied it to community

[1:31:50] values that you've captured in so many

[1:31:55] um surveys of wanting affordable housing.

[1:31:59] So here we're tying it like we have with our short-term rental policy to be

[1:32:02] reevaluated at certain periods.

[1:32:06] So, recognizing some disruption is necessary

[1:32:10] to increase housing and affordability while also recognizing we want to this

[1:32:16] is unknown, we want a chance to reevaluate, and this is why we're doing

[1:32:19] it. But, I don't even know if it's legal to tie to housing prices and and stuff

[1:32:23] like that. But, just throwing that idea out there.

[1:32:34] I was just kind of wondering, would it make sense to just go ahead and try and

[1:32:38] the areas, just like what you were saying, that

[1:32:41] already have potential for that growth, you know, to try and make some of those

[1:32:45] changes there, see what the impacts are going to be and everything, especially

[1:32:48] with all the folks that are wanting to own a home, you know, and be close to

[1:32:54] transportation and work and and all of that to start in those

[1:32:59] close to those urban village areas where you have the potential to be able to do

[1:33:04] that and see what the impact is going to be before going into some of maybe some

[1:33:09] of the more rural areas where the watersheds and stuff are at.

[1:33:17] I'm trying to make sure I understand what you're suggesting um

[1:33:21] because right now the interims are applying citywide except for in the

[1:33:25] watershed. Um

[1:33:27] And so, are you suggesting if we were to do like a tiered implementation or

[1:33:31] phased implementation of new um new zoning?

[1:33:36] Okay.

[1:33:39] Yeah, it's it's it's uh It's tricky because you have to do

[1:33:43] 1110 universally. And I think some of the reason to do

[1:33:46] this is to mitigate in the right way the fourplexes thing

[1:33:51] cuz we can't phase that in in pilot projects. We have to do that

[1:33:55] everywhere.

[1:33:58] I think what one of just on tangentially related or overlapping with

[1:34:03] with what you're saying, Lisa, and I think what what Mike had been talking

[1:34:07] about about those transition areas around the urban villages is really I

[1:34:11] think a lot of that will also um play into the TOD corridor conversation just

[1:34:17] because as a practical matter, if we're looking at a like a quarter-mile walk

[1:34:20] distance from those GO lines, that really encompasses the majority of

[1:34:25] those transition areas that are either bonafide transition areas inside of an

[1:34:31] urban village like Fountain or the adjacent neighborhood areas that are

[1:34:35] kind of also um not named transition areas, but they are effectively kind of

[1:34:40] transitions between the surrounding areas.

[1:34:43] Um And and so that's that's something again

[1:34:48] as as the internal team is working on kind of draft proposals for these code

[1:34:52] updates, the TOD conversation is we as we went through the Bellingham

[1:34:57] plan update, we you know, we acknowledged that that would need to be

[1:35:00] kind of a phase two with its own public process, obviously coordination with

[1:35:05] Whatcom Transportation, um

[1:35:08] and that there's there's a good amount of uh you know, that that

[1:35:12] could that could be done in sort of reaches,

[1:35:16] so to speak, like, "Hey, we're going to look between these two particular urban

[1:35:19] villages and design a corridor and maybe there'll be something specific

[1:35:23] and we would potentially learn from that and apply it to the next corridor

[1:35:27] in similar fashion to the way that our urban village plans have evolved that

[1:35:32] we did one and then we learned from that and we applied some of what we learned

[1:35:35] in the next one and they kind of have have fed up on each other as you go

[1:35:39] forward. Um

[1:35:43] So So those are again, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I I think just

[1:35:47] geographically because the GO lines relate very strongly to the

[1:35:51] urban villages, I think some of those things will happen naturally in those

[1:35:56] in those follow-on processes. Chris and the the internal team are

[1:36:01] trying to leave space as they think about what that code will

[1:36:04] look like, leave space for that transit-oriented development

[1:36:08] conversation as a follow-up and make sure that we don't paint ourselves into

[1:36:12] a corner where we can't, hey, you know, have like rows in a table of standards

[1:36:17] or columns in a table of standards where we have, you know, this is what applies.

[1:36:21] And if you're in a in proximity to a transit line, then there are these

[1:36:26] kind of what we were talking about, maybe additional height is allowed or

[1:36:29] maybe additional something else or reduced setbacks, those kinds of things,

[1:36:33] um to allow that additional intensity that we hope for in in proximity to the

[1:36:38] to the transit amenity.

[1:36:42] I I also think that it might come down to like

[1:36:44] like we've upzoned everywhere, but that doesn't mean we're going to see building

[1:36:47] everywhere. There's challenging situations that the math the penciling

[1:36:51] doesn't happen. I

[1:36:54] If if we can use those those TOD zones or

[1:36:59] the transition zones around urban villages, that that might be

[1:37:02] a similar overlapping Venn diagram to find the factors that increase the

[1:37:07] likelihood of development. We we want to see redevelopment near an urban village

[1:37:11] because an urban village makes sense when it's built out, not when it's a one

[1:37:15] apartment building and a parking lot. Like we want to see Fountain and

[1:37:18] Sammamish like come together. There that that there's more value there for

[1:37:23] the whole urban village picture. So, if we can tweak those likelihood to see

[1:37:28] development factors, whether it's open space or setbacks or any of these

[1:37:31] different kind of out outside of the the periphery of

[1:37:36] zoning itself that make up the likelihood,

[1:37:39] um and that's that's what high means. That's what TOD means. That's what, you

[1:37:43] know, adjacent to urban village means is it's it's a a little bit of a community

[1:37:48] predictability that the area next to an urban village is

[1:37:52] more likely to see this type of redevelopment than the middle of a

[1:37:55] yellow zone. Even though it's

[1:37:58] you know, some of the high the macro level math is allowed everywhere.

[1:38:02] And we do we do have some tools that are different than just the form standards.

[1:38:06] Um, you know, two of them that are that we use already to in incentivize

[1:38:10] development like inside urban villages are the the the multi-family tax

[1:38:14] exemption is an example. Um and we have expanded that city-wide for

[1:38:19] the 12-year program. The 8-year program right now just applies within those

[1:38:22] those pink boundaries on the map. Um, and then the other is we we discount

[1:38:26] impact fees inside urban villages. Um, and so that's another tool that that

[1:38:32] the city has to say, "Hey, we you know, maybe the development

[1:38:36] regulations are very similar in different areas, but if there is an area

[1:38:39] where we'd like to say, "Hey, we want to make it a

[1:38:42] little bit easier in these areas." that we have some of those things where

[1:38:46] we could tweak those programs over time to to say, "Hey, you know, um and those

[1:38:52] are things like, you know, obviously the city's

[1:38:54] modified our MFTE uh regulations recently and it had been

[1:38:58] a long time since we'd changed it before that, but

[1:39:01] that's a that's a tool that is as needs change in

[1:39:05] a community, those are policies that can be adjusted to to help

[1:39:09] like sit and courage growth where we where we feel like we need it.

[1:39:17] Yes, uh for me in summary, uh if if you're going to take anything

[1:39:22] away uh from us our feedback, I would just recommend since we're getting rid

[1:39:27] of the 20-some different neighborhood requirements and going to one

[1:39:32] residential low, medium, high to do a universal minimum lot size. I think that

[1:39:37] would make the process easier for people trying to develop in

[1:39:42] all neighborhoods.

[1:40:00] Any Anything we didn't touch on that you'd love to hear about?

[1:40:04] No, I think I mean that was I think that's helpful to hear kind of where

[1:40:07] you're at with it and what you I mean interesting questions I think and and

[1:40:11] some ideas too that are um some mirror some of what we've been kind of talking

[1:40:16] about internally, but some of it's new, too. So, that's helpful.

[1:40:20] So. Um

[1:40:22] Yeah. There there was a topic of say in the

[1:40:26] um low zones, currently we have a maximum project size

[1:40:31] of four units. You can have six units on a lot, but any

[1:40:35] individual building can't have more than four units. Do you have uh

[1:40:40] uh recommendations on, you know, could that be six units?

[1:40:47] That four it comes from the interim ordinance.

[1:40:50] Comes from the interim ordinance. Yes. I mean again,

[1:40:55] uh for me, I don't I wouldn't be inclined

[1:40:58] to to maximize and say, "Yeah, let's just do six." knowing that it's going to

[1:41:02] be an impact for people in those neighborhoods. Um

[1:41:06] but again, because there's a need for people to buy an affordable house, if

[1:41:12] you can incentivize it by saying, "It's a town home. It's not an apartment." If

[1:41:17] if you tell a developer, "You can have six, but you you have to sell them as

[1:41:20] town homes and not rent them." And I don't know how else we're going to

[1:41:25] get affordable housing for people. It's just I mean, I know that we're

[1:41:30] looking at the UGA and Accordata and that's going to be some development. Uh

[1:41:35] so, people will be able to afford whatever's being developed out there,

[1:41:38] but if we're talking about infill in the city

[1:41:41] and I think we're going to have to get clever.

[1:41:46] Does the physical split from four like four and two, does that make it

[1:41:52] harder to do the bonus two affordable? Like are we just sort of

[1:41:57] accidentally taking that off the table cuz it's going to be harder to meet the

[1:42:00] other constraints if you have to physically separate the buildings?

[1:42:02] » Yes, so so currently I think one to four units is IRC construction.

[1:42:08] Once you get into five units or more becomes IBC. So the construction becomes

[1:42:14] more expensive. So But that's that'll eventually

[1:42:19] potentially be addressed at the state level.

[1:42:22] Hopefully, yes.

[1:42:27] So but uh if if more units are allowed to be

[1:42:32] attached, say up to six units should that be limited to just

[1:42:37] townhouse housing form or or does not matter? Could you have a

[1:42:42] sixplex, a fiveplex and a sixplex in the low zone?

[1:42:49] There's so many barriers to getting to six anywhere.

[1:42:54] I mean the development side of me says yeah, you know, let's you know, go for

[1:42:59] six and and open that up, but I just just having physically seen it and

[1:43:04] knowing that we're still a very car-centric community and there's no

[1:43:08] parking requirements. It's hard to visualize that.

[1:43:32] We don't have all the answers. >> [laughter]

[1:43:34] » Okay. And what's I mean what's the temperature

[1:43:37] in the planning department?

[1:43:41] I think right now um we we're we're hoping for temperature

[1:43:46] from the planning commission. >> [laughter]

[1:43:49] » Are we voting? Are we voting on 4 or 6? We were just going to bring a tablet and

[1:43:55] then hope you could write the code with us. Yeah.

[1:43:59] I don't envy you. Now, we have we have some great

[1:44:02] conversations. We have like weekly conversations around these issues and we

[1:44:08] we sing swing one way and the other and go through it's it's the

[1:44:13] a mix of long-range and development review short-range planners and and in

[1:44:18] the mix is always what projects are currently being reviewed under these

[1:44:22] interims. And so it's a continual week-by-week learning process and then

[1:44:25] trying to think uh you know, what's one thing Chris is

[1:44:28] doing is looking at the route projects that are being reviewed and then also

[1:44:31] trying to anticipate what what will the permanent code look

[1:44:35] like that will make this work better. And and so it's yeah, it's a real

[1:44:39] challenge, but we're definitely learning a lot as those projects are coming in.

[1:44:44] And right now the uh 1110 the minimum is four. Is that right? Or It's not a

[1:44:49] minimum we we allow four outright. You allow

[1:44:52] four? Yeah, there's no minimum, but it's it's it's allow four outright and then

[1:44:57] an additional two if there's the affordability or the project

[1:45:00] » Are you saying if we allow six then we're exceeding what the House Bill 1110

[1:45:04] minimum is? We're doing that on our own? The the the House Bill allows um

[1:45:10] plexes up to six plex. And it's up to the local community to

[1:45:14] decide if they want say the five-plex and six-plex. They just have to choose

[1:45:19] what five of the nine housing types that are in the

[1:45:23] middle housing bill in House Bill 1110.

[1:45:28] So that we we can choose to >> Yeah, they've left the heavy lifting to

[1:45:31] you.

[1:45:39] All right. Well, I appreciate the conversation. We will be back a number

[1:45:43] of times in front of you before you get you know, before we get to like a public

[1:45:47] hearing with code proposals cuz there are a lot of moving pieces

[1:45:50] here as you can see. But we appreciate this. The next two

[1:45:56] sessions on June 4th, you'll have a public hearing on the

[1:46:00] parking standards that are being brought forward. You remember we've got the

[1:46:05] interims now and we we need to move on to the next step there.

[1:46:09] And then on the 18th, we'll have two public hearings. Um

[1:46:14] one on the home occupation permit changes

[1:46:17] and then one on the landmark tree ordinance.

[1:46:21] So again, just coming we kind of briefed you on those earlier in the year to

[1:46:26] bring you up to speed and so now you'll see what the the proposed code

[1:46:30] amendments are related to that and have a chance to hear

[1:46:33] from the public your testimony on that and then discuss them. So

[1:46:37] look forward to that. Again, thank you for the good

[1:46:40] discussion. Yeah, thank you. Um at some point in a future meeting soon,

[1:46:46] we need to appoint a shoreline committee.

[1:46:49] Um we'll talk more about it. Just keep that in the back of your mind. Um

[1:46:53] when

[1:46:56] Heather and I also thought we had one. Um

[1:46:58] but we've been emailing about it. So anyways, when when our when the other

[1:47:01] two when our chairs are here, we'll

[1:47:04] we'll do some business on that next time.

[1:47:08] Um otherwise, we shall adjourn. Have a good

[1:47:11] night. Thanks. Thanks.

[1:47:35] » [music]

[1:47:41] » Mhm.

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript