[1:23] [music]
[1:40] Good evening everyone. I'd like to call
[1:43] to order tonight the um meeting of this
[1:46] uh Bellingham Planning Commission and
[1:47] then the city council planning committee
[1:50] meeting tonight for uh August 20th.
[1:54] Heather, would you please call the role?
[1:57] Planning Commissioners Rosley Thrip
[1:59] » Here. Mike Estes
[2:01] » Here.
[2:02] » Jerry Richmond
[2:03] » Here.
[2:03] » Claire Swingo
[2:04] » Here.
[2:04] » Jed Belaloo here.
[2:05] » Lisa Marks
[2:06] » Here.
[2:07] » And for the city council planning
[2:08] committee, Lisa Anderson
[2:10] » Here, Holly Huffman
[2:11] » Here, and Michael Illoquist
[2:12] » Here.
[2:15] » All right. Tonight on the agenda, it's a
[2:17] joint meeting of the Bellingham Planning
[2:19] Commission and the city council planning
[2:21] committee. And this is a basically a
[2:24] work session to look at getting feedback
[2:26] on significant um package of code
[2:29] updates intended for the 2027 adoption.
[2:38] Was the city going to give a background
[2:41] on any of this or is this uh what's the
[2:43] next item
[2:45] tonight? Public comment. Okay.
[2:52] This time we could welcome people to
[2:54] come down and make public comment. Uh
[2:56] please limit your comments to three
[2:58] minutes.
[3:07] Good evening commissioners and council
[3:11] members and city staff. I'm Miles
[3:13] Silverman and I'm here from the Cordata
[3:16] neighborhood and I'd like to make some
[3:18] comments going forward for um thoughts
[3:23] to with regard to the new unified
[3:26] development code. Um first of all in
[3:28] terms of zoning and density limitations.
[3:32] Now, of course, residential low, medium,
[3:34] and high will effectively end up having
[3:38] scaled amounts of density, but I would
[3:42] be strongly in favor of not explicitly
[3:45] regulating density in terms of dwelling
[3:47] units per acre as a part of that.
[3:50] Because if we think of why to have
[3:54] zoning at this point when we want more
[3:55] housing, it would have to do with how a
[3:57] neighborhood feels and weighing the
[4:00] importance of that against the
[4:01] importance of building housing. And in
[4:05] that regard,
[4:07] as someone walking in the neighborhood,
[4:09] honestly, I don't care that much about
[4:11] whether it's 14 or 18 dwelling units an
[4:14] acre. I I can't visualize that. And
[4:17] certainly someone in the neighborhood
[4:18] can't visualize that. What I care more
[4:20] about is going to be does this
[4:22] brownstone look nice? How many sad gray
[4:26] boxes are there? Things like that.
[4:28] That's so regulating form and design, I
[4:32] would say, is much more important than
[4:34] regulating density. Now, in that regard,
[4:37] it's of course going to be important to
[4:40] think about what things we can regulate
[4:43] through zoning, what things we can
[4:45] regulate through design, what things we
[4:46] won't be able to regulate through those
[4:50] measures. But thinking about that from
[4:53] the perspective of look and feel. So for
[4:58] example, for a residential medium, I
[5:00] would say something like building width
[5:02] is going to be much more important than
[5:05] any sort of density limitation. I like I
[5:08] said, it's going to I'm not going to
[5:11] notice how many dwelling units are. I'm
[5:13] going to notice if it's swallowing up
[5:15] the block. So, um, likewise with
[5:19] residential low and to a lesser extent
[5:21] with residential high, I would also say,
[5:24] and I don't, some of this is going to be
[5:25] more on the permitting side of thing,
[5:27] but it's important that we do the zoning
[5:30] now in a way that allows for the
[5:33] spontaneous acts of city building that
[5:35] many residents can do that make places
[5:38] interesting and vibrant. Now, Cordata
[5:41] does not have a lot of that because it's
[5:43] very heavily planned, but older
[5:46] neighborhoods in Colombia, Birchwood,
[5:50] Roosevelt have a lot of that. and making
[5:54] sure that there's
[5:57] that the zoning is written in a way that
[6:01] allows those thing those small
[6:05] increments of activity of building up of
[6:09] things like that to happen in a natural
[6:11] way because that's how the best
[6:14] neighborhoods in the city h have
[6:16] happened and h and that is how they will
[6:19] continue to happen whether
[6:22] that's at higher densities or um in
[6:26] Samish.
[6:28] Thank you.
[6:34] » Is there anyone else that wants to make
[6:36] comment?
[6:39] All right.
[6:42] Guess we'll jump into uh the staff
[6:44] presentation for tonight's meeting.
[6:51] Thank you and good evening. Um Blake
[6:53] Lion, director of planning and community
[6:55] development. Sorry I'm behind you all
[6:57] here. Um wanted to take the opportunity
[7:00] to talk just briefly as an introduction
[7:03] piece to tonight's item. You know uh the
[7:06] city including many of you uh and many
[7:08] of our community you know undertook a
[7:11] several year effort up to this point to
[7:14] update our comprehensive plan. And you
[7:17] know, this document, as we all know it
[7:19] as the Bellingham plan, serves as kind
[7:21] of a 20-year uh look ahead and assembles
[7:25] a variety of different growth management
[7:27] goals, policies, and strategies. And as
[7:30] a monumental of an effort as that was,
[7:34] that almost serves a little bit as the
[7:36] starting point uh to the overall
[7:39] implementation. And so this is really
[7:40] one of the kind of next leaves in that
[7:44] whole tree that allow us to move forward
[7:46] and turn our efforts towards
[7:48] implementation.
[7:50] And so part of what we wanted to talk
[7:52] about, and you'll hear a few new terms
[7:54] this evening, one of which is um the a
[7:57] unified development code. And we can
[8:00] certainly go into that uh in a greater
[8:02] explanation if if you feel like it's
[8:04] warranted. But what I wanted to be able
[8:07] to tell you just kind of from a
[8:09] visualization, if you think about where
[8:11] we have come from with regard to that
[8:14] comprehensive plan, the more traditional
[8:16] versions of that were very voluminous.
[8:19] You had a lot of chapter and verse, a
[8:22] lot of, you know, uh, narrative that
[8:24] went into these. And the effort that you
[8:26] all undertook the last several years
[8:29] took the new Bellingham plan to a much
[8:32] more streamlined version of that. It's
[8:34] much more uh usable. It's a lot more
[8:37] interactive. Um it's you can function a
[8:40] lot more effectively on a digital
[8:41] platform. And so part of the unified
[8:44] development code and restructuring what
[8:46] we're talking about gives us the ability
[8:48] to rethink how we do the land
[8:50] development code in a new and different
[8:52] way. And I say new because it's new to
[8:54] us as a community. It's not new in the
[8:57] industry. Um but it is an opportunity to
[9:00] rethink how we clarify those terms, how
[9:03] we streamline some of those efforts, how
[9:05] we bring in that again that usable
[9:08] nature to that. So the staff memo
[9:10] describes uh a bit of that effort that
[9:13] we've undergone. Um, it also will give
[9:16] us the ability to tie in some of those
[9:18] goals and policies from the comp plan,
[9:21] some of the stuff that we have had in
[9:23] recent state legislation and some of our
[9:25] own internal efforts, whether that's
[9:27] interim ordinances or stuff that's come
[9:29] out of the mayor's executive order. So,
[9:31] it's an opportunity to pull a lot of
[9:33] that together. So staff's going to go
[9:36] over with you tonight the framework uh
[9:38] that's really anticipated there some of
[9:42] the timeline efforts that we uh think
[9:44] we're going to be looking at. Um I
[9:47] encourage you as we go through all of
[9:49] that. We we absolutely want to solicit
[9:51] your feedback. Uh ask questions, share
[9:55] your thought process even if you have
[9:57] concerns or reservations about certain
[9:59] things. Um and then feel free to provide
[10:02] us that direction. We're going to we're
[10:04] going to walk you through all of it and
[10:06] we're going to hone in on a couple key
[10:07] points uh because there's a few things
[10:09] that we're wrestling with internally
[10:11] that we would love to get your direct
[10:12] feedback on those. But again, I
[10:15] encourage you to just even if you're not
[10:17] comfortable with this being an end point
[10:19] in your thought process, share with us
[10:21] your kind of internal deliberations so
[10:24] that we know where you're going with
[10:25] that and we can begin to kind of
[10:27] anticipate and uh address and respond to
[10:30] some of those things. even if we can't
[10:31] do it tonight, we want to be able to
[10:33] factor that in moving forward. So, uh,
[10:36] we've got a number of staff with us here
[10:37] this evening. Elizabeth's going to walk
[10:39] us through, uh, the majority of stuff,
[10:41] but again, please feel free to to
[10:43] interject and ask those questions as we
[10:45] go through. Thank you.
[10:51] » Thank you, Blake. I'm Elizabeth Ericson.
[10:54] I'm a senior planner in the community in
[10:56] the planning and community development
[10:57] department. Um, and I'm going to walk
[10:59] through the presentation as Blake said
[11:01] and try to keep things relatively high
[11:03] level and at the end um, we have a few
[11:06] specific points that we want to kind of
[11:08] walk through one by one. So at the end
[11:10] I'll pause and you know ask for
[11:12] clarifying questions to make sure
[11:13] there's there's there's no confusion
[11:14] about the presentation and then we'll go
[11:15] through one question at a time and then
[11:18] after that we can certainly open it up
[11:20] to any other kind of points but we want
[11:21] to get to those really um, important
[11:24] pieces that really impact the work staff
[11:26] is doing today. Um, so try to keep it
[11:28] high level, but there will be ample
[11:30] opportunity to follow up and get in more
[11:33] detail at the end. And then, um, we're
[11:35] really glad to have both the planning
[11:37] commission and the planning committee of
[11:39] the city council here today. Um, this is
[11:41] kind of a unique opportunity. We don't
[11:42] get a lot of chances to get all of us
[11:44] here together, but we certainly could do
[11:46] this again in the future if it made
[11:47] sense. So certainly we'll see where we
[11:49] are at the end of this night and then
[11:50] figure out what comes next.
[11:54] So with that, um, today we're going to
[11:57] walk through a little bit about, um,
[12:00] what what we've been working on in the
[12:02] planning department and also what's
[12:04] coming next. And so that'll be sort of
[12:06] our grounding is is really looking at
[12:08] what the next few years look like. Um,
[12:10] and then really focus in on that major
[12:12] code update that Blake was alluding to,
[12:14] really shifting to a unified development
[12:15] code, why we're doing that, how we're
[12:17] looking at it, what that is starting to
[12:20] take form like. Um, and then we'll hone
[12:24] in a couple key questions for that
[12:26] effort in particular. So today we really
[12:28] are pretty early in this process and
[12:30] wanted to get that kind of highle
[12:31] feedback from you all before we get too
[12:33] far down that road.
[12:37] So, we're going to kind of use this
[12:39] graphic to walk through that this
[12:40] presentation. first looking at what
[12:42] we're currently working on and um what
[12:44] you all have been seeing recently and
[12:46] will be seeing soon both at planning
[12:48] commission and council um and what those
[12:50] kind of very targeted code updates that
[12:52] have been coming through that type six
[12:53] process look like and then how that
[12:56] feeds into this larger you'll see UDC
[12:59] that means unified development code in
[13:01] this presentation that that code update
[13:03] that's coming and walk through that in
[13:06] more detail and then also look at what
[13:08] will come following that because the big
[13:11] code update that comes with shifting to
[13:12] unified development code won't cover
[13:14] absolutely everything. We're
[13:15] intentionally trying to have a very
[13:18] specific scope with that effort so that
[13:20] we can get it through the process and be
[13:21] really clear about what is actually an
[13:24] impactful change and what is simply a
[13:26] format change and then we'll follow up
[13:28] with more targeted conversations about
[13:30] code updates that really need that
[13:32] engagement with the community that
[13:34] discussion that process will come
[13:36] afterwards. So these all fit together in
[13:39] that way.
[13:42] So, starting by just looking at the
[13:43] ongoing work. Um, you've seen a number
[13:46] of these things before both planning
[13:47] commission and council in the last year
[13:49] or so. Right now, we're still under
[13:51] several interim ordinances. So, these
[13:53] are ordinances that have kind of taken
[13:56] our existing code and laid new
[14:00] regulations over it in a temporary
[14:01] fashion. Um, they are sort of quick and
[14:04] dirty in that they don't strike
[14:06] underline our existing code. they just
[14:08] kind of sit above it and state how we
[14:11] should um work through development while
[14:14] the interim is in place, but they
[14:16] haven't gone through and worked out
[14:18] every little detail in our code and
[14:19] resolved everything. And so that's how
[14:22] these interim ordinances are being taken
[14:24] at the moment. And some of these will be
[14:25] worked into the the the permanent code.
[14:27] So we did just uh replace the parking
[14:30] minimums interim ordinance with
[14:32] permanent parking regulations. So those
[14:34] go into effect in just a few days here.
[14:36] Um and the landmark trees is another one
[14:39] that we have been taking through the
[14:40] process. We took that through a public
[14:42] hearing with the planning commission
[14:43] recently. They sent it back to staff for
[14:45] a little bit more more work. So that
[14:46] will come back again as a very targeted
[14:49] code update while all of the rest of
[14:51] this work is is taking place. But that
[14:53] leaves the middle housing and the design
[14:55] review interim ordinances which are two
[14:56] that really work hand inand to implement
[14:58] state legislation. And those are two
[15:00] that will be a big part of this code
[15:02] update. So the intention is to really
[15:04] integrate the content of those two
[15:06] interim ordinances into our code in a
[15:08] more holistic way as we make this shift
[15:10] towards a unified development code.
[15:13] We also have a number of targeted code
[15:15] updates that have started the process or
[15:18] will be starting that process soon. A
[15:19] lot of these have gone through planning
[15:20] commission and will be seen at council
[15:22] soon. Um I'm not going to go through all
[15:24] of them in detail, but you can you can
[15:26] recognize a few of these topics from
[15:28] your recent deliberations. Um, in
[15:30] particular, there's a public hearing on
[15:32] Monday on the low-income housing
[15:33] ordinance, and there'll be a public
[15:35] hearing um, at council on home home
[15:37] occupation in October as well. And, um,
[15:40] we'll be starting up the critical areas
[15:42] ordinance work uh, going through the
[15:44] type six process at the beginning of the
[15:46] year. Um, that is that work is is
[15:49] ongoing. It's at at the staff level
[15:51] right now. And then we also have the
[15:53] comprehensive plan amendment process.
[15:55] These amendments go through an annual
[15:56] process and that will be started very
[15:59] shortly here and you'll see that on a
[16:01] later slide with all of our different
[16:03] ongoing work. So that is shown here. Um
[16:06] this is just kind of a really high level
[16:08] show of how all of these different
[16:09] pieces lay on one another and you can
[16:11] see there's a lot that's going through
[16:12] planning commission and council right
[16:14] now. Um our department is working with
[16:16] other departments on some of these
[16:17] items. You can see things like the the
[16:19] water system plan that's obviously led
[16:21] by public works but coordinated through
[16:22] our department as it impacts the
[16:24] comprehensive plan. And so things like
[16:26] that all have to go through the type six
[16:29] process and go through planning
[16:30] commission and council. And so um
[16:32] there's a lot of work that's ongoing now
[16:33] and a lot of work that will be
[16:35] happening. And you can see where we have
[16:37] CA is the critical areas ordinance that
[16:38] will be happening at the beginning of
[16:39] next year. The UDC is that unified
[16:42] development code. So, we've held quite a
[16:44] bit of time with planning commission and
[16:46] city council because we know it's it's
[16:47] it's a big one. It's a lot like the
[16:49] Bellingham plan. There'll be a lot of
[16:50] meetings to walk through it in detail
[16:52] and make sure everyone's comfortable
[16:53] with those changes and we're able to
[16:54] have quite a bit of um public comment
[16:57] and uh discussion at both levels.
[17:01] So, this just gives you a high level
[17:02] overview of all of that. And then you
[17:04] can see in red here, this is the
[17:06] comprehensive plan amendment docket. So
[17:08] that'll be docketed this month um and
[17:10] then go through the planning commission
[17:12] process and then end at city council by
[17:14] the end of the year as well.
[17:18] So going back to this diagram you saw
[17:20] now we're going to dig into what the
[17:21] unified development code update looks
[17:23] like.
[17:24] And there's really a very specific scope
[17:26] that we want to keep coming back to
[17:28] because when we open up all of our
[17:31] development code there's a lot of pieces
[17:33] that we really want to fix while we're
[17:35] in there. um and kind of really dig into
[17:38] and we want to be careful that we don't
[17:39] let our scope creep and keep getting
[17:41] bigger and bigger and try to fix every
[17:42] little thing with this update because as
[17:44] I said we're going to follow up with
[17:46] very targeted updates so that we can be
[17:48] very intentional about which changes are
[17:50] being proposed when and we don't have
[17:53] things that are just kind of missed
[17:54] because there's so much being passed at
[17:55] once. And so the scope of this update is
[17:57] really intentionally focused around
[17:59] implementing the residential changes
[18:01] that were outlined in the Bellingham
[18:03] plan. So that low, medium, high
[18:05] hierarchy of residential zones and then
[18:07] integrating both of those outstanding
[18:09] interim uh ordinances that have to do
[18:12] with housing, the middle housing and the
[18:14] design review ordinances. Really
[18:16] integrating those into our code and then
[18:18] continuing that work to have our code
[18:21] reflect our shift towards more citywide
[18:23] planning. So last year we had quite a
[18:25] few discussions of both planning
[18:27] commission and council about the
[18:28] retirement of the neighborhood plans and
[18:30] that goes handinhand with the retirement
[18:32] of the zoning tables that live in our
[18:35] code today. And so those zoning tables
[18:37] have very specific requirements
[18:38] associated with specific areas of the
[18:40] city. Um but they also are linked to our
[18:43] zoning code that actually has specific
[18:46] requirements for each zoning district.
[18:48] And sometimes those um are saying the
[18:50] same thing and sometimes they're saying
[18:52] different things. So, we've been going
[18:53] through all of that work to determine
[18:55] where there's really good nuggets in
[18:57] those zoning tables that should be
[18:59] applied to more places, where there are
[19:00] things that are outdated and left over
[19:02] from the 1970s and all sorts of other
[19:05] things. So, that will be part of this
[19:06] process as well. And then finally,
[19:09] reorganizing it all into a unified
[19:11] development code format to really make
[19:13] it be usable um and less redundant, more
[19:18] streamlined, but still have very similar
[19:20] content. So our intention is not to
[19:23] rewrite the whole code. A lot of this is
[19:25] cutting and pasting where we have the
[19:28] same content. For instance, in our urban
[19:29] villages, we have the same clause about
[19:32] non-conformity in, you know, it's it's
[19:34] something like five of the urban
[19:35] villages and it's said in almost exactly
[19:38] the same way, but maybe a few words are
[19:39] slightly different. That doesn't need to
[19:41] be said the same way five different
[19:43] times. We can say it once and streamline
[19:45] it and really reference that that one
[19:47] statement. So there's parts of our code
[19:48] like that throughout that we will be
[19:51] kind of reorganizing in this code but
[19:53] keeping the same impact. So that's
[19:56] really how we're seeing the scope of
[19:57] this update. Um, and really making sure
[20:00] that the content changes, the ways that
[20:03] that we're actually changing how this
[20:05] code impacts how development is uh
[20:09] created, how it goes through the the
[20:11] process. It's kept primarily the same
[20:13] with these exceptions so that we don't
[20:17] slide something in there that we don't
[20:18] realize we're we're changing. Those
[20:20] things will follow in later updates.
[20:24] So, back to the unified development
[20:26] code. I'm not going to dig into this too
[20:27] deeply. As Blake alluded to, we're happy
[20:29] to to answer questions about what this
[20:31] means. I just threw some of these
[20:33] examples on here. This is a type of code
[20:36] that has been used for decades across
[20:38] the country and across the state. Um,
[20:40] it's very streamlined as you can see on
[20:43] some of these examples. Um, they have,
[20:45] you know, se seven to 10 articles and
[20:49] each of those articles very clearly
[20:52] states what's in them. Right now, if you
[20:54] look at our code, it was developed over
[20:55] time and really layered. Um, and when
[20:57] you look at our chapters, you wouldn't
[21:00] always know exactly what's inside of
[21:01] them because sometimes something got
[21:03] kind of layered in as just a a targeted
[21:06] update and it didn't really have a home.
[21:07] So, we just kind of slotted it in where
[21:09] it made the most sense. But now that
[21:11] that's happened over decades, there's
[21:14] all these different pieces that don't
[21:16] necessarily fit a big picture structure.
[21:18] So we would like to rearrange that
[21:20] structure to something similar to how a
[21:22] lot of these other cities have um worked
[21:25] their code structure out. Um a lot of
[21:27] these have been redone in recent years
[21:30] or in the last decade or so to really be
[21:33] more more usable and some of them have
[21:34] been using the structure since they came
[21:37] about in the 80s. So um there's there's
[21:40] a lot of precedents to really look
[21:42] towards when we're doing this work.
[21:46] And so this is the outline we are
[21:48] proposing at at this stage. We're still
[21:51] very early in the process, but this is
[21:52] how how we're seeing it fitting in with
[21:54] our code. Um, we have kind of a general
[21:56] provision section at the front which has
[21:58] a lot of kind of housekeeping pieces and
[21:59] and general introductory language, but
[22:02] we really get into the meat of it when
[22:03] we get into zoning districts where we
[22:05] intend to have a section for each for
[22:07] each zoning district that really
[22:09] succinctly lists what the requirements
[22:11] are. And rather than saying, you know,
[22:14] exactly how we measure height in every
[22:15] single zoning district, that'll be later
[22:17] in this definitions and rules of
[22:19] measurement. And so you'll just have to
[22:20] have one number for the height for each
[22:22] zoning district. And then it'll
[22:24] reference that, you know, way that that
[22:26] we measure height later in the code. So
[22:27] that that's just an example of how these
[22:29] different pieces will fit together. As
[22:31] Blake mentioned, um it works really well
[22:34] when you're online in particular because
[22:35] you can click and link between these,
[22:36] but they will of course also be listed
[22:39] by code number as as they always have
[22:41] been. Then we can follow up with the
[22:43] special districts. So, this has the
[22:45] urban villages, other overlays, and our
[22:48] institutional master plans. Um we then
[22:50] have land use. So, this really gets at
[22:53] our um permitted uses. Right now, each
[22:55] of our zoning districts has its own list
[22:57] of permitted uses and they all use
[22:59] slightly different language. um when we
[23:01] put them in one place and we can have
[23:02] one large table that shows what's
[23:04] allowed in each district, that makes it
[23:05] a lot easier for um businesses to figure
[23:08] out where they can open up shop. And so
[23:10] that that's just a lot more usable for
[23:12] our community and also a lot more usable
[23:14] for staff to have the same list of uses
[23:17] for each district. So you can say with
[23:19] authority where it's allowed and not
[23:21] without having to dig into 10 different
[23:22] parts of our code. And then in that land
[23:25] use section, we'll also live specific
[23:27] regulations for particular uses. So, for
[23:29] instance, our ADU code section, we'll
[23:32] just cut and paste as it is directly in
[23:34] into there. So, it'll say, you know,
[23:37] accessory dwelling units and then it'll
[23:39] have that that full list of everything
[23:41] that comes with it.
[23:43] We then have community design. Um, this
[23:45] section has is it's really focused on
[23:49] the slightly larger scale part of how
[23:51] our community
[23:53] develops at a kind of land use pattern.
[23:55] So, it gets at land division and
[23:57] infrastructure improvement. So the these
[23:59] are really critical pieces that um we
[24:02] really work with our public works
[24:03] partners in particular on. Um but it'll
[24:06] really reference the other titles in our
[24:08] code that have things like you know
[24:10] exactly how deep a pipe needs to go.
[24:12] That's not moving into the this section
[24:15] of the code, but saying when you develop
[24:17] this type of building on this type of
[24:19] site, you're going to have to do these
[24:21] types of, you know, water improvements.
[24:23] Those types of things will be listed
[24:25] here really clearly so that you don't
[24:26] have to jump back and forth between
[24:28] different codes to figure out what you
[24:30] really need to do for each project.
[24:33] The environmental protection takes most
[24:35] of title 16 really as it is and just
[24:37] shifts it into here. And so that has
[24:39] things like our critical areas
[24:40] ordinance, our clearing and grading. Um
[24:43] our landmark trees will ultimately fit
[24:44] in there. Um our shoreline master
[24:47] program all kind of fit in there. Again,
[24:49] that's more of a cut and paste just so
[24:50] it's it's all in the same home, but not
[24:52] a whole lot of changes happening there.
[24:55] Our administration and procedures is a
[24:57] lot like title 21. Again, just kind of
[24:58] shifted in here. Um, but it will work
[25:01] handinhand with these other pieces to
[25:03] really clearly lay out kind of step by
[25:05] step how development happens, what
[25:07] you're going to need to do with
[25:09] different type of development um so that
[25:10] you're not jumping around yet again. And
[25:12] then at the end, definitions and rules
[25:14] of measurement. Again, this is just kind
[25:16] of a simple streamlining that um will
[25:18] will take a bit of time, but will make
[25:19] our lives a lot easier down the road
[25:21] because right now we do have one section
[25:23] of definitions in title 20, but we also
[25:26] have definitions in almost every
[25:29] uh chapter and subsection as well, and
[25:31] they don't always have the same exact
[25:34] terminology. Um, and you have to look in
[25:37] multiple places if you want to kind of
[25:39] figure out what a specific word might
[25:41] mean depending on which chapter you're
[25:42] in. So trying to streamline those, put
[25:44] them all in one place and make it really
[25:46] easy to just know exactly what a word
[25:48] means and how we can interpret it will
[25:51] make things easier.
[25:54] So back to this overview. Um this is
[25:56] just a reminder that we're really
[25:58] focused today on this middle one on this
[26:00] unified development code update, but
[26:02] understanding how it fits in with that
[26:04] that future work is key. So just giving
[26:06] you a highle overview of what that
[26:07] future work looks like here. We're
[26:09] really seeing the unified development
[26:11] code is like phase one of this code
[26:12] update and all of these follow-up
[26:13] projects as follow-up phases. Um, we've
[26:16] tentatively put dates on these different
[26:19] projects, but that will really depend on
[26:21] what the priorities look like at the
[26:23] time. Um, if if there's a change in
[26:25] scope for any of these projects that
[26:27] that might shift dates or if other
[26:28] projects get added and rep prioritized,
[26:31] um, we also will have to shift things
[26:32] around and and push things out. So,
[26:35] we'll we'll see where we end up when we
[26:37] get closer to towards the the phase one
[26:40] adoption and kind of readress this
[26:42] outline, but it gives you an idea of
[26:44] what's coming and and what we're sort of
[26:46] noting as we're going through the
[26:48] unified development code update, what
[26:51] we're setting the stage for and making
[26:52] sure that it all will fit together. So,
[26:55] we know that we have a lot of work in
[26:56] our land use chapter. We've talked a lot
[26:58] about small scale commercial,
[27:02] excuse me, and that really links to um
[27:05] the home occupation code that's going
[27:07] through now as well. So that that will
[27:09] get us part of the way there and then
[27:10] we'll follow up with a full small scale
[27:12] commercial update. Um we also know that
[27:14] there's updates to our group home, our
[27:16] interarm housing, our manufactured home
[27:17] parks. A lot of that has to do with
[27:19] state legislation or things that we know
[27:20] we just want to clean up in our code. We
[27:22] also know that we need to complete an
[27:24] annexation plan that was outlined in the
[27:26] Bellingham plan. And phase one will
[27:28] really be focusing on that North
[27:29] Bellingham UG area to make sure we've
[27:31] identified what land uses we're going to
[27:33] want to um identify in that area if they
[27:36] do apply for annexation. What would be
[27:38] those required land uses?
[27:42] Um we're also continuing work on cost
[27:46] recovery. So really looking at how our
[27:48] finances in our department and um and
[27:52] the city as a whole can work together
[27:54] and making sure that our fees are um are
[27:57] appropriate for the work that gets done
[27:59] with each of those permits. For
[28:01] instance, um so that that will continue
[28:03] and um probably come forward at the end
[28:06] of next year.
[28:08] We know there's a lot in our
[28:09] environmental protection chapter. Um
[28:11] we're working on landmark trees now, but
[28:13] there's more on clearing and grading.
[28:15] Um, we know that the shoreline master
[28:16] program will have an update in a few
[28:18] years required by the state. A few of
[28:20] those different things will will need
[28:21] work as well. And then there's policy
[28:24] work outlined in the Bellingham plan
[28:25] that has to do with our future urban
[28:27] villages if if we do choose to expand
[28:30] down the road to identify additional
[28:32] urban villages or neighborhood centers.
[28:34] Looking at our transit corridors and our
[28:36] industrial lands, those are all things
[28:38] that we talked about in in the
[28:39] Bellingham plan. They're not things we
[28:40] have to do right now, but they're things
[28:42] that we want to do in the next 5 10
[28:44] years and really identify um how that
[28:46] that all fits together. And then you can
[28:48] imagine that that would potentially have
[28:49] a code update that would follow.
[28:52] And then we also know that there's more
[28:54] work on the process chapter and the rest
[28:56] of the annexation plan. So all of this
[28:58] is work that will need to be done. We've
[29:01] tentatively kind of laid it out as
[29:02] happening in the next three or four
[29:04] years. Um, but it's a lot and so we want
[29:06] to make sure that as we're working on
[29:08] the unified development code, we are
[29:10] having all of these uh projects in our
[29:12] mind. So we're making easier to kind of
[29:15] insert these in the future.
[29:19] So back to the unified development code,
[29:21] that's what we'll kind of talk about the
[29:23] rest of the evening unless there are
[29:24] questions on everything I just went
[29:26] through. Um, that's what's kind of shown
[29:28] in this diagram is how it all fits
[29:30] together. So there's a lot of state
[29:31] legislation. You all have seen that a
[29:34] lot. I will not go into it in detail.
[29:35] I'll just briefly show that slide that
[29:37] there's also a lot of staff
[29:38] coordination. Um you can imagine with
[29:40] everything I just mentioned. This isn't
[29:42] just the planning and community
[29:43] development department. We're working
[29:44] with parks. We're working with public
[29:46] works. Um we're working with the mayor's
[29:48] office. There's a lot that comes
[29:49] together here and we really see it as a
[29:51] one city approach. Um the uh mayor led a
[29:54] conversation about this um in her
[29:56] strategic initiatives meeting um back in
[29:59] the spring of this year where
[30:00] departments from across the city came
[30:02] together and talked about how a unified
[30:03] development code makes a lot of sense
[30:05] for us right now and will will really
[30:07] help streamline things. So that has been
[30:09] kind of coordinated across departments.
[30:11] It's not just us bringing it forward
[30:13] now. It's it's been thought through. Um,
[30:16] and then kind of how it all fits
[30:17] together with the Bellingham plan, the
[30:19] community engagement that happened
[30:20] there, um, the leadership we've gotten
[30:22] from planning commission and council on
[30:24] a lot of these uh, topics previously.
[30:27] We've brought all of that that together.
[30:29] And then, of course, those interim
[30:30] ordinances. So, there's a lot of pieces
[30:32] coming together in this. You've seen a
[30:33] lot of it before, but this is where
[30:35] it'll all hopefully kind of get a little
[30:38] messy and then crystallize.
[30:41] Um, this is that state legislation
[30:43] slide. I'm not going to look into this,
[30:44] but it just suffice it to say, there's a
[30:46] lot of state legislation. Some of these
[30:48] we've addressed. Some of them are
[30:49] addressed by our interim ordinances. Um,
[30:51] and some of them are things to come that
[30:53] aren't due yet, but they've been um
[30:55] adopted by the state and their effective
[30:57] dates are coming in the next couple
[30:58] years. So, that's also brought into that
[31:00] slide where I said what's happening in
[31:02] the next few years. Some of those have
[31:03] adoptive dates in, you know, 2027, 2028
[31:06] where we have to have have those updates
[31:08] together. And then we know that there
[31:09] might be a small scale commercial or
[31:11] corner store bill coming back. um it
[31:13] didn't get passed this last session, but
[31:15] there's rumblings that it might come
[31:16] back. So, just like thinking about that
[31:18] coming as forward as well.
[31:21] Just a reminder about all of the
[31:23] community engagement you heard about for
[31:24] the Bellingham plan. Um these are just
[31:26] some photos from that effort. And on the
[31:28] upper right there, uh the 4,000 or so
[31:30] surveys we got back when we kicked that
[31:32] effort off. Um we really talked about a
[31:35] lot of these topics and really tried to
[31:36] set the stage for some of these, um
[31:39] updates that we knew were coming. So, in
[31:41] particular, we talked a lot about middle
[31:42] housing integration, especially into
[31:44] that residential low or what's currently
[31:46] residential single zone um and how we
[31:49] are consolidating those residential
[31:51] single zones that currently have a lot
[31:53] of different regulations across the the
[31:55] the city and um hopefully consolidating
[31:57] them into a single residential low zone
[32:00] and looking at what that might feel
[32:02] like, look like, how we might regulate
[32:04] things there and then what the
[32:06] priorities are for design. that was also
[32:08] integrated into that interim ordinance
[32:09] on design review. [snorts] Then we also
[32:11] talked about a lot of things for the
[32:12] code updates that are coming. So we
[32:14] talked a lot about small scale
[32:15] commercial, we talked about um uh urban
[32:19] villages, transit corridors, those types
[32:21] of things as well. So we have a lot of
[32:23] good community engagement to inform that
[32:24] work.
[32:27] And then the Bellingham plan itself also
[32:28] lays out very clear policies on a number
[32:30] of these. So, it really laid out that
[32:31] residential low, medium, high framework.
[32:34] Talked about minimum densities in all
[32:36] three of those zones. Um, allowing
[32:38] flexibility near transit lines and near
[32:39] urban villages and really laying out a
[32:41] clear and streamlined process that we
[32:44] can follow. And so, that's hopefully
[32:46] what shifting to unified development
[32:47] code will make things a lot clearer, a
[32:49] lot more streamlined, um, and just a lot
[32:51] more usable by the community.
[32:56] So this is a slide that we used a lot in
[32:58] the Bellingham plan process to show what
[33:00] that zoning shift looks like. On the top
[33:02] you can see our existing residential
[33:04] single zones which could be low or
[33:06] medium in density and our residential
[33:08] multi which are low, medium and high in
[33:10] density and roughly what they look like
[33:13] and this shift towards the low, medium
[33:15] and high in this new approach that's
[33:18] outlined in the Bellingham plan. Um, and
[33:20] really it's what we did in the
[33:23] Bellingham plan was pretty
[33:24] straightforward in taking all of the
[33:26] residential single and the low part of
[33:27] the residential multi and putting that
[33:29] into residential low and then
[33:31] residential multimedium became medium
[33:33] and high became high. So that part was
[33:35] relatively straightforward and so the
[33:37] really the big question became what does
[33:39] residential low look like? So that's
[33:40] what um a couple of the questions we
[33:42] have for you all at the end of this very
[33:44] lengthy but almost over presentation um
[33:48] look like and so really getting at at
[33:50] what residential low feels like. Um but
[33:51] you'll notice in this diagram that low,
[33:54] medium, and high are very form-based in
[33:57] appearance. Um there's there's a lot
[33:59] more variety than what you see in the
[34:01] residential multi images above. And so
[34:04] really allowing more options for housing
[34:06] types was a big part of this, but also
[34:08] recognizing that the state saying
[34:10] there's four units allowed on any lot
[34:12] really changes what density even means.
[34:15] And so that's a big part of the
[34:16] questions we have for tonight is really
[34:18] looking at um how do we want to regulate
[34:22] what four units per lot means and what
[34:24] does that that look like? particularly
[34:25] if if you're doing green field
[34:27] development and doing you know dozens of
[34:29] lots per um for for example.
[34:34] So we had a few clear priorities from
[34:36] conversations you all had in the past um
[34:38] particularly talking about
[34:39] predictability and efficient process
[34:41] especially for housing development and
[34:43] also talking about incentives to develop
[34:44] more units when that's appropriate. So,
[34:47] for instance, in the interim ordinance
[34:50] for middle housing, there's a a floor
[34:53] area ratio table that um allows more
[34:57] bulky development if you're providing
[34:59] more units. So, that's a way to incent
[35:01] in incentivize more units to be
[35:03] developed.
[35:06] Um there were a few gaps in the interim
[35:07] ordinances. Not really gaps in that we
[35:10] intended to fill them then, but just
[35:11] details that need to be worked out when
[35:13] they're integrated into the final code.
[35:15] So really working out the process and
[35:18] requirements for really specific
[35:19] scenarios that that happen. Um our
[35:21] development community is very creative
[35:22] and has come up with a lot of different
[35:24] ways to implement this ordinance and
[35:26] really figuring out how to make sure all
[35:28] of those different options and
[35:29] iterations are covered. Um and and
[35:31] particularly when that comes to how we
[35:33] divide our lots, um how we determine
[35:36] what infrastructure requirements are
[35:38] required at which stage of the of that
[35:41] process and then what how those design
[35:44] requirements fit into all of that. So,
[35:46] if you're if you're taking a green field
[35:47] development and you know that you're
[35:49] going to develop a 100 units um but it's
[35:52] in a residential low zone and four units
[35:54] per lot are allowed, how do we really um
[35:57] work through? Do you define the, you
[36:00] know, kind of parent lots and then go in
[36:02] and bring designs for all of the
[36:04] individual units? Do we allow that to be
[36:06] all all handled together? Those kinds of
[36:08] things. we we have a way of working
[36:09] through it in the interim, but we want
[36:10] to make sure that all of those details
[36:13] are are are discussed and identified in
[36:15] the permanent um code in a way that
[36:18] really will work for years to come.
[36:22] So, back to this this image again, just
[36:24] showing how it all comes together. Um,
[36:28] and these are kind of the questions
[36:30] we're going to walk through, but I'm
[36:31] going to pause on this slide here before
[36:33] we walk into those questions to just ask
[36:36] if there are clarifying questions on
[36:37] everything that was just presented
[36:38] before we dig into getting feedback from
[36:40] you all.
[36:44] No, it was a lot.
[36:48] The fine clarifying question.
[36:51] Um,
[36:53] yeah. Uh if there's anything that um a
[36:56] little bit more explanation would be
[36:58] helpful, I can or or or other staff
[37:01] here. We have quite a few staff here um
[37:02] can go into that. Um and then we'll kind
[37:05] of jump into the feedback portion where
[37:07] you all can [snorts] kind of debate and
[37:09] really get into the nitty-gritty
[37:10] details.
[37:19] Is the UDC
[37:30] that
[37:33] » Get it power? There it is. You want me
[37:35] to restate? Will the UDC implement or
[37:38] cover I don't know where to look.
[37:41] [laughter]
[37:44] » The Washington state building code as
[37:46] well. So um we have u essentially
[37:50] incorporated by reference. So it doesn't
[37:53] bring the entirety of the building code
[37:55] into that but it gives there's an
[37:57] enablement uh effort that goes into that
[38:01] piece of it. So both with the um
[38:04] building code and the fire code uh that
[38:07] will be similar process.
[38:16] How does the unified development code
[38:19] like work with like a formbbased code?
[38:23] » Are they unique?
[38:26] » No, they're not. Um, probably one of the
[38:28] best examples that I've seen in this
[38:30] country where you have a unified
[38:33] development code and with a formbbased
[38:36] uh approach to that is Buffalo, New
[38:40] York. Um, and really, um, what a
[38:44] formbbased code does is it it looks at
[38:48] and and Miles even touched on this, uh,
[38:50] earlier this evening with with regard to
[38:52] his public comments, is it gives more
[38:56] difference to the form of the building
[39:00] and how it interplays with the public
[39:03] realm and the space around it rather
[39:05] than the than the uses that drive that.
[39:09] So most of your traditional zoning is
[39:14] is operated from a use-based standpoint
[39:16] and says, "Okay, this use can't be next
[39:18] to that use and and has a lot more
[39:21] detail um organized in that way." or a
[39:25] formbbased code still has use components
[39:28] to it but often is a lot less emphasized
[39:31] and has more detail based on what's the
[39:34] scale of the building how does it orient
[39:36] to the street what are the you know the
[39:38] overall form so in a unified development
[39:41] code that's more of a if you think about
[39:44] it that's more of an organizational
[39:45] structure on how all that plays out
[39:47] that's what Elizabeth was really kind of
[39:49] going through and and how we organize it
[39:51] and how user friendly it is and then we
[39:55] can build in some elements of that form
[39:58] base to that you see that a little bit
[40:01] and I appreciate that we're getting into
[40:03] kind of the sausage making and all of
[40:04] this but if anybody has done gone
[40:07] through our existing code we have
[40:09] components of that in the urban villages
[40:12] where we talk a lot about you know how
[40:14] that building relates to the public
[40:16] realm and the spaces like that so there
[40:18] our code is currently is very
[40:21] interesting and that it's kind of an
[40:22] amalgamation of like three different
[40:24] types of codes all kind of mashed
[40:27] together which makes it very um
[40:30] challenging to kind of navigate and
[40:33] streamline through it. And so part of
[40:35] what this bigger effort is trying to do
[40:37] is get a a much more streamlined
[40:41] organizational structure and then to the
[40:43] extent if you want us to go a little
[40:46] heavier into the formbbased type stuff,
[40:49] we can absolutely gravitate that way.
[40:53] Um, I want to be careful because
[40:55] formbbased codes, uh, it's more of an
[40:58] umbrella term and there's a variety of
[41:00] different formbbased codes that are out
[41:02] there. Uh, and so we're not intending to
[41:06] go to like the smart code, which is a
[41:08] very kind of open platform formbbased
[41:11] code. We intend to kind of bring
[41:13] elements of that.
[41:17] » Thank you. Um, I'll try to make this a
[41:20] clarifying question as much as possible.
[41:22] Um,
[41:25] so 80% of this really makes sense as far
[41:28] as streamlining, you know, making sure
[41:30] definitions are the same. Urban villages
[41:32] like 80 90% of the content is very
[41:36] similar. Um, but we do have some things
[41:41] that make Bellingham absolutely
[41:42] wonderful or unique. And some of our
[41:46] codes and tables reflect that. Um, and
[41:48] I'm thinking of like Lake Wacom. We have
[41:51] some very their neighborhood plan has
[41:53] some very specific things in their plan
[41:56] that really isn't applyable anywhere
[41:58] else. It's not quite in the
[41:59] environmental. It's not There are
[42:01] certain things and there's concern of
[42:04] losing some of that. and one of the
[42:06] conversations and I'm trying to see like
[42:08] the different the different ways we
[42:10] could approach this. I'm trying to
[42:11] figure out which way is actually best
[42:13] and I'm hoping there's a little bit of a
[42:15] amalgamation of keeping some things. One
[42:18] of the things we've talked about is in
[42:20] our historic housing areas is the like
[42:23] decentizing tear down to put up a
[42:26] sixplex but incentivizing
[42:29] um people keeping the form but changing
[42:32] the use. So you have the three-story
[42:34] Victorian and then maybe you could make
[42:37] that a triplex and then two ADUs on the
[42:39] back but the person walking down the
[42:41] street sees you know the beautiful
[42:44] Victorian that makes Seome or York or
[42:46] Colombia you know such a a wonderful
[42:49] place. Um, so how would something like
[42:53] that, which could be a unique want, um,
[42:58] fit within
[43:00] this type of process?
[43:04] » Well, I I heard two different
[43:05] components, so I'm going to try to split
[43:07] them and we'll go through that. And I'm
[43:08] also going to encourage if if staff
[43:10] feels me uh straying too far, they may
[43:13] have to wrangle me in a little bit. Um,
[43:16] but when we talk about the uh unified
[43:20] development code in particular with
[43:21] regard to the Lake Watcom and some of
[43:23] the environmental as Elizabeth was kind
[43:25] of alluding to there are when we say
[43:28] environmental that's an umbrella term
[43:30] that can have a lot of different
[43:31] components and as the land development
[43:34] code is structured right now there's
[43:37] bits and pieces that are kind of a
[43:40] little bit all over the place and so for
[43:42] somebody to walk in that's interested in
[43:45] in developing or building here and to
[43:48] kind of see a logical sequence to how
[43:51] they do that and they go from A to B to
[43:54] C to D, it's it's not as intuitive as we
[43:58] would like. Uh and so when we start to
[44:02] um structure this in a way in the
[44:05] unified development code, you can start
[44:07] to go through and understand those
[44:10] things. And there's a there's a logical
[44:12] progression that one would go through
[44:14] and do that kind of stuff. And you
[44:17] almost don't have to know which
[44:19] questions to ask because there's a
[44:20] there's a sequence to it. Um and so you
[44:24] can kind of go through that process a
[44:27] little bit more. So if you say okay I'm
[44:29] the I'll I'll take it back to the
[44:31] example of the use table. One of the
[44:34] challenges that exists right now is that
[44:37] if you say if you're a prospective
[44:39] business oh I have this I want to know
[44:42] where I can do it. Well, we would have
[44:46] all the different areas and you'd have
[44:48] to go to into each chapter and see if
[44:50] it's a if you can do it in that chap or
[44:52] in that zoning districts and okay, no,
[44:54] it's not there. And then you have to go
[44:54] to the next one and the next one and the
[44:56] next and you have to go through and kind
[44:57] of find where it's allowed. Whereas in
[45:01] the new use table and the organizational
[45:03] structure kind of is a crosswalk that
[45:06] starts to say, okay, I can find the use
[45:08] and then figure out where it's allowed
[45:10] or I can figure out, hey, this is the
[45:11] property I own. What can I do? And so it
[45:14] it can kind of go both ways and function
[45:17] in that in that manner. So it's a lot
[45:20] more conducive to a variety of different
[45:24] applicant types. You know, it's not just
[45:26] okay, I own this property, what can I do
[45:28] on that property? Or I have this
[45:30] business, where can I where can I put
[45:32] that business? And it gives you the
[45:34] ability to do both. And the similar
[45:36] cases in regard to like some of those
[45:38] environmental I have this what are the
[45:40] things that I need to do? you know the
[45:42] critical areas ordinance portion of that
[45:44] can get built in landmark trees. It's
[45:47] not specific to any particular zone. It
[45:49] is a landmark tree because of the size
[45:51] of the tree or the nature of the tree.
[45:53] It doesn't matter where it is. So we can
[45:55] kind of use that organizational
[45:57] structure hopefully to help people move
[46:00] through that element and that component
[46:02] of it. Now remind me the second part of
[46:04] it.
[46:07] conversations we've had a few times
[46:09] regarding um decentivizing the tear down
[46:12] of our historic housing stock and
[46:14] incentivizing the adaptive reuse in
[46:17] order to meet the housing density that
[46:20] would be allowed so that the
[46:21] neighborhood continuity.
[46:23] » We we keep our beautiful historic
[46:25] housing stock but we adapt to the
[46:27] current need for how much housing is
[46:29] needed for infill.
[46:31] » So right now through the interim
[46:33] » Different than Cordata.
[46:34] » Yes. And and so this is a good example
[46:37] of what Elizabeth alluded to there with
[46:40] how the interim ordinances work and part
[46:42] of the question I think that will pose
[46:44] back to you. Um and we can certainly um
[46:48] inform that conversation based on the
[46:50] examples that we're seeing. But part of
[46:52] what we set up in that structure was to
[46:55] say, okay, if you have uh and I'll use
[46:57] your example of the Victorian era home
[46:59] [snorts]
[47:00] um that's been developed there, let's
[47:02] say, you know, early 1900s as an
[47:05] example. Somebody wants to come in and
[47:08] take that home um and demise it into
[47:12] several different units, albeit smaller
[47:15] within that. They still have to, to
[47:17] Jerry's point earlier, they still have
[47:18] to be able to do that through the
[47:21] building code and make sure that they're
[47:24] appropriately addressing the building
[47:26] code, but we then don't apply this
[47:29] concept of density to that. And it's an
[47:31] incentive to keep that existing
[47:33] structure and um kind of the
[47:35] neighborhood character that it helps to
[47:37] form. and then anything new that comes
[47:40] in on that lot, be it, you know, an ADU
[47:44] or additional units, let's say in the
[47:46] rear of that property, um, then begins
[47:49] to address that. So, it really is a way
[47:51] to try to get to what you're talking
[47:52] about, which is how do you protect and
[47:55] preserve that there. Now, it's not a
[47:57] mandate, it's not a requirement, it's an
[47:58] incentive based structure behind that.
[48:00] And that's the way we've done it in the
[48:02] interim ordinance, but as Elizabeth
[48:04] alluded to, that's not currently
[48:07] embedded in the code. It's it's living
[48:11] in uh that interim ordinance, and we
[48:13] need to integrate that piece uh into the
[48:16] code as we as we finalize it and develop
[48:19] it further.
[48:25] Not seeing them jump up, so I didn't I
[48:26] think I did. Okay.
[48:34] Keep going.
[48:39] » All right. So, we're going to pose some
[48:41] questions for you. I'm going to start
[48:44] with the mediest one. These are the
[48:47] questions. I circled the first two
[48:48] because we kind of have to talk about
[48:49] them together. Um, and that's really
[48:51] getting at what that kind of density
[48:53] term really means in this new
[48:55] residential zoning framework. And then
[48:57] we're also going to talk about kind of
[49:00] how we as staff are thinking about
[49:02] streamlining and what our kind of
[49:03] guiding principles are and make sure
[49:04] that that's in alignment with what you
[49:06] all would like to see. Um and then um
[49:09] hopefully a more minor conversation is
[49:12] how we handle some of the zoning that's
[49:14] really remnant from areas that were
[49:16] annexed from Watcom County over many
[49:18] decades. Um, so let's start with this
[49:21] first one. And I'm just going to leave
[49:23] this slide up here, but we do have some
[49:26] an opportunity to bring up additional
[49:27] slides or kind of images if the
[49:29] conversation takes us that way. Um, but
[49:32] this is bringing back that image we
[49:34] talked about earlier, but below it,
[49:36] we've added just a very basic
[49:39] description of what each zone would look
[49:42] like. And most of this is laid out in
[49:43] the Bellingham plan already. Um, so for
[49:46] instance, what housing types are allowed
[49:47] already listed under those uh, land use
[49:50] designations in the Bellingham plan. The
[49:53] requirement to have minimum density in
[49:55] all three zones and have that kind of
[49:57] tier overtime. So have a have a higher
[49:59] minimum density in medium than in low,
[50:01] etc. Um, but exactly how we do that is
[50:05] not laid out in the Bellingham plan
[50:06] because that's code and the Bellingham
[50:08] plan is policy. And so as we're
[50:10] developing the code, we want to talk
[50:11] through what that really will look like
[50:13] and get a little bit of feedback from
[50:14] you all. So, um, we've listed under
[50:17] housing type kind of a tiered approach
[50:20] that's pretty much in alignment with the
[50:22] Bellingham plan. We've just kind of
[50:23] simplified the terminology. So, for
[50:25] instance, single unit detached might
[50:27] mean a traditional single family home.
[50:28] It could mean a small lot home. It could
[50:30] mean cottage housing. It just means you
[50:31] have a single unit. It's not attached to
[50:33] any other units. Um, and so you can
[50:35] imagine single unit attached might be
[50:36] like town homes, things like that.
[50:38] multiplexes or things like duplexes,
[50:41] triplexes, um the stacked flat kind of
[50:43] approach, which is often like a triplex
[50:45] but stacked on top of one another.
[50:47] That's kind of what those terms mean.
[50:49] And you can see that as we get into the
[50:51] um larger scale zones, we allow more
[50:55] kind of apartment building typologies.
[50:58] But then when we look at density,
[51:00] there's kind of a question of how we
[51:01] handle that because the state said four
[51:04] units per lot. And that's not at all how
[51:06] we have counted density in the past. We
[51:09] have always regulated density. I don't
[51:11] know if I can say always. I've not been
[51:12] around that long, but we for a very long
[51:14] time regulated density as how many units
[51:18] are allowed based on the size of the
[51:20] lot. So you can imagine that looks very
[51:23] different from how many units per lot,
[51:25] no matter the size of the lot. We have a
[51:27] lot of differently sized lots in
[51:28] Bellingham.
[51:30] And so there's sort of this relationship
[51:32] between a parent lot, which is kind of
[51:33] the lots you can imagine we have today,
[51:36] um, in a lot of our residential low that
[51:38] might be between five and 20,000 square
[51:41] feet in size. Quite a bit of variety.
[51:43] Um, but most of them are around 5,000
[51:45] square feet, but there there are quite a
[51:47] few in that range. Um, and that four
[51:51] units or more, depending on what you're
[51:53] doing there and where it is, are allowed
[51:55] on each of those lots. So then you can
[51:57] make child lots for each of those new
[51:59] units if you so desire. So you might
[52:01] build four cottage units on a lot like
[52:03] in this example right here. And you can
[52:05] create child lots by splitting into four
[52:07] new lots. That ends there. You don't get
[52:09] four more units on each of those lots.
[52:11] That's been clarified.
[52:13] So that's what this all looks like. But
[52:21] » Exactly.
[52:23] Okay. Um, can we go back to that about
[52:25] the can't just split split split and
[52:27] split? There are some lots it seems to
[52:28] me you could split and then split a
[52:30] second time. Is there a framework or
[52:33] rules that are already established under
[52:34] state law to because there's some
[52:36] birchwood sized lots that you could
[52:37] split and potentially split again or
[52:40] split and then put in an ADU or two. So,
[52:44] » So that's part of the question. So, when
[52:46] we say we want to talk about density, we
[52:49] have sort of minimum density, but we
[52:50] also have maximum density. And
[52:52] traditionally we've only used [snorts]
[52:53] maximum density in our kind of
[52:55] residential single area and we've said
[52:56] you can't develop more than a certain
[52:58] amount. So on those 20,000 square foot
[52:59] lots there was one unit allowed. Um the
[53:02] state law allows us to still use that
[53:06] approach for that parent lot. So we
[53:08] could still say the parent lot has to be
[53:11] at least 20,000 square feet in size and
[53:13] you only get four units on it. We could
[53:14] say that. Or we could say across the
[53:17] whole city it's 5,000 square feet or
[53:20] 7,000 square feet. whatever it is and
[53:22] you get you can subdivide those larger
[53:25] lots to that smaller size and then get
[53:27] your four units. That's an approach we
[53:29] could also take. So that that's within
[53:31] our
[53:32] » Does state law contemplate or allow um
[53:35] setting a minimum possible lot size. So
[53:38] for example, pretend it's a thousand
[53:40] square feet that you can divide as much
[53:42] as you want until you divide. You can't
[53:46] go any smaller. Could we regulate it
[53:48] that way? So we don't define how many
[53:51] times you're going to split a parent lot
[53:52] and then split it again. We just simply
[53:54] say you can split until you get to a
[53:56] minimum. Is that allowed? Is that
[53:59] contemplated?
[54:00] » We can definitely do that and we can
[54:03] define what that minimum parent lot size
[54:05] is and that's kind of what we are
[54:07] suggesting here. So we wrote maximum
[54:10] density through minimum parent lot size
[54:11] and that's kind of what staff is
[54:14] recommending. um particularly if we're
[54:16] looking at you know green field
[54:17] development saying there's a minimum
[54:18] parent lot size but then you can still
[54:20] get your four units but we could do the
[54:22] same thing for infill development as
[54:24] well. Um the state law only says that we
[54:28] have to allow those child lots to be
[54:31] created as small as a thousand square
[54:34] feet.
[54:36] But you can imagine with most of our
[54:38] lots being around 5,000 square feet or
[54:40] larger.
[54:41] So, state law already gives us a safe
[54:43] harbor of saying 1,00 square feet for
[54:45] the minimum parent lot size
[54:48] » Or the minimum where we would be
[54:50] required to allow child lots, but we can
[54:53] create a minimum or maximum parent lot
[54:56] size. And the state law doesn't say what
[54:58] those have to be.
[54:59] » Okay. Sorry. The minimum the 10,00
[55:02] isn't minimum parent size, it's minimum
[55:04] child size. Gotcha.
[55:07] I I feel like the parent child lot
[55:09] terminology is new to me at least. Um is
[55:14] the idea there that the parent lot is
[55:17] for like density purposes and the child
[55:18] lot is like for ownership of like those
[55:22] four units being individually owned like
[55:24] how how do those how do is there a
[55:26] definition that for parent and child
[55:29] that distinguishes them? Um, I'm sure
[55:31] that the state guidance had a formal
[55:33] definition that we will probably read
[55:35] from in our code, but basically the
[55:38] parent child lot relationship is
[55:40] constructed because of the four units
[55:43] per lot definition. What they mean is
[55:46] four units per parent lot and then you
[55:48] can create sublots or child lots from
[55:50] that. And so in order to meet that four
[55:53] units per lot definition, we need to
[55:55] define some sort of way of saying these
[55:57] are parent lots and these are child lots
[55:59] with this code update. And so you could
[56:04] never make child lots if you wanted to.
[56:06] If someone has a 10,000 foot lot and
[56:08] they have a house on it and they don't
[56:09] do anything to it, it's technically a
[56:11] parent lot. It reserves um future
[56:14] flexibility. If you know someone else
[56:16] owns it in the future, they could then
[56:18] do that that change. So by default it's
[56:20] a parent lot.
[56:21] » But Mike raises a really interesting
[56:23] point and one of the issues that's on my
[56:25] mind has to do with ownership and
[56:28] ownership is easier when you have
[56:31] separate lots to own as opposed to
[56:33] economy minimized a shared lot. So there
[56:36] is a utility and a simplicity in terms
[56:39] of legal and financial frameworks to
[56:43] split a lot as opposed to kind of
[56:44] minimize a lot. So, I mean, I think
[56:46] there's an important point here
[56:48] » And it gets back to the divide and
[56:49] divide again. If you someone takes a
[56:52] 20,000 foot lot and divides it up into
[56:55] child lots, does that live on with the
[56:57] plat and like recorded at the auditor 20
[57:00] years later if someone wants to divide
[57:01] their lot.
[57:03] I'm sorry, that was a child lot. You
[57:05] can't divide it. Is that a sensible
[57:06] phrase that would come into play?
[57:09] Um that is exactly the conversation
[57:11] we've been having and what we're trying
[57:14] to figure out what we should be doing.
[57:16] Um we have flexibility. So the state
[57:18] doesn't say how we have to handle that.
[57:19] And so let's say we did have a minimum
[57:22] parent lot size. Um one way of
[57:25] approaching that would be for these
[57:26] infill projects. If you have a 20,000
[57:28] foot lot and let's say we had for the
[57:29] sake of math a 5,000 foot minimum parent
[57:32] lot size, we could say
[57:36] you can split that lot into four 5,000
[57:39] foot lots and make four new parent lots
[57:41] and then you can for each of those do
[57:43] four units. We could allow a single
[57:46] process that does that all together to
[57:47] streamline it, make it easier, etc. or
[57:50] we could even go so far as to say you
[57:53] have to do that before developing so
[57:55] that we preserve future development
[57:57] capacity. These are all questions we
[58:00] have and kind of are curious what your
[58:02] all thoughts are. Um I don't know if you
[58:03] want to add anything to that, Blake.
[58:05] » I'll just try to reemphasize it maybe
[58:08] with an example where you have a again a
[58:11] a the 20,000 square foot lot.
[58:15] If you were coming in today to build on
[58:18] that under the interim rules, you would
[58:21] have a choice.
[58:23] And let's say that 20,000 is not the
[58:25] minimum. It's above what the the current
[58:27] minimum lot size is today. You just
[58:28] happen to own a large lot. You could
[58:32] under today's interim regulations, you
[58:34] could build that four to six units on
[58:36] there as it exists today.
[58:39] Or you could go through
[58:42] the process of creating new smaller lot
[58:46] configuration
[58:48] and you could say you could divide it in
[58:49] half and do two tens or four or 5,000
[58:53] square foot lots. And in that context,
[58:57] as long as you're meeting today's
[58:59] current code for the minimum lot size,
[59:02] then you're establishing new parent
[59:06] lots.
[59:08] And and so that that process exists
[59:11] today. And what we're trying to get to
[59:14] is once you've established that parent
[59:17] lot size, then it goes down to where the
[59:22] the child lot is. And so that's the
[59:25] challenge of it is is you we get to set
[59:28] as a city
[59:30] what we want that parent to be and if
[59:33] it's currently that size then you don't
[59:35] get to you get one iteration of going to
[59:38] the child lot but nothing further but if
[59:41] you happen to have something that's
[59:42] greater than that you could go out and
[59:44] say okay let's take for example a 20
[59:47] acre site you know and I could go in and
[59:51] I can go through the subdivision process
[59:53] And I can create, you know, x number of
[59:57] parent lots and go through that process.
[1:00:00] Is that
[1:00:01] » And the parent and the parent lot would
[1:00:03] be say 5,000 foot.
[1:00:06] » We It's what we would set.
[1:00:08] » Yeah. Through this process,
[1:00:10] » I think the challenge is communicating
[1:00:12] long-term
[1:00:14] that home you bought,
[1:00:15] » Right,
[1:00:16] » Is not further subdividable.
[1:00:19] » Yes. And there is
[1:00:20] » Because it's because it's already at the
[1:00:22] lowest lot size.
[1:00:24] » There there's a term called uh uh parcel
[1:00:28] genealogy which is basically like you
[1:00:31] know if you think about how that's where
[1:00:33] the kind of parent child comes from
[1:00:36] where it's like how far down the
[1:00:39] generational train do you go? I remember
[1:00:41] a a meeting we had here where there was
[1:00:45] some PD scanned file from the 80s that
[1:00:48] had you know some sort of genealogy of
[1:00:51] like well
[1:00:52] » It was written down back then that this
[1:00:53] was supposed to happen but it doesn't
[1:00:54] really well today's rules
[1:00:57] » To answer your question maybe a little
[1:00:59] more precisely
[1:01:01] that's as far as you can go under this
[1:01:05] current set of rules that we're
[1:01:06] discussing. Is there a possibility that
[1:01:09] some time in the future that we revamp
[1:01:12] those rules and allow further
[1:01:14] consideration beyond that? Sure. But
[1:01:17] what we're trying to do is set a
[1:01:18] framework and a structure now that one
[1:01:22] meets the the needs of our community and
[1:01:26] is consistent with state law and kind of
[1:01:28] goes through and thinks about our growth
[1:01:30] management efforts. Um, but if you think
[1:01:33] back historically a little bit and I'll
[1:01:35] get to your question in a second. Um,
[1:01:39] if you look at a lot of our development
[1:01:40] pattern, fact back to the late 1800s, we
[1:01:44] had lots that were 25- foot increments
[1:01:47] and people came in and you you basically
[1:01:52] uh bought what you could afford. You'd
[1:01:54] buy two and and put them together. You'd
[1:01:56] buy three and put them together. You'd
[1:01:57] buy four. And so they were kind of a kit
[1:01:59] of parts and you would just assemble it
[1:02:01] and build the home that you could fit on
[1:02:04] that piece of it. This is almost a
[1:02:07] little bit reverse of that where hey you
[1:02:09] have the larger and now I'm going to try
[1:02:11] to pull it apart a little bit and create
[1:02:14] these different opportunities. And the
[1:02:16] question becomes when you start to get
[1:02:17] into what Elizabeth was talking about
[1:02:19] with those
[1:02:21] minimum lot sizes that are a thousand.
[1:02:23] It's because you start talking about
[1:02:25] town homes or row homes or other things
[1:02:28] like that where we want to have fee
[1:02:30] simple lots which is a little different
[1:02:33] than the condominiumization
[1:02:35] conversation which adds a whole new
[1:02:37] complexity. So
[1:02:39] » So um going forward some things like
[1:02:41] depending on the pathways things that I
[1:02:43] would want to know when it comes towards
[1:02:45] our table. Um you had said something
[1:02:48] about um
[1:02:50] you know if uh there's going to be
[1:02:52] development we could either say you know
[1:02:54] okay this is the size of lot or you know
[1:02:57] these are the opportunities or this is
[1:02:59] what you have to do um I would want to
[1:03:01] know more about from the assessor side
[1:03:04] of things if we prescribe this is what
[1:03:06] you have to do because if somebody has a
[1:03:08] 20,000
[1:03:10] you know foot lot and they want to
[1:03:11] divide it in half to build another house
[1:03:14] and sell that and And then we've
[1:03:16] decided, okay, so if you have two
[1:03:19] 10,000, you actually have to take it
[1:03:21] down to 21,000 and they have to be
[1:03:24] separated or separate and and kind of
[1:03:27] like the old days where you could, well,
[1:03:29] I'm going to buy or pay and I'm going to
[1:03:31] keep 10 of them for myself. I'd want to
[1:03:33] know how the assessor would tax that. I
[1:03:35] don't want to be in a situation that
[1:03:37] we're requiring to go down to the
[1:03:40] smallest parcel and have that be
[1:03:42] independent and then it's taxed
[1:03:44] differently because I don't know if it
[1:03:47] would be, but I don't want to see a
[1:03:48] situation that somebody's can't afford
[1:03:50] to buy something because their property
[1:03:53] taxed out above how they're going to use
[1:03:56] it. Um, I'm I'm thinking, you know,
[1:03:59] somebody who has, you know, a 10,000
[1:04:01] square foot and they want to divide it
[1:04:03] down to build a mother-in-law or to do
[1:04:05] something that if we're forcing them to
[1:04:07] do more than what they plan, not only
[1:04:09] the cost of doing that because of the
[1:04:11] whole process of fees and everything
[1:04:13] through the city, what does that look
[1:04:15] like, but how are they going to get
[1:04:16] taxed? Um I like the idea of um that we
[1:04:21] set a certain size and then within that
[1:04:25] you know the scope of what can be done
[1:04:27] and then tracking and then being able to
[1:04:29] have it on the assessor that you know
[1:04:31] you've reached the end of the rabbit
[1:04:32] hole you can't divide it further down.
[1:04:35] I'd also want to know too how the state
[1:04:39] um where you could have four units and
[1:04:42] so you know a lot of neighborhoods they
[1:04:44] do have 5,000 square feet but if you
[1:04:46] come in New York a lot of them are 3,000
[1:04:49] so you're not going to be able to get
[1:04:51] four 1,000 foot. So would we then if we
[1:04:56] were doing basically a you know a
[1:04:58] minimum development you know
[1:05:00] prescriptive you got to do this then
[1:05:02] would somebody uh have to do a a duplex
[1:05:06] and then condominiumize that and then
[1:05:08] have two additional at a 1000 foot and
[1:05:12] in the big picture for me to know is it
[1:05:15] 5,000 is it 3,000 you know like what
[1:05:18] does that look like it's a little bit of
[1:05:19] the form base like how far from the
[1:05:21] street how much percentage age is open
[1:05:24] space. Um, uh, you know, you can't go
[1:05:27] envelope to envelope, edge to edge with
[1:05:30] building for a lot of reasons. So, what
[1:05:33] does that physically look like to be
[1:05:35] able to maximize infill
[1:05:39] um, but still meet some of these other
[1:05:41] code requirements? And there's for me a
[1:05:43] difference between green field and
[1:05:45] infilled. And I know we're trying to
[1:05:47] streamline and have one rule, but I
[1:05:49] almost feel like Greenfield could
[1:05:52] potentially have a slightly different
[1:05:53] rule where we are prescribing this is
[1:05:56] what you must do versus infill. These
[1:05:59] are all the opportunities of what you
[1:06:00] can do. Um
[1:06:02] » Can I offer a little bit of um
[1:06:06] I think context or maybe perspective on
[1:06:09] one thing you said and that was that you
[1:06:11] can't build building to building. We
[1:06:14] can, we may choose not to, but I'm just
[1:06:17] I just I want to for sake of this
[1:06:20] conversation
[1:06:22] set that table with that. I mean, if we
[1:06:24] were to do town homes or row homes or
[1:06:28] there is a building vernacular where you
[1:06:31] could do that um and and let that be.
[1:06:34] That's not a very common form in our
[1:06:38] current building vernacular, but if that
[1:06:40] is something in in particular areas
[1:06:43] where we wanted to allow for that, that
[1:06:45] could be an option. You're absolutely
[1:06:47] right when it comes to that has
[1:06:50] different implications from storm water
[1:06:53] requirements, from fire and building
[1:06:55] code requirements, but there are ways to
[1:06:58] to embrace that form if that's something
[1:07:01] that we want to to offer. I guess I was
[1:07:04] I could understand that in the
[1:07:06] residential high and perhaps medium, but
[1:07:08] I wasn't seeing that 3,000 square foot
[1:07:12] lot in a low density going corner to
[1:07:15] corner, edge to edge and still in my
[1:07:18] opinion be considered a residential low,
[1:07:22] » Right?
[1:07:22] » Um so I know those are things we're
[1:07:24] going to have to be looking at. But um
[1:07:27] yes, I know lots of places downtown that
[1:07:30] go corner to corner and take up the
[1:07:32] entire lot, but to me that moves kind of
[1:07:34] right to the screen and not so much the
[1:07:37] one on the left.
[1:07:38] » Yeah. And I just wanted on the on the
[1:07:40] left side under residential low, we have
[1:07:42] that single unit attached as one of the
[1:07:45] forms. So that is more of the
[1:07:47] traditional town home style. It also in
[1:07:52] some respects could be and it's a term
[1:07:54] we don't use all that often but it's the
[1:07:57] stacked flat. So it's the it's the
[1:07:59] vertical orientation of the unit. So if
[1:08:03] you think about cities like Boston or
[1:08:06] San Francisco, you have, you know, many
[1:08:09] of those that are a kind of a
[1:08:10] three-story walk up and each level is um
[1:08:14] a separate unit, independent unit,
[1:08:16] whether that's under one, you know,
[1:08:19] common ownership or individually, you
[1:08:21] know, own. But those types of examples
[1:08:23] where you can get a little bit more
[1:08:27] density. So that's part of what we have
[1:08:28] to kind of think through is what do we
[1:08:30] want the form of those buildings to be.
[1:08:33] Um ownership adds a nuance to that that
[1:08:37] you know we want to think through and
[1:08:38] make sure we're intentional about uh and
[1:08:41] especially as it comes to planning out
[1:08:43] utilities and other things of that
[1:08:45] nature. But yeah,
[1:08:48] » Can I follow up too on um I think a
[1:08:50] couple of things you laid out are
[1:08:52] exactly in line with what we would
[1:08:53] propose. Um, but I do want to clarify
[1:08:55] that
[1:08:57] um I think you you're talking a lot
[1:08:59] about like not requiring certain types
[1:09:01] of development or subdivision if it's
[1:09:03] infill. I think that's certainly in line
[1:09:05] with what we're hoping. So you can see
[1:09:08] where we have um the minimum density for
[1:09:11] instance we say through a single maximum
[1:09:14] parent lot size when new parent lots are
[1:09:16] created. So when you're doing green
[1:09:18] field development that's fairly easy to
[1:09:19] say you're you're going to be creating a
[1:09:21] bunch of new parent lots. We want to
[1:09:23] make sure that we're getting a certain
[1:09:24] level of density. So, you can't make
[1:09:26] those lots larger than a certain amount.
[1:09:28] Um, but that's if you're already
[1:09:30] creating new new parent lots. We don't
[1:09:32] want to keep development from happening
[1:09:35] in infill. So, if you have, you know,
[1:09:37] like let's say you have a 7,000 foot lot
[1:09:39] and we've said that the minimum density
[1:09:42] is you you have to have at least um you
[1:09:45] can't have lots larger than 5,000 square
[1:09:47] ft. We're not going to say you have to
[1:09:49] split your lot if you want to create
[1:09:51] another unit. Um, we're going to leave
[1:09:54] flexibility so people can decide whether
[1:09:56] they want to condise, whether they want
[1:09:58] to um uh create separate lots and have
[1:10:03] an an ownership structure with fe simple
[1:10:05] lots. We want to allow flexibility. That
[1:10:08] that's really the goal with a lot of
[1:10:09] this. And the way that we currently look
[1:10:13] at kind of like how small you can create
[1:10:15] a lot um is actually really based on
[1:10:18] what's feasible to actually build there.
[1:10:20] So if someone has a 3,000 foot lot and
[1:10:22] they found a way to build four town
[1:10:25] houses on it that meet our setbacks and
[1:10:27] our height restrictions and everything
[1:10:29] and they want to come and create
[1:10:31] separate lots for those four even though
[1:10:33] that's less than 1,000 square feet. The
[1:10:34] state says we don't have to allow that,
[1:10:36] but we would want to allow that because
[1:10:39] if they're going to build the four town
[1:10:40] houses anyway, why would we not allow
[1:10:42] them to be sold and build that that kind
[1:10:44] of ownership structure? So, we
[1:10:46] definitely want to build flexibility in
[1:10:48] there and we just want to have a
[1:10:50] framework for how to process that and
[1:10:52] make that really clear.
[1:10:54] » It's probably also worth mentioning that
[1:10:57] the building code does set minimum
[1:11:00] habitability sizes for bedrooms and
[1:11:03] other things like that. So, it's not
[1:11:04] that you're creating unsafe or untenable
[1:11:08] living uh circumstances. There are some
[1:11:10] things that help guide it kind of on the
[1:11:12] on the other end of the spectrum as
[1:11:14] well.
[1:11:16] » That's sort of where where I wanted to
[1:11:18] go. Um but first a comment on taxes. We
[1:11:20] can't control that. If you have a 20,000
[1:11:22] foot lot, you divide it into four 5,000
[1:11:25] foot lots, your property taxes will go
[1:11:26] up because they're more valuable and the
[1:11:28] excessor will know it. And we cannot
[1:11:30] stop that. We cannot regulate it. I was
[1:11:33] just saying that we prescribed that we
[1:11:37] had to break it down to
[1:11:40] » When you go to do your development. It's
[1:11:41] like, oh, you're going to develop. So,
[1:11:43] because of that, we have a maximum
[1:11:46] development. You must sorry, you must
[1:11:50] develop it this way. Then you're forcing
[1:11:52] someone to develop the 20 1,000 foot
[1:11:56] lots even though they're maybe only
[1:11:59] wanting to do two 10,000.
[1:12:00] » Yeah. I never imagined that kind of
[1:12:02] forcing. I think that's what Elizabeth
[1:12:04] said.
[1:12:04] » It was just a comment made like we could
[1:12:07] and I was moving towards like I don't
[1:12:09] know if I would support that. It was
[1:12:11] like the opportunity is there if we
[1:12:13] wanted to. But that's why I was saying
[1:12:15] I'
[1:12:15] » I get it now
[1:12:16] » To go that direction. I would have all
[1:12:17] these questions about cost and stuff so
[1:12:21] that we are not prescribing something
[1:12:23] creating unaffordability. So it was in
[1:12:25] response to what we could do, not
[1:12:28] necessarily what is being suggested by
[1:12:30] staff.
[1:12:31] » I think none of our regulations compel
[1:12:33] people to do anything, but they do stop
[1:12:36] you from doing something. That's a
[1:12:38] regulations tend to work the other way
[1:12:40] around. I want to go back to parent
[1:12:41] child. I think parent child is confusing
[1:12:43] language and I think we should throw it
[1:12:44] away.
[1:12:46] I think we should only talk about
[1:12:48] minimum and undividable lots.
[1:12:52] Um,
[1:12:53] and that's just the easiest way to
[1:12:55] regulate it. I don't care what your
[1:12:57] genealogy is. And the reason why minimum
[1:13:00] lots is useful is kind of I think that
[1:13:02] dubtales nicely with what I'm hoping
[1:13:04] for, which is a move towards form-based
[1:13:06] code. As you said, uh, Mr. Lion, we have
[1:13:08] other regulations
[1:13:10] um that have to do with setback or fire
[1:13:12] separation or minimum uh, uh, size of
[1:13:16] bedrooms, right? I mean we talk about in
[1:13:19] terms of size and and and minimums of
[1:13:21] things you can do and and the minimum
[1:13:23] amount of buffer you need to give and
[1:13:25] the minimum separation. It's natural to
[1:13:27] talk about minimum lot size and we never
[1:13:29] have to use the word parent and child.
[1:13:32] So I think that's a simpler framework to
[1:13:34] go to. Um but then it brings me to the
[1:13:37] idea of like zero lot line. So uh first
[1:13:40] of all residential high is missing
[1:13:41] something. That is where you get zero
[1:13:44] lot line property property development
[1:13:46] all the time. I should hope so. So
[1:13:48] that's actually not that residential
[1:13:50] high illustration to me looks like
[1:13:51] residential medium.
[1:13:53] That's not Barcelona. That's not any big
[1:13:56] city I've ever been to. That's not high.
[1:13:59] Um on residential low, pretend that one
[1:14:01] tripack lot doesn't have an ADU on it.
[1:14:05] Why can't I to again create ownership
[1:14:07] opportunities divide it right down that
[1:14:09] shared wall
[1:14:12] right that would be a zero lot line
[1:14:14] separation I haven't increased changed
[1:14:16] the form I haven't increased the density
[1:14:19] but I've now created ownership in a way
[1:14:21] that banks and people can understand
[1:14:24] and as long as that little weird one in
[1:14:26] the middle which I would actually make
[1:14:28] into a T-shape if I was in charge of the
[1:14:31] lot is above whatever our minimum lot
[1:14:34] size is then it should be fine. It may
[1:14:36] be weird, but it'll be bankable. It'll
[1:14:38] be viable. So, I'd rather we just talk
[1:14:41] about minimum lot size when it comes to
[1:14:43] dividing and not worry about someone
[1:14:46] saying, "Oh, but state says you can put
[1:14:48] four units on there because I know you
[1:14:49] will never put four units on there
[1:14:51] because I know there are other
[1:14:52] regulations will stop you from doing
[1:14:54] that." So, I'd rather go back to talking
[1:14:56] about form-based code and how that
[1:14:58] limits what can go on a lot because I
[1:15:00] think that will be the limiting factor.
[1:15:02] That's where we need to get it right.
[1:15:04] Not worry about the state's formulation
[1:15:05] of one four units per lot because I
[1:15:07] think the state legislature thought
[1:15:09] about it wrong and looked through the
[1:15:11] wrong end of the telescope.
[1:15:13] » We're trying to be mindful in some
[1:15:15] respects to uh and Jerry alluded to this
[1:15:19] earlier is that the state building code
[1:15:21] is catching up, right? We did a lot of
[1:15:24] of conversation about the land use
[1:15:26] regulations, but there's existing and
[1:15:29] current discussions that are going on to
[1:15:31] do multipplex buildings, to do single
[1:15:34] stair buildings, to do scissor stair
[1:15:36] buildings, and those components will
[1:15:39] open up more conversation about the
[1:15:42] forms of those buildings. And so part of
[1:15:45] what we're trying to endeavor to do in
[1:15:47] this effort is make sure we're not
[1:15:50] preventing or precluding those forms
[1:15:52] that we don't see uh you know a lot of
[1:15:56] examples of right now and and anticipate
[1:15:59] where we think some of those other
[1:16:02] building codes may open up. So, the idea
[1:16:04] of um I would agree with you that in
[1:16:08] some of these smaller lot
[1:16:10] configurations, it's hard to wrap your
[1:16:13] head around four units on a particular
[1:16:16] lot, especially if your context and
[1:16:20] frame of reference is much more of a
[1:16:22] horizontal separation and unit next to
[1:16:25] unit or you know that kind of thing.
[1:16:27] If we open up that context and think
[1:16:29] about two up, two down or or stacked
[1:16:33] flats, the the possibility of unit
[1:16:37] configuration expands
[1:16:40] a fair bit more than than that
[1:16:42] horizontal. So I just want to make sure
[1:16:43] we leave enough room in the conversation
[1:16:46] » Formbbased and codebased limitation
[1:16:49] rather than a zoning based limitation.
[1:16:52] Right? And I think the zoning based
[1:16:53] limitations is going to tie us in knots.
[1:16:55] I think we need to do more form and
[1:16:58] building code based.
[1:16:58] » And I think that's part of why we're
[1:17:00] going to the unifor unified development
[1:17:02] code and the formbbased elements in that
[1:17:05] is because if we set the parameters the
[1:17:09] right way, then whether you configure
[1:17:12] them this way, that way or the other way
[1:17:15] is really less material. You know, I
[1:17:19] jokingly call it kind of a Mr. potato
[1:17:21] head approach where you know you have
[1:17:22] the basic form and you can put the
[1:17:24] different eyes on it and the different
[1:17:25] eyebrows and the hat and all the things.
[1:17:27] Well, if you put it in a housing
[1:17:28] context, you can put different porches,
[1:17:30] you can orient them different ways.
[1:17:33] We're less concerned about that as long
[1:17:35] as it meets, you know, fire and building
[1:17:38] code and those type of pieces. But if
[1:17:40] you have a oddly shaped lot and you can
[1:17:43] do something a little different, it you
[1:17:46] shouldn't be limited to just
[1:17:49] an archaic way of kind of structuring
[1:17:51] that. We want to give enough context and
[1:17:53] enough flexibility to be able to to
[1:17:55] allow for that variety.
[1:17:58] » Can I and I think this is
[1:18:01] to Michael's point. I'm the idea around
[1:18:04] density now seems really challenging to
[1:18:08] communicate and what we're trying to do
[1:18:11] is simplify and and
[1:18:14] it sounds like we might make things very
[1:18:16] complicated still. So, if if we were to
[1:18:20] move to something that's more form-based
[1:18:22] and we like don't worry about the
[1:18:24] density component of it as much and
[1:18:26] think more about the form, we're going
[1:18:29] to simplify it. And it's it's what can
[1:18:31] you fit in the space, not what size lot
[1:18:35] was it? What size lot is it now? What is
[1:18:38] it big enough to fit the thing? um that
[1:18:41] to me just feels like we're making
[1:18:42] things more complicated and we're we're
[1:18:45] tying ourselves in knots because we're
[1:18:46] trying to fit it into the context of
[1:18:48] like the existing code instead of saying
[1:18:50] and you know how many times have we all
[1:18:51] heard let's throw out the code and start
[1:18:53] over and like this is the opportunity
[1:18:56] right now is the time to for us to say
[1:18:59] like okay we could try and work with
[1:19:02] what we have and and like tool it up and
[1:19:05] make it work or we can go a different
[1:19:08] direction and you know now and s and
[1:19:11] actually simplify
[1:19:13] » That.
[1:19:13] » I'm I'm wondering on just the variety of
[1:19:17] existing
[1:19:18] um single family uh neighborhoods that
[1:19:21] we have right now, like what is the
[1:19:22] biggest lot size versus the smallest lot
[1:19:25] size that's going to be encompassed
[1:19:26] under this one umbrella of residential
[1:19:29] low that will now allow for multif
[1:19:32] family essentially like multiple units.
[1:19:34] And is some of our consideration of
[1:19:37] parent versus child lots giving us the
[1:19:41] ability to treat different densities of
[1:19:44] neighborhoods differently with what how
[1:19:47] much density will allow? Or are we going
[1:19:49] to say basically nope, this this lot
[1:19:52] over here that was in this neighborhood
[1:19:53] that's not very dense is going to be
[1:19:56] treated exactly the same as this lot
[1:19:58] over here that's very small in a very
[1:19:59] dense neighborhood. And over here over
[1:20:02] in however many years it takes could
[1:20:05] look exactly [clears throat] like this
[1:20:06] over here because of um we're going to
[1:20:08] we're just treating it across the board.
[1:20:10] It's like you can you can go down to a
[1:20:11] th00andt lot everything's equal. Um is
[1:20:16] that the intent um for where we're going
[1:20:19] or are we wanting to have um some
[1:20:22] flexibility within different character
[1:20:24] of neighborhoods to make them develop
[1:20:26] differently?
[1:20:29] I think the um
[1:20:32] so let me back up to to Rose's comment
[1:20:34] first. Um yes, absolutely. If if that's
[1:20:39] where this conversation is going and we
[1:20:41] want to move away from
[1:20:44] um
[1:20:46] the math equation, the density is and
[1:20:48] get more into that. We certainly have
[1:20:51] that on the table for consideration. I
[1:20:53] would I've been doing this a a fair
[1:20:56] number of years and I will tell you that
[1:20:58] most people could not look at a project
[1:21:01] and tell you what the units per acre is.
[1:21:03] They respond more to design and uh urban
[1:21:08] design and architecture more than than
[1:21:11] units per acre. Um and so there is an
[1:21:14] element of that. Um to get Jed to your
[1:21:17] question, the as it currently is
[1:21:20] structured, the areas that have the
[1:21:25] largest minimum lot size, that minimum
[1:21:27] lot size is 20,000 square ft. So those
[1:21:31] that would be the smallest lot if you
[1:21:34] were creating a new lot today. Now,
[1:21:36] there may be some in that neighborhood
[1:21:38] that are predating our our regulations
[1:21:40] that are smaller than that, but if you
[1:21:42] were to come in and create a new lot
[1:21:44] today, the minimum lot size would be
[1:21:45] 20,000 square ft. So, one of the options
[1:21:49] that's available and part of this
[1:21:51] conversation is do we change that? And
[1:21:55] if we do change that, do we change that
[1:21:57] across the board or in particular areas?
[1:21:59] I mean, those are the things that we're,
[1:22:02] you know, that are part of this
[1:22:03] conversation that we're looking for your
[1:22:05] thoughts and feedback and direction on
[1:22:07] because it does shift the the dynamic of
[1:22:11] what is allowable in those particular
[1:22:14] areas. We do we have done so with
[1:22:18] respect to the Bellingham plan. We
[1:22:20] intend to continue that that we want to
[1:22:22] look at it through an equity lens and we
[1:22:26] want to make sure because zoning there
[1:22:30] is an aspect of zoning that has
[1:22:34] some really unfavorable roots in um
[1:22:37] segregation and and racism and we want
[1:22:40] to make sure we're not perpetuating
[1:22:42] those elements of that. So we just we
[1:22:45] want to be intentional about our process
[1:22:47] there as well.
[1:22:49] I think on that note, staff's
[1:22:51] recommendation and shown on this slide
[1:22:53] is to have a single number across all of
[1:22:56] the residential low both for a minimum
[1:22:58] and a maximum lot size. Um we certainly
[1:23:01] could take the approach that um was just
[1:23:04] kind of contemplated where we might
[1:23:07] still have kind of a minimum density
[1:23:09] requirement, but maybe the maximum
[1:23:10] density is not um a requirement. And
[1:23:15] effectively, if we're saying that we
[1:23:17] would have a single requirement across
[1:23:20] the city, and it would probably be
[1:23:21] closer to the 5,000 number than the
[1:23:23] 20,000 number,
[1:23:25] the actual impact of what we would see
[1:23:27] on the ground is probably not that
[1:23:29] different between allowing four units on
[1:23:32] a 5,000t lot or saying you could build
[1:23:35] as many units as you want on that 5,000
[1:23:37] foot lot. Um, but that how we
[1:23:41] require or allow those things for our
[1:23:44] infill projects makes a large difference
[1:23:46] whether we're incentivizing
[1:23:47] redevelopment of those larger 20,000
[1:23:49] foot lots or we're kind of neutral on it
[1:23:52] and allow them to redevelop as as
[1:23:55] desired, right? Those are the things
[1:23:56] that will actually see differences. Um,
[1:23:59] but the math calculation versus the sort
[1:24:01] of form-based approach, if we're talking
[1:24:03] about those smaller lots doesn't make a
[1:24:05] lot of difference as to what you would
[1:24:07] actually see on the ground.
[1:24:12] Um, first of all, thanks for letting us
[1:24:14] join you to get into the weeds on some
[1:24:16] of this. We don't often get that on city
[1:24:18] council. Um, and so I definitely
[1:24:21] appreciate that. Uh I think to Rose's
[1:24:24] point um my tendency is to side with the
[1:24:29] idea of simplifying. Um clearly we've
[1:24:32] had code that is very very very complex
[1:24:35] and heard about how it's over complex
[1:24:37] for a long time. So let's get it right
[1:24:40] this time. Um and tend more towards
[1:24:42] simplifying it. I'm also more interested
[1:24:46] in uh
[1:24:49] seeing more ways that we can have
[1:24:50] options to make home ownership
[1:24:52] affordable and property um purchasing
[1:24:55] more affordable for more people uh who
[1:24:58] historically haven't been able to
[1:24:59] achieve that. Um and so those generally
[1:25:03] are my preferences without getting into
[1:25:06] specific numbers. Um,
[1:25:09] I think that's more in your wheelhouse
[1:25:11] as experts to to recommend. But, um,
[1:25:15] that's that's the direction I would I
[1:25:18] would like to see us go. I think there
[1:25:19] was one more point that I was going to
[1:25:20] make make, but also that the equity
[1:25:23] component of of [snorts] um of
[1:25:26] addressing that and um setting a
[1:25:30] foundation so that we're not looking
[1:25:33] back 50 years from now and thinking,
[1:25:35] shoot, I wish the leadership of uh
[1:25:39] Bellingham would have predicted
[1:25:41] potentially that this was the direction
[1:25:43] that we were going in uh in terms of our
[1:25:46] needs for housing and and how we would
[1:25:49] be looking at um creating enough housing
[1:25:53] for everybody that wanted to live here.
[1:25:55] I mean, I think we can think of some
[1:25:56] plenty of examples of that in our city
[1:25:58] now where think, shoot, if only they had
[1:26:00] put an alleyway through those properties
[1:26:02] instead um or not created um the the
[1:26:07] huge um lots that that they have now.
[1:26:10] And there was a way that we could get
[1:26:11] more housing in there that was a little
[1:26:13] uh
[1:26:15] a little more streamlined. So I think
[1:26:18] those are just my general thoughts. Um
[1:26:22] » And if I can add one uh element to that
[1:26:25] because what you're describing is
[1:26:27] exactly what we're trying to do in terms
[1:26:29] of thinking through
[1:26:31] um connectivity, walkability.
[1:26:35] Um I will tell you that there's an
[1:26:37] element of that that's challenging. It's
[1:26:39] kind of though we often describe it
[1:26:41] being in those kind of awkward teen
[1:26:43] years where you know we're trying to
[1:26:45] transition from one kind of development
[1:26:48] land use pattern to to the next uh
[1:26:50] iteration of that. And so, um, don't be
[1:26:54] surprised if you hear conversations or
[1:26:56] concerns about, oh, it costs me too much
[1:26:59] to build out that portion of the alley
[1:27:01] or, you know, this project is we're
[1:27:04] we're struggling with trying to figure
[1:27:05] out how to finance building, you know,
[1:27:08] 3/4 street standards on the road. I
[1:27:10] mean, that's part of the conversation
[1:27:11] that we're engaged with almost on the
[1:27:14] daily with our public works colleagues
[1:27:16] about how to balance those uh
[1:27:20] development pressures and amortize some
[1:27:22] of those costs and expenses over the
[1:27:24] unit count and stuff. So, that's
[1:27:25] absolutely part of our deliberations and
[1:27:28] conversation as well.
[1:27:31] Chrissy, do you want to
[1:27:35] » Sorry. I just wanted to also just remind
[1:27:37] everyone that the and Elizabeth went
[1:27:39] through it in the presentation earlier,
[1:27:40] but it was she went through it rapidly,
[1:27:42] but the the structure you see on the
[1:27:44] slide there is exactly what was set up
[1:27:46] in the adopted land use map in the
[1:27:48] Bellingham plan. So that just to remind
[1:27:51] everyone that that low, medium, high is
[1:27:53] what was um what what the commission and
[1:27:56] what the council talked about uh in
[1:27:58] multiple work sessions. Uh, and I I
[1:28:01] think the the one thing we all want to
[1:28:03] jump to is what's that going to look
[1:28:04] like when it when it's um fully realized
[1:28:08] and I think the reality is that that
[1:28:10] we're talking about many decades to get
[1:28:12] to that point in a lot of the existing
[1:28:14] neighborhoods. I think it is the the
[1:28:17] idea of uh how will this play out in
[1:28:20] green field versus infill uh situations
[1:28:23] will be very different and in in green
[1:28:25] field I think that's where we absolutely
[1:28:26] want to look at that where that minimum
[1:28:29] will will reap benefits in our limited
[1:28:31] land supply and that's something that we
[1:28:33] counted on with our capacity analysis
[1:28:35] why we chose to reconfigure the UG in
[1:28:38] the fairly conservative way that we did.
[1:28:40] Um we're not growing out in leaps and
[1:28:43] bounds. We know that we want to in the
[1:28:45] areas where we are growing out, we're
[1:28:46] going to absolutely want to see truly
[1:28:49] urban kinds of things happening in
[1:28:50] there, not not suburban levels of
[1:28:52] development. But for established areas
[1:28:55] that already have established lot
[1:28:57] patterns, the the change will be
[1:28:59] incremental and it will take time. I
[1:29:01] mean, just of course, just given the
[1:29:03] economic situation that we find
[1:29:04] ourselves in right now, we know it's
[1:29:05] it's slower than a lot of us want to
[1:29:08] see. Um but over time
[1:29:11] these neighborhoods that have already
[1:29:12] organically developed over the last
[1:29:14] hundred years will continue to evolve.
[1:29:16] And so what this provides is not uh um I
[1:29:20] I think you you gave it is what does it
[1:29:22] compel you to do versus what does it
[1:29:24] allow you to do. What this allows is for
[1:29:26] that evolution to continue. It doesn't
[1:29:28] compel you to do anything. And so I
[1:29:30] think that's just to keep in mind. It's
[1:29:31] it's uh it's going to happen slowly in
[1:29:34] most cases and it's going to be
[1:29:36] incremental across the city. But the the
[1:29:40] uh structure in particular when we are
[1:29:42] focusing more on that residential low
[1:29:44] zone is the the feedback we heard from
[1:29:46] those surveys and from the all the touch
[1:29:48] points in the open houses with the
[1:29:50] community was they wanted to see some
[1:29:51] level of of equity. Um uniformity is
[1:29:56] sometimes kind of a has some baggage
[1:29:58] with it but they wanted to see
[1:29:59] consistency across that zone as opposed
[1:30:01] to uh some neighborhoods accepting more
[1:30:04] or being asked to accept more than
[1:30:06] others. Um, so that's just thoughts
[1:30:08] tying it to that land use map.
[1:30:10] » And and if I may, I just want to I
[1:30:12] realize we we have a tendency and we're
[1:30:14] trying not to, but we throw around kind
[1:30:16] of uh industry terms or acronyms. So for
[1:30:20] those that may be watching when we
[1:30:22] reference the term green field, uh,
[1:30:25] essentially what we're talking about is
[1:30:27] an undeveloped piece of land that then
[1:30:30] becomes subject to
[1:30:32] subdivision or or new development
[1:30:35] pattern. So, it's something that has not
[1:30:37] previously been built on. When we talk
[1:30:40] about redevelopment scenarios, that's
[1:30:41] typically something that has development
[1:30:44] that's being re-imagined or renewed. And
[1:30:47] that and when we talk about infill,
[1:30:49] that's often times you have an existing
[1:30:52] uh neighborhood or existing part of our
[1:30:54] community that has a development pattern
[1:30:56] and there may be some piece of that that
[1:30:59] is underutilized or there's a lot that
[1:31:03] hasn't uh been built on prior. and we're
[1:31:05] kind of fitting it into the fabric of
[1:31:08] the existing neighborhood. So, I just
[1:31:09] want to make sure we're
[1:31:12] generally operating on the same
[1:31:13] understanding of I guess I I've said
[1:31:16] this before at a different meeting, but
[1:31:18] in my head we're solving for a couple
[1:31:20] problems and it's helpful to start with
[1:31:22] like why are we doing this? And one is
[1:31:24] the overwhelming community priority and
[1:31:26] all of the surveys that you've done for
[1:31:28] increased access to housing that's
[1:31:30] affordable. So, how do we facilitate
[1:31:32] that? And then also the desire to keep
[1:31:36] community character and the desirable
[1:31:37] charact characteristics that make it
[1:31:39] liveable here, not just a a development.
[1:31:42] Um, and in my head, the way we get well,
[1:31:46] one way to get more affordable housing
[1:31:48] is to facilitate more housing being
[1:31:50] developed. And in that line of thought,
[1:31:53] I don't really see value in having
[1:31:56] minimum lot sizes at all. Um if we can
[1:32:00] facilitate um a bunch of different
[1:32:03] creative housing options by streamlining
[1:32:05] it, making it simple and the with some
[1:32:09] uh form-based housing um criteria to
[1:32:13] keep the character, then that balances
[1:32:15] both the need to um keep community
[1:32:18] character and the walking down the
[1:32:20] street kind of visual aesthetics with
[1:32:22] the clear need to develop more. and then
[1:32:26] having that be consistent across um all
[1:32:29] of the zones couldn't be more simple as
[1:32:32] well as equitable. Um so in my head if I
[1:32:35] I'm curious about that state um minimum
[1:32:38] size for thousand square feet which
[1:32:39] sounds like it can be overrided with
[1:32:41] infill and other things. So if that's a
[1:32:43] state requirement then obviously we have
[1:32:45] to abide by that but if that's not then
[1:32:48] » It's a state requirement the other way.
[1:32:50] So, it the state basically says you have
[1:32:53] to allow people to subdivide
[1:32:56] if they're building those four units up
[1:32:58] to 1,000 ft, but you don't have to allow
[1:33:00] it past it, but you can.
[1:33:01] » So, then in in that case, yeah, I feel
[1:33:03] like I maybe don't even need any minimum
[1:33:06] lot sizes. And then we have the other
[1:33:09] codes that make sure they're habitable
[1:33:11] anyway. And then this could be further
[1:33:14] have guard rails tied to uh revisiting
[1:33:17] this um so that it doesn't spiral out of
[1:33:20] control. And I think we have some um
[1:33:25] a precursor to this perhaps in our
[1:33:27] short-term uh rental policy that's
[1:33:31] already in the code where there's kind
[1:33:33] of a valuebased
[1:33:35] um framework where it says if the
[1:33:37] vacancy rate reaches 4% we will revisit
[1:33:41] this because the um it's the balance of
[1:33:44] the community needs to keep housing for
[1:33:47] community members who are living here
[1:33:49] with short-term rental opportunities.
[1:33:51] And so that's the value that we've said
[1:33:53] that you can't have um a non- primary
[1:33:56] dwelling unit, Airbnb, or other
[1:33:59] short-term rental until we have vacancy
[1:34:00] at 4%. So we could do something similar
[1:34:03] here perhaps of saying we need
[1:34:05] affordable housing. It's a huge crisis.
[1:34:07] We all know this. So let's allow and see
[1:34:10] what creative opportunities come through
[1:34:12] with no minimum lot size streamlined
[1:34:14] efficient and then at some point if we
[1:34:17] get a if housing the median housing cost
[1:34:20] is only five times or 10 times the
[1:34:24] average
[1:34:25] um median income or area median income
[1:34:28] then we have a set time to revisit the
[1:34:31] plan and say is this still the kind of
[1:34:34] development pattern that we want to put
[1:34:36] forward. So some kind of check on the
[1:34:39] what are the problems we're trying to
[1:34:41] solve and how and set some metric for
[1:34:45] when we get there. If it's five or 10
[1:34:46] times area median income, that's when we
[1:34:48] revisit. So some metric for have we
[1:34:50] moved closer towards achieving that
[1:34:52] goal. Um and we have that kind of thing
[1:34:55] already in the short-term rental. So
[1:34:57] it's not uh without precedent. But yeah,
[1:34:59] I would I would propose just going for
[1:35:03] it.
[1:35:04] So for me, I'm not um necessarily
[1:35:08] willing to get rid of minimum lot size
[1:35:10] only in the context of what we're
[1:35:13] supposed to be streamlining. So if if we
[1:35:17] are trying to get away from some of the
[1:35:18] formbbased like you have to have or not
[1:35:21] form you know some of the the guard
[1:35:24] rails like you have to have this this
[1:35:25] this and this is in order to have that
[1:35:29] walkable street in order to have the
[1:35:31] pocket yard in order to be able to you
[1:35:33] know have that kind of sense of
[1:35:36] livability so that it's not just a
[1:35:38] complete like urban you know and also
[1:35:41] equity. you'll have areas that uh people
[1:35:44] will be able to buy land a little
[1:35:46] cheaper than other areas. I mean, it's
[1:35:47] cheaper to buy in York than it is in
[1:35:49] Edgemore. So, does then York or Happy
[1:35:53] Valley or Birwood become kind of a like
[1:35:58] you have urban core kind of development
[1:36:00] because there's no guard rail and other
[1:36:03] areas you don't. Um, I think I'd like to
[1:36:07] leave it to staff like how do we meet
[1:36:10] maybe the goal is it having a minimum
[1:36:13] lot size will help streamline so you
[1:36:15] don't have to be so prescriptive that
[1:36:17] you have to for each dwelling unit in a
[1:36:21] residential low. You know, residential
[1:36:23] high is vastly different but in
[1:36:24] residential low what are those kind of
[1:36:26] values or those desired um amenities
[1:36:30] that we want for community? Like I know
[1:36:33] people raising small children. and they
[1:36:35] want a small backyard for the child to
[1:36:37] go back into, you know, to play. And if
[1:36:40] we're, you know, like a porch and, you
[1:36:44] know, what's the height? Because people
[1:36:46] have gardens and they they like to enjoy
[1:36:48] their backyard. And if we don't have
[1:36:50] some level and of being a little more
[1:36:53] prescriptive, do you have a stacked unit
[1:36:56] that goes up seven because we're not
[1:36:59] creating a minimum like a maximum amount
[1:37:01] of density based on space. So I mean I
[1:37:05] think we could end up with very
[1:37:06] unintended consequences. So if we
[1:37:09] identify like what low residential what
[1:37:12] are the attributes of it then do we need
[1:37:16] to in order to make it easier to
[1:37:17] implement that for staff having a lot
[1:37:22] size that's easier to ensure we don't
[1:37:25] end up somewhere we don't want to be and
[1:37:27] maybe by default it becomes residential
[1:37:30] high. Um,
[1:37:33] is that easier versus saying you have to
[1:37:35] have this much setback, you have to have
[1:37:37] this much open space and that in itself
[1:37:40] based on here's the code and then maybe
[1:37:43] somebody has a 6,000 square foot and
[1:37:45] based on design and keeping those
[1:37:47] elements that we want to see in
[1:37:50] residential low, they might be able to
[1:37:51] get more. So,
[1:37:54] the bigger question is for me, what does
[1:37:57] our residential low look and feel like?
[1:38:00] Um and then from there, which is the
[1:38:03] best way in order to meet that? Is it as
[1:38:06] the lot size or is it based on being
[1:38:09] more prescriptive of what the design
[1:38:11] standards are for what comes in which
[1:38:13] could in a way I think have also
[1:38:16] unintended consequences of being too
[1:38:18] prescriptive.
[1:38:20] » Yeah. And I think I think what we're
[1:38:21] trying to use as general guard rails for
[1:38:25] us is uh the framework and the policy
[1:38:28] direction that was set up in the comp
[1:38:30] plan uh this past year. Um
[1:38:35] as Elizabeth has described where there's
[1:38:37] there's some opportunity to kind of work
[1:38:39] within those that frame of reference.
[1:38:42] Um, and if there's a desire based on
[1:38:46] this conversation or maybe subsequent
[1:38:48] conversations to deviate from that, then
[1:38:51] we'd have to go make sure we build in
[1:38:53] the opportunity to think through whether
[1:38:55] we want to amend the comp plan and go a
[1:38:58] step further. So, right now we're just
[1:39:00] trying to stay within that general
[1:39:03] framework um and and hear your direction
[1:39:06] and hear your feedback and then we can
[1:39:08] kind of work through part of what
[1:39:10] Elizabeth alluded to earlier is yeah,
[1:39:12] there's a number of different ways we
[1:39:14] can do that. We want to get your general
[1:39:16] sentiment and feedback. Now, that helps
[1:39:19] inform us. We can then craft some of
[1:39:22] that more specifics and we will go
[1:39:24] through with in particular with the
[1:39:26] planning commission. we'll get public
[1:39:27] feedback and we'll we'll start to put a
[1:39:30] little bit more meat on the bone so you
[1:39:33] can really dig into what that's going to
[1:39:36] mean. And what we can try to share with
[1:39:38] you as we go along is different ways
[1:39:41] that we see that kind of playing out so
[1:39:43] you can make more informed decisions as
[1:39:45] we go forward. I do want to clarify
[1:39:47] though in the Bellingham plan we knew
[1:39:50] this conversation was coming and so we
[1:39:52] did prescribe that there should be a
[1:39:54] minimum density in all three zones and
[1:39:56] that it should be tiered because that
[1:39:57] was pretty clear direction from you all
[1:40:00] but we did not say anything about
[1:40:01] maximum density because we knew that
[1:40:03] there was this conversation boiling so
[1:40:06] we do have the flexibility within the
[1:40:08] framework that we set forth to go either
[1:40:10] direction that was discussed today
[1:40:12] » Talk about density and I wondered if we
[1:40:15] could write the code, not even using the
[1:40:19] word density or deprecating it, right?
[1:40:22] But really, because density is in units
[1:40:24] per acre and units per acre is not
[1:40:26] bedrooms per acre and that's not people
[1:40:28] per acre. We're trying to regulate
[1:40:30] something with a number which is
[1:40:31] inadequate and ills suited to the task.
[1:40:34] So maybe we shouldn't try and again if
[1:40:36] we're trying to take I think we should
[1:40:37] take a more form-based approach, then
[1:40:39] talking about size of the lot, size of
[1:40:42] the building makes a lot more sense. Can
[1:40:45] we not lean so heavily on density and
[1:40:49] instead lean on a uh a measurement which
[1:40:52] is more compatible with formbbased code?
[1:40:56] Can can can you rewrite the code without
[1:40:58] using the word density and would it
[1:40:59] work?
[1:41:02] I think we are aware that the word
[1:41:05] density is confusing given the four
[1:41:07] units per lot and so we have tried to
[1:41:11] clarify how we use the word. Um, but I I
[1:41:15] do think that a formbased code does like
[1:41:18] a true form-based code doesn't get at
[1:41:21] the other side of the equation, which is
[1:41:22] the minimum density. Like making sure
[1:41:25] that we do get enough development
[1:41:28] instead of getting a giant 7,000 foot
[1:41:31] single unit home. We want to make sure
[1:41:34] we're getting more development. So, I
[1:41:36] think in that sense, density is needed.
[1:41:39] Whether we use the word density or not,
[1:41:41] we can determine. [laughter]
[1:41:45] » I uh to Blake's point, getting back to
[1:41:48] uh what you just said, working on this
[1:41:50] and I realize that this is a work in
[1:41:52] progress, but you can find it online in
[1:41:55] the Bellingham plan.
[1:41:58] As you're working on it, I'd pay a
[1:41:59] little more attention to improving what
[1:42:02] that is. If I laid fresh eyes on that, I
[1:42:04] wouldn't be able to connect the dots.
[1:42:05] It's confusing. But in the graphics, you
[1:42:08] know, some color codings, put some
[1:42:10] numbers on there. And I think as you're
[1:42:13] working through it, it's going to be and
[1:42:15] if you're looking for public feedback, I
[1:42:17] don't think the general public's really
[1:42:19] going to understand what you're asking.
[1:42:22] So, just some feedback.
[1:42:25] » I think when we're talking about density
[1:42:28] in green fields, that makes a lot of
[1:42:30] sense. Um, and so like thinking about
[1:42:33] what does it mean to short plat, long
[1:42:34] plat and subdivide and and that is I
[1:42:38] think kind of unique or like that's
[1:42:41] separate maybe from the conversation
[1:42:44] about like what does density look like
[1:42:47] and feel like? And I I think what I'm
[1:42:50] sensing from a lot of us is that it's
[1:42:53] really more about what does it look and
[1:42:55] feel like than how many units are on a
[1:43:00] lot. Um and you know
[1:43:04] I would cringe at a 7,000 [laughter]
[1:43:06] foot house but but you know people
[1:43:09] should be allowed to do some you you
[1:43:11] know maybe there's a reason for it. I
[1:43:13] don't know. Um, so just thinking like I
[1:43:16] would love to be spending our time
[1:43:18] talking about what does it look and feel
[1:43:20] like and not how how many units are on a
[1:43:23] specific size lot and but in the context
[1:43:27] of subdivisions and land division that's
[1:43:30] that's sort of a different beast. Um,
[1:43:34] » Can I add one little nuance to that
[1:43:36] conversation too that we're working
[1:43:37] through? Um, and this is more just a a
[1:43:40] technical hurdle that we're trying to
[1:43:44] work through, and that is um
[1:43:49] units per acre, a measurement of that
[1:43:52] sort. when we get into sepha and we
[1:43:55] start looking at thresholds and other
[1:43:57] you know things of that nature or
[1:44:00] utility planning water system planning
[1:44:02] you know having some uh metrics is
[1:44:08] beneficial it doesn't I mean if it's if
[1:44:11] it's anything goes it's hard to
[1:44:14] [laughter] it's hard to plan for some of
[1:44:15] those things or it's hard to kind of do
[1:44:17] that so we're we're working through that
[1:44:19] nuance I we hear you I I tend to agree
[1:44:22] with you that um in your in your bigger
[1:44:26] kind of subdivision, it it plays a
[1:44:28] little more of an importance role than
[1:44:31] it does in a um more urbanized um along
[1:44:35] a transit corridor in an urban village.
[1:44:37] We have some flexibility. So, we can we
[1:44:39] can think through how that may or may
[1:44:40] not apply, but we do kind of have to
[1:44:42] think through the kind of rabbit hole
[1:44:45] side of things.
[1:44:46] » Yeah. Well, and and the the point about
[1:44:49] like in terms of lot sizes, like if
[1:44:51] we're stacking flats and like you could
[1:44:54] have a a a 5,000 square foot studio for
[1:44:59] ownership with a yard and you could
[1:45:01] stack another one on top of it and it
[1:45:03] too would have a yard. Um it might be a
[1:45:06] shared yard. Um and so it just when I
[1:45:08] when we start to get down to like what
[1:45:10] is the minimum lot size and what is the
[1:45:12] size of the unit those things like I can
[1:45:16] be managed through other me met metrics
[1:45:19] than density.
[1:45:22] » I go back to the idea of um form and and
[1:45:27] design and I mean as was mentioned
[1:45:29] people care a lot about neighborhood
[1:45:31] character. Sorry I don't think we're
[1:45:33] going to be able to regulate that
[1:45:34] through zoning or through designer
[1:45:35] review. Uh, people most often complain
[1:45:38] to me about ugly and ugly is not
[1:45:41] something I'm going to be able to
[1:45:42] regulate. Um, uh, you know, Miles talked
[1:45:45] about liking that brownstone. Sorry, I I
[1:45:47] I can't make you build a brownstone. I I
[1:45:50] can pull my hair out that you didn't use
[1:45:52] the right trim on your window. For gosh
[1:45:54] sakes, that should be a gable at that
[1:45:55] point, but you didn't do it. I can't
[1:45:57] regulate that. So, we've got a
[1:45:59] fundamental limitation that things that
[1:46:01] people really care about are how
[1:46:03] buildings react or, you know, interact
[1:46:06] with them aesthetically. And we're never
[1:46:08] going to regulate that. We can do a
[1:46:09] little design review. We can do some
[1:46:11] form-based code, but we're never going
[1:46:13] to be regulating what most matters to
[1:46:16] people. You can put a modernist box in
[1:46:18] the middle of Colombia and it's legal
[1:46:20] and it's fine and we're never going to
[1:46:23] stop that. So, whenever people talk
[1:46:25] about caring about character and things
[1:46:27] like that, I think you've got to back
[1:46:29] away from that um and real and aim for a
[1:46:34] more achievable goal.
[1:46:36] » Um,
[1:46:38] » I'm going to I'm going to offer um
[1:46:41] kind of a frame of reference that one of
[1:46:44] my favorite architects, a gentleman
[1:46:45] named Steve Muzan, uh does and he he
[1:46:48] talks about kind of def defining an
[1:46:51] acceptable range. So using um formbbased
[1:46:54] codes, using design review to establish
[1:46:57] what we uh you know those value
[1:47:00] statements of what we consider
[1:47:01] acceptable and then within that range
[1:47:05] that's where we want to streamline
[1:47:07] that's where we want to be really
[1:47:09] efficient with how we do that. And
[1:47:11] whether you choose A, B, or C within
[1:47:13] that range is really not a regulatory
[1:47:16] position that we should take. But there
[1:47:18] but we do need to put some frame of
[1:47:21] reference on that and we need to do kind
[1:47:23] of that value judgment of what we
[1:47:25] determine to be acceptable. Uh, and
[1:47:27] that's that's kind of the framework in
[1:47:29] which I'm thinking at it from. And I
[1:47:32] don't know if that makes sense, but um
[1:47:34] you know that that's the goal is to say,
[1:47:35] "Okay, this is where we're at and as
[1:47:38] long as you fall within that range, go
[1:47:41] for
[1:47:47] I think just to simplify kind of what
[1:47:49] I'd like to see and I'd be disappointed
[1:47:51] if I don't see is um you had mentioned
[1:47:55] before I think that it was like as a
[1:47:57] previous meeting and it was something
[1:47:58] about the stats of like how many square
[1:48:01] foot per person um there was in you know
[1:48:05] like 1950 or something versus what it is
[1:48:08] now and it's like it's astronomically
[1:48:10] higher now and a lot of that I think is
[1:48:12] driven by that what's available you know
[1:48:15] we we don't have that many options or
[1:48:17] it's not financially smart to get
[1:48:20] something very small and you know like
[1:48:22] uh families are different now we don't
[1:48:25] have a lot of large families you know
[1:48:27] family size is smaller there's a lot
[1:48:29] more couples and single people living in
[1:48:31] in residences. And I think that this
[1:48:35] residential low, I'd like to see there
[1:48:37] be a way that people can make sense with
[1:48:42] having smaller houses and smaller units
[1:48:44] and smaller lots where you could
[1:48:46] actually own it outright. So, I mean,
[1:48:48] it's like you've got the residential
[1:48:50] low, the triplex or whatever that is
[1:48:52] there. It's like I'd like to see
[1:48:53] property lines separating those units
[1:48:56] and I'd like to see if there's potential
[1:48:59] for individual ownership of ADUs um
[1:49:02] through subdivision of lots um those
[1:49:05] types of things because I think that's
[1:49:06] really what's missing the most in
[1:49:08] Bellingham is just like there is no
[1:49:10] option for that and that's not just um
[1:49:13] you know that's like people who are
[1:49:16] probably 100% AMI or whatever you know
[1:49:18] it's like it's very very very hard to
[1:49:21] afford to live here. And I think if we
[1:49:24] don't try to just look at the problem as
[1:49:26] being like what's the best route to make
[1:49:29] an affordable unit for people in
[1:49:32] Bellingham and how do we make that
[1:49:34] happen with how we develop this zoning?
[1:49:37] Um, and then work from that out, then
[1:49:39] it's like I I think we're going to kind
[1:49:41] of miss it. I want to reinforce that
[1:49:43] because one of the things I think the
[1:49:44] legislature did wrong in talking the
[1:49:46] language of units per acre is they
[1:49:48] created a situation where the default is
[1:49:51] those are rental units and especially
[1:49:52] when they prohibit an owner oxygen
[1:49:54] requirement then they've really favored
[1:49:57] rental units and I asked the legislature
[1:50:00] why is it you want to massively favor
[1:50:02] rental and remove ownership
[1:50:03] opportunities said well we don't want to
[1:50:05] you just did though and so what we're
[1:50:07] struggling with right here I think is
[1:50:09] ways of converting these to ownership
[1:50:11] opportunities as well other than con
[1:50:14] minimization which by the way is still
[1:50:16] legal and possible. Um but I think
[1:50:19] that's what we're struggling with is we
[1:50:20] want to see ownership and it's hard to
[1:50:22] see ownership uh in this sometimes
[1:50:26] » And I'll I'll agree with that. Um, I
[1:50:29] like the idea of the, you know, the
[1:50:30] stacked unit there having property line
[1:50:33] so people have a small parket front yard
[1:50:35] or backyard or shared yard, but the, you
[1:50:39] know, the ADU's been able to be divided
[1:50:41] down. Um my primary of course the tree
[1:50:45] ordinance because I want to see still
[1:50:47] green canopy because of climate change
[1:50:49] but I really want to encourage that it's
[1:50:53] for me it's not so much the size of the
[1:50:55] yard it's how much or the size of the
[1:50:58] lot how much when it comes to low
[1:51:00] residential is there green space left
[1:51:03] open um because of storm water because
[1:51:08] of just have ability of living there um
[1:51:11] people who don't necessarily want a yard
[1:51:13] or they don't have kids or they have
[1:51:15] pets, there are other options where
[1:51:17] that's not going to be required or
[1:51:21] encouraged and that would be the
[1:51:22] residential medium or residential high.
[1:51:25] Um but you know when you look at that
[1:51:27] graphic you know the four houses that
[1:51:30] kind of gets to me like the state but if
[1:51:33] you took the top corner where you have
[1:51:35] the three stack and then the one if that
[1:51:38] was situated where there was lot line
[1:51:41] and the one that's the the smaller unit
[1:51:43] was like a duplex and the other ones
[1:51:46] could be uh even add another unit to it
[1:51:50] and be you know stacked resident kind of
[1:51:52] like uh
[1:51:56] row housing or brownstone or something
[1:51:58] and they had that kind of long line to
[1:52:01] be able to have a little piece of garden
[1:52:03] or open space there. You would have
[1:52:07] perhaps where on one graphic you only
[1:52:09] have four on another opportunity based
[1:52:13] on how it's built you would have five or
[1:52:15] six. Um and then maybe it's not maybe
[1:52:18] it's under the thousand. So to me, it's
[1:52:20] more the consideration of is there still
[1:52:23] green space or or open space allowable
[1:52:26] to the owners
[1:52:29] um within that area. It doesn't have to
[1:52:31] be huge. Um doesn't have to be the high
[1:52:34] majority of it, but it's that comes down
[1:52:36] to that design. Um, so in a way it might
[1:52:39] be the code is written that you know
[1:52:43] you could go up but you have to have
[1:52:45] this amount of space per lot and it may
[1:52:49] not have to be a thousand.
[1:52:51] So, I think one of the things that I'm
[1:52:53] hearing uh in particular on that upper
[1:52:56] left graphic uh and I'll use the example
[1:52:58] of the three-story building. Part of why
[1:53:01] we maintained a little bit of um
[1:53:06] you know generalization on that is in my
[1:53:10] view and maybe I'm I'm not articulating
[1:53:12] it well but in that building I could see
[1:53:15] that building being vertically separated
[1:53:18] so that each one of those window columns
[1:53:21] is a is is a unit and that's a kind of a
[1:53:23] townhouse configuration if you will. you
[1:53:26] could split it by floors and go
[1:53:28] horizontal separation so that each, you
[1:53:30] know, each level is a different unit.
[1:53:33] So, we tried to be a little bit more
[1:53:35] generic, at least graphically speaking,
[1:53:37] we could we could do maybe a better job
[1:53:39] of articulating those variable options
[1:53:42] uh in this so that it it is and whether
[1:53:45] that unit to the rear of that
[1:53:47] three-story building becomes its own
[1:53:49] lot. uh you know so the ownership um
[1:53:53] again can be there can be a variety of
[1:53:55] different ownership uh configurations
[1:53:58] that um may be separate and apart from
[1:54:02] you know how it the form of the building
[1:54:05] that gets built. I think one of the
[1:54:07] things that we're trying to be very
[1:54:09] mindful and intentional about is when we
[1:54:12] talk about those different ownership
[1:54:14] opportunities, it's not thinking about
[1:54:16] it entirely from just the day it's
[1:54:20] constructed and built, but if a property
[1:54:23] owner in future years or future property
[1:54:26] owners want to have different options
[1:54:28] and what that's set up to do and how we
[1:54:31] structure the utilities and other things
[1:54:33] that allow for that, you know, that
[1:54:35] evolution. ution to occur when people
[1:54:38] choose those various different options.
[1:54:40] So we'll we'll give some additional
[1:54:41] consideration to how we can both
[1:54:44] illustrate and articulate that
[1:54:50] a quick question about residential high.
[1:54:55] Can you point to a residential high zone
[1:54:57] that currently exists? Because I think
[1:54:58] what I realize is there's a missing
[1:55:00] transct up just higher than this which
[1:55:03] is mixed use. And I think when I think
[1:55:06] about cities, I'm think most of the
[1:55:08] cities I'm thinking of, they're like 85%
[1:55:11] mixeduse. That's what a city looks like.
[1:55:13] » So what are our residential high
[1:55:15] neighborhoods?
[1:55:16] » Yeah. And you're not seeing the, you
[1:55:18] know, urban villages on here as well.
[1:55:20] And so that I don't know, Chris can
[1:55:22] probably list them off the top of his
[1:55:24] head, but [laughter]
[1:55:26] » I remember
[1:55:34] Um, sorry. Thanks. Uh, the, um, when you
[1:55:38] think about, if you're familiar with the
[1:55:40] zoning map, all the orange areas. So,
[1:55:42] uh, actually the residential high zone
[1:55:44] is is really the most common on the
[1:55:46] city's zoning map. We have more areas
[1:55:48] zone residential high uh, medium or in
[1:55:51] in the existing multif family zones. We
[1:55:53] have more areas zone residential high
[1:55:55] than we do the medium and then there's
[1:55:56] only a few low zones and those have been
[1:55:58] incorporated into that residential low
[1:56:01] uh uniform zone there.
[1:56:03] » So happy valley around the university
[1:56:05] residential high
[1:56:07] » I think. Yeah.
[1:56:08] » Yeah. And then uh large areas of the
[1:56:10] King Mountain neighborhood are
[1:56:12] residential high. Um areas uh some areas
[1:56:16] in Cordata are a mix of residential high
[1:56:18] commercial and industrial. Um
[1:56:22] there's a variety of residential high
[1:56:25] zones along some of our arterial
[1:56:26] corridors. Um, so you see them, they're
[1:56:30] they're pretty common through the core
[1:56:33] of the Roosevelt neighborhood, that area
[1:56:37] » District.
[1:56:52] » Oh, yeah.
[1:56:56] » I think you passed it. There you go.
[1:56:57] There we go.
[1:56:59] » I guess this doesn't show high versus
[1:57:00] medium, though.
[1:57:01] » Yeah, I think I think we had
[1:57:06] » There you go.
[1:57:07] » There we go. So, uh
[1:57:12] this is from the planning commission
[1:57:14] meeting we had uh in the spring. So,
[1:57:17] those dark orange, these are all the
[1:57:19] residential high uh areas in the city.
[1:57:22] And then these kind of they're a little
[1:57:25] bit hard to see, but they're kind of
[1:57:26] almost tan. It's it's like a light
[1:57:28] orange. These are the areas that are the
[1:57:30] the medium. And then the areas that were
[1:57:33] that on today's zoning, not not the land
[1:57:35] use map, but the zoning map, the areas
[1:57:36] that are residential, multi- low density
[1:57:40] are all included in this yellow zone,
[1:57:42] which is the residential low land use
[1:57:44] area. So I think
[1:57:45] » There's a golf course in the middle of
[1:57:46] it. High density.
[1:57:48] » Yeah, the golf course is is residential
[1:57:51] high. Yep.
[1:57:56] And and if you look at these, you'll see
[1:57:58] that I mean there there was a logic to
[1:58:00] them when they were established. Most of
[1:58:02] them are along arterial street corridors
[1:58:04] and they're close to urban services,
[1:58:06] commercial areas, transit, a lot of
[1:58:08] those things that um they're well
[1:58:10] serviced by infrastructure in the
[1:58:12] community which which means that they
[1:58:14] can support those higher densities quite
[1:58:16] well. Um and then and then of course
[1:58:19] like like Blake had mentioned the urban
[1:58:20] villages are the other areas that would
[1:58:22] be you know kind of high plus it's it's
[1:58:25] the areas where we allow greater height.
[1:58:34] So we've gotten a lot of good
[1:58:36] conversation. This is exactly what we
[1:58:38] needed. So we really appreciate that. Um
[1:58:40] I think we there's definitely more
[1:58:42] conversation to come. We're early in
[1:58:44] this process. will come together with
[1:58:46] with what we've heard here. Um, but we
[1:58:48] do have two more questions. They are
[1:58:50] much simpler than this one. We started
[1:58:51] with the really meaty one, but if you
[1:58:54] all are all right with us moving on. It
[1:58:56] felt like the time. All right, let me
[1:59:00] pull those slides back up then.
[1:59:10] So, this is where we were.
[1:59:13] So the next question
[1:59:15] as we have started this effort of
[1:59:18] filtering through our existing code
[1:59:22] and started envisioning how it's going
[1:59:24] to get reoriented in the unified
[1:59:26] development code framework
[1:59:29] there's a lot of streamlining some of it
[1:59:31] pretty straightforward so we used our
[1:59:33] use table as an example earlier um we
[1:59:36] were looking at that today and in some
[1:59:38] areas of our code we say library and
[1:59:41] museum In other areas of our code, we
[1:59:44] say interpretive center, library, and
[1:59:45] museum. I think we can probably agree we
[1:59:48] can use the same cluster of those three
[1:59:50] for both of those things. Those types of
[1:59:52] streamlining, we feel pretty confident
[1:59:55] we can combine. But then if there are
[1:59:58] some zones where automotive sales are
[2:00:00] allowed and other zones where we're
[2:00:02] silent on that or we explicitly don't
[2:00:03] allow it, combining those would feel
[2:00:06] like an impactful change and might not
[2:00:09] be part of the scope of this effort
[2:00:10] because we're really trying to rearrange
[2:00:11] without changing the impact of the code
[2:00:13] with this kind of step one effort. If
[2:00:16] staff feels that there's some reason to
[2:00:19] make a change like that, we are flagging
[2:00:22] those for explicit conversation so that
[2:00:24] there's nothing kind of hidden under the
[2:00:26] covers here. Um we'll we'll try to
[2:00:28] really make it clear what changes are
[2:00:30] actually being proposed by staff through
[2:00:32] this streamlining. So that being said,
[2:00:34] we we kind of put these guidelines
[2:00:36] together to help us decide what's in
[2:00:38] scope and what should follow in, you
[2:00:42] know, future efforts. Um, so really
[2:00:44] trying to maintain that content as much
[2:00:46] as possible beyond the parts of the
[2:00:48] scope that that we highlighted earlier.
[2:00:50] So obviously if it's based in state
[2:00:52] legislation or if it's in those interim
[2:00:53] ordinances, that's part of the scope of
[2:00:55] of integrating that into this code. But
[2:00:58] if it's something else that we're just
[2:00:59] noticing as we're cutting and pasting
[2:01:01] code, we're in most cases just going to
[2:01:03] leave it just as is. Even if we know
[2:01:06] that in the future we're going to come
[2:01:07] back and clean it up, change it to
[2:01:09] realign it. um we are prioritizing that
[2:01:12] usability and allowing future
[2:01:15] flexibility of that code work. And what
[2:01:17] I mean by that is we know that there are
[2:01:19] code updates to follow. So we're trying
[2:01:22] to maintain flexibility in our code so
[2:01:24] that those updates can slot in as they
[2:01:27] happen and we don't have to completely
[2:01:29] rearrange things yet again when those
[2:01:31] happen. So that type of flexibility in
[2:01:33] our code. Um, as we're streamlining or
[2:01:37] consolidating pieces of our code, we're
[2:01:39] always referring back to the why. So, at
[2:01:42] times that means looking back at our
[2:01:43] neighborhood plans and saying, you know,
[2:01:45] 30 years ago, 40 years ago, why did we
[2:01:48] write this in our zoning table for this
[2:01:50] area? What was the intention? Is it
[2:01:52] something that is still very relevant
[2:01:53] today? If so, let's figure out how to
[2:01:56] maintain that in our code. If it's
[2:01:57] something that's already been completed,
[2:01:59] we can check it off. It's not relevant
[2:02:00] anymore, we can retire it. those types
[2:02:02] of conversations, really understanding
[2:02:04] the reasoning behind our code. And
[2:02:06] sometimes it's very clear and sometimes
[2:02:07] it takes a little bit of digging to
[2:02:09] really understand what the intention was
[2:02:11] originally.
[2:02:14] Um, and then like I said, really
[2:02:16] flagging any impactful changes for you
[2:02:18] all so that when this comes through that
[2:02:20] type six process, our memos will very
[2:02:23] explicitly lay out what's actually been
[2:02:25] changed because there's enough shifting
[2:02:27] in this reitation. It's not a simple
[2:02:30] strike underline where you can say, "Oh,
[2:02:31] well, this piece got cut and pasted here
[2:02:34] because there's so much moving around."
[2:02:36] We need to be really clear. When we
[2:02:38] combine these, you know, 11 parts of our
[2:02:40] code into these three parts of our code,
[2:02:43] the vast majority of it's the same, but
[2:02:45] here are the four areas where we really
[2:02:47] want you to be aware that we are
[2:02:48] suggesting a change that actually
[2:02:50] impacts development. So, that's sort of
[2:02:53] the guidelines we're trying to put
[2:02:54] together for ourselves and to really
[2:02:56] keep ourselves accountable, but we
[2:02:58] wanted to lay that out for you. If
[2:02:59] there's anything that doesn't sound
[2:03:01] quite right there or if there's
[2:03:02] something that's missing,
[2:03:04] let us know.
[2:03:09] » That makes a lot of sense, but I think
[2:03:11] the devil will be in the details. Um,
[2:03:14] people often complain about the
[2:03:15] complexity of our code, but that's
[2:03:17] because
[2:03:20] all pieces of property are a little bit
[2:03:21] different and unique and neighborhoods
[2:03:24] are different and unique and due to
[2:03:25] history. Uh, we have we were four cities
[2:03:29] once and now we're one. I mean, there
[2:03:30] there's a reason for a lot of these
[2:03:32] differences and so identifying when
[2:03:34] those reasons still make sense and when
[2:03:36] they don't, I think it's the right idea,
[2:03:39] but I think it'll be difficult. Um, I
[2:03:41] also wonder about if you're going to
[2:03:43] maintain the content uh in general just
[2:03:45] put it all together and harmonize it and
[2:03:47] if there's little differences kind of
[2:03:48] try to ignore them. Um unfortunately I
[2:03:51] think you may miss an opportunity
[2:03:52] because I really do think our allowed
[2:03:54] uses in commercial districts is really
[2:03:56] overdue for review. I I think there's
[2:03:59] some turkeys in our um industrial zoning
[2:04:02] up in in Irongate. I think there's some
[2:04:03] turkeys in our waterfront commercial
[2:04:05] allowed zoning or uses. I I would like
[2:04:08] to go through and relook at our allowed
[2:04:10] uses and this project won't include
[2:04:15] that. This project will just say we'll
[2:04:17] do it at a later day. So I I worry about
[2:04:19] that missed opportunity that you may see
[2:04:21] some of these odd balls and goes well
[2:04:23] for a later day I'll just cut it and
[2:04:26] paste it over.
[2:04:28] I would note that in the kind of
[2:04:31] timeline we laid out for things that
[2:04:32] follow, the land use chapter was the
[2:04:34] first one that we highlighted because
[2:04:35] there are a lot of cleanups like that
[2:04:37] that we'd like to address and that that
[2:04:40] also would align with that small scale
[2:04:43] commercial code update that we know
[2:04:44] there's a push for. Um, and potentially
[2:04:47] some of that industrial
[2:04:49] um, land kind of analysis also fits into
[2:04:53] pieces of what you just said. And and I
[2:04:55] would also add that um part of the
[2:04:58] nuance that we're trying to be very
[2:05:00] intentional about is the state mandatory
[2:05:04] timelines that are set. The fact that we
[2:05:06] have some of this stuff in interim
[2:05:08] ordinances that we'd like to clean up
[2:05:10] and get finalized. And so we have to
[2:05:13] prioritize some of I mean if we were to
[2:05:15] do you know the entirety of the code
[2:05:18] we'd be talking about a four to six year
[2:05:20] endeavor. And so we are being very
[2:05:22] intentional about trying to put forward
[2:05:25] the things that we feel like need to be
[2:05:27] done in the certain time frames. We've
[2:05:29] got some ability in those kind of middle
[2:05:33] term, if you will, to do some of that
[2:05:35] kind of stuff. There's a few other
[2:05:37] efforts that are underway like the
[2:05:38] industrial land study and some things
[2:05:40] like that that will help inform some of
[2:05:43] those pieces. And so we're trying to
[2:05:45] kind of pattern that out in a way that
[2:05:49] um you know will allow us to keep moving
[2:05:53] forward and understand what things that
[2:05:55] we need to put in the parking lot and
[2:05:56] come back to because we don't want it to
[2:05:58] be a four to six year time frame on some
[2:06:00] of these things.
[2:06:06] Um, I'll just add that appreciate you
[2:06:09] outlining the the process for um making
[2:06:13] some decisions on changes. Um, I think
[2:06:15] that I think it's it's good for us to
[2:06:18] see that. And also um if there are
[2:06:21] questions about why something didn't
[2:06:22] come before us uh for discussion and
[2:06:26] conversation and public awareness um
[2:06:29] there
[2:06:31] you're uh you have a big body of work to
[2:06:34] do and this is high priority stuff. Uh
[2:06:37] clearly getting more housing built is
[2:06:39] high priority. We have a comprehensive
[2:06:42] plan in that process that we've gone
[2:06:43] through recently that set uh that that
[2:06:46] where you gathered a lot of that public
[2:06:48] input already. You gathered a lot of our
[2:06:50] input already um and have a a really
[2:06:53] strong foundation for the vision and the
[2:06:56] interests of the community. And so um
[2:06:59] and knowing full well that anytime we
[2:07:01] bring things before us as as decision
[2:07:04] makers as well as the public, it slows
[2:07:06] that process down. And so um to me it's
[2:07:10] a priority that this moves more quickly
[2:07:13] than than not. Um and and again
[2:07:18] realizing that that a lot of that
[2:07:20] foundation has already been laid and so
[2:07:22] placing the trust in you as uh the
[2:07:24] experts um in this uh field makes a lot
[2:07:29] of sense. Um but of course the the the
[2:07:33] big impactful stuff um will be coming
[2:07:37] before us.
[2:07:45] All right. Well, we'll keep kind of
[2:07:48] referencing a lot of this sort of scope
[2:07:52] concept and to try to not let it creep
[2:07:54] as we go, but we know that there are
[2:07:56] things that we'll be kind of on the
[2:07:58] fence about and that we'll be bringing
[2:08:00] forward is, you know, is this something
[2:08:01] we should incorporate here or two
[2:08:04] options. We know there will be some
[2:08:05] elements of that as well, but trying to
[2:08:08] keep those as limited as possible.
[2:08:12] All right, to the last question.
[2:08:15] Um, this is kind of a specific question,
[2:08:17] but we wanted to just get a feel of it
[2:08:19] since it does make a pretty big
[2:08:21] difference in how parts of our code
[2:08:23] might be um, kind of arranged.
[2:08:27] In the past, we've had a policy when we
[2:08:30] annex areas from the county of adopting
[2:08:35] the zoning from the county in those
[2:08:37] areas so that there's not a change in
[2:08:39] what's allowed when it comes into the
[2:08:41] city. That means that we have a lot of
[2:08:44] remnants in our code of county zoning
[2:08:48] from 30 years ago. Um that it doesn't
[2:08:51] actually reflect county zoning today
[2:08:53] either because there's zoning has um
[2:08:55] adapted over time as well. So I just put
[2:08:58] two examples on here. Um one of them
[2:09:02] is is referencing the the Watcom
[2:09:05] counties light industrial zone as of the
[2:09:07] date of annexation. So, anytime that
[2:09:09] area is developed, someone has to open a
[2:09:12] book and look at exactly what was
[2:09:14] allowed in that time and figure that
[2:09:15] out. Another one is the same concept,
[2:09:18] but uh it's in our zoning table and it
[2:09:20] says
[2:09:22] it's a list of I don't know 75 uses that
[2:09:25] are permitted, conditional, or not
[2:09:28] permitted in this area that basically
[2:09:30] just copied and [snorts] pasted the
[2:09:32] Wakom County permitted uses in 1996. So
[2:09:37] there's there's a lot of these in our
[2:09:38] code in all sorts of different places
[2:09:40] and a lot of them are industrial um
[2:09:42] because they're they're sort of at those
[2:09:44] parts of the city. Um and our proposal
[2:09:48] as staff is to take these um various uh
[2:09:52] areas and compare what is currently
[2:09:56] allowed there based on this sort of
[2:09:57] patchwork quilt of requirements in our
[2:10:00] code today to our city zoning and just
[2:10:05] pick the one that's most similar to it.
[2:10:07] Um, obviously we want to think about if
[2:10:10] there are uses that are in existence
[2:10:12] today in those areas that we would be
[2:10:14] making non-conforming, figuring out how
[2:10:16] to handle that. Um, but our our basic
[2:10:19] approach would be to start with our
[2:10:21] existing zoning and not create dozens of
[2:10:24] new zones that reflect these. Um,
[2:10:27] obviously there's a range where we could
[2:10:28] try to consolidate them but still have a
[2:10:30] couple other options, but we feel that
[2:10:33] our existing zoning districts probably
[2:10:36] can handle these areas and there's
[2:10:39] probably not a very strong reason to
[2:10:42] maintain this historic variation. So
[2:10:45] that that's our proposal, but we want to
[2:10:47] hear from you all about that.
[2:10:49] » I love that because this is referring to
[2:10:51] exactly what I mentioned the last time
[2:10:52] around. There are some turkeys in our
[2:10:54] commercial industrial zoning. My guess
[2:10:56] is most of those turkeys are explained
[2:10:58] by this. And so the extent to which you
[2:11:01] can go through this would be the I was
[2:11:03] worried about being lost opportunity to
[2:11:04] look at our commercial industrial
[2:11:06] zoning. This is exactly what I'm
[2:11:08] referring to. Um I think we I hope in
[2:11:11] the future we never ever when we enex
[2:11:14] adopt the county's zoning because to do
[2:11:18] that is to
[2:11:20] fail to appreciate why you're even
[2:11:22] inexing property. you're enexing it
[2:11:24] because the uses will change, need to
[2:11:27] change the the regulations for land use
[2:11:29] had better change or why did you bother
[2:11:31] to enex? So, it was a weird policy uh to
[2:11:34] have to have done. So, you we enex and
[2:11:37] created a problem and then 10 years
[2:11:38] later we had to do what we should have
[2:11:40] done right up front which is figure out
[2:11:42] what the land will do. I called it
[2:11:44] prezoning. So, please clean up these I
[2:11:47] love this. I love this. I love this. And
[2:11:49] in the future, let's let's not do this.
[2:11:51] let's bring it in under a rational
[2:11:53] framework that aligns with our current
[2:11:55] city zoning so these never occur again.
[2:11:58] » So on my end, um I do support this
[2:12:01] because if you're going to be part of
[2:12:04] the city, be part of the city. My only
[2:12:07] concern would be uh whether or not a
[2:12:10] current use that has been there for a
[2:12:12] long time, and I'm not going to throw
[2:12:13] out companies names, but I'm thinking of
[2:12:15] the Iron Gate area. um we may not have
[2:12:18] that type of industrial use anywhere
[2:12:20] within the city. I I would want you to
[2:12:23] weigh whether or not there's a carveout
[2:12:27] or there's an allowance within a
[2:12:29] particular area where it doesn't
[2:12:31] necessarily make it a nonconforming use.
[2:12:34] um because
[2:12:36] sometimes when it's non-conforming,
[2:12:38] there could be issues in the future for
[2:12:41] that entity to either expand or renovate
[2:12:44] or do other things that hits a
[2:12:46] threshold. And I wouldn't want to um
[2:12:49] hamstring any of our current industries
[2:12:52] in those areas and change their ability
[2:12:55] to do the work that they do and perhaps
[2:12:57] expand. Um, so I'll let you guys look at
[2:13:01] those particular industries that may not
[2:13:05] fall within the city code and then
[2:13:07] perhaps bring it to the various bodies.
[2:13:10] Um, which direction you'd like to go and
[2:13:12] then the rationale for that. Um, I'd
[2:13:15] like to see that kind of carved out a
[2:13:17] little bit of part of that process. I
[2:13:19] think one of the other pieces that we
[2:13:21] should also offer in this context, we're
[2:13:23] talking a little bit more about the kind
[2:13:25] of industrial areas, but um
[2:13:29] the nature and this will be more of part
[2:13:31] of the annexation plan that we listed
[2:13:33] out uh coming forth before you, but
[2:13:36] there are some portions that if annexed
[2:13:39] into the city just by the fact that they
[2:13:41] come into the city are going to change
[2:13:43] the dynamics of that already. So the
[2:13:47] county might have um a a zoning
[2:13:50] designation, but the county is not
[2:13:52] subject to the middle housing bills that
[2:13:55] that the city is. And so just by nature
[2:13:57] of bringing it into the city and
[2:13:59] incorporating it within the city, it
[2:14:01] will inherently change uh some elements
[2:14:05] of that. So, we'll, as Elizabeth alluded
[2:14:08] to earlier, we'll try to be very
[2:14:09] intentional about those uh pieces and
[2:14:12] and how we analyze those things and if
[2:14:15] there are changes, we can certainly flag
[2:14:17] those as as she mentioned previously.
[2:14:21] » Can I ask a question? Um it's a little
[2:14:24] bit out of this, but it's a previous
[2:14:26] conversation when we were
[2:14:29] [gasps and sighs] I think meeting out at
[2:14:30] Ferndale when we were going through a
[2:14:31] lot of the um
[2:14:35] basically the the land use, we talked
[2:14:38] about um one of the issues with
[2:14:40] annexation is as the county goes through
[2:14:43] and they have their set of what how
[2:14:46] things could be developed and you know
[2:14:48] like one per five acres or whatever it
[2:14:51] is. And then we want to look at um
[2:14:56] future annexation because it's, you
[2:14:58] know, within our um uh reserves that we
[2:15:04] can't necessarily have the county adopt
[2:15:06] our
[2:15:07] uh codes because it's still considered
[2:15:10] county. But my concern has always been
[2:15:12] that people will, you know, have their
[2:15:15] little house of paradise on their 2,
[2:15:17] three, 5 acre and then by the time we
[2:15:19] want to perhaps annex it, the likelihood
[2:15:23] of being able to get the density or the
[2:15:24] use that we need isn't going to happen.
[2:15:27] I'm wondering with this process,
[2:15:30] is there a way to identify because the
[2:15:33] annexation um process we're talking
[2:15:36] about um you know kind of rating and
[2:15:40] saying okay more than likely this area
[2:15:42] will come in first this area so that
[2:15:44] people who own property or development
[2:15:46] they know what's some likelihood in the
[2:15:49] next 5 10 years this property is going
[2:15:51] to come in and if so this would be the
[2:15:54] density and zoning and stuff so maybe
[2:15:56] they're not going to be as inclined to
[2:15:58] sell off five acres, but they might look
[2:16:00] at, okay, I'm going to be able to have
[2:16:03] instead of 10 houses, I'm going to be
[2:16:05] able to have 300 houses, which is what
[2:16:07] we ultimately want with an annexation.
[2:16:10] I'm wondering how this will all fit in
[2:16:11] with what we're doing here and the
[2:16:13] future project to ensure annexation will
[2:16:16] get us what we're hoping.
[2:16:19] » I think I I'd say yes to all of what you
[2:16:22] just said. um and and echo uh what
[2:16:25] Michael has been requesting for quite a
[2:16:26] while and that is that that prezoning
[2:16:28] conversation and that was one of the one
[2:16:31] of the notable changes in the land use
[2:16:33] chapter this time around in the
[2:16:34] Bellingham plan as opposed to previous
[2:16:36] ones was we are uh intentionally
[2:16:39] pivoting from that what has Watton
[2:16:41] County zoned things in our urban growth
[2:16:43] area and what's the kind of closest fit
[2:16:45] to city zoning and that's kind of the
[2:16:48] vision for that area and instead we've
[2:16:50] set up in I think it's LU 11 and a few
[2:16:53] related policies that um a couple of
[2:16:56] things. One, we will have that
[2:16:57] intentional annexation planning
[2:16:59] conversation and pre-zone these areas
[2:17:01] and identify publicly, hey, this might
[2:17:03] be zoned urban residential four units
[2:17:05] per acre in the county right now in our
[2:17:07] UG, but when it comes in, we're going to
[2:17:09] say this is residential low or medium or
[2:17:12] whatever it is. And and people will
[2:17:13] understand, oh, when I annex, I can do,
[2:17:16] to Blake's point, four units on my lot,
[2:17:18] or my minimum lot size will be whatever
[2:17:22] the fruits of this conversation bear
[2:17:24] based on what we've talked about
[2:17:25] tonight. Um
[2:17:27] the the other piece of that um is that
[2:17:30] when we do that that annexation planning
[2:17:32] work, we'll be looking um intentionally
[2:17:35] at areas in the UG that may have been
[2:17:37] zoned fairly suburban for fairly
[2:17:40] suburban levels of development for a
[2:17:41] very long time. and we'll say, "Hey, we
[2:17:45] like we if you you know, I know you guys
[2:17:47] remember the conversation about the
[2:17:48] Northern Heights annexation." Um, and
[2:17:51] which is again a fairly rosy annexation
[2:17:54] given how how, you know, far in the hole
[2:17:57] some of it can be. Um, that being said,
[2:17:59] it just emphasizes how expensive the
[2:18:01] urban infrastructure is and especially
[2:18:02] like the the fire and police services
[2:18:05] and the other things that we talked
[2:18:06] about in that conversation. if we're
[2:18:08] going to do that and that's what those
[2:18:10] policies and the plan set up is let's
[2:18:11] make it truly urban levels of density.
[2:18:14] Um so I think that's that future
[2:18:17] prezoning conversation won't just be
[2:18:19] what's the equivalent city zone. It's
[2:18:21] what do we really see this area becoming
[2:18:23] when it becomes part of Bellingham
[2:18:25] proper? And that's that when you're
[2:18:26] driving in on Marine Drive or coming in
[2:18:28] on Meridian, you'll really understand
[2:18:31] that, oh, I'm now in Bellingham. There's
[2:18:33] a very definite transition. I've gone
[2:18:35] from agriculture and true rural uh areas
[2:18:38] to now I'm in the city. I now have, you
[2:18:40] know, I can see dense housing,
[2:18:42] employment opportunities, transit
[2:18:44] services, and all those kind of things.
[2:18:46] Um and there's a a much more defined
[2:18:49] boundary for that than maybe what we've
[2:18:50] had in the past. Um so I think that's
[2:18:52] all part of that exercise. Um and then
[2:18:54] to the the comment about phasing, that's
[2:18:57] another important part of that. Um we've
[2:18:59] had that the the 2018 annexation
[2:19:01] strategy um had an attempt at that. I
[2:19:04] think we will revisit that and we will
[2:19:06] look at those our new reconfigured urban
[2:19:09] growth area and we'll look at our
[2:19:10] utility plans and other infrastructure
[2:19:12] plans. We'll look at the growth capacity
[2:19:14] in these areas. And I think an important
[2:19:16] part of this this uh effort around
[2:19:19] annexation will also be really
[2:19:21] conversing with the property owners in
[2:19:22] these areas and understanding who is
[2:19:24] really interested in doing something
[2:19:26] sooner or later or maybe ready to do
[2:19:28] something in the way of an annexation
[2:19:30] sooner. So to to phase things not just
[2:19:32] based on infrastructure but also on
[2:19:34] interest and and ability to to um
[2:19:37] develop housing and maybe provide you
[2:19:40] know industrial opportunities and those
[2:19:41] kind of things. And I think one other
[2:19:44] piece that um we have not fully vetted
[2:19:48] out but is a is a commitment to doing
[2:19:51] that is looking at the um the fiscal
[2:19:56] implications of urban level of services
[2:19:58] and really truly understanding what it
[2:20:01] takes not only to um develop that
[2:20:05] because we can often use you know um
[2:20:08] land developers to build out that
[2:20:10] initial infrastructure but what is the
[2:20:12] ongo ongoing cost for operations and
[2:20:15] maintenance and you know our fiduciary
[2:20:17] responsibility as a city to provide that
[2:20:20] in a long-term sustainable way. And so
[2:20:22] we've made a you know a commitment to
[2:20:25] doing that. We still there's a lot of
[2:20:26] work that has to be done to figure out
[2:20:28] exactly how that's going to work out but
[2:20:30] that'll be part of kind of the
[2:20:32] annexation strategy and thinking through
[2:20:34] some of those kind of financial
[2:20:35] implications as well.
[2:20:44] That's all of the questions we had and I
[2:20:46] know it's getting late so I'm going to
[2:20:48] turn it back over you to
[2:20:50] » All right. Um, is there a director's
[2:20:52] report tonight or anything to report?
[2:20:54] » No, I think I think you've heard from me
[2:20:56] enough.
[2:20:56] » Okay. [laughter]
[2:20:58] Well, thanks uh so much for going over
[2:21:01] all this and it's good to have the
[2:21:02] opportunity also to meet with the
[2:21:04] planning commission. So, I appreciate
[2:21:05] you guys and um hopefully we get this
[2:21:09] thing going. A lot to do.
[2:21:13] » Thank you.
[2:21:15] » Do you want to share?