[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?

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript