Posts Tagged ‘real estate’
Bellingham Adopts Infill Toolkit
On Monday Night, the City Council adopted the Infill Toolkit Housing Ordinance. As discussed in my earlier posts, the Ordinance allows for new infill housing forms, including townhouses, cottage houses, carriage houses, attached dwelling units,triplexes, courtyard housing, etc.
The infill housing forms, however, will not be automatically permitted in any single family neighborhoods, except where such neighborhoods already allow for some multi-family development. The new housing forms are also not permitted within the Lake Whatcom Watershed.
Anyone wanting to use any of the infill toolkit housing forms within a single family neighborhood would need to apply for a comprehensive plan amendment and/or rezone. This type of legislative process requires numerous public hearings and meetings and is quite onerous in terms of time and expense.
Use of the infill housing forms is allowed in areas already zoned for multifamily use. Except that due to neighborhood opposition, the application of the toolkit is limited in areas zoned Residential Multi-Duplex (parts of the Sunnlyand neighborhood for example) such that only small houses, cottages, detached accessory units, carriage houses and duplexes will be allowed.
While this is a first step in promoting urban infill, it remains to be seen whether such a limited application of the infill toolkit can actually achieve the City’s goal of urban densification and housing innovation.
Rural Element Worksession Tomorrow Night
The County Planning Commission will be holding a work session tomorrow night to discuss the proposed Rural Element Update. At last week’s planning Commission hearing, more than sixty people testified. Most of the comments were against the proposal and focused on the negative affects of a potential downzone to existing commercial areas in the County.
A number of business owners along the Guide Meridian and Birch-Bay Lynden I-5 corridor testified as to the dramatic and negative effect of Staff’s proposal. These properties are currently zoned for commercial and/or industrial uses. County Staff has proposed to downzone much of this area to R10.
The Planning Commission will discuss the testimony from the public hearing as well as written correspondence received on this matter. It is likely that the Commission will direct Staff to make changes to its current proposal, which will be reconsidered at the Planning Commission’s August 13 work session.
My prior posts have discussed the specific areas affected by the Rural Element Update as well as the possibility of designating these areas LAMIRDS. If you own property in any of these areas you will want to remain updated on this issue. Staff’s Rural Element Proposal as well as public comments received can be found on the County’s website, which you will want to check often for updates.
City of Bellingham Releases New Shorelines Plan
The City of Bellingham has released a new draft of its Shoreline Master Program. The City Council will be holding a hearing on this new draft on July 27th.
The Shorelines Master Program (“SMP”) regulates all development and activity within 200 feet of any shoreline area, as well as within floodplains and any wetlands associated with these shorelines and floodplains. The shoreline areas in Bellingham include Bellingham Bay, Lake Whatcom, Lake Padden, Whatcom Creek, and Squalicum Creek. Thus, if you own any property within 200 feet of these water bodies or within any wetlands associated therewith, then your property would be subject to the SMP.
The SMP regulates the type of uses that can be built within shoreline areas, the size of structures (including height), setback, signage, access, etc. Generally, uses are more limited closer to the shoreline and within habitat and other ecologically sensitive areas.
There were numerous hearings and work sessions in 2007 and 2008 before both the Planning Commission and City Council on the draft SMP. The SMP is being reintroduced at at time when the City and Port are working to finalize plans for waterfront redevelopment.
Since much of the former GP site (also known as the Waterfront District) is subject to the SMP, it is likely that both the City and Port want to finalize the shoreline regulations for this area so that a waterfront master plan can be finalized. A new waterfront district master plan will guide development for the entire former GP site.
The Port has submitted an alternative proposal for shorelines within the Waterfront District, which can be found here. The Port’s proposal provides for more specificity in regard to setbacks and other development regulations for the former GP site. The City Council, however, has not yet reviewed the Port’s proposal. This will be a hot topic of discussion at the hearing on the 27th.
Anyone who owns property within a shoreline area or who is interested in the redevelopment of the Waterfront District and other shoreline areas of Bellingham will want to remain updated on this issue.
Big Box Stores Back in Bellingham?
Next week, the Bellingham Planning Commission will consider an ordinance providing for exceptions to the City’s ban on large retail stores. The City enacted its big box ban in February of 2007. The proposal, which comes at the urging of Mayor Dan Pike, would allow stores larger than 90,000 square feet to locate in certain areas along the Guide Meridian and West Bakerview Road.
What’s the reason for this turnabout? Both Costco and Walmart had been looking at relocating outside of Bellingham because of the inability to expand these stores under the big box ban. With the current recession resulting in diminishing city revenues, the realization has come that the City needs the employment and sales revenues generated by stores like Costco and Walmart. The new ordinance came about through discussions with the large retailers and city officials.
As a way of mitigating the impacts of these large retailers, the new ordinance requires that retailers meet a certain “green score” by increasing landscaped areas, plantings, green roofs, etc. Presumably, this is aimed at creating a compromise between the desire for green development in Bellingham and current economic realities (as well as the actual shopping preferences of the community at large).
What will be interesting to see is whether these “green score” provisions truly create a different type of big box store. Regardless, as evidenced by the big box amendment proposal, regulation aimed at prohibiting a specific type of development based solely on its size is too blunt of a planning instrument.
In an ironic twist some big box stores are actually downsizing in certain markets, including Washington state. See this NY Times article for details.
Big Changes at Port of Bellingham
The Port’s Director, Jim Darling, announced his resignation last week and two port commissioners are up for reelection this fall. John Blethen and Ham Hayes are challenging incumbent Commissioner Scott Walker. Ham Hayes is a local business consultant and former City Council candidate. John Blethen is a local business owner and long time community activist. John has dedicated much time and energy in developing a truly sustainable waterfront vision and he will bring experience and needed leadership to the Port.
Doug Karlberg has announced his candidacy for incumbent Commissioner Doug Smith’s seat. Doug is a longtime commercial fisherman and has long advocated for more public input and transparency in the waterfront planning process. Michael Mcauley, who is very active in neighborhood issues, has also expressed his intent to run against Doug Smith, but he has not yet made a formal announcement. Both Doug and Michael would bring a fresh perspective to redevelopment of the waterfront.
Redevelopment of the former GP site, presents the biggest development opportunity and challenge in Bellingham’s history and likely its near future. What has been missing in this process is a cohesive vision that balances the desire of the community to retain Bellingham’s unique character and create a more accessible waterfront with the need for real economic development in the area. Hopefully, a change in both the elected leadership of the Port as well as the administration will bring fresh thinking and leadership and will, most importantly, keep the process moving along so that redevelopment can occur in our lifetimes.
Bellingham vs. Whatcom County, Round 2
Last Monday, the City of Bellingham reaffirmed its decision to not to change its urban growth area boundaries. A copy of the resolution and background documents can be found here. Whatcom County has repeatedly advised the City of Bellingham that it must either accept a larger population forecast for the next 20 year planning period or reduce the size of its urban growth areas.
The City does not want to do either of these things as it believes its urban growth area is correctly sized for the amount of population it intends to accommodate during the next 20 year planning period. The crux of the issue between the City and the County is that the County believes that Bellingham should be doing more to create infill within its city limits and that the City should not be expanding into any urban growth areas until this infill has occurred.
The City’s experience, however, is that existing neighborhoods are resistant to infill efforts and that the County’s analysis does not take this historical trend into account. Additionally, the City’s own analysis shows that the County has overstated the amount of land that is actually developable for commercial and industrial use since a number of these undeveloped areas are impacted by wetlands and other critical areas.
Given the seeming inablity of the County and City to agree on the size of Bellingham’s urban growth area, the County may take unilateral action. Whatcom County ultimately makes the final decision on the size of Bellingham’s urban growth area. Pursuant to state statute, however, the parties are required to attempt a reconciliation prior to the County making a final decision. Stay tuned for round 3.
Sizing Bellingham’s Urban Growth Area
My earlier blog posts have discussed urban growth areas and how population projections determine the size of UGAs. Now that Bellingham has recommended a population growth number, Whatcom County has asked the City to make a recommendation to the County as to whether its UGA boundaries should be changed as part of the County’s UGA review process that will be completed on Dec. 1. At last Thursday’s City Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended that Bellingham’s UGA boundaries remain unchanged. It is likely that Whatcom County will not be happy with this recommendation.
Whatcom County is advocating that Bellingham and other cities within its jurisdiction (i.e. Ferndale, Blaine, etc.) shrink their UGAs under the theory that this will result in densification within city limits proper and reduce sprawl into the rural areas. One problem with this theory, however, is that in Bellingham residents have historically resisted densificaton of their established neighborhoods.
The County has taken the position that the Bellingham UGA is larger than necessary to accommodate its chosen future population growth number. As discussed in a prior post, the City chose the relatively low population growth number of 113,055 as the number of people it needs to accommodate over the next 20 year planning period.
The County has suggested the removal of a number of areas from the UGA, including Geneva, Hillsdale, and the Yew Street. The County contends that these areas are under developed and not suitable to be included in a UGA. The City’s position is that removal of these areas from the UGA does not necessarily serve any good purpose since little developable land is left in these areas and by having them in the UGA, the City retains control over development in the watershed.
The County and City differ on other issues affecting the sizing of Bellingham’s UGA including the proper time for this review to take place, the densities that should be allowed and/or mandated in Bellingham, and the supply of vacant commercial and industrial land in the city. All of these issues are important as they will determine how Bellingham will accommodate future growth and the amount of infill that will need to occur throughout the City.
There has not been a great deal of public input in this process thus far, probably because these issues are complex and have not been well publicized. The City Council will be considering this issue of its UGA boundaries at its next meeting.
To Infill or Not To Infill in Bellingham
The Bellingham Planning Commission continues to review the Urban Infill Toolkit and whether it should apply in specific residential zones. As discussed in my prior post, the Toolkit would add provisions to the City’s zoning code to allow the development of special housing forms, including carriage houses, townhouses, detached accessory dwelling units, and smaller lot single family homes.
There has been much resistance to applying these special housing forms in Bellingham’s single family neighborhoods. The Planning Commission has received a lot of testimony arguing that applying the Toolkit in single family neighborhoods will negatively affect existing neighborhood character and open the door to uncontrolled rental housing. It is thus likely that carriage houses, ADUs, townhouses, and the like will only be allowed in multifamily neighborhoods and commercial areas. For the location and boundaries of single family vs. multi family neighborhoods, see the City’s zoning map.
One of the primary purposes of the Toolkit is to provide for a more diverse set of housing options as well as to promote infill and the development of more affordable housing in Bellingham. The question arises, however, as to whether this can be accomplished if these housing types are only allowed in areas already zoned for multifamily uses. The City hopes that developers will use the Toolkit to create more attractive and green housing developments in multifamily areas rather than blocks of apartment buildings. Whether there are sufficient incentives in the Toolkit for developers to do so is unclear.
Arguably, in order to create true housing alternatives and affordability in Bellingham, at least some of these alternative housing forms, including carriage houses and unattached ADUs should be allowed in single family neighborhoods. Preserving existing neighborhood character in Bellingham’s single family neighborhoods is a laudable goal as long as it is balanced with creating opportunities for innovative housing types as provided for in the Urban Infill Toolkit.
The Toolkit will be discussed at the May 14 Planning Commission Meeting.
More on LAMIRDS
Whatcom County continues to deliberate on the designation of new LAMIRDS. Last week the Whatcom County Planning Commission held a work session to consider new criteria for designating LAMIRDs throughout the County. Specific consideration was given to commercial uses along the Guide Meridian as well as residential areas north of Bellingham. The Commission is currently proposing that properties currently designated for zoning that allows for 1 or 2 housing units per acre be either down zoned to only allow for one housing unit per 10 acres or to be designated as a LAMIRD with only limited infill allowed.
If the zoning on your property is changed to R10 then what this means as a practical matter is that if you own a parcel that is currently zoned RR1 (one house per acre) or RR2 (2 houses per acre) or R2A (one house per 2 acres), etc. then in the future you will not be able to further subdivide your property unless it is greater than 10 acres in size. If your property is included in a LAMIRD designation then you would likely only be able to build on a vacant parcel. Creation of additional building lots within a LAMIRD is very limited.
The Planning Commission also proposes to limit commercial uses in rural areas (meaning outside of cities and urban growth areas) to small town commercial uses. What this means is that future commercial uses along the Guide Meridian and in other areas outside of Bellingham, Ferndale, Lynden, Blaine, etc. will be more limited in size in and restricted to uses intended to serve the surrounding rural communities. Under the Commission’s current proposal, larger retail stores and warehouses would be prohibited and/or very restricted in areas outside of cities and urban growth areas.
The planning commission will be holding additional work sessions and hearings on this matter. See the County website for more information.
Population Projections – Choosing a Future Growth Number for Bellingham
Population projections are used to determine the size of urban growth areas such as Bellingham’s UGA. As discussed in my last post, each urban growth area in a county needs to be large enough to accommodate the population that is projected to reside in that urban growth area within the next 20 years. Bellingham and other cities in Whatcom County are currently reviewing their current UGA boundaries and whether they should be expanded, reduced or remain the same.
Where do these population projections come from? It starts with the State’s office of financial management “OFM”, which prepares a range of population projections for the next twenty year planning period for each county. The next 20 year planning period spans from 2011 to 2031. The population range is divided into three categories – a low, middle, and high range; the middle range represents the most likely growth scenario. OFM projects that somewhere between 220,000 and 330, 000 people will reside in Whatcom County by 2031, with 264,400 people being the most likely scenario.
OFM, however, does not provide growth forecasts for individual cities, it only provides a forecast for the County as a whole. It is up to the County, using these numbers, to make population allocations to each city and UGA within its jurisdiction. Whatcom County has asked each City within its jurisdiction to make a recommendation as to the population number that should be allocated to it. Generally, the bigger a population number allocated to a city and its urban growth area, the more expansive the urban growth area boundary.
Bellingham has just recently made its recommendation to Whatcom County with regard to the amount of population it wishes to have allocated to its urban growth area. Bellingham picked a number in the low range, which will have many effects on future planning. For example, by picking a low population forecast, it is likely that Bellingham’s UGA will not expand at least in the near future.
In addition to determining urban growth boundaries, population projections are critical in determining how much and what type of infill will be necessary within the existing urban growth area, the type and amount of public facilities needed for future residents, and how much revenue will be generated by future growth. Basically, cities have to decide how to accommodate future residents within their city limits and urban growth areas and they can do this by expanding their urban growth areas, infilling within their boundaries, or some combination of the two. A larger population allocation increases the need for expanded UGA boundaries and/or infill as well as additional public facilities.
The population projections chosen for each urban growth area raise a number of planning issues for each urban growth area as well as Whatcom County as a whole. More on these specific issues in future postings. Whatcom County and its cities are currently holding meetings on this issue, a meeting schedule and additional information can be found on the County’s website.
You must be logged in to post a comment.