Land Use
See our latest Land Use chapter updates and provide feedback.
Land Use: Existing chapter
The Bellingham Plan's land use section will guide how land in Bellingham can be used in the future. It determines the activities that are best for different areas as the city grows. The Land Use chapter is an important part of the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA makes cities show how they will ensure land is appropriately zoned for uses that can support 20 years of community growth.
What changes will happen in the Bellingham Plan?
A key portion of the Comprehensive Plan update will focus on changing the City’s land use map, which guides zoning across the city. Updates to the map will be informed by the 2022 Buildable Lands Report, which evaluated growth from 2016 to 2021 and provided assessments on how well the current plan’s policies are working. The land use update will also include an analysis of existing capacity, updates to the land use map, and a demonstration of how the new map can handle growth over the next 20 years (through 2045). It is likely that the new 2045 allocations will require changes to the land use map. This is to make sure we have enough space for expected jobs and housing. These changes will accommodate population growth across all economic and social ranges.
Watch this 3-minute video about the ways Bellingham could grow!
While all events contributed to our proposed land use chapter updates, the following sessions related most directly. The “Community Vision” event set the stage for conversations about how we want our City to grow in the next 20 years, and what kind of land uses will be allowed where. The “Housing Affordability” session included opportunities to talk about what housing types are needed as we plan for housing needs across the city. The open houses concluded with a final session, “How We Will Grow,” which focused on different ways we can grow to accommodate a range of land uses and changing housing needs.
- Community Vision – February 22, 2024
- Housing Affordability – April 16, 2024
- How We Will Grow – July 17, 2024
Ideas for Housing Growth
We are considering a few different approaches to how the city could grow over the next 20 years. We’d like your input as we develop them. Any approach will include:
- Continued investment and growth in our existing Urban Villages (Downtown, Old Town, the Waterfront, Fairhaven, the Fountain District, Samish Way, and Barkley)
- Compliance with new state laws, particularly allowing a variety of housing types and allowing at least 4 units on most residential lots in the city.
What concerns do you have about the housing growth that might occur under each of the approaches outlined below? What could be done to address those concerns? (View pdf version of approaches).
Post your ideas below. Let us know which approach you are leaving a comment on by indicating a #1, #2 or #3 in your comment. Feel free to leave multiple comments to provide your thoughts on each approach.
| 1. Urban Village Focus Addition of two new Urban Villages and emphasis of middle-scale housing near all Urban Villages.  | 2. Transit-oriented Focus Focus of new growth along high frequency transit routes, with mid-scale housing near these routes. Addition of three new Urban Villages along transit routes.  | 3. Complete Neighborhoods Spreading growth around the city, focusing on providing small-scale commercial uses in every neighborhood with middlescale housing nearby. Addition of some area to the north and south that the city could eventually grow into.  |
I prefer #2, as we are in dire need of more affordable housing, which large-scale developments would provide. With so many people moving to the area and the vacancy rate already so low, addressing rising housing costs through larger developments seems like an effective solution. Ideally, I would love to see a combination of #2's large-scale housing and #3's small-scale commercial focus. Mixed-use developments that combine commercial and residential spaces would also improve walkability and connectivity, especially in larger housing areas or suburban settings.
Here are my thoughts on each approach:
#1 - Expanding urban villages would create more walkable areas, but it seems less likely to resolve the housing crisis we're facing.
#2 - Large-scale housing along transit routes would meet demand, but even with better public transport, the increased traffic from larger developments might impact walkability.
#3 - Spacing out small-scale commercial areas would improve walkability. However, the lack of focus on residential zoning weakens the plan. It would be more appealing if middle-scale housing were considered alongside commercial growth.
#2! I am 100% behind #2. It fits Bellinghams demographics best, and offers the most diversity of housing development, pricing and style. It develops downtown, main streets and other important centers of commerce/activity in a way that is NEEDED and leans on our unique transit culture. It also does not favor corporatization of our business like the other plans do, which will just lead to more stripmalls, fast food, office centers and neglect small business. I can imagine #2, if given energy and conducted correctly, having a very positive impact on Bellingham
#2 is the best option, planning for public transit and higher density is smart. #3 would result in sprawl and a dilution of Bellingham’s vibe.
I'd like to see a combination of #2 and #3. It makes sense to take public transportation into consideration, but I also like the idea of allowing small-scale businesses (grocery stores, restaurants, drinking establishments, etc) in all neighborhoods.
2 is absolutely the best path forward, especially as WTA looks into running BRT along the major arterial of the blue/green lines. Removing parking minimums, instituting parking maximums, and allowing/encouraging any commerical and residential growth along walkable and bussable paths is the best way to reduce congestion and bring down housing costs. Bellingham's best path forward is with density and encouraging people to travel local without cars, not by sprawling like in 3 and not by maintaining the status quo like in 1. If there was something to add, it would be to encourage growth like 2 but to also remove all zoning and parking restrictions (aside from industrial) and to encourage distributed shops throughout the entire city.
I do not believe that a 35-mph speed limit is appropriate in urban villages. If you want urban village pedestrians to feel safe and included, then drop the speed. Add some curves (meanders), trees, and seating. (I am talking to you, Samish Way Urban Village).
I do not believe that a 35 mph speed limit is appropriate in urban villages. If you want urban village pedestrians to feel safe and included then drop the speed. Add some curves (meanders), trees, and seating. (I am talking to you, Samish
Way Urban Village).
Building community, neighborhood by neighborhood (or even smaller areas) is my preferred choice. We have been involved in helping establish alley parties collecting families within our neighborhood. People love them.
In general terms, all of the three approaches seem relevant to our small and growing city. #3 ‘Complete Neighborhoods’ is the approach that deserves emphasis by virtue of delivering greater quality of living throughout our city.
#2 is my preference, but a mix of all three is important, I think many cities including cities such as Seattle struggle with only building single family homes or big apartment buildings. I think implementing plan 2 with more frequent bus service maybe even a possible return of trams in the downtown connecting fairhaven with downtown. In terms of housing create a new zoning type that encourages row housing in small urban villages, this would create middle housing that starter family’s could buy or young people looking to buy something but don’t want the commitment of a house. All of this incorporated with adding zoning for small corner shops, cafes, etc in neighborhoods and bigger apartments along high frequency transit streets. Would help Bellingham be more walkable and transit friendly.
1: this is my favorite approach. My only concern would be the rest of bellingham being somewhat neglected, therefore making it difficult to travel between urban villages as a pedestrian
2. I feel that in order to make this strategy beneficial we need to first improve our public transportation system. This means increased bus frequency, especially in areas outside the bellingham core.
3. I don’t believe bellingham would benefit from anymore urban sprawl. we need to keep the city concentrated and build into what we already have rather than expanding outward.
Why choose? It's the combination of all three that get us to a higher average density, more lifestyle choices, resilience to fuel and fuel price changes, etc.
#3. North of BHam along Marine drive should be annexed. We live in the county, but are virtually in the city, yet are jot allowed to vote in BHam - ie the Mayor’s race. The area across from little Squalicum park off Illinois street could have both apartments and shops. This area feels forgotten by the county and the city.
We want a combination of 1 and 2, we need denser mixed used zoning and get away from car centric infrastructure if we go to three we would just be exacerbating the issue of city accessibly and require cars in boring single family neighborhoods. A growing city needs to grow up, not grow out. Zoning laws in most of the country make it impossible to make compact and walk-able spaces and this desperately needs to be changed.
Definitely #3 - Complete Neighborhoods. It will be interesting to see how the new Tree Ordinance effects Middle Housing. I'm concerned.
2
1 and 2, with some other notes. Prioritize density and walk ability. We don’t need more sprawl. Mixed use zoning is great! Wouldn’t it be lovely if more neighborhoods had their own Main Street and more people were within walking distance to a corner shop, cafe, and/or brewery?
I’d also like to see no more parking minimum requirements, smaller lot sizes for single family homes, and incentives for building new, smaller homes and du/tri/four plexes.
Support the inclusion of the Burkhart/Roe Trust property in the City's UGA. Property ID Number 100296. Tax Parcel Number 3902364331690000.
While urban villages are great, they don't help most of the city. The most effective solution is not just one of the these three options either. Utilizing both option 2 and 3 would allow urban corridors to connect the city together in a walkabout manner and give lots of more diversity in housing while still allowing pockets of true quiet single-family homes for those few that want it. Zoning along the corridors would need to allow for a greater diversity in application as well (stores, restaurants, essentials). But option 2 doesn't necessarily help all neighborhood either, which is why it needs to be combined with option 3 so that more people can easily access essentials without needing to drive across town. The people want walk-ability!
I think it's important to look at what other cities are doing that are working. Portland is one of those that does it right because there are lots of little urban corridors that connect the city and provide the resources people need while still maintaining quaint neighborhoods for the people that want it.
More tall buildings