Land Use Chapter

We appreciate and are supportive of the growth strategies currently being proposed and agree with Director Lyon when in public presentations last fall, he emphasized that each of the proposed growth strategies is important in order for the overall plan to be successful.
We recognize the strategies for infill toolkit projects, ADU’s and transit oriented development will be important for future housing production. Adoption of regulations and codes which allow and incentivize these types of housing is only the first step. These strategies will evolve over time and will incrementally add to the City’s available land supply as private property owners convert their properties and existing neighborhoods evolve. We believe direct proactive measures are also warranted to bring new communities to the City in a consistent, efficient, timely manner.
We strongly support the City’s proposed strategy for re-configuration of the Urban Growth Area (UGA) which seeks to remove areas that cannot bring needed housing into the City’s inventory and exchanging those areas with more efficiently buildable land. This action has been something we have suggested for many years. The City has a much different growth paradigm than it did when the original Urban Fringe Subarea plans were developed over 40 years ago.
We also strongly support the strategy for infrastructure investment which can unlock existing buildable lands within the current city limits and the UGA / UGA Reserve.
We agree that new Urban Growth Areas must demonstrate the ability to provide urban levels of development, and a sustainable annexation plan should be in place prior to development.
We support the creation of a town center in North Cordata in the UGA Reserve, it will provide a sense of community for the existing neighborhoods and an anchor for the City to the North. The UGA Reserve can provide a significant volume and variety of housing options, mainly workforce housing for people who live here.

Getting rid of the neighborhood plans is very important as they have shown the same issues in Seattle of wealthy areas opting out of necessary growth pushing more drastic changes on other areas. We need more flexibility in our land use code as commercial and residential areas should be allowed to be more interspersed and existing strip mall areas allowed to be redeveloped with housing and other uses. Transit corridors are also important to allow more Bellinghamians to go car lite. Additionally adding more urban villages at the intersection of Birchwood/Northwest as well as Barkley Village would help currently underutilized regions of the city.

Since this has turned into an ordeal and my original comment disappeared I will only say-
We need buffered sidewalks (Sunset Ave west of the I5 is awful, Barkley is in danger of ruin)! We need wider multi-use trails! Don't let the developers set the agenda (they are very savy negotiators with lots of money). Save the waterfront!

Land use needs to far less prescriptive and much more flexable, why cant all housing type be allowed on all lots without having to use things like the infill tool kit. These requirements just add additional cost and time to getting more housing. We need more housing it cannot be done if we restrict the builders , let them build what they want this should increase the housing and bring the cost down.

This may not be the proper location for my comment; apologies in advance if this is the case. It would be nice to see as a stated goal the re-allocation of land in the downtown area that is presently allocated to vehicle parking to non-vehicle purposes, e.g., open space, dense development.

Allow housing, limit parking & car corridors, open up walking and public transit. Keep going, don't wait for input from the citizens who already live here, think of the thousands that can't live here because of old-outdated policies.

I agree with MJ10.

As 45-year residents of Bellingham, we've observed three things that greatly contribute to the health and livability of our residential neighborhoods:

1) The first is green space. Please require any new construction to leave enough green space with trees, bushes, plants, and flowers for bird and wildlife habitat. New construction in our neighborhood seems to encompass the entire lot, leaving no room for plant or animal life. This makes our neighborhoods less healthy and livable for humans, but also for the plant and animal life that is already here.

2) The second is adequate transportation infrastructure (parking, sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, bus stops). Please require adequate parking and other transportation infrastructure with any new construction. We live next to a single-family home that seems to have magically transformed into student housing. There is room for two or three cars at most, but now there are six!! The extra cars are forced to park on the sidewalk, partially in the road, or in front of neighboring houses. I've observed elderly neighbors double-parked just to unload their groceries, then park a block away in inclement weather because there is no longer space in front of their home.

3) Lastly, the people that know the neighborhoods best are the people that live there. Please honor existing neighborhood plans instead of replacing them with a homogenous plan that may work in some places, but not others.

Thank you.

For a decision with such heavy impact, I do not believe the public has been aware of the input timeline. Almost nobody I have spoken with has heard about this, and it didn't seem to get the publicity that other Engage Bellingham issues such as traffic or tree canopy have. Somehow, this has been presented as if there were really no choice for the neighborhoods/neighborhood groups. I would be curious about how many groups have submitted comments and how many of the 90,000+ residents have.
Making a rushed decision could be devastating to the entire city. We are a popular place for people to move, and they are coming. Why would we make a seemingly rash change to the lovely distinctive character for each area of this city? We have pride in our neighborhoods, and the idea of over-riding these neighborhood groups and the input from the people who actually live there seems completely counter-productive.
Already, the state has thrown neighborhoods into confusion about what they can and canNOT do. And then there are the ADU's and the freedom to build without offering parking in the city limits. These are already benefits to development/developers. Do we know how these will impact neighborhoods yet, when they've only recently been passed?
It only makes sense to wait until we see what happens in the future from these other changes (on top of the end of single family zoning) BEFORE considering taking even more ability to influence the growth away from the existing residents who will be the ones left living there in drastically altered neighborhoods after this decision (to eliminate neighborhood plans).
Many people have weighed all aspects before renting or buying a home, and that rug should not be pulled out from under them. There were reasons people rented/bought where they did, and particularly those who have lived in one place for much of their lives, enjoying the place they so astutely chose when younger, are counting on the sense of security that familiarity will bring them as they age.
What looks right on paper, or solves a certain issue, is NOT necessarily the only option and needs to be heavily weighed against all the other options. This isn't "draw an option out of a hat." Certainly, there needs to be a much longer public comment period and no rush! This is a huge change, and the public has been busy dealing with severe weather for a month, not likely to place public input above clearing drifts of snow or staying warm.
In conclusion, I would say this idea feels rushed and somewhat covert...presented at a time that people aren't available and in a way that sounds as if we have no choice. And yes, I am upset about this process in general and the "City Plan" in particular. Feel free to communicate with me at the email address I will include with this submission.

Please continue to develop and update Neighborhood Plans, and resume use of these NPs in the city planning process. It would be a terrible mistake to blend city planning into one homogenous plan which does not reflect the unique needs and characteristics of Bellingham's historic neighborhoods.

Different neighborhoods have different histories which add to the feeling and flavor of Bellingham. There are also unique public safety and environmental considerations which each neighborhood is grappling with.
Neighborhood residents are best positioned to speak for the future of their neighborhood, knowing as they do the unique characteristics and needs of their neighborhood — including parks, green spaces, trees around and in developments, and safety infrastructure considerations rooted in historic development (such as inadequate streets, sewer, power).
Adopting a “one size fits all” municipal plan will ultimately homogenize Bellingham into a giant, infilled sprawl such as is now found all across much of California. I lived in California for five decades, and witnessed that process first hand. What is proposed now in Bellingham is one of the early steps in that developer-pushed and -powered slide toward urban ugliness and overbuilding.

Currently the Planning Department considers every proposed Application for development as a one-off occurrence, and does not examine how approval of multiple Applications would impact public safety and the environment. It is the neighborhoods which are catching these cumulative, aggregating problems, and fighting for them to be acknowledged. The city should not further disempower Neighborhood Plans and neighborhood advocacy unless and until the Planning Department is staffed and mandated to protect the residents -- current and future -- from cumulative impacts. Bellingham currently lacks the Municipal Codes and city staff / structure to do this absolutely critical aspect of city planning. This deficiency should be addressed FIRST.

I understand the city wishes to disenfranchise the Neighborhood Associations even more than they already have been, but this is a terrible idea for the future of this historically rich and environmentally rich city, given the current gaps in our Municipal Code, and the Planning Department's role, processes, and staffing.

Don't scrap our neighborhood plans!

The transit corridors will be critical to identify and implement properly.
Making Bellingham a city where everyone can easily and safely access fast, frequent, and reliable transit requires that the city be designed around that. Just as car-centric design has fundamentally affected corridors like Iowa Street, Sunset Drive east of James, and Meridian Street north of Maplewood, transit-oriented design can shape the fabric of our city, and this should be harnessed to provide a better outcome than what happened when Meridian became five lanes.
Zoning and urban villages, parks and trails, cycling networks, car thoroughfares, and any infrastructure for BRT, streetcars, or rail transit will ALL affect and be affected by where transit is prioritized. With this in mind, these transit corridors' power should be used to build a better city, and their placement must maximize this power.

Can the plan address the planning around the implementation of bike lanes in the downtown area. If we want sustainable urban growth and vibrant urban areas there needs to be more thought put into the placement of bike lanes. Holly street has become incredibly dangerous and confusing with the new bike lanes and parking areas.
Additionally, can you address further how the plan will deal with Bellingham no longer requiring parking on developments and the new land use that allows 4 and 6-plexes on city lots. Parking and congestion are already issues in many of our older neighborhoods, and it seems this plan could incorporate some protections in these areas to prevent people not being able to live in neighborhoods due to lack of space for even a single car per lot, thereby defeating the purpose of much of the urban growth plan.

When talking about transit corridors, it only mentions WTA and pedestrians and should specify also bike friendly.
On section about allow transitional and supportive housing, use encourage instead of allow so more active then passive
Worried that nothing about encourage trees/shade

Staff Note: We noticed a community member question in the comments. Due to technical limitations, we aren't able to reply to comments here and have answered this question on our Contact page: https://engagebellingham.org/bellinghamplan-contact-us. If you have questions you'd like staff to reply to, please visit that page.

"Need to balance and integrate both trees and development; consider flexible approaches."
Indeed. Thank you. Bearing in mind though that the onus of balance and flexibility falls of the human side, requiring development to make concession to honoring existing trees' lives. Yet if it must be put in terms that enable human arrogance, in order to honor necessity, then it is in the best interest of we hairless apes to maintain the existing tree canopy as it is essential for good health, physical and psychological. So any development must be done in a way that accommodates existing tree life, construction that builds around and with existing life instead of razing said life in order to raise a building or parking space.

Could you provide a link to the actual Draft Land Use Chapter? I see links to a power point, to a one-page summary, and to a list of goals, but cannot find the actual chapter. Thank you.

Please set up slides so they can be enlarged with finger tips on mobile devices.

Reconsider the Hamlet option for sharing county growth outside Bellingham. Utility and infrastructure issues can be explored instead of used as “no go” barriers, which could increase job development in smaller communities while reducing transportation costs and climate impacts.

Communicate more explicitly about residential zoning changes required by recent state law. Most people do not know what is coming, and it’s human nature to resist change. I agree with previous comments to the effect that all strategies will be needed to accommodate people coming to, and being born in our community.

I think we should look to towns of similar size to Bellingham for inspiration in answer to some of the requests of Bellingham residents. Pearl Street Mall in Boulder Colorado (of similar population to Bellingham) is an excellent example of a "town center" which is pedestrian oriented (parts of the center are pedestrian ONLY which brings a very nice community feel). It's vibrant, with mixed amenities of unique shops, restaurants, art galleries and stores that draw the community together, creating a welcoming tight knit feel. Bellingham has the opportunity to have a similar community vibe, with stores and amenities geared to the tourists who come here, like families of the students who learn here, street performers, art fairs, and community events. Mainly full time residents would LOVE more amenities for shopping than we currently have (it's the number ONE thing I hear from everyone I know here, Bellingham has a serious lack of amenities, which means many drive into Lynnwood or shop online, so it's a loss where money could be spent here). Since we have the university here bringing in youth, their families and friends to visit, there is a huge opportunity for a unique and vibrant pedestrian downtown with shops and restaurants.

U.G.A.s and Annexation:
Concern: the language 'requiring new UGA or UGA reserve[s] to provide uses fulfilling a need,' is open to interpretation - by the current council and committee or future officials. Flexibility is important when land is analyzed, and assessed, and potentially deemed unfit for certain purposes. So we can't limit or bind our uses of certain lands simply due to a prior designation. Perhaps more specifics and rules regarding "only allow annexations when annexation plan analysis is completed and sustainable." Land should be maximized in its use, and that maximization must begin with the land's raw state/condition. This would lend to "financial sustainability" and could lead to environmental benefit/sustainability. Not forcing urban development on land with poor bedrock, water analysis, flood risk, etc., makes sense from either financial or environmental perspectives. In addition to considering an areas utility for urban development, we must develop areas to maximize their environmental benefits: improve water flow/retention, prevent erosion, improve keystone growth to establish and maintain thriving ecosystems.

I hope that the city is open to learning from what other communities/cities have done. Both, the good and the bad. We moved here from Seattle not that long ago and what has been done in Seattle in the name of higher density and affordability is in part terrible. Existing single family neighborhoods with grown character have been destroyed.
In our previous neighborhood (single family homes from the 1920s), one developer purchased a lot, was able to sub-divide the lot into two, and build a six bedroom house plus and ADU on each of the lots with no yard to speak off. The two houses sold each for $2.5M+. It completely destroyed the neighborhood character while not contributing to density or affordability at all.
Focusing high density developments in already developed areas along transporation corridors while allowing modest but highly regulated development in grown neighborhoods of character is a much more sensible approach to take.