Planning Commission

[Music] right welcome everybody um like to call to order the March 28th um hearing of the Planning Commission so tonight we we have uh one thing on the agenda which is an ordinance amending BMC 20 37330 which is a height requirement for the Fair Haven Urban Village um at the beginning of each meeting I guess we'll call the role Heather would you call yep Mike mccy I'm here Scott Jones here Barbara plaset here Russ WBY Jed blo here I'm here sorry Rose all right I video enabled I I didn't see any minutes on the email so I don't believe that we have anything to approve for that um at the beginning of each of these meetings um before we get into our presentation from staff we typically have general public comment which is anything um and everything that just doesn't have to do with our agenda item so if you're you're here and would like to have a public comment or on zoom and would like to do public comment we'd like to limit that to three minutes but um Now's the Time if you're here for that to uh come on down or raise your Zoom hand someone no one okay I guess since we don't have anyone uh for the general comment we will close that and then uh we'll go ahead and jump right into the presentation uh from staff good evening Commissioners um and members of the public uh my name is Kurt neld I'm the development services manager for the planning and Community Development Department and tonight um also with me is the director of our planning Community Development Department Blake lion

um we also have uh this is a bit unique because we had a request a specific request from an applicant to amend the the zoning rules and regulations and so we also have representatives from the applicant here um as well and they will introduce them elves later on I wanted to start um as was mentioned we're here tonight to discuss a proposed change to a development regulation within the Fair Haven Urban Village um I wanted this specifically for what's commonly known as the pit site um it is a piece of property uh you can see here on the left left screen this is the overall Fair Haven Urban Village um we've got industrial areas we've got Parks we've got um residential transition areas and we also have our commercial core within our commercial core areas there is a historic district as well um this property is not within the historic district um it is adjacent to it though um the property that we're talking about today um you can see is is this area generally right in here from Knox at the North there's a small sliver of the property here um 10th Street M Avenue to the the bottom and then 11th Street um here to the east generally this this property heing um a little bit of background before we get into some of the details in 2012 we went through an extensive public process um for the adopting the Fair Haven Neighborhood and Urban Village plan um that that had a bit of History where we had business owners um presented one plan draft plan that they wanted and then residents

presented another plan um and we had competing plans there for a while uh what we or proposals um the city decided that the best route would be to kind of take over that process convene more work groups um really get people into the uh into different groups and um kind of work through all the the issues uh the result of that was the adoption of the Fair Haven Neighborhood and urban V Village plan um within that plan and the Urban Village plan all of the development rules are there so the street what the streets need to look like um the lock coverages of buildings um the zonings the use so all those kind of development regulations and one of those development regulations is height um how tall you can build um we received a text Amendment from a potential buyer of the pit property um that individual came forward to us and said hey I really want to do something different here on this site I'm looking for a little more height what can we do um that request there's a specific way to do those requests um and only the city council the Planning Commission or the planning community development director can initiate a change to our zoning rules and regulations um so we occasionally have applicants request to that and this is what happened on this one um as we were were reviewing the proposal we we felt like it was very important to make sure that there was a common understanding as we moved forward with both the the applicant as well as all City departments um this happened um started

we started working on a memorandum of understanding so that we the parties essentially kind of agreed to what we would move forward with uh we identified certain things within that memorandum of understanding um and once we kind of felt like we were on the same page uh of what the city and the public should receive in uh relation to a potential height increase we took that to the city council we wanted to make sure that the city council was at least aware of the situation before we started this whole process because we didn't want to start this process get halfway down it and then have city council go absolutely not we don't we don't think this is appropriate so we brought forward the memorandum understanding to the city council they agreed that there's some Merit for us to study that um in order for us to make sure and clarify exactly what those public benefits that would come from a uh change in the zoning or a change in the the height definition um and to make it a little more s uh little more solid we did that by adopting a draft development agreement um that's kind of where the the details are the development agreement is in the packet the the Planning Commission packet however the Planning Commission does not have perview over the development agreement development agreement goes through a separate process and that that process includes a public hearing with the city council and the city council makes the ultimate decision on that I know that you've had some familiarity

with development agreements uh we you recently saw one for the Oldtown sub area not too long ago um another one uh the Waterfront is another one where we had development agreement associated with with that whole area so I think most of you are somewhat familiar from that especially from the Oldtown recently um once we uh finalized that development agreement that's when the planning director said okay your proposal merits some further discussion we're going to take it through we're going to do some more additional analysis and we're going to take it through the the type six public review process which includes a planning commiss public hearing uh and a recommendation to the city council and a city council public hearing with the ultimate decision makers the existing height rules and regulations for the site you can kind of see that the site up here it's shaded um It's relatively unique because the the pit property is pretty much um it's divided in between two different height areas currently there's a 42 foot standard and a 35 foot standard for the buildings up in this kind of Northern Area um the proposed is to do 48 feet and four stories on site A and B and then 35 feet and three stories to this one uh to the site c one other distinct change is how we view or how we measure height height definition two allows us to take um a point on the proper and measure up from that point on the property um versus a different way of measuring it is at the lowest existing grade and then

and then going up and we did this um mainly because there's no Street or right away on this site C up here just to kind of give you an example we can look at numbers all night long don't really it's hard to really understand what those numbers mean so we felt it would be good to have some um some drawings in there at least and and this is not of any way the what the building is going to look like it's just kind of a block diagram to show you mass and scale and under that existing zoning um you can see um pretty much all the views off of 11th out into the Waterway and the the port property um have pretty much been blocked you've got a RightWay here that um we maintain height through there as well uh the proposal is 48 ft and in in height here on 11th Street and one of those kind of public benefits and and uh agreements that we worked through with the development agreement was that we wanted to make sure that there was some view corridors that were in the property as well um and so the applicant has opposed this 50 foot wide view corridor that maintains it um so you can you can generally see um we retained some of the view that we lost under existing rules and regulations before you go on um that's got to be a typo that's not 50 ft wide I drawing sorry it says 50 foot View Corridor that's a typo right that's not 50 feet wide The Proposal is 50 feet whether the rendering drawing if you look at the building height flip it over like no that's more like two squares wide which is 20

some feet wide yeah it's possible with the um but you're suggesting it'll be 50 feet yeah okay okay just want to clear that up um there's a difference here and I want to make a clear distinction the the planning commission's role is really about the um looking at the code making recommendations on the code not the design um but we felt it was important to kind of show um the designs of what what's currently being worked through um on this upper picture this is with the existing zoning um potentially what could be built and this is looking on the 11th side 11th Street side you've got the village books here off to the left um the triple I building here to the right um what's being proposed again is the the length the two different buildings with the view corridors here this is actually looking down on Mill Street um as the building will drop down because of the four-story height limit um as well and there's also a pedestrian Corridor that's through here so just wanted to give you a good idea of what what the proposal could look like um moving forward with the the height rules and regulations if approved um this is the the proposed one that shows the different view corridors as well wanted to give it a little more context too because when we talk when we see drawings and things like that it's really hard for us to to see exactly what that means um so this is uh an example on Meridian Street where the building to the left here the two buildings to the left here are 36 feet in

height in three stories and then you've got 44 feet in height in in four stories so overall the proposed change in height is really not that significant um and when we talk about a scale and a size and what that what that means um in reality I think this gives you a good perspective of kind of the difference in scale that we're talking about nothing substantial um we're not talking about about you know four or five different stories um we're really talking about um you know one story in in height here biggest question for all of us tonight is why should we do this um in changing the rules and regulations there's there's really no criteria most of our uh rules and regulations or when we change codes or we adopt new zoning uh modify our comprehensive plan there are specific criteria um when it comes to the zoning or the development regulations the only criteria is that it's consistent with our comprehensive plan so our comprehensive plan will um provide the policies kind of our goals of what we're trying to achieve and then the development regulations Implement those goals and policies um so the the real only criteria that you're evaluating this tonight on is does it Implement our comprehensive plan goals and policies um again um as as the city departments met to talk about this proposal why should we do it um we went through and you can hear in some of the uh the public comments that you received um that we went through this extensive process and um we identified this is where

or these are the standards that we wanted to include in the Fair Haven Urban Village um we felt in order for us to consider this change there had to be this true public benefit that comes along with it and that's one of the reasons we uh decided to go into a development agreement because that development agreement allows you to ensure that there is public benefit Beyond just implementing our comprehensive plan um so as we worked through it and discussed um some of the the options here um one we felt that affordable housing was obviously something that our community is in desperate need of we thought that it definitely needed to be in included in this project you've ever been down to um Fair Haven or if you've ever talked from anybody from Fair Haven parking is always on everyone's Minds um So currently the pit is a private piece of property um there is public parking that is allowed there it's free public parking however there's no guarantee that that parking can stay at any or will stay at any time uh developer could come in there today and devel velop to the existing rules and regulations and not have to supplement any or actually and not have to create any public parking except for the the street Frontage um as part of the fa Haven Urban Village um plan there was we we knew that parking was a a community concern and a way to address that we established a Fair Haven parking task force Fair Haven parking task force met over multiple years and kind of came up with a plan of

how how we are going to address parking um and one of those ways is through parking management strategies um that's why we've got the uh the Tim limited parking in Fair Haven and it's also why we have meters in there those are different parking management strategies um as well so parking is definitely a concern um we felt again that it was really important to ensure that there was actually public parking involved in this not just what the code required along the side um and we agreed to 80 stalls public parking looks like there is a typo there um Trail uh the the trail Corridor as I mentioned and and and showed in that P one of the pictures the South Bay Trail um a gem of a trail that we all cherish and worship it's a great connector um from our Waterfront area all all along the Bell inham Waterfront um up Taylor Dock and into Fair Haven so it's a very important Trail Corridor that trail Corridor is actually located on private property um and approximately in 2008 there was a revocable easement that was on that piece of property um in 2008 the the owner actually revoked that easement So currently we have a public trail that runs over private property that has no dedic at easement associated with it so as a part of this proposal we felt it was very very important that we preserve that trail Corridor and made sure that if we were going to look at this and analyze a height increase Trail Corridor had to be preserved for the public um as a part of that we also talked about view

corridors um making sure that there are view corridors through the area as well as pedestrian corridors and you can kind of see that in some of those uh site plans that we showed you um and then finally I talked a little bit about this before um you know that the criteria for changing the standards is really about implementing the comprehensive plan Urban Villages are one of our designated ways of accommodating growth in our city um Urban Villages are where we're supposed to see intense development where you're supposed to see higher densities more concentrations of people um what that means generally is higher height limits taller buildings so um we really felt that the the Fair Haven Urban Village is a is one of our Villages where we're accommodating our growth where we need to accommodate our growth therefore higher height limits make sense in these areas um I'm sorry real quick could you go back sure it's up you discussed the public benefit of the development agreement like what is the public benefit of the agreement itself so really the there's the three components affordable housing public parking and then that that dedicated easement for the trail corri below three yeah those are those are really the three key public benefits that that we're receiving um without without those um the developer comes in and develops per the code there's no guarantee of affordable housing there's no guarantee of the public parking and there's no guarantee that the city is able to retain

that trail uh tonight there's a lot of information additional information in your packet so um um hopefully everyone uh the Commissioners and the community has had the opportunity to review the packet um I wanted to save as much time as we could for the the public comment um staff believes that that the proposal is appropriate in our Urban Villages um we don't think it's a significant impact we believe that the tradeoff off that we're getting these public benefits that we're getting um outweigh any of those potential impacts that come from uh going up a little bit higher in height um we recommend that you approve the zoning text Amendment um and also adopt the findings of fact conclusions and recommendations and uh attachment to that is the conclusion of my presentation because this this type of uh uh process is a bit unique where we've got an applicant actually asking to to change the code and initiate the code change um we have decided we're we'll allow the opportunity for them to do a brief presentation as well so the applicant's going to come up and kind of go over their their perspective um then we can be open to public comment and take testimony turn it over to Mr David Christensen who the architect for the you Mr nael um I feel like I shouldn't say anything I have some things I'd just like to get out there oh fellow Commissioners public my name is David Christensen if you don't know me local architect been in Bellingham for a very long time I'm actually been on the

historic preservation commission for over 25 years hard to believe uh office is actually located in Fair Haven also received over 49 local and Regional Design Awards uh Fair Haven projects include Village books and orca building which were my offices I've looked at this property for many many years for many developers none of them make the economics work it's just a tough thing to do here and it is a you know it's an unsightly pit with insufficient parking and a kayak testing area during floods if you remember that um the written regulations or zoning are usually written for most situations prevent something bad from happening the regulations rarely take into account unique property situations and there are a lot of them I'm sure you've seen your share and we all want to meet the intent good project development so what's the right thing to do here as an architect I always review the existing zoning then I kind of toss that aside and say you know what's the right thing to do here in spite of what the zoning says and how can I get those two to meet well sometimes you can't and we need to do something like a development agreement with the zoning text Amendment to make the right thing happen can't cover all the situations with generic regulations and Mr Nai clearly explained process and why it exists so I've been working on this particular project for four years now the owner has been working on it longer during that time of course costs continue to rise the fastest most

economical process to go was with existing zoning but we felt that wasn't the right thing to do here it's not that hard to be an architect you just have to listen I've had over six Community meetings and many one-on-one meetings with people in the Fair Haven area of course I don't only listen to the community members as Jed knows I listen to City staff Builders Engineers code officials Bankers appraisers property managers lawyers how do we do it it's a miracle it's a of work it's a balance so remember this hearing is just to review the zoning text amendment that is part of the development agreement so this project can proceed to architectural design review now I just want to summarize briefly what Kurt Nafi has just talked about so the existing zoning allows a full block of of development and this can happen much faster no net Community benefits other than a reduction ruction in market rate housing and Commercial spaces that's it not very exciting net Community benefit now I put on my community hat walk around what do I hear is needed for the community one as was mentioned parking I know love hate Yogi Bara said no one goes there anymore it's too crowded obviously people are going there I facilitated many Community meetings over the years in this area and is easily the number number one issue sadly do affordable housing this is big the big challenge for all of us as a public official we cannot affect the cost of a toilet with land so what can we do public views and access fa

Haven Urban Village is not a view protection area it is meant to be a dense live work well Urban Village however it would be good to be able to provide some open space view corridors and pedestrian access through the property I mean Co has shown that outdoor commercial areas are really valuable and of course the South Bay Trail this is a biggie is an important connection used by a lot of people this Trail needs to be have a Perpetual easement as explained by Mr neld so how can we try and meet the goals of the community we have listened to so the zoning text Amendment which is part of this development agreement number one public parking is explained to be 80 public parking stalls available beyond what is required for the project two affordable housing 20% of all units will be affordable housing three view corridors and a for 50ft wide open View Corridor to the West aligned the common roof area on top of faen gardens provide pedestrian connectivity in a north south Direction aligned with the Village Green area to the South and triple I building to the north people may think that's an alley but it's not I did the village of books building it's private property right all the way across there we had to get a special easement and put Windows in Village books otherwise we couldn't have put Windows in it we also provide a public Overlook a structure on the South Bay Trail so people can hang out and look West to the Bay because you can't really see it now with all the growth that's

right there all this sounds great but how can we as a city make this happen it's simply by allowing the buildings on 11th Street to have a maximum 48t height in four stories this is only 6 feet on the south half and 13 feet on the North half this area was originally zoned for 56 feet six five stories same as the site zoning to the South where Village books is that's it you know the former mayor of Milwaukee John nordik if you knew him said all new buildings should pass the picture postcard test or now I guess it be be the selfie test where buildings should be so cool that people take photographs of the buildings that is our intent we want to make this a very cool place placemaking as it's called it's a big block of building that will not do that you're all looking at this project as a legacy type project that with really beautiful buildings for everyone and no project can make everyone happy question is as a public commission you need to find compromise does this zoning text Amendment as part of the development agreement provide a net CommunityWide benefit this is the last block of Fair Haven Court to develop should we do the right thing off my soap box also Brad Swanson is here the attorney for the project if there's any technical questions right thank you um I guess now we will go ahead andt switch up to the uh public comment for this project I see that some people have signed in already so it's the time that you can come on down um if you please when you're going to speak

state your name and uh your address for the record three minutes is uh what we're going to try to keep it to H thank you for having me here uh allowing me to speak my name is Joan Pickins I live across the street from this development 1134 finnean way and um there were so many talking points off of Curts and David's uh um presentations I think I'll just throw away what I have written uh so David we've I've spent uh with my other uh building mates uh time and he spent his time talking to us and explaining the project and the one issue we've had is um that 13t ex extension which I know Kurt showed an 8ot extension building which actually this is 13t this is 37% of what has been zoned for that building and that happens to be right at our deck where we meet as a community so this what what it would do the difference for us in that small amount of space is to completely block so we just see sky and when we when I bought this place it was a 35 ft zoning I was very aware of it I thought that was very reasonable nobody wants a huge building next to them but this was a reasonable size building a 35 now we're going up to 48 ft not only does it block our view but it also changes the structure of the street because the building next to that is also a 35- foot building and it tied in it was carefully zoned to tie into the structure of that area so this is a really big that 13 feet is huge for us and there are 21 people in our building and for residents and then the the commercial areas

there also the other thing I wanted to hit on is the uh the development agreement I was I went along we all went along with open minds thinking affordable housing parking those are great things you know I don't know how we could manage to give that up with a building however that that parking is 80 spaces that the developer will manage personally he can have any kind of agreement he wants with the people he can put someone's collection of 40 port is in there if he wants he has no requirements nobody's put any kind of requirements on that 80 parking spaces plus if we put 197 units in there that's a lot of people that could have multiple cars that he could lease them to so I'm really worried that that's not going to be as much of a public benefit as we say it's going to be and then also the uh the 20% affordable housing we thought that was great too however it's only a 12year and it's affordable housing so it's still the developer still gets a big tax tax break on it and then also gets the rent from renting that out so not as much of a loss to the developer as one might think and between those things and then 12 years is up and that person's out looking for another place to live and when I went into the process I was told that the affordable housing lasts forever and I thought wow that's great 20% that's hard to fight too but apparently when I read the couple days ago when I read the development agreement it's 12 years like the city approves I guess so anyway between all those

things I um I really think it it is a big effect on the Fair Haven area it's not good to have that big of a building right there we're all there we see it we know what a disaster it is when these affordable housing people have to move out in 12 years that huge building's still going to be there and it's not going to look good so I I really think uh I feel strongly that this is really a bad thing for that Fair Haven Neighborhood and it would be a shame if this gets pushed through thank you very much hi my name is Joselyn Winslow and I also am a resident of Fair Haven Gardens right across the street from the pit several years ago Fair Haven Garden Gardens resident met on our fourth floor roof with the Bellingham City officials we stood and looked down at the pit the open space in front of us and the surrounding properties we talked about building Heights any future construction the officials looked at the Village books and then to the north along 11th Street at the line of smaller buildings City officials determined that any structure to be built built should be could be 42 ft high on the south corner and of the pit and 30 ft High 35 ft High to the north now this developer has made two proposals for the pit with added benefits underground parking and some affordable housing one proposal is for a massive building and the second which is the one we're really discussing a pair of buildings separated by view corridors we understand that Fair Haven needs both parking and housing I

support the proposed parking but I question why such a unique piece of property across from the Village Green should include affordable housing where are those City officials who established the height restrictions now that the developer has proposed this overly High structure there must be other property away from the middle of Fair Haven where affordable housing can be built I understand that the developer may may need to go higher but he could do that on the south side of the pit development the city should not change the present height limit to Grant the height exception to to the north height limits in other words directly across the street from where fairy garden folks look out over the space we recommend that you keep the 35 foot height limit on the North section of the 11th Street that's adjacent to the row of buildings from blessing Salon up through Eclipse books this would help the proposed building fit into Fair Haven thank you evening planning Commissioners my name's David Carlson I've own property at 1104 11th Street uh adjacent to block 19 the pit site and on the east side of block 12 and chasen to the west side where building C is proposed here I hope that you got my letter of uh March 26th uh and tonight I was just going to retrace parts of that letter for benefit to people whose days fill up and don't get to read all the comment and I also hope that you received my letter of a couple weeks ago to invite you out to explore the area thanks again for taking the

comment tonight I won't uh go too far with it this evening but I do think that the staff have exaggerated the prospects of uh no Greenways South Bay Trail resulting from other possible plans for this site I also think that the possibility of losing the 80 spaces presently in the pit very unlikely with any development might come along on this site that conforms to the zoning and the neighborhood plan it was uh specifically decided that uh a zero sum approach to parking would be followed in the future because the Fair Haven parking district has been unable to provide the required parking in the area I do appreciate the chance to speak for few minutes about the zoning Amendment for increased Building height get with the creation of a development agreement further granting departures from historic design standards waiver from parking requirements preferential grade determinations relinquishment of other easements and other extra privileges please remember that the proposed development agreement fails to require the Improvement of adjacent 10th Street on the west side and west of the trail with sidewalks and angle parking as required at all other Fair Haven development sites this provides substantial Financial benefits to the applicant the building on the pits side under the existing zoning would include the four features staff Call public benefits it wouldn't matter but whether there was a zoning change or not that grants at least two more floors of building across the pit

property without the increase there would be view corridors of the Bay Vista from vacated Columbia and M Avenue on 11th Street behind the building the 10th Street trail entrance already provides an Overlook over Billingham Bay thanks to the parks department they're likely about 15 seconds if you could wrap it up pretty quick likely would be a quotient of affordable housing to take advantage of the incentives provided already and replacement parking is already called for in the development requirements the public complaints have involved the extra height and also the harm to the park-like trail segment on the adjacent Northern block block 12 segment Trail segment is perched on a fill shelf prominade including recently described tide lands customarily controlled by the public mismanagement of the Fair Haven parking district is a perennial public complaint public enjoys the valuable Scenic Vistas along the popular Trail th SE reports to be recently discovered developable land and development there is unnecessary for compliance with Comprehensive planned goals for Fair Haven density the original development plan for the project that informed earlier meetings with the public presented the four building Arrangement on the pit site without the additional Residential Building SE north of the pit block on the west side of the trail instead the northern block portion features new alignment for the trail with a surface parking area this sensible plan recognized the valuable surface uses

for the otherwise encumbered property adjacent to undeveloped T Street north of vacated Columbia though the staff reports indicates that owner revoked the trail easement some years ago the public was not notified and South Bay Trail now is likely the most important site of natural connectivity since development of the Fair Haven Urban Village began I think we're going to have to wrap it up um we do have your letters as record as well so um if you could just bring it to a close I appreciate the time thanks again I hope that you'll uh recognize that there's not a pee under any of these coconuts for public benefits and vote against this proposal for height increase at site height there is was limited to 35 feet prior to 20112 and was already granted an increase to 42t with the Urban Village plan on the south side thank you good evening Commissioners my name is Barbara zra um my condo sits at uh 1128 finnean way directly across from the pit property and I sent you a letter um just have some comments I'm going to be directly affected just as my friends in Fair Haven Gardens um there are some things that I have looked at this trying to look at it as what's a benefit for the community this property I mean my preference would be to leave things as they are most people that's what we want you want to just continue the way things are but that's not going to happen this property is privately owned it's going to be developed so Dave Christensen has provided two different Visions one of

them could be built with just historic historic preservation commission's comments and um according to code but design two that he's presented here this evening provides for a very creative use of this large unusual property and it does in providing the benefits require addition height and I understand that's a difficult thing um I look at the whole project and you can minimize the public benefits but I think that having a permanent betrayal access is important and we have no guarantee that another developer could come in and not care about that um I feel like the parking given that there maybe could be some regulat control is important I was on the parking task force but affordable housing the 12year limit I understand is a state limit and if it's possible at all for the city and it's not you folks it would be the city council if it's possible at all for them to extend it that would be my recommendation and as far as the view corridor I'm very fortunate because that view corridor that 50ft View Corridor will allow me a peekaboo V view I mean right now I have you know a big view but it'll be something and it will be an it will break up what could be a block of buildings I think that Dave has imagined a complex of buildings in the center of Fair Haven with interesting and engaging ways to for people to move through north to south east to west um I think that there are a lot of of benefits for the community and I understand that it's um requires some Sacrifice from those of us

who live across the street we will exchange an increase of height on Mill for the many attributes this completed project will provide and so I support this Vision even though it will mean the loss of my view to the islands thank you thank you good evening uh council members City staff public my name's Doug Robertson I'm a reformed lawyer I retired I was a development lawyer here in town for a long time I was deeply involved in the entire process with the uh Fair Haven Urban Village plan and Dave I was the one that terminated the ease and the public was given notice I represented Ken Imus for a long time before Mr christenson's came along I looked at this site the economics are near impossible there's a huge sewer pipe going through the middle there are big power lines going across the front this is a complicated site I still believe it was a mistake to reduce the height of this uh property in the 2012 Fair Haven Village plan and Now's the Time to rectify that problem and here's why it all gets down to public benefit and also in addition to being a reformed lawyer my wife and I own the Bellingham training and Tennis Club we've owned it since 2000 and we're an integral part uh of that Community First public benefit because that's the only legal issue here is it's going to help the Urban Village it's going to as we bring more people to live there they'll support the businesses that exist there and we want a nice workable liveable walkable area by bringing new uh people to live

there the existing businesses will Thrive even better and I can tell you it's very hard to survive in FA Fair Haven not because of parking because in fact it's not hard once we put in the paid parking you can park down near the tennis club all the time for not much money so it's not we'll get to parking later but it is a place we want to have the second reason is the public benefit to the community and by the way Mr Nafi did an excellent job but I have to point out one thing that you never see here I now teach economics up at watcom Community College and every decision has what's called externalities those are costs born upon people not part of the transaction that is global warming what we didn't see in the public benefit here that we have to start including in every land use decision is what's the impact upon global warming we should crank the height up to 80 ft we should maximize this site why because the growth management Act was passed in 1989 to stop sprawl the people of Washington state didn't like what the legislature did so they did it independent of the legislature because sprawl was such a bad thing it's still bad so as we look at the public benefit add another one because if we increase density what are we doing slowing not stopping slowing climate change if we have people live in urban dense areas is that means they're not traveling there they're able to walk up to the grocery store walk down to the tennis club and work out walk to their bank and if we take the

position that we have to look at other things as a cost we have to look at this benefit and with regard to benefit private view is not a public benefit how do I know that I represented a group of property owners that went against the port development when they increase the height limit down there from their uh planed contract the city of Bellingham planning uh hearings examiner was then affirmed on appeal that private view is not a public benefit to be considered in GMA decision-making so while I feel for all the people that may have their private view affected that's not an issue when you're talking about the growth management act the last thing I want to bring up is parking Ken I represented Ken for years Ken sat down with me and said whatat problems do I face if I let people Park on my property for free and he said is this going to be held against me in the future we met with then pling director or Vega and the mayor I think was Dan Pike and they said nope it won't be used against you when Mr Carlson said that there's a replacement requirement that is not true about 15 seconds okay and it shouldn't be that because pen Imus now Brad Imus is giving the community parking for free that it should be used against them to say no you have to replace that parking because what Mr Christensen and the property owner property developer offering is 80 additional spaces above and beyond the parking code I would strongly recommend in this one add my up confence I'd take it up to 80 ft

certainly approve the 52 feet and please in your future decisions think what are the externalities we're not thinking about here here if we protect private views what we're going to be doing is having more sprawl thank you so much and by the way thank you for serving I know it's a tough job and I appreciate it can you go ahead and state your address to you 800 McKenzie Avenue uh Fair Haven Billingham 98225 all right thanks thank you hi good evening uh my name is Jeremy Beck 473 West Lake sandwich Drive Lam 98229 um my apologies for being a few minutes late not on the list uh a couple things I'd like to bring to maybe the thoughts of people as are considering Fair Haven is the other work this developer has done in Fair Haven I've had the pleasure of knowing this developer for Ping two decades at this point and if you go down to Fair Haven you can really see the signature of this person's consideration for the community you can see that in the walr building you can see that in young you can see that McKenzie these people that we're speaking of that's where they live uh Village books also over in the walkway to the over to uh woods coffee this developer has intentionally put a lot of consideration into the health and wellbe of our community into their Fair Heaven development efforts in the past and I think to the point of the view this unfortunate I forget the gentleman's name here just a moment ago but that is not the Public's consideration it is unfortun into the people at

McKenzie however that building blocked the people behind them 17 years ago when it was built or so so it's not a consideration it is unfortunate but I do believe that the infill there is really with intentionality to be a benefit to the overall well-being of our community bringing jobs that no one's talked about here this evening tons of workingclass jobs benefits to all those people Health and Welfare in addition tax revenue that no one I don't think has spoke about tonight the city didn't touch on that but I'm certain that there's tax revenue coming from this I would imagine like someone has to touch on that right like there's benefits here across the board so my belief is this is a great project I look forward to seeing them move forward I thank everyone for their consideration and uh I think that uh it's going to be a great thing as opposed to this big what do we call it a a kayak testing facility before it's going to be great versus this Mudbug and uh thank you all for your consideration and your public service thank you very much last call for uh public uh hello everyone my name is Hunter EOL and I was born in Bellingham lived here my entire life for a short uh stunt at WSU uh and I'm pretty clearly the youngest person in this room I think I also rent un like unlike a lot of people that have spoken today so just to speak to the condition that a lot of people I know live in uh I live with five other people in a four-bedroom house uh we live like that because it's how we

keep rent cheap and affordable for us people I know live in the same situation and I think a big reason we all live like that is because the city has for decades and decades it's under permitted the amount of housing that we really need bellingham's a very desired City the entire West Coast is and you can see that with Rising housing costs throughout the decades it's become an extreme uh social ill for our society uh and I just noticed a lot of people that have spoken tonight that are kind of against the project generally own and are maybe more insulated against the effects of rising rents uh and I'd just like to say if not this site in the middle of an Urban Village directly across from what I'd consider the Nexus of Fair Haven Village Green uh where really in Bellingham there's no real trees on this site it's ideal for walkability and you know as people were saying helps against global warming and neglecting or reducing sprawl within the city uh and so know I just like to encourage the city to permit this project and uh yeah thank you go ahead and state your address real quick yeah I didn't get that I live uh off old Harin Parkway uh 3020 Harrison Street thank you do we not okay sorry people on Zoom gonna speak go ahead John thank you uh can you hear me hello yeah we can we can hear you if you speak up John so thank you um odd experience in Zoom um I used to run I live at 221 Highland Drive Bellingham I used to run along the public trail that you've been talking about uh

most days and until all the cartilage in my uh Pella eroded away um actually I I'd like to um challenge an assertion from uh planner CT Nafi um there is another criteria that needs to be considered and that is the growth management requirements or prohibitions um it explicitly um prohibits spot reson and if you look at what this is it it is a spot rezone um if it looks like a reone and our spot reone and it quacks like a spot res Zone Walks Like a spot reone and it smells like a spot res Zone that's what it is and so um it should be a non-starter it's illegal um the other issues of a view pedestrian um Corridor actually I assert that a route through an alley is really not a public benefit compared to what you have now um there are a number of other issues but what I really like to focus on is a concern about violating a key principle of good planning um and so if if you're um want to achieve growth management goals of um increasing density in the city it's absolutely critical to maintain the quality of life and experiencing that City and if you continue to um cut off Natural connectivity like this would if you um block views like this would if you um destroy a number of other public benefits as has been described then what you're doing is you're creating conditions in which people who can afford to will flee to outlying areas and people who cannot will be stuck in in places like this so what I suggest you're doing is potentially throwing out the baby with a bath water in

which you to achieve a little bit incremental density you are degrading conditions considerably over a much larger area and so I urge you to consider these ideas and and proceed very cautiously um you you've heard a lot of appeals to the benefits of this and I would suggest the the um detriments are considerably greater thank you very much thank you John ahead Brad yeah Brad Whitman uh 1615 Old samish Road Bellingham I just want to speak uh in support of this adjustment to the height um specifically just Bellingham uh two two speakers ago that somebody mentioned the gross management Act and the under permitting that Bellingham has um looks like in 2023 we permitted including single family and multif family units and only 42020 422 units which is significantly below the growth that Bingham has experienced so anything we can do anything you guys can do as a commission um to bring more units to within the city that will prevent sprawl I am in support of specifically uh to Urban growth areas that's all I have thank you thank you Brad is that all we got Heather he I guess we're gonna jump into uh our own conversations about this uh proposal so um we just kind of go through and anyone want to start the discussion question on the parking public parking is it paid public parking or is it free public parking what's the situation there you're referring to the public parking that would be required as part of The Proposal the 80 spaces yeah yep yeah um the the city has not put any um it

would most likely be paid par working um but the city has not put any parameters on that um so it's solely up to the just available to the public in some way so it's not a private parking garage it's a it will be yeah it'll be 80 spaces of public parking available to the public parking available to the public hey Rose thank you everyone and I appreciate the opportunity to be remote when I'm home sick um one of the things that I'm excited to see in this project because no other project in Bellingham has ever done it is to do include affordable housing into a uh for-profit cons like a for Market developer to include affordable housing and I I want to make sure that I understand that this is utilizing the 12 year mfte program and that they'll be required to provide 20% of the units at 60% Ami that is correct they will be utilizing the um the 12year requirement for affordable housing in the that's adopted in the Bellingham Municipal Code now so that's that that's 20% you know roughly the the numbers of the units have not been determined just yet but you know we're talking roughly 200 units so you're talking roughly 400 or excuse me 40 units of affordable housing for 12 years and Washington State um in 2001 changed the mfte legislation to allow for an extension of those programs is that something that the city might consider for a project like this yeah currently uh the city is engaged um with yeah we're going through this a re-evaluation of the mfte program right now so just in

uh for the Public's benefit the city has U the state allows for you to have an eight a 12 and a 20e option uh the city has employed the eight and the 12year option during the time that it's been available we have seen utilization of the 8-year which is afforded to people that are building multif family houses but does not require any affordability components so to Rosa's comment U this would be the first that would utilize the 12year there is an opportunity to to extend that and included up into the uh 20 years we're evaluating the program because we have not seen uh utilization of the 12-year option and so part of our analysis is to uh work with a consultant to drive some of that understanding what those land use economics are to help look at the different incentive packages or or greater utilization rates associate with so I just just to say that what makes me excited about this is that um I have heard that one of the barriers is that nobody has done it yet and that's just one of those things that people need to see an example so I'm excited about this project for that reason and um yeah I'm just excited to see affordable housing um built by for-profit developers when we say um I guess I want to know was it Mutual or was this from the city or the planning or was it from the developer so who came to the mutual conclusion of 12E did we leverage and say hey we would really like for you to do this or did they say you know we are listening to the community as Mr Christian wison

was saying and talk to various people knows what's going on so we would like to offer this opportunity yeah so originally when the um uh the developer came to us and said hey uh you know I'm looking for an increase in height what do you think about it um internally we said well what's important if we're going to increase the height there needs to be some sort of community benefit and so um affordable housing again affordable housing parking and that trail were things that we determined internally what was important and then we presented those to the developer um and said hey if you want us to initiate this these are the things that need to be included in it and that affordability component is based on our current code rules and regulations so you presented that as a public benefit to the developer did the developer then reciprocity say well we think these are public benefits that we could offer well I think you know when we outlined what we were what we thought were was appropriate um the developer essentially agreed to that and said yes um they also added some things to it uh The Pedestrian connection that goes through the the development that was actually added it kind of came after the fact um The Overlook the the scenic view Overlook um that we didn't really that I forgot to mention um there's an Overlook that's um included as a part of this proposal as well just off of the trail um that was something that the developer brought to the table as well that it was wasn't

something that we initially um noted also add that um there was some earlier conversations of the parking being around 50 spaces and it was the current property owner that wanted to drive that up to to 80 spaces and so there was some discussion around that and just to Kurt mentioned it earlier but just to to reiterate it a little bit there's several ways that you can approach a zoning text Amendment Council initiated Planning Commission initiated and uh director initiated and so to to have that come under the ospice of this department and this director that's where the development agreement discussions really started the um development looks pretty dense just in terms of buildings and I guess it's maybe not that easy to see just in general scale um as is as it's drawn currently because it's pretty schematic but just curious if there's um like structured parking is that um tied into it or is it too early to really um state that the site is challenging in that it slopes um kind of both from uh East down to West and from north kind of down to South and so it's kind of a cross slope um the current conceptual design as it is would have a parking access off of Mill and then there would be some and then there's also another that would come off of tenth uh on the on the east side of or excuse me the west side of the property um and so there are two different entrance points uh to that particular public parking is anticipated primarily off of The Mill Street side um but there's an

opportunity to look at there was also a comment from the public about um improvements along 10th Street and I was wonder if you could speak to that um I think I think I'm going to use a visual to help explain that while Kurt's doing that one of the things I think is important to make a distinction of there are certain things that the development agreement identifies above and beyond what the code would already require and then there are Provisions that would be required of any development proposal and so some of those on street parking spaces and the formalization may not be covered specifically under the development agreement because they're achievable under the existing code requirements so Kurt can go through that a little bit so you can see 10 Street right here um on the the right side that 10th straight RightWay kind of sorry about that um kind of extends up this up this way to the property um rways are intended for transportation facilities whether those are multimodal whether they're for auto or not they're intended for transportation facilities um one of the things that 10th Street really does is it it it's more it acts more as the the trail Corridor than it would for pars or or or access so what will happen is the 10th Street will be improved the existing you kind of got the the trail that comes into the parking lot and then you got the trail off here where that trail is in this area right now that'll all be sidewalk so public sidewalk will be adjacent to um the

building here entry comes in off of 10th Street goes into the parking garage here um and that's really where the the street in uh Street would stop um all of this it's pretty steep slope that drops off here um 10th Street that that continues through here um this the city said essentially said we're never going to build that um and because of that The Pedestrian F facilities acts as that Transportation Corridor so there's so there's no need for the street to come through here and because we've got the trail Corridor you got the trail that allows for pedestrian connectivity to go through there so you can see um tenth is on the top of the exhibit there uh and kind of where that South Bay Trail easan is what C's talking about so that's where the kind of the parking comes in uh through a portion of that site and then it also comes in off of a mill um below the building that has the label that says south building I think you can you can see again this is that 10th Street right away in this area all these little lines right here those are toppo lines so you can see how um steep it is here and hence no need for this the if we've got the trail Corridor there's definitely no need for transportation or vehicle traffic through here um so there's just simply no need to extend it was discussed uh that 20 years is not a part of the Bellingham code what would have to happen to make that a part of it um we would have to make a code revision uh and be able to make that an option available to

that's part of the that's part of the consideration that's coming out in the study that we're underway with right now is there a reason we didn't just add 20 with the eight and the 12 originally just to have that option later I don't know if you can speak that I wasn't here when when that original consideration was going they um I will say that um There Was You know the eighty year the 20 12y year and they're also geographically constrained there's certain areas within the city that were identified but unfortunately I wasn't here to be able to describe the decision- making process at that time what I'm worried about about is that if we have a big boom of construction say in the next 10 years and then all everyone has eight and 12 year affordable housing but then all the affordable housing goes away within a very short period of time we could have a housing crisis once again at that time and I would love to see an extension if it was possible here or in the future noted and that's certainly what we're trying to evaluate at this time um one thing that I have not seen mentioned in any of this so far is handicap accessibility it is probably I think in in my experience and I have personal experience and professional experience in this that it is the hardest group to house in this town there is no handicap accessible units that are available at all especially for the people that are in the donut we have public housing we've got plenty of handicap accessible apartments but there's

nothing outside of that and the Private Industry is telling us that we just not going to we're just not going to participate in the Americans for Disabilities Act so um and I'm hearing that from like landmark and all these other places when I am me personally having to look for a place for my 78-year-old mother right so I have personal experience looking for this and I'm not not finding it and it's four years running now so um that's one thing the other thing that I want to know is when we are offering units in this what is the how do we know that the 60% of Ami is going to be going towards people who qualify in the donut who are how do we know that we are actually housing people in those 60% of Ami those affordable or what I prer to call Workforce housing units um that are actually a part of our Workforce and not somebody who's just looking to save a little extra so that they can me I want to know that we're actually housing families that cannot be housed otherwise um so every new building that's built of a certain size um Ada is a requirement so that includes both Ada parking stalls as well as Ada units so any new building of this side yeah sure it's it's one of those um building code requirements um so accessible units are required for these larger scale builds so that leads me to are the the um Ada Apartments going to be included in the affable or is it going to be in the other units and it does say um a little while ago we said that you know we didn't know what those um

affordable units are going to look like but it says right here that they're all going to be studio apartments um so what about families what about families with handicapped children I'm just curious if we're if we're going to be hitting any of those types um I guess I did want to talk to your or speak to your previous question about the um how do we ensure um that the 60% am as meaning as part of the program and when you enter into that program and you get that tax exemption for the 12 years there's a report that have to be done so there's there's reporting that's required so we can track that um that they are actually meeting that that requirement there's an income qualification that you go through at the front end and then there's the tracking that Kurt's referring to so it's it's kind of a a two prong and when it when you talk about unit size currently the um Bellingham code does not stipulate um any sort of mix of units or what those those units have to be in this in this program I saw some other uh let's see impact fees being waved possibly is that correct could you speak to any other other advantages that are being given to the developer no our um the our impact fee code allows for impact fee reductions to occur um and as one one of the requirements is if we have a public trail that is identified in our open space um Corridor or whether we're we're getting a public easement um for this example we have the ability our code allows for Park impact fees fees to be credited

toward that and so that is one of the things that would that the developer would likely apply for as a park impact fee because they're providing that dedicated Trail Corridor that easement um and then construction cost um that's something that is taken advantage um by many developments in the city are there any other U advantages to the developer other than the heights no really um the the only thing different here is that we are increasing the height um everything else all the other development regulations um that they will be meeting associated with that so um the height is really the only thing that's different uh that anyone else would not maybe maybe um able to utilize all the the impact fee credits are all allowed the multif family tax exemption is already allowed and for just the public and myself could you say what the height does for for the developer how many more units is it possible is there other things that are advantageous to the developer for the height increase uh well I think from some of the comments that we he tonight um it really helps a project pencil um when you're allowed when you're able to get more units that helps you spread those costs across um the the multiple of units so getting another story on this building will allow multiple units to be um developed and that helps pay for the to pay for the building no there is no um no final unit count because I I think as the Mr Christensen indicated there's still work to be done on the drawings we've got

some um some starts of where we're where where they're headed but those drawings and unit counts and everything has not been finalized yet I'm wondering if at the end of the 12 years for for for basically the parking and for the for the um Trail access and stuff I'm wondering if there is some sort of contingent for the city to have an option to take that over or to still be a part of that or somehow you know keep it open to the public rather than turning it private the 12 years is specific to the affordable units it's it's it's not with regard to the parking or the trail component but is that I mean is there a point there is a point that at any given point it could be turned over to private rather than or you know have the access being rescinded right the um the trail right now uh as Kurt alluded to uh was previously on an easement um that easement was revoked because um the trail has existed and we've continued to maintain it there's a um there's a discussion about whether it's a prescriptive easement and whether we have the right to do that but because of the project proposal and the design components there's a need to adjust the location to make some improvements that's what the developer would be utilizing the park impact fee credits for to build that to build the Overlook and also as part of that in uh inclusion of the project would be an easement giving us per it uh in that particular so it would it would give us that certainty that I think you're that you're asking

about say this project fails God forbid uh what happens to the zoning when there's this agreement in place this agreement connect with just the developer does it connect with the spot zoning as it is how does that work yeah the the way that the the code is drafted is that the only way the height is increased is through a development agreement so if this develop for some reason the development agreement um or the developer doesn't isn't able to move forward the height does not increase it stays at the existing so we wanted to make sure again any increase in height was tied to public benefit so without a development agreement it stays at 42 feet and 35 ft that's what makes spot zoning I guess legal because of the public benefit it's actually not a spot rezone um a rezone is something that um the zoning allows you to um it determines the use so if we were to say um we're going to Zone this to Industrial right in the middle of of this area and it's just for that property that could arguably be a spot rezone but changing the the height standards um not a not a spot reasone I just want to think about some things and theorize here for a moment and and maybe hear from Mr Swanson or Mr Christensen and representing the developer and I know that from a city standpoint we're going to do our part planning city council we making a recommendation in the planning committee and we're thinking about extending and things like that I'd like to hear from them if it's okay if that's allowed I

don't know the procedure that we go by is that something that you think you might like to do or the owners might like to do is extend that for affordable housing I don't know if you understand my question so I sorry you were going like know I don't want to blow everybody out with my voice here so I guess the question Mr Christensen on Mr Swanson is the fact that you've heard the city's approach or what they're doing and they're showing you their hand that for the affordable housing units of the the 20% whatever the units may be and we're saying if you go up to 200 uh it'll be 40 or so is that something number one it sounds like you would be agreeable to and you are it seems like in principle right yeah and we now know that's like a 12E deal and we know that the city is doing their due diligence as we've heard Mr L's here and so would you be willing to say hey we're if you extend it or we'll we'll raise our hands and be willing to extend it do I see that kind of you might say leadership enthusiasm initiative or not so I guess I'm still a little confused to so so so what I'm saying is um as I'm asking the question about the stes 39 units or 40 units or whatever it is the 20% is there that kind of enthusiasm knowing what the public need is for affordable housing and our community without the city even doing their due diligence what they're going to do would there be enthusiasm from you and the group you represent to say hey I know you're going to do your thing but we want to

raise our hands and say we're excited about that we'll we'll we'll go with it we'll go with it we'll go longer than 12 years we'll go 20 years it'll be forever well that I I can't answer for the developer I I mean the part of the affordable providing affordable housing is a subsidized cost yes it doesn't the rent doesn't pay for the extra costs unfortunately that's why 200 permits came in last week trying to beat the new code that's going to add 10 15 per.

so uh you know it's everything we can do we're trying to push everything we can to get a nice project here for the community and doing as much affordable pring as we possibly can afford to do so uh this is on the edge of that from what my understanding is um so uh I don't want to put you out there yeah I'm just wanted to hear was there at least from what you can ascertain some enthusiasm to at least meet what we're talking about now or more or better without the carrot stick from oh you see what I'm saying meaning that they wouldn't have to you would be willing to do it anyway public benefit to do it anyway because of you're longstanding in the community because you love this community because you know the need that's that pass that there is no question there is a need for affordable hous why hasn't a private developer done affordable housing anywhere in this city it it really comes down to pardon me so it really comes down to cost unfortunately it is incredibly you know insurance has gone up 19% taxes gone up 9% uh cost of materials have gone up everything has gone up and it is very very difficult and F Haven is one of the most popular areas in the city highest rents unfortunately so really be being really excited about being able to provide this here right if we can make this happen uh but uh probably wouldn't have happened without these other things happening with the project is my understanding so that kind of answers your question yeah a little bit I see a little bit of

enthusiasm I guess you're a little bit yeah but you don't think this is going to be a bad deal do you it's going to be a fair deal not a good deal not a bad bad deal it'll be fair it's uh believe me I've been told many times along the process here said forget all this just go with the zoning as it is and do the big block forget it all it's a painful long arduous process one of your colleagues mentioned that earlier that's right so but we you we really do and I kept saying doing the right thing it is the right thing this is a key property here it's really an opportunity to do something really good and I really wanted to be part of that and this is the whole package to do that so uh you know I've been told many times forget it just go with it the zoning and I really didn't want to do that and the developer didn't want to do that he wanted to do the right thing also but uh it's a process it's not easy to do the right thing I agree with you so I see I see a little bit of as they say Pito small amount of enthusiasm and I hope it continues to grow yeah because we need it as a community absolutely need most affordable housing unfortunately needs to be done subsidized by public housing authority with id4 housing that's the only way it's going to happen I think in this country we need 1.1 million new housing units in state of was or in this state by the next how many years I mean it's just not going to happen so how can we help it any way we can I mean the cost of materials aren't

going to change so the cities and governments are what do you have is your tools it's really entitlements and permits and that's about all there is and we're trying to help along that process otherwise it just wouldn't even happen here at all so well thank you thank you I didn't want to cut you off Mr Swanson if you have some things you might want to share thank you thank you I think Rose uh if you're still have a question I saw your hand up earlier uh yeah yeah well I was I was curious about your comment on the makeup of the affordable units um is do you know if there's a requirement that uh they have be like similar makeup and have similar amenities and things like that to the market rate units thanks I'm actually going to come up here because I want to um one first address Rose's question and then also um second I want to provide a little more um history on kind of the the height um currently the Bellingham Municipal Code does not require or have any rules or regulations specific to unit makeup um or percentage um kind of a you know other jurisdictions they do um we have some recommendations where we think we can if you're going to do this they should be representative of the types of units so if you're going to have uh you know 10 units of or 10 10 three-bedroom units then you should have some sort of ratio equivalent to that our code doesn't require that though yet um that's one of the things that we're looking at as we look at expanding the the multif family tax

exemption um do we need to tweak our code a little bit more to make sure that you get a good blending of those units that answers the question um and then I did want to talk a little bit about the height um we had obviously height and how how it got established um what it means we heard some some comments say about quality of life um the changing you know just this one site I do think it's really important to look at the commercial core Heights throughout the district right um 48 feet is not something that is taller than what other places in the district have um it's taller than some but not all originally when we went into the Urban Village planning back in 2010ish um the initial recommendation was 56 feet we want we thought 56 feet was appropriate throughout the district um that 5 56 ft was was really based on the existing historic buildings that we have in there and that's why you can see this kind of this commercial core area in here this is also the historic district and we we wanted to make sure that the new buildings that came here um didn't necessarily take all away from those existing buildings so if you look throughout the district um those buildings that have been there a long time they are they range in scale so um you've got some single story historic buildings in there but you also have some very tall buildings as well um out there uh so you know when we talk about you know public benefit and and changes and things like that if you look throughout here you know

this large area is really taller there's much of this area is actually taller than what's being asked for tonight um so I just want to keep that in mind that um again we're not talking about a substantial height um increase in relation to the other Heights within the District getting back to the affordable housing real quick u i see in the document there's three buildings West North and South is that correct it's under uh it's on page 25 of the packet thanks um this actually shows up pretty good you've got as um Blake was talking about earlier you're going to have a large parking structure that's underneath all of this and then you've got these different buildings associated with it so um all of these will sit on top of a parking structure Podium if I could prob one point of clarity the building that's labeled West building that one does not have parking structure under it it's just the four that are on the left side of that image okay so let me and I'll clarify I'll clarify that it actually does have a parking but it's it's part of that building so you've got this big one superstructure right yeah not a super structure you've got one structure that's here with these buildings on top of it and then there is underground parking in this one as well it's off on its own on page 25 it describes the studios that's in each one the west building has type of affordable housing units not available the north building is 10 and a half% of that building it seems like and then the south

building is 9 and a half% it's kind of confusing is it 10 and a half percent of 100% of that building or is it the 10 and a half percent of the to Total makeup of all three buildings green light is on thank you uh commissioner Jones I actually wrote this I can see now mistake or the in inconsistency potentially or the confusion um the 10 and a half is 10 and a half% of the total total number of units in the entirety of the project 10 and a half% of that that that that that portion of the affordable housing will be in that building then nine and a half will be um old eyes need readers um nine and a half will be in the south building so and then thus no affordable in the west building correct okay can we get some clarification in the document for that or is it necessary um if we need the well like Mr nabbefeld indicated at the beginning um the development agreement is processed via a separate path um and I'm pretty sure that the planning department understands this but I can talk to Mr nabbefeld and the legal department to see if we need to tweak that language to make sure it's it's clear it's not a problem thank you commissioner just since I feel like that the Crux of what we're talking about is like whether or not we're going to allow buildings to be taller than what we've set their heights at and and in this case it's like an exchange for things that are public good but um I mean obviously the city's growing our population's getting bigger um you know Bellingham historically

was made of several kind of Central Business districts and this is one of them so I'm curious like what what do we see as like as Bellingham as we age as a city and get more people here um what do we think a building height in general for these Central Business districts well I think um I'll I'll start and maybe Blake will um add to it uh one of the things that we we we we heard and and we hear this sometimes when we come before you you know presenting proposed code changes is you know this is the code it should be that way zoning codes are always in flux we're always adopting and changing them and amending them um part of our Urban Village strategy was once we got these identified these places we had some development occurring in them we went back and um we did what was known we we called it the urban Village report card we wanted to see how our rules and regulations were were working as a part of that process we actually changed certain uh certain parameters FL are ratios were were changed in the fountain District um we've made some tweaks with the the samish way Urban Village as well so the the the zoning rules are we constantly looking and evolving and changing um to meet the impacts and or the uh the issues that we're confronted with right um so changing a rule is not it's very common place we actually do it every year um we call it our running list of code changes so every year we come forward with with changes to our codes so it's something that happens all the time um

in in relation to our overall height uh the downtown core has no height limit it has not had a height limit it has not had height limits for a very very very long time um decades um so it's one of those things that financially height in our city has not made a lot of sense um it it cost a lot of money to go up and what we have seen is that um projects wanting to go 10 12 stories you know we've we've actually had some at 20 20 stories talked about um they couldn't make it work um so at some point in time in Bellingham it probably will make sense to have taller buildings at this point in time it does not yeah I guess I I feel like that there's that sweet spot that's probably more like the 48 feet that is actually is economically a little bit advantageous yeah and when you think about the land use economics really Construction typology IES dictate a lot of that so you start to look at what can you do in wood frame construction what what are the trigger points when you get to Steel uh you know construction when the elevators get triggered those kind of costs get uh you know become um real and and making uh driving some of those decisions obviously the parking has some component to it you know um I won't speak to this project specifically in this regard but when we look at surface parking lots The General kind of school thought is that that's about 30,000 of space when you start talking about structured you can be anywhere to 60 to 100,000 space depending on the complications of

the site and you know the overall details the other part that I wanted to mention a little bit to to get back to the question is um there's really two pieces uh that get at kind of um looking at the planning Horizon for the city we're engaging right now in the periodic update for our comp ensive plan known as the Bellingham plan and we have a requirement to look at that and and produce that to the state by the end of 2025 um and that looks at um growth projections for our area and and we heard a little bit tonight about the growth management act and what are we doing to accommodate some of that um those different population projections and needs to do that um the other piece that kind of goes along with that and this is new for the state of Washington is that um in 2021 we had the we had House Bill 1220 that was adopted and it Set uh growth projections and targets for uh by county by county basis and um that was one of the things that that has come up and and you heard mentioned earlier you know 1.1 million houses across the state by the year 2044 so when we look at the Horizon for watom County um by that year 2044 as a county we're obligated to uh we're working towards a target of 34,0 377 units and what house bill 1220 does is it it's the first time we've taken that Target number and tried to break it down by economic strata and start looking at different percentages of the affordable uh you know are of median income and so we start to look at where what our obligations and

I could go on at a lot longer I I'll stop essentially there but we know that we need to be hitting a wide range of uh price points not just the most subsidized but the full range um and even some permanent Supportive Housing pieces and that speaks to some of the things that you're talking about um and to do that we're going to have to increase the numbers of uh you know that we're building if we're going to if we're going to be able to meet some of those targets did did this umal was it required that the multif family tax exemption be used no not as a specific mechanism it was as Kurt mentioned when when the concept was saying came forward and say hey we'd like the director to consider uh you know amending some of the code what were some of those public benefits the concept of affordable housing was brought up and then the conversation uh extended from there and so that was where they chose to go in terms of looking at the offerings that we have with the MF yeah I think that the multif family tax exemption is um applicable anyone going into the Fair Haven Village can uh ask for the multif family tax exemption I I the three um stated public benefits I'm I'm I'm feeling like the parking one's a little bit weak to be honest with you I mean it's nice that the parking was added but it's not going I'm sure it's not going to be free parking right so it's it's a nice thing which is okay but the other two I really feel those are legitimate public benefits and I I applaud Mr

Christensen for his efforts The Pedestrian connectivity through the site that I actually asked him about that I'm like what's what's that all about because that's not a thing nobody does that you're giving a very valuable square footage right right there so I think that's a nice public benefit the uh The View Corridor I'm own opinions about that again another public benefit above and beyond what the the minimum is required here and I think that the the additional height that's the trade-offs you know um I think if anybody's ever St planning studied planning these are the trade-offs you've been making for decades upon decades long before I was ever born you know those are the trade-offs so uh this is a very minimal trade-off it's not an extra 100 of feet it's 6 feet right so I think it's a really solid trade-off the public benefits pretty solid here anybody else okay I feel like I'm harping on this a little bit but I just want to make sure that we're um that everybody including myself fully understands about this 60% Ami so when we were talking in a previous meeting about the Ami um average medium income for a family of for $102,000 a year so um obviously you're not going to put aund you know a family of four in a studio apartment so I'm wondering what the Ami for a a single person so 60% of Ami for a single person what is that number I don't know that I could give that to you off the top of my head um our housing manager samulet probably could I cannot I cannot so I I'm happy

to get that to you but it's nice and fluffy to talk about no I I appreciate it yes you're absolutely right it's it's it's based off a household of four but it's it's it's scaled appropriately and so yes if even if you can't get into a Studio unit with that household of four there's an equation that will draw that down so it will still be the 60% um yeah when I'm trying to get at is is I you know for especially for the public to fully understand or comprehend what we're talking about you know is this a person who makes $330,000 a year that can get into this apartment or is it going to be someone who you know where where's the limit how we want this to be relatable to the public that's watching us yeah and I think the presumption of the household of four assumes uh two working adults um and likely to be to children uh and so so you have a dual income but again it's still to get to that dual income and get to that 102 that you're talking about now you're talking about a combined income of you know 60% so you know 60,000 uh a year roughly um you know with that so then if you say okay you're taking that to working hustes now maybe that's down to somebody who's making and I don't want this to be definitive out there but somewhere in the $30,000 range uh is when you start to look at that and so they go through an income qualification process when they equate all of that out and the individual has to has to demonstrate that they are meeting you know within that range underneath that

60% it's just nice that when we're talking you know publicly that we actually give the public some more concrete numbers that they can understand because 60% of Ami is a fluffy number that doesn't exists to most people but $30,000 is a hard number oh that includes me and I think that that's just as important to let everyone know that that's what we're aiming for and we can certainly make an effort to do that with so the city council has that Clarity Arbor I found some numbers if four persons is $57,000 one person is$ 40,000 which I don't know if you I mean the the state minimum wage for salaries and and things like that you know it's it's definitely going up so I think that that's I mean I guess good news in the fact of that you know hopefully those minimum you know what what what what Ami is should be increasing as well not only is the state required we had the local initiative here that that increased it for Bellingham as well uh I don't know if we're getting close to being able to move forward with this I don't hear much in terms of people kind of having qualms with what's being proposed here I personally think that it seems like a good thing um I know that getting rid of people's views is always you know it's it's painful you know so it's not to to say that that doesn't matter or anything like that but I feel like that you know in in the greater sense of what we're looking at here like it it just seems makes sense so I don't know if um other people kind of feel the same

way try some Jen we going to come back to both Mr Swanson and Mr Christensen and the company they represent is at Dominion help me with the name am I correct on that assumption Dominion yeah Dominion yeah yeah okay and I'm just trying to always use the wisdom of Solomon as the organization the company rep wasent or have you ever tried to think about buying Goodwill with what some of the letters and concerns we have in the community about views and things of this sort has there ever been a consideration or thought process about those folks who've shared and many people youve met Mr Christians in to say you know maybe we could I know you're not going to get the view back right if this goes forward but how could we buy some good will with those community members members uh either through compensation either through some Community picnic I don't know I don't have that creativity but many of you do has has that thought ever come to mind how do we buy Goodwill which some of the folks we've kind of tweaked off a little bit with their view how do we do that is there a way we could do that that would be respectable to them or maybe ask them in a survey or invite them to just have a community meeting and say what would be respectful but yet show that we have a heart for the greater Urban Village of Fair Haven and to show we're trying to bring about Goodwill as a new neighbor thanks for asking that sure so so I do my best to meet with people oneon-one they come to my office I go to

their place of home I've been doing a lot of that and trying to listen to what they have and I'm trying to compromise everything right maximize development maximize cost Effectiveness be respectful the neighbors so this 48 foot height thing you know I'm going to lower it as much as possible because that's what I want to do but what's happening now we've got the new energy code so I've got extra insulation on the roof I got to have 2% slope on the roof I got to have a 30-inch parit and I go down this I need 9 foot of ceiling height I've got to have air uh heat recovery ventilator I've got to have exhaust for all this stuff so I need 9 fet so all this stuff adds up and I'm counting inches on it so as 48 feet Works can I get to 46 can I get to 473 I'm going to try my best but I don't want to do a lot of that work until I know we can move forward but I guess I could just tell you honestly from me my personal Integrity I will do my best to lower it as much to be respectful of them because I think it's a big deal there are neighbors and I want to lower it as much as I can um you know a lot of zoning codes they they say it's 48 feet 56 feet 35 feet uh there a lot of those numbers are based on you know it's like a code you got three people that want different things and it's a compromise that happens it's not based on the reality of what's needed especially now with the new energy codes are happening there's just a lot of stuff that has to happen exterior walls now have to be r25 so

you either got to do a 2x8 exterior wall not 2x6 or 2x6 with 2 Ines of exterior insulation mean it goes on and on but uh I it's it's a new code and we're trying to do our best so I could just say personally I'm going to do my best to be respectful that's why we have this 50ft Corridor we lined up right with the there's a common roof deck up on fairen Gardens and everyone gets a show because not everyone's facing west not a few that aren't and that's a common area so at least we'd line up with that looks right at the uh um Alaska ferry that comes in where it docks um can you see a big Panorama not necessarily but this isn't a view area I mean there was no promise of being a view anywhere I had I lived up on South Hill and a guy blocked my view of the bay I was pretty upset but nothing I could really do about it so but I'm going to be respectful of that as much as I can that's all I can tell you does that answer your question well and I've met with people and that's how I've encouraged I've gone to actually we've had uh snacks and those kinds of things so I had one house uh but you can see there's a lot of stuff there's a lot of trees right there on the site right now that block views for quite a few properties so make that even well once again I I applaud your efforts and I'm always trying to figure out a solution or a common ground it sounds like that's your heart's desire and I'm sure you'll pass that on and do what you can it sounds like so I just wanted to to make sure

that was there and hopeful that other things can be done to be creative for goodwi so thank you it's a balance as I mentioned earlier I feel like uh making any motions we to that point yet I'll make a motion to approve as yes I a thank you I move to accept the findings and facts and conclusions and recommendations contained in the today's date uh 28th March 28 March 28th uh 20 24 staff report written or modified through discussion and forwarded uh recommendation of approval um to the city can Council all right we have motion and a second that was to uh accept the issues of facts and finance and conclusion pretty much as presented uh go ahead and get a vote uh all those in favor oh conversation sorry oh I do have one minor tiny little thing uh and I just think we need to say it before it gets approved is there just a typo there's just a silly little typo on page 21 part D says the benefit it's the difference between an A and an e it's just a minor thing tiny little thing but I just before it goes forward can you repeat that one more time it's 21 and it's in the dev page 21 one um the second to the last line it says the benefits include increasing Den deny it's supposed to be I'm I'm assuming it's the benefits is added to T I guess noted thank you I thought it was that earlier but now I guess it's the yeah so anyway small thing any more questions or comments about the motion um so I guess we'll amend it just with that small correction as noted by bar um but we'll go ahead and

get a a vote for that um all those in favor um raise your hand or say I guess we've got rose on the zoom so go ahead and just raise your hands uh in favor all those oppose raise your hand all right motion passes looks like it was unanimous okay I think that includes uh this portion um we could go ahead and look at what we have upcoming from the director uh thank you uh just a one reminder of the next meeting that you have coming up um hopefully you were able to watch the lake Wacom Joint Council and commission meeting last night um that we we were hoping um would help a lot with the the Silver Beach and the lake Wacom Reservoir discussion so um hopefully you were able to to view that if you weren't um there it will was recorded and it will be replayed um so study that if you if you didn't didn't watch it please do because I think that will definitely help with the discussion um on April 11th which is your next meeting and work session I did notice it's already posted online the YouTube video so I wasn't able to check it out myself but I'll definitely uh watch the recording if I may also add um not specifically for this body but just wanted to inform you and and the general public as well um as we talked about a little bit tonight the Bellingham plan is underway there's a lot of information on engage Bellingham to that effect they are hosting of an a range of different openhouse uh discussions I know both at your last meeting and at tonight's meeting there was discussion about

afford affordable housing and that is the focus of the next uh open house session for the um engage Bellingham which is going to be on April 16th it's from 5: to 7 p.m at seahome high school and so that's an opportunity for members of the public to weigh in specifically on that topic or just to you know provide their thoughts and concerns on that as well so we'll have one on affordable housing housing affordability on the 16th the next one after that is on uh May 15th uh and that one focuses a little bit more on the economic silence so I know those were two topics that came up this evening Blake before you go um recent news out of Seattle you know they're tackling their affordable housing problem in various ways one of them is micro units is that a conversation because I know that uh they even came up this evening you know like all right so it's affordable but it's so little you're cramming five people into 300 square feet of space right we're aware of the conversation it hasn't really ingrained heavily uh in the current thought process I think um where the focus is a little bit more now as we talked a little bit now about the um mfte and inclusionary Zoning those are certainly at the Forefront of the thoughts the other conversations that are really stemming about that is um what we can do around both getting production up overall uh but then allowing for a range of unit types that hit those different levels um and so so one of the points of discussion that will be coming

forward uh I'll say at this point because I don't have a specific time frame but probably spring or early summer is consideration of doing an interim housing uh ordinance in advance of House Bill 1110 and so whether that will have a component that will speak to that as well is certainly something that's in consider that's a a concern that I think that all the members of this commission have is that the the connection between you know the regulatory world and the real world which Mr Christenson mentioned you know the real world creates or has to deal with real problems where the regulations say well let's do this but if it doesn't work in the real world then it just doesn't work period right appreciate good conversation thanks we've done some uh statistically valid surveys through the um Bellingham plan stuff and so we are trying to to base some of that thinking in the real world and getting that feedback but these type of events like the open houses is what really let truth some of those things and allows people to speak their own uh experiences and so we can really help inform those decisionmaking and the policy driven off of that lived experience and so that's certainly a very valuable piece that we move forward right like to thank everybody for coming out tonight and uh for all the work that you guys do at the city as well so appreciate it and um guess we'll officially adjourn this meeting see you next time [Music] time