CITY OF BELLINGHAM HEARING EXAMINER STAFF REPORT … · raised concerns regarding the proposed use, increased traffic from the proposal, deficiency of the Traffic Impact Analysis,

CITY OF BELLINGHAM HEARING EXAMINER STAFF REPORT PDC2013-00002N AR2013-00001 /DRC2013-00008/CAP2013-00019 University Ridge, Purpose-built student housing September 11 , 2013

Introduction

Ronald T. Jepson has submitted land use applications on behalf of Ambling University Development Group for consideration of a development for purpose-built student housing, w~ich is considered a boarding/rooming house pursuant to BMC 20.16.020 B. (3), known as University Ridge. The applicant has submitted applications for planned development, multifamily design review, critical areas, and a variance request. The site is located at 4413 Consolidation Avenue, generally located east of the Nevada/Consolidation intersection.

Consolidated Permit Process I Hearing Examiner Authority Pursuant to BMC 21.10.060, the applicant requested to use the optional consolidation permit process for the Planned Permit, Multifamily Design Review, Critical Areas Permit, and Variance applications.

The submitted applications are Type II permits with the exception of the variance application, which is a Type Ill-A permit. Pursuant to BMC 21.10, the Type Ill-A permit is the highest process type number of the proposed permits and, therefore, all consolidated permits shall be reviewed through the Type Ill-A permit process. The Hearing Examiner makes the final decision on Type Ill-A permit applications pursuant to BMC 21.10.120 J. An appeal of the Hearing Examiner decision may be filed with Whatcom County Superior Court.

Under the existing zoning, Multifamily, Planned , a boarding/rooming house is an outright permitted use subject to compliance with BMC 20.16, 20.25 and 20.38.050 B. Dormitories are included in these boarding/rooming house provisions as well.

Exhibits

EXHIBIT A: Site Plan and Building Elevations EXHIBIT B: Staff Recommended Conditions EXHIBIT C: 1980 Puget Neighborhood Plan EXHIBIT D: Cedar Ridge (aka Hawley's Replat) Preliminary Plat Resolution EXHIBIT E: Historical Development Activity EXHIBIT F: Pre-application Conference Comments and Plans EXHIBIT G: SEPA Determination

4413ConsolidationAve - University Ridge Hearing Examiner Staff Report

EXHIBIT H: EXHIBIT I: EXHIBIT J: EXHIBIT K: EXHIBIT L: EXHIBIT M: EXHIBIT N: EXHIBIT 0: EXHIBIT P: EXHIBIT Q:

Pedestrian Facilities and Distances WT A Transit Route Maps Aerial Zoning Map Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Applicant's Design Review Narrative Wetland Map Buffer Average Plan Height Restrictions Variance Criteria - BMC 20.18.020 Site Preservation Map

EXHIBIT R: Applicant's Analysis - Puget and Samish Neighborhood

ATTACHMENT 1 - Public Comment

Incorporated by reference in their entirety are the Comprehensive Plan, Bellingham Municipal Code, WTA transit routes, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (91

h Edition).

STAFF REPORT INDEX

This staff report is divided into Sections as follows:

SECTION I - PROJECT OVERVIEW/STAFF RECOMMENDATION SECTION II - BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION SECTION Ill - PUBLIC COMMENT/ISSUES SECTION IV - LAND USE ANALYSIS SECTION V - CODE ANALYSIS SECTION VI - VARIANCE ANALYSIS


SECTION I - PROJECT OVERVIEW/STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Development Proposal - Exhibit A

The development proposes 576 beds in four buildings, an onsite clubhouse, and onsite parking for the residences. Multifamily design review approval is required for the site plan, landscape plan, and building designs.

A variance is requested from Bellingham Municipal Code 20.38.050 B. 4. (a) to increase the 35-foot height requirement for structures located within 200 feet of the proposal's site plan boundary adjacent to residential single zoned land. The proposal requests a maximum allowed height of 58 feet under Definition No. 1 for those structures located within the 200 foot height limitation area. The remaining portion of the site is not within 200 feet of residential single zoned land and does not have a height limitation.

The development would be served by a single access from an easterly extension of Consolidation Avenue into the southeastern portion of the site. Vehicular access from Puget Street is not proposed. Pedestrian circulation is proposed by a newly constructed pathway in the Consolidation Avenue right of way between the Consolidation Avenue extension and Puget Street. Public water and sewer would be installed in accordance with BMC Title 15. Stormwater management will be provided pursuant to BMC 15.42.

A critical areas permit proposes to average the required 100-foot buffer of a wetland located off-site to the north and alter on- and off-site geologically hazardous areas.

The subject site is located at 4413 Consolidation Avenue and is in Area 17 of the Puget Neighborhood. The zoning is Residential-Multi, Planned with a 5,000 square foot density.

Staff Recommendation

All procedural steps outlined in BMC 21.10.120 have been met. Based on staff's review of the BMC, the application materials, and the public comment, the following recommendations are forwarded to the Hearing Examiner for consideration:

Planned Development/Multifamily Design Review Approval of the site plan, building elevations, and project narrative (Exhibits A and L) with conditions as outlined in Exhibit B.

Critical Areas Permit Approval with mitigating conditions provided in Exhibit B.


Variance Staff finds that the applicant has provided sufficient justification to demonstrate that the variance criteria have been met pursuant to BMC 20.18.020 A. (1-3) and recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve, with conditions, the requested variance from height standards for Buildings 1 and 2.

If the variance request is approved, staff recommends the Hearing Examiner impose the following conditions:

1. The Height of Buildings 1 and 2 shall be limited to 58 feet as measured by Definition No. 1 pursuant to BMC 20.08020 H. 1 (a).

2. A licensed land surveyor shall certify the existing grade elevations for both Buildings 1 and 2 relative to an approved benchmark elevation prior to building permit issuance.

3. A final survey shall be submitted to the City demonstrating the final height of Buildings 1 and 2 do not exceed 58 feet prior to approval of a framing inspection.

4. Approval of the requested variance does not run with the land and may only be used for the University Ridge development of 576 beds as proposed.

If the variance request is denied , staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner allow Buildings 1 and 2 to be modified such that these buildings comply with the 35-foot height requirement in a manner that does not result in any other modification to the site plan or project proposal other than a decreased bed count and reduction of parking spaces with the emphasis that the parking should be removed from the westernmost parking lot first.

Any other modification should be deemed inconsistent with the applications and require new land use applications.

Applicant Ambling University Development Group 348 Enterprise Drive Valdosta, GA 31610

Contact for Applicant: Ron Jepson , Ronald T. Jepson and Associates 222 Grand Avenue Suite C Bellingham, WA 98225

Owner Irving H. Jr. & Joan Hawley Trust 520 Hughes Bay Road Lopez Island, WA 98261-8716


Contract Purchaser: Ambling University Development Group

Address of Site I Legal Description 4413 Consol idation Avenue Legal Description: Tract F, Cedar Ridge Div. II

Zoning Designation Area 17, Puget Neighborhood; Residential Multiple Planned Land Use Designation, 5,000 square-foot density


SECTION II - BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND

August 1980: The current zoning for the site was established and located in Area 11 of the Puget Neighborhood. See Exhibit C - 1980 Neighborhood Plan.

May 1994: The Cedar Ridge Plat was approved by Resolution No. 19-94. See Exhibit D - Preliminary Plat Resolution. Preliminary plat approval allowed the development of 123 units consisting of 64 single-family lots, a duplex lot, a triplex lot, a 4-plex lot, a 50 unit multifamily tract, and two future development tracts. The subject site is one of the future development tracts, Tract F, which has an allowed density of 176 units established by the filing of the final plat for Division II in July 2002.

1990s-2000s: Most of the development in the generally vicinity west of the subject site occurred in the early 1990's to early 2000 under the current zoning designation. See Exhibit E - Historical Development Activity

December 11, 2012: The City conducted a pre-application conference for the proposal. Final comments and exhibits from that conference are attached. See Exhibit F - Preapplication conference.

January 3, 2013: Applicant held a pre-application neighborhood meeting at Carl Cozier Elementary School. The most common concerns raised at this meeting included the location of the proposed use, density, noise from the development, traffic, drainage, safety due to lack of pedestrian infrastructure, site disturbance, and conflicts with the Puget Neighborhood Plan.

January 17, 2013: The variance application from height requirements was submitted and subsequently amended on February 8, 2013. The amendment included a revised site plan and cross sections from 808 and 824 Puget Street through the eastern portion of the site.

February 15, 2013: The Notice of Application and Public Hearing for the variance was issued describing the variance proposal, establishing a 14-day public comment period ending on March 15

\ and noticing the public hearing for March 20th.

March 8, 2013: The applicant requested the City put the variance application on hold and cancel the March 20, 2013 public hearing.

April 29, 2013: The applicant submitted land use applications for a planned development, multifamily design review, critical areas permit, and a SEPA checklist. The variance application that was submitted on January 17, 2013 and placed on hold by the applicants was further amended and incorporated into this application package.


May 24, 2013: The City issued a Notice of Complete Application.

May 28, 201 3: The City issued a Request for Information (RFI).

June 10, 201 3: The City issued the Notice of Application and Pending Action with the public comment period ending June 25, 2013. The most common public comments received in response to this notice concerned the proposed use, increased traffic, deficiency of the Traffic Impact Analysis, drainage, noise from increased traffic and the residents of the proposal, the inconsistent character with the remaining neighborhood, and lack of public infrastructure in the vicinity of the proposal.

June 14, 2013: The applicant posted the site.

June 18, 201 3: The applicant submitted a response to the May 28 RFI. This response included 1) preliminary engineered drawings for Consolidation Avenue and a pedestrian pathway, 2) additional critical area information for the pedestrian pathway and development setback, and 3) additional stormwater information related to on-site drainage.

August 8, 2013: The City issued a SEPA threshold determination of non-significance with the public comment period ending August 23, 2013. See Exhibit G - SEPA Determination. Comments received in response to the threshold determination were specific to the deficiencies of the Transportation Impact Analysis, the deficiencies of the geological studies, process, unmitigated traffic, safety, and noise.

August 23, 2013: The City published the Notice of Public Hearing.


SECTION Ill - PUBLIC COMMENT/ISSUES

The City received numerous written comments in response to the Notice of Application and SEPA. See Attachment 1 - Public Comment. The majority of the comments raised concerns regarding the proposed use, increased traffic from the proposal, deficiency of the Traffic Impact Analysis, increased drainage, noise from increased traffic and the residents of the proposal, and the inconsistent character of the proposal relative to the remaining neighborhood. These issues will be discussed below in the Issues section of the staff report.

Other concerns raised by the public included clearing , construction of the footpath identified in the Puget Neighborhood, emergency services, and public safety; these are discussed in the Land Use Analysis and Design Review sections of the staff report.

The City also received public comments related to the subject site being an undesirable location for the proposal, lack of demand for college housing, economic feasibility of the proposal, property value decrease as a result of the proposal, and the intended use for college housing. Staff believes that these issues may be legitimate but do not have a direct relationship to the Comprehensive Plan or the Bellingham Municipal Code. Therefore, this staff report does not address each issue directly. The applicant should have the burden to address these issues as presented in the public comment.

The following are staff's responses to the issues identified in the public comment letters.

ENVIRONMENT

Issues regarding the geologically hazardous areas and wetland buffer averaging are addressed below in the Critical Areas section of this staff report.

NOISE

Noise from the additional traffic and the residences will be increased as a result of developing the site. However, staff does not have any factual evidence to conclude that the proposal would generate noise beyond what is typical of a multifamily development or above levels allowed under existing ordinances directly associated with nuisances. If the noise level exceeds these thresholds, the police department should be contacted for enforcement.

Staff believes that development of the site should be held to the standard presented by the applicant that management of the site will have strict adherence to a no-tolerance policy for loud outside noise. Maintaining this level of scrutiny may manage the noise


level and be further reduced by the installation of a dense vegetative buffer and fencing adjacent to abutting residences.

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER I DENSITY

Issues regarding the neighborhood scale and density of the proposal are discussed in detail under the Multifamily Design Review section of the staff report.

TRAFFIC

Vehicle Trip Generation

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual is the transportation industry standard methodology used for vehicle trip generation rates from land use proposals. The PM peak trips in the ITE are derived from years of research of actual trips from developments of each identified land use category. Traffic Impact Analyses only consider PM peak trips from a proposal, which are those vehicular trips occurring between the hours of 4-6 PM. The City of Bellingham consistently uses the ITE for transportation analyses and determining transportation impact fees for development.

The ITE manual does not have a land use category specifically for off campus, purposebuilt student housing. Recognizing this, the City took into consideration the residential use of this proposal, the proximity to transit, and the building configuration to characterize it equivalent to the "Mid-Rise Apartments" land use category according to the ITE (91

h Edition, page 386). ITE defines "Mid-Rise Apartments" as "apartments (rental dwelling units) in rental buildings that have between three and 10 levels (floors)." In additional to the TIA for this proposal, the City has since provided direction to two other proposed off campus, purpose built student housing projects that the "Mid-Rise Apartments" ITE land use category should be used for their TIAs. The City supports the rational for using the "Mid-Rise Apartments" as the most equivalent land use category to calculate vehicle trips for the off campus student housing identified in the TIA. Overall, this land use will not generate enough PM peak trips to require mitigation to the overall transportation network.

Use of WTA Public Transit

The TIA assumes that apartment residents will make use of WWU transit service available at the WWU's Lincoln Creek Transportation Center (Park-N-Ride) on Lincoln Street, but only reduces overall vehicle trip generation by 7% to maintain a conservative approach. TIAs are normally conservative and paint a "worst-case" scenario. The following factors support staff's acceptance of the trip reduction and anticipation that the transit use from this site may actually exceed the reduction:


• Each WWU student pays for and possesses a WTA bus pass as part of their tuition costs;

• WTA bus service directly to WWU is available 1/3-mile west at the WWU-owned Lincoln Street Transportation Center (Park-N-Ride), which is about a 10-15 minute walk for students from the University Ridge site (Exhibit H);

• WWU does an excellent job discouraging students from bringing their automobiles to Bellingham with them;

• WWU charges higher rates for on-campus parking than anywhere else in Bellingham; and

• The Park-N-Ride provides transit service to more destinations than just WWU, which provides an increased opportunity for transit use. Exhibit I shows the WTA routes from the Park-N-Ride to designations such as the Fred Meyer and Lakeway Center shopping centers, downtown, Lake Padden, Sehome Village, and Skagit Valley.

Estimate of Parking Demand

Parking demand is addressed through land use code requirements. The parking requirement for this use is 1 parking space for every 2 beds, which requires a total of 288 parking stalls. Staff does not believe this parking standard adequately identifies the true parking demand for the proposal, due to its off campus location.

Staff recommends that the proposal should be modified and brought into compliance with the standard multifamily parking standards, which is consistent with the land use category used to determine overall transportation impacts. This requires a total of 432 parking stalls.

TIA analysis of the use of Nevada and Bryon

As shown in the table and graphic below, project traffic is expected to add 14 seconds of delay at Nevada/Lakeway, 9 seconds of delay at Consolidation/Ashley, and 17 seconds at E. Maple/Lincoln. If Byron, which is a less direct route than Consolidation, were added to the network distribution, staff believes that it would result in similar seconds of delay. None of the intersections impacted by project trips require any form of mitigation because all continue to operate far above the City's adopted level of service standard of "E".


Table 6. Future Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations

Traffic 2014 Without-Project 2014 With.Project

V/Cs or VIC or Intersection Control LOS1 Delay2 WM' LOS Delay WM

1. Lincoln StreeULakeway Drive Signal c 34 0.74 c 32 0.74

2. Nevada Street/Lakeway Drive Side-Street Stop B 14 NBL 8 14 NBL

3. Lincoln StreeUE Maple Street Side-Street Stop c 16 W8 c 17 WB

4. Ashley Avenue/Consolidation Avenue Side-Street Stop A 9 W8 A 9 WB

5. Nevada StreetfConsolidation Avenue All-Way Stop A 7 NA A 7 NA

6. 1·5 NB On-Ramp/Lincoln Street Free B 13 NBL B 13 NBL

7. Samish Way/Bill McDonald Pnrkway Signal c 20 0.64 c 20 0.64

8. South Samish Way/1-5 SB Off·Ramp Signal D 37 0 .69 D 38 0 . .70

9. South Samish Way/Lincoln Street Signal 0 52 0.85 D 55 0.86

1. LOS as defined by the HCM (TRB, 2000) 2. Average delay per vehicle in seconds. 3. Volume-to-capacity (VIC) ratio reported for signalized intersections. 4. Worst movement (WM) reported fol" side-street stop controlled intersections. NB = northlx>\rld approach; WB = weslboond

approach, NBL = northbound left-tum n'OVement.


{;'\ Llr«:OLPI S1 \.!..) l liKEYt" '(O'I

i~

lO )j I l.'- !O !i!8- - 4'< VI ( 210

JIC m

·~ Jll 10 ) .._ ,

3\ - - H s") ( ~

ltr

0 SA\llSH VJ~'( BLll.lalO\ol..DPllWY.li!Y!Ultl ST

4fil

j j( <ro ) '. R 2_0- - LO

Ml ) ( »

:uc (;;-\ S SAlllSH \VAY \!V urn Sll~5 ~ O'f-11.IWP

8lll

j j 1'D) '.. m

- t.L-o •-05 1 ( 1>0

Jl

r:;\t l'lCOlHST \.:'../ £ w.PU sr

;,la

~ JJ I C'- s~ t> - - a &! ( 6'

l tC 605

\

l$ 0

j l )C ) '- 0 ~- - o

©AS!t..EY A~E CC\l/SOll0 ... 1JOI, A'lf.

lD

ll:(M

I( <G

( 1!

.... N

~ - = RC>.rMAY - : Fl. "'.\111£ RQADWl>'f

Future (2014) With-Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FIGURE

Un/verslly Ridge SWclent Hovsing l:f:lr. 6 O!.Pn:jlcls 1 1 1111;&7~JCIOll1ooA•'&SOJd!dlt>..!lfl1'31J;tl:s'.1' 1"l_gl;llllJO? <11.lt•"'r4•:tV.I> '"'ll~lf904otiil) l~:ta . , lranSpOGfO.P


Nevada Street

The Nevada/Lakeway intersection is not signalized . Nevada Street from Lakeway Drive to the subject site is constructed to at least :xi standard, with the exception of that portion between Whatcom Street and Thimbleberry Place. This section of Nevada Street is improved with 18-20 feet of pavement and does not have sidewalks. Traffic circles have been installed in this section of Nevada Street at the Edwards and Whatcom Street intersections to calm traffic.

A proposal is required to provide mitigation when there is a measured direct and proportional impact resulting from its development. The TIA studied the Nevada/Lakeway intersection and Nevada Street corridor and concluded the proposal does not require mitigation for the proposal's impacts beyond transportation impact fees. Staff agrees with this analysis. Based on the TIA, staff believes there is no nexus and proportionality that allows the imposition of offsite mitigation, such as the construction of sidewalks on Nevada Street or a signal at the Nevada/Lakeway intersection.

Sidewalk improvements for this portion Qf Nevada Street are currently identified as a Tier 1 project in the Bellingham Pedestrian Master Plan. Funding for this improvement will likely be from a mixture of grant and sales tax revenue generated from the Transportation Benefit District. Traffic impact fees from this proposal can be used for this improvement only if the project is placed in the City's 6-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). This project is not currently listed in the TIP.


SECTION IV - LAND USE ANALYSIS

Existing Site Characteristics

The property is an 11 .15-acre parcel generally located north of Consolidation Avenue (unimproved), between Puget and Nevada Streets. See Exhibit J - Aerial Zoning Map. The site abuts Consolidation Avenue and Puget Street (minimum standard).

The site contains a mixed deciduous/coniferous forest canopy with a well-established understory of shrubs and ground cover. The site is sloped with an average grade of 20%, east to west. The easternmost portion of the site contains slopes in excess of 30% and is a regulated geologically hazardous area, in accordance with the Critical Areas Ordinance, Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC) 16.55. A Category I wetland is located on the 15-acre City-owned parcel downslope and to the north. The required 100-foot buffer extends from the southern wetland edge onto the subject site.

Surrounding Land Uses, Neighborhood, and Zoning designations - Exhibit J

Residential development, consisting primarily of detached residential single structures, abuts the site on its east, west, and south boundaries. A Category I wetland abuts the site to the north.

Subject site: Residential Multi, Planned land use designation with a 5,000 square foot density. The site is forested and undeveloped.

North:

South:

East:

West:

Puget Neighborhood, Area 1. Residential Multi, Planned land use designation with a 5,000 square foot density. The site is an open space tract owned by the City that contains a Category I wetland.

Residential Multi, Planned and Residential Single land use designation. The multifamily zoned property is located in Area 3 of the Puget Neighborhood and the single family zoned property is located in Area 4 of the Samish Neighborhood. The majority of these properties are developed with single family residences. The properties not developed are located in a block of land south of Consolidation Avenue abutting 45th Street.

Puget Neighborhood, Area 13. Residential Single land use designation with a 10,000 square foot density. Puget Street separates these parcels from the subject site. The residences along Puget Street are situated approximately 10-20 feet above the Puget Street elevation.

Puget Neighborhood, Area 17. Residential Multi, Planned land use designation with a 5,000 square foot density. A row of single family residences abuts the site on the west.


SECTION V - CODE ANALYSIS

BMC 20.38.050 B • PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

The Planned Development chapter requires all development aspects necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare be included in the planned development decision including, but not limited to regulations addressing: permitted uses, height restrictions, yards, sign regulations, street, utility and other public improvements, and a site plan. The following section addresses these aspects and those additionally provided in BMC 20.38.050 B.

Applicability I Purpose

The subject site is zoned Residential Multi with a Planned use qualifier. Pursuant to BMC 20.38.010, all property having a planned use qualifier shall comply with the applicable provisions of BMC Chapter 20.38 - Planned Development. The purpose of the planned designation is to ensure the development of property designated Planned provides diversity in the location and types of structures, promotes the efficient use of land, preserves the existing landscape to the greatest extent as possible, addresses site-specific opportunities and concerns, and lessens development impacts to adjacent areas through site design and necessary mitigating measures.

Permitted Uses

The applications propose to establish a boarding/rooming house pursuant to BMC 20.16 .020 B (2), which specifically includes dormitory type housing. As stated in this code section, a boarding/room house is a conditional use in the Residential Multi zoning designation. The Planned designation permits outright all conditional uses permitted in the Residential Multi zoning designation (BMC 20.32). Therefore, a boarding/rooming house is an outright permitted use and approval of a conditional use permit is not required.

Density

Density for a boarding/rooming house development is determined differently than for a multifamily development. Density of a residential development establishes a maximum number of dwelling units. A dwelling unit provides living facilities for one family. A boarding/rooming house does not provide housing for persons living under the family definition. The density of a boarding/rooming house is based on occupancy, not dwelling units.

BMC 20.16.020 B (2) establishes a maximum occupancy of one person per 250 square feet of ground area for a boarding/rooming house. The site has a total site area of approximately 11 acres. At the 250 sf/person occupancy, a total of 1,916 beds could be considered on this site, which is substantially less than the proposed 576 beds.


During pre-application discussions with the applicant, the City strongly encouraged the applicants to develop a proposal that would be similar in scale to a multifamily development of 176 units. It was staff's preliminary view that a development proposal that contains up to the allowed 1,916 beds would exceed the scope of anticipated multifamily development and should be discouraged.

Yards I Open space I Usable Space I Parking

The proposal either meets or exceeds the planned development standards for yards, open space, and usable space calculations provided by the applicant description in and as generally shown on Sheet A2.01 of the architectural plans, Exhibit A. Additional analysis will be required with the building permits to verify the usable space calculations are compliant with code. The final grades, amenities, and landscaping associated with the usable space areas are necessary to provide adequate accommodations for the residences and should be incorporated into the project's conditions of approval. As discussed above in the Issues section of this staff report, the development should be required to provide an equivalent number of parking spaces to comply with the multifamily parking standards, which will provide total of 432 spaces.

Code requires the proposal to provide 44 bicycle stalls. A roofed-shelter for bike parking is provided for each building. Each shelter provides storage for 22 bikes. This is sufficient to meet the code. It is recommended that all bike storage be secure, and covered. Based on the intended student population, the number of bike stalls required should be increased to the same rate as the parking and require 1 bike stall per 2 bedrooms. All bike parking should be secured and covered. The owners should incentivize bicycle use and should be discouraged from assessing an additional fee for the right to use a bicycle parking stall.

Height

Pursuant to BMC 20.38.050 B ( 4 ), there is no expressed height for buildings with a planned designation, except when located within 200 feet of property with a residential single land use designation. Then buildings are limited to 35 feet under Height Definition No. 1. Buildings 1 and 2 do not meet this code provision and the applicant has submitted a variance request that is discussed in detail later in this staff report. Buildings 3 and 4 are not located within 200 feet of property within a residential single land use designation and, therefore, do not have a height limitation .

Staff does not believe that height restrictions for Buildings 3 and 4 are necessary provided staff's recommendations dealing with the site's transitions of mass and bulk discussed in the Design Review section of the staff report are appropriately met.


Signage

Signage has not been submitted for review with these applications. Signage if proposed shall meet those standards identified in BMC 20.38.050 B. (10).

Directional signage should be provided displaying all on-site addresses and site layout, near the main entrance for the purpose of providing information for visitors and emergency servic~s.

Environment

This provision of the planned chapter provides guidance that significant drainage courses, topography, treed areas and other natural features should be saved, preserved, and enhanced . Similarly, the Puget Neighborhood Plan calls out minimizing the loss of the forested hillsides that provide scenic backdrops important to the character of Bellingham. The Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan has numerous goals and policies on preserving trees, utilizing natural systems to manage stormwater, and using low impact development techniques in new development.

This undeveloped site is characterized as a forested hillside. It is comprised of a mixed deciduous/coniferous forest canopy with a well-established understory of shrubs and ground cover on a relatively steep hillside. Trees include big leaf maple, Douglas fir, and red alder. Oceanspray, sword fern, thimbleberry, and huckleberry are found in the understory.

Although anecdotally the site was logged at some point in the recent past, it appears to have been only selectively logged. Historic aerial photos show the site as forested many decades back and there are more deciduous trees on site than the more marketable coniferous trees. The 15-acre site north of the property is comprised of an upland category I wetland (under BMC 16.55), and a 100-foot buffer that extends onto the subject site at the north end. The wetland site was dedicated to the City in 1994 as part of the Cedar Ridge Plat and it was intended to meet the entire plat's 15 percent open space requirement. At 15 acres, it is more than double the required open space.

The development proposal includes preserving the averaged 100-foot wetland buffer on the north end and preserving narrow segments adjacent to the southwestern and southern ends of the property. Because the site is a relatively steep hillside, significant grading will occur to construct the buildings, parking lots, and roads. Preservation of vegetation in the central portion of the site will be difficult under any development scenario. The grading, clearing , and construction will significantly impact the area shown on the site plan as preserved vegetation. See Exhibit Q.

Preservation of these narrow forest segments adjacent to significant grade changes will require construction techniques that protect the adjacent tree root zones and otherwise minimize impacts to the intended preserved areas. The construction techniques should be developed after a tree inventory is done by an !SA-certified arborist. A tree


inventory will identify and recommend trees for preservation and the methods to do so as well as trees that will be hazards. The City should strongly consider any recommendation from the arborist that could result in increased preservation and reduction of hazard trees. The primary objective of the comprehensive plan and planned development section is to preserve existing landscape features to the greatest extent feasible. Only if preservation is not feasible, should enhancement occur. Due to the topography of this site, any development will most likely require significant grading, which may limit the amount of existing landscape available for preservation.

The proposed location of the raingarden is the only portion of the site that does not contain extreme slopes or significant landscaping. Staff sees this area as a priority to enhance, which will maximize the buffer between those adjacent residences and this development. Alternative methods and location for providing enhanced stormwater treatment is also strongly encouraged.

Following the tree inventory, a restoration plan should be developed to restore the perimeter of the developed area intended to provide a forested hillside, a screen to neighboring properties, and an amenity to the site.

Several approaches could be implemented to reduce the loss of the forested hillside: • Increase the height of retaining walls to reduce grading for backfill of the walls

adjacent to preserved areas. • Develop a robust forest restoration plan that includes intensive native plantings in

the preserved and "landscaped" areas with plants suitable for the developed site. Particular attention should be paid to the western property edge which directly abuts the single-family homes.

• Identify hazard trees prior to and after clearing and grading to remove them during site development and to add replacement plants to the restoration plan.

• Reduce surface parking to the minimum needed or construct it under the buildings, or a have a combination of surface and underground parking.

• Construct an underground stormwater management facility. • Reduce the overall developed footprint.

The southeast corner of the site is where the pedestrian trail is proposed to connect to Puget Street at the highest point of the property, approximately 455 feet above sea level. The lowest point in the southwest corner is at an elevation of 310 feet. The trail will be a useful pedestrian connection between the upslope Puget Street to the east and the downslope neighborhood and transit center to the west. Care should be taken in determining the best alignment so that the least amount of vegetation must be removed to construct this footpath while taking into account the steep slope.

Landscaping

The landscape plan is preliminary and meant to illustrate the type, function, and location of anticipated landscaping . A final landscape plan meeting the requirements of this


report, the planned development standards, and the applicant's narrative in Exhibit A and J will be required prior to building permit issuance.

The applicant proposes landscaping in the transition area between the preserved areas and the developed portions of the site. Restoring these areas through plantings around the perimeter of the site will be necessary due to the extensive grading proposed to achieve the desired grade for backfilling the retaining walls as shown on Exhibit Q.

A separate landscape plan, specifically addressing the restoration of these areas should be required for these transition areas. The transition areas should be planted with native plants to integrate with the retained forested areas as well as to restore the abrupt forest edge. Ecologically and aesthetically this is a pr~ferred approach when only narrow strips of native vegetation are retained. It is also imperative if any semblance of forested hillside is to remain.

There are other benefits to using only native plants for landscaping in these transition zones. In addition to restoring and visually softening the forest edge created by clearing and grading, this approach is more consistent with the policies of the Puget Neighborhood Plan and the Comprehensive Plan than formal landscaping would be. It also requires less water, herbicides, and maintenance and if done right, will discourage intrusions from the student residents. The proposal provides adequate usable space for active areas therefore the open space should be protected as preserved forested backdrop.

Because of the height of the buildings, the landscaping plan for the built area should incorporate an appropriate scale. Both coniferous and deciduous tree species should be selected that grow tall enough to match the scale of the building and are also longlived species. Landscaping should be intense in those areas that are not designated for usable space in order to soften the extensive parking areas and tall buildings and to provide additional stormwater management.

The landscaping plan and the restoration plan for the western property line should utilize larger tree stock to provide a more robust, taller, and more immediate screen for the single-family residences within close proximity. This approach has been utilized in other developments to ensure an immediate buffer is established.

The character of Bellingham is strongly defined by the natural vegetation, whether it is on the forested hillsides throughout the city, in City parks, or around the built environment. Western Washington University also takes advantage of the natural vegetation throughout the campus as best exemplified in the "Ridge" dormitories that were built in the midst of the Douglas fir tree canopy on a steep slope. This proposal would be more consistent with the neighborhood's desires, with the Puget Neighborhood Plan , the Comprehensive Plan, and the character of the City by retaining and enhancing forested areas of the site.


Documents

CITY OF BELLINGHAM HEARING EXAMINER STAFF REPORT … · raised concerns regarding the proposed use, increased traffic from the proposal, deficiency of the Traffic Impact Analysis,