Fairhaven highlands Bellingham, Wa

A Case Study in Sustainable Master Planningby Catherine Benotto AIA, ASLA, LEED AP

Project Team:

Client: Greenbriar Northwest and

Horizon Bank

Planning and Architecture: Weber Thompson

Civil Engineering: Ronald T. Jepson and Associates

Landscape Architecture: The Watershed Company

Wetland Biologist, Flora, Fauna: Northwest Ecological Services

Geo-tech, Hydrology: GeoEngineers Inc.

Traffic: The Transpo Group

Legal Consultant: Langabeer and Tull

Public Relations: Vander Houwen Public Relations

Often, communities are planned as if the site were a blank slate — a

flat, treeless domain devoid of any intrinsic character. To make the plan

feasible, there is a complete transformation of the existing conditions to

accommodate the requirements of the new master plan to the detriment of

both the site’s environment and the construction costs.

Nothing could be further from this case at Fairhaven Highlands, where the

site was the guiding force of the master plan. Weber Thompson designed

the plan in direct response to the site’s characteristics and environmental

criteria, with a desire to reduce overall environmental impacts while

providing for the needs of both the developer and future residents of this

community. In other words, the plan embraced the triple bottom line of

people, planet and profit.

The result is a sensitive plan that uses land efficiently, restricts development

to areas that cause the least impact and leaves nearly half the site as

preserved natural area. This was accomplished though creative sustainable

site planning and an integrated design process.

August 20092

Context

This 82 acre infill site, located within three-quarters of a mile from the

historic Fairhaven Commercial district in Bellingham, stands out as one of

the few large undeveloped and privately owned parcels within the area. The

site had been logged several times and was quarried for gravel, but now

contains second and third growth vegetation and wetlands. It has remained

undeveloped in a large measure through organized neighborhood opposition

predominantly based on environmental concerns for the site’s wetlands

and an over arching goal of keeping the parcel entirely undeveloped and

preserved for community use. There were also secondary concerns related

to higher density, infill development, urban growth and traffic. These are

community issues that affect many proposed developments in our area

and ones that Weber Thompson works diligently to resolve though sensitive

master planning.

Under early planning regulations the site was slated to accommodate a

significant amount of growth at over 1,460 residential units. Changes in the

1990s reduced site entitlement to 739 units, which represented 3-5% of

Bellingham’s projected housing needs to 2022.

The site is well-situated to accept growth. It is mostly surrounded by

development and is within Bellingham’s urban boundary. Single family homes

border the west, south and north-east sides of the site and multifamily housing

is located to the north. The site is less than a half mile from two schools and

an existing bus route that passes within a couple hundred feet of its western

border could be extended to the property. Street access comes from

Chuckanut Drive, a scenic route leading up from the south past a State Park,

waterfront promontories and into the commercial area of Fairhaven. There is

also an existing infrastructure of utilities.

The site, and surrounding neighborhood, is well served by recreation and

open space. To the north is the city-owned Fairhaven Park, and to the east

is the city-owned Greenbelt with trails connecting to the Inter-Urban trail

system. Two other parks — Arroyo Park and Larrabee State Park — are to

the south. The site itself has remained unfenced and is used by neighbors

for walking and mountain biking on the old logging roads and new paths

cleared by years of use. It is in recognition of this abundance of surrounding

green space that the City declined a request from neighborhood groups to

purchase this parcel from the Developers.

Physically restricting future development, however, are the site’s critical

areas. There are several wetlands, the classification of which caused a fair

amount of heated debate in the neighborhood. The location of these wetlands

also posed challenges as they literally bisect the site into two restricting

connections between the halves of future development. Also, there are a few

areas of critical slopes towards the north end of the property.

SCREEN ON

3August 2009

Integrated SIte analySIS ProCeSS

To help development proceed with the new site owners, a different

approach, one designed with nature, was required. Topography, soils,

stormwater, micro-climate, flora and fauna are all an interconnected part

of an ecosystem. While site analysis is part of all of Weber Thompson’s

projects, this particular site received a level of scrutiny beyond most

projects, involving a team of consultants, studies and site testing, all

focused on gaining a thorough understanding of ecosystem functions and

how proposed development would be compatible with those functions.

Specifically critical to this site, was an understanding of the hydrology for

the site’s wetlands. Water quantity, quality and temperature contributed

to the health of on-site habitat and offsite systems. Site studies, including

nearly 50 pits and borings, probed into soils, water infiltration rates and

fluctuations through the seasons and examined how the wetlands might

be interconnected both above and below grade. The site drains to two

major watersheds, Padden Creek and Chuckanut Bay, but contains many

small watersheds each requiring detailed analysis and measurement. It

was the goal of the team that existing wetland hydrology be maintained

post-development.

Working at the table with these experts, Weber Thompson synthesized this

information into analysis diagrams, as a series of overlays that would guide

the planning. Based on this information, an approximate development

boundary was established that would encompass the flattest site areas

and the former gravel quarry; avoid critical slopes, the significant wetlands

and their required buffers; and maintain large stands of vegetation. Several

smaller isolated lower quality wetlands that were created through the site

quarrying, could be filled within regulations.

Mitigation for these smaller wetlands would include enhancement and

restoration of damaged areas within the higher quality wetlands and their

buffers. Further, wetland buffers would be enhanced beyond minimum

requirements, where necessary to maintain their functions.

DeveLOPMeNT FOOTPrINT

TOTAL PreServeD AreA

SLOPe ANALySIS

0 – 5%

5 – 10%

10 – 15%

15 – 30%

> 30%

The majority of the site is less than 15% slope

WeTLAND ANALySIS

BUFFer eNHANCeMeNTS

August 20094

CHUCKANUT DR I VE

CHUCKANUT DR I VE

5 FLOOr MULTI FAMILySTACkeD FLATS

100 UNITS

LOW rISe MULTI FAMILyTOWN HOMeS Over FLATS

166 UNITS

LOW rISe MULTI FAMILyBACk TO BACk TOWN HOMeS

74 UNITS

4 FLOOr MULTI FAMILySTACkeD FLATS

210 UNITS

SINGLe FAMILy ATTACHeD112 UNITS

SINGLe FAMILy DeTACHeD17 UNITS

COMMUNITy BUILDING

739 units

LOW rISe MULTI FAMILy3 FLOOrS STACkeD FLATS

60 UNITS

CHUCKANUT DR I VE

CHUCKANUT DR I VE

300'0' 300'0'

SuStaInable PlannIng

In order to minimize the impact of the development, the smallest,

most compact site development footprint was planned through creative

site planning. Proposed uses are limited to about half the site, leaving

40 acres as preserved natural area and enhanced wetland buffers.

This was accomplished through a marriage of modest tweaks to the

building program and building type, efficient land planning that worked

in conjunction with the site’s features and topography and low impact

development strategies, all of which maintained the allowed 739

residential units.

Project Data:

Site: 82 Acres

Preserved Natural Areas: 40 Acres

Parks and Greens: 7 Acres

Residential: 739 Units

Average Gross Density: 22 Units per Acre

Number of Buildings: 73 Buildings

Program: Single Family, Town Homes, Low Rise, Multifamily, Mid Rise Multifamily, Community Uses

Low Impact Strategies: Porous Pavement, Bioswales, Raingardens, Dispersion Trenches, Wetland Restoration and Enhancements

5August 2009

reSIdentIal Program and land uSage

OPeN SPACe vS. BUILDING AreA

2008 enhanced Buffer Plan

April 2005 Plan

parks1.8%

2.58 acres

greens4.2%

3.43 acres

parks4.4%

3.63 acres

preserved area29%

23.93 acres

preserved area49%

40.3 acres

building67.2%

55.29 acres

greens1.9%

1.1 acres

DeveLOPMeNT FOOTPrINT 58.34 ACreS 71% OF SITe

DeveLOPMeNT FOOTPrINT 41.97 ACreS 51% OF SITe

building 42.4%

34.91 acres

82.27 ACreS

82.27 ACreS

HOUSING MIx

single family attached 24 units

3.3%

single family attached 112 units 15.2%

single family detached 142 units 19.2%

single family detached 17 units 2.3%

multifamily 573 units 77.5%

multifamily 610 units

82.5%

BUILDING AreA 55.29 ACreS

BUILDING AreA 34.91 ACreS

739 UNITS

739 UNITS

2008 enhanced Buffer Plan

April 2005 Plan

BUILDING HeIGHT

2008 enhanced Buffer Plan

1

1

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

10

10

2

2

3

3

April 2005 Plan

19% 141 units

28.5% 210 units

19.21% 142 units

55.7% 412 units

2.3% 17 units

He

IGH

T N

um

be

r o

f F

loo

rsH

eIG

HT

Nu

mb

er

of

Flo

ors

62% 456 units

13.5% 100 units

10 FLOOrS

5 FLOOrS

739 UNITS

739 UNITS

In previous site plan proposals, single family detached homes were less

than 20% of the building program but occupied nearly two-thirds of the

proposed land area. There were a small amount of town homes and the

majority (537 units) were placed in multifamily buildings with nearly two-

thirds of the residences in 8-10 story buildings.

By adding more town homes to the program, and reducing the amount

of single family detached homes, Weber Thompson was able to save an

additional 20 acres of land area from development. At the same time,

by proposing more low-rise multifamily structures, with grade related

entrances, the development would have the feel and scale of town homes,

provide more variety of unit types to the multifamily housing program, and

likely attract a wider range of residents.

In order to meet 739 units, one might suspect that building height had to

increase as a result of reducing the land area; in fact, the converse is true.

The plan allowed more area for multifamily structures and in turn, the overall

height of buildings could be reduced. More than half the proposed site’s

homes are in 2-3 story structures, and only 100 units, or 13% are in one

five floor structures, making it likely that little or none of the development

would be visible beyond the preserved trees. As the previous plan had

62% of its units in 8-10 story buildings, the visibility of the project to the

surrounding neighbors was a big concern of the opposition.

Another land saving tactic was in the handling of parking. Nearly all

structures used the topography to have tuck-under parking, thereby

freeing up more land for other purposes. While this is a more expensive

way of handling parking, savings were made in other ways. Fewer roads,

and less infrastructure and re-grading would reduce site development

construction costs, while reduced building height allowed for a less

expensive construction type.

The compactness of the plan had compounding environmental benefits

as well. It reduced the amount of land disturbed for construction and

allowed very large contiguous swaths of vegetation, soils and habitat to

be preserved. It also reduced the amount of roads, parking and related

impervious surfaces, creating less storm water runoff.

At the same time, the plan provides a generous amount of planned green

spaces, centrally located parks and community centers with possible

daycare, access to trails and transit that combined with the ample access

to natural areas provides exceptional livability in a compact, pedestrian,

socially-focused community.

August 20096

The native topography of the site informed where the roads were to be

located and the shape of each neighborhood. In order to avoid extensive

re-grading, the proposed roads follow the line of the existing topography

working their way gradually up and around hills. The site’s entrance road

posed a particular challenge. Wetlands and topography combined with

design restrictions on Chuckanut Drive resulted in one access point that

was feasible, and would require skirting between the site’s two major

wetlands to connect the development. It was proposed that this road be

raised over the wetland at key portions to allow water and wildlife to flow

underneath. To combat this lack of vehicle inter-connectivity between the

two sides, many trail connections are planned that would make it easy

to walk within the neighborhood and connect to future transit link on

Chuckanut Drive.

In conjunction with the civil engineer, wetland biologist and landscape

architects, the site plan employs low impact storm water strategies that are

modeled to maintain pre-development hydrology. A proposed linear rain

garden or bio-swale lines every street. Pervious pavement in alleys and on

parking strips infiltrates storm water where it falls. runoff is also directed

to a series of rain gardens in neighborhood green spaces, including a large

infiltration area over the former gravel pit, now turned central park. All

these features serve to slow, clean, cool and infiltrate the runoff before it

is dispersed to the wetlands. At the low point of the site near the entrance,

some runoff is held back from an overflow vault for a water feature. There

is only one small conventional storm water pond located near the single

family homes.

A Plan in Process

Fairhaven Highlands is currently proceeding through an environmental

Impact Statement review process that began in the Fall of 2007 and the

draft report is scheduled to be issued in the Fall of 2009. In all, several site

plan options, including this one with two variations are being considered

through the eIS process. Further studies of the site’s wetlands have been

conducted over the past year and more studies are still underway. Preliminary

results indicate that the wetlands may be considered class one due to the

age of the trees within them. While the plan accommodated buffers up to

and beyond 150 feet, there were smaller setbacks at the connection road so

accommodation may have to be made.

Further, as the site plan is at the conceptual level and the LID strategies

are not detailed for construction, assumptions had to be made about their

capacity through design modeling. One of the conditions of the eIS may

be for continued post-construction on site monitoring of runoff rate and

quantity to the wetlands to ensure they are in fact consistent with pre-

development levels.

low ImPaCt SIte PlannIng

These illustrations were part of a public presentation made by Weber Thompson to help assist the EIS consultant in the comparison and review of this 2008 Enhanced Buffer Plan against the previous 2005 plan. As for community response, the local neighborhood remains convinced that no development on this site is their preferred option.