Planning Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON THURSDAY PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. June 12, 2014 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Video-taped & Audio-recorded www.cob.org Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Tom Grinstad, Chairman of the Planning Commission. Roll Call  Commissioners: Tom Grinstad (C) – Present, Jeff Brown (VC) – Present, Garrett O'Brien – Present, Phyllis McKee – Present, Cerise Noah – Present, Steve Crooks – Present, Ali Taysi - Excused  Staff: Greg Aucutt, Assistant Director; Darby Cowles, Senior Planner; Moshe Quinn, Planner II; and Heather Av Recording Secretary Approval of Minutes The minutes from April 3rd and May 1, 2014 were submitted for approval  MOTION: Steve Crooks / Garrett O'Brien moved to approve the minutes from April 3rd as revised. VOTE: ALL AYES (Motion passes 6-0)  MOTION: Jeff Brown / Cerise Noah moved to approve the minutes from May 1st as revised. VOTE: ALL AYES (Motion passes 6-0) Public Comment Period No public testimony was given. Public Hearing Consideration of a docketed Comprehensive and Neighborhood Plan amendment, as well as an alternative proposal to rezone the properties formerly owned by the WA State Department of Transportation within Areas 1, 1A and 8 of the Sunnyland Neighborhood. Tom Grinstad disclosed to the Commission that he has known, and worked with, one of the property owners for almost 30 years. Staff Presentation Darby Cowles provided a brief history of the site; as well as an overview of the proposal. She explained that when the property was purchased from the State in 2007 by Sunset Commons, LLC, the default zoning of 20,000 sq. ft. / unit was applied. She mentioned the adjacent uses and discussed what some of the options for the property could be. She pointed out that the related Comprehensive Plan goals are listed on page 30 of the packet Darby Cowles stated that in preparation for this meeting, staff reviewed previous efforts, including the Sunnyland Neighborhood Association proposal and noticed the following commonalities:  20,000 sf / unit is not an appropriate density.  Commonly-owned properties should be under one zoning designation. 1  Variety of lot sizes (generally at or less than 5,000 sf/unit) may be appropriate for this site.  Pedestrian / Bike connections through the site are desired.  The prohibition of vehicular thru-access.  Allow a variety of small-scale housing types that are compatible with a single-family neighborhood. Darby Cowles pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals related to the administration and development of regulations. She stated that the regulations should be organized, easy to administer, and should provide predictability and consistency. She shared why staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the alternative proposal submitted for consideration by staff. Darby Cowles compared the two plans and explained why staff prepared the alternative proposal instead of just marking up the Sunnyland Neighborhood Association's submittal. She explained that the multi- family, duplex zoning designation would not allow apartments, only those limited uses permitted within the Infill Toolkit. Mixed uses are not generally allowed in single-family zones. She briefly touched on the history of the Infill Toolkit and explained why staff believes that using parts of this tool for development on the site is the option that best meets the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone criteria. Darby Cowles stated that staff does not believes that creating new standards and regulations for specific housing forms for one parcel, as under the SNA proposal, is appropriate nor does not improve usability for citizens, the property owner or staff. She pointed out that the alternative proposal submitted by staff honors the important elements of the docketed proposal, while applying the most reasonable, clear and consistent development regulations for clarity and ease of administration. She noted that this proposal would ensure development of appropriate scale and architectural character, while at the same time allowing for some infill on the site. Applicant Presentation Patrick McKee, Board Chairman of the Sunnyland Neighborhood Association (SNA) commented on the process the group has gone through to date. He informed the Planning Commission of what they can and cannot do as it relates to their recommendation to City Council. He listed specific reasons as to why the alternative plan should not be considered alongside the SNA proposal. Patrick McKee emphasized that one of the main goals of the SNA is to keep this area zoned for single- family use and to stop the introduction of multi-family zoning into this portion of Sunnyland. He pointed out that staff has taken their application and turned it into something that was never intended. He stated that it is the neighborhoods desire to rezone the property located in Area 8, to residential, single - medium density. Patrick McKee reviewed what the proposal would and would not allow. He stated that, in his opinion, there will not be any additional staff time or expense required to create the proposed Design Overlay District in this area, as design standards for the single-family homes will be borrowed from BMC20.28.060 and BMC20.28.070. He explained that the code language would simply be transferred to the special regulations column in the zoning table for Area 8. Patrick McKee discussed the current zoning designations in other portions of the neighborhood and identified other areas of the City that are more appropriate for multi-family housing. He stated that there is a shortage of single-family homes and requested that the Commission show fair consideration to their proposal. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 2 Casey Diggs wanted to know why the property continues to be referred to as "the property formally owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation" instead of what it is - land owned by Sunset Commons, LLC. He stated that he does not care who used to own the property, and when the letter that he received indicated such; he felt mis-led by the City. Donald Shea wanted to know how many units the proposed zoning would allow for.  Darby Cowles responded that the SNA proposal would allow for 28 units and the staff's alternative proposal would allow for 34. Amanda Feutz expressed her support for the SNA proposal. She explained why the future development is so important to her and stated that she is very concerned about the increase in traffic and the issues it would bring to Sunset Drive. She noted that she would be more in favor of having the single-family homes along Sunset Drive. Bill Geyer, representing Sunset Commons, LLC commented on procedural matters. He stated that since 2012, when the City Council chose not to docket the property owner's application, there has not been any other formal application by Sunset Commons. He shared with the Commission that a meeting was requested by the property owners in March, but never occurred. He noted that due to Mr. Edelstein being out of the country and not able to attend the meeting, there was a request for postponement of the hearing made, which was denied by the Director. Bill Geyer referenced the SEPA Checklist that was completed in May and noted that Sunset Commons, LLC was not listed on the mailing list to receive a copy of the findings. He asked the Commissioners to consider the following:  Do we wish to have a land use and development process in Bellingham, whereby your individual property / home can be isolated, have a boundary drawn around it, have zoning proposed just for your property without your engagement to look at the substance of what is being applied for and proceed to a hearing - while you are out of town?  Should the City of Bellingham specifically have the authority to isolate a property of one owner and the staff define what the zoning should be? Bill Geyer submitted a written document that outlined 5 findings.  Sunset Commons, LLC is the sole owner of the specific site.  The subject proposal is a site-specific amendment as defined in BMC20.10.150B.1.b.  The SNA application does not comply with the BMC.  The City's application does not comply with the BMC.  Sunset Commons, LLC has not submitted a neighborhood plan and rezone amendment application for this site-specific amendment. He requested that the Planning Commission adopt the findings of the letter submitted by Bill Geyer on June 12, 2014; terminate the proposed SNA amendment; return the item back to staff in perpetuity until such a time that the property owners come forward with an application. David Rogers expressed concern that there are no regulations preventing the owner from filling the property with duplexes and renting them out; which would be outside of the neighborhood's character. Judith Green stated that people want to own homes in single-family neighborhoods; therefore she does not understand why the zoning would be changed to provide even less single-family housing stock. She mentioned that the Infill Toolkit has been approved for 2 years and there has not been one property that has chosen to use it. She does not agree with changing the zoning in her neighborhood just to accommodate 3 use of the toolkit housing forms. She questioned the intent of the developer and expressed concern that they will all be rentals. She reminded the Planning Commission who they are supposed to represent. John McGarrity, Chairman of the Cornwall Park Neighborhood Association expressed support for the SNA proposal. He expressed concern about the traffic in the area and how it might be affected by zoning this property multi-family. Mickey McDiarmid stated that the neighborhood is interested in preserving the single-family neighborhood they live in. She mentioned some of the things that the neighbors do for each other, and some of the things they will lose if this site is rezoned to multi-family. She requested that the Commission support the SNA proposal. Staff Responses Greg Aucutt referenced the Bellingham Municipal Code section that authorizes the City Council to docket any site-specific or non site-specific proposal that they believe meets the docketing criteria. He pointed out that there is an appeal process the property owners can utilize if they do not agree with City Council's decision. Greg Aucutt advised the Commission that they do not have the authority to terminate the proposal, as requested by Bill Geyer. He stated that staff has requested the property owners share what they would like to see done on the property; however, that has not occurred. Greg Aucutt explained that staff often presents alternatives to a proposal and in this instance staff attempted to develop a proposal that retained the spirit of the SNA proposal and yet met the city-wide goals staff is responsible for. He stated that any development of the site would need to meet the transportation concurrency requirements. He noted that the City does not have any control over which developments become rental properties. Commission Discussion There was a discussion about the applications that were submitted for the annual docket in 2012. Tom Grinstad wanted to know why staff chose to propose the property be rezoned to multi-family, given the single-family nature of the neighborhood. Greg Aucutt stated that the zoning proposed by staff would allow for a few of the small-scale Infill Toolkit housing options and the design standards that accompany them. Tom Grinstad also wanted to know why the staff chose to submit an alternative plan instead of an amendment to the proposal submitted by the SNA. Moshe Quinn explained that staff proposed the alternative plan in an effort to provide more clear information, rather than a strike-out version of the SNA proposal. He stated that staff often proposes alternatives when applications are taken through the comprehensive plan rezone process. Jeff Brown stated that during previous conversations held by the Commission, there has been interest in the Infill Toolkit housing forms being allowed in single-family zones. He pointed out that further conversations surrounding this issue have not yet occurred. MOTION: Garrett O'Brien / Phyllis McKee moved to recommend denial of both recommendations. 4 Garrett O'Brien stated that the burden of proof to meet the Comprehensive Plan requirements falls to the applicant; however, there is no plan associated with this proposal. He pointed out that the developer is held to a completely different standard than a neighborhood association. He stated that the SNA did not have to endure any of the cost that a developer would be required to endure and yet their proposal was docketed and moving through the process without the property owners even involved. Jeff Brown expressed his support for tabling both proposals and instead ask City Council to direct staff to have the conversation about which infill housing types should be allowed in single-family zones. Steve Crooks noted that the two proposals are very close. He stated that he does not understand why there are so many issues given the fact that the proposed housing forms would fit into the character of the neighborhood, value would be added to E. Illinois Street and Sunset Dr. He questioned why the property did not send a representative that could explain what they would like to see done on the property. Phyllis McKee stated that, in her opinion, a property owner should be allowed to sit on their property if they so choose. She pointed out they should be allowed to come up with their own proposal, when they are ready, and then bring that through the process. Cerise Noah wanted to know what motivated the neighborhood to submit their rezone proposal. Patrick McKee stated that after it was sold to Sunset Commons, LLC the neighborhood contacted the property owners and requested a meeting to discuss what the appropriate private-use zoning would be for that site. He pointed out that as stakeholders in the area, they proposed what they felt was appropriate zoning for consideration during the process. Tom Grinstad wanted to know why, if the property is not going to be developed right now, is the neighborhood so interested in changing the zoning of 20,000 sf/unit. Patrick McKee stated that, not only was the default zoning intended to be temporary, 20,000 sf lots do not comply with the Growth Management Act. He pointed out that the neighborhood is just looking for some certainty as to what can occur on the site. Bill Geyer disagreed with staff's interpretation of BMC20.10.150B.1.c since the application had to originate from somewhere and the controlling language as to who can make that application is outlined in the other two paragraphs. He stated that Sunset Commons, LLC is willing to wait and not develop the property until future Comprehensive Plan changes take place. Garrett O'Brien commented on the process and stated that the property owners should have the right to keep the density at 20,000 sf/unit until which time they make application to rezone the property. He stated that the burden of the proof would then fall to them to make sure that they meet all of the rezone criteria. Jeff Brown stated that he really feels that the City needs to have a discussion about allowing the Infill Toolkit housing forms in single-family zones. He proposed that the Commission recommend that City Council direct staff to address this topic in the future. Garrett O'Brien expressed support for that amendment. Cerise Noah commented on the time that has been devoted to this process. She noted that the property owner has had many opportunities to be involved in the process. She pointed out that making a decision on the rezone would add value to the neighborhood, to the City and the developer. She expressed her support for the alternative plan staff proposed. 5 Phyllis McKee expressed concern about setting the precedent that the City can decide what can be developed on private property without the inclusion of the owners. MOTION: Jeff Brown/Phyllis McKee moved to recommend that the City Council direct staff to bring a proposal to the Planning Commission that addresses how some of the Infill Toolkit housing forms might be integrated into single-family zoning. VOTE: ALL AYES (Motion Passes 6-0) VOTE (on the main motion to recommend denial of both proposals): 5-1 (NOAH opposed - Motion Passes 5-1) Steve Crooks addressed the citizens and suggested that they continue to negotiate and compromise to get things done in the City. General Business: Greg Aucutt announced that he will be the Interim Director beginning June 23, 2014. He noted that there are a couple of Infill Toolkit projects that are going on and he will bring an update to the Commission next week. Garrett O'Brien emphasized the importance of the Infill Toolkit conversation and the allowance of that in single-family zoned neighborhoods. Tom Grinstad stated that due to the feedback they received in previous years, City Council purposefully decided to not allow it in the single-family zoned neighborhoods. Adjourned: 9:00 pm Minutes prepared by: ____________________________________________ Heather Aven, Recording Secretary Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff. 6