Planning Commission

1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2 CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON 3 THURSDAY PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. 4 November 6, 2014 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5 Video-taped www.cob.org 6 7 CALL TO ORDER: 8 The meeting was called to order by Tom Grinstad, Chairman of the Planning Commission. 9 10 ROLL CALL: 11 Tom Grinstad, Jeff Brown, Garrett O'Brien, Ali Taysi, Phyllis McKee, Steve Crooks and Cerise Noah 12 13 Present: Tom Grinstad, Jeff Brown, Garrett O’Brien, Phyllis McKee, Steve Crooks and 14 Cerise Noah 15 16 Absent: Ali Taysi 17 18 Staff Present: Rick Sepler, PCDD Director; Kurt Nabbefeld, Senior Planner; Chris Koch, Planner 19 II; and Heather Aven, Recording Secretary. 20 21 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 18, 2014 22 23 MOTION: Steve Crooks / Phyllis McKee moved to approve the September 18, 2014 minutes as 24 amended. VOTE: ALL AYES (Motion Passes 6-0) 25 26 15 MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: 27 28 Gwen McEwen shared the reasons why she moved to Bellingham. She expressed her concern about 29 the potential loss of the Cordata Community Garden and stated that although that community was aware 30 they would not be able to keep it forever; there is interest in keeping it in its current location for as long 31 as possible. 32 33 Sharon Pelfrey noted that she has been an active member of the Cordata Community Garden for four 34 years, and she expressed her interest in keeping it for as long as possible. She shared some of the 35 community benefits realized from having the garden and suggested that this space be spared from 36 development. 37 38 Julie Guy also spoke on the potential loss of the Cordata Community Garden. She expressed concern 39 that both the Planning and Public Works Departments have told the developer (of the property where the 40 garden is located) that they must develop that portion of their land first including a portion of Kline Road. 41 She explained how this, in her opinion, will impact the Community Garden area. 42 43 Rosalie Nast agreed with the previous speakers. She shared the benefits that the Cordata Community 44 Garden brings to the Bellingham / Whatcom Co. residents. She stated that it is her hope that even as 45 development occurs, this property will stay dedicated to the Community Garden. 46 47 PUBLIC HEARING: 48 49 Amendments to Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC) Titles 20 and 21 to improve the design review 50 process for new and existing development based on Lean process recommendations. Draft Copy - 1  1 STAFF PRESENTATION 2 3 Kurt Nabbefeld spoke to the public comment that was received on the Cordata Community Garden. He 4 provided a brief history on the subject property and pointed out that, in response to the developer 5 requesting that the City consider a different phasing plan, the subject property could be developed 6 sooner than previously anticipated. 7 8 Kurt Nabbefeld reviewed the LEAN process training / Kaizen event that staff endured in order to improve 9 the existing design review process. The identified changes included: 10  Application submittal / assignment 11  Voice of the customer meeting (during the LEAN training) 12  Identify Design Review Board (DRB) needs 13  Hold two DRB meetings per month 14  Consolidate Pre-meetings (those that must occur prior to formal application) 15  Review application form 16  Revise intake / completeness 17  Fee sheet handout to explain time commitment 18  Consolidate design standards and handbook 19 20 Kurt Nabbefeld discussed the Action Plan that was created based on the changes that were identified. 21 He pointed out that staff was able to eliminate approximately 30 days from the design review process by 22 making changes in the following areas. 23  Combine the Pre-Application Conference / Design Guidance Meeting 24  Evaluate Thresholds 25  Clarify Intent 26 o Conceptual Level 27 o Alternative Designs 28  Two DRB Meetings per month 29 30 Chris Koch emphasized that the only changes being considered were to the process, not the standards / 31 guidelines themselves. He reviewed the existing design review process and explained the proposed 32 changes. 33  Required review by the DRB or HPC reduced to a single meeting 34  Gives project applicants an option to request a pre-application design guidance meeting with the 35 DRB or HPC 36  Gives the Planning Director authority to refer any project that is subject to staff review to the DRB 37 or HPC for review and recommendation 38  Gives the Planning Director authority to refer any project that is subject to a single review by the 39 DRB or HPC, back to them for further review and recommendation 40  Revised thresholds give the Planning Director broader discretion to exempt projects from design 41 review 42  $50,000 project valuation threshold for DRB or HPC review replaced with revised exemption and 43 staff review thresholds 44  Intent of the Design Guidance Meeting and Design Response Meeting is clarified 45  Public gets earlier notice of, and input into project proposals in urban villages 46 47 Chris Koch also listed some of the other areas of the code that would be changing. 48 49 Draft Copy - 2  1 Garrett O'Brien clarified the kinds of projects that the Design Review Board would consider and wanted 2 to know how the Board was made up. 3 4 Steve Crooks wanted to know if staff would respond to the written comments received by the 5 Commission. 6 7 Chris Koch stated that he had spoken with Ms. Weis and the outcome of that conversation. 8 9 Steve Crooks read from page 2 of the staff report and wanted to know what is meant by it. 10 11 Rick Sepler, Planning Director stated that this quote was directly taken from the Comprehensive Plan 12 and in fact frames the problem that staff is trying to address through the process and recommendations 13 before the Planning Commission. He explained that the LEAN process was used to prepare the 14 proposed changes and the Commission is making their recommendation on whether or not the 15 proposed process is appropriate and will implement the design review process effectively. 16 17 Kurt Nabbefeld reiterated that the design standards are not being changed, it is just the process in which 18 those standards are implemented. 19 20 Phyllis McKee referenced Policy HP-30 and wanted to know how this process would achieve 21 "eliminating the barriers to affordable housing". 22 23 Kurt Nabbefeld stated that staff has been told by applicants that "time is money", and if it can be 24 streamlined it will benefit the customer. He reviewed the existing design review process steps and the 25 reasons that some of the changes were being proposed. He stated that the proposed code changes will: 26  Maintain the public's ability to comment. 27  Retain the existing design standards / guidelines. 28  Allow the applicant to move through the process in a more time efficient manner. 29 30 Garrett O'Brien wanted to know if the pre-application meeting is still required. 31 32 Kurt Nabbefeld stated that, at this time, the pre-application meeting is still required; however, a change 33 to that process is being piloted and could be changed in the near future. 34 35 Jeff Brown wanted to know how the proposed thresholds were identified. 36 37 Kurt Nabbefeld explained that different areas require different types of design review. He stated that in 38 some instances, there are different layer to the thresholds. 39 40 Garrett O'Brien wanted to know if the $50,000 threshold would be increased. 41 42 Chris Koch explained that staff has proposed to eliminate that threshold all together and send to the 43 Design Review Board only those projects that include new construction or new development, or do not 44 fall amongst the list of exemptions. 45 46 Tom Grinstad wanted to know how the process could become more intuitive. 47 48 Chris Koch explained that each of the sections are now laid out in a similar fashion, which will provide 49 for better consistency. 50 Draft Copy - 3  1 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 2 3 Wendy Harris requested that the Planning Commission not make a recommendation on the proposed 4 design review process at this time. She expressed the following concerns with the propose process: 5  The lack of information provided. 6  The reduction in public hearings. 7  The customer is viewed as the applicant, instead of the general public 8  The additional flexibility and discretion that will be given to staff. 9  The lack of the "public" voice at the focus group meetings. 10 11 She would like to see something from the Design Review Board and Historic Preservation Commission 12 submitted to indicate their support of the proposed changes. She would also be in favor of the staff 13 having less flexibility and more objective standards being created. She requested that a better 14 explanation on the reduction of public hearings be provided and a chart indicating what exists versus 15 what is being proposed. 16 17 Nick Zaferatos pointed out that design is very subjective, and will always need to undergo refinement. 18 He complimented the staff on being willing to examine the existing process and admit that there are 19 ways that it can be improved upon to in order to make it less burdensome. He stated that the amount of 20 time that has been eliminated from the process does not, in his opinion, indicate that there has been a 21 compromise to the public process / input, but rather allow for a more efficient use of applicant, staff and 22 the public's time and resources. 23 24 April Barker commented on the lack of time that the public has to formulate their comments prior to the 25 meeting. 26 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 27 28 Chris Koch explained why the changes to the code were done via repeal and replace versus track- 29 changes. 30 31 Kurt Nabbefeld responded to the public concern regarding if the DRB and the HPC agree with the 32 proposed revisions. He clarified that the Design Review Board does not hold public hearings, they hold 33 public meetings (which allows the Chair to accept public testimony when applicable). He noted that with 34 the proposed process changes, the public would now have the opportunity to provide input on the 35 project at the beginning of the process rather than at the end. 36 37 Rick Sepler stated that no improvement to the process is worth a cost to the community. He provided 38 some history on his previous experience with design review in other jurisdictions. 39 40 Chris Koch reviewed a few minor edits to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations that 41 needed to be made in an effort to reorder a couple sections. 42 43 COMMISSION QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION: 44 45 Jeff Brown wanted to know if the objective of the Design Review Board is to ensure things look pretty 46 and meet neighborhood expectations or do they balance competing interests, such as affordable 47 housing and different marketing interests. 48 Kurt Nabbefeld stated that the Design Review Board is tasked with determining whether the 49 development, regardless of where it is being built in the City, meets the adopted design standards / 50 guidelines. Draft Copy - 4  1 Phyllis McKee expressed her support for the revisions to the process. 2 3 Cerise Noah also expressed her support for making the process more efficient. 4 5 Jeff Brown noted that, due to the comments about the lack of time that was made available to 6 understand the material, this item should be revisited in two weeks. 7 8 Steve Crooks agrees that more time would be appreciated to understand the material. He suggested 9 that a work session be devoted to this item. 10 11 Rick Sepler stated that one thing he would like to see occur at future meetings, is staff introducing the 12 next item on the Planning Commission schedule, even though it may be in advance of any materials 13 being handed out. 14 15 MOTION: Steve Crooks / Garrett O'Brien moved to delay the recommendation and have staff 16 come back to the next scheduled meeting with a date that could accommodate more discussion 17 on the updates to the design review process. 18 19 Garrett O'Brien stated that the code amendments are not substantial enough to warrant another meeting 20 to review. He noted that the proposed process is an improvement. He disagreed with the public 21 comment regarding a decrease in the public's ability to be involved. 22 23 Jeff Brown stated that he does not feel that there is anything wrong with the proposed process. He 24 stated that it was not his intention to suggest that there be a work session, rather just a little more time 25 allotted to the public to respond now that there is a better understanding of the process changes. 26 27 Phyllis stated that she would support the delay. 28 29 STEVE CROOKS WITHDREW THE MOTION. 30 31 MOTION: Steve Crooks / Garrett O'Brien moved to continue the discussion to the next meeting. 32 33 Tom Grinstad agreed with a written public comment regarding the fact that there are no performance 34 measures to judge the effectiveness of these proposals and sometimes once the process goes into 35 practice, there are unintended consequences that tend to surface. He requested that staff provide a 36 diagram that compares the existing process with the proposed process. 37 38 Kurt Nabbefeld asked the Commissioners to elaborate on what they need from staff to make a 39 recommendation. 40 Jeff Brown suggested that the letters from the other Committees be forwarded directly to the City 41 Council with the Planning Commission recommendation. 42 43 VOTE: Motion Passes 5-1 (Noah Opposed) 44 45 GENERAL BUSINESS: 46 47  Planning Director’s Report 48 49 Rick Sepler discussed the Planning and Community Development's Department key initiatives 50 for 2015. Draft Copy - 5  1 ADJOURNED: 9:10 p.m. 2 3 NEXT MEETING: November 20, 2014 - Amendments to Area 9 of the Samish 4 Neighborhood Plan. 5 6 Minutes prepared by: 7 8 _____________________________ 9 Heather Aven, Recording Secretary 10 11 Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff. 12 Draft Copy - 6