Planning Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON THURSDAY PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. January 8, 2015 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER5 Video-taped www.cob.org CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Tom Grinstad, Chairman of the Planning Commission. ROLL CALL: Tom Grinstad, Jeff Brown, Garrett O'Brien, Ali Taysi, Phyllis McKee, Steve Crooks and Cerise Noah Present: Tom Grinstad, Garrett O’Brien, Ali Taysi, Phyllis McKee, Steve Crooks and Cerise Noah Absent: Jeff Brown Staff Present: Greg Aucutt, Assistant Director; Kurt Nabbefeld; Senior Planner; David Stalheim, Block Grant Programs Manager; and Heather Aven, Recording Secretary. NOMINATION / ELECTION of 2015 OFFICERS Cerise Noah nominated Ali Taysi for Chair. Seconded. VOTE: ALL AYES Ali Taysi nominated Tom Grinstad for Vice-Chair. Seconded. Declined. Cerise Noah nominated Garrett O'Brien Vice-Chair. Seconded. VOTE: ALL AYES APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 4th and 18th Steve Crooks / Phyllis McKee moved to approve the minutes for December 4, 2014 as written. VOTE: ALL AYES Cerise Noah / Tom Grinstad moved to approve the minutes for December 18, 2014 as written. VOTE: ALL AYES 15 MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD David Cunningham referenced a discussion held at the previous Planning Commission meeting regarding the covenants attached to a subdivision and the fact that the City does not have a say in what those covenants contain. He wanted to know what happens when the covenants are not in line with the City's regulations, and posed the question "what prevents an individual property owner from adding covenants to their property that also undermines the City's regulations.  Staff replied that state law allows for private covenants to be recorded with a subdivision. He reiterated that the covenants are reviewed by the City for any conflicts with the code. Final Copy - 1 Anne Mackie suggested that the neighborhood activists also be included in any subdivision conversations that might occur outside of City Council Chambers. Wendy Harris requested that the public hearing scheduled for next week be continued. She expressed concern about the lack of public notice and time allowed for participation. PUBLIC HEARING For the consideration of amendments to the Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC), Chapter 20.27 regarding an incentive program for innovative affordable low-income homeownership projects in single- family and multi-family residential zoning districts in the City of Bellingham. STAFF PRESENTATION David Stalheim explained that the ordinance expired on 12/31/14. He pointed out that instead of renewing the 2-year ordinance, the City Council suggested that a permanent ordinance be drafted. He reviewed the contents of the ordinance and highlighted some of those things that are different from the previous versions. He commented on the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies that support this ordinance and noted that although the Growth Management Act (GMA) does not allow for the requirement of affordable housing; it does provide for the offering of incentives to gain affordable housing units. There was a discussion about the distance choice of ¼ mile, as well as what is meant by "waiver of fees". PUBLIC HEARING OPENED David Cunningham expressed concern about impacts that the efforts to create affordable housing, such as the allowance for ADUs, have on the neighborhoods. He pointed out that it may be possible to extend the ¼ mile requirement by small increments, and still have people willing to walk the distance. He wanted to know if there is anything being done to encourage the affordable housing are developed via smaller units. Louise Bjornson stated that the design standards are a good addition to the ordinance. She expressed concern that the ordinance is being updated prior to some of the other code updates that are occurring being completed, which could prevent them from all working together to protect the neighborhoods. She spoke to the lack of parks and open space, school statistics and economic status of the Alderwood, Birchwood and Cordata Neighborhoods. She requested that the original oversight remain in the ordinance at this time and encouraged the Commissioners consider the bigger picture. She provided the Commission with some information on victory gardens as well. Anne Mackie commented on the inflation of rental rates and expressed her support for families to enjoy affordable homeownership. She noted some of the procedural changes and wanted to know if the pre- application neighborhood meeting would still be required. She expressed concern about the vagueness of the language regarding usable open space, parking, street frontage, minimum lot size, lot coverage and setbacks; as it does not provide much assurance to the neighborhoods about what the final design might be. She would like to see the neighborhood associations more involved in this process. Issac Post wanted to know if mixed-uses would be allowed or if higher density (such as retail on the ground level) would be encouraged. He referenced the ¼ mile requirement and the low-income areas Final Copy - 2 and wanted to know if there would there be any way to expand those areas. He spoke to the ¼ mile rule and pointed out that studies have proven that at this distance, the number of people willing to walk the distance drops significantly. April Barker expressed her support for the peppering of the affordable housing units among the existing homes. She wanted to make sure there was still a public process in the proposed changes. She noted that the neighborhood representatives have valuable feedback and should be asked for it. She wanted to know if there was a method for review of the process and a way to measure the ordinance's success. She commented on the need for walkability to amenities, not just to transit access. Wendy Harris expressed concern on the number of incentives provided for private developers. She questioned why this ordinance was not part of the Comprehensive Plan update. She expressed concern about the infill and suggested that pre-identifying areas that the infill will occur in. She pointed out that infill is not appropriate everywhere, and the critical areas and sensitive watersheds should be excluded from infill. She expressed concern with the additional administrative discretion being given to the Planning and Community Department Director, as it does not provide for consistency. She commented on the impacts changing the process to have the hearing held before the Hearing Examiner will have on the public participation. She spoke to the ¼ mile requirement and noted that it is a very important consideration. She pointed out that she is not in favor of the 50% bonus, and commented on the lack of buildable land. She also addressed the waiving of impact fees. STAFF RESPONSES David Stalheim clarified that neighborhood representatives and those citizens within 500' will still receive notice of the application / meeting each time one is submitted. He explained the current public input process and pointed out that the only part that is changing is the appeal to either City Council or Superior Court. He mentioned that there is not any more authority in the proposed ordinance than what existed in the existing ordinance, he clarified that there continued to be the opportunity for the Director to provide a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. David Stalheim spoke to the ¼ mile requirement possibly being an ADA standard and the fact para- transit will not accommodate transportation beyond this distance. He spoke to the reporting requirements and noted that this will accomplish some of the "monitoring for success" concerns expressed by the public. He clarified that the low-income and the watershed restrictions do not exist in the proposed ordinance that was in direct response to public comment that was received prior to the hearing. COMMISSION QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION There was a discussion about the disadvantages of requiring permanent affordability and the restrictions related to the re-sale of the affordable home units. Staff explained that the ordinance requires that the applicant provide a mechanism for reporting and monitoring for compliance. Steve Crooks commented that an educational process should be included in the ordinance, as a requirement for the first time home-owner, to assist them in understanding the obligations of homeownership. Garrett O'Brien wanted to know why staff chose a 75% requirement for affordable housing, instead of a lower amount. Final Copy - 3 David Stalheim explained that by granting a 50% density bonus, some units that were not going to be affordable would be incentivized. Kurt Nabbefeld pointed out that small changes are being made to the ordnance and although it will become permanent, staff is committed to evaluating it and making any necessary adjustments to it in the future to ensure it supports the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies. Cerise Noah asked staff to identify which option they were asking the Commission to consider for a recommendation. David Stalheim indicated that the staff report was drafted with staff recommending Alternative A (III-B procedure); however, he pointed out that the City's legal staff strongly encouraged the Commission to consider recommending Alternative B (III-A). He reviewed the process that the Hearing Examiner would follow, and the criteria from the Ordinance Section .030, that would be used when making a decision on the application. Garrett O'Brien expressed his concern about appeals going to the City Council. He pointed out that the decisions are made on fact of law and therefore, in his opinion, appeals should be heard and decided at the Superior Court level, not in a political venue. There was a discussion about which housing forms would be allowed under this ordinance and the design standards that the units would be subject to. There was also a brief conversation related to the variances from parking and setbacks that could be proposed at the application stage. PUBLIC CLARIFIED POINTS Wendy Harris commented on the difference in expense for each alternatives. She wanted to know what other programs are available for low-income housing. She also wanted clarification on the incentives being provided, does it only apply to the low-income portion of the project. April Barker was wondering what consequences were included in the ordinance in the event someone was not following the "owner-occupied" requirement. She also wanted to know if there has been consideration given to what might happen to appraisals of those homes with a low-income unit next door. Anne Mackie wanted to know if the neighborhood was going to be part of the design review process for the affordable housing units. She asked for clarification on how this will impact the 10-year tax incentive, will the housing units development under this ordinance be able to take advantage of this incentive as well. She wanted to know how this ordinance will work for development in urban villages. Issac Post clarified that when he referred to "mixed-use", he was talking about compatible uses that support habitants of the area. Staff Responses David Stalheim listed the other programs the City offers to assist low-income families. He emphasized that this is a zoning ordinance, and not a way to mandate affordable housing. He commented on the 10- year tax incentive and pointed out that it would be for four units or more (multi-family) and therefore it would not apply in these situations. Final Copy - 4 Kurt Nabbefeld stated the design review would apply to the housing units developed under this ordinance only. He explained the steps that staff could take in the event the proposed changes do not realize an increase in housing units. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 10 MIN BREAK COMMISSION QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION (cont.) There was a discussion about what types of things the City would need to be provided with in order to prove a "request for modification" (pg. 5, section F). It was clarified that this ordinance would allow an entire project to be reviewed for compliance, rather than each individual lot. Garrett O'Brien expressed concern that with a 75% density bonus (affordability requirement), it may not be feasible for someone with a smaller number of lots. There was a discussion about this ordinance being allowed in urban villages, and staff indicated that this zoning ordinance would not work in urban villages at this time. MOTION: Garrett O'Brien / Cerise Noah moved to accept Alternative Procedure B (III-A), with the application going before the Hearing Examiner and not City Council, with all appeals going before Superior Court. Phyllis McKee agreed with the motion and pointed out that if City Council were to review the appeals, everything remains "in-house", which would not allow for an entity that is not involved in any way to make a decision on the appeals. Steve Crooks also agreed and felt that it should be removed from the political arena. Ali Taysi expressed his support for the motion and was in favor of not having appeals be reviewed and decided upon in a political venue. Tom Grinstad commented that if a member of the public wanted to appeal, it could be very costly for them if it were to be at the Superior Court level. Kurt Nabbefeld provided the small number / types of appeals that are currently reviewed by City Council. VOTE: Motion Passes (5-1, Grinstad opposed) MOTION: Garrett O'Brien / Phyllis McKee moved to approve the amendments to the Bellingham Municipal Code to include the low-income incentives into the single family, multi-family zoned areas. There was discussion about including language in the ordinance related to first-time homebuyers. AMENDMENT: Steve Crooks / Cerise Noah moved to include the language that "Homebuyers, which purchase a home under the Program for Innovative Affordable Homeownership Projects Ordinance, must receive housing counseling. Counseling must be through a program that is reviewed and approved by the City, HUD, Washington State Housing Trust Fund or the Washington State Housing Finance Commission" and make it a reporting / monitoring requirement. VOTE: Motion Passes (All Ayes) Final Copy - 5 Tom Grinstad expressed his appreciation for referencing other sections of the code, rather than copying into the ordinance. Garrett O'Brien stated that affordable housing is an important topic for our community. He suggested that the City continue to consider how to make "market-rate" homes affordable. Ali Taysi stated that it would be difficult to argue that this ordinance is not consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. He expressed his support for the ordinance. VOTE: Motion Passes (All Ayes) OLD / NEW BUSINESS: There was general consensus that the public hearing regarding the Critical Areas Ordinance be held next week. ADJOURNED: 9:45 p.m. NEXT MEETING: January 15, 2015 Minutes prepared by: _____________________________ Heather Aven, Recording Secretary Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff. Final Copy - 6