Planning Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON THURSDAY PUBLIC MEETING / HEARING 7:00 P.M. February 19, 2015 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER5 Video-taped www.cob.org CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Ali Taysi, Chairman of the Planning Commission. ROLL CALL: Tom Grinstad, Jeff Brown, Garrett O'Brien (VC), Ali Taysi (C), Phyllis McKee, Steve Crooks and Cerise Noah Present: Tom Grinstad, Jeff Brown, Garrett O’Brien, Ali Taysi, Phyllis McKee, Steve Crooks and Cerise Noah Absent: Staff Present: Greg Aucutt, Assistant Director; Lisa Pool, Senior Planner; Brian Smart, Planner II; and Heather Aven, Recording Secretary. Ali Taysi asked the Commission to consider authorizing the Planning staff and Commission secretary to bring up points of order and help the Commission move through the meeting according to Roberts Rules of Order. MOTION: Steve Crooks / Phyllis McKee moved to allow staff to help direct the Planning Commission meetings by making a "point of order" when necessary. VOTE: ALL AYES (Motion Passes 7-0) APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 20, 2014, January 8, 2015 and January 15, 2015. MOTION: Steve Crooks / Phyllis McKee moved to approve all three sets of minutes as written. VOTE: ALL AYES (Motion Passes 7-0) 15 MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD No public testimony provided. PUBLIC MEETING Construction of a new 3,000 sf commercial building for a bank with drive-thru on an undeveloped 24,000 sf site. Site development will also include parking, exterior lighting and landscaping. Specifically, the Planning Commission will consider the interface between the pedestrian way and the drive-thru aisle, the exterior architectural finish and design compatibility. STAFF PRESENTATION Brian Smart identified the site and explained it is the last developable site in this area. He provided a brief overview of the proposal and discussed the applicable design standards:  Maximum height limit of 25' - staff indicated this standard has been met through the proposed design. Final Copy - 1   Limited to single-story building with a maximum of 25,000 sq. ft. - staff indicated this standard has been met as building is only 3,000 sq. ft.  Building orientation and design - staff indicated that the applicants have only partial met this standard as the building entry is located towards Barkley Blvd, not Orleans St. He stated that staff has suggested that the entry be relocated and the screening wall be moved to meet the standard.  Transition areas - staff indicated the overall site improvements were met with the development of Lowes Building Center.  Pedestrian Walkways - staff indicated this standard has been met.  No parking between the building and Orleans St. - staff indicated this standard has been met.  No drive lanes, drive-through lanes or pick-up windows between the building and Orleans St. - staff indicated this standard has been met. He noted this area will be heavily landscaped to help buffer the site from the pedestrian walkway. Steve Crooks stated that the existing main entry on Orleans St. is non-functional. He pointed out that all the traffic that will enter the building will come from the west side and relocating the entrance would not make sense. Jeff Brown wanted to know if the applicants could utilize the variance process to allow for departure from the "entrance oriented to Orleans St." standard. He also asked staff if any data had been collected to determine how often pedestrians used the other two banking establishments, or if most customers arrived via autos. Brian Smart stated that this area is very auto-oriented, and the intent of the design standards were meant to reduce the impact from automobiles for the surrounding residential uses. He explained that one way to create a more pedestrian-oriented feel was to have building entrances face the street. Phyllis McKee stated that unless moving the entrance to Orleans St. will reduce the number of cars, it makes more sense to allow the entrance to be visible from the parking area. Brian Smart stated that although staff has no issue with the design of the building, the entry does not face Orleans, and therefore does not meet the applicable design standard. He requested that the Commission provide direction on how this design standard can be met. There was a discussion about whether or not this design standard is an actual requirement. It was pointed out that all of the standards stated "...will do" with the exception of the building design and orientation, it states "... preference will be given". Staff noted that the other two adjacent structures have developed entrances that can be seen from Orleans St. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC Jeff Olaphant identified some of the concerns that the applicant heard from the neighborhood when the proposal was shared with them and explained how the applicant has mitigated those concerns through the design. He mentioned the preference option for the entrance and listed the reasons why the applicant does not feel that will work. He shared the design of the building and pointed out how the applicant has met each of the design standards and in some ways provided improvements for the pedestrians and existing residential. Larry Hewitt, President First Federal spoke to the reasons that two separate entrances would not work for this development. He explained that this would put the employees at risk and would require Final Copy - 2 additional security needs, as well as additional lighting. He explained that there are plans are to offer services beyond normal operating hours, which will allow access to the property and this would be a heightened concern if two entrances were required. COMMISSION QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION Tom Grinstad stated that, in his opinion, the main entry should face the parking lot as most customers will arrive via automobile. He pointed out that this specific design standards indicates it is preferred, which he interprets as not being a requirement. He commented on the fact that Orleans St. and Barkley Blvd. are both arterials and therefore have no parking available on them, so having an entrance facing this direction, does not make sense. He noted that moving the buffer wall, as suggested by staff, and then making a trellis / canopy along the south of the building and turning the corner, could present a visible entrance from Orleans St. and direct customers to the main entrance. Jeff Brown agreed that this site is heavily auto-transient and although the design standards would be appropriate in other areas of the City, they are not appropriate here. He agrees with the proposal as submitted and supports the suggestion for a trellis along the south of the building. Garrett O'Brien stated that the proposal meets the intent of the design standard. He noted that there is access to the building from Orleans St. Cerise Noah stated that she supports the application as submitted, especially in light of the safety concerns raised. Ali Taysi noted that all of the other design standards have been met. He stated that although there is some issues with meeting the standard related to the entrances, he supports the application as submitted. He suggested some signage be added along the trail. There was more discussion on the buffer wall related to size and location to make the entrance more visible and shield residential areas from headlights. MOTION: Garrett O'Brien / Phyllis McKee moved to accept the proposal as it is submitted with no change to the entrance way required. VOTE: ALL AYES (Motion Passes 7-0) PUBLIC HEARING Amend the Samish Neighborhood Plan and BMC to rezone 801 Samish Way in Area 4 from Residential, Single to Commercial, Planned with a non-retail restriction. It is proposed that this site would become part of Area 9 in the Samish neighborhood. Ali Taysi asked to be recused due to his business connection with the properties across the street. Garrett O'Brien chaired the remainder of the meeting. STAFF PRESENTATION Lisa Pool explained the proposal for 801 Samish Way. She reminded the Commission of the Area 9 rezone (property across the street) that they recommended be approved in November 2014 and stated that, due to the similarities in the rezone requests, staff has proposed that 801 Samish Way become part Final Copy - 3 of Area 9 instead of a new separate subarea. She explained that this would mean the zoning that is recommended for approval tonight would become the zoning for all of Area 9. She stated that staff is proposing the zoning change from Residential, Single to Commercial, Planned, non-retail, with residential allowed outright. Lisa Pool pointed out the criteria from BMC 20.19.030 and 20.20.040 that staff feels the proposal has met.  Meets the infill and economic goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA).  Addresses changing circumstances, changing community values and is consistent with the comprehensive plan goals and policies.  Long-term benefit to community  Will not adversely affect public health, safety or general welfare  Use of existing building with existing infrastructure APPLICANT PRESENTATION Rodney Anderson, on behalf of Pacific Harbor Holdings / Pacific Harbor Psychology explained the applicant's intent to provide something that is:  Good for the residents of Bellingham  Good for the neighborhood  Good for Pacific Harbor Psychology  Good for the city Rodney Anderson provided a brief history on the applicants and addressed the necessity for access to mental health services in our community. He provided some statistics on the shortage of mental health services in Whatcom County. He spoke to the reasons that this site and building meets the needs of the applicants so well. Simi Jane, Carmichael / Clark Law Firm addressed some of the legal questions / concerns that have come up in the public comments. She addressed the concern of spot zoning in relation to the proposal. She pointed out that the existing use is non-residential and the proposed use will remain non-residential. She explained some of the ways the neighborhood planning processes and the Planning and Community Development Director can protect the character of the neighborhood even with this rezone being approved. The Commercial, Planned standards provide limitations to the future uses that would be allowed on the property. She spoke to some different ways the Commission could limit uses on the site. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Dick Conoboy stated that this is definitely, in his opinion, a spot rezone. He pointed out that the zoning for this site is Residential, Single and although the church currently has a conditional use permit to be in this location, the zoning should not be permanently changed. He emphasized that it does not make sense to take a parcel zoned Residential, Single and allow it to become a commercially-zoned piece of property when there is so much need for infill in the city. He explained that the Samish Board approved the revised Samish Neighborhood plan in 2007, and since that time there has not been any change in this section of Samish Way and the neighborhood desires it to remain Residential, Single. He expressed concern that, if zoned commercial, there will be no guarantee about what could be done on this site in the future. He noted that there are other areas this business could relocate to and even though these locations may not be preferable to them, it does not make sense to rezone this parcel Commercial when there is such a need for infill in Bellingham. Final Copy - 4 Steve Abell commented on the proposed combination of the parcels. He pointed out that the stated intents of the two proponents are entirely different. He stated that this is a stable residential area of the Samish Neighborhood, and should remain that way. He noted that he has no issue with the psychology group moving their offices into the church; however, he would like the city to protect the neighborhood from future unwanted commercial activity, other than just allowing the Planning Director to make an administrative decision about future proposals. Ken Chovil stated that there has been very little conversation in the neighborhood that opposes the Psychology practice moving into the Samish Neighborhood. He addressed the growing need for mental health access in this community. He expressed his support for the project, but suggested that the Commission consider limiting some of the allowed uses. Ron Judd stated that this rezone is not about mental health. He noted the job of the Planning Commission is to do smart planning. He pointed out that the zoning for this site is Residential, Single. He expressed his concern that, as previously stated, there are not guarantees for the neighborhood as to what could be developed on that site in the future if it is zoned Commercial. He is of the opinion that the psychology practice will not remain there forever. Yolanda Graham requested that comments from citizens that live in the neighborhood be more heavily considered than comments from those that do not. She stated that although she is in support of the proposal, she is in support of further restrictions being placed on the site. She also supports staff's recommendation to make this property part of Area 9. STAFF RESPONSES Lisa Pool addressed some confusion around staff's recommendation to include 801 Samish as part of Area 9, instead of creating a new sub-area for it. She pointed out that the combination of the two sites would result in the reduction of the uses currently recommended for Area 9, by not allowing retail. COMMISSION QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION There was a discussion about churches that are located in single-family neighborhoods and what happens when they become vacated and a new use is proposed. Staff indicated that there is no policy specific to churches and when a new use is identified the normal change of use process is followed. There was a discussion about the reasons why the applicant was required to request a rezone instead of obtaining a Conditional Use Permit for this site. Staff informed the Commission that medical offices are not a permitted conditional use for Residential, Single zones. Garrett O'Brien stated that it is important to consider that although the site is zoned Residential, Single, there is a large building located on it and repurposing that building verses demolishing it better achieves the goals of the Bellingham Comprehensive Plan. He also wanted to know if there was a way to have the zoning revert back to Residential, Single in the event there is a future change in use. Greg Aucutt stated that there is not a way to automatically revert zoning back to Residential, Single once it is rezoned to Commercial. He suggested that striking uses from the ones that are allowed would be one way to mitigate concerns. Garrett O'Brien clarified that any use restrictions placed on this parcel would also then be imposed onto Area 9 if the Commission were to recommend approval of staff's recommendation. Final Copy - 5 There was a discussion about zoning designation options that could be applied to this site so that 29 of the 30 allowed uses in the Commercial, Planned zone would not need to be excluded to address the public concerns voiced tonight. OPPORTUNITY FOR CLARIFICATION Simi Jane reminded the Planning Commission that the rezone criteria needs to be applied to the application, and expressed concern that the focus appears to be on future development. She shared pictures of converted churches and pointed out that the neighborhood is not unanimously against the rezone. Kate Haskell, Pacific Harbor Psychology, clarified the reason that this property is desired by the applicants. She spoke to the fact that it is on the bus line and close to other services. She pointed out that, unlike the church, her practice would be required to pay property taxes. She noted that there was both opposition and support for the project, and in her opinion, this would be a positive change on the site. There was a discussion about the applicants original rezone request. Staff informed the Commission that it was Commercial, Planned, non-retail. Garrett O'Brien stated that given the fact that both parcels (Area 9 and 801 Samish Way) are requesting almost the exact same zoning, he does not see the value in creating a separate subarea for 801 Samish Way. Jeff Brown stated that although he agrees that this is an appropriate use for the site, he is concerned about vesting commercial rights on this parcel. Tom Grinstad stated that, in his opinion, this is a spot rezone. He stated that churches are allowed in Single, Residential zones as a conditional use and expressed his concern about setting a precedence that other conditional uses could follow to rezone their site when a use change is desired. He suggested that the Commission consider recommending a new subarea be created that would restrict the uses to Planned, Professional Offices only. Phyllis McKee was in favor of creating a new subarea with restrictions. Jeff Brown suggested that staff consider creating a low-intensity, low-impact zone / use qualifier that could be used for future rezones. MOTION: Phyllis Mckee / Jeff Brown moved to keep 801 Samish separate from Area 9. VOTE: MOTION PASSES (6-0) There was a discussion about how to limit the uses on the site to provide some protection for the neighborhood as it relates to future development. There was a discussion about what is stated in the neighborhood plan with regard to the importance of Residential, Single zoning and other desired neighborhood characteristics. Steve Crooks stated that he is against allowing offices "of all kinds". Final Copy - 6 Cerise Noah stated that she supports the rezone as recommended by staff, but cannot support limiting the uses to offices only. She pointed out some of the benefits of combining 801 Samish way with Area 9, specifically the allowance of residential uses. MOTION: Jeff Brown / Phyllis McKee moved to recommend that a new subarea be created for 801 Samish Way zoned Commercial, Planned with an "office only" use qualifier, including a footnote indicating the intent of supporting a low-intensity use as proposed by the applicant. Steve Crooks explained what the definition of zoning is. He pointed out there was no discussion related to the preservation of neighborhood character. He stated that he is against spot zoning and will not be supporting the motion. VOTE: MOTION PASSES (4-2 Crooks and Noah opposed) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED OLD / NEW BUSINESS: There was a discussion about time limits that should be imposed on applicants vs. the general public. ADJOURNED: 9:15 p.m. NEXT MEETING: March 5, 2015 Minutes prepared by: _____________________________ Heather Aven, Recording Secretary Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff. Final Copy - 7