Planning Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON THURSDAY PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. April 7, 2016 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 Lisa Anderson Present: Ali Taysi, Garrett O'Brien, Tom Grinstad, Jeff Brown, Phyllis McKee, Steve Crooks and Lisa Anderson Absent: Staff Present: Greg Aucutt, Assistant Planning Director; Lisa Pool, Senior Planner; and Heather Aven, Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes were approved with corrections, by general consensus, for March 31, 2016. 15 MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD No testimony given. PUBLIC HEARING Review the draft 2016 Bellingham Comprehensive Plan. There was no staff presentation. PUBLIC COMMENT Patrick McKee spoke to the Land Use Chapter, specifically Policy LU-19. He pointed out that WTA GO lines run through many older, established neighborhoods. He used the Alabama transportation corridor as an example and expressed concern that if TOD were applied within ¼ mile of the GO line, the corridor would occupy ¾ of the Sunnyland Neighborhood, north of Alabama Street. He stated that if this were to occur, mixed-use development and higher density could be realized in this single-family zoned area. He requested that this policy be drastically changed or deleted from the plan. He stated that this policy contradicts other areas of the Comprehensive Plan that speak to preserving neighborhood character and a sense of place. Jeff Middaugh stated that approximately 35 citizens from the South Hill Neighborhood Association met and discussed the potential threat some of the language from chapters 2 and 4 poses to the single- family residential character of the neighborhood. He pointed out that they unanimously voted to maintain the character and integrity of their neighborhood and requested that precise language be inserted into the Comprehensive Plan to accomplish that goal. He reviewed the five principles that were discussed at their meeting: 1) Current density of the neighborhood (# of legal & illegal ADUs) must be understood; 2) Enforcement of boarding houses remains a concern - precise language about how this will occur should be included in the plan; 3) Detached ADUs - what criteria will be used to determine which neighborhoods would allow detached units; 4) Those references to studies that have not been vetted with the neighborhoods or others should be removed from the plan; and 5) Concern was expressed Final Copy - 1 about the "loop-hole language" that exists throughout the plan that is contrary to maintaining current neighborhood character, and thus could allow single-family zones to become multi-family zones over time. Deborah Middaugh requested that single-family neighborhoods be allowed to retain their existing character. She referenced South Hill and spoke to the number of boarding houses that currently exist, and asked the detached ADUs not be allowed. She spoke to the parking and traffic challenges that could be realized if this higher density is allowed to occur. She requested that the requirement for owner occupancy be retained for all ADUs. She said the safety of citizens is an issue when there is more parking. Anne Mackie stated that she is in agreement with the other speakers. She expressed opposition for Policy H-7 and noted that since we currently do not even know how many ADUs exist, there should not be allowances for more units to be developed. She pointed out that there is no accurate information about neighborhood densities, and lack of enforcement of rooming houses has allowed for "illegal upzones" in single-family neighborhoods. She also expressed opposition to H-15 regarding the CHAT report, given the fact that the report was written eight years ago, prior to the City Council striking down the Infill Toolkit in single-family zones. She would like references to this report removed from the plan, as it's full of regulatory concerns. Eric Scott stated that detached ADUs do not belong in single-family zones. He said that they are a sneaky, dishonest way to upzone. He said that ADUs serve a financial interest and have nothing to do with affordable housing. He said that they are placed as close as possible to a neighbor's house, who is then subject to smoke from renters. These won't be for family members. It's a hit to the working class. Wealthier neighborhoods wouldn't be affected. Nicky Bailey expressed her agreement with previous speakers. She noted that the issue of detached ADUs has been voted down over and over and over again by the neighborhoods. She said that they will ruin investments in people's homes. Tim Hostettler stated that ADUs should be placed in the urban villages, not in single-family residential zones. He commented on the lack of accurate data related to the number of actual ADUs throughout the city. He reiterated his August 20th comments and said that ADUs are chipping away at single-family residential zoning. The ADU program has not been implemented and there has been no inventory or analysis for the Comprehensive Plan. He said that staff made comments regarding ensuring the vitality and having the integrity of neighborhoods upheld. Charles Law stated that simple arithmetic shows that even small rates of growth, if continued, will add up to absurd, large and unsupported population sizes and rates of consumption. He stated that the city should tell the state that we have reached our limit. Sustainable growth is a contradiction. Exponential growth is disastrous when applied to the population He provided some population growth estimates for 70 years into the future. Linda Twitchell requested that references to inclusionary zoning be removed from the plan. She said that the Planning Commission voted last spring to remove it. She said that no growth is not an option under state law under the Growth Management Act. She spoke to the resistance to expand the urban growth area, the lack of buildable land supply, and the neighborhoods who oppose growth in their backyard and questioned how growth within city limits will be accommodated with these challenges. How do we accommodate growth without pushing people out of the community? The Planning Commission should let Council know why they voted a certain way. Final Copy - 2 Jeff Kochman shared that housing units and density will be a large part of the urban villages moving forward. He stated that land use flexibility should be consider to allow for the best use of land in the right place. Regional infrastructure systems (stormwater, wetlands, etc.) help. He proposed additional language be added to LU-10: "parking consolidation and broader shared parking concepts with adjacent property owners or use types". He proposed a comment or bullet point be added to LU-11 that would help make the process to update Neighborhood Plans, based on the Comprehensive Plan directives, either administrative or somehow more certain, so that the information from both documents can be relied on when doing a project. He expressed support for LU-12, LU-15, LU-17, LU-26, H-1 and H-2. He proposed that two additional policies be added, and indicated that proposed language will be sent to staff. He noted the previous comments made on the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and mentioned other policies that they are in agreement with: CF-13, CF-37 and T-1, as well as, the Economic Development Chapter. Steve James questioned how the city can have a discussion about ADUs without accurate knowledge of what currently exists in each neighborhood. He stated that, in his opinion, some of the Comprehensive Plan sections are becoming more regulatory, and he would like to see the entire plan remain a policy document. He pointed out that the language regarding ADUs is inherently unfair to older neighborhoods given that the newer neighborhoods have covenants that won't allow accessory dwelling units. He said we should come up with something more fair. He expressed opposition to detached ADUs, especially since the city can't enforce the existing regulations. How do you enforce owner occupancy? David Cunningham agreed with the other speakers r.e. detached ADUs. He shared a project that Western Washington University students have been doing in the Birchwood Neighborhood. He stated that increasing the density in the Birchwood Neighborhood will degrade the quality of the neighborhood. He expressed concern that the city is not doing enough to support Birchwood's urban core and to bring better stores to the Albertson's area. He explained that the Western students are proposing multi-uses in Birchwood's core, which is a better place for density. He questioned what will occur if a neighborhood exceeds the number of units they are assigned and would like to see an inventory of existing ADUs. Bill Geyer said that the Comprehensive Plan should be forward-thinking. He said the Planning Commission has helped transition the community into a vibrant community. He talked about established helf-acre lots with RS-20 and RS-15 zoning and said that changes to density start here. He quested why these areas are protected. He talked about the requirements of the Growth Management Act. He said that we don't have the diversity of housing to support people's incomes and there is an overabundance of single-family housing. He expressed support for LU-1 and LU-3, although LU-3 could be changed to 1700 square feet. He suggested that LU-8 be revised to indicate that student housing be relegated as permitted to multi-family zones or urban villages. He expressed support for LU-10 and LU-11. He also suggested that a policy be included that would maximize the efficiency of land to minimize the single- family impact of utilities. He also suggested the policy r.e. regional stormwater be expanded to city-wide. Clayton Petree said that 62.4% of growth has occurred in the county since GMA. After that, there has been very poor performance. He pointed out that the city is moving forward with the same plan, and therefore we won't see a change in target rates. He stated that this update gives the city an opportunity to review what has occurred, evaluate the results and make any changes necessary to address issues. He didn't see any language in the plan about "triggers" for UGA reserves. He spoke to the County-Wide Planning Policies (D-2) and explained how the Yew Street UGA Reserve meets those directives and should be included in the UGA. He said that the county's policies are the most powerful policies in GMA. Yew Street could help with the capture rate. Final Copy - 3 Louise Bjornson said that when she was on the City Council, they voted against detached ADUs in single-family neighborhoods. She said that ADUs are less environmentally friendly, result in less play area, fewer gardens, loss of privacy and loss of sun, among other impacts. She pointed out the covenants that newer neighborhoods have protecting them from detached ADUs. She said that Birchwood already has problems and is a historic victory garden neighborhood. She requested that "existing" be replaced with "new" regarding where detached ADUs can be built (page 33). She also asked that "...detached ADUs..." be removed from Policy H-7 and that H-15 be deleted altogether. She recommended that the increased density for the city continue to occur in urban villages. Dick Conoboy recommended that an additional adverse event, "financial collapse and crisis", be added to the beginning of the Land Use Chapter. He would like to see the city plan for the good as well as the bad in the Comprehensive Plan. He spoke to how incentives work (transfers to developers to bolster profits), and would like to see an actual breakdown of what these tax breaks for developers actually cost the citizens. He addressed the ADU issue and reiterated the importance of a detailed density study being done prior to continuing the discussion on accessory dwelling units. He expressed concern related to density, because the average household size (2.24) does not represent all single-family neighborhoods in the city. He expressed support for removing any references to the CHAT report. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Greg Aucutt encouraged the Commission to identify those areas that they would like to have more discussion on during the upcoming work sessions. PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS / COMMENTS: Lisa Anderson wanted to know if the city can break neighborhood covenants and if housing rules are equitable across all neighborhoods. Staff said that the city enforces zoning regulations. Covenants are private contracts that aren't enforced by the city. Jeff Brown wanted to know what progress has been made on the issues related to ADUs in the city, specifically the count and enforcement of illegal units. Staff said that the city is actively pursuing enforcement through the rental registration and safety inspection program. An exact count would be highly difficult to do through a separate process for various legal and logistical reasons. There was a discussion about how removal of language from the Comprehensive Plan would impact the work on an ADU ordinance in the future. GENERAL BUSINESS Shoreline Committee Meeting summary was provided to the Commission. NEXT MEETING - April 14th: A work session on the draft Bellingham Comprehensive Plan. ADJOURNED: 8:40 p.m. Minutes prepared by: _____________________________ Heather Aven, Recording Secretary Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff. Final Copy - 4