Planning Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON THURSDAY PUBLIC HEARING & WORK SESSION 7:00 P.M. March 16, 2017 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 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, Garrett O'Brien (VC), Ali Taysi (C), Phyllis McKee, Steve Crooks, Lisa Anderson and Mike Estes Present: Ali Taysi, Garrett O'Brien, Tom Grinstad, Steve Crooks, Phyllis McKee, and Lisa Anderson Absent: Mike Estes Staff Present: Kurt Nabbefeld, PCDD Development Services Manager; Kathy Bell, Senior Planner and Heather Aven, Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 12th & 19th and February 2, 2017 were approved by general consensus. 15 MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Linda Twitchell thanked Commissioner Jeff Brown for his service to the City. PUBLIC HEARING Public hearing to consider minor amendments to the land use development ordinance. STAFF PRESENTATION: Kurt Nabbefeld explained what the running list was and how items get added to the list for consideration. He discussed the efficiency of combining several amendments and reviewed the following items before the Commission: Fence Materials between Residential and Transitional Zoning He explained the Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC) is generally silent on this topic and pointed out that although chain link has been used, it is not very compatible with residential uses. He stated that staff feels the fencing should integrate with the building and add visual interest in detail, materials and color. Unclassified Uses in Commercial and Industrial Zones He stated that not all uses are listed in the BMC and therefore it would be useful to have criteria to evaluate the impacts of those uses that are not listed to make the determination if they are permitted or conditional. He explained that this would allow for standardizing interpretations on such uses. Fairhaven Buildings Mounted Signage He stated that additional language was necessary to clarify regulations. He pointed out that the existing language does not adequately address signage. He shared what staff thought would be appropriate and explained that this clarification language would allow for predictability for applicants. Final Copy - 1 PUBLIC COMMENT No public testimony given. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS / COMMENTS Fence Materials between Residential and Transitional Zoning Tom Grinstad questioned which areas of the City would be subject to the new rules and regulations. Kurt Nabbefeld clarified that although it would apply to all development in the Urban Villages, the new language would be added to both the Design Review and the Commercial Zone sections of the Bellingham Municipal Code. There was a discussion about how an existing chain link fence would be handled. Staff stated that although they would, more than likely, not require the fence be removed, additional landscaping may be required to help mitigate for it. There was general consensus among the Commissioners that if non- conformity language did not already exist, staff should consider adding it to the code to help clarify expectations of property owners. A brief discussion occurred related to the amount of damage that could be done to a non-conforming chain-link fence before the requirement to change it would be implemented. Staff explained that the code stated that if the damage to non-conforming property is less than 50%, it can be rebuilt with same materials; more than 50% and it must comply with existing code requirements. It was also clarified that temporary chain-link fencing would be allowed during the actual development of the property, and it would be deemed appropriate around school properties. Unclassified Uses in Commercial and Industrial Zones There was a discussion about the intention behind 20.24.020(B)(3) regarding the impacts a new development might create. Staff explained that generating impacts is absolutely allowed, as long as they are similar in nature to the existing permitted uses. There was a discussion about the process, both with regard to the appeal opportunities and the length of time staff has to make the decision on Type I applications. Fairhaven Buildings Mounted Signage There was a discussion about the maximum size of the sign being 100 sq. ft. per building, regardless of the number of tenants. There was some concern expressed about larger buildings, with multiple tenants, not having enough space on a sign that was only 100 sq. ft. Staff did clarify that with larger buildings (around 6 stories), there could be allowances made if it could be determined there were separate buildings on the block. It was further clarified that each tenant would be allowed to have a projecting sign. Kurt Nabbefeld explained how the code works to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. He shared different examples of how the goals are overarching and would not apply to every area of the City. Final Copy - 2 MOTION: Lisa Anderson / Tom Grinstad moved to accept all three minor code amendments as presented in the March 16, 2017 Findings and Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations, and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. WORK SESSION A work session to continue the discussion on the proposed amendments to Title 18, BMC (City's subdivision regulations), and associated amendments to other titles of the Bellingham Municipal Code determined necessary to support Title 18, BMC. STAFF / COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Kathy Bell provided an overview of the process to date. The Commission discussed the following topics: Preliminary Plat: Staff explained the section and highlighted the proposed changes. Phasing: The proposed regulations related to phasing were reviewed. It was pointed out that "at least two phases" should be removed to provide clarity, given the fact that there is nothing prohibiting all of the development occurring in one phase. Staff acknowledged the need for predictability, but also expressed interest in providing flexibility for future development and the integration of changes as they are implemented. There was a brief conversation on why 25 units was chosen as the indicator to allow for phasing to occur. It was pointed out that the scale of homes is going to vary, and there does not seem to be any provisions for that with an identified unit count. There was general consensus that the length of time allowed to complete the plat is more important than the number of units required to be granted the opportunity to phase the project. Time Limitations: It was suggested that the “prior to expiration, the Director...” language be added to this section. Modifications: Staff provided some examples of what modifications would fall under this category and explained the reasons this section was included in the ordinance. There was a suggestion that A) and B) language matches for clarification purposes. There was a discussion on section 18.16.020 regarding the language related to service providers not actually including all of them. Staff stated this language was out of the State's Subdivision Ordinance, but in an effort to encompass all providers, "or other applicable providers" can be added. Final Plat: Staff explained the section and highlighted the proposed changes. There was also a brief mention of a Senate Bill that has been proposed, and if passed, would allow final approval authority to be given to the administrator of the Subdivision Ordinance. There was a brief discussion about the lack of time commitments that the City must adhere to being outlined in the ordinance. Staff noted that a policy and procedure manual will be created where those types of items will be addressed and outlined. There was a suggestion that the ordinance include reference to the manual in an effort to keep all parties accountable. Final Copy - 3 There was concern expressed about City Council, a political entity, having the authority to make changes to the Final Plat related to health / safety concerns. It was suggested that instead, the Planning Director be given that authority. Another suggestion would be to include clear criteria that the City Council could consider when making this type of decision. PUBLIC COMMENT No public testimony. GENERAL BUSINESS ADJOURNED: 9:30 p.m. Minutes prepared by: _____________________________ Heather Aven, Recording Secretary Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff. Final Copy - 4