Planning Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON THURSDAY Work Session 7:00 P.M. May 4, 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: Ali Taysi (C), Garrett O'Brien (VC), Phyllis McKee, Steve Crooks, Lisa Anderson, Mike Estes and Iris Maute- Gibson Present: Ali Taysi, Garrett O'Brien, Steve Crooks, Phyllis McKee, Lisa Anderson, and Iris Maute-Gibson Absent: Mike Estes Staff Present: Greg Aucutt, PCDD Assistant Director; Steve Sundin, Senior Planner; Elise Keim, Planner; and Heather Aven, Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 20, 2017 were submitted for approval, and were approved by general consensus. 15 MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WORK SESSION Introduction of preliminary revisions to the City's Commercial Zoning Code. STAFF PRESENTATION: Elise Keim provided an overview of how the work session will proceed, provided a brief background of how the revisions were arrived at and highlighted the proposed changes. She reviewed the following from the proposed Commercial Development Chapter:  20.33.010 Applicability: o No suggestions  20.33.020 Purpose and Intent: o There was general consensus that all of the suggested additional topic should be included in this section. o There was a brief discussion on whether a Planned Permit would still be required if the proposed revisions captured the same information.  20.33.030 Range of Uses Possible: o There was support for incorporating broader categories o There was also support for condensing and removing uses that are no longer appropriate or necessary o There was some concern expressed about removing residential uses from commercial zones; however, that could be eased with the clarity of how a Director's Interpretation will be applied. Final Copy - 1  o There was a discussion related to the whether or not single-family houses should be a permitted use in neighborhood commercial zones.  It was suggested that staff consider revising the code to indicate that single-family homes are not permitted in neighborhood commercial zones; however, existing single-family homes, developed prior the code change, remains an outright permitted use so that it does not become non-conforming.  The point was made that there are far more vacancies in commercial than there are in residential, and if single-family houses are not allowed in neighborhood commercial zones, we will run the risk of not having places to infill.  It was mentioned that multi-family would still be allowed, although a commercial component would still be required.  20.33.040 Development Standards: o There was a suggestion to remove references to “ft.” and use the footnote to capture ALL uses being subject to the 20-foot required setback. o It was suggested that reductions to setbacks are made available if the owner can demonstrate privacy / separation could be achieved, rather than limit it to masonry. o There was general consensus that flexibility be included in the code for Development Standards; however, concern was also expressed about how to work with those that could not demonstrate adequate privacy/separation.  20.33.050 Commercial Design: o It was pointed out that process will not be included in the Code, instead it will be in BMC 20.25 o Cautioned against being too prescriptive and would like to see opportunities for flexibility  20.33.060 Other Code Requirements o There was general consensus that this section would occur prior to the Design Review section o Staff suggested reworking the list to organize the information in such a way that it identifies, "these do apply" (standard), "these might apply, based on project" (all others)  BMC 20.25 o There was a discussion regarding the language related to "development within 50' of residential zones"  Some Commissioners felt language was misleading, because the Director, or the applicant makes the determination if the project must go before the Board as it is written in F2. Staff will clarify the language in this section - and others as applicable.  There was general consensus that using "adjacent to" rather than specifying 50' was more appropriate. Some concern was expressed related to adjacent applying / no applying for properties across a right-of-way, and it was suggested that defining "adjacent" might help. o There was a suggestion to include "potentially contributing historic sites" to the list in section E.2.d. o There was general consensus that, with regard to Design Standards, allowing flexibility for how the standards are met is important. o Request was made to add comments to the material – even if it does not end up being adopted. Final Copy - 2 PUBLIC COMMENT No public testimony was given. GENERAL BUSINESS Greg Aucutt reviewed upcoming meetings on the Commission's calendar. ADJOURNED: 9:00 p.m. Minutes prepared by: _____________________________ Heather Aven, Recording Secretary Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff. Final Copy - 3