Planning Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON THURSDAY WORK SESSION 7:00 P.M. October 19, 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, Lisa Anderson, Mike Estes and Iris Maute-Gibson Absent: Phyllis McKee and Steve Crooks Staff Present: Greg Aucutt, PCDD Assistant Director; Chris Koch, Planner; Heather Aven, Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None to approve 15 MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Hill Cummings encouraged the community to continue to consider solutions and be open to doing things differently from how they are being done currently. WORK SESSION A continuation of the September 7, 2017 work session in order to review the City's existing accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations, including a summary of changes proposed by staff, and a Detached ADU pilot program proposed by the Happy Valley Neighborhood Assoc. REVIEW OF CHANGES PROPOSED BY STAFF (Attachment 2 of the Staff Report) The Commission provided direction on the following changes proposed by staff.  Consolidate standards: There was general consensus recommending the changes be made.  Minor Modifications: There was general consensus recommending the changes be made.  Where allowed: Staff explained that they are still proposing that no changes be made to the existing allowances or prohibitions of ADU / D-ADU, and instead allow individual neighborhoods to pursue allowing them through the legislative process if interested. Staff also acknowledged that, at the last work session, the Commission did have general consensus to move forward with city-wide approach to allowing D-ADUs. Staff shared a few maps that illustrated where D-ADUs could be built under several city-wide scenarios. o There was a discussion about how the increased density could potentially affect the stormwater and sewer infrastructure. o A conversation regarding the importance of dispersion was held, with concern being expressed that if this were done via limiting the number in a neighborhood, city-wide or even block by block - those with the most money will have the opportunity to build first Final Copy - 1  and potentially remove the possibility of someone who really needs the ADU from being able to build it.  There was general consensus that the owner-occupancy and development standards could help to address this issue without limiting the number of units allowed. It was suggested that the ordinance include a threshold that would determine when the ordinance would be reviewed again. Staff will bring back some options for consideration at the public hearing in December.  Lot Requirements for D-ADUs: After discussion there was general consensus for: o Reducing the minimum lot size from "greater than 10,000" to 5,000 sq. ft.  A brief discussion was had on the necessity of a "minimum lot size" given the 30% open space requirement  Clearly indicate “single-family only” to avoid eliminating the option of developing a D-ADU in multi-family zones on smaller lots o Not tie the size of the ADU to the size of the house o There was concern expressed for the safety of dwelling units built along narrow alleys.  Height: There was general consensus recommending the changes be made.  ADU Size: o There was general consensus that the size of an ADU should be no larger than 800 sq. ft., as long as that is smaller than the main home on the site.  Staff was requested to bring back some percentage options. There was general consensus that it should be more than 50%, but not necessarily 100%.  FAR: There was general consensus recommending the changes be made.  Setbacks: Although there was general consensus recommending the changes be made, the safety concerns related to ADUs being developed on the property line abutting an alley was reiterated. It was requested that staff explore language related to safe-guards to be included in the design standards for dwelling units built on the property line with no setbacks.  Aesthetic Design: There was general consensus recommending the changes be made.  Bedrooms: There was general consensus for the proposed maximum of two bedrooms.  Occupancy: The following thoughts were shared: o Three people total is too restrictive o Reference “rule of 3” rather than capping occupants o Occupancy should not be addressed in the Ordinance, instead add ADU to definitions o Suggested using language related to: “occupancy of dwelling unit should be consistent with the family definition o Owner-occupied requirement should be retained at this time, except in multi-family zones  Important to message that this not a rezone, it is instead changing the form of an already allowed accessory use.  Parking: There was general consensus recommending the changes (including those for parking maneuvering) be made. Final Copy - 2   Utilities: o Concern about ADU occupants not paying "fair share" if the meters are not separate There was a separate discussion related to park and traffic impact fees for ADUs. It was suggested that the fees be reduced given the size of the unit that is allowed to be developed. GENERAL BUSINESS ADJOURNED: 10:20 p.m. Minutes prepared by: _____________________________ Heather Aven, Recording Secretary Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff. Final Copy - 3