Planning Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON Thursday 7:00 PM February 1, 2018 City Council Chambers Video Recorded www.cob.org Call to Order / Roll Call Present: Ali Taysi (Chair), Garrett O'Brien (Vice Chair), Phyllis McKee (Commissioner), Mike Estes (Commissioner), Iris Maute-Gibson (Commissioner), Lisa Anderson (Commissioner) Absent: Steve Crooks (Commissioner) Approval of Minutes There were no minutes to approve. Public Comment Period Opportunity for citizens to speak informally to the Planning Commissioners on any subject not listed on the agenda. Speakers are allowed a MAXIMUM of three (3) minutes to address the Commission. Speakers will not be required to disclose their address. There was no comment given. WORK SESSION A work session to continue the discussion on the proposed amendments to the ADU Ordinance. STAFF PRESENTATION Greg Aucutt reviewed a summary of the major issues expressed in both the written and verbal public testimony, and requested the Commission to indicate if any issues that were not included, should be. He also reviewed a handout that responded to the Commission's question about housing statistics in Bellingham. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS / QUESTIONS The following discussion agenda items were discussed: 1) and 2a) Where should Detached ADUs be allowed? Commissioner Anderson stated that there should be no change to where D-ADUs are currently allowed. She noted that ADUs are already allowed in single-family neighborhoods, which could accommodate aging parents, children in need of assistance or extra income and address the need for infill opportunities and additional housing choices. She expressed support for the Happy Valley pilot program and the process they followed to create it and stated that, in her opinion, every neighborhood should have the same opportunity. She is not in favor of allowing the D-ADUs in all neighborhoods without this process happening. She stated that she does not feel confident that the community knows what is going forward. She pointed out that this will not address the affordable housing issue, and in fact it will increase the value of the property. MOTION: Lisa Anderson / Garrett O'Brien moved to adopt staff's recommendation to allow D- ADUs in single-family zoned areas on a per neighborhood basis through legislative action. Commissioner McKee indicated she has struggled with the same thing, and she feels the motion addresses that. Commissioner Maute-Gibson noted that implementing D-ADUs on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis will slow progress. She pointed out that although ADUs, whether attached or detached will not BE the affordable housing solution, it should be one of the components used to address the issue. She stated that addressing this through a city-wide approach is much more appropriate and will make the community more inclusive and vibrant. Commissioner O'Brien noted his support for city-wide implementation, as it will allow for more housing choice. He pointed out this is a goal in the Comprehensive Plan and taking a neighborhood by neighborhood approach is against the mandate of the Commission to plan for the city as a whole. Commissioner Estes stated that he is not in favor of the motion. He explained that, in his opinion, some of the issues that were expressed through testimony will be made worse with inaction. He pointed out that without choice, there is a chance that single-family tear downs could occur and redevelopment, in compliance with existing regulations, would far surpass any impacts that an ADU would bring. He acknowledged that although the ADU (D-ADU) would not necessarily be the affordable housing choice, it could provide an option for someone who would free up an affordable unit. Commissioner Anderson commented on the notion that D-ADUs could prevent urban sprawl. She pointed out that, as a city, we decided against moving into the urban growth areas and instead put most of our increased density in our Urban Villages. She stated that she does not agree with the thought that ADUs would provide more affordable units to be vacated. She expressed her disappointment in the city- wide approach the Commission has chosen to pursue instead of creating an option that someone could use to either legalize their existing unit or develop a new one that would allow for the consideration of that individual neighborhood and parcel. Commissioner Taysi acknowledged that ADUs (D-ADUs) are not the solution to urban sprawl on their own, but together with more single-family homes, additional multi-family units and more developed urban villages they can make a difference. He expressed concern that when the city is not planned for as a whole, segregation will begin to occur. He stated that it is important to do everything possible to address the housing crisis. He pointed out that 800 sq. ft. detached accessory units are already legally allowed throughout the city; therefore, the only change this ordinance would allow for is people, that are not part of the primary family, to live in the backyard. VOTE: Fail 2-4. (Opposed: Taysi, O'Brien, Estes, Maute-Gibson) MOTION: Iris Maute-Gibson / Garrett O'Brien moved to recommend D-ADUs be allowed city- wide. VOTE: CARRIED 4-2. (Opposed: McKee, Anderson) MOTION: Garrett O'Brien / Mike Estes moved that there be a single set of development standards city-wide. There was a discussion about the process that would occur at City Council if they did not agree with the recommendations of the Commission. There was general consensus that language be included in the findings that expressed support for the consideration of the Happy Valley Pilot Program if a city-wide ordinance was not supported. VOTE: CARRIED 6-0. 2b) and 5) Threshold Review: A discussion about staff's recommendation of 2021 being the trigger that would prompt the City's review of the ordinance occurred. There was concern expressed about the length of time it sometimes can take for the review process to begin given other work program priorities. It was suggested that there be a stop gap in place, like a pause in the issuance of permits, until the review is completed. There was also concern expressed that, if the City's recommendation of 2021 is approved, it would be too short of a time frame for a good collection of data. Staff acknowledged that 2021 is a short time frame, and they would not be opposed to having that date extended out. Staff also addressed the suggestion of additional stop gap language and requested the Commission to consider also allowing for a one year grace period before the stop gap measures took effect. There was a conversation about choosing a number of units as the trigger to prompt the City's review of the ordinance. Staff explained that the time-frame was chosen so that the analysis of the units being developed could be done, but they indicated they would not be opposed to a number instead. There was general consensus to have both options included in the ordinance, a year and a unit count (using a fairly high number was suggested); as well as indicating that the review "shall" be done. It was pointed out that, given the work associated with the Comprehensive Plan and the goals and policies that are considered, the review of the ADU Ordinance should occur after that work has been completed. Staff will take this direction and make a proposal to the Commission at the next work session. 2c) and 9) Revise required building setbacks for detached ADUs? Staff clarified the differences between staff's recommendation and Happy Valley's pilot program is the necessity for the adjacent property owner's permission to develop a D-ADU on the property line. There was a suggestion that the standard setback requirement be 10' and allow for minor modifications where it makes sense. Another suggestion was to combine the two proposals and require new units to adhere to the setback requirement of 5' and allow existing structures to be in the rear 32' of the property through the minor modification process if certain criteria is met. Staff suggested that an option for the adjacent property owner's permission still be included. There was general support for staff to consider including language that would allow new units to be developed with a 5' setback, or allow the 0' option with adjacent property owner's permission or through administrative approval with the minor modification process and criteria contained in the Happy Valley proposal. 2d) D-ADU size in relation to the primary residence: There were two views presented 1) the importance of having the unit being clearly secondary to the primary structure and 2) the allowance of an appropriate size unit regardless of the size of the primary structure. There was discussion about what % of the primary residence a new accessory unit should be allowed to be. It was pointed out that there was also an open space requirement to consider. MOTION: Lisa Anderson / Mike Estes moved to support staff's recommendation for ADUs to be either 50% of the primary dwelling or 800 sq. ft., whichever is more restrictive. VOTE: Fail 2-4. (Opposed: Taysi, McKee, Estes, Maute-Gibson) MOTION: Ali Taysi / Iris Maute-Gibson moved to allow ADUs to be either 66% of the primary dwelling or 800 sq. ft., whichever is more restrictive. VOTE: CARRIED 4-2. (Opposed: O'Brien, Anderson) 2e) Design Standards Staff explained that Happy Valley's proposal would only require the City's design standards to be applicable to D-ADUs that exceed 15' tall. There was a suggestion that this be applicable city-wide except when the unit was situated next to the primary residence. It was pointed out that the design standards are not that strict and the requirements contained in the standards should be encouraged. There was a discussion about the challenges of requiring design standards on all D-ADUs and the minor modification process was reviewed by staff as a tool the property owner could use if they feel the requirements are too onerous. There was a suggestion that some policy language be included that explain what the intention of the design standards are. MOTION: Garrett O'Brien / Phyllis McKee moved to require all D-ADUs be subject to the City's design standards and include policy language in the ordinance that expresses the intent for quality development. VOTE: CARRIED 5-1. (Opposed: Maute-Gibson) Old/New Business Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 10:10pm Minutes prepared by: ____________________________________________ Heather Aven, Recording Secretary Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff.