Planning Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON Thursday 7:00 PM February 15, 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 Minutes from January 18, 2018 and February 1, 2018 were approved by general consensus. 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. No comment was taken. WORK SESSION Continued consideration of the proposed draft ADU ordinance and related amendments to BMC 20.30.100 and 20.32.110. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS / QUESTIONS The remaining discussion agenda items were considered by the Commission. 5b) Include a "trigger" for future review of ADU ordinance. MOTION: Iris Maute-Gibson / Garrett O'Brien moved to accept staff's recommendation of a trigger as proposed. There was a discussion about the 25-unit trigger and the following concerns were pointed out:  A single new development could push a neighborhood over the 25 unit threshold before much time has passed to analyze the impacts of D-ADUs. Staff acknowledged this could occur and stated that City Council, upon review of the ordinance, could determine that not enough time has passed and delay making any changes to the ordinance at that time.   25 units in a new development is not the same as 25 units in an established, already built-out, neighborhood. There was a suggestion that neighborhoods established after 1995 be exempt from the 25 unit cap, so that development would not be hindered in appropriate areas. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Garrett O'Brien / Phyllis McKee moved to include language that would exempt areas that were annexed into the city after 1995 from the triggers proposed by staff. VOTE: CARRIED 6-0. VOTE: CARRIED 6-0. The Commission agreed that, in the event the Council did not implement D-ADUs citywide, the proposed cap of 20 units for the Happy Valley Neighborhood pilot program would be appropriate. 3) Consolidate and standardize existing ADU regulations? There was general consensus for the amendments proposed by staff. 4) Allow administrative minor modifications to ADU regulations to increase flexibility? Staff clarified that, if accepted, this process would apply to both attached and detached ADUs. They also shared that any decision would be appealable and notice would be given to surrounding neighbors. There was general consensus to accept the language as proposed by staff. 6) Reduce the minimum lot size for D-ADUs from over 10,000 sq. ft. to 5,000 sq. ft.? Staff reviewed where D-ADUs are currently allowed and shared how that would change if the minimum lot size was reduced. It was pointed out that by having standards that apply citywide, the issue of dispersion could be mitigated. There was also concern expressed about the potential loss of green space, habitat and trees; as well as the increased parking and noise is not worth what will be gained by the reduction. MOTION: Iris Maute-Gibson / Mike Estes moved to recommend approval of the proposed reduction of the minimum lot size from 10,000 sq. ft. to 5,000 sq. ft. for D-ADUs. It was pointed out that even with this reduction in lot size, there will still be open space requirements that must be met. Staff clarified that a public right-of-way does not count toward the on-site open space requirement. VOTE: CARRIED 5-1. (Opposed: Anderson) 7a) Reduce the maximum allowed height of D-ADUs from 25' to 20'? and 7b) Eliminate the provision that further limits D-ADU height to that of the primary residence? It was suggested that the provision that further limits D-ADU height to that of the primary residence is important and should be retained. MOTION: Garrett O'Brien / Phyllis McKee moved to accept staff's recommendation of reducing the maximum allowed height of D-ADUs from 25 ft. to 20 ft. and eliminating the provision that relates to the primary residence. VOTE: CARRIED 5-1. (Opposed: Anderson) 8b) Allow D-ADU with garage/shop to be up to 1,000 sq. ft. with conditions (D-ADU not to exceed 800 sq. ft. or D-ADU plus garage/shop not to exceed 90% of the primary residence size)? Staff explained when this could occur. It was suggested that the 800 ft. cap be implemented citywide and require larger structures to be allowed through a conditional use permit. There was general consensus to remove item 8b. 8c) Allow D-ADU with garage/shop to exceed 1,000 sq. ft. with conditional use permit (D-ADU not to exceed 800 sq. ft.)? There was general consensus that 800 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed without a conditional use permit. MOTION: Garrett O'Brien / Lisa Anderson moved to eliminate item 8b and change item 8c to 800 sq. ft. with anything larger requiring a conditional use permit. VOTE: CARRIED 6-0. 8d) Eliminate provision limiting D-ADUs to no more than 500 sq. ft. on any one floor? There was general consensus for this provision. 8e) Eliminate "floor area ratio" limit on D-ADUs except for when an ADU (attached or detached) is built in conjunction with Infill Toolkit Housing (BMC 20.28)? There was general consensus for this provision. 10) Design Standards There was general consensus for the proposed language under the Design Standards section. 10a) Include design standards for D-ADUs built adjacent to alley property lines? and 10b) Allow the A- ADU a street facing entrance on the same facade as the primary residence, provided it is subordinate in design/appearance? Staff explained that they do not have proposed design standard language related to how units facing an alley should interface, given the vast subjectivity. The concern about the safety of those units being built right on the property line was reiterated. Staff provided clarification on the 20' maneuvering requirement. There was general consensus for staff's proposed amendments. 11) Limit the number of bedrooms in D-ADUs to two? There was concern expressed that this was an unnecessary burden to add, especially given that the number of occupants is also mandated. It was pointed out that additional bedrooms would bring additional impacts, and the D-ADU is supposed to be secondary living space. It was also mentioned that other living spaces would be minimized to maximize the "rental opportunities". MOTION: Lisa Anderson / Garrett O'Brien moved to accept staff's recommendation of limiting number of bedrooms in a D-ADU to two. VOTE: CARRIED 5-1. (Opposed: Maute-Gibson) 12a) ADU occupancy: Tie to the current "family" definition? and 12b) Use current ADU occupancy requirement of no more than 3 persons? There was support for both options. It was pointed out that either way is impossible to enforce. MOTION: Ali Taysi / Garrett O'Brien moved to recommend that the ADU occupancy be limited to no more than 4 persons. VOTE: CARRIED 6-0. 13a) Revise on-site parking requirement from one stall per bedroom to one stall per attached and detached ADUs? and 13b) Allow for administrative reduction as proposed? There was support expressed to leave the number of parking stalls at one stall per bedroom, as we are not yet a community without vehicles. It was suggested that in an effort to save street parking, tandem parking should be allowed for D-ADUs. MOTION: Garrett O'Brien / Mike Estes moved to approve staff's recommendation of reducing the parking requirement to one stall per attached or detached ADUs and allow for administrative reduction as proposed. There was both support and opposition for this motion. In an effort to address some of the parking issues that must be dealt with in some of the neighborhoods, the requirement of at least one stall is necessary. It was suggested that the Commission should be planning for future generations and the City / WTA should be providing transportation solutions for denser areas. It was pointed out that the restriction of parking will be physically impossible for many property owners to comply with and should not be a barrier to development if it is not a problem. There was support expressed for the current requirement of one per bedroom with the allowance for administrative reduction. VOTE: Fail 3-3. (Opposed: McKee, Maute-Gibson, Anderson) MOTION: Phyllis McKee / Lisa Anderson moved to retain existing parking requirements of one stall per bedroom and include the allowance for administrative reduction as proposed. There was concern expressed that this would be a step backwards, given a single-family home is only required to have 2 stalls, regardless of the number of bedrooms. It was also reiterated that this is "solving" a problem that does not exist everywhere. There was a discussion about how the administrative reduction process could be used to do less than what is outright required, where appropriate. VOTE: Fail 2-4. (Opposed: Taysi, O'Brien, Estes, Maute-Gibson) MOTION: Garrett O'Brien / Ali Taysi moved to approve staff's recommendation of reducing the parking requirement to one stall per attached or detached ADUs and allow for administrative reduction as proposed. It was pointed out that although there may be opinions on the Commission that parking is not necessary, the public comment received by the Commission says the community feels differently. There was support expressed for the compromise staff proposed. VOTE: CARRIED 4-2. (Opposed: Maute-Gibson, Anderson) 14) Eliminate the 10' garage door setback requirement for detached accessory buildings from public alleys? There was general support for this amendment. 15) Reduce or eliminate impact fees for ADUs? There was concern expressed over allowing someone to build a separate unit, possibly benefit from it financially and even though there will be people living in the structure that will produce impacts, the property owners were not required to pay the fees. It was also pointed out amenities such as bathrooms or sidewalks in neighborhood parks will not be a reality if impact fees are waived. There was support for reducing the fees. MOTION: Garrett O'Brien / Mike Estes moved to support staff's proposal to eliminate the impact fees for ADUs. VOTE: CARRIED 5-1. (Opposed: Anderson) The Commission also reviewed the draft Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations. Commissioner Maute-Gibson suggested that six items be added to the issues and opportunities section of the Findings of Fact. There was discussion about inclusion of these items. MOTION: Garrett O'Brien / Phyllis McKee moved to add #1) Help meet GMA goals to reduce impacts of sprawl and #3) Appropriate form of housing for shifting demographics of Bellingham from Commissioner Maute-Gibson's suggestions. VOTE: CARRIED 6-0. MOTION: Garrett O'Brien / Mike Estes moved to accept the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations included in the January 25, 2018 staff report as amended through the Commission discussions at the February 1, and February 15, 2018 work sessions and forward a recommendation of approval to City Council. Commissioner Anderson stated that she would not be supporting the motion. She noted that she supports D-ADUs being allowed in single-family neighborhoods under certain circumstances; however, she does not approve of the process that was followed to deem them appropriate citywide. She pointed out that neighborhoods should have the opportunity to weigh in, like Happy Valley did when proposing their pilot project. Commissioner O'Brien commented on the work of the body and encouraged City Council to follow the recommendation of the Commission. He noted that there is no mandate to build one and, in his opinion, it will be a very small percentage of the housing stock. He pointed out that he does not believe that planning for the City should be done on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. Commissioner Estes stated that the ordinance will bring the community closer to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that some of the issues that were brought up by community members are more appropriately addressed through rental enforcement and abuse of new single-family construction, not by prohibiting the unit itself. He commented on the demand for the units, that are occurring whether it is allowed or not. Commissioner Taysi expressed his support for the collaboration of the Commission as a whole. He pointed out that some of the design standards will help to address many of the concerns the group heard from the community. VOTE: CARRIED 5-1. (Opposed: Anderson) Old/New Business Greg Aucutt reviewed the upcoming meetings. Adjournment Minutes prepared by: ____________________________________________ Heather Aven, Recording Secretary Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff.