Planning Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON Thursday 7:00 PM May 20, 2021 City Council Chambers Video Recorded www.cob.org Call to Order / Roll Call Present: Mike Estes (Chair), Ali Taysi, Jed Ballew, Rose Lathrop, Scott Jones and Victor Crosetti Approval of Minutes Minutes from May 6, 2021 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. Carolyn Burkhart shared that she moved here in the hopes that she would be able to have an ADU to assist in family care. She commented on the existing restrictions for ADUs and encouraged the City to reconsider some of the noticing requirements. Virginia MacDonald also spoke to the restrictions of an ADU. She stated that she would encourage the City to create more incentives for this housing type to help avoid gentrification from occurring. PUBLIC HEARING RM Project – to consider a draft ordinance amending the 2016 Bellingham Comprehensive Plan and Bellingham Municipal Code for the purposes of the Residential Multi (RM) project. Staff reviewed the proposed changes and explained the additional proposed amendments to the Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC) being proposed. There was a brief discussion about the RM Transition Zones. Staff clarified some of the housing types that would be allowed; as well as how the development regulations would dictate what can be built. There was a conversation regarding minimum gross density and how the exception process could assist in the event there are several wetlands/critical areas that would hinder development options. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN Nabil Kamel noted that there are multi-family projects emerging in areas that are predominately single-family, even though they will not be compatible with the existing neighborhood character. He questioned how the areas were selected for residential-multi development. Michael Chiavario expressed his support for the minimum densities being included in all three range categories. He noted his advocacy for affordability and suggested that the City consider requiring the larger, more dense projects, set aside 50% of the units to be made permanently affordable. He referenced BMC LU-4 Unique character and stated that this policy should not be interpreted in such a way that would hinder a neighborhood from evolving. Derek Long stated that he is part of the Whatcom Housing Alliance Policy and Steering Committees. He referenced their letter of support that was submitted to the City and read a short portion of it to the Commission. He also expressed his personal support for the additional housing units that these proposed amendments would allow to be built. Carrie Veldman expressed her support for the proposed changes being considered. She pointed out that this update will be beneficial to the growth as a City. She specifically referenced Area 11 and commented that the zoning table still indicates that the Cordata PUD is the regulating document, even though it qualifies for high density within the RM project. She requested that the zoning table be amended to allow Area 11 be included in the high density area. Ralph Black, Alliance Properties expressed his concern with a few of the proposed amendments being considered. 1) 25% maximum single-family – there is no need to place a restriction on the housing type, as that should be irrelevant if the required housing density can be reached; the builder/developer should have as much flexibility as possible; and there has to be enough single-family development allowed to pay for the required infrastructure, as those costs cannot be added into multi-family development. 2) Minimum Densities – he suggested that since staff has acknowledged that there are situations that would impact how this can be achieved, instead of having the proposed exemption process, just include language in the code that would indicate those areas are subtracted from what the buildable pad is. 3) 50% cap on single- family in a single phase – he stated that if the preliminary plat meets the density codes and all requirements, why does it matter how the development of the units occur. Staff responded to some of the comments and responded to the questions that were asked. COMMISSIONER COMMENT / DISCUSSION There was a brief discussion about the analysis that was done before determining that these proposed changes to the code needed to occur in order to ensure we are achieving the intended number of units in multi-family zoned areas. There was a conversation regarding the decision to place restrictions on single-family development and instead push to the Infill Toolkit, when many facets of the toolkit need to be reworked and revised. Staff shared that the main reason for the restriction on single-family development in multi-family zones is to ensure that the multi-units actually get built-out. Commissioners pointed out that, as presented, the entire site could be developed with detached Infill Toolkit housing forms, but not with single-family units; which does not make sense. Staff responded that the intent is for multi-family densities in multi-family zones whether they are separate or shared walls that would provide for affordability. Staff also mentioned that the Infill Toolkit has design regulations that are not applicable to the standard single-family units. There was a suggestion made to instead consider a minimum number of multi-units to prevent the entire site being developed with single units. There was a question about how home ownership would be realized through this process. Staff explained that many of the Infill Toolkit forms allow for ownership and if there were more multi-family units created in the appropriate areas, some of the existing single-family homes would allow for this home-ownership opportunity as well. There was a discussion about minimum densities. Staff clarified that the City is not proposing any changes to the existing zoning, but instead aligning the adopted densities with the comprehensive plan density ranges and trying to ensure that the intended densities are realized. Staff provided a brief overview on the history of the Cordata PUD and how it impacts this project. There was a conversation about parking requirements and what that might look like for structured parking facilities in the future. There was a discussion on the potential changes to the transition duplex zones and how the density ranges would affect those areas. The topic of permanent affordable housing incentives was discussed and how that might be realized if there is unlimited density allowed through certain bonuses. There was a discussion about the necessity of the RM Low zone designation given the areas within that category and the density will not really achieve residential-multi units. Staff explained why the City chose to include this designation. A brief discussion occurred related to the reasons that some of the designations in the neighborhood plans changed. Staff explained that it was done in an effort to ensure there was consistency between the neighborhood plans and the zoning tables. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Old/New Business Greg Aucutt reviewed the upcoming scheduled meetings: June 3, June 10 and June 17, 2021. Adjournment Minutes prepared by: Heather Aven Heather Aven, Recording Secretary Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff.