Planning Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON Thursday 7:00 PM June 10, 2021 City Council Chambers Video Recorded www.cob.org Call to Order / Roll Call Present: Mike Estes (Chair), Ali Taysi, Barbara Plaskett, Jed Ballew, Rose Lathrop, Scott Jones and Victor Crosetti Approval of Minutes 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. Ralph Black acknowledged that there have been occasions in the past where the desired densities have not been achieved, and the inclusion of the minimum density requirement should help to rectify that moving forward. He pointed out that although the proposed cap on single-family units is intended to ensure a variety of housing types is built, the decision of the housing mix should fall to the developer or property owner, not the City to decide. Dan Dunne stated that the BIAWC supports minimum densities in residential, multi zoned areas, and feel that given the number of multi-family units being built right now, single-family units are appropriate in these zones. He acknowledged the work done to the Urban Vilalge Design Review plan suggested that the Infill Toolkit be reviewed and updated by staff as well. Perry Eskridge, Whatcom County Association of Realtors commented on densities. He expressed concern related to the caps being proposed as it will limit the developer’s ability to provide the types of housing the public is looking to purchase and invest in. He also pointed out the constraints on the developable land and cautioned staff on how they require densities be calculated. Virginia MacDonald stated that in her opinion, more multi-family housing would equal more rental income for developers. She pointed out that the City needs to find ways to create permanently long-term affordable housing so that we can limit the amount of displacement that currently exists. She spoke to the cost of an ADU, and stated that although it would increase the housing stock, it would not assist in creating affordable housing because she would have to rent it out at market-rate. Carrie Veldman commented on density designation for the Cordata PUD and urged the Commission to recommend making the change to high density for these areas. She questioned why ADUs are not counted in the middle-density range as a unit. Paul Schissler commented on the lack of affordable housing for those making less than 50% of the area-median-income. He cautioned against the thought that simply increasing the number of homes on the market will make housing affordable. Presentation Presentation on Urban Village Design Review Updates Darby Cowles presented the work done to date on the Urban Village Design Review Update. She reviewed the goals of the project and explained some of the reasons they were chosen. She shared some of the updates that are being proposed to make the plan more user-friendly. She noted that each of the urban villages would have their own appendices. Darby commented on some of the current challenges applicants face with the current plan and highlighted some of the recommended changes to the existing procedures. She talked about the proposed schedule and the next steps staff will be taking in the update process. 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. Kurt Nabbefeld explained that the proposed 25% cap on single-family units in multi-family zones is consistent with the 25% cap on multi-family units in residential, multi zones. He also emphasized the importance of achieving diversity in housing types being developed. Staff reviewed the proposed amendments to the draft ordinance. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION / COMMENTS There was discussion on the importance of housing-type diversity and some commissioners felt the minimum density requirements will help to achieve this. It was reiterated that the Infill Housing Toolkit needed to be updated and the Commission asked staff to explain the difference between a standard single-family unit and the detached small home option in the Infill Toolkit. Staff also shared the original intentions of the Infill Toolkit and pointed out many of the ways it has been successful in providing alternative housing that the community seems to be embracing. It was also suggested that with improvements to the Infill Toolkit, the restrictions of this ordinance would not seem so oppressive. There was a brief conversation related to multi-level housing that would be available for ownership versus renting. There was support for a phased approach when including single-family in a multi-family zoned area to reduce the risk of either the funding for the multi-family units failing and the units are never developed or the multi-family units get rejected by the neighbors because the area is solely single-family even though the zoning is residential, multi. The idea of setting aside a portion of the multi-family zoned areas for the purpose of achieving medium to medium-high density by using the duplexes and townhome housing forms without the design requirements of the Infill Toolkit was brought up for discussion. Staff stated that the multi-family duplex zones are intended achieve this type of density. There was a discussion on the revisions staff made to the Cordata Neighborhood Plan and zoning table. Staff explained the changes from what the Commission was presented at the public hearing. There was general consensus for these revisions. There was a conversation about the neighborhood zoning tables and how a few of them (Happy Valley, Sehome, Fountain and Fairhaven) should be updated during this process to avoid confusion by the user or un necessary limitations. Staff explained that although they can see the value in making the changes, they do not feel that it falls within the published scope of the RM Project and therefore should not be changed at this time. The Commission disagreed with staff. MOTION: Taysi / Ballew moved to approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations contained in the May 20, 2021 staff report, as well as the proposed amendments to the draft ordinance presented at the June 10, 2021 meeting, and forward a recommendation of approval of the RM Project to City Council.  MOTION TO AMEND: Taysi / Ballew moved to amend the language “…by dividing the gross land area of the subject property by the maximum and minimum density listed within the ranged density in the applicable subarea of the zoning table pursuant to Chapter 20.00 BMC." that occurs throughout the ordinance to read as follows: "…by dividing the gross land area of the subject property by the maximum and minimum density listed in BMC 20.32.040(B) for the ranged density identified in the applicable subarea of the zoning table pursuant to Chapter 20.00 BMC." VOTE: 7-0 (Motion Passes)  MOTION TO AMEND: Taysi / Lathrop moved to amend the use qualifier in Area 7 of the Sehome Neighborhood Zoning Table to read “Planned”, eliminating the references to: multiple for 2,000 sq. ft. density and planned for 1,000 sq. ft. density. Ali mentioned that this change would make is consistent with all of the other changes, rather than being the single area where the restriction on “high” development would exist. Staff reiterated that they feel this change is out of the scope of the proposed project, but stated they would be willing to review other options that may accomplish the intent of the motion without changing the use qualifier. MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN   MOTION: Taysi / Estes moved to direct staff to explore potential solutions to address the use qualifier concerns located in Area 7 of the Sehome Neighborhood zoning table as well as the other minor changes mentioned during Commission discussion to the Happy Valley, Fairhaven and Fountain Neighborhood zoning tables as it relates to the “planned” language. There was general consensus that if the City of Bellingham Legal Department determines this request is beyond the scope published for the RM project, staff would not proceed with making the changes at this time. VOTE: 7-0 (Motion Passes) There was general consensus that this ordinance is consistent with the criteria that was outlined in the staff report and addresses the goals that Bellingham has set to meet as a community. VOTE: 7-0 (Motion Passes) Old/New Business Adjournment Minutes prepared by: ____________________________________________ Heather Aven, Recording Secretary Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff.