Planning Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON Thursday 7:00 PM November 4, 2021 City Council Chambers Video Recorded www.cob.org Call to Order / Roll Call Mike Estes (Chair), Ali Taysi (Vice-Chair), 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. PUBLIC HEARING Infill Housing Amendments - consider amendments to the Infill Housing (toolkit) provisions in BMC Title 20 and Title 21. Staff provided a brief history of the existing toolkit and reviewed the scope being followed for this update. They explained the proposed amendments to the ordinance including:  Photos what the following terms should look like when developed correctly: o Pedestrian Oriented Development o Minimizing Streetfront Garages, Driveways and Parking o Common Pedestrian Corridors  Rationale for combining the Smaller House & Small House housing types into the single term “Small Lot”  Rationale for allowing the fourplex housing type in the same building envelope that a duplex or triplex are already allowed in Staff also reviewed the proposed amendments related to:  Bulk and Massing: examples were reviewed of how balance could be achieved with Floor Area Ratio (FAR), Open Space and Green Factor Landscaping (including Alley Landscaping).  Minor Modifications that would allow for staff discretion in extraordinary circumstances, and in those instances where the result would be a better design while still satisfying the purpose or intent of the regulations.  Rationale for changes to the existing process. Staff shared the other sections of the code that would be affected by these amendments and would also require modifications. Public Hearing Open Thomas Scott, York Neighborhood Association President commented on the lack of time available to review the packet. He expressed concern about the proposed changes to the notice requirements moving from a Type II to a Type I process. Public Hearing closed Commissioner Discussion The Commissioners asked staff to address the following questions / issues:  Why was “affordable housing” stricken from the ordinance  How is the infill toolkit being used currently  Why was the infill toolkit originally created  Rationale for limiting the scope for this update  Clarity on the proposed process (Type I vs. Type II and single application)  Clarity on new approach to access (Pedestrian Oriented Corridor)  Understand the Green Factor a little more  What was done to address any environmental impacts  How much consideration was made to requiring ADA apartments, what are the Federal Regulations  How did the numbers get calculated for the Floor Area Ratio figures  Would modern styles of architecture be welcome, existing language appears to restrict creativity  Timing of permits  Will more units be allowed on a single property  How can the toolkit be used in other locations – where / what would come before PC in the future  For infill projects in multi-family residential they seem to have more restrictions than other similar development would in the same location  Why do the infill toolkit housing forms have a FAR requirement  What are the barriers to having the infill toolkit housing forms being developed in multi-family residential zoned areas Staff responded to some of the Commissioner’s questions and concerns.  They shared the history of the infill toolkit and discussed why there are design standards and FAR associated with the housing forms.  They addressed the removal of “affordable housing” language.  Staff explained that the Building Code addresses the ADA requirements that must be adhered to, not the Infill Toolkit Ordinance.  It was pointed out that a separate process will be coming forward to addresses the timing of all permits.  Staff clarified that the proposed updates do not change where the toolkit housing forms are allowed.  Staff reiterated that FAR does not affect density – it only affects the size of the building, which in turn can affect the size of the units – not the number of units that can be developed.  Staff shared that the Infill Housing Toolkit provides choices for development and the proposed amendments address many of the barriers that have been identified to date.   Staff explained the difference between open space and usable space. Affordable Housing Conversation: There was a discussion about the removal of “affordable housing” language. Some Commissioners felt that even though it may not be producing affordable housing units currently, does not mean it won’t in the future. There was support for leaving the language in the ordinance as a reminder of what the community would like to see the toolkit achieve. It was suggested that the City consider inclusionary zoning to help address the affordable housing crisis. Staff explained that the City will be looking at inclusionary zoning in the upcoming year. Pedestrian Orientation: Staff explained the proposed changes and how it helps to achieve a better pedestrian experience. There was some discussion on what is trying to be achieved with the amendments. It was suggested that “alley” be a defined term like “lane” and “pedestrian corridor” have been. There was a brief discussion about the requirement to prioritize the existing street, and the importance of having allowances included in the ordinance for when that is not appropriate. Staff clarified that there is flexibility in this requirement. Development Standards: There was a discussion about the changes made to the different sections of the code that identified how the housing forms would be required to utilize FAR, open space and usable space and minimum floor area. It was pointed out that the amendments created more flexibility in the housing that could be developed, as well as helped to make it more competitive. Although there was support expressed for the changes made to the bulk and massing sections, there was a question as to why there are different requirement for different housing forms. Staff explained the rationale for the different standards depending on the housing type. There was also a brief conversation about the garage exemptions for the smaller lot. Green Factor: Staff explained that every housing type now requires a green factor component and reviewed the proposed amendments and the rationale for making the changes. There was a brief conversation about wetland mitigation. There was general support for the proposed amendments. Multi-Family Design Review: Staff shared the rationale for the making the change to a single permit, rather than requiring two permits for only the Infill Housing Toolkit housing forms. It was pointed out that the Ordinance will contain additional illustrations and diagrams to help convey the intent of the requirements. Staff explained how the process would be different moving from a Type II to a Type I. There was support expressed for the proposed changes. Staff will review any outstanding questions / comments that have not yet been addressed and will come back to the work session with responses and any additional proposed changes for consideration based on public and Commissioner comments. Old/New Business Adjournment Minutes prepared by: ____________________________________________ Heather Aven, Recording Secretary Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff.