Planning Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON Thursday 7:00 PM September 22, 2022 City Council Chambers Video Recorded www.cob.org Call to Order / Roll Call Present: Mike Estes (Chair), Jed Ballew, Rose Lathrop, Mike McAuley, Barbara Plaskett, Scott Jones, Present: Mike Estes (Ch Russ Whidbey McAuley (Commissione Whidbey (Commissione 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 Amendments to BMC 20 and 21 with regard to Accessory Dwelling Units Chris Koch explained the rationale for the proposed amendments and presented an overview on the history of an accessory dwelling units (ADU), shared both the concerns and opportunities associated with ADUs, presented the proposed changes to the ordinance and advised the Commission of next steps. It was decided that written public comment would be accepted through October 25, 2022. Public Hearing Testimony Daniel Welch expressed his support for the elimination of several items including the land-use application, the parking requirement, the threshold review, the site access and lot-size requirements, as well as the occupancy limit. He noted that it is not clear where design review would occur if the land-use application is no longer required. He shared some things that he would like to see changed including 1) architectural consistency no longer being required as this is not what property owners want; 2) increase building height to accommodate carriage houses, which are currently the most popular; 3) allow for conversions of accessory buildings into dwelling units as funding allows, and not have the five-year restriction. He stated that he is in support of the home-owner occupation requirement for single-family neighborhoods; however, would like some allowance for extenuating circumstances. He noted that the fixture count permit fee is one of the most costly fees when developing ADUs and he pointed out that it could encourage dishonesty during the process to avoid the high cost. He shared his thoughts on affordable housing and encouraged staff to consider a bonus structure for better developed buildings. Shannon Maris stated that the design standards have proved to be hard to achieve (i.e. match existing house style) and very ineffective in actually maintaining neighborhood character given that new construction, accessory buildings and additions have no design requirements. She pointed out that parking is an issue and expressed her support for the proposed changes. She noted the five-year restriction should be eliminated as to not penalize those owners planning ahead for retirement or allowing elder parents to age in place. Vanessa Haycock expressed her concern on the restriction of renting both the main house and the ADU, and stated the requirement that the property be owner-occupied is outdated and unfair. She provided an example of needing to leave her main home for an extended period of time, but because the code will not allow her to rent both the primary residence and the ADU, she will have to ask her tenant to move out of the ADU so that they can rent the primary residence while out of the country. Jack Wellman expressed his support for making changes to the ADU Ordinance. He stated that would be in favor of the owner-occupancy requirement being removed from the single-family zones, as this is the zone where 75% of the ADUs are built. He pointed out that, in his opinion, this requirement goes against the spirit of some of the other proposed changes in the ordinance. Wendy Scherrer expressed her support for the proposed changes. She provided comment on the owner-occupancy requirement and shared reasons why it should be retained in the single- family zoned areas. These reasons included, oversight by the property owner would be more immediate; speculative developers/buyers/realtors would not be able to benefit from a dual income rental property; allowing single-family to retain the owner-occupancy requirement, but dropping it for all other areas would allow the City an opportunity to see what, if any, unintended consequences would be realized; and a property owner living in the neighborhood would be more aware and sensitive to surrounding area. Derek Long encouraged the Planning Commission to go beyond the staff recommendations and referenced the written comment the Housing Alliance submitted. He stated that they support the proposed change to allow for a Type 1 process; however, they would like to see the owner- occupancy requirement in single-family zoned areas to be dropped. He noted they are in support of removing the off-street parking requirements, would like to encourage the creation of pre-approved plans, revise development regulations (remove the 66% size restriction), increase the height limit from 20’ to 25’, and revise the design standards. Nancy Waterman shared some of the benefits she has realized from the ability to build an ADU. She stated that she is in favor of removing the fixture count, revising the design standards, removing the land-use fees and allowing for an increase to the height limit. She also noted that she was in favor of removing the owner-occupancy requirement in single-family neighborhoods. Nicole Miller stated that she is representing TC Legend Homes and shared their agreement with some of the other speakers. She noted that they would support the owner-occupancy requirement be removed to allow for flexibility in all areas of the City. She also expressed her support for the changes to the fixture count, height limit, and removal of design restrictions. Jay Saxton shared an example of how removing the owner-occupied restriction in single-family zoned areas would allow them to rent the ADU on an adjacent property they own (since they also have tenants in the main house of that property) in an effort to assist in the housing crisis. Greg Torok expressed his support for the proposed changes, specifically the change to the Type I permit. He shared that, if adopted, the ordinance would make ADUs allowed in a lot more areas in the City. David Stalheim stated that although he supports many of the proposed changes, he would like staff to consider “what is the actual impact to the neighborhood”. He suggested changing the bonus from 200 sq. ft. when you have something below, to 400 sq. feet. He pointed out with regard to the height limit and the way it is measured, simple accessory buildings can get to almost 30’, which is taller than one story. He questioned why staff did not address the affordable housing requirement in exchange for owner-occupancy, as requested by City Council. Paul Schissler expressed his support for most of the proposed changes to the ordinance; however, he shared his concern that it did not include the affordable housing component as directed by Council. He spoke to the owner-occupancy requirement and shared why he felt it was an important requirement to retain. Scott O’Dell expressed his support for removing the owner occupancy requirement or at least providing some flexibility for long-term travel needs. Public Comment Closed Commissioner Questions / Discussion The Commission reviewed the Key Issues Matrix as outlined below. 1) Administrative (as of right) vs. Discretionary Approval  Staff shared some of the comments they received during the application/approval process and shared the different responses staff has provided to those concerns.  There was a discussion about what, if any, level of review would be lost moving from a Type II to a Type I process.   It was suggested that there be more consistency in the requirements between accessory buildings and accessory dwelling units, since the main difference between the two could be as simple as a kitchen sink and stove. 2) Purpose and Authority: Barriers to ADU Development  No comments provided. 3) Occupancy Limit  No comments provided. 4) Owner Occupancy  There was a brief discussion on other jurisdictions that do not have an owner-occupancy requirement and what some of the findings are from those areas (Seattle, Portland, etc.).  There was a conversation about why a duplex can rent both units on a single property, but an ADU cannot. Staff noted that ADUs do not count against the City’s density requirements.  There was a concern expressed about enforcement if the requirement is retained. Staff responded to how enforcement is handled today and shared that depending on what changes go through on the ordinance, will help staff determine if changes need to be made to the enforcement procedures.  How will removing the requirement help the community?  Staff pointed out a provision in the Bellingham Municipal Code that allows the Planning and Community Development Director to grant temporary suspension of the owner-occupancy requirement for a period of one year, with an additional year suspension of the owner- occupancy requirement if warranted (two years total). 5) Site Requirements: D-ADUs  It was suggested that staff consider whether or not the requirements surrounding a detached accessory building are appropriate before allowing those buildings to be turned into a detached accessory dwelling unit (i.e. was it appropriate for the accessory building to be constructed on the property line in the first place). 6) ADU Size: Attached and Detached ADUs (#6, #7, #8, #9 and #10)  There was a comment made about supporting the size of the ADU being equal to the size of the smaller home; however, it may bring into question how it could be made subordinate. Staff explained what would happen in those situations.  There was a brief conversation about how open space and impervious surfaces are maintained if the proposed allowance is 100% of existing structure.  Why 800 sq. ft? It was suggested that there be a discussion about if this is still the appropriate size for an accessory dwelling.  What are other jurisdictions doing with regard to height limitations. What impacts are there to carriage housing with the proposed changes. Why was this height limit chosen?  What could incentives look like – ADA, affordability, etc. 7) Parking  What areas are covered by bus routes currently.  Most neighborhoods have enough parking – consider removing the requirement.  Which areas would be exempt from the parking requirement?   What uses are currently allowed in the setbacks from a street? Staff explained that the front setback is measured from the centerline of the street to the building, and parking is not allowed in that front yard but a driveway is allowed across it and landscaping is allowed.  Would like clarification if the requirement is ¼ from a bus stop or from a bus route. 8) Design Standards  There was a brief discussion about who determines neighborhood character. There was concern that it is arbitrary, a city is always changing.  It was confirmed that this housing type is the only one in standard single family that is required to go through the design review process. It was noted that Infill Toolkit does have a design review component.  Regarding “architectural character of the area”, it was suggested staff consider the vagueness and use of “area” in this section. Old/New Business Adjournment Minutes prepared by: __Heather Aven_________________ Heather Aven, Recording Secretary Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff.