Planning Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON Thursday 7:00 PM October 27, 2022 City Council Chambers Video Recorded www.cob.org Call to Order / Roll Call Present: Mike Estes, Mike McAuley, Jed Ballew, Rose Lathrop, Scott Jones, Russ Whidbey, Barbara Plaskett Approval of Minutes September 22nd and October 6th minutes were submitted and 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. Dean Longwell addressed the Commission about a written public comment not getting included. Todd Lagestee spoke to a affordable housing session he attending at Whatcom Housing Week in October 2022. WORK SESSION Proposed updates to ADU Ordinance Work Session. Discussion of the Key Issues Matrix: Item 1: Administrative (as of right) vs. Discretionary Approval. There was a brief discussion about whether ADU units should be treated the same or different from the other housing forms. There was concern expressed about the impacts on infrastructure. Staff clarified that the ADU Permit would be processed concurrently with the Building Permit. Straw Poll: 5-2 Item 2: Purpose and Authority Barriers to ADU Development There was a brief conversation about why the language was originally included in the ordinance and the rationale for removing it at this time. Straw Poll: 6-1 in favor of removing the language Item 3: Occupancy Limit This change is being proposed to be in compliance with WA State law. Straw Poll: 6-1 in favor of removing the language. Item 4: Owner Occupancy Staff is recommending that the owner occupancy be removed from multi-family zones and retained in single-family zoned areas. Although there was not general consensus for each of the following statements/suggestions, they do reflect the opinions expressed during a round-table discussion.  A detached ADU should be considered the same a duplex, as a duplex is two units on a single property.  Values of homes change, with or without an ADU on the property.  The city should consider how ADUs could have the same ownership opportunities as condominiums.  ADUs are very different from duplexes given where they can be built.  The investment possibility for ADUs is great and the owner-occupancy requirement should not be removed in single-family zoned areas to help minimize the chance of single-family homes becoming a commodity.  ADUs add to the density of a neighborhood and without the data to prove that this housing form is achieving the goals we intended them to meet, no additional provisions should be given toward them.  Some of the concerns raised are not constrained to the ADU housing form – and they should not be treated differently.  Support expressed for the consideration of limiting the number of total ADUs a property-owner could own in the City.  Support for removing the owner-occupancy barrier related to ADUs.  ADUs provide a positive impact on the cost of housing.  How can the City mitigate for those owners with multiple LLC’s with regard to the number of ADUs they could own in the city.  Consistency is important, and since the city is not interested in how many of all the other housing forms, a single property-owner owns, ADUs should not be any different.  If owner-occupancy is not going to be required in multi-family zones, there is no reason it should be required in single-family zones.  Consider adding a threshold regarding the number of ADUs that get built in a single-family neighborhood and remove the owner-occupancy requirement at this time.  ADUs will not help the housing crisis. Staff clarified the reasons they are recommending the removal of the owner-occupancy requirement in zones other than single-family at this time, including the fact that inclusionary zoning will be reviewed in 2023, which would provide the opportunity to revisit the issue. Staff pointed out that ADU cost less and typically will rent for less, which allow people to live in a single-family zoned areas that they may not have been able to otherwise. There was a brief discussion on how inclusionary zoning could work with ADUs. There was concern expressed that although it will not dampen the market, it could stop development if regulated poorly. There was a suggestion that income-qualified units could be considered to help make ADUs affordable. It was also suggested that research be done to determining how ADUs could be condominiumized. There was a concern about investors developing ADUs, and it was pointed out the city should not be incentivizing it – inclusionary zoning is not going to prevent the development of the ADUs. MOTION: SCOTT JONES / BARBARA PLASKETT MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION THAT OWNER OCCUPANCY SHOULD ONLY BE REQUIRED FOR HOMES WITH ADUS IN AREAS ZONED RESIDENTIAL-SINGLE. There was a discussion about incentives verses requiring too much from the property owners. VOTE: MOTION FAILS: 3-4 (BALLEW, ESTES, LATHROP, MCAULEY OPPOSED) MOTION: ROSE LATHROP / MIKE MCAULEY MOVED TO REMOVE THE OWNER-OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT FOR HOMES WITH ADUS FROM ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES IN THE CITY. Staff spoke to the areas throughout the City that would allow ADUs if the recommendation contained in the staff report were to be approved.  AMENDMENT: MIKE MCAULEY / ROSE LATHROP MOVED TO REMOVE THE OWNER OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT FOR HOMES WITH ADUS IN ALL AREAS OF THE CITY.  VOTE: 4-3 (JONES, PLASKETT, WHIDBEE OPPOSED) VOTE: 4-3 (JONES, PLASKETT, WHIDBEE OPPOSED) Item 5: Site Requirements: D-ADUs Straw Vote: 4-3 in favor of removing the language Item 6: ADUs can be built up to 100% of the floor area of the primary dwelling or 800 sq. ft. There was a brief discussion about the increased use of existing infrastructure. Straw Vote: 4-3 in favor of proposed amendment Item 7: If primary dwellings have been on site for at least 5 years, the maximum ADU size standards are not applicable when converting a basement to an ADU. There was a discussion about why there is a 5-year waiting period. The Commission also walked through a couple different scenarios. Straw Vote: 5-2 in favor of having the 5-year waiting period. Item 8: Remove the provision requiring the use of the “general” definition of floor area for D-ADUs so that the floor area calculations are based on the primary housing type of the property, either Single- Family or Infill Toolkit. Straw Vote: 7-0 Item 9: Allow up to a 200 sq. ft. floor area bonus for a total of 1,000 sq. ft when the bonus area consists of a garage, providing all other size restrictions for the ADU itself still apply. Staff clarified this is to help minimize the number of separate accessory units that get built on a single property. There was discussion of different scenarios that could be realized with this proposed amendment. Straw Vote: 5-2 Meeting will continue on November 3, 2022 in Council Chambers. Old/New Business Adjournment Minutes prepared by: ____Heather Aven_________________ Heather Aven, Recording Secretary Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff.