Planning Commission

Planning Commission Minutes City of Bellingham, Washington Thursday 7:00 PM March 28, 2024 City Council Chambers Video Recorded https://meetings.cob.org - Call to Order The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by the Chair at 7:00 PM. Approval of Minutes Public Comment Period During this time, citizens may take up to three (3) minutes to address the members about any topic not on the agenda. Citizens wishing to speak during this time will be recognized by the Chair for comment. Agenda Items Public Hearing 1. Fairhaven Urban Village p. 2 Kurt Nabbefeld presented an overview of the proposed amendment. He explained that although the Development Agreement was part of the packet, the members of the Planning Commission have no purview over that document. He spoke to the reasons for increasing the height, which include:  Additional affordable housing units  Inclusion of public parking  Preservation of dedicated easements for trails, views and pedestrian corridors  Development in the Fairhaven Urban Village Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment through adoption of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations. David Christenson, Architect spoke for the applicant and emphasized that the proposed amendment benefits the community more than it is detrimental. PUBLIC COMMENT Joan Pickens expressed concern that the new height allowance would block her views of the bay and change the structure of the streetscape. She also expressed concern that the 80 parking spaces have no regulations, and the owner can manage it however they please. She also spoke to the affordable housing only being required for 12 years. She did not agree that this building should be developed in this area. Joselyn Winslow commented on a meeting that occurred several years ago with city officials. She stated that at that time, it was stated that the height should be 42’ on the south corner and 35’ height to the north. She expressed support for the parking but does not understand why it needs to include affordable housing. She stated that the south side of the property is an appropriate section for an increase in height but requested that the 35’ limit be retained for the north portion. David Carlson shared portions of his submitted written comments. He noted that the proposed amendment does not include parking/sidewalk development on 10th St. as is required at other Fairhaven development sites. He stated that the benefits of the amendment touted by the staff and developer are already covered under current development requirements. He recommended that the Commission vote no on the height limit amendment. Barbara Zielstra expressed support for the permanent public trail and the parking – suggested the affordable housing limit of 12 years is extended if possible. She shared her thoughts on the design being proposed as being creative and thoughtful. She spoke in support of the proposed amendment. Doug Robertson spoke to the site constrictions. He spoke to the benefits of the site being developed, including additional people living in the urban village supporting the businesses. He commented on how the height limit, or lack of it, affects climate change via control of urban sprawl. He stated that private view is not a public benefit to be considered in GMA considerations. He expressed approval of the proposed amendment. Jeremy Beck commented on the additional work that the developer has done in the community. He spoke to the benefits of the development being: jobs, tax revenue, infill. He stated it is a great project and an improvement on what currently exists. Hunter Avenil shared his thoughts on the lack of housing in the city which causes many individuals to room together to afford housing. He wanted to know if not in the middle of the urban village – then where? He supports the proposed amendment. John McLaughlin, 221 Highland Dr challenged the assertion that growth management allows spot rezones, feels it is illegal. Concerned that the proposal decreases quality of life by cutting off public access/views. Stated that proposal is more detrimental than beneficial. Brad Widman spoke in support of amendment. He stated that increasing density and limiting sprawl are important. Public Hearing Closed  Commission Discussion: There was a conversation about the Multi-Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) program. Staff clarified how the affordable housing units will be offered and spoke to the changes in MFTE program. Staff also shared that the MFTE is going through a re-evaluation to help understand why the 12-year and 20-year options have not been used. There was a discussion on the building code requirements for new development to be ADA accessible. There was concern expressed that the affordable units are not going to those who actually need it. Staff explained how the tracking and reporting will be done through the MFTE program. There was a discussion about some of the benefits that could be realized by the developer. There was a brief conversation about how the increased height limit helps to make development on the site feasible. It was confirmed that the increase in height is only allowed through a Development Agreement and if the project does not move forward, the increase in height is no longer on the site. Staff explained why this rezone request is not considered a “spot rezone”. MOTION: Barbara Plaskett / Mike McAuley moved to accept the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation contained in the March 28, 2024 staff report as written and forward a recommendation of approval to City Council. VOTE: ALL AYES (6-0) Other Business 1. Director's Report Adjournment Minutes prepared by: ____________________________________________ Heather Aven, Recording Secretary Minutes edited by both staff and Planning Commission members.