Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 10 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee October 10, 2006 Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Dan McShane Also Present: Carl Weimer Sam Crawford COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 1. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING INCENTIVES FOR ACCESSORY RESIDENCES, INCLUDING COTTAGES AND CARRIAGE HOUSES (A132006 -346) Brenner stated she has worked on accessory dwelling unit information for years. They should allow incentives in areas where they want growth to occur. It's the best way to get affordable housing. Item six in Exhibit A addresses further densification. Without it, they would allow de facto zoning by private individuals. The rest of the items are self - explanatory. The County has allowed accessory dwellings for years, with few complaints. The only complaints have been on the restrictions, such as limiting square footage and setbacks. She moved to recommend approval with one amendment, "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these incentives sh&4 may include, but not be limited to, proposals listed in Exhibit A.° Crawford stated the constitutionality of item six in Exhibit A, as he interprets it, is questionable. They ought to allow more accessory dwelling units in more situations. There are problems with the current code. The Planning Department is bringing forward a text change next year. The Council must look at accessory dwelling units (ADU's) on a zone -by- zone basis. Discuss the merits within the various zones. Mr. Lesow proposed that the County look at allowing ADU's its urban growth areas (UGA's). There is some room for accessory dwelling units there, but the City of Bellingham may not agree with it and decide to not extend water and sewer. Now, the Bellingham City Council is very opposed to ADU's. All the cities would have to agree with a certain development pattern that Mr. Lesow described. If the resolution accomplishes that, he supports the resolution. Brenner stated item two on Exhibit A clearly references areas in the county where the density would be appropriate. She only wants the Planning Commission to discuss this and come up with ideas. Fleetwood asked why Councilmember Brenner has come up with such a specific proposal when the object is to have the Planning Commission review this. Brenner stated she has ideas that the Planning Commission should consider, discuss, and deliberate. Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 1 Fleetwood suggested a friendly amendment to amend: The title, "Supporting consideration by the Planning Commission of incentives..., The first resolved statement, "...supports consideration by the Planning Commission of incentives to encourage...." and The second resolved statement, "...that the County Council supports consideration by the Planning Commission of incentives to relieve...." Brenner accepted the friendly amendment. (Clerk's Note: This motion was not voted on.) Crawford stated the Planning Department staff wants the Council to prioritize the Planning Department work plan. Ideas of staff would be vetted by the Planning Commission. Staff is concerned about Planning Commissioners coming up with stuff that hasn't been looked at in the light of the entire code. It creates a mish mash of ideas that don't work well when codified. They're not really asking the Planning Commission to work on this yet. They are asking staff to look at possibly expanding accessory dwelling units, then go to the Planning Commission. Fleetwood asked if this would be better as a zoning text amendment. Brenner stated it would not be better. Hal Hart said this was a good idea, and the best way for it to be done was as a resolution to the Planning Commission. McShane stated narrow it down by looking at Exhibit A. This doesn't need to be a zoning text amendment. It's too general. It's a suggestion of moving toward creating zoning text amendments for focus areas, to figure out the priority. That's why he argued for tabling it. They need time in committee to narrow the focus, taking the Planning Department staff work load into consideration. Exhibit A is too broad. They would end up with a lot of staff and commissioner time spent on it, with the Council eventually not approving it. It would be a really long process. Allow the Planning Department staff to start looking at that area. Brenner stated this doesn't preclude the staff from saying anything. One of her reasons for this is because she's seen real good uses of accessory dwelling units. One Bellingham City Council Member is opposed to them. If they believe in something and can show that it works, it may alleviate concerns of people inside the city. People are afraid of having double rentals and of the look of the units. Have off- the -shelf designs that are attractive to show that it can work. There are ways to screen the ADU for visual and auditory impacts. Dana Quam, Association of Realtors Governmental Affairs Director, stated the realtors support accessory dwelling units. There are concerns about requiring low impact development techniques, which are really expensive if the goal is affordable housing. Brenner stated some methods aren't expensive. Quam stated that whenever they require something, they restrict the number of people who will build under those requirements. Staff can make that a mandatory requirement if it's practical. Now, it's too subjective. There are no restrictions on when it is practical. The requirement for screening is good if close to a neighbor. However, if no one else is around, don't require a screen. The person should be able to make the choice. The more requirements on an accessory dwelling unit, the less likely it will be built. The more Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 2 regulation required, the higher the cost of the ADU. Consider that when drafting the language. Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association Governmental Affairs Director, stated there is a great deal of anecdotal support from her members to address affordable housing. Her concerns with Exhibit A are substantive. Ms. Quam addressed most of them. There is a stalemate in the UGA now. If the County adds more issues, the City of Bellingham may not be as likely to allow people to annex into the city, which will drive up the cost of housing inside and outside the place where they want to put their primary density. Several City Council members are very opposed to ADU's. Councilmember Crawford's concerns should be considered. McShane asked if the City is concerned that allowing ADU's in the UGA's would set a precedent for areas in the city limits. Crawford stated there is a lot of resistance to ADU's in a lot of neighborhoods. Therefore, the long -term councilmembers have resisted. The newer City Council members are more amenable to considering it. In the UGA's, they're not talking about existing neighborhoods. They could allow them in neighborhoods in the making. There won't be neighborhood resistance. Brenner stated they could allow ADU's in neighborhoods that don't exist. People could see how well they're done, and want to have something like that. Dickinson stated that if this goes to the Planning Commission, there are problems with item three. There is friction between design concepts. They can't have a stable of cookie - cutter plans. It will open the County up to liability if it becomes a designer. Last, the Prosecuting Attorney's Office would be required to review whether or not covenants can be restricted. Dominique Service, 709 DuPont Street, Bellingham, stated her clients are not against ADU's in theory. The problem is that they become an issue for planning. They are slightly used, even in jurisdictions that have incentives. Some cultures embrace them more strongly. If the County were to allow ADU's in the UGA's, they can be positive examples. However, they aren't used to accommodate population because they aren't used often enough. Brenner stated she hasn't heard of any jurisdictions where there are incentives. They are allowed in many places, but she hasn't seen any incentives. She would like to see example incentives if they exist. McShane stated hold this in committee. Item two of the exhibit may be too broad. Amend it, "Appropriate zoning shall be only in areas that are - designated urban growth areas with approval of the City, where the County encourages density and 54a4 may be a use by administrative approval. All other areas shall be governed...." Don't open it to areas outside of urban areas because of transportation and stormwater issues. Stand -alone enclaves exist because of previous zoning decisions. Development has already occurred. Don't make them more dense. He's concerned about impacts outside of urban areas. it. Brenner stated she would support it. However, the City of Bellingham won't support Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 3 1 Crawford stated they don't know that. The City has opposed ADU's in the past in 2 existing neighborhoods. The County doesn't know if the City will not approve them. 3 4 McShane stated the County would need the approval of any city for any zoning 5 change in an existing urban growth area. 6 7 Brenner stated it is not a zoning change. They are already allowed. It would be 8 approved by administrative approval instead of a conditional use. 9 10 McShane stated they don't want to do this broadly. There are some urban growth 11 areas that should have limited density for a variety of reasons. 12 13 Brenner stated that if an area has lots of critical areas, they wouldn't put the area in 14 the urban growth area anyway. 15 16 McShane stated there are some existing urban growth areas that are pretty wet. 17 18 Brenner stated she is talking about the future. 19 20 McShane stated this leaves it open to make that decision later down the road. 21 22 Fleetwood asked if they want the Planning Commission to offer recommendations on 23 where the exceptions should be in the UGA. 24 25 Crawford stated that in the urban zones, accessory dwelling units area already 26 allowed by administrative approval. 27 28 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 29 30 Crawford continued to state that inside the urban residential zone, it can be on a lot 31 of any size. He asked what they would be telling the Planning Department to do. Accessory 32 apartments or detached accessory dwelling units are allowed by administrative approval in 33 the urban residential zones. 34 35 McShane stated Keep it in the urban areas. Don't expand outside those zones. The 36 language as it is expands the use to other areas. 37 38 Brenner stated allow them in any areas where they encourage density, including 39 limited areas of more intense rural development (EAMIRD's). She's trying to make it work 40 in areas where they don't object to more growth. They can delete item two of Exhibit A. 41 42 McShane stated make items three through five one item. "3. .Specific design 43 standards and permitting shall be developed for specific. neighborhood planning areas, with 44 consideration of, but not limited to, the following: low impact /environmental concerns; 45 transportation, parking, and stormwater; consistency with community character; pre - 46 approved engineered design of cottage carriage houses and residences." That engages the 47 local community in what fits for that particular area. The fear lies because accessory 48 dwelling units have been driven by a broad approach. If they fit into the neighborhood, 49 they can work. This item came up in the area five portion of the York neighborhood, with a 50 proposed zoning change that went through the Planning Commission. The neighborhood in 51 that area was interested in pursuing accessory dwelling units. Most are a non - conforming 52 use. They are prevalent in the neighborhood. The neighborhood is comfortable with them, 53 and they don't want to take away that opportunity. The City Planning Department was Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 4 1 hesitant to do that because it's more complicated. Down the road, it will be added. There 2 was some opportunity created in the zoning change, which went to a minimum of 3,000 3 square feet. If someone has a lot and a half, they could readily add a house called an 4 accessory dwelling unit. It is a twisted way of turning it into an upzone for the 5 neighborhood. Decide what standards they want for the dwelling units and how to deaf with 6 their impacts, such as parking and stormwater infrastructure. He is in favor of item six, but 7 there is a legal question that need to be answered about restricting the covenants. 8 9 Brenner stated there are other density prohibitions in covenants. 10 11 Fleetwood stated this may be held in committee for two weeks. 12 13 Crawford suggested that the chair send a request to the administration to allow 14 Planning Department staff to prepare a presentation on accessory dwelling units, addressing 15 the following: 16 1. What zones currently allow accessory dwelling units and under what types of 17 approval conditions? 18 2. How many are applied for versus approved? 19 3. How many currently exist? 20 4. General recommendations on encouraging use or creating incentives. 21 22 The committee concurred with Crawford's suggestion. 23 24 Brenner stated she would call Mr. Hart with the request. 25 26 27 OTHER BUSINESS M: 29 There was no other business. 30 31 32 ADJOURN 33 34 The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. 35 36 _ 37 38 ]ill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 39 40 4 1 ATT 4yy441111l11r11,, 44 45 46 " ' 47Dal'La#r$Mri you i Clerk r •i ,"ff1111W, WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL. WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Ai j 764-th Fle ood, Committee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 5