Planning Commission Minutes for OCTOBER 22, 2009

RECORD OF PROCEEDING OF THE
Planning Commission
PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2009 07:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS

CALL TO ORDER: The PUBLIC HEARING of the Planning Commission was called to order by Tom Barrett - (Chair).

ROLL CALL:

Commission Members

Tom Barrett; Jim Bishop; Sharon Robinson; Kurt Baumgarten; Allen Matsumoto; and Danne Neill

Commission Members

Absent

Edie Norton

Planning Staff Members

Tim M Stewart,Director
Nicole C Oliver,Department Communication Coordinator
Brian J Smart,Planner II/Land Use
Heather M Aven,Secretary

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes from September 17, 2009 submitted for approval.

MOTION: Jim Bishop moved to approve the September 17, 2009 minutes with corrections. SECONDED.

VOTE: 3-0-2 (ROBINSON, NEILL, and MATSUMOTO ABSTAINED)

15 MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:
No testimony given.

PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC HEARING #1:
A public hearing to consider amendments to the boundaries of the Mt. Baker, King Mountain, Meridian and Guide Meridian/Cordata neighborhoods. If approved, the Mt. Baker Neighborhood would be split into two neighborhoods called "Irongate" and "Barkley" and the Guide Meridian/Cordata neighborhood boundaries would be revised to create a new "Cordata" neighborhood.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Nicole Oliver explained that in 2007 and 2008, the City was asked to consider revisions to the northern neighborhood boundaries in an effort to reduce the size of both the Mt. Baker and the Guide Meridian Neighborhoods. She discussed how the neighborhoods would be split up and announced the new neighborhood names – Irongate, Barkley (currently the Mt. Baker Neighborhood), and Cordata (currently the Guide Meridian / Cordata Neighborhood. She pointed out that the underlying technical work that is required to bring the new neighborhood plans and zoning forward has not yet been completed, as staff is interested in hearing from the public first.

Danee Neill wanted to know if Barkley would change.

Nicole Oliver responded that nothing would change in that neighborhood, it would remain a mix of commercial and residential.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

Ralph Wenning represented the Guide Meridian/Cordata Neighborhood Association and stated that they are in support of the proposed boundary changes. He expressed concern about area 17C being removed from the rest of the Cordata Business Park PUD, thereby splitting that designation into two separate neighborhoods.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

COMMISSION QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION:
Jim Bishop expressed his support for the renaming of the neighborhoods.

Nicole Oliver responded to the public comment and stated that a reference will be made to the text table relating directly to the Cordata PUD; therefore having parts of it in two different neighborhoods should not matter. She also commented that, during the neighborhood plan update process, staff will provide more references to the comprehensive plan and update those things that have already happened to more accurately reflect what currently exists.

Allen Matsumoto wanted to know if the Irongate Neighborhood Association would be compiled of the very few residents that live there, or if it would be the business owners.

Nicole Oliver replied that since there will be no residential units in the Irongate neighborhood, it would more than likely be the business owners that make up the association.

Allen Matsumoto was in favor of option 1.

Jim Bishop was also in favor of option 1. He wanted to know if materials would be submitted to the Commission over time, or all at once.

Nicole Oliver stated that Guide Meridian / Cordata would be brought together, and then Irongate, Barkley, and King Mountain would be presented at a different time.

Danne Neill agreed that staff should begin working on the plans and the new boundaries.

Kurt Baumgarten expressed his support for option 1.

Tom Barrett also supported option 1.

MOTION: Kurt Baumgarten moved to accept Option 1 contained in the October 22, 2009 staff report as for Northern Neighborhood Boundary Review Project. SECONDED.

VOTE: ALL AYES.

PUBLIC HEARING #2:
ZON2009-00003: A Public Hearing to consider a proposed rezone and text amendment submitted in behalf of the property to amend Area 21 of the Central Business District Plan. The applicant proposes to rezone the property from Industrial, Marine to Residential, Multi.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Brian Smart explained that the proposed amendment would change the zoning from Marine-Industrial to Residential, Multi-family Mixed in Area 21 of the Central Business District (CBD) Neighborhood. He stated that the current zoning allows for development that would require or be functionally dependent on the waterfront. He pointed out that the parcel is 28,000 sq. ft. and was relocated to the CBD Neighborhood, along with the rest of Area 1 from the South Hill Neighborhood in 2005, so that it could be included in the Waterfront master planning process. He stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission not approve the proposed amendment because rezoning the property prior to the adoption of the Waterfront Master Development Plan is premature.

PROPONENT PRESENTATION

Gerry Halstrom spoke on behalf of Mrs. Bandel. He conveyed her appreciation for the public process and acceptance for whatever decision the City makes with regard to the property. He stated that at the end of this process, the property will be placed on the market regardless of the zoning designation. He pointed out that in 2005, the property was moved from the South Hill Neighborhood, into the CBD Neighborhood; thereby bringing a Marine Industrial zone into a residential neighborhood, and it brought the value of the property down.

Douglas Landsem represented Rose Mary Bandel. He explained that, in their opinion, the site is more suited for residential zoning. He pointed out that the property is at the very edge of the CBD Neighborhood and is closer to Planned Residential zoning. He requested that the zoning be changed back to Residential, Multi-Family since there is not a record of Mrs. Bandel receiving notice that it was changed to Marine Industrial. He stated that by doing this, the City would have more restrictive covenants and review guidelines to implement. He explained how the amendment meets the criteria for a rezone. He stated that it is consistent with the South Hill Neighborhood Plan, and would not adversely affect the public health and safety. He mentioned that soil studies have been done to prove that the site can be developed, and different departments have all been met with to ensure the site can be serviced.

Douglas Landsem pointed out that there would be no view blockage or hazards to the trail, other than an access bridge to the property. He requested that the Commission consider reinstating the residential, multi-family zoning now since it will most likely be zoned this way at the conclusion of the Waterfront Master Development Program.

Jim Bishop asked staff to provide a bit of history relating to the zoning of the subject property.

Brian Smart clarified that although the site was part of the South Hill Neighborhood, it has always been zoned Marine Industrial. He emphasized that only the boundaries have changed, not the zoning. He explained that the property was moved into the CBD Neighborhood so that all of the waterfront properties could be evaluated for the master plan.

Kurt Baumgarten clarified that when the property was purchased, it was zoned Marine Industrial.

Gerry Halstrom replied that he cannot speak with certainty, however Mrs. Bandel understood there to be a multi-family component at one time.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

Ray Ballweg, Vice-President of South Hill Neighborhood Association encouraged the Commission to deny the consideration of the rezone until the Waterfront Master Development Plan is finalized. He stated that although the South Hill Neighborhood is not directly involved, they do have concerns about access to the site and effects on the South Bay Trail.

Christopher Grannis stated that, in his opinion, the zoning should not be changed until the Waterfront Master Plan has been completed. He stated that high density infill in the urban core is important; however, the amenities that bring people to Bellingham need to be preserved as well.

Seth Owens expressed his concern about the traffic along Boulevard and stated that a bridge to the Bandel site would only add to the issues. He commented about the fact that the marine industry is important to Bellingham and it should not be sacrificed for more residential units. He also encouraged the Commission deny the rezone until the master plan can be completed. He suggested that the City consider purchasing the land and allow it to be part of the park system.

Elizabeth Hines expressed her opposition to the rezone request. She stated that, in her opinion, the property was land-locked and bridge should not be allowed to be built across the trail. She pointed out that with the mixed-use component, traffic could be made even worse along Boulevard. She suggested that the wildlife be considered and requested that the Commission deny the rezone request.

Don Keenan pointed out that, as was discussed during the presentations, Mrs. Bandel will not be developing the property, therefore there is no way to provide certainty on what will be built in the future; and the rezone being requested would in fact be an up-zone if granted. He suggested that the Commission deny the rezone request and allow it to be included in the Waterfront Master Development Plan.

Rick Black submitted written comment. He pointed out that the ideal use for the property would be public ownership. He recommended that it be considered as a Greenways Levy Purchase. He discussed the advantages or rezoning the property as it relates to height, setbacks, and percentage of lot coverage. He addressed five different “myths” he has heard from public realms, according to his knowledge. He requested that the Commission recommend approval for the rezone in an effort to keep a wall from being built between the City and the Bay.

Tyson Link, student at WWU requested that the Commission deny the proposal so that the bicycle path can continue to be free from exhaust and view blockage.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

COMMISSION QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION:

Tom Barrett wanted to know if there was an updated timeline for the Master Plan to be completed since the original end date was slated for November, 2007.

Tim Stewart explained the current timeline, but could not give a definite date as to when the Master Plan would be completed.

Tom Barrett expressed his concern about the property not having the opportunity to be developed while the Master Plan is being created. He pointed out that according to preliminary discussions, the property below the Bandel site will more than likely be residential, multi-family with mixed-use; therefore there is a good chance the Bandel property will be zoned the same.

Kurt Baumgarten stated that he does not support the rezone. He agrees that the Waterfront should continue to be planned for as a whole, and not parcel by parcel.

Danne Neill expressed her concern about how the site will be accessed.

Brian Smart stated that the City’s position on access has not been determined. He pointed out that the applicant has not demonstrated that they have a legal right to access the property via a bridge, nor has the City agreed that access can be provided in this manner.

Doug Landsem stated that it is his understanding that since the property abuts a City right-of-way there is access to the property. He commented that, although access can be difficult, it can be done regardless of whether the property remains Marine Industrial or Residential, multi-family.

Sharon Robinson stated that although she would love to see the land remain green, Mrs. Bandel has a right to know if the property will be up-zoned to Residential, Multi before it is sold and developed. She commented on what could be built under either zoning scenario and stated that although access is still an issue to be worked out, the zoning needs to be determined.

Allen Matsumoto expressed his support for staff’s recommendation to include this property in the Waterfront Master Plan to be written; however, the timeliness of that planning process is of concern. He discussed the different uses that could happen on the site and clarified that this property is tentatively slated to be mixed use in the Waterfront Plan.

Tim Stewart stated that Allen is correct.

Allen Matsumoto wanted to know if staff considered the fact that an large industrial building is less likely given the current economic status during their recommendation and therefore took the chance on waiting.

Brian Smart responded that regardless of the economic situation, the recommendation would have been the same. He stated that he based his recommendation on past ordinances and the future potential of the Waterfront Master Plan. He acknowledged that, the best use for this property may be Residential, Multi-mixed; however, this site along with others were brought into the CBD District to be considered as a whole, not parcel by parcel.

Jim Bishop stated that his decision needs to be based on what is best for the planning process. He stated that since the site has been zoned Industrial from the beginning, there is no reason to change it at this time.

Tom Barrett wanted to know if the South Bay Trail was on the Bandel property or on the City’s right-of-way.

Doug Landsem replied that it is on the City’s right-of-way.

Tom Barrett clarified there are no height restrictions right now, but if it was zoned Residential, Multi there would be design review regulations and height restrictions.

Brian Smart discussed the difference between the two zoning uses and regulations.

Tom Barrett stated that, in his opinion, the property will be rezoned Residential, Multi in the Master Plan and he expressed his concern about the number of years it might take for that process to be completed.

Kurt Baumgarten wanted to know if multi-family, mixed-use would really be the future zoning for the property given the topography and the access issues.

Tim Stewart stated that the access rights require further research and investigation to determine the legal parcel lines and lots of record.

MOTION: Allen Matsumoto moved to adopt the Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Recommendations contained in the October 22, 2009 staff report as written, and forward a recommendation of denial to City Council. SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-1 (BARRETT OPPOSED)

GENERAL BUSINESS:

Planning Director’s Report

Staff Discussion

Commissioner Discussion
Retreat discussion:

Tom would like to see a written agenda and he would like to have it on a Thursday versus over weekend.

Sharon suggested pizza and soft drinks would be a great dinner.

Tim asked the Commission to forward agenda items to the secretary and staff would work on getting any extra resources that are requested.

Kurt Baumgarten would like to hear more about the work program and the type of product that the Commission will be seeing in the future.

ADJOURNED: 9:00p.m.

NEXT MEETING: November 12, 2009 in City Council Chambers

Minutes prepared by:

_____________________________
Heather Aven, Recording Secretary

Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff.

This is a digital copy of an original document located at Bellingham's City Hall. The City of Bellingham specifically disclaims any responsibility or liability for the contents of this document. The City of Bellingham does not verify the correctness, accuracy, or validity of the information appearing in this document.