Old Town gets a lot of attention....

The Old Town Plan really is a big deal folks. It is getting national attention and our waterfront is getting international attention. Granted it's probably more important locally, especially locally since we own the decisions we've made or will make.

The bottom line is that our little Lettered Streets Neighborhood, the cradle of Bellingham continues to be a significant factor in Bellingham's evolution. So remember to come out and participate.

Coming soon: Next Thursday, July 23rd, [Sustainable Connections is] bringing you one of the regions most successful LEED Platinum developers. Join us for lunch as we hear from Boise developer, Gary Christensen on how public and private development can exceed rigorous standards for energy efficiency, water use reduction, indoor air quality, and recycling, without increasing the initial cost of the building.

Gary completed the Banner Bank Building in downtown Boise, a beautiful 11 story, Class A office building. In August 2006 it was awarded LEED-CS Platinum status by the US Green Building Council, a distinction shared by only 3 private, for-profit developers at the time.

"Green" is the color of money: How to profit with LEED Platinum

Date: Thursday, July 23, 1:00pm
Location: Port of Bellingham, 1801 Roeder Ave
Cost: $10.00 - rsvp required (includes lunch and tour)

Schedule:
1:00pm - lunch and presentation
2:30pm - tour of Old Town redevelopment
3:30pm - tour of the Waterfront redevelopment
5:00pm - Social hour at Nimbus with Gary Christensen, local members from government staff, elected officials and the design and building community.

Parberry Family enters into Agreement with the City

Additional public funds nearing $4.5 million (2007 dollars) will be directed into parts of Old Town for several street and plaza upgrades. Continuing a decades long process to redirect development in Old Town, this funding seems necessary but it does bring the public portion of Old Town reinvestment upwards of $12 million, not including incidental City commitments, and growing.

It seems our City staff are working diligently to meet infill mandates and, to that end, believe that this is money well spent. I would likely agree but I personally would like to see the public recover as much of our expenditures as possible.

For example, we continue seeing impact fees waived while over the past several years City Councilors and City staff have repeatedly supported the intention to pay for Old Town improvements with impact fees - such as park impact fees directed straight to Old Town projects.

As of now, however, it is looking more and more like the City is vesting the majority of Old Town properties with 10 years of freedom from many of the impact fees we've been counting on for other Old Town improvements.

These waivers do not mean the public is left without the agreed upon amenities, it simply means that more recent decisions were made to spread these costs to the taxpayers in general. Is that fair? Is it an appropriate mechanism to spur redevelopment in our own local version of Skid Row?

Let City staff and Council know your thoughts at the next public hearing on Old Town:

Draft Resolution 018137 - Development Agreement between Parberry's Inc and COB.

City Council will hold a Public Hearing on Sep 29.

Old Town Plan is on....now about those homeless folks

Old Town will eventually see more redevelopment and we should be adamant about ensuring it's not just gentrification....which lately it seems to be. But we still have a problem with an unknown homeless population. There was another heinous crime in Maritime Heritage Park, which is avoided by all but the hardiest folks in the summertime, where a woman was raped and the loser who did it lives/lived under the Roeder Ave. bridge right at the end of the B St Wayside I've been working on since last year. I was actually down there under that bridge 3 weeks ago. Regardless, I've cut down all the brush and cleaned up our side of the creek so the open drinking/trashing/camping is gone but we will continue to have a problem with a certain group of people unless we get on the ball. Any ideas?

Too tall buildings on the Waterfront

The height issue from my standpoint is not a warm and
squishy view argument which has no legal standing in
this community; rather, there exists a document
bonding one property owner to a certain outcome and it
must be honored.

Allowing development to wiggle out of contracts and
agreements signed as a covenant to a property negates
the entire purpose for such covenant. The precedent,
once laid, essentially nullifies all similar
agreements if a proponent can convince our unelected
City staff to ignore the covenant and promote a
different outcome.

Alternatively, this is a have/have not issue. The
properties lining the natural waterfront have
benefited from being at the edge, whereas the filling
of the bay and abandonment of industrial properties
allows for a new edge. The new edge has the advantage
of maximizing income from selling/leasing view
properties at the expense of those further inland.
Simply arguing, "That's not fair", is not
substantially significant.

My opinion on this is that regardless of the right of
the property owner or proponent to build on land to
certain standard enjoyed by neighboring properties,
there is in place a covenant on the proposed property
and it must hold sway. To do otherwise puts in
jeopardy all other current or future covenants,
planned development contracts and various other land
use bonds across the entire community.

Michael McAuley
201-7199

Placemaking

The Project for Public Spaces folks say it best:

"By focusing on public spaces rather than the usual obsession on shopping, offices and accommodating autos....the Kansas state capital, once a lackluster place, where it seemed they really did roll up the sidewalks at 5 p.m. now pulses with an energy more reminiscent of midtown Manhattan than Manhattan, Kansas...civic leaders have made this place a magnet for $6.7 billion of new investment in the past 10 months alone."

http://www.pps.org/

The Old Town planning process to rezone Areas 10 and 10A will resume this year. Be involved. Stay tuned here, the newspapers and letteredstreets.org.

Updated City website needs comments

City Staff are in the process of updating and improving usability of the www.cob.org website. I've seen advanced work and when done it should feel a whole lot more like the better websites you are familiar with. Navigation will be through department or by topic and what they've achieved so far looks pretty doggone good.

So, go check it out. Send comments on the website to Janice Keller (jkeller@cob.org)

Also, take a look at the Neighborhoods page: http://www.cob.org/pcd/planning/neighborhoods/neighborhoods.htm .

Comments on the Neighborhoods page can go to Cheri Gleichman (cgleichmann@cob.org).

Our Lettered Streets Page is here: http://www.cob.org/pcd/planning/neighborhoods/lettered_streets.htm

Design Appeal Process

My Experience with the Design Appeal Process By Marilyn R Williams

Due to the number of approved, and proposed, out of character buildings in our historic neighborhood, it became a necessity for a group of residents to appeal the design approval of the latest project.

Despite the best attempt of individuals, groups and the Association Board, the Planning Department did not seem to understand our goal of preserving the historic quality of the Lettered Streets. Therefore, an appeal against the design approval given to a large multi-family structure was made. “Enough all ready and, please, hear us,” was the theme of this appeal.

The experience can not be labeled an adventure as many journeys into the unknown are. It was truly sad; mostly because the City Planning department seemed, for all intents and purposes, to be on the side of the developer. One would think our City staff would be neutral in a situation such as this.

The next biggest disappointment stemmed from the lack of importance our neighborhood plan was given. The Plan was written, as are all neighborhood plans, to GUIDE the development of our area into a cohesive neighborhood feel. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be followed by many developers or the Planning Department staff.

As a bit of a history lesson, the Plan was written in 1980 and updated in 1996. During 1996, the residents were asked what they wanted to see in the development of the neighborhood. “Good design that preserves the historical character of the area,” was the outcome. We truly felt that we had done our part to protect the character of our neighborhood – until the first “nonconforming” development started. It was then that we discovered “code” had to be written. “Not to worry,” we were told, “Multifamily design standards are being put in place.” After the Multifamily Residential Design Handbook was adopted, we felt that our neighborhood character was protected.

How wrong we were! After the second contemporary building, in less than a six month time period this year, was given design approval, those of us who had had enough filed an appeal – at a cost of $1300! During the appeal testimony, we were told that our Plan was basically meaningless and that the design standards did not apply to the Neighborhood as a whole. In fact, it turns out that the Planners only use the “block face” or “street corridor” as the neighborhood!

The decision has been made by the hearing examiner, “neighborhood” in the design code means “block face” or “street corridor!” So now, we hope to appeal the examiners decision, but funds are tight. If you would like to contribute to the appeal fund, please contact me at marilyn98225@aol.com. If like us, you feel that our Historic Character should be preserved – Please write to the Planning Director and City Council to get the protection in place we need. Contact: Planning Director Tim Stewart – tstewart@cob.org and our City Council – CityCouncil@cob.org attention Gene Knutson.