Lettered Streets / Old Town Bellingham / CBD / Waterfront - Redevelopment! "NEW WHATCOM"

Old Town gets a lot of attention....

2009-07-13T22:05:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-21T16:11:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-13T03:12:00.001-07:00

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

2007-12-17T16:26:00.000-08:00

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

2007-04-16T10:29:00.000-07:00

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

2006-11-09T15:11:00.000-08:00

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

2006-08-24T00:14:00.000-07:00

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.

H St. Overlook - Make it Happen!

2006-07-10T11:55:00.000-07:00

Help make the H St. Overlook a reality. The southern end of H St is the only remaining publicly owned property from Maritime Heritage Park to the Broadway Overlook where we can see Bellingham Bay. This site is very, very important to the neighborhood and our heritage.

Please contact your City Council at 676-6970 or citycouncil@cob.org. John Watts and Gene Knutson are your reps but the other five are interested in this sort of thing.

Parks Department: Paul Leuthold at 676-6985

Mayor Mark Asmundson at 676-6979 or mayorsoffice@cob.org

Planning Director Tim Stewart at 676-6982 or tstewart@cob.org

Or me, Michael McAuley your MNAC Rep at 201-7199 or mmcgolly@yahoo.com

Also, the adjacent landowner at 1203 W. Holly, Kelly Beerman is very interested in working with the neighborhood to help this happen as he redevelops his property. The Planning Department has his contact info. Give him a call and let him know you support his efforts on the H St.Overlook.

New Design Rules for Old Town and Such

2006-06-12T22:42:00.000-07:00

Hello all you Old Town workers, visitors and a few residents - and, of course, the other 2000 folks who live here in The Lettered Streets!

Old Town and a small portion of the neighborhood along Whatcom Creek now has Design Review with significant advantages over the previous Design Review for new or rehabilitated structures.

I encourage everyone to look at the link to the PDF on the CoB website. It's 61 pages but reads very quickly and easily. If the link is befuddling your efforts just Google "Bellingham City Center Design" and it'll be at the top of the list.

A taste of the intent: "This document presents design standards for the City Center in Bellingham, Washington. They reflect the City's goals to promote economic development, enhance the image of the downtown and reuse historic resources. The standards neither dictate taste nor assure good design. Rather, they support the
traditional qualities of the City Center and provide a framework for sympathetic
design (page 1)."

Note the "sympathetic design" wording. This will become very, very important as new structures take the place of bare ground or tired older buildings. All of us in the neighborhood should take a half an hour or an hour to read the City Center Design Guidelines and think about our role in shaping the neighborhood for the future.

In closing and in an effort to convince you that this issue should be on your front burner, we all moved here because of what the people before us did. Back then those folks were the "WE" and us folks were the "THEM" that were going to come. Now that we get to be the "WE" it is our duty to ensure that the "THEM" that are coming carry on the traditions that we have embraced.

It is our duty ensure that new arrivals know that this neighborhood has far more value to this city than they probably know and it's because citizens stood up at public meetings and made The Lettered Streets not only Bellingham's oldest neighborhood but also it's best.

Be active, Get involved!

M. McAuley
Your MNAC Rep

How to Preserve Our Neighborhood Character using Historic Districts

2006-04-10T15:20:00.000-07:00

Learn how we can Preserve Our Neighborhood Character using Historic Districts

Saturday, April 22, 2006 9 am - 4 pm Come to a free workshop!

Learn how we can Preserve Our Neighborhood Character using Historic Districts
The City of Bellingham Planning and Community Development Department and the Whatcom Museum will host a Saturday event to provide the tools and information necessary to understand preservation issues at national, state, and local levels as well as to provide suggestions on how to research, inventory, and learn more about historical buildings and neighborhoods in Bellingham and how building and neighborhood designations can be a help to property owners. Representatives for national, State, and local registers will be present and explain the process.

676-6981 x219 or by email to rvanderway@cob.org --

Registration by Monday, April 17 is encouraged, but will remain open through April 22 as long as seating is available.

Workshop Location: Whatcom Museum, 121 Prospect Street, Downtown.

Join the Lettered Streets Neighborhood Association!
Dues contributed will help fund upcoming projects that assist in preserving the character of our neighborhood, the occassional newsletter and our annual picnic.
Suggested contribution for dues:
$5.00 Individual ***** $10.00 Household ***** $25.00 Business

We can forward neighborhood news via email, so please send us your email address along with your dues to:
LSNA, P O. Box 852, Bellingham, WA 98227

The LSNA meetings are held the 2nd Tuesday of every month at 7:00 p.m. at Washington Square, 2501 E Street.

Everyone is encouraged to attend and participate! The LSNA Board is a volunteer group elected by you. They serve the neighborhood and strive to keep the Lettered Streets a great place to live! If you would like to serve as an Area Representative or have any great ideas for the neiglıborhood, please contact any member of the Board.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
For the latest neighborhood news, visit our website at
www.letteredstreets.org

Council on the Net

2006-03-26T10:24:00.000-08:00

City provides council meetings on website
BTV10 brings city government to your living room and now to your desktop! A new city service makes videos of Bellingham City Council meetings available 24/7 by providing them on the Internet. Our website now features access to videotaped 2006 meetings of the City Council and 2006 episodes of the city-produced television series Inside Bellingham. [full story]
BTV10 on-line menu

Taxes up Everywhere.....will it get worse here?

2006-03-08T13:39:00.000-08:00

By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Wed Mar 8, 3:00 AM ET

ATLANTA - In Orford, N.H., a tin-roofed hunting cabin worth $10,000 was recently assessed at $200,000, just for its mountain view. Taxes on the cabin and its outhouse skyrocketed.

Around Lake Tahoe, along the California-Nevada border, property taxes have shot up 135 percent in the past four years.

Residents of Beaufort, S.C., pay $17 million more in property taxes today than in 2000.

Welcome to the flip side of the real estate boom. Years of rising home values have boosted property taxes steadily. Now, homeowners across the United States are fighting back.

"Real estate growth and real estate boom seem to be happening all over the country and [property-tax revolt] is an inevitable consequence," says Roger Sherman, a property tax expert in Boise, Idaho.

This year, legislative proposals, citizen initiatives, and lawsuits are on the agenda in at least 20 states. These new efforts reflect both residents' distrust of how their property tax dollars are being spent and concerns that rising assessments are driving working-class people out of popular towns and cities.

Tax caps are not new. California's Prop. 13 initiative in 1978 capped annual tax assessment increases at 2 percent until a property is sold, a law that is still on the books. Nevertheless, the steady rise in home values has meant that local and state governments are increasingly reliant on property taxes as their No. 1 revenue stream. Last year, those governments collected $339 billion, according to the

Census Bureau, some $2,750 for every home in America.

This perceived shift of the tax burden onto residential properties is behind the various tax revolts. It also doesn't help that often tax bills reflecting double-digit increases are mailed out at Christmastime - notices that affect older and long-term homeowners the most.

Reducing property taxes, however, may curtail local governments' ability to raise money for schools and services, some critics say.

Others don't see what all the fuss is about. Since the property tax is determined and spent locally, it is the fairest of all taxes, experts say.

"You think [the property tax is] where the revolt should not come, but it does," says Helen Ladd, a property tax expert at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

Revolt is in full swing in Incline Village, Nev., on the shores of Lake Tahoe.

There, Maryanne Ingemanson's tax bill is now $80,000 a year for a 5,000-square-foot house. She and a group of residents raised $400,000 to fund a lawsuit claiming recent assessments are unfair. Last week, 17 residents won a battle against the tax assessor when an elected county board threw out the new assessments.

Of course, many believe homeowners should be glad that their homes are worth more, says Ms. Ingemanson. But many people - especially the working class and those on fixed incomes - can't always afford the new taxes and have to leave. "This runaway taxes situation is driving people from their homes," she adds.

Posted by Michael McAuley, your Lettered Streets MNAC Rep

CTED Short Course

2006-02-24T18:09:00.000-08:00

CTED Short Course on Planning - all should go!

CTED, Whatcom County, Whatcom County Council of Governments and WTA are
sponsoring a short course on Planning.  The date is March 15th,
6:30-9:30 p.m.  Please put this event on your calendar, the full agenda will be
forthcoming once the speakers are finalized.  These are great events
for citizens looking for educational opportunities to better understand
local planning issues.  The event is free, and will take place at Whatcom
County Council Chambers.

The Lettered Streets have a great deal of redevelopment coming and this course is a fantastic
way to get up to speed quickly - this way you'll know and understand what the planners
and architects are talking about.  The Lettered Streets Association Board of Directors is hoping
to make this the year we build a new Neighborhood Plan so please attend the Short Course then come
and lend your expertise!

City Center Design Review....... Feb 21, 2006

2006-02-21T10:39:00.000-08:00

Feb 21, 2006 - City Center Design Review I agree that we should have our own nbhd design standards. In the meantime, we have more than 100 housing units (250 new residents) coming this year and several commercial/office spaces with very little design review. As long as the CBD continues to attract reinvestment dollars and attention then the southern end of the our nbhd will continue to get hit with long awaited investment. The southern end of the Lettered Streets nbhd has 5 arterials running through or around it's edge, it's gonna happen. If we have to wait until council "allows" us to update our nbhd plan then we continue to fall further behind - as we are now. I met with Fred Wagner, principal architect of about 90 of the proposed housing units, and I can tell you right now what the future of Old Town looks like.
The multi-family guidelines are so weak as to be ineffectual architecturally speaking; so, while the new contruction is gonna be neat, it's not the sort of thing the nbhd has been hoping for. I did go to the Planning Commission - I did not represent the nbhd nor can I anyway, but I want to be clear that I spoke only for myself - and asked them to think about extending the City Center Design Review bounds as I mentioned at the last board meeting (note: up Girard from the proposed review boundary on D St. to Broadway back down to Holly returning to G St. essentially doubling the amount of review area in the Lettered Streets). While I'm not sure any of them will move on it, I do think I raised attention to the issue. My worry, and this goes back to my meeting with Fred Wagner, is that the nbhd has one idea of how the nbhd should look while developers and architects have another. So, when I say that I 'know' what the southern end of the nbhd will look like in 50 years I base that on trends in the Puget Sound, the trends here, the trends in the CBD (also Barkley and the university campus). There is an emergent architectural style in the PNW and it's going to be built in our nbhd, which up to now has not happened. There are 5 projects on tap as I write. As for extending the bounds of the City Center Design Review, it's already partially covering the nbhd and noone seems to have a problem with it.
My question is this, then: if the City Center Design Review proposal is okay for Old Town and parts just north of there, and most of the southern portion of the nbhd is fairly contiguous in land usage (with small exceptions) then why not extend those bounds to include the entire area of congruent usage? For example, the upper end of Holly is outside the Design Review bounds but other than a few homes on Earl's side of the street does it feel different or have other uses on the North end after it crosses F St.? I don't feel a big change, a subtle change but not a big one. And as the three projects go in on Holly soon, then even that subtlety will be lost; so the street will "feel" the same just across the Design Review boundary but have no design review. The good news is, no one is currently proposing schlocky crap.......but?! it could happen and it could happen before we get a nbhd plan together that has codified design guidelines......you and I both know that's gonna take years. So...in the meantime, I'd like to have more review. Right now we have no review at all for commercial uses without housing. The attempt to run the dental studio through the multi-family review process only revealed the limitations of that process but did not constitute a real review. I am guessing that staff reviewed the dental studio to test the process. There is a proposal in front of the Planning Commission to use the Multi-family guidelines for commercial property reviews when the project is in a Res. Multi Zone - which is about 80 percent of our nbhd. Marilyn has done a bangup job of showing us that the Mutli-family Review process is very limited when used to look at commercial projects, or even mixed use projects. So, we have a minimal amount of review and my proposal to extend the bounds of the City Center Design Review area gives us a little more help, a little bit more protection from bad design. It's not perfect, and I don't think my proposal is an end all solution, but I think it's a positive step that will move us forward. Waiting for codified Design Review in the nbhd plan means we are standing still with a 20 year old "guiding document" while all around us development goes about its merry way. Getting some protections now while we work toward that codified design review process in our nbhd plan seems like a good thing for the nbhd. Here are some links for folks to get background: http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/planning/desrevguideandcode.aspx http://www.cob.org/documents/planning/publications/city_center_design_guidelines.pdf Please read all of the Bellingham PDF, but I would draw attention to page 7.
Michael McAuley

1203 - 1209 W Holly

2006-01-26T12:38:00.000-08:00

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5868/770/640/1203 W Holly New 002.jpg

1203 - 1211 W Holly Re-hearing

2006-01-26T10:03:00.000-08:00

Below are the new drawings for the mixed-use building at the above site. Owner is asking for 57.6% lot coverage and setback variance's. Last day for commet is February 8, 2006, the public hearing is Thursday, February 9,2006.

Eminent Domain... Should we be concerned? Boulder Colorado seems to be concerned.

2006-01-09T11:02:00.000-08:00

Prof. Davidson is presently an Associate Professor at the Univ. of Colorado School of Law. He joined the CU School of Law faculty in 2004. Professor Davidson attended Columbia Law School and served as Articles Editor on the Columbia Law Review. After law school, Professor Davidson clerked for Judge David S. Tatel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Souter was one of the dissenting votes in the Kelo decision. Professor Davidson served as Special Counsel to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and practiced with the firm of Latham & Watkins LLP, focusing on commercial real estate, affordable housing, and community economic development. Besides teaching courses in property rights and laws, land use planning and affordable housing, Professor Davidson is on the Boulder Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, is on the Board of Boulder County Advocates for Transitional Housing, and works with the Thistle Community Housing project. Prof. Davidson is a dynamic speaker and has an important perspective about the effects of the Kelo Decision and Eminent Domain.
The Land Use Coalition is a nonpartisan volunteer group who work on land use and private rights issues.

2006 Schedule for Port Development Meetings

2006-01-01T20:52:00.000-08:00

NOTE: PLEASE CHECK LINK ABOVE FOR CALENDAR CHANGES.......

Jan. 12, 2006 Noon Harbor Center Conference Room
WAG input on New Whatcom Design Concepts
Waterfront Advisory Group meeting

Jan. 24, 2006 7:00 p.m. Commuinity Open House Bellingham Cruise Terminal
Public Open House on New Whatcom Design Concepts, hosted by Waterfront Advisory Group

Jan. 31, 2006 7:00 p.m. Municipal Court
Public Open House on New Whatcom Design Concepts, hosted by Waterfront Advisory Group
Community Open House Bellingham

Feb 1, 2006 7:00 p.M. Harbor Center Conference Room. Neighborhood Meeting.
CBD, South Hill, Columbia, Sehome, Lettered Streets input on New Whatcom design altenatives.

Jan.- Feb. TBA 60 day comment period on Whatcom Waterway and ASB Remedial Investigation
Feasibility Study
Dept. Ecology /Public Meeting TBA Winter 2006

60 day comment period on Cornwall Landfill
Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study
Dept. Ecology Public Meeting TBA

Feb. 15, 2006 7:00 p.m. Harbor Center Conference Room
WAG discussion and recommendation on New Whatcom Design Concepts
Waterfront Advisory Group Meeting

Feb. 23, 2006 7:00 p.m. Public Meeting City Council Chambers
City Planning Commission review of NewWhatcom Design Concepts

March 7, 2006 Noon City Council Chambers
Joint City Council/ Port Commission work session on New Whatcom Design Concepts
Joint City/Port Work session

March 21, 2006, 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
Joint City Council/ Port Commission Action on Preferred New Whatcom Design Concept
Joint City Council/ Port Commission Meeting

Fall 2006 TBA Formal submittal, public hearings and adoption of detailed New Whatcom Master Plan and Development Agreement Port Commission, Planning Commission,
City Council Hearings
TBA

New Building / 1301 J / Dental Clinic / Comment before 12/28/05

2005-12-19T10:40:00.000-08:00

LETTERED STREETS DRC2005-00030 1301 J Street
ENCLOSURE(S):
NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PENDING ACTIONThe Bellingham Planning and Development Department has received the following application for design review approval:DRC2005-00030: Construction of a single-story dental office totaling approximately 3,200 sq. feet with off-street parking, stormwater management and landscaping. The property is located at 1301 J Street, legally described as Lots 5-7, Blk. 58, Supp’l Add to Whatcom. The project has been registered with the US Green Building Council and will be a Certified LEED project. Mary Bisese, owner. Darrell Turner, applicant. Residential-Multiple, Multi Land Use Designation. Lettered Streets Neighborhood, Area 8.A site plan is attached to this notice. The full application and all listed documents are available for viewing at the Planning Dept. address listed below. The application will be reviewed under the procedures of Bellingham Municipal Code 20.25 for consistency with Multifamily Residential Design Handbook standards.You may comment on the proposal by sending written comments to the staff contact at the address below by December 28, 2005. This will be your only opportunity to comment on the application before the Planning Director issues a design review decision. You may also request a copy of the decision regarding this application and information on your appeal rights.Send comments/requests for information to: Darby Galligan, Planner City of Bellingham Planning Department210 Lottie StreetBellingham, WA 98225 (360) 676-6982 dgalligan@cob.orgOther permits included in the application: None. Other permits known to be required for this project: Building Permit. Studies requested of the applicant as of the date of this notice: None. Name of existing environmental documents: N/A.The application was received on December 5, 2005 and was determined to be complete on December 12, 2005. This notice of application was issued by the City of Bellingham on December 12, 2005.The City of Bellingham complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you need special accommodations please call 676-6982 (voice) or 676-6883 (TDD).
Staff Contact:
Darby GalliganPlanner I

SMARTCODE

2005-12-11T15:41:00.000-08:00

A Comprehensive Form-Based Planning Ordinance.
Could this be the answer for Bellingham? Take a look.

H Street and Holly Street End - Clean up

2005-11-21T14:56:00.000-08:00

Thank you COB for cleaning up the street end at H and Holly. The next step should be the removal of the building on this street end and trees trimmed as soon as possible as it attracts over night camping, drugs and crime.
Again, thanks to the City Staff and Council Person who worked on this cleanup.
Earl

The Village Trail

2005-10-30T19:51:00.000-08:00

Here we have the Village Trail at "F" and Bancroft. The Condo is using it as access to a parking area and has provided a paved path along the right side of the photo.

Once Upon a time..........

2005-10-30T19:41:00.000-08:00

Once upon a time the home located at Bancoft and "F" had a view of the bay because it was on the top of the "bluff". Now is has a view of a condo.

Roth Building

2005-10-30T19:26:00.000-08:00

The concern of the new building at "G" and Holly is that it might block part of the view from the Roth Building.
The Neighborhood Plan, dated Jan 1, 2005, Area 8 states "View impacts should be considered for those properties facing or southwest of Holly Street". Have the view impacts of the Roth Building been considered? The Roth Building is a Historic Building.
Are the view impacts to be considered from the public area, or from the inside of the building where the apartments are? I would assume that the developers for the new building are placeing value on the views from the inside of their building, not from the street level where all that can been seen are the sides of railroad cars.

View from Roth Building

2005-10-27T10:58:00.000-07:00

I have never been in the Roth Building.
My guess is that the GP Warehouse blocks a good part of the view. Also, I believe that at this time, the Port of Bellingham can build building of any height in front of the Roth Building and proposed building.
I feel that the owner of the Roth Building and developer should meet and make adjustments to the proposed building to provide the best possible views from the Roth Building. I feel that we should support them with any variances that they need, be it height, width, set backs etc.
Earl 319-7470

New Building across from Roth Building

2005-10-27T10:23:00.000-07:00

This is an update on the new condos going in on Holly. I went to the >meeting tonight to see the design. I hope the neighborhood association >received an invitation, because this was THE neighborhood meeting. If not, >let me know, please.>>>>We do need to be concerned. They are proposing a concrete and metal >building with windows framed in aluminum flat to the siding and a hokey >wing thing awning on one side. This building is very goofy in appearance, >not historic at all, unless you count the small amount of simulated >sandstone (if they can get it). They want to build into the view corridor >by 6 feet. The only good thing is they are sticking to the 3 story limit, >but the Roth building will essentially lose its view.>>>>In summary, it is not too great of a building design wise and they are >asking to block some of the view corridor on G Street. We need to >formulate a response, as soon as possible. Questions please call me >715.9400 and leave a message if necessary.>>>>Hope you are all well,>>>>Marilyn R Williams>>Vice Chair Lettered Streets Neighbhorhood Association

Why things may be happening the way they are.

2005-09-02T23:36:00.000-07:00

I heard one time that a good law was one that everyone hated. Such is the case with the Washington State Growth Management Act. My friends on the left hate it for being too weak and my friends on the right think it's burdensome. Part of that Act let's us say so in public meetings whenever a change is made or a certain development will occur. For more than a year the Lettered Streets has been going through that long process over a rezone in Old Town. Last week's Guest Spot writer brought that to the attention of the rest of the city under the headline, “What ever happened to public process?”
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Growth Management sections 36.70A.140, .035 and .130 say in part, “The procedures shall provide for broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public comments.” The issue of public process is one of five top complaints about the GMA brought before the Growth Management Hearings Boards, usually when the people feel that they haven't been heard.
The question raised last week was about public process. As a person who interned in Lewis County while their Comp Plan battle was being fought and has since sat in scores of public meetings, I can attest that the process our Planning Department and, especially, the Community Development folks have gone through for Old Town was the most comprehensive I've ever seen or heard of. Whether I agree or disagree with the outcome is beside the point, their response to the general outcry in my neighborhood was outstanding.
City staff responded to the call from my neighborhood and gave us the meetings we wanted and that they could lawfully provide. And that is the real point. The outcomes from the meetings irked some folks because they want control over what Old Town will look like in the future. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism in place in the Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC) for the Lettered Streets to have ultimate control over redevelopment in Old Town, the Cradle of Bellingham.
The Lettered Streets has no covenants and our design guidelines are unenforceable, as they are in nearly every other neighborhood plan. Without enforceable guidelines that architects and developers can follow, all of us are at the mercy of a city-wide least common denominator rather than well planned and well placed, appropriate development. City staff have almost no power there and if anyone is to be blamed it us for not giving it to them. If we want to protect or create a certain appearance or function in our neighborhoods then we must give City staff the ability to carry out our wishes.
As much as we may wish no more people would come here, we have an ice cube's chance on a hot country road of stopping it. This is still a free country and by golly this is a great place to live, so can you blame newcomers for wanting a little of what we have? The bottom line is that people are coming and we voted for a law that says we have to accommodate them. So let's stop bickering about how we don't want more people and, instead, reach development solutions that look good and function well for Bellingham.
PS: I didn't even know they printed that. I sent it in but never got confirmation on it. Anyway, I sent them another since they got the facts of Marilyn and my positions incorrect in the Editors comments up front about me not being elected (I am annually) and Marilyn being elected (she can't be, our bylaws have no provision for that - she's appointed). A phone call to me would have straightened that out. I am, however, bugged about how they set me up as taking an opposite position from Marilyn, esp. since we agree on more than 90% of the topic. The only disagreement we have is she wants no growth and I don't mind - either way we both want whatever happens to work well and fit in. Hmmmmm...makes me wonder about the Indy.
Michael McAuley
mcauley@qwest.net

Broadway Parkway Street Lights

2005-09-02T14:07:00.000-07:00

Wow, take a look at the GREAT new street lights along the new Boradway Parkway.

OK Folks, we have seen the PLAN. It's time for your input.

2005-09-02T13:06:00.000-07:00

The Old Town Plan is available: Meetings and Hearing postponed until 2006.
http://www.cob.org/documents/planning/growth/2005%20Old%20Town/2005-08-17-gglo-powerpoint.pdf.

Old Town Plan

2005-09-01T11:02:00.000-07:00

Old Town Plan
I've taken a look at the slide show presented by the planners at the last Old Town meeting. Over all, I think they have presented a good plan, much better than we had a year ago. I think that the way the agenda was focused helped focus the discussion on the big issues. 1. View, 2. History, 3. Design, 4. Height .

I feel that the designers were given a task and did it well. However, I do not feel that this should be the end of community input. This is a start.
1 / 4. View / Height. I feel that looking at the tops of several 4 story building for the bluff along Dupont and Prospect is rather boring. I still would like to see the building vary from 1 story to 9+ stories in the filled area, depending upon the view from the bluff or street opening and 10 to 20 stories along the bluff. I don’t feel that we should be afraid of tall buildings in Bellingham as long as many of the existing views are preserved and open, public, ground level space is provided.
2. Design I would like the Old Brick Building to have more space, with the original 2 stories exposed by putting in retaining walls and pumps if required.
3. I would like to see a more “Historic” design standard; however, the planners did a good job of blending in their illustrations.
I feel that Old Town should still be a part of the Lettered Streets Neighborhood, especially the neighborhood between Holly, Broadway, Girard and "G". I feel that this is going to be the area where the design standards need to be expanded and enforced. The homes and offices that have been improved need to be preserved and any new development needs to honor the history of the area.
I feel that a review committee and a protective covenant needs to be put into place to assure the current property owners that their investments will not be destroyed by greed and unplanned development.
I also feel that the meetings expressed a great deal of distrust for and frustration with the Planning Department in Bellingham. I feel that several hours of consults time were wasted with the expression of distrust and frustration by attendees over what appears to be a complete disregard of the current Neighborhood Plan. I’ve lived in Bellingham for 20 years and with the planners we had for the first 17 years I never heard the frustration that I am hearing from citizens today; developers, yes, citizens, no…….

The final Old Town neighborhood meeting

2005-08-29T10:22:00.000-07:00

Just what is public participation? One would think the concept is clear and straight forward, but to our local planning department it seems to be something similar to a four letter word. As anyone who has attended the “public meetings” on the rezone of the Lettered Streets Neighborhood plan, dubbed “Old Town,” will tell you -- public participation is more trouble than its worth as far as the planning department is concerned. Which the three ring circus they put on made evident. I’m not certain if public input was what they were afraid of or if interference in their own agenda was their concern. Whichever the case may be, the process allowed very little actual input.

Apparently, public input, i.e. the tax paying citizen’s view points, desires, and concerns, just causes the public to expect that their input will be used in the planning process. Since using the public’s input is contrary to the planning department’s viewpoints, desires, and concerns, but required, they have designed (with the help of out of town consultants) a process that collects the information needed from the public that ensures the planning department’s goals. This game is called a charade, opps, I mean, charette, and if you want to play, you must play by their rules. For example, we were told to choose were we wanted the 3, 6, and 9 story buildings. We said, “We want a height limit of 3 stories to protect the view vista of major significance.” They said, “You will choose 3, 6, and 9 story locations or you will have to leave the table.” Public Input? Contrast that to “what is your vision for the area?” A nice, simple open ended question which draws out that bad concept, public input, which then must be worked into the plan.

As if the bullying weren’t enough, we were lied to. Tara Sundin told us 850 units had been “mandated” for the area, and at that density, “there would be a blanket of six story buildings.” Which was why they kindly and thoughtfully allowed us the option of 3, 6, and 9 story buildings. “By putting taller buildings somewhere else, you can save a view corridor here and there.” When I pushed Mrs. Sundin to the wall by insisting that she explain who mandated this and why we weren’t informed, she said the City Council did and if they hadn’t, they would. I continued relentlessly and eventually got the truth -- the number was made up -- possibly by the Planning Commission.

Then came the manipulation. In response to our concern that 10 story buildings along the bluff would dwarf the museum, we were gleefully informed that the museum IS a ten story building. “Yep, if you measure to the very tippy top of the lighten’ rod, you got yourself a 10 stories building‘.” It’s a very sad day indeed when the employees that work for you decide you are such a stupid child that you have to be lied to, and manipulated, in order to make the choices they want.

Sounds bad so far? It gets worse. During the presentation of the “public’s input,” we were informed that we were not only stupid, we were selfish, hateful, and didn’t love either our city or God. “Change is coming and anyone who doesn’t welcome it is out of touch.” “This area is at its lowest density in 150 years.” “Throngs of people used to come to this area and we should want that again.” At some point during the droning insultalogue by the Tacoma consultant (does anyone else see the irony here?), I wanted to stand up and scream, “Hello! Why are we here giving you our input on what we see the future to be? Did we say not to change? Or, change to reflect our neighborhood character? Did you hear us, or were you too busy planning?” But, the wind was knocked out of me as he went on insulting us and telling us how thankful we should be that our neighborhood was undergoing urban renewal and that we should, in fact, be celebrating it.

The outcome? Horrifying. Yuppie Ville. New Town. Just some of the words that came to mind when I saw THEIR vision for the area. Nothing fit with what we gave as input. But it all fit with what the consultants gave us as input. There were no questions allowed during or after the presentation, only comments. Questions, when asked individually of the staff and consultants, were answered differently by each person. The planning staff giving the least clear answers.

Maybe it’s just my arrogance, but somehow I truly believe that when the public is asked to give up hours of their time, without compensation, to provide input, we should be allowed to give our thoughts freely. And, afterwards to find those thoughts transformed into the plan, even if they conflict with the planning department’s agenda. We may not be professionals or planners, but we know what we need our town and neighborhood to be like and those needs should outweigh the developers, new comers, landowners, and planners wants. Our hope now lies with both our vision and the City Council’s wisdom to choose on the side of the public who reside in the Lettered Streets Neighborhood.

Marilyn R Williams
1715 F ST
715.9400

The OLD TOWN plan

2005-08-18T14:29:00.000-07:00

The GGLO Power Point presentation is available. Any input?

"Better not Bigger" by Eben Fodor

2005-08-12T17:47:00.000-07:00

John Watts, COUNCIL WARD #3: SE of "G" Street and Old Town: John Watts 647-2346 has read "Better not Bigger". In the 10/6/2001 issue of the BH, Another View, John give us a few provocative quotes.... and concepts.. "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward Abbey.. "The "Catch 22" of Growth: The better you make your community, the more people will want to live there. Until it is no better than any other community"... Regarding public involvement: "There are two staages to the public policy process: too early to tell, and too late to do anything about it."- Anonymous.
John, please have the BH publish this column again.... we need a refresh.....

Old Town Meeting, August 10th

2005-08-12T16:43:00.000-07:00

The meeting started at 6:00 pm, David Christensen provided an exercise as to how our idea of the design of buildings in Old Town fits right into the Central Business District Design Standard.
Thanks to Chelle Davidson for the coverage in the Whatcom Independent , 8/12/05 Page 4.
Unfortunately, the photo's we reviewed were photos of current buildings. Toni has several photos from 1891 of commercial building in the Old Town, Lettered Streets area.... The photo's she has have many features that I like.... no, we don't want to reconstruct Old Town... just use some features. Do we need a design review committee of citizens and staff for buildings before a design is approved....? YES.

Buildout Potentials - Old Town

2005-08-10T11:00:00.000-07:00

This is part of the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement, UGA, Urban Fringe Area. Maximum estimated buildout: 1,763 Dwelling units at 55 (this is before they added the Prospect extension where my 20 story building is going to be... (you know, where the Post Office is). The only views I will block are the guys in the jail.
Now folks, let's get serious! There's really only two access streets, "Holly" and "F". I hear that Holly has about 15,000 trips a day at this time.... if we let 2.5 people move into each dwelling unit and they make two trips a day, that gives us an additional 8,815 trips.

Questions presented to Bellingham Planning on August 3rd 2005 (Note to planning: We know you are peeking at this Blog..... please respond

2005-08-09T15:07:00.000-07:00

Planning: It has been a month.... please respond to the Lettered Streets Committee that asked these questions. I, as a resident would like to know and I really feel we deserve an answer. Thanks..... Earl
Questions for the City of Bellingham Planning Department concerning why we have Neighborhood Plans:
1. How is the character of the Lettered Streets Neighborhood (LSN)>Plan defined in Section V and stated on page 10 enforced? (see Attachment 1)
2. Notice of Public Meeting required for what processes? (see Attachment 1 - 1203 W. Holly Street)
3. How is the City Center Master Plan/Character Area Development (Chapter3 - No. 2 Old Town Area) enforced? (see attachment 2)
4. What are the current Zoning and Development Regulations for theLSN and where can the current Land Use and Development Code be found since taken out of the Neighborhood Plan in January 2005?
5. How does the Soil Stability Study conducted for BurlingtonNorthern for the slope along Holly Street and Eldridge assist in the development of properties along this natural bluff?
6. How does the draft 3/24/05 timeline for code development implement a design review process that will preserve the character of our neighborhood? (ee Attachment 3)
7. How is the Multifamily Residental Design Handbook enforced, especially for new construction less than nine (9) units?
8. Why is Old Town contiually taken out of the LSN Neighborhood Plan and boundaries defined differently in current planning process versus the City Center Master Plan, compared to our LSN Neighborhood Plan/Land Use Designation Map, and will it be a new neighborhood?
9. Should glass and steel structures be built right across the street from 100 year old historic homes and buildings? Should 100 year old structures have a view priority? (see Attachment 4 -- photos)
10. Is the current review checklist thorough enough to preserve the character of our historic neighborhoods? (see Attachment 5 -

GGLO is the consulting group that the City has hired to make presentations the Old Town Meeting

2005-08-08T13:48:00.000-07:00

These folks seem to be doing a good job. Take a look at the "Greenwood Library" under the "Urban Design / Neighborhoods" link. Click the link above to view their web site.

Where do we get copies of these Community Plans?

2005-08-08T13:36:00.000-07:00

Regional Urban Design Assistance Team Report.
Whatcom Creek Waterfront Action Program
Downtown Development Workshop
City Center Master Plan
Community Forum on Growth Management......
and Growth Management Plan

Water fron futures group: http://www.waterfrontfutures.org/index.htm (take a look at this one)

Old Town Planning Area & Village Trail

2005-08-08T13:31:00.000-07:00

The Old Town area has been expanded to Prospect St and a part of the Central Business District south of Whatcom Creek. They also have moved the west side over to "G" Street, up to the Village Trail. After seeing what they did with the Village Trail at "F" and Bancroft, I'm concerned as to what they are going to do with the rest of the trail. Compare the trail entry at Broadway and the entry at "F"; the trail is no longer a trail at "F", it's a rather small walkway. The blacktop on the driveway at "F" Street should be removed and replaced with grass as in the photo on the above left.

Also, in June they changed the precint boundries. They moved Gene to "G" street West, and John Watts "G" street East. I assume so that he could have the complete Old Town area. Who do we call about the folks sleeping in cars and campers along "G" & "F"?
COUNCIL WARD #2: Lettered St's NW of "G": Gene Knutson 734-4686 w/733-1640
COUNCIL WARD #3: SE of "G", Old Town: John Watts 647-2346

Urban Village?

2005-08-08T12:42:00.000-07:00

I've been to the June 29th meeting and July 20th meeting. We have had input and guidence from the City and GGLO, but I'm really am not sure what an Urban Village is yet. Is the plan to have Downtown Bellingham on one side of a street and an Urban Village on the other side? I can see how the Barkley area and Fairhaven area could be a village, but not sure how Old Town is going to be anything but a high priced condo project with waterfront views next to Downtown.

Old Town - Meetings 8/17

2005-08-08T12:33:00.000-07:00

The 4th Neighborhood Meeting, Wednesday, August 17, 2005, 6:00 p.m.,Broadway Hall, 1300 Broadway.
Subject: Draft zoning change recommendations will be presented for citizen comment.Public input and summary materials are posted on the City's web-site, www.cob.org , under the Planning & Community Development Department. The direct link is www.cob.org/pcd/planning/growth/oldtown.htm. Staff will continue to post meeting results and draft plans throughout the course of this planning process. We welcome your written comments at any time throughout this process. You may send them to the Planning & Community Development Department, 210Lottie Street, Bellingham, WA 98225 or email Nicole Oliver at noliver@cob.org. For more information, please contact Tara Sundin, Planning and CommunityDevelopment Department, at 676-6880 or tsundin@cob.org