City of Bellingham Design Review Board

# Design Review Board Charts Course for Two Downtown Projects ## Meeting Overview The Bellingham Design Review Board convened on January 21, 2025, for a meeting that was both ceremonial and substantial. Chair Ryan Van Straten presided over a session that began with recognition of transitions — welcoming newest member Robert Wright to his first meeting while honoring David Heck's final session after four years of service. "Thanks for all your efforts over the years," Van Straten told Heck. "You've been a great part of this board." The board then turned to its primary business: early design guidance for two significant downtown residential projects. The first, a 25-unit apartment building at the corner of D Street and Girard Street, represented conventional market-rate housing. The second, a 68-unit affordable senior housing project in Old Town, came from nonprofit developer Mercy Housing and required three departures from city code. Both projects arrived at a unique moment in Bellingham's development landscape — just days after City Council eliminated parking minimums citywide, effective January 28th. ## A Traditional Building Seeks Its Place in a Changing Neighborhood ABT Consulting presented plans for 1915 D Street, a four-story residential building designed by Servus Architects Andrew Krzysiek and Daniel Lawrence. The project proposed 25 units — three studios, one one-bedroom, thirteen one-bedrooms, and nine two-bedrooms — with 19 surface parking spaces. The architects explained their design philosophy through context imagery showing traditional residential buildings with substantial masonry bases, bay windows, and heavy cornice lines. "The commonalities that we're seeing in our client's context imagery is a base that really grounds the building's architecture, has a substantial weight to it," Krzysiek explained. "Material-wise masonry, either stucco or more traditional actual materials." The building's massing responded to its corner site with an entry at the intersection of D Street and Girard Street, stepping down to two ground-floor units with recessed alcoves. The design featured a flat roof with projecting cornice, and a mix of setback and protruding balconies to meet usable space requirements. But questions emerged about the prominent corner entry. Board member Maggie Bates found the design compelling yet somehow incomplete: "What you have going on here is with the tan very, very symmetrical corner design. And those columns are pretty tall. They go up to the halfway up through the second story. And so when I see that roof that you've got protecting the lower floor where the glass is... it feels cut to me." David Heck pressed the architects on whether alternatives to the corner entry had been explored, given how the precedent buildings showed "very strong corners" while this design seemed to "detract from the strength of that base." Krzysiek explained that grades had dictated the corner placement: "We were not allowed to modify the public right-of-way sidewalk for our building grades... so it started lending itself better to place the entryway on the corner to work for grades." The more substantive concern came from newest member Robert Wright, who questioned how the building's contemporary style and zero lot line approach respected the neighborhood's established character. "It feels like these houses, both single family and multifamily along D Street there... by their very nature have a setback from the sidewalk edge. They also have sort of contemporary, or rather traditional residential forms," Wright observed. "I'm just kind of struggling to see how this sort of contemporary style brought to the edge of the property and the zero lot line kind of respects that community identity." This critique touched on the project's most challenging aspect: fitting substantial density into an area transitioning from single-family residential to multifamily development. Jack Bloss from ABT Consulting pushed back, noting that "newer development isn't taking the single family approach, it's taking the built to the property lines multifamily development look." ## The Public Realm Squeeze The board's biggest concern centered on the building's relationship to Girard Street, where the structure would sit nearly at the sidewalk edge with only three feet for landscaping. This created multiple complications: street trees would be required but difficult to accommodate, pedestrian comfort would be compromised, and the project struggled to meet design guidelines calling for prioritizing the public realm. "I think that typically when you see a zero lot line in the more urban areas of our city, you have a much larger and substantial sidewalk, sometimes up to 12 feet," Wright noted. "The fact that we have like a three or four foot sidewalk here with a zero lot line and a busy street and parked cars doesn't really feel like an enticing pedestrian experience." Maggie Bates pressed on the tree issue: "When you put the street tree in there, is it pushed the sidewalk, and now that buffer, that two foot planter thing that we've talked about is gone?" The architects acknowledged the constraint. "The one thing that we're at is how do we start to incorporate consultants — civil, landscape, structural — so depending on what we're allowed to do, are we doing trees inside of tree grates on the sidewalk?" Krzysiek wondered aloud. Board members stopped short of demanding the building be set back further, recognizing the project was constrained by minimum parking dimensions and property line buffers. But they made clear this would be a key focus when the project returned for design review. "We'll want to see how the guidelines are met from a landscaping and a public realm perspective," Heck summarized. ## Trash and Texture Other board guidance was more straightforward. Members appreciated the bay window modulation shown in the 3D renderings but suggested extending that rhythm along more of the facade. "It looks like maybe a third one along there, and maybe one or two on the other one as well to kind of get that rhythm, keep that rhythm going," Heck suggested. The prominent cornice line drew praise, with board members encouraging the architects to study their precedent images for "lessons learned on texture and depth and detail." When Bates questioned whether they wanted "very simple and to the minimum for trim," Krzysiek clarified their approach: "Form-wise, we are trying to have more of a traditional cornice line that might have some details that reflect old, but are not overly detailed that was common in a building 100 plus years old." The trash enclosure location sparked discussion about public realm impacts and screening details. The architects explained they were constrained by sanitary service requirements that prevented backing trucks over sidewalks, forcing the enclosure toward the street frontage. Board members accepted the constraint but emphasized that any screening must be "well thought out" given its public visibility. ## Affordable Housing Brings Old Town History Forward The second project presented a markedly different character — both in its mission and design approach. Ellen Lowy from Mercy Housing introduced the 68-unit affordable senior housing project, explaining their nonprofit's work providing deeply affordable rentals ranging from $590 to $950 per month for seniors. "We're really excited to be part of the changing Old Town District," Lowy said. "We're working closely with the folks at Old Town Village to sort of coordinate our design with the work they're planning in this area and are really eager to be part of the change to this neighborhood and especially excited to be able to bring affordability as part of that redevelopment plan." Jason Tran from Rundberg Architects walked the board through a design rooted in Old Town's industrial history. The project drew inspiration from the territorial courthouse across the street, the adjacent Lighthouse Mission, and historical buildings like the Granary Iron and Metal Company. Most significantly, it referenced the area's history as landfill built over floating structures along Bellingham Bay. "The historic vernacular of buildings built on stilts, more or less as floating buildings along the bay," Tran explained. "The site itself built on landfill... what does that mean in terms of the architecture?" This led to a massing concept of a "floating building emblematic of historic floating buildings on the site." The C-shaped building carved out a central courtyard to provide light and air to all units while maintaining a 40-foot separation from the neighboring Lighthouse Mission. A heavy masonry base would ground the structure while upper floors employed modern industrial materials referencing the area's warehouse heritage. ## Three Departures, Three Constraints The project required three departures from city code, each driven by site constraints. The first reduced the required 20-foot commercial space depth to 16 feet along Holly Street, allowing the building to set back four feet and create a wider sidewalk — "that enlarged walkway which was apparent in a number of different guidelines," Tran explained. The second departure accommodated a transformer room that could only be located on the Holly Street frontage. Other locations proved infeasible: E Street would bury it within the building where PSE couldn't access it, while Astor Street's wood construction couldn't support the required concrete vault. "That left us just on this frontage," Tran said, "and we're trying to locate it right off the driveway as far away from this corner." The third departure reduced weather protection along E Street from 75% to 43% of the frontage. Extending the canopy further would cast shadows on a covered outdoor space that seniors would use for gathering. "Part of this is to not make a space that's covered that's so large that it's challenging to secure, but to create something that is of scale that both the community room and the lobby will have eyes on," Lowy explained. ## Art, Context, and Neighborhood Character Public comment came from Heidi Wasson, assistant curator at the Territorial Courthouse's Logie Art Museum. She emphasized the importance of complementing the restored historic buildings: "A lot of money has already been put into restoring the historic building, the Territorial Courthouse, as well as the U.S. Hotel building, bringing it back to pristine condition in its historic state. And I would really hope that this building is a complement to that." Staff planner Sarah Ullman reminded everyone that early design guidance reviews intentionally show "butter stick" renderings — basic massing studies that invite input before detailed design development. The board's discussion revealed appreciation for the project's thoughtful response to Old Town's history. "I'm really enjoying some of that precedent imagery and the concept behind it," Heck said. "Clearly, this is going to be a more modern building that's not hiding that fact. But there's going to be plenty of harking back to the Old Town." However, Maggie Bates raised concerns about the proposed artwork screening for the transformer room, given the colorful adjacent Lighthouse Mission building. "There is so much going on right next door," she observed. "In context of this block, it feels more like I would want some rest for my eye on your building." She suggested a more muted approach while still appreciating the architects' intention to avoid a blank wall. ## Safety, Security, and Senior Needs Board member David Heck questioned the covered outdoor space, asking about usefulness and safety concerns. Lowy drew on Mercy Housing's experience with senior properties: "We've actually talked to residents at our Eleanor senior property about what types of space they'd like to utilize. And I think we definitely heard that other spaces beyond just the lobby to gather, including outdoor spaces that could be made secure... would be a priority." Architect Melissa Wechsler addressed landscape viability under the canopy, noting the south-facing exposure would support vegetation with proper irrigation and raised planters designed to discourage inappropriate use. ## Unanimous Support for Departures The board found all three departures reasonable given the site constraints and project goals. "It seems like the trash is really kind of dictating it a fair bit," Heck noted about the commercial space reduction. "That is the only spot that SSC is allowing them to go." On the transformer room placement, members appreciated the architects' commitment to screening and potential community artwork. "I really like their ideas that they're throwing out there for the artwork, or whatever that louvered wall will be," Heck said. The weather protection departure generated the most discussion, with Van Straten noting potential value in covering the outdoor space but acknowledging the competing need for natural light. "I could see there being value to that rain cover for the community covered space there," he said, "but I could see there certainly being some value to it." Wright called it "the least compelling of the three departure requests" but found no significant concerns. ## Closing & What's Ahead Both projects will return for design review meetings with more detailed proposals. The market-rate project at 1915 D Street faces pressure to better address the public realm and develop its corner entry design. The Mercy Housing project has broad board support but will need to resolve questions about materials, screening details, and contextual relationships. The meeting concluded with appreciation for the projects' contrasting approaches to downtown density — one market-driven and contemporary, the other mission-driven and historically referenced — both attempting to add housing in a city grappling with growth and affordability. David Heck's final words captured the board's broader role: "Four years they flew by, man. It happens so fast." In those years, board members had guided dozens of projects through Bellingham's design review process, shaping how the city grows while balancing competing demands of density, design quality, and neighborhood character.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** BEL-DRB-2025-01-21 ### Meeting Overview The City of Bellingham Design Review Board met on January 21, 2025, to review early design guidance for two residential development projects. The board welcomed new member Robert Wright and bid farewell to outgoing member David Heck, whose term expires January 25th. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Design Review Board (DRB):** A city board that reviews building designs in specific districts to ensure they meet community design standards and intent statements. **Design Intent Statements:** Ten specific criteria used to evaluate whether proposed buildings fit well with their neighborhood character, prioritize pedestrians, and meet quality design standards. **Early Design Guidance:** The preliminary stage of design review where applicants present basic building concepts and receive feedback before submitting detailed applications. **Urban Village Residential Transition:** A zoning designation in downtown Bellingham that allows higher-density housing while requiring design compatibility with surrounding residential areas. **Old Town Design Review District:** A special zoning area near Bellingham's waterfront that requires design review to preserve the historic character and industrial heritage of the neighborhood. **Departure:** A formal request to modify or reduce specific code requirements, such as parking minimums or commercial space depth, when the standard rule doesn't fit the project. **Usable Open Space:** Required outdoor space for residents, which can include decks, courtyards, or community areas - projects need 100 square feet per unit plus 10% of the total site. **Street Trees:** Trees planted in the right-of-way between the sidewalk and street, required by city code to provide pedestrian comfort and neighborhood character. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Ryan Van Straten | Design Review Board Chair | | David Heck | Outgoing Design Review Board Member | | Robert Wright | New Design Review Board Member | | Maggie Bates | Design Review Board Member | | Kobe Jones | Design Review Board Member | | Emmy Schurr | City Project Planner | | Sarah Ullman | City Project Planner | | Jack Bloss | ABT Consulting, representing 1915 D Street project | | Andrew Krzysiek | Servus Architects, architect for 1915 D Street | | Ellen Lowy | Mercy Housing, Associate Director | | Jason Tran | Rundberg Architects, architect for Old Town Senior Housing | | Heidi Wasson | Logie Art Museum, public commenter | ### Background Context Both projects reflect Bellingham's housing crisis and policy changes. Just days before this meeting, City Council eliminated parking minimums for all new development citywide, effective January 28th, 2025. This major policy shift aims to reduce housing costs and encourage transit use, but it also changes how developers design sites and buildings. The first project at 1915 D Street represents the type of "missing middle" housing Bellingham needs - apartments in residential neighborhoods near downtown. The second project addresses another critical need: affordable senior housing. Mercy Housing, a nonprofit developer, previously built the successful 83-unit Millworks Family Housing and is now focused on seniors earning between roughly $600-950/month. Both projects are in areas experiencing rapid change. The D Street area is transitioning from single-family to multifamily housing, while Old Town is being revitalized as part of the broader waterfront redevelopment. The Design Review Board's job is ensuring this growth respects neighborhood character while meeting modern needs. ### What Happened — The Short Version The board reviewed two apartment projects. For the first project on D Street, they liked the overall design but had concerns about the corner entrance looking disconnected from the floors above, and worried that the building sits too close to the sidewalk without enough landscaping buffer. They asked for more design unity and better use of the limited space between building and sidewalk. For the Old Town senior housing project, the board was very supportive. The developers need three departures from normal rules - less commercial space depth, a transformer room that reduces commercial frontage, and shorter rain cover. The board approved all three requests, understanding they're necessary due to site constraints and the building's specific use as senior housing rather than retail. The board appreciated both teams' presentations and saw both projects as meeting community needs. The main message: keep refining the designs to better fit their neighborhoods. ### What to Watch Next • Both projects will return for formal design review applications with much more detailed plans • The D Street project may explore setting back portions of the building or improving landscaping solutions • The Old Town project will develop more detailed materials and window patterns, plus coordinate with the adjacent Lighthouse Mission building • City Council's new parking policy takes effect January 28th, potentially affecting both projects if they resubmit ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** BEL-DRB-2025-01-21 **Q:** What major parking policy change did City Council approve just before this meeting? **A:** City Council eliminated parking minimums for all new development citywide, effective January 28, 2025, though ADA accessible parking is still required. **Q:** How many housing units are proposed in the D Street project? **A:** 25 units total: 3 studios, 1 one-bedroom, 13 one-bedrooms, and 9 two-bedrooms. **Q:** What organization is developing the Old Town Senior Housing project? **A:** Mercy Housing, a nonprofit affordable housing provider that previously built Millworks Family Housing. **Q:** What are the three departures requested for the Old Town project? **A:** Reduced commercial space depth (20 feet to 16 feet), reduced commercial frontage width for transformer room, and reduced weather protection coverage on E Street. **Q:** Why does the D Street project require design review? **A:** Because it's located in the downtown district urban village residential transition zone. **Q:** What was the board's main concern about the D Street project's corner entrance? **A:** The symmetrical lower design with tall columns felt disconnected from the floors above, lacking cohesiveness in the overall design. **Q:** How much usable open space is required per unit in the urban village zone? **A:** 100 square feet of usable space per unit, plus 10% open space overall for the site. **Q:** Who is the new Design Review Board member? **A:** Robert Wright, who is taking the vacancy created by Jan Hayes' departure. **Q:** What was the board's main concern about the D Street building's placement? **A:** The building sits too close to the sidewalk with only a narrow buffer, making it difficult to prioritize the public realm and fit required street trees. **Q:** Why couldn't the Old Town project put the transformer room on other building faces? **A:** E Street would bury it inside the building (PSE needs direct access), and Astor Street would require wood construction (transformer needs concrete enclosure). **Q:** What affordable rent levels will the Old Town senior housing provide? **A:** Approximately $590 to $950 per month for one-bedroom units, depending on income level. **Q:** Why does the Old Town project require a shared driveway with Lighthouse Mission? **A:** For trash access, because the site slopes make it impossible for refuse trucks to safely access from other locations. **Q:** What design concept inspired the Old Town project's massing? **A:** Historic "floating buildings" that were built on stilts over Bellingham Bay before the area was filled with landfill. **Q:** How many parking spaces does the D Street project currently propose? **A:** 19 on-site parking stalls to serve 25 units. **Q:** What happens next for both projects? **A:** Both will return for formal design review applications with detailed plans, materials, and responses to the board's guidance. ---