=== REAL BRIEFING REPORT === **MODULE 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY** --- **📝 FILENAME: BEL-DRB-2025-08-05.executive_summary.md** ## Executive Summary **Meeting:** Bellingham Design Review Board **Date:** August 5, 2025 **Project:** PRE2025-0061 - 1220 Larrabee Avenue - Two (2) Infill Townhouses ### Project Overview The Design Review Board reviewed an early design guidance proposal for two new infill townhouses to be constructed behind an existing duplex at 1220-1224 Larrabee Avenue in Fairhaven's commercial core zone. The applicant, Jessica Kenoyer (property owner), proposes to retain the existing 1970s-80s duplex building and add two 3-story townhouse units at the rear of the property with alley access. ### Key Discussion Points **Primary Concerns:** - **Street-facing facade improvements:** Board emphasized need for substantial upgrades to existing duplex's Larrabee Avenue frontage to meet pedestrian-oriented design intent standards - **Building cohesion:** Ensuring the existing building and new townhouses appear as a unified, intentional development rather than an "afterthought" addition - **Visual massing relationship:** Addressing the larger scale of rear buildings compared to front duplex **Design Elements Under Review:** - Proposed facade modifications including new second-story decks, window replacements, and siding changes - Exterior staircase placement for roof deck access on new townhouses - Overall architectural compatibility within Fairhaven's mixed residential/commercial context ### Board Recommendation Direction The Board provided positive conceptual feedback on density addition and building preservation but requires significant facade improvements and cohesive design integration before final approval. Key focus areas identified: enhanced street presence, unified architectural language, and improved pedestrian realm engagement. ### Next Steps Applicant will return with detailed design iteration addressing facade improvements, architectural cohesion, and enhanced street-level visual interest for second design review meeting. --- **MODULE 2: DETAILED MEETING ANALYSIS** --- **📝 FILENAME: BEL-DRB-2025-08-05.detailed_analysis.md** ## Detailed Meeting Analysis ### Meeting Structure & Participation **Board Members Present:** Ryan Van Straten (Chair), Maggie Bates, Robert Wright, Coby Jones **Staff:** Simran Dallywal (Project Planner), Fiona Starr (Administrative Staff) **Applicant Team:** Ali Taysi & Riley Marcus (Abt Consulting), Jessica Kenoyer (Property Owner), John Butcher (Project Designer) ### Site Context & Zoning **Location:** 1220-1224 Larrabee Avenue, Fairhaven Urban Village Commercial Core **Unique Characteristics:** - Property sits within commercial core zoning but surrounded by historic single-family homes - Existing 1970s-80s contemporary duplex stands out among traditional Fairhaven architecture - Site represents transition zone between intensive commercial uses (Haggen grocery) and residential neighborhood - Subject to both Design Review Board and Historic Preservation Commission review ### Project Scope & Design Approach **Proposed Development:** - Two 3-story townhouse units behind existing duplex - Vehicular access from south alley with ground-floor garages - Living spaces on upper floors with rooftop decks - Pedestrian access via walkways on both sides of existing building - Existing duplex facade modifications: new decks, siding changes, window replacements **Design Philosophy:** - Preservation of existing building structure for environmental sustainability - Contemporary aesthetic drawing inspiration from urban fire escape stairs - Attempt to bridge gap between commercial core intensity and residential neighborhood scale - Integration of taller, vertical windows referencing historic Fairhaven character ### Key Technical Discussions #### Zoning & Code Compliance Staff clarified that infill toolkit uses are permitted by-right in commercial core zone with minimal density restrictions. No departures from urban village design standards requested. Building code compliance (stormwater, utilities, parking) to be addressed at building permit stage. #### Design Intent Standards Application Significant discussion centered on which design guidelines apply to rear-facing buildings without street frontage. Many pedestrian-oriented standards considered potentially non-applicable, though Board determined whole-site approach appropriate. #### Public Comments Addressed Two written comments received regarding tenant lease notification/construction timing and stormwater management concerns. Applicant confirmed construction would commence after current lease expiration (June 2026) and stormwater systems would meet code requirements. ### Board Member Perspectives #### Primary Concerns Raised **Ryan Van Straten (Chair):** Questioned unusual development pattern of larger building behind smaller one; emphasized need for substantial front building improvements to meet design intent standards **Maggie Bates:** Strongly advocated for enhanced street facade improvements, particularly expanding ground-floor windows; noted missed opportunity if front building upgrades insufficient **Robert Wright:** Focused on massing relationships, describing rear buildings as "backpack that doesn't want to touch your back"; sought better integration between structures **Coby Jones:** Generally supportive, noting aesthetic improvements to current "eyesore" frontage; appreciated fire-escape stair aesthetic reference ### Technical Design Challenges #### Facade Improvements Scope Extensive discussion about existing building's single narrow bedroom window on street-facing elevation. Board pushed for more substantial glazing improvements despite applicant's concerns about interior layout constraints. Suggestions included transom windows, flanking windows, or bedroom reconfiguration. #### Staircase Placement External roof deck access stairs discussed as potentially problematic for building proportions. Alternative internal stair configurations explored but deemed impractical due to privacy concerns (requiring passage through bedrooms) and space limitations. #### Architectural Cohesion Strategy Board emphasized need for unified design language across both buildings through consistent materials, window patterns, and proportional relationships. Current proposal viewed as insufficient integration. ### Contextual Planning Considerations #### Neighborhood Transition Dynamics Extensive discussion about property's role as potential catalyst for area redevelopment versus barrier to future large-scale development. Board acknowledged tension between small-scale incremental development and eventual comprehensive redevelopment typical of commercial cores. #### Parking & Market Considerations Applicant explained garage provision as market-driven despite lack of parking requirements. Board briefly explored alternative parking configurations to potentially reduce building scale but acknowledged practical limitations. #### Historic District Influence While not within core historic area, location in "historic influence area" created expectation for design sensitivity to Fairhaven's character, leading to discussion of appropriate architectural references. --- **MODULE 3: KEY DECISIONS & OUTCOMES** --- **📝 FILENAME: BEL-DRB-2025-08-05.decisions_outcomes.md** ## Key Decisions & Outcomes ### Primary Board Direction **Conditional Conceptual Approval with Required Modifications** The Board provided qualified support for the infill townhouse concept while requiring substantial design improvements before final approval. Two critical areas identified for next iteration: #### 1. Enhanced Street-Facing Facade Design **Required Improvements:** - Significant expansion of ground-floor glazing beyond single bedroom window - Enhanced architectural detailing consistent with commercial core standards - Integration of vertical window patterns referencing historic Fairhaven character - Coordination of facade improvements with proposed deck additions **Board Rationale:** Current minimal facade modifications insufficient to meet pedestrian-oriented design intent standards. Street-facing elevation represents primary public interface and must demonstrate substantial design investment. #### 2. Unified Architectural Cohesion **Integration Requirements:** - Consistent material palette across existing and new structures - Coordinated window patterns and proportional relationships - Resolution of visual massing disparities between front duplex and rear townhouses - Development of unified design language that reads as intentional whole **Board Rationale:** Current proposal appears as separate buildings rather than cohesive development. Successful integration essential for meeting design intent standards regarding community character and visual cohesiveness. ### Secondary Design Guidance #### Exterior Stair Configuration **Board Position:** Generally acceptable as urban fire-escape aesthetic reference but requires refinement **Specific Direction:** - Maintain lightweight, airy appearance using steel or aluminum construction - Consider alternative placement if interfering with facade improvements - Ensure integration with overall building proportions #### Rendering & Visualization Requirements **Next Submission Must Include:** - 3D renderings showing street-view perspective of complete development - Detailed elevation drawings with window, material, and color specifications - Massing studies demonstrating relationship between front and rear buildings - Landscape/streetscape integration plans ### Policy & Process Clarifications #### Design Review Scope Confirmed Staff clarified that entire site falls under Design Review Board jurisdiction despite rear buildings lacking street frontage. Whole-site approach deemed appropriate for evaluation against design intent standards. #### Historic Preservation Coordination Project also subject to Historic Preservation Commission Design Review Subcommittee review given location in historic influence area. Coordination between review bodies expected. #### Code Compliance Separation Board confirmed focus solely on design intent standards compliance. Technical issues (stormwater management, utility connections, structural engineering) to be addressed through separate building permit review process. ### Applicant Response & Next Steps #### Commitment to Iteration **Applicant Team Response:** - Acknowledged Board feedback regarding facade improvements and architectural cohesion - Committed to substantial design development for second review meeting - Requested confirmation that conceptual approach viable with proper design refinement **Board Confirmation:** Conceptual support provided contingent upon addressing identified design deficiencies in next iteration. #### Timeline Considerations - Construction planned to commence after June 2026 lease expiration - Second design review meeting to be scheduled following design development - Building permit submission contingent upon Design Review Board approval ### Broader Planning Implications #### Precedent Considerations Board acknowledged project's role as potential catalyst for area redevelopment while noting responsibility to ensure current proposal meets appropriate design standards regardless of future neighborhood evolution. #### Infill Development Standards Discussion highlighted challenges of applying commercial core design standards to small-scale infill projects, particularly regarding existing building integration and non-street-facing orientations. #### Board Process Evolution Meeting demonstrated value of diverse professional expertise on Board and highlighted ongoing challenges with subjective design standards as state regulations trend toward objective requirements. --- **MODULE 4: ACTION ITEMS & FOLLOW-UPS** --- **📝 FILENAME: BEL-DRB-2025-08-05.action_items.md** ## Action Items & Follow-ups ### FOR APPLICANT TEAM (Ali Taysi/Abt Consulting, Jessica Kenoyer, John Butcher) #### Required Design Development - Due Before Next DRB Meeting **Priority 1: Street Facade Enhancement** - [ ] Redesign ground-floor window configuration for 1220 Larrabee frontage - Expand beyond single bedroom window - Consider transom additions, flanking windows, or interior reconfigurations - Integrate with proposed second-story deck modifications - [ ] Develop comprehensive material and color palette for existing building exterior - [ ] Detail architectural elements (retaining wall, column wrapping, trim details) **Priority 2: Architectural Integration** - [ ] Establish unified design language between existing duplex and new townhouses - [ ] Coordinate window patterns, proportions, and materials across both structures - [ ] Refine exterior stair design for lightweight, integrated appearance - [ ] Address visual massing relationship concerns **Priority 3: Documentation & Visualization** - [ ] Prepare 3D renderings from street-level perspective showing complete development - [ ] Develop detailed elevation drawings with specifications - [ ] Create massing studies demonstrating building relationships - [ ] Document proposed landscaping and streetscape integration **Priority 4: Technical Coordination** - [ ] Coordinate with Historic Preservation Commission Design Review Subcommittee process - [ ] Confirm stormwater management approach for building permit submission - [ ] Verify tenant notification and construction timing logistics ### FOR CITY STAFF (Simran Dallywal, Planning Department) #### Administrative Actions **Immediate (Within 2 weeks):** - [ ] Schedule follow-up Design Review Board meeting for second design review - [ ] Coordinate with Historic Preservation Commission for parallel review process - [ ] Update project file with Board's early design guidance feedback - [ ] Prepare summary of Board direction for applicant reference **Ongoing Project Support:** - [ ] Monitor applicant's design development progress - [ ] Provide technical assistance on design standards interpretation - [ ] Coordinate interdepartmental review for building permit readiness - [ ] Maintain public comment record and stakeholder communications #### Policy Development Support - [ ] Document lessons learned for future infill toolkit project guidance - [ ] Contribute to ongoing design standards objectivity analysis per state requirements - [ ] Support Board process refinement discussions ### FOR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD #### Meeting Preparation **Next DRB Meeting (September 2, 2025):** - [ ] Review applicant's revised design submission - [ ] Prepare for potential other agenda items as confirmed - [ ] Confirm quorum availability (Ryan Van Straten, Maggie Bates, Robert Wright, Coby Jones confirmed available) **Future Meeting Logistics:** - [ ] September 16, 2025: Confirm availability (Maggie Bates unavailable, others available) - [ ] Support recruitment of new Board member to fill vacant position #### Professional Development - [ ] Consider informal design standards discussion session as suggested by Coby Jones - [ ] Participate in city's design review process evolution planning - [ ] Maintain awareness of state regulatory changes affecting Board authority ### FOR CITY ADMINISTRATION (Kathy Bell/Staff Leadership) #### Board Support & Development **Immediate:** - [ ] Confirm Design Review Board meeting schedule through remainder of 2025 - [ ] Continue recruitment for vacant Board position, prioritizing design expertise - [ ] Follow up on David Heck potential interest (per Robert Wright suggestion) **Strategic Planning:** - [ ] Develop interim ordinance approach for design review process evolution - [ ] Clarify future Board role under state's objective standards requirements - [ ] Plan Board transition strategy for new regulatory framework #### Process Improvement - [ ] Review current design standards for objectivity compliance - [ ] Develop guidance for small-scale infill project review procedures - [ ] Enhance coordination protocols between Design Review Board and Historic Preservation Commission ### PUBLIC & STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT #### Ongoing Communications - [ ] Monitor and respond to any additional public comments on project - [ ] Maintain neighborhood notification protocols for next review phase - [ ] Ensure transparent documentation of Board decision-making process #### Community Education - [ ] Provide public information about infill toolkit development opportunities in commercial core - [ ] Clarify design review process for property owners considering similar projects ### MONITORING & EVALUATION #### Project Tracking - [ ] Establish timeline checkpoints for applicant design development - [ ] Monitor compliance with Board's early design guidance direction - [ ] Track coordination between multiple review processes #### Process Assessment - [ ] Evaluate effectiveness of early design guidance format for small infill projects - [ ] Document Board's approach to existing building integration challenges - [ ] Assess public engagement outcomes for future process improvements --- **MODULE 5: VERBATIM QUOTES** --- **📝 FILENAME: BEL-DRB-2025-08-05.verbatim_quotes.md** ## Key Verbatim Quotes ### BOARD CHAIR OPENING & PROCESS **Ryan Van Straten (Chair):** "The role of the Board is to provide a recommendation that identifies whether the design intent statements are met, provide guidance to the applicant for how the proposal can achieve a design that is consistent with all design intent statements by implementing the design guidelines." ### STAFF CONTEXT SETTING **Simran Dallywal (City Planner):** "I would just like to note that, given the location of the proposed townhouse units on at the rear of the existing duplex and lack of a street facing facade, that many of the design guidelines may likely not be applicable to this proposal." ### APPLICANT PROJECT DESCRIPTION **Ali Taysi (Abt Consulting):** "This is unique, as Simran noted in that, you know, there's an existing duplex on the site, and we're proposing to add 2 additional units behind the duplex off the alley. They will have a little bit more mass than the existing structure, but the they won't be fronting on the street. They won't be oriented to the street, and so that does... it gave us more difficulty in trying to find the square peg for the square hole. When we look at the design standards." ### PROJECT RATIONALE & PRESERVATION **Jessica Kenoyer (Property Owner):** "In an ideal world it would not be there, and we could construct something from scratch that was like, you know, a big whatever, and it totally would make more conventional sense. But because it's there, it's difficult to justify. You know, it wouldn't make any sense to tear it down, and I don't like tearing things down in general period, so I would try to save anything at any cost." ### DESIGN INSPIRATION & AESTHETIC **Jessica Kenoyer:** "We basically had to have pedestrian sidewalks kind of on each side of the building to access the townhouses in the back. So just because we couldn't get that frontage. But it does. We felt like we kind of hit that mark for having the pedestrian feel where the existing units would be accessed on that pedestrian pathway, and the new units would also be accessed on that same pedestrian pathway." **Coby Jones:** "When I think of old school feel, you know, going to New York? Right? You have these old buildings with these exterior fire case staircases right for access... So I don't think it's that bad of a look to be honest, especially if you're doing it out of steel or something that's open tread." **Jessica Kenoyer:** "Yeah, Coby, that was exactly kind of the look we were going for was that kind of like New York fire escape kind of urban feel to it. That was the thought." ### BOARD CONCERNS - ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER **Ryan Van Straten:** "I don't understand how the existing building fits in, and then wouldn't adding the second building make it fit in even less." **Ryan Van Straten:** "I would see more traditional kind of development of this area being that these old houses eventually are worth less than the land underneath it, and then they get raised, and a larger apartment building gets built there. But I see adding another duplex on that site as a barrier to future development of that block, because you're adding so much value that you're making it hard to then combine parcels and and build something larger." ### BOARD MASSING CONCERNS **Robert Wright:** "I'd like to start a conversation on on how the proposed mass interacts with the existing one. It kind of feels like a a backpack that doesn't want to touch your back, and and so I'd love to hear like design intent. And and how you feel like the the 2 masses are are gonna work together." ### FACADE IMPROVEMENT DISCUSSIONS **Maggie Bates:** "I know that you said you're going to put decks on there, and you're going to do some change in siding. But the tall windows that you're proposing for the south side actually face the alley, and nobody is going to see them, except for people driving up and down the alley to park their car. So is there any way to carry that look that you're proposing which matches more with what's going on along on the other side of the street and some of the other commercial buildings. Is there a way to carry that into the existing building." **Ryan Van Straten:** "If if you can get the front of the main building to meet the intents better. That makes throwing a building on the alley so much more palatable... especially if you're trying to work in the design so that they look cohesive as a 2 building development." ### WINDOW DESIGN CONSTRAINTS **Jessica Kenoyer:** "It's a bedroom, and that's the only wall that a bed can go on. So I guess like that's also part of the limitation. There, too, is like I don't know what else to do there on some of those things where you could make it all windows. But then it's gonna be. People are putting their bed with blinds in front of it all the time, so I just don't know." **Ryan Van Straten:** "You might have to move. You might have to move the closet, or you know there, there are ways to do that. I mean, you could have a window on each side of the bed, you could have a transom over the top of it like there are more things you can do. And it just I mean, this is the front of the building. This is street side." **Maggie Bates:** "I've been inside apartment buildings in Fairhaven, where the the windows are designed for the exterior view, people looking at the exterior of the building, not for the people on the inside of the building, which is a little crazy, I know, except that it is what happens when you're in a commercial zone frequently." ### COHESIVE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS **Ryan Van Straten:** "You gotta make sure that these buildings feel cohesive together that you could look at it and say, You know, I see how they that was a design that was done together." **Ali Taysi:** "Describing the 2 kind of key things you just mentioned is the the pedestrian oriented design, and then the cohesive design components. That's where we can work on iterating this to a to a little more detail." ### PROCESS & GUIDANCE PHILOSOPHY **Ryan Van Straten:** "Well and and, Jess, I think the the whole idea behind the city switching to this 2 stage process is for you to just hear our thoughts on the just kind of white box that we're being shown, so that as you continue to move farther along, and you you come back for the second meeting. You kinda know where our heads are at and where what areas you need to push a little further than maybe you originally intended, and what areas we're totally happy with." ### APPLICANT SEEKING CLARITY **Jessica Kenoyer:** "What I don't want to do is spend a bunch of money and time and energy going to kind of the next step with this concept. If it's ultimately like, you guys are like, no, this doesn't work... What is there a path forward, and what might that look like?" **Ryan Van Straten:** "But for the second meeting, the the issues that are important to us are ensuring that the the front of the existing building, the the look of the property as a whole meets the intent statements from the street side... And then, if you can, looking at the development as a whole. make them feel cohesive and make it feel like a cohesive development." ### BOARD PROCESS CHALLENGES **Coby Jones:** "Well, it is tough, because it's it is very subjective, right? And it seems like we do contradict ourselves from one meeting to another. Right? Quite a bit... if there's time when we get together and kind of go through a couple of these right kind of offline cause it seems like we keep kind of going back to a couple of different things." **Ryan Van Straten:** "I think this meeting specifically, I saw the value of the very diverse expertise that this board has, and it was it was great going through that discussion with you all." ### DESIGN REVIEW FUTURE **Kathy Bell (Staff):** "The State has made a lot of changes, and one of the things they've said is that communities can only use clear and objective design standards and regulations... if everything is clear and objective, and it's supposed to be measurable, quantifiable. The question is. if there's no discretion... what we're gonna need to figure out is what is the role of the board at that point, because I don't think we need, you know, 5 volunteers to say yep, they meet setbacks." --- **MODULE 6: TECHNICAL DETAILS** --- **📝 FILENAME: BEL-DRB-2025-08-05.technical_details.md** ## Technical Details ### PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS #### Site Information **Address:** 1220-1224 Larrabee Avenue, Bellingham, WA **Legal Description:** Mid-block parcel in Fairhaven Urban Village **Zoning:** Commercial Core (CC) within Urban Village boundary **Overlay Districts:** Historic Influence Area (requires Historic Preservation Commission review) **Lot Dimensions:** Approximately 100 feet depth with standard width **Topography:** Sloping site requiring retaining wall and stepped access from street level #### Existing Conditions **Current Structure:** 1970s-1980s contemporary duplex building **Architectural Style:** Modern box form with minimal architectural detailing **Current Site Coverage:** Single duplex structure with front and rear yard areas **Access:** Primary vehicular and pedestrian access from Larrabee Avenue **Utilities:** Existing connections for water, sewer, electrical, and natural gas ### PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SPECIFICATIONS #### Building Program **New Construction:** - Two (2) three-story townhouse units - Ground floor: Two-car garages per unit - Second & Third floors: Living spaces, bedrooms, bathrooms - Roof level: Individual roof decks with exterior stair access - Total new units: 2 (bringing site total to 4 units) **Existing Building Modifications:** - Facade improvements: New siding, window replacements, architectural detailing - Second-story deck additions spanning building width - Structural modifications to accommodate deck construction - Updated exterior materials for cohesive site design #### Dimensional Requirements & Compliance **Height:** New townhouses at 3 stories (within Commercial Core height limits) **Setbacks:** Compliant with minimal Commercial Core setback requirements **Lot Coverage:** No restrictions in Commercial Core zoning **Density:** No maximum density limits for infill toolkit development **FAR (Floor Area Ratio):** Not regulated in Commercial Core zone ### ZONING & REGULATORY FRAMEWORK #### Permitted Use Classification **Primary Use:** Infill Toolkit Development (permitted by-right in Commercial Core) **Infill Toolkit Options:** Duplex, triplex, fourplex, and townhouse configurations allowed **Commercial Core Permissions:** Apartments and various commercial uses also permitted **No Special Approvals Required:** Project proceeds under standard permit process #### Design Review Requirements **Mandatory Reviews:** 1. Design Review Board (early design guidance + final design review) 2. Historic Preservation Commission Design Review Subcommittee (historic influence area) **Review Criteria:** Urban Village Design Standards and Guidelines **Focus Areas:** Pedestrian orientation, community character, architectural compatibility **Exemptions:** Many pedestrian-oriented guidelines potentially non-applicable due to alley-facing orientation of new construction ### INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES #### Vehicular Access & Parking **Vehicle Access:** South alley serves new townhouse garages **Parking Provision:** - New units: 2 enclosed garage spaces per townhouse (4 total) - Existing units: Street parking only (previous on-site parking eliminated) - **Code Requirement:** No parking minimums in Commercial Core zone - **Market Decision:** Garages provided for marketability despite lack of requirements **Alley Specifications:** Existing improved alley adequate for proposed access #### Pedestrian Circulation **Primary Access:** Maintained via Larrabee Avenue frontage **Site Circulation:** - Dual pedestrian walkways flanking existing building - Connect street frontage to rear townhouse entries - Through-site connectivity from Larrabee Avenue to south alley - Integration with existing landscape features and stairs #### Utility Infrastructure **Water & Sewer:** Adequate existing capacity; connections required for new units **Electrical Service:** Upgrade anticipated for additional units **Natural Gas:** Extension to new buildings required **Telecommunications:** Standard connections for new residential units **Stormwater Management:** - Governed by building permit review, not design review - Likely infiltration systems required for new impervious surfaces - Collection and conveyance to street/alley systems expected - Public commenter concerns addressed through technical permitting process ### ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS #### Structural Systems **Existing Building:** Wood frame construction typical of 1970s-80s era **New Townhouses:** Contemporary wood frame construction **Foundation Requirements:** Standard foundations adequate given site conditions **Seismic Considerations:** Current code compliance required for new construction #### Building Envelope & Materials **Proposed Material Palette:** - Hardy panel siding with channel detailing (existing and new buildings) - Black window frames throughout for visual consistency - Contemporary architectural detailing references - Lightweight steel or aluminum exterior stair systems **Energy Performance:** Current energy code compliance required for new construction **Weather Protection:** Standard northwest building envelope specifications #### Mechanical & Electrical Systems **HVAC:** Individual systems for each residential unit **Electrical:** Separate service for new buildings, potential upgrade to existing **Plumbing:** Individual systems with connections to city utilities **Technology:** Standard residential telecommunications infrastructure ### ENVIRONMENTAL & SUSTAINABILITY CONSIDERATIONS #### Site Development Impact **Existing Building Retention:** Reduces demolition waste and embodied energy loss **Incremental Development:** Minimizes construction disruption compared to full redevelopment **Urban Infill Benefits:** Increases density in walkable urban village location #### Stormwater & Landscaping **Existing Landscape:** Maintenance of front landscape beds and entry stairs **New Landscaping:** Integration with pedestrian walkways and site circulation **Stormwater Strategy:** On-site management systems subject to technical review ### CONSTRUCTION & PHASING #### Project Timeline **Design Development:** Current phase through second Design Review Board meeting **Permit Acquisition:** Following design review approvals **Construction Start:** After June 2026 (existing tenant lease expiration) **Construction Duration:** Estimated 12-18 months for completion #### Construction Logistics **Site Access:** Maintained pedestrian and vehicle access during construction **Staging:** Rear alley access for construction vehicles and material delivery **Existing Building Protection:** Occupied during new construction phase **Neighborhood Impact:** Standard construction hour limitations and dust/noise controls --- **MODULE 7: REGULATORY COMPLIANCE** --- **📝 FILENAME: BEL-DRB-2025-08-05.regulatory_compliance.md** ## Regulatory Compliance Analysis ### ZONING COMPLIANCE STATUS #### Commercial Core (CC) Zone Requirements **✅ COMPLIANT USES** - **Primary Use:** Infill Toolkit Development - permitted by-right - **Density:** No maximum density restrictions in CC zone - **Unit Type:** Townhouses explicitly allowed under infill toolkit provisions - **Mixed Residential:** Four total units (existing duplex + 2 new townhouses) within zone parameters **✅ DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS** - **Height:** 3-story townhouses within Commercial Core height allowances - **Setbacks:** Minimal CC zone setback requirements satisfied - **Lot Coverage:** No coverage restrictions in Commercial Core - **Floor Area Ratio:** Not regulated in CC zone **✅ PARKING REQUIREMENTS** - **Current Standard:** Zero parking minimums in Commercial Core zone - **Proposed Provision:** 4 garage spaces for new units (exceeds requirements) - **Existing Units:** Transition from on-site to street parking (code-compliant) #### Urban Village Design Standards Applicability **REQUIRES DESIGN REVIEW COMPLIANCE:** - Pedestrian-oriented design intent statements - Community character and architectural compatibility standards - Visual interest and building organization requirements - Site design prioritizing public realm **MODIFIED APPLICATION:** - Many street-oriented standards may not apply to alley-facing buildings - Whole-site approach confirmed by staff as appropriate review scope - Existing building modifications included in review jurisdiction ### DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS COMPLIANCE #### Mandatory Review Requirements **✅ Design Review Board Process:** - Early Design Guidance meeting completed (current meeting) - Second design review meeting required before final approval - Board authority confirmed for whole-site evaluation **✅ Historic Preservation Commission:** - Design Review Subcommittee review required (Historic Influence Area location) - Parallel process to Design Review Board - Coordination between review bodies established #### Design Intent Standards Assessment **🔄 PARTIALLY ADDRESSED - Site Category:** - **Intent S-1 (Natural Systems):** Not applicable - no significant natural features - **Intent S-2 (Community Identity):** REQUIRES ATTENTION - current proposal insufficient for community character compatibility - **Intent S-3 (Public Realm Priority):** REQUIRES ATTENTION - street facade improvements needed **🔄 PARTIALLY ADDRESSED - Building Category:** - **Intent B-1 (Pedestrian Orientation):** PARTIALLY MET - walkway access provided but street presence inadequate - **Intent B-2 (Visual Interest):** REQUIRES IMPROVEMENT - facade modifications insufficient - **Intent B-3 (Building Organization):** REQUIRES ATTENTION - cohesive design between buildings needed ### PUBLIC NOTIFICATION COMPLIANCE #### Required Notification Procedures **✅ COMPLETED:** - Property owners within 500 feet notified of early design guidance meeting - Land use development public notice sign posted on property - Meeting agenda published with required timing **📝 PUBLIC COMMENT RESPONSE:** - Two written comments received and addressed - Tenant lease/construction timing concerns resolved - Stormwater management questions directed to building permit process ### BUILDING CODE & TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS #### Items Outside Design Review Scope **Building Permit Phase Requirements:** - Structural engineering compliance - Fire safety and egress requirements - Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems - Energy code compliance - Accessibility (ADA) requirements #### Stormwater Management **✅ PROCESS COMPLIANCE:** - Technical stormwater review scheduled for building permit phase - Design Review Board confirmed focus on design intent only - Engineering solutions for runoff management required but not design review concern #### Utility Connections **Building Permit Requirements:** - Water and sewer capacity analysis and connection permits - Electrical service upgrades and permits - Natural gas extension approvals - Telecommunications infrastructure coordination ### DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS EXCEPTIONS #### No Departures Requested **Standard Compliance Approach:** - No requests for departures from Urban Village Design Standards - No variances or conditional use permits required - Standard permit process applicable throughout #### Future State Regulatory Considerations **Pending Changes:** - State legislation requiring "clear and objective" design standards - Potential elimination of subjective design review authority - Board role under future objective standards unclear - Interim ordinance approach planned to maintain current process through 2025 ### ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS #### SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) **Threshold Determination:** - Small infill project likely exempt or determination of non-significance - No environmental impact statement anticipated - Standard categorical exemptions applicable #### Historic Preservation Review **Section 106 Considerations:** - No federal funding involved - Section 106 not triggered - Local historic review through Design Review Subcommittee sufficient - Historic Influence Area status requires design sensitivity but not preservation standards ### PERMIT SEQUENCING & DEPENDENCIES #### Design Review Completion Requirements **Before Building Permit Submission:** 1. Complete second Design Review Board meeting with final approval 2. Obtain Historic Preservation Commission Design Review Subcommittee approval 3. Address all design conditions and requirements from both review bodies 4. Submit final stamped architectural drawings incorporating review feedback #### Building Permit Dependencies **Sequential Requirements:** 1. Complete design review approvals 2. Structural engineering stamped drawings 3. Mechanical, electrical, plumbing design and engineering 4. Stormwater management plan and engineering 5. Utility connection applications and approvals ### ONGOING COMPLIANCE MONITORING #### Construction Phase Compliance **Building Inspection Requirements:** - Standard building code inspection sequence - Design review compliance verification during construction - Certificate of occupancy requirements for each new unit #### Long-term Regulatory Compliance **Ongoing Requirements:** - Property tax assessment updates for additional units - Utility billing establishment for new units - Compliance with any future zoning or design standard modifications ### IDENTIFIED COMPLIANCE GAPS #### Design Review Requirements Needing Resolution **🚨 PRIORITY ISSUES for Second Review:** - Street facade improvements insufficient for design intent compliance - Architectural cohesion between buildings requires substantial development - Pedestrian realm engagement needs enhancement beyond current proposal **Timeline Impact:** - Resolution required before building permit eligibility - Additional design development time needed - Construction timeline dependent on design review approval --- **MODULE 8: COMMUNITY CONTEXT** --- **📝 FILENAME: BEL-DRB-2025-08-05.community_context.md** ## Community Context Analysis ### NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER & DEMOGRAPHICS #### Fairhaven Historic Commercial Core Context **Unique Urban Village Location:** - Property sits at transition between intensive commercial development and historic residential neighborhood - Fairhaven represents Bellingham's primary tourist and cultural district with heritage tourism focus - Mixed-use environment combining historic preservation with contemporary urban village density goals **Surrounding Development Pattern:** - **North:** Haggen grocery store (large-format commercial anchor) - **East:** Recent 3-story residential apartment buildings (1305 & 1300 Larrabee) built to contemporary Fairhaven design standards - **West & South:** Historic single-family homes dating 100+ years in traditional architectural styles - **Immediate Area:** Transition zone between commercial intensity and residential neighborhood scale #### Demographic & Housing Context **Fairhaven Resident Profile:** - Mix of long-term residents in historic homes and newer apartment/condo dwellers - Strong community identity around historic character preservation - Support for increased density balanced with design quality expectations **Regional Housing Pressures:** - Bellingham facing significant housing shortage and affordability challenges - Infill development seen as critical tool for addressing housing needs - Community generally supportive of density increases with appropriate design integration ### PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & STAKEHOLDER RESPONSE #### Formal Public Comment Response **Written Comments Received (2 total):** **Comment 1 - Tenant Concerns:** - **Source:** Current resident of existing duplex - **Issues:** Lease notification procedures and construction timeline impacts - **Resolution:** Applicant confirmed construction delayed until lease expiration (June 2026) - **Significance:** Demonstrates responsible tenant relations approach **Comment 2 - Technical Infrastructure:** - **Source:** Neighboring property owner - **Issues:** Stormwater runoff impacts, pedestrian walkway maintenance, landscape preservation - **Response:** Technical issues directed to building permit review; landscape/walkway preservation confirmed - **Significance:** Shows neighbor awareness and engagement with infrastructure implications #### Community Notification Effectiveness **✅ Notification Compliance:** - 500-foot radius notification to property owners completed - Public notice signage posted on property - Meeting accessibility (in-person and virtual) provided - No additional public speakers at meeting despite notification #### Broader Community Development Perspectives **Historic Preservation Community:** - Expectation for design sensitivity given Historic Influence Area location - Support for building preservation over demolition approach - Concern about architectural compatibility with Fairhaven's historic character **Housing Advocacy Perspective:** - Strong support for infill development and density increases - Appreciation for preserving existing housing while adding new units - Focus on affordability and accessibility in new development **Neighborhood Livability Concerns:** - Parking impacts from increased density - Construction disruption during development phase - Long-term neighborhood character evolution ### ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT #### Property Values & Development Economics **Current Market Conditions:** - Commercial Core zoning significantly increases property development potential - Land values rising due to development rights and urban village location - Existing building retention provides cost savings enabling project feasibility **Development Feasibility Factors:** - No parking requirements reduce development costs - Streamlined permit process for by-right development - Market demand for walkable, urban village housing supports project economics #### Local Business & Commercial Impact **Fairhaven Business District:** - Project supports commercial district by adding potential customers within walking distance - Increased residential density aligns with business community goals for foot traffic - Construction phase may temporarily impact local businesses **Retail & Service Access:** - Project residents gain walkable access to Fairhaven's restaurants, shops, and services - Haggen grocery store proximity provides convenient daily shopping access - Ferry terminal access supports recreation and tourism activities ### TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE CONTEXT #### Pedestrian & Bicycle Infrastructure **Current Connectivity:** - Larrabee Avenue provides pedestrian access to Fairhaven commercial core - Neighborhood walkable to downtown, waterfront, and university connections - Bicycle infrastructure adequate for local transportation needs **Project Transportation Impacts:** - Minimal vehicular traffic increase due to garage parking provision - Enhanced pedestrian circulation through site connectivity improvements - No adverse impacts on existing transportation infrastructure #### Parking & Traffic Context **Neighborhood Parking Dynamics:** - Street parking availability varies with seasonal tourism fluctuations - Existing parking supply generally adequate for current demand - Project's garage provision reduces potential street parking pressure **Traffic Pattern Impacts:** - Alley access minimizes impact on Larrabee Avenue traffic - Low traffic generation expected from 2 additional residential units - No traffic infrastructure improvements required ### SOCIAL EQUITY & ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS #### Housing Affordability Impact **Market Rate Development:** - New townhouses likely priced for moderate to upper-income households - Preserves existing duplex units potentially more affordable than new construction - Contributes to housing supply helping regional affordability pressures #### Demographic Accessibility **Design Accessibility:** - Three-story townhouse design may limit accessibility for mobility-impaired residents - Ground-floor garage/storage limits accessible living space options - No affordable housing requirements in Commercial Core zone #### Community Displacement Considerations **Tenant Protections:** - Existing tenant lease honored through construction planning - No displacement of current residents from new development - Gradual neighborhood change rather than rapid gentrification pressure ### ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE & SUSTAINABILITY #### Environmental Benefits **Resource Conservation:** - Building preservation reduces demolition waste and embodied energy loss - Infill development reduces suburban sprawl pressure - Walkable location reduces transportation energy consumption **Climate Action Alignment:** - Urban village density supports city climate action goals - Location supports reduced vehicle dependency - Contemporary energy standards for new construction #### Environmental Concerns **Construction Impacts:** - Temporary noise, dust, and traffic impacts during construction - Stormwater management requiring technical solutions - Urban tree canopy and landscaping preservation during construction ### DESIGN & CULTURAL EXPECTATIONS #### Community Design Values **Fairhaven Design Tradition:** - Historic preservation and compatible contemporary design - Pedestrian-oriented streetscape and building design - Quality materials and architectural detailing expectations **Contemporary Development Standards:** - Balance between density goals and neighborhood character - Innovation in small-scale infill development approaches - Integration of sustainability features and modern living standards #### Cultural Heritage Considerations **Historic District Influence:** - Design sensitivity expectations despite being outside core historic district - Respect for traditional Fairhaven building forms and materials - Contemporary interpretation of historic design themes ### FUTURE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRAJECTORY #### Neighborhood Evolution Expectations **Long-term Development Patterns:** - Gradual transition from single-family to higher-density residential - Potential for similar infill projects on comparable sites - Balance between preservation and appropriate density increases **Policy Implications:** - Project may serve as precedent for other small-scale infill development - Design review process lessons applicable to future proposals - Community acceptance patterns informing future policy development #### Regional Context Integration **Bellingham Growth Management:** - Urban village strategy prioritizes density in walkable locations - Infill development preferred over suburban expansion - Transportation and infrastructure efficiency through concentrated growth **Western Washington Development Trends:** - Similar small-scale infill projects emerging throughout region - State policy encouraging housing production and density - Design review evolution reflecting state regulatory changes --- **MODULE 9: IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE** --- **📝 FILENAME: BEL-DRB-2025-08-05.implementation_timeline.md** ## Implementation Timeline ### IMMEDIATE ACTIONS (August 2025) #### Week 1-2: Post-Meeting Activities **Applicant Team (Abt Consulting/Jessica Kenoyer):** - [ ] **Aug 6-7:** Internal team debrief on Board feedback and prioritize design modifications - [ ] **Aug 8-10:** Engage John Butcher (architect) for facade improvement design development - [ ] **Aug 12:** Establish design development budget and timeline for second submission **City Staff (Simran Dallywal):** - [ ] **Aug 6:** Distribute meeting summary to applicant team and Board members - [ ] **Aug 7-8:** Update project file with Board's early design guidance direction - [ ] **Aug 9-12:** Coordinate with Historic Preservation Commission for parallel review scheduling #### Week 3-4: Design Development Initiation **Design Team Activities:** - [ ] **Aug 19-23:** Begin street facade redesign focusing on ground-floor window expansion - [ ] **Aug 19-23:** Develop unified material palette and architectural detailing for both buildings - [ ] **Aug 26-30:** Create preliminary 3D massing studies showing building relationship ### SHORT-TERM DEVELOPMENT (September 2025) #### September 1-15: Design Refinement Phase **Architectural Development:** - [ ] **Sept 1-5:** Complete facade window design alternatives with interior layout coordination - [ ] **Sept 8-12:** Finalize material and color specifications for existing building modifications - [ ] **Sept 12-15:** Develop detailed exterior stair integration with townhouse design **Visualization & Documentation:** - [ ] **Sept 8-15:** Prepare street-level perspective renderings showing complete development - [ ] **Sept 12-15:** Create detailed elevation drawings with architectural specifications #### September 16-30: Submission Preparation **Final Design Package Development:** - [ ] **Sept 16-20:** Complete integrated site design showing landscape, walkways, and building relationships - [ ] **Sept 22-26:** Prepare comprehensive design submission for second Design Review Board meeting - [ ] **Sept 29-30:** Submit application for second design review meeting **Administrative Coordination:** - [ ] **Sept 16:** Confirm September 16 Design Review Board meeting attendance (Maggie Bates unavailable) - [ ] **Sept 20:** Schedule second design review meeting for October 2025 ### MEDIUM-TERM MILESTONES (October-December 2025) #### October 2025: Second Design Review **Week 1-2: Second DRB Meeting** - [ ] **Oct 7 (estimated):** Present refined design to Design Review Board for final review - [ ] **Oct 7-10:** Incorporate any final Board feedback into design documentation - [ ] **Oct 14:** Submit to Historic Preservation Commission Design Review Subcommittee #### October-November: Parallel Historic Review **Historic Preservation Process:** - [ ] **Oct 21 (estimated):** Historic Preservation Commission Design Review Subcommittee meeting - [ ] **Oct 21-25:** Address any historic preservation design requirements - [ ] **Nov 1-5:** Finalize design incorporating both review body requirements #### November-December: Building Permit Preparation **Technical Design Development:** - [ ] **Nov 4-15:** Structural engineering design and drawings - [ ] **Nov 18-29:** Mechanical, electrical, plumbing design development - [ ] **Dec 2-13:** Stormwater management plan and engineering - [ ] **Dec 16-20:** Final architectural drawing set preparation ### 2026: PERMITTING & CONSTRUCTION PREPARATION #### January-March 2026: Permit Submission & Review **Building Permit Process:** - [ ] **Jan 6:** Submit complete building permit application - [ ] **Jan 6-Feb 14:** Building permit technical review (6-8 week standard) - [ ] **Feb 17-28:** Address any plan check comments and resubmit if needed - [ ] **Mar 3-7:** Building permit approval and issuance #### April-June 2026: Pre-Construction Activities **Final Preparations:** - [ ] **Apr 1-15:** Finalize contractor selection and construction contracts - [ ] **Apr 16-30:** Obtain utility connection permits and approvals - [ ] **May 1-15:** Construction document finalization and contractor coordination - [ ] **June 1-30:** Tenant transition period (existing lease expiration June 2026) ### CONSTRUCTION PHASE (July 2026-December 2027) #### July-September 2026: Construction Mobilization **Site Preparation:** - [ ] **July 1-15:** Construction fence installation and site setup - [ ] **July 15-31:** Utility connections and temporary services for construction - [ ] **Aug 1-15:** Site excavation and foundation preparation for new buildings #### October 2026-June 2027: Primary Construction **Sequential Building Activities:** - [ ] **Oct 2026-Dec 2026:** Foundation and structural framing for new townhouses - [ ] **Jan 2027-Mar 2027:** Building envelope, roofing, and weatherization - [ ] **Apr 2027-June 2027:** Interior construction and mechanical/electrical systems #### July-December 2027: Completion Phase **Final Construction Activities:** - [ ] **July-Aug 2027:** Existing building facade modifications and integration work - [ ] **Sept-Oct 2027:** Site work, landscaping, and walkway completion - [ ] **Nov-Dec 2027:** Final inspections, certificate of occupancy, project completion ### LONG-TERM MONITORING (2028+) #### 2028: Post-Occupancy Evaluation **Project Assessment:** - [ ] **Mar 2028:** Six-month post-occupancy evaluation of design success - [ ] **June 2028:** Community impact assessment and neighbor feedback collection - [ ] **Sept 2028:** Design Review Board process lessons learned documentation ### CRITICAL PATH DEPENDENCIES #### Design Review Completion Requirements **Sequential Dependencies:** 1. **Design Development (Aug-Sept 2025)** → Must address Board's facade and cohesion concerns 2. **Second DRB Meeting (Oct 2025)** → Cannot proceed to building permit without approval 3. **Historic Preservation Review (Oct-Nov 2025)** → Parallel process must align with DRB approval 4. **Final Design Integration (Dec 2025)** → Both review processes must be satisfied #### External Timing Constraints **Non-Negotiable Dates:** - **June 2026:** Existing tenant lease expiration (construction cannot begin earlier) - **Seasonal Construction:** Weather considerations for Pacific Northwest construction schedule - **Board Availability:** September 16 meeting limited attendance confirmed #### Risk Factors & Contingencies **Design Review Risks:** - **Moderate Risk:** Second DRB meeting requires substantial design changes - **Low Risk:** Historic Preservation Commission conflicts with DRB requirements - **Mitigation:** Early coordination between review bodies and comprehensive design development **Construction Timeline Risks:** - **High Risk:** Weather delays during foundation and structural work - **Moderate Risk:** Material availability and supply chain issues - **Mitigation:** Seasonal scheduling buffers and early material procurement **Market & Financial Risks:** - **Low Risk:** Construction cost inflation beyond budget - **Low Risk:** Market conditions affecting project economics - **Mitigation:** Fixed-price construction contracts and realistic budget contingencies ### COMMUNICATION & COORDINATION SCHEDULE #### Regular Check-ins **Monthly Design Development (Aug-Dec 2025):** - Applicant team progress meetings with architect and consultants - City staff coordination on permit process and review scheduling - Board member availability confirmation for meetings **Quarterly Construction Updates (2026-2027):** - Neighborhood notification of construction progress and schedule - Board and city staff updates on design implementation compliance - Public communication regarding project completion timeline --- **MODULE 10: LESSONS LEARNED & BEST PRACTICES** --- **📝 FILENAME: BEL-DRB-2025-08-05.lessons_learned.md** ## Lessons Learned & Best Practices ### DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS INSIGHTS #### Early Design Guidance Effectiveness **Successful Process Elements:** - **Two-Stage Review Value Confirmed:** Applicant and Board both benefited from early conceptual feedback before detailed design investment - **Conversational Format Worked:** Board Chair's suggestion for open dialogue rather than formal presentation proved more productive for complex, non-standard projects - **Diverse Board Expertise:** Meeting demonstrated clear value of varied professional backgrounds (architecture, planning, construction) in evaluating nuanced design challenges **Process Improvement Opportunities:** - **Site Visit Benefits:** Board members who visited site provided more contextual understanding of neighborhood dynamics and visual relationships - **Visualization Limitations:** 2D drawings insufficient for evaluating massing relationships; 3D renderings essential for next phase - **Standard Applicability:** Need for clearer guidance on which design standards apply to non-street-facing development #### Board Coordination & Decision-Making **Effective Board Dynamics:** - **Chair Leadership:** Ryan Van Straten effectively guided discussion toward actionable feedback while maintaining open dialogue - **Constructive Debate:** Board members challenged each other's perspectives respectfully, leading to more refined conclusions - **Practical Focus:** Discussion balanced regulatory compliance with real-world development constraints **Areas for Enhancement:** - **Consistency Challenges:** Board acknowledged tendency toward subjective evaluations varying between projects - **Standard Interpretation:** Need for more systematic approach to applying design intent standards to unique situations - **Time Management:** Nearly 90-minute discussion suggests need for more structured meeting formats for complex projects ### SMALL-SCALE INFILL DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES #### Unique Design Review Considerations **Infill-Specific Issues Identified:** - **Existing Building Integration:** Standard design guidelines inadequately address projects involving substantial existing structure preservation - **Scale Mismatch:** Commercial core design standards developed for larger projects create challenges for small-scale residential infill - **Non-Street Orientation:** Many design criteria assume street-facing development; alley-oriented buildings require different evaluation approaches **Successful Adaptation Strategies:** - **Whole-Site Approach:** Treating entire property as unified development rather than evaluating buildings separately proved appropriate - **Flexibility in Standards Application:** Staff and Board appropriately focused on applicable design intents rather than rigid checklist compliance - **Contextual Sensitivity:** Recognition that transitional zone locations require different approaches than core urban or residential areas #### Economic & Practical Development Constraints **Market Reality Considerations:** - **Building Preservation Economics:** Board appropriately recognized cost/benefit analysis of existing building retention versus redevelopment - **Parking Market Demands:** Acknowledged disconnect between no parking requirements and market expectations for townhouse sales/rental - **Construction Phasing:** Tenant protection and lease timing demonstrated responsible development approach worthy of Board support ### ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDANCE EFFECTIVENESS #### Street Facade Improvement Requirements **Clear Board Direction Achieved:** - **Specific Actionable Feedback:**