## Meeting Overview The City of Bellingham Design Review Board convened on October 7, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. to conduct an Early Design Guidance meeting for a proposed mixed-use development at 2801 Meridian Street. Board members Ryan Van Straten (Chair), Coby Jones, and Robert Wright attended, along with Planning staff Sarah Ullman and administrative staff Fiona Starr. The meeting featured presentations from the development team including Jack Bloss of AVT Consulting, property owner Mike Schott, and project architect Sergio Ruiz. The session focused on a four-story mixed-use building proposal in the Fountain District Urban Village Commercial Core, featuring 25 residential units, one live-work space, and commercial space along Meridian Street. The project required design review due to its location in an Urban Village Design Review District, with particular attention needed on three key issues: the appropriateness of a live-work unit at the prominent corner location, privacy measures for ground-floor residential uses, and roof design approaches to meet design intent statements. ## The Live-Work Corner Controversy The central debate of the meeting revolved around the proposed live-work unit at the corner of Meridian Street and West Maryland Street. Jack Bloss explained the applicant's rationale: "Part of the reason we proposed it at the corner was because it does have some frontage along Maryland, which doesn't require commercial on the ground floor. But the way that this building's designed, from the outside, it's gonna appear commercial all the way along the Meridian frontage." However, board members immediately expressed skepticism. Ryan Van Straten questioned the fundamental premise, asking what differentiated the 540-square-foot unit from "just a small apartment." When architect Sergio Ruiz explained they would "separate the sleep scenario from what would be the commercial work area," Van Straten pushed back: "I mean, it's 4 feet deeper than what a standard commercial use is, so if the first 20 feet are commercial use, then leaves 4 for residential. Come on, guys, like, at 540 feet, this is... It's not a live work, this is just a residential unit that front part is probably going to be used as a living room." Robert Wright supported this position, noting the difficulty of operating both residential and commercial functions in such a constrained space: "Yeah, it'd be hard to live in 540 square feet, much less have a commercial space and live within it." The board consensus emerged that the corner location represented the most valuable commercial real estate for the building. Wright emphasized: "That corner almost demands a kind of a higher level of treatment and could very well be the kind of the central piece to that commercial or the most intensive piece to that commercial space." The discussion revealed fundamental disagreements about land use flexibility versus commercial activation. While the applicants saw the live-work designation as providing operational flexibility in a challenging retail market, the board viewed it as an inappropriate dilution of the corner's commercial potential. Van Straten was unequivocal in his opposition: "I think it's a denial as it stands, if it stays a 540 square foot unit that's only located on the first floor, I'm in complete support of a denial of that." ## Privacy Challenges for Ground-Floor Living The proposal included a 358-square-foot residential unit directly adjacent to the West Maryland Street sidewalk, creating immediate concerns about privacy and separation between public and private realms. Van Straten noted the code requirement that "ground floor residential uses shall create privacy and separation between the public and private realm" and asked about specific plans to achieve this separation. The design team acknowledged they hadn't fully developed privacy strategies. Sergio Ruiz suggested "minimal glazing" and reducing windows "so it doesn't look like commercial space," but these responses didn't satisfy the board's concerns about livability and code compliance. Van Straten proposed a creative solution leveraging the building's 12-foot ceiling height: "You could raise the floor level of that, you know, 2 feet. You know, put a couple of stairs up at the end. Instead of having the door in the middle, I don't know, maybe there's a way to give it separation that way." This approach would create physical separation while maintaining reasonable interior ceiling heights and potentially provide "a nice little recess for the entry." The applicants showed openness to this suggestion, with Jack Bloss confirming: "Yeah, I think we'd be open to that." The board reached consensus that raising the unit two feet above street level represented a minimum acceptable approach to creating the required public-private separation, though they suggested additional privacy measures might be beneficial. ## Roof Design and Architectural Expression The proposed flat roofline along the entire 100-foot Meridian Street facade sparked discussion about architectural appropriateness and compliance with design intent statements P4 (enhancing visual cohesiveness) and B1 (expressing clear architectural concept). Sergio Ruiz had explained the design approach: "The owner is leaning towards a traditional built-in rather than a modern look and build-in, and that's why we have that roofline in the straight line, rather than doing a roof variation like the other existing buildings in the area." However, board members saw this as a missed opportunity for architectural distinction. Wright referenced previous design standards that discouraged long, uninterrupted rooflines: "I recall that there was a, you know, in the past standards, there was, you know, an inability to kind of have a have a singular or long roofline like that, and probably for good reason, it would be best to break that up a little bit." The board connected roof treatment to their broader concerns about corner emphasis. Van Straten argued that if the ground floor received special treatment as a commercial space, "the roofline probably wants to announce itself similarly." Wright agreed, suggesting the corner "may present an opportunity to rise above the remainder of the building." The discussion also touched on contextual compatibility with the area's historic character. Wright noted the opportunity to "pay homage to the craftsman-style homes in the area" through "rhythm of cornice detailing or something along those lines." This represented the board's preference for architectural solutions that acknowledged local building traditions while supporting contemporary development patterns. ## Public Input on Neighborhood Impact Two residents from Colson Street, directly behind the proposed development, provided public comment expressing concerns about privacy and parking. Jeff Jewell, whose house sits immediately behind the project, acknowledged the building's traditional design approach while raising practical concerns: "I also would like to commend the owner, and maybe going a little more traditional in its design, as opposed to strictly a shed, modern roofline that we see so much." However, Jewell expressed skepticism about parking reduction policies, drawing on neighborhood experience: "It isn't always necessarily true that if you don't have parking, then people will find an alternative form of transportation, and I think maybe goods is a good example of that... you know, on Friday, Saturday night, or any night when they have music or something, that, you know, the neighborhood fills with automobiles." Michael Moeri, another Colson Street resident, focused primarily on privacy concerns: "There are people just looking directly into our backyard area, if there's balconies back there, or windows back there. So that is one of my biggest concerns." These comments reinforced the board's attention to privacy issues, though Van Straten clarified that units would naturally have "decks on the back, and there would be windows on the backs of the units" as part of normal residential design. ## Material Quality and Building Character Robert Wright raised concerns about the proposed use of fiber cement lap siding on a four-story building, arguing it was "typically reserved for single-family, or smaller massing." He worried about achieving the design intent of "high-quality, durable, and interesting buildings that have texture and depth" without more substantial material articulation. Van Straten took a more moderate position, acknowledging the building's intermediate scale: "I feel like it's kind of, like, on the boundary of, you know, size from that perspective. It's still a pretty small building." However, he emphasized that any lap siding application would need careful consideration: "There's a lot you can do with changing colors and direction and to, you know, make it look a little more attractive." The board ultimately expressed conditional acceptance of fiber cement materials while warning against monotonous application. Van Straten summarized: "I think it's fair to say that that's a little bit of a riskier proposal, if you come back to us where everything's lapped above that first floor. It would have to be done very, very well to have some visual interest to it." ## Design Guidance and Next Steps The board reached clear conclusions on the three main issues. For the live-work unit, they recommended denial of the departure request as proposed, emphasizing that any live-work space would need to demonstrate genuine separation between residential and commercial functions. Van Straten clarified: "It would have to be something where the live portion was very separated from the work portion to where a reasonable person wouldn't believe that the work portion would just become a living room." On the ground-floor residential unit, they supported raising the floor level by two feet as a minimum privacy measure, while encouraging additional separation strategies. For roof design, they recommended emphasizing the corner through both ground-level commercial treatment and corresponding roofline articulation, potentially including height variation. The guidance emphasized the corner's importance as the building's "centerpiece," particularly given that the opposite end would eventually connect to adjacent development. Wright noted: "Once that happens, this corner really just it's your centerpiece of the building, so I think we would definitely recommend that you strongly look at accentuating that corner." ## Closing Reflections The meeting concluded with the board expressing appreciation for the applicants' traditional design approach while maintaining firm positions on functional and regulatory requirements. The discussion revealed ongoing tensions in urban development between market flexibility and place-making goals, between residential privacy and street activation, and between contextual sensitivity and architectural innovation. The applicants departed with clear direction on three major design issues and encouragement to develop more detailed responses to material quality and architectural character concerns. The next phase would require substantial redesign of the corner space, detailed privacy solutions for ground-floor residential use, and more sophisticated roof treatment that acknowledges both the building's prominence and its neighborhood context. Van Straten's closing thank you reflected the collaborative nature of the design review process: "Thank you, everyone, for your time. Appreciate it." The meeting demonstrated how early design guidance can identify fundamental issues before detailed design development, potentially saving time and resources while improving project outcomes for both developers and communities.