City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner

The City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on February 26, 2025, to consider the vacation of most of the Army Street right-of-way in Old Town. The petition, filed by Gabe Rogel as VAC-2024-001, seeks to convert the unused street right-of-way into surface parking for his planned climbing gym and 36-unit apartment project at 315 West Holly Street. Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice presided over the hybrid hearing, explaining her role as fact-finder who will issue a recommendation to City Council for final decision. The city's Technical Review Committee has recommended approval with conditions, and the vacation is explicitly supported by the Old Town Sub Area Plan, which states the city should support vacating Army Street. The right-of-way currently serves no transportation function, as it would terminate at railroad tracks. However, it contains mature trees on steep slopes classified as landslide hazard areas, and the Old Town plan calls for maintaining a view corridor to Bellingham Bay. Staff recommended approval with conditions requiring a view easement at Holly Street elevation and retention of utility easements. Only one member of the public testified, expressing support for the project while requesting preservation of some greenery and formal protection of the view corridor. The applicant agreed to follow tree removal regulations and confirmed the view corridor would be maintained. The record will remain open for two business days to accommodate any technology-related testimony issues, with the Hearing Examiner's recommendation due to City Council by March 14 or March 18, depending on whether additional public comment is received.

**VAC-2024-001 - Army Street Right of Way Vacation:** - **Status:** Public hearing completed; recommendation pending from Hearing Examiner - **Staff Recommendation:** Approval with conditions - **Key Conditions:** View easement at Holly Street elevation, utility easement retention, boundary line adjustment requirement - **Next Step:** Hearing Examiner recommendation due March 14-18, then City Council final decision - **Property Value:** Approximately $85,000 (referenced by public commenter)

**Sharon Rice, on hearing examiner role:** "I am not the decision maker. I'm the fact finder, but it requires me, as fact finder, to be free from bias or prejudice." **Gabe Rogel, on project timeline:** "I've been planning a fairly good sized climbing gym for 5 years now, and we now have 36 apartments on top of the climbing gym and an occupied rooftop." **Alex McLean, on right-of-way assessment:** "This particular right of way, of course, doesn't [have transportation value], because it would just drop you onto train tracks which would be hazardous." **Alex McLean, on development potential:** "It would be super cool if there's some, you know. Set back 20, 30 feet, or something where the public had some greenery preserved there, if not for Stormwater, then, just for aesthetic reasons, or whatever a future public plaza." **Lindsay Kirchner, on tree protection:** "Any potential removal of those trees would be evaluated against Chapter 16.55 of the Bellingham municipal code." **Gabe Rogel, on future possibilities:** "What this does allow in the future, which I think could be beneficial to the city, it would probably not makes sense from a cost standpoint. But we could look at even working with the city, a parking garage in the future."

## Meeting Overview On the evening of February 26, 2025, the City of Bellingham's Land Use hearing calendar convened in a hybrid format, with participants joining both in-person at City Council chambers and virtually via Zoom. Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice presided over the session, bringing her experience as a contract attorney serving Bellingham and nine other cities and counties in this specialized role. The sole item on the agenda was Project Number VAC-2024-001, officially titled the Army Street Right-of-Way Vacation. This straightforward but significant land use proceeding would determine whether a portion of Army Street could be formally vacated to support a mixed-use development featuring a climbing gym, 36 apartments, and rooftop space at 315 West Holly Street in the Old Town urban village. The atmosphere was businesslike yet collegial, with Examiner Rice carefully explaining the procedural framework while applicant Gabe Rogel brought an earnest, first-time participant energy to the proceedings. The evening would prove notable not just for the land use decision at hand, but for a spirited public comment that touched on everything from view corridors to zip lines. ## The Army Street Right-of-Way Vacation Proposal The hearing opened with City Planner Lindsay Kirchner (LINDSAY KIRSCHNER) providing essential context after taking her oath. She explained that the request involved vacating most of the Army Street right-of-way, located between West Holly Street and Roeder Avenue in the Old Town urban village. The area sits within Area 5 of the City Center neighborhood and carries commercial zoning designation. "There are existing city utilities and private utilities within the right of way, and these easements will have to be retained if the vacation is approved," Kirchner noted, establishing one of the key technical requirements that would thread through the entire discussion. Vehicle access to the right-of-way comes from Central Avenue via a private access easement that benefits both the abutting properties and Rogel's property at 315 West Holly Street. This easement arrangement, included as attachment L in the hearing packet, would prove important to understanding how the proposed vacation would function practically. Rogel then took the floor for his first presentation to a hearing examiner. "Well, excuse any naivety here in the process, first time doing this," he began with refreshing candor. "And I think you're quite familiar from what I understand of my proposal. And yeah, I've been planning a fairly good sized climbing gym for 5 years now, and we now have 36 apartments on top of the climbing gym and an occupied rooftop." The practical driver behind the vacation request became immediately clear: parking. "The idea with the street vacation and working with Lindsay and the city is to create some probably much needed parking for the project and the building," Rogel explained. This wasn't just a land grab but a response to the practical demands of bringing significant new residential and recreational density to Old Town. Rogel emphasized his commitment to preserving the view corridor that has long been part of the Old Town sub-area plan: "My plan is to maintain the view corridor that I think has been part of the Old Town sub area plan for a long time, so it would just be used for surface level parking, not coming up at all and interfering with the view corridor." When Examiner Rice pressed for details about the required boundary line adjustment with properties at 401 West Holly Street and 1220 Central Avenue, Rogel's response revealed the collaborative spirit behind the proposal: "Both of those property owners I've basically created friendships with over the years are wonderful folks, and they've agreed to kind of allow me to buy those pieces of the property or the easement." This wasn't a contentious land use battle but rather a carefully orchestrated arrangement where neighbors had worked together to create a solution that served everyone's interests. ## City Staff's Technical Analysis and Recommendation Kirchner returned to provide the city's formal analysis, which proved strongly supportive. The Technical Review Committee had recommended approval with conditions, finding that the proposal met the street vacation criteria outlined in Chapter 13.5 of the Bellingham Municipal Code. Crucially, the vacation had backing from the Old Town Sub Area Plan itself. "It is supported, as Mr. Rogel mentioned, by the Old Town sub Area Plan, where it actually states that the city should support a street vacation for Army Street," Kirchner explained. This wasn't a case where the applicant was fighting city policy – the policy actually encouraged this exact outcome. The Sub Area Plan serves as "a policy planning document to guide development in the old town urban village," and its explicit support for the Army Street vacation gave the proposal a strong foundation in established city planning objectives. Kirchner's presentation was methodical and supportive: "Based on the justification in the Staff Report, staff concludes that the vacation is consistent with the vacation criteria, the Old town plan and the comprehensive plan, and recommends approval of the proposal with the suggested conditions on page 5 and 6 of exhibit one." When Examiner Rice inquired about the boundary line adjustment process, Kirchner provided a clear explanation with visual aids: "The lot line, if you can see my hand in the middle of the map here, the lot line would essentially adjust north to the abutting property owners. And that is a type one application process, a lot line adjustment that is decided administratively." The process had been made smoother by documentation from the neighboring property owners – Martha Bray and the Holly Street LLC – confirming their support for the lot line adjustment once the vacation moved forward. ## A Memorable Public Comment The evening's most colorful moment came when Alex McLean (ALEX McLEAN) stepped to the microphone. McLean brought a unique perspective, describing himself as someone who had "been fixated on right of ways for about the last 5 years" and had been "really engaged with getting a document made through public works" that inventoried every unimproved right-of-way in Bellingham for potential transportation value. His analysis of Army Street was pragmatic: "This particular right of way, of course, doesn't [have transportation value], because it would just drop you onto train tracks which would be hazardous." But McLean's real passion emerged around environmental and aesthetic concerns. "The other thing is, I'm a hippie, and I notice that there's lots of trees, you know. It's got kind of an organic slope on the parcel right now," he said with characteristic directness. His suggestions were both practical and aspirational. He wanted assurance that the view corridor would be "reserved in perpetuity" and proposed preserving "some of the greenery or the trees at the top part of this parcel" with a setback of "20, 30 feet, or something where the public had some greenery preserved there, if not for stormwater, then, just for aesthetic reasons, or whatever a future public plaza." McLean even suggested a financial incentive structure: "If the applicant were to get a break on his costs... if it was a setback, and whatever the cost, I think I saw $85,000 or something to purchase the right of way. Maybe you could negotiate that down." But perhaps most memorably, McLean concluded with an unexpected architectural suggestion: "I do think he should have a zip line going from the top of your roof to the Towers there, work on that." "I'm making note of the request for a zip line to be added," Examiner Rice responded with evident amusement. "Consider it done," Rogel immediately replied, drawing laughter. ## City and Applicant Responses In response to McLean's concerns, Kirchner provided detailed clarification about the view corridor protection. The Old Town Sub Area Plan "talks about maintaining a view over the Army Street right of way to the Bellingham Bay and the waterfront district to the west, and so that has been incorporated into the proposed street vacation, that a view easement needs to be established over the right of way." The technical details mattered: "Generally we discussed having it be at the elevation of West Holly Street, going west towards the water. The view easement would be so the air, the airspace below the elevation of Holly Street would not be included, but above the elevation of Holly street, it would be protected." Regarding the trees, Kirchner explained the regulatory framework: "There are quite a few mature trees in the steep slope within the army street, right of way... given the amount of slope that's there, it's considered a landslide hazard area per the city's critical areas ordinance. So any potential removal of those trees would be evaluated against Chapter 16.55 of the Bellingham municipal code." The city had recently received "an evaluation of the actual location and the type and size of those trees," and Kirchner noted that "the development right now should not require removal of all of the trees in the right of way." Rogel's response showed genuine appreciation for McLean's environmental concerns: "Yeah, thank you, Alex, for the comments. I would love nothing more than a zip line just for what it's worth, logistically a little challenging, but would be pretty awesome." On the more substantive issues, Rogel demonstrated both ambition and pragmatism: "What this does allow in the future, which I think could be beneficial to the city, it would probably not make sense from a cost standpoint, but we could look at even working with the city, a parking garage in the future that went from kind of Holly street down a couple levels. I have even looked at that with my general contractor a little bit, but moving the sewer line in particular is pretty cost prohibitive." Regarding the trees, Rogel revealed his own environmental sensibilities: "As far as the trees go, I am also a tree hugger at heart, so, Alex, and I share that... I think there could be a nice balance because the trees do impede the view. So it's kind of maybe there's a nice balance there. I envisioned, you know, maybe increasing the view a little bit if it could be nice for folks walking along the street." He committed to following city requirements: "If we did remove any trees, we would definitely follow the city's plan to plant trees elsewhere. I think we have some of that already in our plans." ## Procedural Details and Next Steps Throughout the hearing, Examiner Rice managed the procedural requirements with practiced efficiency. She admitted Exhibit 1 (the staff report) and its attachments A through M into the record, establishing the documentary foundation for her eventual recommendation. Two minor procedural questions arose during the hearing. Rice noted that the appraisal summary (Attachment F) appeared to reference additional pages that weren't included, but Kirchner confirmed it was intended as a summary only. More unusually, Rice observed that Attachment L included three checks as part of the easement documentation – an unusual inclusion that neither Rice nor Kirchner had encountered before. The record-keeping details mattered because Rice would be preparing a recommendation with findings of fact and conclusions of law for City Council's ultimate decision. As she explained, "Following this hearing, I will be issuing a document that will be a recommendation that will contain findings of fact and conclusions of law. That recommendation will form the basis of City Council's consideration for the ultimate decision in this right-of-way vacation petition." Rice noted that the city had received no written public comments before the hearing, "and so that tends to indicate that there's not a lot of interest or concern about the proposal." Still, she maintained her standard practice of holding the record open for two business days to accommodate anyone who had experienced technology problems. The schedule she announced was straightforward: post-hearing public comment would be accepted through February 28th. If none was received, the record would close that day and Rice's recommendation would be due March 14th. If comments were submitted, staff and the applicant would have until March 4th to respond, pushing the recommendation deadline to March 18th. ## Closing and What's Ahead The hearing concluded on a collegial note, with all parties expressing satisfaction with the process. The technical requirements were clear, the policy support was strong, and even the lone public commenter had offered support for the overall project while raising thoughtful questions about environmental protection and community amenities. Rice thanked everyone for their work on the matter and officially concluded the hearing. The atmosphere remained friendly as participants signed off, with Rogel thanking Rice and others offering pleasant farewells. The Army Street right-of-way vacation now moves toward Rice's written recommendation, which will form the basis for City Council's final decision. With strong staff support, explicit backing from the Old Town Sub Area Plan, no organized opposition, and a thoughtful applicant who demonstrated sensitivity to community concerns about trees and view corridors, the proposal appears well-positioned for approval. The broader significance extends beyond this single parcel. As McLean noted, this represents the kind of development that could "kickstart that old town rejuvenation" after years of planning documents envisioning much larger developments in the area. A climbing gym with 36 apartments may be more modest than the "20 story hotels" once discussed for the Army Street PDA, but it represents tangible progress toward the Old Town vision. Whether the zip line will ultimately materialize remains to be seen, but the collaborative spirit evident throughout this hearing suggests that Old Town's future development may continue to balance practical needs with community character – even if it means negotiating the occasional request for aerial transportation between buildings.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** BEL-HEX-2025-02-26 ### Meeting Overview The City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on February 26, 2025, to consider a petition to vacate most of the Army Street right-of-way in the Old Town urban village. Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice presided over the hybrid hearing to gather testimony and evidence that will form the basis of her recommendation to the City Council, which will make the final decision. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Right-of-way vacation:** The legal process by which a local government abandons its claim to a street or portion of a street, allowing the property to revert to adjacent private property owners. **Hearing Examiner:** An independent attorney who conducts quasi-judicial hearings for land use matters and makes recommendations to the decision-making body (in this case, City Council). **Burden of proof:** The legal requirement that the applicant must provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate their proposal meets all approval criteria. **Boundary line adjustment:** A process to modify property lines between adjacent parcels without creating new lots, which requires administrative approval. **View easement:** A legal restriction that protects sight lines from public areas, in this case maintaining views from Holly Street toward Bellingham Bay. **Old Town Sub Area Plan:** A planning document that guides development in Bellingham's Old Town urban village area. **Appearance of fairness doctrine:** A Washington State law requiring hearing officers to be free from bias and conflicts of interest. **Critical areas ordinance:** Local regulations protecting environmentally sensitive areas, including landslide hazard areas like the steep slope on Army Street. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Sharon Rice | City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner | | Lindsay Kirchner | City of Bellingham Planner II | | Gabe Rogel | Applicant/Property owner at 315 West Holly Street | | Alex McLean | Community member providing public testimony | | Ms. Bowker | Hearing clerk | ### Background Context The Army Street right-of-way is located between West Holly Street and Roeder Avenue in Bellingham's Old Town area. Unlike most streets, this right-of-way doesn't function as a through street because it ends at railroad tracks, making it potentially hazardous for transportation use. The City's Old Town Sub Area Plan specifically supports vacating this right-of-way, recognizing that it has limited public transportation value but could serve private development needs better. Gabe Rogel has been planning a climbing gym with 36 apartments above it at 315 West Holly Street for five years. The right-of-way vacation would allow him to create surface-level parking for his development. The proposal includes preserving a view corridor toward Bellingham Bay and maintaining all existing utility easements for sewer and natural gas lines that run beneath the right-of-way. ### What Happened — The Short Version The hearing followed standard procedure: the applicant presented his case first, followed by city staff's recommendation for approval with conditions. One community member spoke in support of the project but requested that trees be preserved and the view corridor be permanently protected. City staff confirmed that a view easement would be established and that tree removal would be regulated under the city's tree protection ordinance. The hearing examiner will issue a recommendation to City Council within 10-18 business days, depending on whether any post-hearing comments are received. ### What to Watch Next - Post-hearing public comment period closes February 28, 2025 - Hearing Examiner's recommendation due to City Council by March 14 or March 18, 2025 - City Council will make the final decision on the vacation petition (date TBD) ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** BEL-HEX-2025-02-26 **Q:** What is the project number for the Army Street right-of-way vacation? **A:** VAC-2024-001 **Q:** Who is the applicant requesting the right-of-way vacation? **A:** Gabe Rogel, owner of 315 West Holly Street **Q:** What does Gabe Rogel plan to build on his property? **A:** A climbing gym with 36 apartments above it and rooftop amenities **Q:** Why doesn't Army Street function as a normal through street? **A:** It ends at railroad tracks, which would be hazardous for vehicle or pedestrian traffic **Q:** What will happen to the vacated right-of-way if approved? **A:** It will be used for surface-level parking for the climbing gym development **Q:** What is a view easement? **A:** A legal restriction that protects sight lines from public areas; in this case, maintaining views from Holly Street toward Bellingham Bay **Q:** Who makes the final decision on the vacation petition? **A:** Bellingham City Council (the Hearing Examiner only makes a recommendation) **Q:** What utilities run beneath the Army Street right-of-way? **A:** City sewer lines and private natural gas pipelines **Q:** What will happen to these utilities if the vacation is approved? **A:** Easements will be retained to protect the utilities, and they will remain in place **Q:** Why does the Old Town Sub Area Plan support this vacation? **A:** The plan recognizes that Army Street has limited transportation value but could better serve private development **Q:** What is required after the vacation regarding adjacent properties? **A:** A boundary line adjustment must be completed with properties at 401 West Holly Street and 1220 Central Avenue **Q:** Who provided public testimony at the hearing? **A:** Alex McLean, a community member interested in right-of-way issues **Q:** What did Alex McLean request regarding trees on the site? **A:** He asked that mature trees on the steep slope be preserved for aesthetic and stormwater management reasons **Q:** How is vehicle access provided to the Army Street right-of-way? **A:** Through a private access easement from Central Avenue that benefits the adjacent properties **Q:** What is the steepest part of the Army Street right-of-way classified as? **A:** A landslide hazard area under the city's critical areas ordinance **Q:** When will the Hearing Examiner's recommendation be issued? **A:** Within 10 business days after the record closes (March 14 or March 18, 2025) **Q:** What was the city staff's recommendation? **A:** Approval of the vacation petition with conditions **Q:** How much did the appraisal estimate the right-of-way is worth? **A:** Approximately $85,000 (mentioned by public commenter Alex McLean) **Q:** What happens if trees need to be removed from the site? **A:** The removal must be evaluated under Chapter 16.55 of the Bellingham Municipal Code and appropriate tree replacement would be required **Q:** What creative addition did Alex McLean suggest for the project? **A:** A zip line from the rooftop to the nearby towers ---