## Meeting Overview The City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner convened a public hearing on July 9, 2025, to consider WECU's request for a conditional use permit to relocate their nonconforming drive-through facility. Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice presided over the hybrid meeting, with some attendees present in Council chambers and others participating via Zoom. The application, Project Number USC-2025-001, sought to move WECU's existing four-lane drive-through from 600 East Holly Street to the parking lot at 516 East Holly Street, reducing it to two automated ATM lanes. The proposal was part of WECU's broader strategy to consolidate operations and eventually divest from some properties in the area. Four members of the public testified in opposition, raising concerns about increased traffic in an already congested 20-foot alley, safety hazards, and impacts on residential properties. The hearing drew passionate testimony from longtime neighborhood residents who argued the project would fundamentally alter their quality of life. ## WECU's Business Transformation Plan Ali Taishi, representing WECU as their consultant from AVT Consulting, opened by explaining the credit union's evolving needs. Over the past five years, WECU had shifted administrative functions to their waterfront location, leaving their massive 21,000-square-foot building at 600 East Holly Street — ten times larger than a typical branch — oversized for current operations. "The idea of shifting the nonconforming drive-through within kind of the site over to be adjacent to the loan center developed out of that plan," Taishi explained. The credit union intended to move branch operations into the more appropriately-sized loan center building at 516 East Holly and eventually sell the larger property. The relocation would involve demolishing a single-family home at 510 East Holly Street, converting the existing parking lot to accommodate two automated ATM drive-through lanes, and creating angle parking along the building. Jeff Ziels, WECU's Director of Facilities, confirmed the ATMs would be fully automated, operating 24/7 without requiring telephone conversations with tellers. WECU owned multiple properties in the area bound together by covenant, creating what staff and the applicant argued constituted a single site for purposes of the nonconforming use regulations. This binding covenant was crucial to the legal argument that the drive-through was being relocated within the same site rather than to a new location. ## The Contested Alley The proposed configuration would direct drive-through traffic from High Street through the ATM lanes to exit into a 20-foot-wide public alley, then presumably turn right toward Holly Street. This traffic pattern became the focal point of neighborhood opposition. William Fleming, a 55-year resident at 1218 North Garden Street, delivered the most detailed critique: "Your little signs not going to do any good at all. People will take the shortest route, no matter what. If they are headed to Chestnut Street, they're going to go left." Fleming painted a picture of an already congested alley serving multiple competing uses: "We have delivery trucks for the residents in the area and also for the Tokyo House restaurant that park all the time in the alleyway to make deliveries... right across from them is the Tokyo House restaurant drive-through, which is one way, and it'll come out on the opposite side of the alleyway." The alley situation was complicated by its narrow width. "If somebody's coming the other way, you have to pull off the alley or back up. Otherwise 2 cars can't pass each other at the same time," Fleming testified. He described a convergence point where traffic from multiple directions would meet: "You have cars coming from both directions one way in each way, and they're going to converge right at this right where these ATMs are." ## Safety and Privacy Concerns Fleming raised specific safety concerns about backing his trailer into his yard while drive-through customers waited: "These people are going to be sitting there honking their horns while I'm trying to do what any resident would do, you know, just back up my trailer so I can unhook it." He also worried about the impact on Holly Street traffic: "When you come home, everybody who's going there you drive down Holly Street and you take a left onto the alley, and a lot of the times even now there's enough traffic, whereas on a regular basis you have to stop on Holly. Let the person that's exiting the alley leave." The privacy concerns were equally pointed. Fleming explained that his property borders directly on the commercially zoned bank property while being zoned residential: "It's gonna completely destroy my privacy of my backyard area and my parking area, because people are going to be coming out of there facing my back of my property." Marilee Urchinger, whose property at 1219 High Street sits adjacent to the current loan center, worried about constant daily traffic: "The use of the backyard! There's not much privacy there, and also that alley is so busy, and I don't. And people do go both ways. They're not going to just go one way. And it is very narrow and crowded." ## Alternative Proposals and Responses Rudolph John Urchinger offered a detailed alternative proposal, complete with a hand-drawn diagram that was admitted as evidence. His plan would have vehicles turn right off Holly Street onto High Street, then access ATMs positioned before entering the alley, allowing easier exit back to Holly. "If you came down Holly Street and you turn right on High Street... and put the ATMs along the... before you enter the alley. That would be more to me. It'd be more smooth to do, because you wouldn't have to turn left because you're going to south. It's better to turn off to the right." The applicant team acknowledged neighborhood concerns but emphasized their limited options. City Planner Lindsay Kirchner explained that new drive-through facilities were prohibited in the commercial transition zone of the downtown district urban village. "They can't actually transfer them like across... across Holly Street to another piece of property," she testified. Taishi promised additional mitigation measures: "voluntarily offering up some sort of signage that would direct people to take a right turn... a sign that says, right turn only, for example, that could be placed... would be a private thing." ## Traffic Engineering Considerations The city's transportation staff evaluated the proposal and concluded no additional mitigation was required. The analysis focused on several factors: the reduction from four lanes to two would likely decrease overall traffic, the traffic represented existing trips being shifted rather than new trips generated, and the arterial streets (Holly and Chestnut) were designed to handle the additional volume. Public Works staff also evaluated sight distance concerns at the alley exit. The original plan had drive-through lanes exiting straight into the alley near a neighbor's garage on the property line. Working with city staff, the design was revised to curve traffic away from the garage and include a speed bump to slow exiting vehicles. Kirchner noted that delivery trucks and garbage collection in the alley were actually preferred by the city: "The city actually prefers that large like trucks if they can, and SSC. Use the alleys to provide their service versus the streets, because they do tend to move slowly." ## Student Housing Perspective Amelia O'Brien, a college student living at 1215 High Street with six other students and two other renters, brought a different perspective to the traffic concerns. She worried the project might effectively create a dead end, "completely cut off the circulation of traffic that like helps people get to their jobs to school on time." O'Brien explained that High Street serves as a crucial connector between Holly and Chestnut, both one-way streets running in opposite directions. Students and other residents relied on the area for both circulation and parking: "The 2 strips of parking outside of the current WECU buildings... A lot of the occupants of these buildings actually use those as parking as there are no signs that say WECU parking only." ## Historic Preservation and Demolition The proposal required demolishing a historic single-family home at 510 East Holly Street. WECU had completed the required historic review process and attempted to find someone to relocate the structure. "We posted on Craigslist for a dollar. There was some interest, but no takers. It's more complicated than you would initially think to pick up a house and move it," Taishi explained. As mitigation, WECU commissioned a historic property report from a qualified archaeologist and planned to work with specialized contractors to salvage materials during demolition. ## Code Compliance Arguments The legal framework for the conditional use permit involved three sets of criteria from the municipal code: nonconformity standards, conditional use permit requirements for nonconforming uses, and general conditional use permit criteria. The most complex issue involved defining the "site" for purposes of the nonconformity regulations. WECU's properties were bound together by covenant and shared a single tax parcel, but the certificate of occupancy for the drive-through lacked a legal description. Staff and the applicant argued this created a unique situation where the bound properties constituted a single site. Taishi walked through each criterion methodically: "The actual nonconformity in this case is decreasing, because we're going from 4 drive-through lanes to 2. That's a decrease in the intensity of that nonconformity." ## Design Review and Building Permits The project had already received approval through a Type I design review process, which didn't require public notice. This permit addressed building facades, landscaping, and parking design. One condition required increasing landscaping depth adjacent to the existing masonry wall separating commercial and residential properties. Taishi acknowledged this requirement but noted physical constraints: "If the condition said 5 feet. We wouldn't be able to comply with that, just because there's minimums for stall depth and sidewalk depth and maneuvering depth." The final landscaping plan would be worked out during the building permit process. ## Post-Hearing Commitments In response to neighborhood concerns, Jeff Ziels committed to enhanced screening: "We would be definitely open to like robust landscaping, anything to appease and ease the tension on the 2 neighbors that are there especially... if there's things we can do with the landscaping next to the wall to minimize some of the effects that you're concerned about. I think we are. We definitely are open to that." The hearing examiner indicated she might condition approval on including right-turn-only signage, which both staff and the applicant supported. Kirchner testified: "A sign that would direct traffic to the right out East. Holly does seem reasonable to the city." ## Community Impact and Growth Pressures The hearing illuminated broader tensions between institutional growth and neighborhood character in Bellingham's evolving downtown district. Fleming captured this tension: "I would say... the people that actually live on this alleyway know what's best, because we live there... we're the ones that are going to have to deal with the consequences of this change." Taishi acknowledged these concerns while arguing for a broader perspective: "This area is intended for some pretty significant change over the next 20 to 25 years, through the zoning, the city's implemented... Change in changing traffic patterns is kind of an inevitable component of the growth of a community." The exchange reflected competing visions: longtime residents seeking to preserve their established neighborhood patterns against an institution's operational needs within a downtown zone designated for intensification. ## Record and Decision Timeline Hearing Examiner Rice established a post-hearing schedule for final submissions. The record would remain open until July 11 for technology-related public comments and responses to Mr. Urchinger's alternative proposal. If no additional comments were received, the decision deadline was July 25; otherwise, it would extend to July 29. The hearing concluded with appreciation for community participation, despite the evening hour and complex technical issues. Rice noted that while 6 PM meetings were challenging, they remained more accessible than daytime hearings for working residents. The decision would ultimately turn on whether WECU successfully demonstrated compliance with the conditional use permit criteria, balancing the credit union's operational needs against neighborhood impacts and the regulatory framework governing nonconforming uses in the downtown district urban village.