[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Bellingham Central- P Watearf ront Development Plan VIC cAlfact" o n 00 00 (D r-Proparty of cSC Library V - S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOA@ COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH 1-106310t,, 'AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-247,@ BELLINGHAM CENTRAL WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PLAN CZIC collection Final Report City of Bellingham Planning and Economic Development Department June 1986 11-fbe preparation of this report was financially aided through a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology with funds obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and appropriated for Section 306b of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group Management and Planning Services 1) 1 South Jackson Street Economics Seattle, Washington 98104 Planning (206@ 223-5100 Landscape Architecture June 30, 1986 William T. Geyer, Director City of Bellingham Planning and Economic Development Department City Hall, 210 Lottie Street Bellingham, Washington 98225 Dear Bill: We are pleased to transmit the Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan. The Plan will guide improvement with a unique twist of practicality and imagination. It embodies economic development, envirounental values, urban design quality, waterfront access and resource protec- tion and should stimulate continuing public/private cooperation. We sincerely appreciate the help and guidance provided by all who participated in the process. The Task Force, Technical Camnittee, concerned citizens and Rick Fackler, the City's project manager all deserve special credit. Our team is proud to have contributed to Bellingham's future and we look forward to sharing your successes. Sin e ely, Vincent Vergel de Dios, AICP Director of Planning r PREFACE The Mayor of Bellingham and the City Council publicly affirmed the need for ideas and practical solutions for Bellingham's waterfront. Protection of existing economic and environmental assets and affirmation of new development were both viewed as necessary. With the assistance of a Coastal Zone Management Grant from the Department of Ecology, the City took another step toward revitalization by focusing attention upon the Central Waterfront. This urbanized area between Squalicum Harbor and the downtown includes heavy industrial uses (dominated by Georgia-Pacific) and a mix of light industrial, retail, commercial, residential and public uses clearly in a state of-transition. The results of an intensive four-month participatory process are docu- mented in this Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan. The Development Plan will provide direction and order to physical change in the future. It is intended as a flexible framework to guide development consistent with a conceptual idea. It also outlines specific, realistic projects that can set the trend and pace of improvement. This report is organized to highlight the Development Plan. Background on its derivation and related details are also included. Technical progress was reported during the process and is included in separate reports noted in the Appendix. IS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCFION/SUMMARY Introduction 1 Purpose 5 Process 5 Plan Highlights 9 Status 9 DEVELOPMENT PLAN Plan Overview 10 Planning Goals and Objectives 18 Framework Plan 21 Design Policies 33 Improvement Projects 72 Implementation 112 PLANNING BACKGROUND Issues 123 Goals/Objectives 128 Physical/Environmental Analysis 132 Regulatory Assessment 144 Commercial Market Analysis 152 Business Survey 190 Derivation of Alternatives 197 APPENDICES Study Work Sessions 245 Progress Reports 245 Study Participants 246 Cost Estimates 249 Alternatives for Citizens Dock 267 LIST OF FIGURES Page No. 1 Historic Bellingham, Circa 1890 1 2 Panoramic View of Bellingham Bay,.Circa 1911 2 3 Study Process and Schedule 4 4 Charrette Process 6 5 Forces That Influence Land Uses 8 6 Illustrative Concept 12 7 Holly Street Bridge Gateway With Citizens Dock 13 8 Joint Public/Private Development at Dupont & I'D" Streets 14 9 Public Viewpoint at Holly Street Bridge 15 10 View of Park & Maritime Interpretive Center from Museum 16 11 Citizens Dock Pavilion at Holly Street Bridge 17 12 Study Area 20 13 Land Use: Influence Area 23 14 Land Use: Target Area 24 15 Circulation: Influence Area 25 16 Circulation: Target Area 26 17 Principal Pedestrian Routes 27 18 Opportunity Areas 35 19 Opportunity Area A: Whatcom Creek Focus 36 20 Opportunity Area B: "Old Town" Core 38 21 "Old Town" Core Developffent Standards 40 22 Opportunity Area C: Hilltop/CBD Transition 41 23 Opportunity Area D: Old Town Fringe 43 24 Opportunity Area E: Industrial Expansion Area 45 25 Opportunity Area F: Holly/Roeder Streets Cc)rridor & Linkage 48 26 Opportunity Area G: Roeder/Chestnut Streets Realignment 50 27 New Entrance to SaInDn Life Cycle Facility at I'D" Street 53 28 Typical Intersections 54 29 Typical Key Intersection Improvements 55 30 Maritime Heritage Center and Pedestrian Promenade 57 31 View Toward Museum - Pedestrian Hillclirrb 59 32 View Toward Museum - Pedestrian Connection Within Park 60 33 Whatcom Creek Waterway Viewpoint & Central Avenue Public Access & Parking 61 34 Existing View Along Holly Street 64 LIST OF FIGURES Page No. 35 View Along Holly Street With Street.scaping Improvements 65 36 "Old Town" Scale and Character 69 37 Improvement Projects 73 38 Improvement Project #1: Citizens Dock Relocation & Rehabilitation 74 39 Improvement Project #2: Public Waterfront Access Projects 76 40 Improvement Project #3: Maritime Interpretive Center 79 41 Improvement Project #4: Public/Private Development Projects 81 42 Inprovement Project #5: Cbnsolidated Development Area 83 43 Improvement Project #6: Heavy Industrial Expansion 85 44 1 mprovemen t Project #7: Holly/11FII/Roeder Streetscape Improvements 87 45 Improvement Project #8: Holly Street Bridge & Gateway Improvements 89 46 Holly Street Bridge Gateway 91 47 Improvement Project #9: Intersection Improvements 93 48 Street Improvements at Holly and 'IF" Streets 95 49 Improvement Project #10: Chestnut/Roeder Realignment 96 50 Improvement Project #11: I'D" Street Improvements 98 51 Improvement Project #12: Upland Pedestrian Linkages 100 52 Improvement Project #13: Parking 102 53 Improvement Project #14: Lettered Streets Area 10 Zoning Change 104 54 Improvement Project #15: Lettered Streets Area 11 Zoning Change 106 55 Improvement Project #16: Lettered Streets New Area 14 Zoning Change 108 56 Improvement Project #17: CBD Area 15 Zoning Changes 110 57 Implementation Schedule 113 58 Improvement Projects Outline 115 59 Potentials 134 60 Cbnstraints 135 61 Land Value 138 62 Ownership 139 63 Land Areas 141 LIST OF FIGURES Page No. 64 Existing Building Areas 142 65 Historically Significant Buildings 143 66 Zoning 149 67 Nonconforming Uses 150 68 Market Area 151 69 Census Tracts - City of Bellingham 169 70 Alternative 1: Waterfront Rejuvenation 215 71 Alternative 2: Waterfront Catalyst Plus 216 72 Alternative 3: Waterfront Renaissance 217 73 Alternative 4: (bmposite 220 74 Description of the Alternatives 225 75 Evaluation of the Alternatives 234 76 Sunmary Evaluation of Alternatives 238 77 Alternatives for Citizens Dock 267 LIST OF TABLES Page No. 1 CDaparison of Population Growth Rates 155 2 Existing Population 156 3 Forecast Population 157 4 Employment in Whatcom County 158 5 Employment in Whatcom County and The City of Bellingham 159 6 Whatcom County Historic Employment By Sector 161 7 Top Ten Employers in Whatcom County 162 8 Einployment Forecast - Whatcom County 163 9 Effective Buying Income Trends 164 10 Taxable Retail Sales 165 11 Southbound Border Crossings at Blaine, Washington 166 12 Average Monthly Exchange Rate 167 13 Bellingham Area Census Tracts 168 14 1985 Bellingham Office Space 171 15 1082 Bellingham Office Space 172 16 Projected Cumulative Office Absorption 173 17 Bellingham Commercial Office Space Lease Rates 175 18 Survey of Existing Bellingham Retail Space 176 19 Major Shopping Districts and Centers 177 20 Growth of Shopper Goods Sales by SIC Code 178 21 Sales Volumes of Shopper Goods per Square Foot 179 22 Sales Volumes for Selected Retail Categories 180 23 Bellingham Conference Facilities 184 24 Industrial Usage of Bellingham Shoreline 187 I I I- Introduction/Summary I I I I a I I I I I I 11 INTRODU'CTION Since its early beginnings the Central Waterfront of Bel lingham has been a challenge to man's ingenuity. The water's historical ties to industry and to the community are still reflected in today's mix of activities. Faced with conflicting interests and need for economic improvement, the City of Bellingham took action to stimulate desired change and protect existing values via the study effort underlying this documnt. A balance of practicality and imagination was called for in the planning. The results are described in this document, the Central Waterfront Developi)-ent Plan for Bellingham. Both direction and steps toward achieving the future visions are offered. ...... .. . fj=jjgR, U*bd Ag*nt.--* "-7777777777 ..... ... . .... 77W7 7T@ Photo Courtesy of Whatcom Museurr of History and Art. Bellingham, VA Figure 1 Historic Bellingham Photo Courtesy of Whatcom Museum of History and Art, Bellingham, VA V Figure 2 Panaromic View of Bellingham Bay, Circa 1911 I A 'Arm Photo Courtesy of Whatcom Museum of History PROCESS TASK 1 Confirm Goals and Objectlves/Distill Major Issues TASK 2 r low Econom r1o 'C ass/market TASK 5 TASK 6 TASK 7 TASK 8. ev Data velop Land Comparatively Distill Prepare Evaluate )o Waterfront Plan/ Marketing/ TASK 3 Altern Alternatives Implementation Promotional Analyze atives Materials otentials and FpConstraints TASK 4 Analyze nfrastructure Conditions/ F, Capacities MILESTONES A A A ISSUES/ GENERAL REFINED COMPARATIVE REFINED FINAL DIRECTIONS CONCEPTS CONCEPTS EVALUATION PLAN REPORT SCHEDULE 0-2 WEEKS -4 WEEKS 8 WEEKS 12 WEEKS 14 WEEKS 16 WEEKS Figure 3 Study Process and Schedule Do Use Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group PURPOSE The study's purpose was to prepare a viable plan to direct Central Waterfront development that: � Anticipates events � Creates opportunities � Is realistic � Supports all key interests Specific sites for development were identified to determine the appropri- ate type and character of the development and suggest strategies to overcome likely obstacles. Marketing techniques and materials were also prepared to assist with plan implementation. PROCESS The eight-step approach depicted in Figure 3 featured a "charrettell process or series of intensive participatory York sessions early in the process and then repeated throughout the study at key decision points. The sessions allowed continuing interaction, a "buyiDg into" eventual results and made the best use of everyone's time given the short study schedule. Participants included the City of Bellingham, the Port of Bellingham, Georgia-Pacific, the Fourth Corner Development Group and the general public. Direction was provided by a Mayor appointed Task Force, a "hands on" Technical Committee, and regularly scheduled public meetings. More detailed findings of the study tasks are described in Section III: Planning Background. Four initial tasks established the basis for the first key charrette. Task 1: Review and confirm public/private sector goals and objectives for the Bellingham Central Waterfront and distill major issues. Task 2: LJpdate and analyze economic base, market conditions, and fiscal impacts for existing and forecast land uses. Task 3: Determine development potentials and constrain ts, considering both physical /environmental and regulatory elements. Ta sk 4: Critically review infrastructure (roads and utilities) conditions, capacities, and development limits. ;EN5 V. '12 % -Ab Figure 4 The Charrette Process Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group The initial charrette produced significant, creative results and synthe- sized input from all key community interests. With input from partici- pants, Task 5 was completed. Task 5: Develop market/physical-based land use alternatives for the near- and long-term. The alternatives were the subject of the concepts charrette. The alterna- tives were a synthesis of ideas tempered by practical facts and forecasts. The next task was: Task 6: Comparatively evaluate alternatives per prioritized criteria. The evaluation criteria was distilled from previously expressed goals and objectives. The analysis and recommendations were presented for discus- sion, and with a selected direction, the Plan was refined. Task 7: Distill a Central Waterfront Development Plan and Implementation Strategy. A final presentation of the plan was made to the Task Force and Technical Committee. Presentations were also made to the Planning Commission, City Council and other groups including the Mayor's Advisory Committee, Park. Board, Cbamber of Commerce, City Center Development Authority, Fort of Bellingham Commission and Fourth Corner Development Group. This report documents the study process and development plan. To assist with continuing implementation, the final task was completed. Task 8: Prepare marketing and promotional materials to assist with plan implementation. The specific targets and purpose of the prospectus was determined to make best use of the resources. The timing of the study was 16 weeks. The schedule of major events is shown on the process graphic (see Figure 3). 7 The problem-solving approach was based on an analysis of forces that influence land use and development. The following graphic shows these forces which all contribute to Bellingham's Central Waterfront future in differing degress. The entire process was an intensive one with close cooperation and participation by all interests. Direct and Latent Market Demand Regulatory Requirements Population LAND USES AND Growth and DEVELOPMENT Change Infrastructure Constraints Environmental and Figure 5 Design Issues Forces That Influence Land Uses PLAN HIGHLIGHTS The Development Plan expresses goals and objectives for overall direction. Me plan itself is described by three elements: 1) a Framev@ork Plan that generally defines the land use and circulation concept and key principles or "building block" ideas; 2) a series of Design Policies that establish standards for desired change; and 3) Improvement Projects which are a set of phased and prioritized public/private actions. An implementation out- line is also provided to orchestrate the realization of the plan. STATUS Recommendations were presented to the Bellingham Planning Comn-dssion on June 4, 1986. The Comadssion acted to concur with the Plan concept and initiated land use changes. Recommendations were made to the City Council Planning Committee at a work session. on June 16, 1986. The City Council unanimously approved the Central Waterfront Plan concept. A motion was made to initiate Land Use Development Ordinance amendments. The City is pursuing identified funding sources and integrating a first stage of projects with the 1987 Capital Budget. Land use changes are also being guided through the adoption process. The summary, promotional brochure is being used to communication opportunities available in the Central Waterfront. Plan support and nDmentum are high as favorable change is already underway and expected to continue. I I I Development Plan I I I I I I I I I I 'I I PLAN OVERVIEW The Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan is the guide to manage physical change. It expresses the results of a planning process and offers practical solutions to the major issues. Underlying aspirations are specifically stated in goals and objectives. The development plan is described by three elements: a Framework Plan, which defines the general land use and circulation concept for both the Influence Area and Target Area and sets forth development concept principles. 0 Design Policies, flexible standards to implement the orderly change which allows for interpretation in the exact nature of future improve- ments. 0 IMrovement Projects, essentially a phased action program of public and private site-specific recommendations to occur over the next six to ten years. The Plan is purposely neither extravagant nor does it require fundamental change. Rather, it takes a simple and direct approach to satisfying local needs and should be implemented rather easily with well directed action. The Plan embodies a public and private sector commitment which must con- tinue to achieve desired results. It will be like a newly-polished pair of well-worn, comfortable shoes. An illustrative plan of the Central Waterfront development is shown in Figure 5. qelected views at key locations are also shomn in Figures 6 through 10. These diagrams are intended to depict one interpretation of the concept. The concept is further detailed in subsequent sections. The dilemma of a development plan is recognized with the contradictory requirements of showing an end development condition but at the same time creating development flexibility to respond to changing conditions. The key to achieving both is in the structure of the Development Plan with a general Framework Plan and more specific Design Policies. These together offer a management tool to direct the waterfront's evolution. The Improvement Projects establish immediate projects which are steps toward implementing the Plan. 10 It is acknowledged (and expected) that conditions will change over time and that the application of the "patterns" will vary. The combination of results-oriented projects within an overall framework and subject to design policy guidelines will allow the necessary plan responsiveness to change. Cowrnment C le, DUPONT "bli,/Prwale C0 Wffl,ll D, I ent Improvernenis Letf@red st"LS 'h,.Id Entrance In MHI._ IJPJ@nd Conneoinn@ P IV idali M wn co Cinzens Dock (',,],)nv Warf klarilane Herildg Prunienade 0 n PNarkin ^(O)OLLY Bmad'-v @Id,;'Sh`.P" 1. 'Viewnninl Fn) b h, vimp III _T & Streetwaprig ni. Puhl:rg F-ffk tr_n n_ -4 X Diblic VI'Vif"Arli niral AV, de,irian lrriprt@vernents rking 14 Squalicurn Harbor Marina To C@ rga Pal h, R1, F Figure 6 Illustrative Concept Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group o UL - @,- tr;_@ Figure 7 Holly Street Bridge Gateway with Citizens Dock Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group Arm. Figure 8 Joint Public/Private Development at Dupont and 'D' Streets Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management, and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group Figure 9 Public Viewpoint at Holly Street Bridge Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning ServicesfThe NBBJ Group .. . ...... Figure 10 View of Park and Maritime Interpretive Center from Museum Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group X/ Figure 11 Citizens Dock Pavilion at Holly Street Bridge Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group PLANNING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The work sessions with the major Central Waterfront interests and citizens sought to define issues and aspirations for the future. The key issues that were defined are summarized as: 0 The need to produce an implementable plan 0 The type, amount and location of various land uses must be defined 0 Economic development must be created 0 The need for group consensus for any realistic action The concerns for the Central Waterfront were for physical improvements that also stimulated economic growth. The presence of heavy industry (Georgia-Pacific) and a variety of retail, commercial, recreational, residential, and support uses created compatibility questions. A basic conflict was the incompatibility of increased people activity and industry operations. Pressures related to all issues had mounted and timing was appropriate for their resolution. Both officially adopted goals and more informally expressed ones were collected and discussed. More specific objectives were also derived: Goals 0 Stimulate the area's economic vitality � Improve circulation along the downtown/Squalicun corridor � Assure a compatible mix of land uses � Create incentives for project implementation � Promote public/private cooperation � Create a Whatcom Creek focus � Celebrate the Old Town history and culture � Promote understanding of a working waterfront Objectives 0 Resolve the Citizens Dock issue 0 Encourage investment (not just market response) 0 Change zoning 0 Protect and enhance existing businesses 0 Improve Roeder and Holly Streets 0 Improve Maritime Heritage Center 0 Control nuisances 0 Create land use flexibility It is with this direction and intent that the Development Plan sets a standard for local community improvement. 19 VC x 14@jr Figure 12 eq P rC ri Study Area tn inn! hl'L ino rl E- un-1 UP 0 R@@ V/ I M rill ..X@X LEGENK Mi <1 167'. q.... .. ::n!I X Influence Area X, T 9x....- VA! a I zji ........... K . r. Target Are .............. At:, oi "E'D IF R rA X JN V,_ p rl P., PIN G, OP IJ k n7, 124 4amd V7 JHM18611 it C 3 1FAC F@11 r BELLINGHAM BAY ri n.. 71, jr-7.1 Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group FRAMEWORK PLAN Study Area The study area for the Central Waterfront Development Plan consists of an approximate 63-acre Target Area and a larger Influence Area shown in Figure 12. The plan is primarily concerned with the Target Area but considers relationships and impacts within the larger context. 21 Land Use and The general land use and circulation concept for the study area are shown Circulation Framework in Figure 13 through Figure 17. This 11framewrk" establishes the overall direction for improvement projects. It also establishes the Central Waterfront's function within Bellingham. The goals for the Influence Area include an improved relationship with the Central Business District (CBD), the industrial waterfront and Squalicum Harbor (Figure 13). A mixed use concept with a winder range of waterfront commercial, retail, office, residential, and public/cultural/recreational uses is envisioned for the Central Waterfront Target Area (Figure 14). The most significant changes are expanding the retail and light manufacturing uses allowed, changing the area adjacent to Georgia-Pacific to allow industrial uses and increased allowable densities in portions of the Lettered Streets Neighborhood. Circulation systems (vehicular and pedestrian) are interconnected within the Target Area and consistent with city-wide systems. The most signifi- cant changes include the Chestnut Street realignment, "C" and Astor 2- block street vacations and upgrades to I'D" Street (Figures 15, 16 and 17). 22 Figure 13 T QN, Land Use - Influence Area C4 f. 1175 L tR Ev_ rJUNi t.4: il@ 1' J. J P r ;,R, wg_ I ilp; 0 -:j!Q , c-'r, U in, 1: ;SIDE i [email protected] F'i! VJ I V" H= _jlr@_r r M. 7 -Hr @jm ;Y/4 q, jr7 IZIU 9@ Tj@ Fip G,@ I _U Aw r (f NO @7; , tr__ M f 'T, T71 V n M , 41 -1 11,11, 1------ ;f t ,I. . t7l @MA OIJ phw Rb b9 117. A t, 0 R N T COM ERCIAV'@@;"--- - V i J HE Vy t 1aj 'I, 17 r, M management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan U "p;il iej 1 01 .... ...... sl N 'A EA= E T N t" S J r @1 0,51 !alp- 1@ i ARE414.. '11 9-R AS D C TO R AO DENSI I L L A d ,A A - i I > U 4ra 'A I. N N. Lil if . ........ ..... .. ..... .. .... cl sk X F F SEI :U S it ATEt N to PANO . . ........... .... T REO 6 R C@ ;A A a Ito IC HT _U & ANUF C -U E . . . .......... ... NTIAL.... FF iU A-0 r t, ang I t .......... ...... I ...... ......... ........ .. . ..... ... ........ .... ..... ..... ..... . ... ..... . . A 1% A P COD T k A 'CI3D AREA 4 ct, Xv MARINE . ....... :2 COD AREX' N INDUSTRIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL:,: A BIA& N 6, ang N 9 Change N 4@ A a g 0 Figure 14 Land Use - Target Area Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 5 OFT k' Figure 15 r 1, Circulation - Influence Area jV! I P 117 Rn MEW 1 t" rn@r 5 < El ON LF,."bg lot 11 , , M1 LIG V4 Oi J N r r ki$ 1. IF. Is V is IV 2t, f 1@1 Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group ... . ........... ..... .. ..... ....... . .. ....... ... ....... ... "41 in OPOWT 6T (.4n r U0, X irl rI tol irl Am P t 9.1 J, tYP i k 0 ........ ... ..... Ly @@J ..... . . ...... . . ....... ... . .. ... tn 7_7 7 ...... . .... .J tR ... .. .... .. 4 r LEGEND: f-4 Major Arterials 4 Secondary Arterial Truck Route Local Collector Figure 16 VOM Vacated Street Circulation - Target Area 0 1 50OFT Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group .... . ........ ... ..... .. Irr n Tj kj "ot .......... ou " 1'n p IN i (76 .... . . .... . ........ . @x .. ........ ;Uauy @K' .. . . ........... P 4. V .4y All t w ice .......... Al ........... ............ X. ........ .................. ......... ..... ...... rj ..... ...... . .. Itn In if Figure 17 Principal Pedestrian Routes - Target Area Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group T SOOF Framework Plan Objectives Influence Area 0 Provide a comprehensive and.coherent plan that links the CBD, the Central Waterfront, and Squalicum Harbor 0 Protect and enhance the Lettered Streets residential areas from potential nuisances 0 Protect and enhance industrial users 0 Encourage economic growth and employment opportunities within the Influence Area 0 Enhance the environmental quality throughout the Influence Area. Target Area 0 Change land use designations as necessary to allow broader range of uses 0 Use capital improvements/amenities as incentives for economic growth 0 Improve public access to the waterfront 0 Improve vehicular and pedestrian access between the CBD and Squalicum Harbor thoughout Target Area * Improve overall environmental quality of the area 0 Protect and enhance established businesses and avoid displacement and nuisances 0 Promote the historical, cultural and environmental legacy of the area 28 Framework Plan Building Blocks The Framework Plan also consists of nine interrelated urban design ideas or "building blocks." These conceptual patterns create further guidance for physical changes in the Central Waterfront. They are intended as "basic values" underlying growth and environmental quality in the Central Waterfront. They also offer "handles" to effectively deal with the area's issues. Whatcom Creek Focus The "waterfront" includes more frontage along the Whatcom Creek than along Bellingham Bay. Given the major industrial presence and existing public park investment, the creek itself is a significant water feature and should be recognized. The recreation, educational, and open space amenities should be enhanced. The orientation of activity and development should be inward toward the creek to allow a side by side co-existance of seemingly incompatible uses. Linkages The functional and visual connection between downtown and Squalicum Harbor should be improved. Vehicular circulation should be encouraged through the Central Waterfront while also creating pedestrian amenities and upland walking routes. Movement through and within the area should be organized to complete a larger network. The Central Waterfront will become a special place on the way to other destinations. The park open space and related improvements will become destinations as well. 29 Land Use Mix The area waterside of Roeder Avenue is envisioned as a "working water- front" with heavy water-related/dependent industrial activities. Upland NHN from Roeder Avenue a mix of compatible land uses is envisioned. Public/ recreational activities will continue along the creek. Light n-anufactur- ing, retail, and commercial uses will dominate with continuation of residential/offices within the Lettered Streets area. Land Use Interfaces/ The adjacent conditions and,physical relationships among different land Compatibility uses become inportant with a wide range and mix of activities. The parcel-by-parcel compatibility is as important as transitions to nearby neighborhoods. The intent is to encourage a sensitivity and physical development that allows co-existence. The uses of the Central Waterfront support adjacent areas, including the downtoun office core and governmant center. Specialty retail will be a part of the mix which is not intended to compete with other retail centers. Vistas and Overlooks Topographic conditions, alignment of streets and the presence of distant over-water views and industrial activity all create opport *unities for vistas and overlooks. Scenic distant views as well as visual access and improved understanding of the "working waterfront" are significant opportunities. The intent is to capture these visual linkages in physical improvements. 30 Gateways, A sense of place must be created for a memorable experience. As people move through the Central Waterfront, key locations can be celebrated and I-A distinguished by design features. The Holly Street Bridge is a particular "crossroad" where a gateway to the Central Waterfront should be estab- lished. Transitions to the CBD and Squalicum Harbor could also be accented. Public Right of Ways/ The City is a major land owner in the area. City actions with this City-Owned-Property property can be significant to stimulate other development as well as to establish the expected level of quality of the environment. Public/ private partnerships are suggested to agressively increase economic revitalization. The expectation is that the city will be a leader and partner for economic and physical improvement. Vacant Parcels Several large, undeveloped properties within the area present mixed expectations. New development is readily accommodated but the current neglected condition creates an image of an area in transition. A con- certed effort is necessary to infill these 'Imissing teeth in the smile." Confidence-building public projects are intended to increase private investment. 31 Zoning The Bellingham Plan, Shoreline Management Master Program, and Land Use Development Ordinance all establish regulations to rmnage change. As conditions evolve over time, such standards must be reassessed and updated. Specific changes are suggested as part of the Central Waterfront T-' Development Plan primarily to create incentives for economic development and to reinforce land use compatibility. The effectiveness of these F, changes must be monitored, and in the future, further revisions made if appropriate. ...........L--------------- 32 DESIGN POLICIES The purpose of the guidelines is to provide development direction and change management consistent with the plan. They are a planning tool. While the comprehensive framework imposes requirements on distinct elements for continuity and consistency the framemrk also allows for flexibility in making detailed design decisions not possible at this time. The guidelines seek to strike a balance between prescriptive enforcement of a total district and city concept, and recognition that conditions will change so all details cannot be accounted for now. The guidelines are also intended to stimulate public and private cooperation, commitment, and investment in the area's future. They are straightforward to allow increased predictability and should be interpreted broadly to be incentives to improvements. The guidelines are intended to be a working set of City policies that will be applied by planning staff during project reviews. They should be publicly available and become a part of the Bellingham Plan and Land Use Development Ordinance. The Central Waterfront was analyzed and distinct subareas were defined where potentials could be captured and changes would contribute to overall improvement. These "Opportunity Areas" are shown in. Figure 18. Guidelines for the development of the Central Waterfront are described by the following eight topics. The Land Use and Scale/Intensity Guidelines are given by each Opportunity Area. The remining guidelines are intended to apply throughout the Central Waterfront. 0 Land Use and Scale/Intensity 0 Circulation System 0 Parking 0 Landscaping 0 Signage and Lighting 0 Utilities 0 Architectural Design 0 District Edges/Influence Area 33 Illustrative applications of the plan ideas are shown by Opportunity Areas in the following series of diagrams (Figures 19 - 26). Note that these drawings are not intended to be detailed designs, but are depictions of how the conceptual ideas could be applied. They are intended to provide design policy guidance. Further descriptions of the Improvement Projects are detailed in the next section. 34 ............ . .. 0 vf . ji ............ A N) (i. r@y j (73 [7 T', (7 t7@1 r.0 1, i r ...... ..... ...... .. ... ij 3@ _J V-1 ........ ... ... .............. -1 71*4 ..... . ..... ......... .. ............ ................................ ................... 7T ............. @Ry % 71 Figure 18 Opportunity Areas Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 50OFT Existing Maritime Heritage Center Salmon Life Cycle Facility Whatcom Creek r New Entrance to Maritime Heritage- C Extend Trail System Center from D" -Ib -aw . Street Reconstruct Old P@rl R I Colony Wharf New Pedestrian (Pedestrian Linkages to theCBD Promenade) Along .:PARK . and Government Creek Center TOR11 Relocation and Partial New Parking for Renovation of Citizens Park and Maritime Dock within Park to Be Interpretive Center 1140- QY@&T rAi- Used as Maritime Interpretive Center pour, Public Viewpoint 1- @knd Observation UBL Platform on Holly Street, Bridge Public Viewpointon Roeder Street Central Avenue Bridge Connected Parking and by Pedestrian '.ATCOM'"POiNT W Pedestrian Access CREEK WATER Access to Central INCREASED WATER Avenue Parking DEPENDENT USES Increased Use of' Whatcom Creek Waterway for Marine Industrial Use Figure 19 Opportunity Area A: Whatcorn Creek Focus Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group Land Use and Scale/intensity OPPORTUNITY AREA A Whatcom Creek Focus This area is the waterfront heart of the Central Waterfront. Dominant land uses will include public recreational/cultural/educationaI /open space with limited supporting commercial uses and parking. The Martime Heritage Center and uphill museum are integral parts of the area's function. The area should primarily be a downtown public space with an accessible creek shoreline and surrounded by more intense building development. The space's concept is to be an "inward focus" where activities cluster around the park and water. This hub creates the linkage and transition to the surrounding Lettered Streets Neighborhood, Government Center, CBD, and Marine Industrial areas. Public visual access extends toward the waterway and Bellingham Bay. Planned improvement projects are intended to enhance this Whatcom Creek focus idea. 37 Screen Parking at Vacate 'C" Street Rear of Buildings and Astor to Create Light Industrial/Light Manufacturing Core SCREEN 0 :N pr 'AREA S ir t- z ENT & 0 C IN .16D SfREET4 VAC I m ...... I Bellingha Sash and Door TIM Olt Encourage Continuous ON I..q I Ih I . PING IMPROVEMENT, Building " H -ILLY -- R ET A Holly Street Improvements Frontage Along Holly NEW C MMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SCREEN PAWING Historic I Train Depot 4 - Intersection New Develo ment Train Improvements Along Holly fo Tracks Meet Design Standards Figure 20 Opportunity Area 13: "Old Town" Core Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group OPPORTUNITY AREA B Old Town Core A land use mix is envisioned which reinforces currently established activities while improving visual quality and an historic Old Town character is envisioned. A broad range of light manufacturing, retail (including non-water related uses), commercial, and supporting parking will be encouraged. The scale and intensity of development should continue to be subject to existing limits. Future development will largely be infill and redevelopment. The new should respect the old and fit within an improved context. Tw significant land use organizational principles are: I 0 Continuous building frontage along Holly Street 0 Effective screening/nuisance control of outdoor storage and processing The intent of the first principle 'is to spatially define the street corridor along Holly with continuous buildings at the street lot property lines. No setbacks of structures should be allowed. Retail activity and pedestrian-sensitive conditions should be encouraged. Blank, barren building walls should be discouraged. At a minimLm building walls should be enlivened with graphics and color. Parking and other support/service functions should be located to the rear of the buildings, obscured from the street. The second principle requires that outdoor storage and support activities to business be visually obscured. The screening must be effective when installed. Related noise, light/glare, and other operational environ- mental impacts should be controlled. A clean-up/fix-up campaign would also be appropriate to improve existing buildings. The Old Town Core is to be a special place with an historic character. The land use and scale aspects should support this objective. Architec- tural character (materials, color, roof lines) as well as streetscape amenities must be coordinated with development. Guidelines for these topics are given in the following pages. 39 *3 STORY HEIGHT LIMIT STREET LEVEL RETAIL ALONG HOLLY CONTINUOUS BUILDING FRONTAGES ALONG HOLLY Z A. MARQUEES R AWNINGS NG H.OLLY 0 .0 0@1 rQJ INDUSTRIA UI INGS TO MATCH LOCATE PARKING BEHIND BUILDINGS HISTORI C RACTER Figur.e 21 "Old Town" Core'Development Standards Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group D i.-Imuppront Street ov ements SEC _jM Inter ection Joint Public/ R', --------- Improvements Private - Commercial Development at "D" Street and Dupont New Encourage Cultural/ Pede ian str Arts/Entertainment/ U hill Government Uses LFn1kages 0- Along Prospect Corridor Parking Within Prospect Street Central Avenue Improvements R.O.W. L Intersection Improvements Part of Street Improvements Develop Now Storefronts Along Holly Potential Street as Part Access to of Parking Parking Garage Structure PARKING STRUCTURE F Public/Private Financed Parking mr,** Structure Figure 22 Opportunity Area C: Hilltop/C13D Transition Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group OPPORTUNITY AREA C Hilltop/CBD Transition The land uses will complement Whatcom Creek activity and improve the upland/CBD connections. Joint public/private uses could occur with office/commercial/restaurant project at Dupont and ID" Streets, retail infill along Holly, and a parking structure adjacent to the Chestnut/ Roeder realignment. ---- --- The uphill uses along Prospect and Dupont should recognize the museum's visual and functional prominence. They should also, in their design and orientation, focus on the Maritime Heritage Center and creek area. Cultural/entertainment uses along with governn-ental and CBD uses should be encouraged. Scale of development comparable to existing structures is acceptable with greater "people intensitieg' desirable. Street edges along Holly and Champion should be defined by structures to create a "funnel" gateway into the Central Waterfront. The hilltop area is important in its creation of linkages with the park and upland downtown areas. Highly visible pedestrian routes should be a part of improvement projects. The intent is to maximize people access opportunities to make the park an easily used urban resource and amenity. 42 -Screen Parking (7 Holly Street Intersection T improvements 0 L Improvements J-, T cc -C 14C Broadway Buffer Park Avenue Along Railway V=Int & TraCKS P rian 110 Linkage ,_Land Use-Mixed Residential & Office Figure 23 Opportunity Area D: "Old Towns Fringe Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group OPPORTUNITY AREA D Old Town Fringe The present pattern of a mix of single/multi-family residential, cormiercial/retail uses should continue. Opportunities to buffer uphill -------- uses from railroad impacts should be taken along with potentials for expanded water views. A public viewpoint and possible pedestrian linkage at the Broadway street end is desirable. No change is suggested to the scale and intensity of uses. 44 Buff r XPANSION OF HEAVY INOIJURAI 'A@r - - - - - - - - - - Figure 24 opportunity Area E: Industrial Expansion Area Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group OPPORTUNITY AREA F Holly/Roeder Street This route is intended to continue as a public right-of-way allowing Corridor Linkage through traffic movement. Streetscape enhancement will be supportive of the adjoining land uses. This opportunity area is detailed in the following Circulation System section. 47 Holly/'F* Street Intersection Improvements t- 'U. TM LL REETSPAPiNG IMPROVEMENTS Holly/ 61)" Street Intersection Improvements ----------------------- ------------- Tom Glenn/Roeder Roeder/ Street Intersection "Fff Street improvements L-- Intersection Improvements Figure 25 Opportunity Area F: Holly/Roeder Streets Corridor and Linkage Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group OPPORTUNITY AREA E Industrial The Chestnut/Roeder Street realignment defines an area more appropriately Expansion Area related to heavy industrial use. Land use should be changed to allow industrial (Georgia-Pacific) expansion southwest of the new Roeder align- ------- ment. The scale and intensity of industrial activity should be sensitive to its adjacent location to non-industrial uses. A transition should occur to reduce impacts. 46 Champion/ Prospect Intersection Holly Street Gateway Holly/Bay GATEV 'El j@j@g-r PPM:1.1@t Intersection WO M [Central/ -ChampionlHolly Holly Intersection Pedestrian Crossing .Holly Street Bridge Improvements Roeder Street Roeder- Roeder/Central Improvements Bridge Intersection Chestnut Realignment . ..................... lot, .0A. ------------ - ------------ Sidewalk Improvements Chestnut/Bay Intersection Figure 26 Opportunity Area G: Roeder/,Ches.tnut Streets Realignment Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan -Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group OPPORTUNITY AREA G Roeder/Chestnut Roeder, with its realignment, will also continue to be a public right of Street Realignment way allowing through traffic. The functional emphasis will be as a truck route. Adjoining land uses will be less pedestrian oriented and more ------ industrial in nature. Roeder Street standards should be similar to those of Roeder adjacent to Squalicum Harbor, including traffic lanes wide enough to accommodate bicycle lanes, and a sidewalk separated by a planting strip along the waterside of the road. This opportunity area is detailed in the following Circulation Systens subsection. 51 Circulation Systems Vehicular Movement Safe, free-flowing traffic is desired throughout the Central Waterfront. Applicable City engineering standards are all expected to be met in any system changes. Vehicular circulation improvements primarily affect three routes: "D" Street, Holly/Roeder/"F" Streets, and Roeder Avenue/Chestnut Street. The improvements to 'ID'I Street are,intended to allow two-way traffic flow, the min ingress/egress to the Maritime Heritage Center, on-street parking including bus loading/zones and sidewalks. Standard City street sections are applicable. The general standard of improvement is depicted in Figure 27. The Holly/Roeder/"F" corridor is intended to allow direct traffic movement between downtom and Squalicum Harbor and create visual interest along the route. Continuity throughout the route will be established by signage, street trees, and consistency in adjoining building development. The standard street section is shown in Figure 28. Other repetitive improvements will create a unified district with highlighted special places. Typical key instersection streetscape improvements are shown'in Figure 29. The turning transitions at "PI Street must clearly and safely direct traffic movement. At the same time, non-turning nuvement must continue to be allowed. The Roeder/Chestnut realignment will improve overall circulation and is detailed by City Engineering Department specifications. Since not only trucks will use the route, related improvements (sidewalks, signage, lighting, etc.) should be considered. A 30-foot curb-to-curb street section is currently planned with no on-street parking between Bay and Central. A sidewalk along the waterside is recommended. The existing Roeder Bridge should allow a vehicle pull-out and viewpoint where Citizens Dock is now located. The route will primarily serve industry-related truck traffic but will also be sensitive to other users. .52 TWO WAY "Do STREET I P OVEME V. 13lkRf('I.NG' Sc ENED PARKING A NG VACATED C" STREET Figure 27 New Entrance to Salmon Life Cycle Facility at '13' Street Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group Az L,(AA IT 1/0 1-RF-I@T UC17HTIK& 55; w oil ri w- WAT)i *TICN I PB x A/071, L.ANF-@ 1"IFFIC, LA"IF, @'t 4Z UIN C1 OZOV@@ WAIA< Ha-L,-r smm-r PigHr- 4F - wwr IT Figure 28 Typical Intersection Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group t5MIE-Er t@- OLT WA, LK CONC. 609erv ILZ IN PewAtie Figure 29, Typical Key Intersection Improvements Pedestrian Movement It is intended that standard sidewalks be provided along with street improvements. Typical sidewalk improvements are sho%n in the preceding Figure 29. Special pedes trian systems are suggested in the park/Maritime Heritage Center area including the boardwalk linkage from Holly to the Maritime Heritage Center, Maritime Heritage Center/park upland connections, and the Holly Street Bridge and Central Avenue water access improvements. Figures 30 - 33 depict the intended characteristics of these pedestrian improvements. Pedestrian amenities will be accommodated with traffic (sidewalk/ streetscape) and in separate facilities. The intent is to encourage people activity, safety, and allow easy movement. Waterborne/Others The visitors' moorage within the Whatcom Waterway is expected to be main- tained. Seaplane activity will continue. Marine industry waterborne use (barges, tugs, etc.) will increase within the waterway. No other signifi- cant changes are envisioned for water-related traffic. Public transit service occurs along Holly Street. Provision for turnouts, signage, and transit shelters (as budgets permit) should be accommodated. 66 -C3 AV BELLINGHAM SASH A DOOR SCREENED PARKING 'OLD COLONY WHARF" PROMENADE Owww HISTORIC SHIP MOORAGE WHATCOM CREEK Figure 30 Section at Whatcom Creek Maritime Heritage Center and Pedestrian Promenade Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 17 -4 TARF wo RELOCATED CITIZEN'S DOCK MARITIME HERITAGE CENTER PAVILLION BOARDWALK PROMENADE ry) Figure 31 View Toward Museum - Pedestrian Hiliclimb Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 1 0 @vV Hui Figure 32 View Toward Museum - Pedestrian Connection Within Park Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group RAILRO,@6 T" 8: ilk if RIF 116 1 d 4 I P K 11 ROEDER STREET R.EAJMNMENT rM rM FP 7T VIF4 OINT EXISTING TUG MOORAGE EXISTING lu TRANSIENT PUQLIC MOOR@AGE z lu Figure 33 Whatcom Creek Waterway Viewpoint & Central Avenue Public Access and Parking Bellingham .'entral Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group Parking Off-street.parking should be provided on-site to serve the uses that create the demand. Potential joint use or shared parking should reduce the overall parking quantity and discourage small, dispersed lots. No parking should be located along Holly Street. The parking to serve uses in this corridor should be located to the rear of buildings. All parking should be screened and landscaped. Access/egress should minimize vehicular and pedestrian disruption. Curb cuts for driveways should be as few as possible per block. Public parking should be provided within the park to serve all of the public/recreational functions. As the area intensifies with development, the feasibility of a joint public/private parking structure (between Holly and the Roeder realignment) should be investigated. Parking should clearly be a secondary support use to the principal uses of the Central Waterfront. Landscaping Native urban tolerant species of plant materials should be installed. City standards for street trees should be followed for overall consis- tency. Individual landscaping plans should be developed with building projects, as well as park improvements, and reviewed by the City for overall quality. The landscaping system should include a lush natural park setting with appropriately screened buildings and parking and the Holly/"F"/Roeder street-tree corridor. 62 Signage and Lighting Directional Signs A coordinated and consistent system of signage and lighting is recommended for traffic control/guidance and pedestrian orientation. Route markers should highlight the Holly/"F"/Roeder movement. The path system through the park should continue to be clearly highlighted. Identification Signs A comm on Old Town design theme should be installed to identify public places. Signage should be integrated into buildings and structures. Advertising Signs No off-premise advertising should be allowed, including billboards. A balance should be sought between clutter and sterility with a wider vocab- ulary than now exists. Awnings, show windows, painting schemes, and "product" display signs should enrich the area. Signs should be flush with building facades. Lighting The primary purpose of lighting should be for safety through improved visibility. The Old Town them can be enhanced in lighting,such as with the use of closely spaced globe fixtures along the Holly Street Bridge and along this street corridor. Lighting should demark routes and paths and contribute to a sense of vitality. At the same time, excessive lighting should be discouraged to avoid nighttime impacts on residential uses. Utilities Basic infrastructure needs and system will be served in accordance with City standards. It is recommended that an undergrounding progran be implemented along the'Holly Street corridor. A significantly different visual condition can be created with undergrounding (Figures 34 and 35). 63 11.4 A4 M&NO HARP AIRF- I U PM C4V F"'7 LU Figure 34 Existing View Along Holly Street Bellingham Central Waterfront Devel opment Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0) 0 tv ---- 7- ;7 - - -------- Figure 35 View Along Holly Street with Streetscaping Improvements Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 'Architectural Design The architectural character desired should be sensitively derived from a northwest historic Old Town theme. It should not be imitative. Wood/ timber and industrial metal materials are suggested. An enlivened color scheme (e.g. Granville Island) should be considered to celebrate the mix of industrial and other uses. Quality should reflect functional needs. Flexibility and durability are more important than glamour and prestige. Historic preservation is of high priority. The remaining structures of recognized value should be preserved to the extent possiblei The train depot is a particularly important structure given its architectural character and prominent location. Historically significant buildings are inventoried in Section III. The historic flavor should be reflected in new building designs. For example, roof lines, fenestration, siding, scale, and other detailing should be consistent with and improve upon existing building- character. Theme: "Old Town" The architectural scale and character of the Central Waterfront should reflect that established early in the history of the area when it was knovm as Whatcom. This was the site of the original settlewnt that was later to become Bellingham. The early settlement was a mix of uses which shared the narrow beachfront and clung to the bluff overlooking Bellingham Bay and Whatcom Creek. Many of the early structures were built on pilings or tressels over the water along the creek or on the beachfront due to the topography of the area. The "Old Town" grew rapidly and its architecture reflected the straightforward utilitarian and functional requirewnts of a frontier town. Initially the forest provided settlers with the basic timber building materials, however, brick, stone and terra cotta were later used. In more recent times, corrugated metal siding and roofing has been used on industrial buildings. Architectural styles were typical of the mid-1800's West Coast pioneer towns which borrowed from New England maritime and classical revival styles. Commercial and residential buildings wre one to three stories in height, and reflected the 25-, 50-, and 100-foot platting of their lots. Commercial buildings typically covered 100% of their lots and came right up to the property line. Street facades were uniform in frontage although cornices, marquees and awnings projected out over the sidewalk. 66 Symmetry was the basic geometrical format for most of the old building facades. Repetition of window bays and roof lines were the dominate rhythm. As is practical in the wet climate, roofs were usually of a high pitched gable or hipped type with 4-in-12 to 6-in-12 pitches, although some sloping flat roofs did exist. Most notably the original Whatcom Territorial Court House on "E" Street, which was the first brick building in the northwest, originally had a flat roof. Longer facades had recessed doorways and parapet details to mark entrances to building. Facade proportions reflected the long, narrow, deep lots and party wall construction in their vertical building facades. Pilasters, columns and windows were employed to compose the facade together visually in the vertical dimension. Structural elements are carried dom to the street level while upper portions are supported by lintels spanning the entrances and storefronts below. The ground floors were typically higher to accommodate commercial/retail uses. Many one-story buildings used false fronts to give them the appearance of having a second story and to provide space for signage. The necessity for operable type sash windows for natural ventilation resulted in smaller window openings which are subdivided vertically. Street level storefronts employed larger glass openings with entrances inset to provide visual emphasis, weather protection and lend architectural depth. Siding on the early pioneer wood frame buildings was either horizontal or vertical lx6 clapboards or drop siding with a wide V-joint exposed. Corner boards, windows and doors are usually plain 1x6 fir boards. Windows were double-hung with tm or four glass panes in each sash. New metal sided buildings should be encouraged to reflect this horizontal or vertical rhythm. Later masonry residential and commercial buildings were done in Richardsonian Romanesque, or the Chicago commercial styles with brick, terra cotta or stone. Details included heavy rusticated facades with round-arched windows and entrances and ornamental cornices. The Whatcom County Museum is a fine example of this. 67 Signage Historically, signs were painted directly on to the facades of the buildings or hung frcrn beneath marquees over the sidewalks. Raised letters or painted signs were used. Signs should enhance architectural detail and not obscure building features. No off-premise signs should be permitted. Awning signs are permitted as long as they do not detract from the historical character. Awnings and Awings and mrquees provide weather protection for pedestrians and should Marquees be continuous along Holly Street. Awnings shape and color should contrib- ute to the architectural theme of Old Town. Awnings can be operable and folded up during dry weather or at night. Marquees can employ glass skylight especially on the north sides of buildings to allow more light to the sidewalk. Street Furniture The use of benches and moveable chairs and tables is encouraged throughout the area. A uniform and integrated systEm of kiosks, telephone booths, water fountains, newstands, bicycle stands and public signage should be developed for the area in keeping with the "Old Town" thene and the mix of industrial and retail activities. AWNINGS AND MARQUEES SIDEWALK LIGHTS STREET TREES Figure 36 "Old Town" Scale and Character Be'llingharn Central Waterfront Development Plan Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 3 STORY HEIGHT LIMIT CONTINUOUS BUILDING FRONTAGES ALONG HOLLY STREET BULGED OUT CURB$ STREET LIGHTS AT CROSSWALKS SOLLARDS District Edges/Influenc e Area The Central Waterfront Target Area is optimistically viewed as the integral balance among the Government Center, CBD, Squalicum Harbor, Georgia-Pacific, and the Lettered Streets Neighborhood. The different requriements and demands ofeach of these portions of the Influence Area must be satisfied. Thus, Central Waterfront edges should not be defined in hard physical term but should accommodate the give and take necessary for compatibility. Old Town distinctiveness and the Maritime Heritage Center/park as a special place can still be created. The area will remain a crossroad among the adjoining centers. Uphill linkages to the CBD and Goverment Center should be strengthened through new uses and developments. Access to the Maritime Heritage Center and awareness of this amenity should be improved. This uphill area should also strengthen the downtown and government uses along with the emerging cultural/entertainment activities. Squalicum Harbor accessibility will be improved with the Central Water- front improvements. Compatibility with the heavy industrial activities of Georgia-Pacific will also be maintained. Continued joint involvement of all the key interests will-be critical to maintaining consensus in implementing the plan. 71 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS The third ingredient of the Central Waterfront Development plan is 17 specific actions/development projects to implement the concept. Included are land use/development, circulation/parking projects and Bellingham Plan/zoning actions as follows: Land Use/ 1. Citizens Dock relocation and rehabilitation Development Projects 2. Public waterfront access 3. Maritime Interpretive Center 4. Public/private development projects 5. Consolidated development area 6. , Heavy industrial expansion Circulation/ 7. Holly/Roeder streetscape Parking Projects 8. Holly St. Bridge and Gateway 9. Intersection improvements 10. Chestnut/Roeder realignment 11. "D" Street improvements 12. Upland pedestrian linkages 13. Parking Bellingham Plan/ 14. Lettered Streets Area 10 Zoning Actions 15. Lettered Streets Area 11 16. Lettered Streets New Area 14 17. CBD Area 15 Figure 37 shows the general location of the improvement projects. Following is a more detailed description of each individual action, the phasing and priority of its development and an estimated budget. All costs are in 1986 dollars and include construction costs, fees, taxes, permits and contingencies. Costs relating to street widening includes costs for the improved areas only and do not include resurfacing of entire roadways. Further detailed capital cost information can be found in the Appendix. 72 ...... .... ... . . .... ..... . is K -JJ 7777, n 3 ....... V X AVt" 1 04 x . ........ ...... ... ........... -1 ..... ... .. Y, A! ................................. < It no! C!l k;,o i F-1 J1 or@ Y'S CO A . ....... ....... . .. IN. Figure 37 Improvement Projects Olt" Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 50OFT .. ......... ............ rl :rr 4 .. ......... ge . . ....... ........... rl W. rLI i rl C V ... ......... .......... . . ....... in (T A VIT io en I Ulf ........... LIN N i;l 11 IT t'4. Off !V111 I _1 A, Eli @ .-A , , : i 1177J 10, i r7 . ..... . ...... T? R! T:. i llff,7"771 "'47! AT 7 fill dy, Uf flF 1[J itn' ..........- ......... .... ....... ........... . . .... ............ w _J CI. .. ......... ................................................... r ............ ....... _7 . ....... . . fl, 77@ ... ............. R,4_1 Figure 38 Improvement Project 1: Citizens Dock Relocation and -Rehabilitation 8 ellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 SOOFT Improvement Project 1 CITIZENS DOCK RELOCATION AND REHABILITATION Description Partial reconstruction of Citizens Dock within the City Park would involve its removal from the waterway and salvage/reassembly of major structural elements. A reduction in the building's scale will likely be necessary with renovation as a roofed but open air pavilion. The portion of the structure now fronting along Roeder Avenue could be recreated and located along Holly Street. The intent is to concentrate people activities north of Holly, free-up the waterway for marine industry, retain a historical flavor and improve visual/public access to the water. The rehabilitated, partially reconstructed structure at its new location is to be reminiscent of the historic building. A design is recommended that recreates the two ends of the existing building sited to suggest the original structure's footprint but without constructing the central building element. Up to two covered bays with open walls exposing the structure would be sufficient to create a pavilion. The "end buildings" could include interpretive displays, rest rooms, office space or specialty retail/food service. A planked deck/boardwalk stepped domn toward Whatcom Creek would complement the pavilion, serve pedestrian activity and allow access to the historic ship displays. A blending of the natural, flowing park space into the more urban built environment is necessary to create a transition. Phasing The demolition and reconstruction would occur in one phase. A next step would be the actual design and detailing of the project. Additional amenities, interpretive elements/exhibits could occur in the future as financing is available. Priority is high. Budget An average $34/square foot basic construction cost is estimated for the demolition and partial rehab of Citizens Dock as an open pavilion and demolition. If about half the existing structure were reconstructed the project cost would be some $517,000 including land purchase. 75 ......... .... .. . . . ..... ... .............. tin . ...... ...... 1k so ..... was ... aw!..166 .......... il,.'R 5. r A, .0 rJ . ........ . 4@> -4, ri dii en % OL X U 1 ON n- I lip .91Y ?CAT.J L AE@ ........ .. . .... ...... .. . . . . . ........... . ...............I PU E IONT RM 'A' ORM . ... . ............ ........ ............ ................. (Ew . ..... S-' AVCES . .... . WATER RAJEL@ .............. J Fi gure 39 Ir Improvement Project 2: Public Waterfront Access Projects Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 50OFT Improvement Project 2 PUBLIC WATERFRONT ACCESS PROJECTS Description The Maritime Heritage Center and Park will provide improved public access to Whatcom Creek. Relocation of Citizens Dock (Project #1) will include ground/deck areas for greater linkages with the water north of Holly Street. Since the waterway will now be visually unobstructed, a public viewpoint/observation deck is included between Holly Street and Roeder Avenue. This structure would allow elevated views and explanation of activities in the working waterfront. Public access along both creek banks in this area is desirable. Access to the public moorage at Central Avenue would continue. Some improvements along the waterway edge with a public walkway are suggested. The remaining portion of the street right-of-way would be used for parking and screening of adjacent private development. A pedestrian boardwalk should extend along the edge of the waterway, above the public moorage. Access to and awareness of this moorage should be improved. The remaining right-of-way area should allow for angle-in parking and vehicular access and turnaround. Complementary landscaping and street furniture would also be provided. It is expected that adequate screening and physical separa- tion occur adjacent to the industrial expansion area. A portion of the Central Avenue right-of-way south of Chestnut coiuld be vacated for private use. A significant new public promenade along the northwest bank of Whatcom Creek would extend from Holly Street to the Maritime Heritage Center. This project recreates the alignment and character of the historic Old Colony Wharf. A boardwalk structure extending over the creek bank is envisioned. The design should have a nautical boardwalk character. The structure will extend over the bank along the creek's edge. Period lighting, colorful banners, benches and other pedestrian amenities should all contribute to a unified theme. For example, steel pipe railings along the boardwalk could match those of the Maritime Heritage Center. A zig- zag boardwalk alignment around the creek bend could create viewing niches. Ibis route will connect the Maritime Heritage Center with Holly Street and allow a full loop through the park on both sides of the creek. An alternate route would require a bridge crossing the creek in the vicinity of Sash and Door. This second choice would still allow pedestrian movement to both sides of the creek. 77 The Old Colony Wharf Proinenade project requires private property acquis it ion /easements and would be implemented in concert with Projects #5 and #11. It would be developed in one phase and is considered moderate priority. A new public viewpoint would be located at the head of the waterway on Roeder on the former Citizens Dock site. The viewpoint would include a car pullout area with parking. A major public vi-ewpoint/observation platform is proposed adjacent to Holly Street offering views toward the Whatcom Creek Waterway. A heavy timber, nautical character planked deck is suggested with similar design elements to other public improvements. Opportunities for elevated views should be created. Two possibilities are view periscopes or an actual tower. A second, smaller public viewpoint from Roeder Avenue is located at the head of the Whatcom Creek Waterway. Public access potentials should be captured yet this location should clearly be secondary to the Holly Street platform. The same heavy timber, nautical character is envisioned. It should be connected with the walkway and parking located in the Central Avenue right-of-way. Phasing Public access improvements would be completed with the rehabilitation/ relocation of Citizens Dock (Project #1). Priority is high. The public viewpoints Central Avenue access improvements are critical projects and are also considered of high priority. Budget The project cost magnitude for the boardwalk and related amenities is estinoted at about $634,000. A budget amount of approximately $435,000 is estimated for pedestrian improvements associated with Citizens Dock site work. The public viewpoint/observation platform is envisoned to cost about $254,000. Improvements to Central Avenue public access and the Roeder Avenue viewpoint may amount to $380,000 and $325,000, respectively. 78 .. ... . ..... -1- ...... . ..... . Or r Ir .1 inni 11 U.71 wo. . ..... 0; ....... ..... ------- --- --- @J on I @4 I -J, '0 % I-J: n ....... . .. LIAGIMMEIL. a , I I .-. 1. M, -, -2- 1 1@1- . - I!. - vd livll.-%@- it uY r F-, In ............ t7?, .". mw .... ......... Jm4i.7@47TC5T ease .... ........... SR@L v! % rn Jim- Tief 3AM I - --.7 Vi . . . ......... V@7 . I ........ ... ........- 1, 0, t a 4n% . ..... . . . . . . . . .......... ............ ......... ........ . .......... . . ..... . .... . ...... . . . ........ .......... A nu v Figure 40 Improvement Project 3: Maritime Interpretive Center Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 50OFT Improvement Project 3 MARITIME INTERPRETIVE CENTER Description A "hands on" display of Indian culture, historic fishing and timber industry and local Old Tom traditions will be developed within the park. Lower cost/maintenance elements should be preferred. Old fishing boats, an Indian village or other recreated or original artifacts along with informative displays are envisioned. It is suggested that the interpre- tive center exhibits be integrated with the rehabilitated Citizens Dock. Phasing Staged development consistent with an overall plan or continually changing exhibits will likely occur. Development is of moderate priority and is dependent on funding and resource availability. Budget No specific cost can be defined. The range could be frcm donated "old fishing boats!' and labor/materials to a more elaborate project. 80 It ........... .... . ...... . ... s-p - I Je !@-,Odc . ... . ... ....... DUPONT 6T @11 0 ....... ................... ......... .- (3 .1 :F OMP i M E NJ 'T .0A ... ... .... . ...... v4 oil ............ ... . .. .... TE I 4-31 ... ..... - ----- i TE! i abow Now.... ... . ....... ==!J '77 HOLLY SIT "T' A-w .. . ....... ... . ...... . ..... lk"'Un. y .A i@"AAZ ............... ........... ...... ............ .. .......... ......... . ..... . . ....... . (FT: . . ........ .......... Vtl sit 'i wo,ii-win.. .... ... ... .... ...... ..... jL Figure 41 P Improvement Project 4: Public/Private Development Projects Fl@ Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 SOOFT improvement ProJect 4 PUBLIC/PRIVATE DEVELOPMENF PROJECTS Description Two joint public/private building projects are defined, both involving ground lease or sale of public property to stimulate local investment (please refer to market analysis). An office development (12,000 gsf) is suggested at the corner of Dupont and I'D" Streets which my include retail/restaurant space. The second project involves infill of commercial/retail space (12,000 gsf) along Holly Street. Continuous building frontage obscuring unattractive views and increased street level pedestrian activity would result. Together the two projects create a north/south tension and anchors to the park. Care must be given to the longer-term project maintenance and its enhancement of the park. Phasing Timing is dependent on market conditions, establishing a public/private partnership and preparing development plans. Action should be of high priority to the City to demonstrate confidence and commitment to the area. Budget Construction costs could vary considerably depending on the project scope. Cbst estimates for the proposed commercial spaces assume medium grade finishes and include parking (office space only). Project cost estimates may vary due to material and finishes used but are projected to be in the range of $1,159,000 for the office development and $864,000 for the retail space. The public/private costs and benefits are not yet detailed. 82 . ......... .... . .......... .... ...... k@ A"I 0#17 ir-r r-1 jf,, f N DUP,44T 6T ...... .... ... ...... so r4 r 41 Y .. .......... L -1d . . ........ . ...... . .. ..... ..... eutftfilt , .::., " rT 0 < H 71 77.-) f0M. 11 ON- Ir I A J rT 1 X n(f, !mob.* . . s, . . . . . . . . . . . . lb 06 el s2 jx V11 wnly-sT ............. r.Ji A . . ..... r7" ........... ............ .......... ......... . . ........ ........ .. ... . ...... ....... H 'At ............... iTi LEGEND' E= vacated streets Figure 42 Pedestrian Linkages/Promenade Improvement. Project 5: ConSolidated Development Area +-4 Vehicular Access Bell ingharn Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 50OFT Improvement Project 5 CONSOLIDATED DEVELOPMENT AREA The four-block area bordered by Bancroft/Holly/D Streets and Whatcom Creek Description is a central,' private improvement area with large property ownerships and established uses. Public street vacation of "C" and Astor Streets for each two-block length for private use is suggested. This action will enhance viability and functioning of current activities and increase flex- ibility for future changes. Pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and Maritime Heritage Center access/visual approach problems will be mitigated. Phasing This project must occur together with Projects #2 and #11 as well as with necessary zoning changes (Actions #14 and #15). A coordinated, one-time step is possible. Priority is considered high. Budget No direct cost is expected. However, there will be negotiations with the related public access improvements. 84 ....... . ..... .......... V gig E.-7 ........... r I , fl.;O. Y I INC .... ......... ... . . ..... A "WI t 4@> OU'a KI \< LA) ell .... ........ 01 0 n; U N r-1 t . . .......... ... . ...........- "aw" ..... ..... T 0 n'.4 4n .. ..... 71's ..... ........ ......... ... win 0 "1, .. . ....... .... ........ . . I ....... ........... ............. ........... .. ............... ... ..... 7. .. . ...... ........ "All 0 -EXP.A'14br: K A- AW- d Or ....... ... it WA I DEPEND @A IN ...... 0, X 4NSIOIN wq, F . . ...... LEGEND: Vacated Streets Figure 43 Improvement Project 6: Heavy Industrial Expansio n Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 50OFT improvement Project 6 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION Description 'Me Chestnut/Roeder Street realignment project will create new opportun- ities for heavy industrial expansion that can be appropriately separated and buffered from commercial activities. The area waterside (southwest) of the new street alignment could accommodate industrial use with the exception of the public viewpoint at Roeder and public moorage. The Chestnut Street and a portion of the Central Avenue right-of-ways my be vacated for private use/development. However, State law requires that "equal, or better" shoreline access must be provided. These negotiations are expected to be part of the Roeder/Chestnut realignment project. Further, the Whatcom Waterway will be "opened-up" for industrial related navigation with the removal of Citizens Dock. Expanded marine activity should occur which will enhance the adjoining property. Barge staging, tugs, and related waterborne traffic should increase. The transient moorage and seaplane activities should remain. Phasing Regulatory change should occur with the Chestnut/Roeder Street realignment project. Private development %ould occur subsequently. Priority is con- sidered high. Budget No specific cost is associated with the change. However, negotiated public/private cost sharing with the street realignment costs is required. 86 1[i@ .. .. ....... r rl 1,n 0 DUPONT 6 r @A rl (.,V T-7 "Z\k N\1 4, Ln I Cl VO .......... .. ..... Ji. fill 2, ni H1 CIO i -10 ftl A, Ir U.1 1 .....i HE: 19, ...... . . ..... @::,n; V. IT. .... ........ r ........... t.I W 1:0i. y S I . . .. ........ k, T!, . V U ........... .............. 4. 4@4 .. .- - - ; , ncv.. @.ZZJ 15 E -in . ..... ... - - ------ - ...... .... ..... An ............ Ult . . . . . . . . . . J J Figure 44 Improvement Project 7: Holly/T71looder Streetcape Improvements Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 50OFT Improvement Project 7 HOLLY/ I IF' I /ROEDER STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS Descri2tion 'Me intent of the improvements is to strengthen visually and functionally the connection between downtown and Squalicum Harbor through the Central Waterfront. Two-way traffic with on-street parking would continue along with pedestrian amenities (paving, curb bulbs, street trees with grates, coordinated signage and lighting, bollards, underground utilities, etc.). Key intersections would also be highlighted (see Projects #8 and #9). The humanscale element would create a continuity through the corridor. Particular attention must be given to the 'IF" Street transition to Holly and Roeder including widened curb radii and improvement of the railroad track crossing. Given the potential derived benefit to busi- nesses fronting the corridor, it is conceivable that all or portions of the improvement costs could be borne by the formation of a local improve- ment district. Phasing Highlighted locations (Projects #8 and #9) should occur first. Continuous infill and utility undergrounding: are important but could occur in the future depending on successful funding. Budget Sidewalk'improvements including curbs, brick'pavers, trees with iron grates, light standards, benches, planters, drinking fountains, newstands, and litter receptacles iDterspread along the corridor are estimted to total to an all inclusive streetscape cost of $527,000. This does not include traffic signals, bus shelters, utilities or underground work. Underground utilities (power and telephone lines) are estimated at $894,000. Additional costs of approximtely $12,000 would be associated with smoothing of the roadway over the railroad tracks at Holly and Roeder. 88 -tlnll . .... . .... . . .... u4n vl@ 4-1 J ei L . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. ..... in I @"A d r-T ...... ....... ............ .... .... .. 0 1;j n n r : . ... I @N OZ,N XN y e'll IT 4 9-1 r I I ..... ....... U. A -- .... .... .. ...... L.-J .. ......... 71 I%A ITI . . . ........ -.7 ... . ...... "Oz R I E@ ........ ... . IMF C VIE I VATIO' mv 1 @@a . . .......... .. .... ,R ................................. ........... ..... . ....... . . ...... ............ . .......... ,T, Jko . .... ... EE )-A ...... . ...... T, i9 ...... ............ Figure 45 Improvement Project 8: Holly Street Bridge and Gateway Improvements FT 7L@ Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBE3J GroLp 6 1 50OFT Improvement Project 8 HOLLY STREET BRIDGE AND GATEWAY IMPROVEMENTS Description A key, visible location to be accented is the Holly Street Bridge over the creek to Central Avenue. The use of banners and closely spaced old style light standards on the bridge will enhance its recognition as an important place. Special paving materials and signage will improve pedestrian street crossing. The adjacent development of the relocated Citizens Dock and view platform will enclose and complement the corridor. Parking and pedestrian access to the Maritime Heritage Center/Park and waterway will be improved. Improvements may also include bollards and park benches. Phasing A single development action is preferable and is considered high priority. It must occur in coordination with Projects #1, #2, #5, #7 and #9. Budget Total project costs for the bridge and related gateway improvements is estimated at $288,000. 90 A0 fit, 11111IN111 '1W I III I I it 11411111 j It I I I I 'ir, i tag I; I I I Ift ff tuffiliv I III' F gure 46 i Holly Street Bridge Gateway Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group b r ni r7irol I .......... ...........I __ V -in DUPONT @il Wne U4 14 IrAn- rN ............. ... . ... ..... .. fj A" . ....... I'l K lb 4. ...... .... Inn C. _77 77 IV, . . . ........ . . ......... . . . ...... . . A r .. .... ...... V . . . ........ . .......@ .......... ........... ............ ...... . . .... ..... . !L41 J;, . . ............ . .. np .............. . @ol 01 A LEGEND: * MaJor Improvements 0 Secondary Improvements Figure 47 Improvement Project 9: Intersection Improvements Bellingham Central Wateriront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 SOOFT Improvement Project 9 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Description Key intersections are identified for distinctive streetscape improvement. Curb extensions, paving, bollards, special landscaping, street furniture, lighting and signage will all contribute to the iimge making. There will be continuity through the area due to the repeated pattern. Existing clutter will also be reduced to improve area attractiveness and increase safety. Phasing Four intersections are of high priority for initial improvement: Roeder/ 'IF", Holly/'IF", Holly/'U', and Holly/Central. The other eleven locations are of moderate priority and should be coordinated with adjacent project development. Budget A prototypical high priority intersection improvement project was defined to include curb radii, bulbing, brick pavers, signage, lighting (see Project #7). An inclusive cost is estimated at approximately $192,000 per high priorty intersection and $106,000 per intersection for those with secondary improvements. 94 11A I Figure 48 Street Improvements at Holly and 'F' Streets R 71 ua .......... t. ..... ...... in) lawn p Ingo L ..... . .... 4 Ir"M i@_ ri NN V_ V i c in t, 2, V-1 0 e, e,11 ei@ ith X-1, ... . ......... ip k co f U. N, ....... ......... .......... . 10 _1 A.. % U ........ . .... .......... HOLLY ST . .. . ...... ? V1 A-4, -H . . .......... . ........... .. . . ........ .a@@r . ............ ............... .............. . .. ....... I--- . . ..... .......... ... . ....... . ........ 71 dli J Al _N@,L L A. Mi. Al ............... Figure 49 .......... Improvement Project 10: Chestnut/Roeder Realignment Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 50OFT Improvement Project 10 CHESTNUT/ROEDER REALIGNMENT Description Prior engineering studies have determined the need and the alignment configuration of street improvements at Roeder Avenue and West Chestnut Street. Land swaps for right-of-ways will be necessary. The route will improve truck access as well as other through traffic movement. Lighting, signage, and pedestrian improvements should also be included. The new alignment will create a clear separation between waterfront marine industry and upland activities. Provision of design features to enhance this separation should be included with the engineering aspects. Phasing The new street section and signalization should be accomplished in a single stage and is of high priority. Budget Funding is being sought from the State with local sharing of costs. Both City and private contribution is expected to be negotiated. The City has estimated the total project cost to amount to about $2,400,000. 97 .. ....... . ... 7@1 Orr n Cry, K A'Y ... . . ...... .. .. .. .... . ..... . .. . .......... ......... . ---- - ------ ...... XO U --T 1 J---A ...... . ... cl- 4;> y 17VO Af tnTFIRAF .1 N T S r ...... . .... -.9 .......... ANI@ LOU A 31P M1 r1l RITA @N"- P", WET HID' T. or -J V; w.Ju.y ev .. . ..... . ... . . . ....... ..... . ... . ............ .. J1 .. . ........ zt '10 ... . ............. ................ ............... ............... . . .......... Y@ ......... ...... ...... . .... . . .... J.-A.-A E".. oil 7-n ............... V. J Figure 50 (F 0 (VA U, 0 -, P@14 Improvement Project 11: Street Improvements Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 50OFT Improvement Project 11 I'D" STREET IMPROVEMENTS Description The street section of "D11 Street will be upgraded to allow two-way traffic and on-street parking within the existing right-of-way. Increased pave- ment width and revised traffic movement will allow a new main vehicular and pedestrian entrance/exit to the Maritime Heritage Center. Improve- ments would also include streetscaping and lighting. Improvements at 'ID" Street intersections (Dupont, Bancroft and Holly) must be coordinated. This vork must also be accomplished with Projects #5, #7, and #9. Pull-outs along "D11 Street should allow school bus parking and loading. Sidewalks should also be included. Phasing The street improvements should be accomplished in one step, including vehicular access into the Maritime Heritage Center. The projects are of high priority. Budget Improvements listed above are estimated at about $462,000. 99 /.X A" tlv WORIJ ............... ........... 0 1 . ... ......n ren .... . . .........- ....... .... . ......... 7@ .... . ..... ... . ....... A ri h V% p q .1 Vi@ MCI - Coll x A TA . . . ....... ........ .. . ..... .. . . .... . 7". ..... ... ... -.1 M-7 SI WNIA ... . ........ . .... .. ....... ....... . .... .............. ......- P jp! 7 . .. . ....... ........... . ...... ... . .... .... ....... .......... :" ............ -'z . ....... .. "@ ............... WAG 1 E' .. .. ........ ... .... .... ... ...... . ij- ... ..... . ........... Figure 51 Improvement Project 12: Upland Pedestrian Linkages r Bellingham Central waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 50OFT Improvement Project 12 UPLAND PEDESTRIAN LINKAGES Description The ability for people to move between the upland Government Center, potential entertainment/cultural area and Central Business District, and the Central Waterfront should be improved. Pedestrian paths and stairs, boardwalks and sidewalks, enhanced landscaping, bilge routes and shortcuts can be created. Connections to the museum should be made to the Holly/ Central area. Missing links to pedestrian trails through the Maritime Heritage Center should be completed. Finally, opportunities at a Broadway overlook and downhill connection should be captured. Phasing The linkages can be phased with adjoining development projects. Initial, minimal improvements can be made with future upgrades possible. Priority is moderate to high. Budget Limited pedestrian path projects described above are projected to cost in the range of $126,000. Major hillclimbs or overpasses are substantial in cost and are not included. 101 ............ . . ...... ............ a lot 0 In lfl qL Mir ya WE OIN ... . ...... . ...... 0.1 ....... n Chi .. . .... ...... i - CRE.r; ARKI ITH S 1 R--t W A Ae O'L -And 1 i W AR" xx 1) N6 _JL TO. Iff A t W.Wl T 6A Y 5T: W i-i(A.A.Y 81, . ..... . ..... . . .. ... ........ ..... - - ------- n I iX. ...................... . . ........ ............................ . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . JPD]12 @Y .......... No 'ING* N C E IY-,- Ot F .......... T 41 Figure 52 Improvement Project 13: Parking Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 50OFT Improvement Project 13 PARKING Description It is critical that adequate and conveniently located parking be provided to serve Central Waterfront uses. Additional parking is necessary to meet demands of the park and Maritime Heritage Center. In the longer term, a joint public/private parking garage could take advantage of grade differ- entials between Holly and the realigned Chestnut Street. Off-street parking should be prohibited along Holly Street. Parking should be located to the rear of the uses to create more continuous building frontages along the street. Dispersed and joint use parking should be encouraged. The existing public R.O.W. of Astor and "C" Street should be vacated and allow for private parking (see Projects #2, #5 and #11). Phasing The public parking to serve the park and Maritime Heritage Center should be accomplished together with high priority. The private parking/block consolidation project is a separate step but also of high priority. Individual parking lot development should occur over tin-e as developtrent projects occur. The timing and need for the public/private garage must be determined. Budget Obsts of surface parking are expected to be $1.50-$3.00/sf and about $3,305,000 for a 350 stall parking structure. 103 ....... ......... ..... . .... - ..." I _-W.-iff . ......... .......... Kk _IPATI @ >/ IL ....... a ............ a .... now .......... f @ H 0 PU J ..... ........ .......... . . . ........ ......... r i I i@@ '.) I - I I * - @ * * . - - @Y Pit t... I 3 L JER or J5 ............ . .... . ..... ... .............. AELA I U_ Fk L_.. Ll"r C 0 EP IJ .... ....... .... ..... ...... AST ME � T jil IT. L ..... . ....... r"A I ........ ....... . .... . ................. AL 5-:441 in , N A L A 16 . ........... .... .... g . . ... .... ... . ............ . . REQUIAE:""' q DESION J REVIEW 0 .............. ... El, @-J J1. IMP UN Figure 53 improvement Project 14: Lettered Streets Area 10 Zoning Changes Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 5 OFT improvement Project 14 L EI'FERED STREErS AREA 10 ZONING CHANGES Description Regulatory changes are required to bring action and to implement the desired projects. The types of long established existing uses are encouraged so that currently non-conforming uses would now be allowed to exist and to expand. The same Central Waterfront designation should be retained but the list of allowable retail and light manufacturing uses should be expanded. Design standards must be followed. Landscaping, protection of residential areas, screening of outdoor storage, etc. will all be required conditions. A Light Manufacturing Land Use designation appears appropriate. Phasing The action should be taken in one step and coordinated with related plan elements. Budget No cost is directly associated with this legislative action. Incentives and indirect benefits should occur. 105 Y I i (71 1@2' A; I I.C. 011 ............. .............. ...... ..... 17111 C 1@ Hi X"*t, . .......... . -A i A t AJ -A m J x ...... .. ... iA X-X, X-X-:-:-X.:.x . .. .... . ... -74 tRETA, U FiFtOklir" 0A 'e N-T - e I-Ak 1 1 i U "AA DESI N Oki . .... . AN A @1: -V e: t". 1 :_J 1,.::@ 7", J - El X-E:2 XX . . . . . . ,J ......... . Y, F a t J . ........ . ..... . . ..... .... . .. ........ .. ....... ... ... ......................... .......... ............................... ...... ............. j 11REQUIFfit 31! JfDESI'G:Np--@A- F' . ..... .. ..... ...... w. :REVIEWw I @ 1 6 . A!" VA... @V ............ f Figure 54 Improvement Project 15: Lettered Streets Area I I Zoning Changes Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 50OFT Improvement Project 15 LEITERED STREEFS AREA 11 ZON1W, CHANGE Description The current Waterfront Commercial designation should be retained but a broader range of non-water related retail uses should be allowed. The intent is to retain and encourage the generally lower intensity commercial/office/restaurant uses supporting the Central Business District and public properties. Design review is suggested to assure a consistent level of quality as in Project #14. Phasing The change is a one-time action to be coordinated with related plan elements. Budget No cost is directly associated with the legislative action. 107 fAN L A K-, 4, 'N' @A EIDI V -A oL %%% Ix ...... D N 5 3, TO r i Q," d I;k -2 N ........ ....K ......... . ... .......... .... ------ A i I-A S.I. 0i .......... 1,71: 1 M i i .J j 1 ..... ..... J, 1,; .......... .. ... .. ....... oil A", r7 4 r I J 1 . ...... i .............. ....... ...... ........... .............................. A Ii,, b, i, .............. Figure 55 improvement Project 16: Lettered Streets New Area 14 Zoning Change Bellingham Central waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 SOOFT Improvement Project 16 LEYFERED SFREETS NEW AREA 14 ZONIW3 CHANGE 26scription Incentives are suggested to promote residential development on larger sites, retain historic buildings and talge advantage of public open space amenities of the Maritime Heritage Center. A new planning area or modifi- cations to existing ones are possible implementing approaches. Specific- ally, the existing density requirement of one residential unit per 1,500 square foot of lot area should be eliminated. Also, contribution of fees to the City in lieu of required open space should be allowed. This approach could allow increased densities and provide dedicated funds for improvements to the Maritime Heritage Center. Phasing A single action is recommended. Budget No cost is directly associated with this project. 109 i P . . ....... b .......... ..... .... . ........... . . A 1 M r 3 in ui-J < ...... . ..... .. A J-1 W in .... . ...... iw lit jj: 1 xn 1 I @ I ........... .. ....... .... .. . . ....... i@ Z", . . ......... .. . ........ C:i @A ... . ..... .. .... ....... (71 @J i UA Z@i, J ........ ...... .......... @"J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . ..... . ..... .... . ...... ... .. S , ........... . 77. Mi", EX ............. EAVY St Figure 56 Improvement Project 17: CBD Area 15 Zoning Changes .rt Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 50OFT improvement Project 17 CBD AREA 15 ZONIW3 CHANGES Description This project is essentially the necessary legislative regulatory change to allow Project #6. The area is now designated Waterfront Comn-ercial and Central Commercial in the Bellingham Plan. When the Chestnut/Roeder Avenue connection is constructed and Citizens Dock is relocated upland, a physically distinct, water-related area will be defined. This area should be changed to a Heavy Industrial designation as part of CBD Area 15. Expansion of.Georgia-Pacific can then be accommodated consistent with the concept of heavy marine industrial uses waterside of Roeder Avenue. Phasing A one-time action is appropriate. Budget No direct costs are associated with the action. However, public/private negotiations are necessary related to this action and Projects #2, #6, and #10. IMPLEMENTATION The seventeen Improvement Projects will be the catalyst to bring about desired change in the Central Waterfront. Coordinated action, appropri- ately timed and sequenced is critical. A summary of the phased actions, with public/private responsibilities and costs is given in Figure 57. No specific timeline is defined because of the need for flexibility and uncertainty with funding availability. However, it is recommended that the steps taken to implement the plan be significant ones rather than small incremental actions. Timing is likely to be in stages: 0-3 years, 3-6 years, and 6-10 years to complete the revitalization. Figure 58 shows a further detailed outline of recommended implementa- tion. Variations will likely occur given uncertainties with funding and decision-making. Several projects are interrelated while others are dependent on related actions occurring first as indicated in the chart. Further detailed cost estimates and project descriptions/assumptions are included in the Appendix. 112 Figure 57 Implementation Schedule Es t ima. t ed Construction Costs (1986 Dollars) Responsibility Step One � Chestnut/Roeder Realignment $2,400,00 Public/Private � Citizens Dock Relocation and Rehabilitation $ 517,000 Public/Private (including land acquisition) � Public Waterfront Access: - Area adjacent to Citizens Dock $ 435,000 Public - Public Viewpoint/Observation Platform $ 254,000 Public Roeder Viewpoint $ 325,000 Public � Public/Private Developnent Projects: - Office @ Dupont/"D" $1,159,000 Private - Retail @ Holly Street $ 864,000 Private � CED Area 15 Zoning Change 0 Public Step Tvo Public Waterfront Access: - Old Colony Wharf Promenade $ 634,000 Public � Maritime Interpretive Center not determined Public/Private � Consolidated Development Area 0 Public/Private � "D11 Street Inpro vements $ 462,000 Public � Letter Streets Area 10 Zoning Change 0 Public � Lettered Streets Area 11 Zoning Change 0 Public Figure 57 Implementation Schedule (cont.) Estimated Cc)nstruction Costs (1986 Dollars) Responsibility Step Two continued 0 Lettered Streets New Area 14 Zoning Change 0 Public 0 Heavy Industrial Expansion - Private 0 CED Area 15 Zoning Change 0 Public Step � Public Waterfront Access: Oz@ntral Avenue $ 380,000 Public � Holly/Roeder Streetscape $1,433,000 Public/Private 0 Holly Street Bridge/Gateway $ 288,000 Public � Intersection Improvements $ 767,000 PLblic/Private - 'IF"/Roeder 'T"/Holly - Holly/ItV - Holly/General � Upland Pedestrian Links $ 126,000 Public Future Intersection Improvements $1,164,000 Public/Private - Other Identified Intersections Parking Structure $3,305,000 Public/Private Figure 58 Improvement Projects Outline IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PRIORITY ESTIMATED BUDGET REQUIRED ACTIONS TIMING SEQUENCE LEAD RESPONSIBILITY 1. Citizen's Dock Relocation High $442,000 - determine engineering First Step with Project 2A City Council/Mayor with and Rehabilitation feasibility Planning and Economic - acquire private property Development Department to expand park - prepare detailed design and cost estimate - secure funding 2. Public Waterfront Access High $2,026,000 - acquire property/easements Planning and Economic A. Area adjacent to for promenade A. First Step with Project I Development Department Citizen's Dock - secure funding 8. Old Colony Wharf - prepare detailed designs B. Second Step with Projects Promenade 5, 11, 14 A 15 C. Public viewpoint/ C. First Step with Project 1 observation platform 0. Roeder viewpoint/ D. First Step with Project I traffic pull-out E. Central Avenue access E. Third Step 3. Maritime Interpretive Moderate Not Determined - seek out donated exhlbit Planning and Economic Center material and funding Development with Museum and Maritime Heritage Center 4. Public/Private Development High $2,023,000 - attract private developers First step Planning and Economic Projects - make public property Development A. Office (Dupont/0) available 0. Retail (Holly Street) - assess feasibility, fiscal impacts J Figure 58 knprovernent Projects Outline (cont.) IMPROIEMEN1 PROJECTS PRI ORI 11 ESTIMATED BUDGET REWIRED ACTIONS TIMING SEQUENCE LEAD RESPONSIBILITY 5. Consolidated Development High negotiate with property Second Step with Projects 2A, Planning and Economic Area owners 11, 14 & 15 Development with Engineering Department and Property Owners 6. Heavy Industrial Expansion High negotiate cost sharing Third Step with Projects 10 Planning and Economic with Georgia-Pacific and 17 Development with Georgia- Pacific 7. Holly/Roeder Streetscape High $1,42B,000 - prepare detailed designs Fourth Step with Projects 8, Planning and Economic and cost estimate 9A, & 11 Development with Engineering Department - obtain funding B. Holly Street Bridge/ High $288,000 - prepare detailed designs Fourth Step with Projects 7, Planning and Economic Gateway and cost estimate 9A, and 11 Development with Engineering Department - obtain funding 9, Intersection Improvement,, Planning and Economic Development with Engineering A. F/Roederv F/Holly, High $767,000 - prepare detailed designs A. Fourth Step with Projects Department Holly/Dt Holly/Central and cost estimate 7, 8, & 11 B. Other Intersections Moderate $1,164,000 - obtain funding U. Future Step 10. ChestnuL/Roeder Realign- High $ - apply for/obtain State Third Step with Projects 4B, 6 Engineering Department with ment. (City Estimate) funding & 17 Planning/Economic Development and Georgia-Pacific - negotiate with Georgia- Pacific - prepare detailed design 11. I'D" Street Implementation High $462,000 - prepare detailed designs Second Step with Projects 2A, Engineering Department with and cost estimate 5, 14, & 15 Maritime Heritage Center - obtain funding Figure 58 Improvement Projects Outline (cont.) IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PR I OR I T-Y ESTIMATED BUDGET REQUIRED ACTIONS TIMING SEQUENCE LEAD RESPONSIBILITY 12. Upland Pedestrian Links Moderate $126,000 - coordinate linkages with Fourth Step Planning and Economic development Development - obtain funding 13. Parking 5tructure Low $3,305,009 - negotiate joint ptblic/ Future Step when demand Engineering Department private property warrants development - determine parking demand/ feasibility 14. Lettered Streets Area W High 0 - prepare staff analysis/ Second Step with Projects ZA, Planning and Economic recommendation 5, 11, & 15 Development with Planning Commission - obtain legislative approvals 15. Lettered Streets Area 11 High 0 - prepare staff analysis/ Second Step with Projects 2A, Planning and Economic recommendation 5, 11 & 14 Development with Planning Commission - obtain legislative approvals 16. Lettered Streets New Area High 0 - prepare staff analysis/ Second Step with Project 4 Planning and Economic 14 recommendation Development with Planning Commission - obtain legislative approvals 17. CBD Area 15 High - prepare staff analysis/ Third Step with Projects 6 Planning and Economic recommendation 10 Development with Planning Commission - obtain legislative approvals Economic Development incentives and Funding Sources A number of ideas are available for public-sector actions or programs to induce economic growth and market demand within the Central Waterfront. Among them are: Providing tax incentives for developers (i.e. reduction or abatements) Favorable pricing of public services such as water and sewer Public lease commitments for space in new private commercial developments Public assistance in site assembly Favorable public ground leases Formation of transfer of development rights (TDR) Land exchanges between the public and private sectors The above incentives would assist in the creation of new growth and opportunities in the private and public sectors. Potential local, state and federal funding sources have been used in the past in other locations and are potentially relevant for the Central Waterfront projects. The current status -of these programs is effected by current budget cuts. The following programs appear to be the most likely sources for development and infrastructure improvement financing. For Project Development: - IAC Grants (Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation) - UDAG's (Urban Development Action Grants) - SBA (Small Business Administration 503 and 7A Loan programs) - Block Grants 118 Infrastructure Financing: - LIDs (Local Improvement Districts) - C.E.R.B. Loans and Grants (Community Economic Revitalization Board) - Public Infrastructure Trust Programs - E.D.A (Economic Development Administration Title I Grants) Project Development - City General Obligation Bc)nds Funding Project development funding will likely involve combinations of the above listed program with heavier dependence on the Federal programs (UDAG, SBA and Block Grants). Key sources are highlighted. Urban Development Action Grants (UDAG) The UDAG program was formed in 1977 and is administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The purpose of the program is to provide incentives (funding) for private investment in cities. Cities must be on UDAG's eligibility list to qualify for funding, which Bellingham is. Eligible development types include residential, commercial and industrial uses. UDAG applications are evaluated based on a specific set of criteria which includes estimating the projects: 0 Importance in stimulating private investment 0 Potential to generate new employment for low and moderate income people 0 Effect on the city's downtown economy 0 Potential economic impact on the overall community UDAG funds may be appropriate for development of commercial and/or retail projects proposed in the Central Waterfront (Dupont, I'D", and Holly Streets). Small Business Administration (SBA) The Small Business Administration provides long-term loans at below market rates through their 503 and 7A programs. Eligible businesses must have a net worth of at least $6 million. Newly established businesses are eligible only if they have principals in the firm who have proven abilities and experiences in the particular business areas. The 503 program can be used to fund new construction, land purchases and equipment. The 7A program is used to fund working capital only. SBA loans are restricted to business owners and users and are not-available to developers. The typical funding mix is 50% from a private lender, 40% from a SBA loan ($500,000 maximum) and 10% equity. SBA loans could be instrumental in providing needed capital for expansion of existing businesses and/or new start-ups in the waterfront area. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) CDflGIs are administered through the Department of Housing and Urban Development and are directed mostly towards housing and commercial/ industrial developments. The eligibility criteria evaluates projects according to: 0 Their ability to promote private investment and conmnity revitali- zation 0 The amount of long-term ernployment potentially generated for low and moderate income persons 120 Interagency Conrnittee for Outdoor Recreation UAC) IAC was created as a State agency in 1964 to assist state and local agencies in the acquisition and development of outdoor recreational areas. In order to be eligible for funding, jurisdictions nust meet a series of requirements, including being on an applied eligible list and having a current Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan. The City of Bellingham has a comprehensive parks plan but needs to update it to maintain eligibility, which they are in the process of doing. Local jurisdictions must provide a minimum of 25% of the total project costs with the reminder conposed of state and/or federal funds adflinistered by the IAC. Improvements to the Maritime Heritage Center my be partially funded by this program. Infrastructure Funding A series of five local, state, and federal programs were listed as poten- tial funding sources for proposed infrastructure improvermnts in the Target Area. (bmmunity Economic Revitalization Board and Public Infrastructure Trust Fund Two of the five proposed programs are State funded and administered Comnunity Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) and the PLblic Infrastruc- ture Trust program. The improvements to Roeder Street were in fact partially funded by the Public Infrastructure Trust Fund. Economic Development Administration (EDA) The EDA is a federally funded program whose purpose is to enhance the national economy by assisting areas in economic distress. The program is administered under tvo sections, Title 1 which funds infrastructure and other public improvements and Title 9 which is used for strategic planning and inplementation studies. EDA grants are available to states, cities, redevelopment areas, economic development councils and other non-profit agencies working on redevelopment. 121 Local Improvement Districts (LID) Local funding sources may include the formation of LIDs and the use of General Obligation bonds. All or portions of the proposed streetscape improvements such as those planned for Holly/"F"/Roeder corridor could be paid for by an LID given the potential benefit to business fronting the Ho I ly/ 17' /Roeder corridor. General Obligation (GO) Bonds The City will likely use GO bonds to fund portions of the planned infra- structure and public facility capital improvements in the Central Water- front area. GO bonds which are secured by the sponsoring jurisdiction require voter approval. The bonding jurisdiction must also be within the prescribed indebtedness levels in order to issue a GO bond. The City of Bellingham's current indebtedness level is very low, making the issuance of GO bonds possible. In summary, various local, state, and federal sources are available, although at a reduced level from past years, to assist in the funding of the proposed development and infrastructure improvements. The funding of the plan elements will likely involve the combination of the various programs previously described. 122 I I I Planning Background I 11 I I I I I I I I I As part of the planning process for Bellingham's Central Waterfront, a series of llcharrettes@l or intensive participatory vDrk sessions were held with members of the Waterfront Task Force, Technical Committee and general public to gather and review planning data/facts, provide direction and create solutions. These cbarrettes mere documented in a series of Progress Reports which are a separate Technical Appendix. These reports document the detailed back- ground data collection and planning analysis done during the course of the 16 week planning process. This section highlights key issues, goals and objectives, physical and environmental analysis, regulatory assessment, and the market analysis and business survey. Further, the derivation and evaluation of alternatives is described. ISSUES The first Issues and Directions Charrette was held in Bellingham on March 4, 1986. The purpose of the charrette was to confirm data collected during the first four study tasks. The first task was to define the key issues concerning the redevelopment of the Central Waterfront. 1. The Plan for the Central Waterfront must be "implementable". A number of studies had been done within the study area over the years including the Whatcom Creek Plan of 1973, the Coastal Zone Management Study of 1977, and the Civic Center Plan of 1978. Little in the way of specific improvement projects has resulted from these studies. The desire for specific improvement project recommendations was expressed. 2. Another issue was the Type, Amount and Location of Land Uses to be developed within the Central Waterfront. Historically the area was the original town site of Wbatcom, which later became Bellingham. The original settlement had a mix of land uses. It was typical of a frontier town in the Northwest with fish processing plants and saw mills sharing the narrow beachfront with retail stores, residential hotels, shipbuilding, warehousing, and civic buildings. 123 As Bellingham developed and geographically expanded, the Central Water- front area was dominated by manufacturing, warehousing and marine indus- trial uses. The most significant remaining use is the large Georgia- Pacific Pulp and Paper Mill located along the Whatcom Creek Waterway and at the mouth of Whatcom Creek. Over the years these industrial functions influenced the types of land uses locating within the Central Waterfront. In recent years, there have been successful efforts by industrial users to improve the water quality and reduce noise and air quality impacts caused by operations. Develop- ment pressure increased to provide a wider range of uses within the area, while at the same time protecting existing longtime businesses from displacement. The issue of compatibility of industrial uses with new uses was raised. Also, there was the issue of water-dependent/water-related retail uses being required even though most of the zoned area was isolated from direct water access. The Whatcom Creek Waterway is the only navi- gable portion of the waterfront yet water-related use restrictions apply elsewhere. 3. There is the need for Economic Development within the area. The City and Fourth Corner Development Group sought ways to renew economic growth in Bellingham. The Plan should attract new development to the area and should suggest specific improvement projects and public awnities that would stimulate investment. The City felt that public improvements already made at the Maritime Heritage Center could be built upon and become a focus for new economic growth. 4. The fourth major issue expressed was the need for Group Consensus for Action. For any plan to work it would have to have consensus among the various public and private interest in the area. Active participation in the study included representatives of the City including the Mayor, the Port of Bellingham, Georgia-Pacific, the Fourth Corner Development Company, the Bellingham Planning Commission, Western Washington University, as well as property owners, businesses in the area and the general public. 124 Other Concerns In addition to these key issues, a number of other concerns were voiced during the charrette by various participants. These are summarized below: Land Use 0 How much land should be allocated for Waterfront Industrial uses? 0 What level of water/land use relationship should be established? 9 What is the balance between uses with technical/functional waterfront needs versus those that desire waterfront proximity? 0 Displacement of smaller businesses. & Waterfront trends: the decline of Heavy Industrial/Manufacturing uses and increase in Commercial uses. 0 The relationship between the number of employees in relation to land area. Encourage labor intensive uses given limited waterfront sites. More employees per square foot. 0 Shipping requires large land area with large economic return for a limited number of employees. Georgia-Pacific 0 Continue plant operations without public objections. 0 Minimize chances for public exposure/conflict. 0 Support Heavy and Light Industrial uses. Some Office/Commercial use is acceptable. 0 Oppose residential, hotel, convention center-type development that would be people intensive with 24 hour presence. 125 City 0 Want revitalization of Central Waterfront area. * Must stimulate and attract private development projects. 0 Maritime Heritage Center is major public investment. 0 Area clean-up is desired. * Citizens Dock should be saved and relocated. 9 Willing to re-assess City zoning. 0 Public/private funding needed to save Citizens Dock. Fourth Corner Development Group 0 Want economic improvement of area. 0 Encourage uses that tend toward Light Industrial and Commercial such as Sash and Door and St. John's Glass in a transition area. a Specialty Retail/Office/Commercial uses are supportive of CBD 0 Desire a strong linkage along Holly Street between CBD and Squalicum Harbor. 0 Encourage but separate Heavy Industrial uses south of Roeder Avenue. 0 Concentrate retail and office uses in CBD such uses in Target Areas should support CBD 126 Port 0 Support Heavy Industrial uses along Whatcom Creek Waterway. 0 Support a mix of Light Industrial, Office and Specialty Retail Commercial uses within Target Area. 0 Improve vehicular and pedestrian linkages between Squalicum Harbor and the CBD 0 Interest in Convention Center and hotel at Squalicum Harbor. Others. 0 Flexibility in regulations may encourage change. 0 Economic commitment and predictability are necessary assurance for private investment. 0 Environmental quality and aesthetics must be improved. 0 Recognize residential uses bordering hillside and desired compatibil- ity. 0 Property assemblage difficulties from multiple ownership. a Historic "Old Town" pride of property owners creates strong personal ties. 0 Protect and enhance land value. 127 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES In addition to the four major issues and other concerns debated during the initial cbarrette, a number of goals and objectives for the Plan were discussed. Included were the following: � Encourage investment not just market response � Change or modify_zoning in the area � Protect and enhance existing businesses � Improve Roeder and Holly Streets � Improve the Maritime Heritage Center � Control nuisances such as odors, and � Create land use flexibility through such things as design guidelines In addition to these general goals and objectives, the various partici- pants in the study expressed a number of general goals. Some of these have been expressed in other planning documents such as the Bellingham Plan and the Shoreline Management Master Program. Still others are objectives of the Port of Bellingham, the Fourth Corner Development Company, and Georgia-Pacific. The following goals affect the Central Waterfront Planning area. City 0 Develop urban open space amenities to vitalize the CBD and adjacent areas. 0 The Shoreline Master Program should be amended to permit passive urbanization (fountains, bulkheads, etc.) in trade for public accessi- bility. & Capitalize on the commercial and public access potential of the waterfront area, including Whatcom Creek. 0 Retain historic and cultural resources. 0 Minimize adverse impacts among incompatible uses and different use districts. 128 0 Provide pedestrian connections to link the CBD, Civic Center, and the Waterfront. 0 Rehabilitate Citizens Dock and other suitable old buildings for appropriate waterfront uses. 0 Develop the Central Waterfront as a commercial, recreational, and Marine Use Center. * Provide opportunities for public viewing of Georgia-Pacific operations and maritime activities. 0 Areas along navigable waterway should be retained for water-dependent and water-related uses. 0 Expand and diversity Employment base. * Strengthen the CBD and capitalize on the proximity of the CBD to the Central Waterfront in order to revitalize this important area. 0 Planning for the CBD and Waterfront should provide for a transition to appropriate retail, commercial, entertainment center, recreational, governmental, cultural, service, marine, industrial and tourist-related uses. 0 Encourage multi-use development providing public access. Port of Bellingham 0 Work with new and existing businesses. 0 Promote the local economy, tourism and recreation. 0 Serve the people of Bellingham considering by not controlled only by economics. 1.29 0 Create a design quality and assure compatibilities necessary for a working waterfront with recreational opportunities. 0 Encourage a viable mix of businesses. * Assun-e the Port will act as the catalyst toward successful developmn t by making trend-setting improvements. Georgia-Pacific 0 Bellingham Division should continue as a major operating am of Georgia-Pacific Corporation. 0 Produce pulp, paper, and chemical products for domestic and worldwide markets. * Assure environmental protection. 0 B-- a good neighbor. * "Working mn's town" should have acceptable uses. 0 Citizens Do& should be moved. Fourth Corner Development Group 0 Fourth Corner Development Group is organized to provide leadership and services for economic development of Whatcom County. 0 Fourth Corner Development Group Board consists of representatives of education, municipal corporations, and private businesses. 0 Market Whatcom County. 0 Assist businesses in locating and prospering in the community. 0 Improve governmental processing of project (siting and regulatory aspects). 130 Others: Property Owners/ Private Interests/ General Public 0 Burlington Northern to maintain existing tracks as major routes serving Bellingham. 0 Maritime Heritage Foundation has major interest in Central Waterfront as well as the Lettered Streets Neighborhood. 0 Avoid displacement of existing businesses in the.area. * Allow for greater range of retail uses. 0 Change zoning to allow non-water related retail uses. 0 Facilitate the realignment of Roeder and Chestnut. 0 Encourage more people-oriented activities in the study area. 0 Save Citizens Dock. 0 Create an inward focus around Whatcom Creek. All the goals and objectives were used as a basis for the development of land use alternatives for the Central Waterfront area. They were also a basis for preparing evaluation criteria. 131 PHYSICAL/ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A physical/environmental analysis of the Central Waterfront area was con- ducted to determine the potentials and constraints of the area. Planning determinates were defined that affect future use and development. The focus of the analysis was the area identified as the Central Waterfront Target Area., Ibis area comprises approximately 63 acres of which 26 acres are within the public right-of-way and 37 acres are platted land (Figure 11: Study Area.) In addition, a larger Influence Area was examined in order to understand context in which the Central Waterfront exists and the potential impacts changes in the Target Area my have on surrounding neighborhoods. This Influence Area included Squalicum, Harbor, the Lettered Streets Neighborhood, the Central Business District (CBD), and the Georgia-Pacific Industrial Area south of the CBD The Influence Area comprised approximately 400 acres including the Target Area. The physical and environmental analysis considered the following: 0 The Influence Area identification 0 The Target Area identification 0 History of development 0 Existing land uses 0 Land area size, parcelization and ownership 0 Topography 0 Circulation system and access 0 Utilities and capacities 0 Public services 0 Environmental conditions such as winds, natural features such as hills, solar exposure, view orientation, water bodies, drainage and noise exposure 0 Cultural and historical resources such as historically significant buildings 132 0 Railroad activities 0 Transit 0 Pedestrian and bike paths and travel distances 0 ImagAbility of the area The analysis of the physical and environmental elements was given in terms of potentials, or area attributes, which could be enhanced throum the Development Plan, and constraints, or limitations which must be recognized and effectively addressed. These potentials and constraints are graph- ically summarized in Figures 58 and 59. The key findings are listed below: (AIsD see Issues/Directions Charrette Report 1) 0 The Target Area is approximately 63 acres in,land area of which 26 acres is within public rigbt-of-ways. 0 The Influence Area which includes the CBD, the Goverment Center, the Lettered Streets Neighborhood, Squalicum Harbor, and the Georgia- Pacific Mill act together to createa framework in which planning will occur. 0 The Central Waterfront Target Area is the "missing link" between the CBD and Squalicum Harbor. 0 Views are primarily to the south and west from the upland areas and up and down along street right-of-ways within the Target Area. 0 The Maritime Heritage Center is a major amenity and public focus for education and recreation in the area. 0 Whatcom Creek is a significant water feature that divides the area, is open space, and is controlled from flooding. 0 Water frontage is mostly along Whatcom Creek not Bellingham Bay. 0 The Whatcom County Museurn and Bay Buildings are prominent as landffarks, visual organizing elements. 133 Figure 59 A_ Potentials V1 R T A p, '-rr C7 Mr. '171 r r7 < @ZllIII' f.-r M7 =T OA f5LO -------------- r r@, - ------- EF, Fi P-@ ITU 'N 77_-J- 01 -MAW "T tv T. i TEhm 0@_' Vll r LARC of; "410 'tog U%O RK VMA&F, I LAW till, @"V t TC7 , 60 6ellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group Figure 60 Constraints Ix 00 40 33-Mi 51 1A, Yu n Mr, 4;;@ -AX - ----- 1:7 Mw -GR, M, DIM. IOX @7L@: r,7 R41 NOME Pft P! -OP TRAr-re" ROSPER MA64 UNft!CM, CO tea OF# 4:- tdo 19100AOM Ir C3 J@ CO x COMPA St 6A L 5 WINOO CAR FL7- RUN05 IAL.4 Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group The existing image of the area is of marginal uses, visual clutter caused by outdoor storage, signage, and utilities. Historic Citizens Dock is a landmark but is in poor condition and might be moved. � The Target Area reflects the junction of the different platting and street patterns. 0 Blocks vary in size and shape due to the platting and grid network. � The Target Area is compact in size being 3,500 feet long by betwen 500 and 1,300 feet wide. � The area reflects a use mix diversity with compatibility conflicts. The Whatcom Creek Waterway exhibits a high level of water dependent industrial activity. The area exhibits a coarse grain development pattern due to the industrial type buildings, vacan parcels, and lack of street edge definition. The area has a number of multiple ownerships with several large holdings; some with large undeveloped parcels. The existing utility systems are capable of supporting new development. Upland access to the CBD is restricted due to topography. Topography subdivides the Target Area. The primary arterials of Holly, Roeder, and 'IF" Street establish the circulation structure. The Chestnut Street re-alignment will improve circulation. 136 � The railroad tracks and operations create a barrier at 'IF", "C", and Central Streets. � There is good areawide access to 1-5 via Lakeway Drive and Squalicum Parkway. Lakeway Drive to the east is the primry City gateway. � Walking distance and time is convenient within the area. However, the distance between CBD and Squalicum Harbor is excessive. � There is unrestricted 'on-street parking in the area. Industrial uses spill-over into public right-of-way. � Primary arterials define edges of the study area. These include Dupont, Prospect, Bay, Broadway and Roeder. � Prevailing winds are from the south-southwest during much of the year. This causes odors from the Georgia-Pacific treatment pond to blow on shore toward the Lettered Street Neighborhood and CED where most complaints are registered. Occasionally during winter months winds will blow from the south-southeast which could impact portions of Squalicum Harbor with odors from the ponds. 137 io HI ("A cn ............. ...... K\@ > jofl 8, A f X. I A W aR.1611. H206-- W.I... I@X I ........... ............. ........... *.-I.?;:* -:-4 -F :V ...... ..... ..... ..... ........ ...... ...................................... i:-j .0 .............. ......... 4v -A . .. . ........ . . ............... LEGEND: El $1-2/sq.ft. Tax Exempt Over $11/sqft- Figure 61 El $3-4/sq.ft. $7-8/sq.ft. Land Value $5-6/sq.ft. $9-10/sq.ft. Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 10 100 50OFT ... . . ..... inn I.rrri) V Nil rl .............. q .... memo ----- -------- . . ....... ... ...... 04 S%A N Ri, flji AJ 6.4 I Q,"A& CIO 3 JT, .-A r-1 4 m..L Wooksce li 6 6 U . .. . . ......... 3 3 7 .... ...... . ......... ......... ...... .......... ................ ............... . . ............ .... . ..... . . .. . ........ .......... ... 2 E if ........... . ... . ........ . rl Figure 62 Ownership (See Legend on Facing Page) not Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group' 0 100 OOFT Ownership Legend: 1 . City of Bellingham 38. Carl Akers 2. Georgia Pacific 39. NW Recycling Inc. 3. Parberry 40. Eleanor Gravem & Laura Clarke 4. B'ham Sash & Door 41. Legal Center 5. Great Northern RR 42. Puget Sound Power and Light 6. Burlington Northern 43. Craig Smith 7. D. L. Gordon 44. McMillan & Rogers Inv. 8. Ester & Diamond 45. Huggins, Thomas & Taggart 9. Apeland 46. Barada 10. Northwest Consultants 47. Whatcom County 11. Mitchell & Wittren 48. Commerce Land Co. 12. Westford 49. State of Washington 13. Kapoor 50. Meadow Lake Building Co. 14. Ake rs 51. John Kinghard 15. Church of Divine Man, Inc. 52. Peach & Hindman 16. Dawson & Bornstein 53. Roger h1hittaker 17. McElroy 54. G.S. Graham 18. Beecher & Fihd, Inc. 55. Hindman Peach & Razore 19. Hanson 56. Gallery Partners 20. Lenard Cords 57. Cascade Laundry Co. 21. Vaughan-Pope 58. Marie Kappel 22. Bruton 59. Prospect Mall Building 23. Leenstra & Kelstrup 60. Clinton Sands 24. Hason & Kohler 61. G.A.L. Corp. 25. Moreau & Cole 62. Hal Arneson 26. Rosellini, Wactrip, Smith & Miller 63. Tiscormia & Bertolotti 27. Holly Venture Partnership 64. Wistoski 28. Wilcox & Schrimsher 65. Salvation Army 29. Holly Street Professional Buil ding 66. Paul Pace 30. Jr. Chamber of Commerce 67. Waterfront Alley 31. Edith Branlund 68. Myer Bornstein 32. Hal Jr. & Hal III Arneson 69. Rietmen 33. Yorkstrom 70. MuIja t 34. Dennis Beeman 71. Thornberg 35. Schenk & Darberry 36. Light House Mission 37. Lydia Krassen 140 2D 1-@ IN x (71. 1 4@' IVY, K Ile S, W rl v n h lpl r 1 C t I_ 4@ vy X1 I N.z @c 'Y 7'. AT 1. ot _K i(U @1; il L V@ 1, -J I IN( rn@ 2 ek .71 92 i 2.2 7 Q` ..... ...... '0 .!q.F.!R.9S . ....... .. ... 2 8 2 3 28 -JU J ...... . ...... IiJ 'tt, k v -. J- -@ 17 9 2 @ fi 63 9 2 'jl -.71 2 -7, 28 . . ...... Ir 140 .a .. , A ,.92 .92 01 2 0 28" .27 IAZ@@ ,nr X!@ 7@[email protected] FT1 .... ........... r ................ .............. ......................... ............ ............ 7 F J, 31 An 4A ........... 37 .......... 1-A .............. .. j NOTE: Total Area of Platted Lots Approximately 37 Acres Total Area of Rights-of-Way Approximately 26 Acres TOTAL 63 Acres Figure 63 Land Areas @9 i@@ Be Hingham Central Waterfront Development Plan Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 5 OFT' ff @14 id ki 1 1! ko .... ...... . X -.3 4, A ... ......... ..................... 'j Ul M 4n c-, v W. .... ...... .. ......... . ..... < j Is' is 000"), i) 8,066;. OF J :" 1: . ...................... N, Nswim ... v;w . ... ... -.- " ... .1 1.1- .. .. . ........ ....... 7, if 0 i-SJ3001 jq .- 9 i '. 39 91 Ob' Olt 4 j 00 4q6l@ 1 d 7 .......... 7:7 "M 04 Is 7 X -06 3W 4W is, A 6, ...... ... . ........ .. ........... ............................. .............. ...... ........ . ........ .. .... .... ...... J* A .. ........ 4. 2. ............ 0 ........... NOTE Individual Building Areas are Agregrated by Block Area of All Structures Including Covered Storage Figure 64 Existing Building Areas 7, ('@@ X FTTL Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 50OFT ...... ............. ........ ..... q t'n r"I I flur, 31 1 . @' r Y'f . . . . . . . . . . . .............. .. ........ jq@' "0 k" 1, 71 X, ILA .. . ....... ;tA " YO@ V? P ........... .. ... .. ... 6, % A X" . .......... .... .. ..I N fi . ............. .. @ @7 Ij I - I I-, .. ...... .. ...... U., I Al ............ (62 ...... ....... ... IF Yell .... ....... . ... . ...... ....... .............. ......... .......... .... _5 W .............. _J -Low., LJ Figure 65 Historically Significant. Buildings Bellingham Centr@l Waterfront Development Plan F-I F] - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100- 50OFT REGULATORY ASSESSMENT In addition to the physical and environmental analysis of the study area, a regulatory assessment was conducted to evaluate the land use controls and how they affect redevelopment. The following regulatory controls were reviewed: 0 Bellingham Comprehensive Plan 0 Land Use Development Ordinance of the City of Bellingham * City of Bellingham's Shoreline Management Master Program 0 City of Bellingham Specifications and Standard Plans Department of Public Works 0 Northwest Air Pollution Authority Regulations The key findings of the regulatory assessment are listed below. (Also see Issues/Directions Charrette Report 1) Bellingham Plan and Land Use Development Ordinance 0 The Central Waterfront area contains portions of the Bellingham Plan's CBD and Lettered Streets zoning districts. * The Target Area currently contains the following zoning designations. Central Business District Area 6: Civic Center Area 10: Central Commercial Area 14: Waterfront Commercial Area 15: Heavy Industrial Lettered Streets Neighborhood Area 8: Residential-Multi/Multiple, Mixed (offices allowed) Area 9: Residential-Multi/Multiple or Planned Area 10: Waterfront Commercial Area 11: Public The maximum height limit of buildings within the area zoned Waterfront Commercial is three stories or 35 feet. 144 � The mximum height limit within the Lettered Street Neighborhood Area 8 is 45 feet and 35 feet in Area 9. � The Waterfront Commercial designation currently limits the types of retail businesses to those which are water-related. � The Waterfront Commercial designation allows the following uses: - Eating and Drinking Establishment - Groceries - Dance Halls - Public Utilities - Theatres - Marinas - Offices - Public Parks - Hotels and Motels Parking Facilities - Aquariums and Nautical Museums Boat Building - Art Galleries and Studios Web Houses - Water-related Retail Uses Fish Processing - Second-hand Surplus or Antique Stores Handicraft Manufacturing � The Waterfront Use Qualifier is intended to revitalize the historic waterfront areas with a people-oriented marine use atmosphere The intent is to reserve property abutting and/or in close proximity to the shoreline for commercial, light industrial, and recreational activities which depend upon or traditionally related to the waterfront, or to those uses which will lend or help support a mrine-type atmosphere. � The Central Commercial designation of properties uphill from the Central Waterfront is intended to accommodate a broad range of goods and services located within the City's dominate commercial center. � The industrial designations are intended to reserve land exclusively for industrial and industrial-related uses. In order to lessen traffic congestion, industrial areas should be located in areas with direct accessibility to arterials, railroads, or saltwater transportation systems. 145 The Heavy Industrial Use qualifier is intended to accommodate uses which may create a higher degree of hazard or annoyance than those permitted in any other land use classification. Certain uses Stich as residential and retail businesses are not permitted in order to ensi ra that heavy industries locate in areas where their operation will either be injurious to nor hindered by those uses. The Lettered Streets Neighborhood Area 9 is intended to provide a mix of multi-family residential uses as well as office uses. Residential densities are based on 1,500 square feet of lot area per residential unit requirement. This is currently the highest density allowed in Bellingham. The Lettered Streets Areas 8 and 9 recognize the importance of preserving older historic houses in the area. Conversions of existing housing to duplexes is allowed in Area 9 of the Lettered Streets. Parking requirEments are as follow: Heavy Industrial - Manufacturing: 1/5,000 gsf or 1/employee - Warehousing/Wholesaling: 1/20,000 gsf or 1/employee Commercial - Office: 1/350 gsf - Restaurant: 1/75 sf of floor area - Publicly accessible Residential Multi-Family - 1 space/studio unit - 1.5 spaces/2 bedroom unit - 2 spaces/3+ bedroom unit - Compact car allowance up to 40% of spaces Residential units with 5 or more units are required to add 1 space for every 30 units of handicapped parking 146 Shoreline Management Master_Program � The Target Area is located within the Urban I designation of the Bellingham Shoreline Management Master Program. The intent of the Urban I designation is to provide areas for intense shoreline devel- opment which enhances the shoreline and its aesthetic attributes. � A 25 foot building setback from the bigb water mark is required. � Development along shoreline must have a Shoreline Management Substantial Development permit from the City. � Residential uses over the water are prohibited. � The Urban I designation does not prohibit any uses outside the 25 foot setback. All types of commercial uses are allowed. The assessment of the regulatory controls indicated the following problems: � There currently exist a number of non-conforming uses within the Waterfront Commercial zone that existed prior to the adoption of the Bellingham Plan. These retail businesses cannot expand or move within the area zoned Waterfront Camiercial unless their retail operations are water-related. � Although the Waterfront Commercial designation is intended to reserve property abutting and/or in closer proximity to the shoreline for water-related uses, the vast majority of the property within the Central Waterfront Target Area does not relate to the water, and the creek is not navigable past the Roeder Street Bridge. 147 The Multi-Residential Mixed Use area of the Lettered Streets Neighborhood Area 8 contains a number of large vacant parcels which have not developed in part due to density and open space requirements of the Plan. @ It was felt that reducing the amount of land area per residential unit and allowing for open space fees to be paid to improvements at the Maritime Heritage Center Tark in lieu of providing on-site open space might provide the incentive for new Mixed Use Residential development in this area. An attempt to correct some of these inherent problem in the zoning of the area has been made as part of the recommenda- tions in the Development Plan. 148 ... . ..... .... N @x X, it @Z .n 14 ri 71 Nsrm.@74 L 6 A 14 @n HIQ@: D -RES 1 641' IQ NTIALL,: P A 1D 0: MI H T tClt W7, J.1 P C-1 XJo FiA i iLYT .......... . ........ A 77 -7@ t OD 14 ATER (IN A :100M .... .... . .. .. .......... SID ri L M U ...... . . . ........ 05D.- "I'l@. A. wir P. R A-. ........ . . f"N -:.1 @ :.:.. p.-- I , 1 - j @ 17 i F WEST 6:12104 mARINE.: h.. L COD 4 INDUSTRIAL HEAVY . ...... ... 13D. INDUSTRIAL j V RIAL LEGEND: CBD Central Business District LS Lettered Streets Figure 66 MHC Maritime Heritage Center Zoning MC- Marine Commercial Bellingham Central Waterfront. Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 50OFT ............... .............. .. ... . ...... "07 7%@, ri 1" f@jq it . ...... ........ .......... in- . .... ..... .. ........ .. . .......................... . ri r rJ .... ... ... . ....... A'V ... . ....... j n-, w V. & t UIX IT Ali . . ........ , Al, bit Mow 20 ir iiil. it i t I i; /I "" f! : ! (- -J tt f jj@ In RIC I 11 ... ....... It I'M 4 A ............... ............................. . r ............ It . ........... ......... ....... . . ....... ...... . . ....... "Rim ...... ..... A @";,i on J, W I'A .......... J J k . . . . . . Figure 67 Non-Conforming Uses 17 FLJ Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 100 50OFT J ftERMV xjw, 45 ok PO i, pf-I MAI CZNTEP, 41, WC6URW KEY: Existing Planned Planned E x p a n so 11"',\ V1UF.0 XN- N F".0 Hym CfONTM -LF-L- Figure 68 FLJ '12 Market Area COMMERCIAL MARKET ANALYSIS Introduction/ Methodology To determine the economic feasibility of commercial development in the Bellingham Waterfront area, a socio-economic and commercial n-arket analy- sis was undertaken. The purpose of the market analysis was to identify and describe potential alternate uses for the waterfront area and to forecast the future demand for those uses. The study involved an analysis of Whatcom County generally and Bellingham specifically. Figure 68 shows the study area and adjacent commercial projects (existing, planned, and existing with planned expansion). he llowing four kinds of commercial properties were examined: � Office � Retail � Hotel/Motel 0 Industrial Each of these development types was surveyed to determine the amount of development and location of: � Existing space 0 Major commercial projects under construction � Major development projects planned in the near future The methods used to compile the data included: personal and/or telephone intervievk; with key local real estate, planning, and economic profes- sionals, and review of secondary data sources. 152 Interviews were held in Bellingham with representatives from the following private companies and public entities: � Coldwell Banker/Miller Real Estate, Inc. � Kelstrup Realtors � Intergroup Inc. � The Trillum Corporation � Bellingham Chamber of Commerce � Whatcom County Council of Governments � Bellingham/Whatcom County Visitor and Convention Bureau 0 City of Bellingham Planning and Economic Development Department 0 Whatcom County Real Estate Research Committee 0 Western Washington University 0 Equity Investments Business Department 0 Port of Bellingham 0 Ticor Title Listed below are the major written data sources used for the market and socio-economic analysis: � Whatcom County Real Estate Research Report, 1979-82, 1984-1985 � Bellingham/Whatcom County Total Taxable Retail Sales 1977-1984 � Fourth Corner Development Group - Community Profile, 1985-1986 � Southport Market Feasibility Study, 1984 � Bellis Fair Regional Mall - Draft EIS, 1985 � SRI - Industrial and Business Opportunities for Whatcom County, 1983 � Canadian Impact Study - Whatcom County Council of Governments, 1978 � City of Bellingham Annual Financial Report, 1984 � The Economic Future of Whatcom County - Whatcom County Council of Governments, 1983 � Whatcom County Population Projections (1980-2000) - Whatcom County Council of Governments � Whatcom County Economic Fact Sheet - Bellingham Chamber of Commerce 153 Employment Statistics - Washington State Employment Security (local office) 1981-1985 - Employment/unemployment - Wage surveys - Employment projections by occupation Bellingham Herald Annual Economic Report Whatcom County was defined as the relevant market area. In addition, the influence of Canadian spending was considered for its implications for development along the waterfront. Study conclusions are based on: * General economic conditions in Whatcom County, Bellingham, and Washington State 0 Specific determinants of demand for each use 0 Competitive supply of similar uses 0 Market share and potential absorption over time All development types were considered for the waterfront except residen- tial development. The industrial character of the area combined with a soft residential market makes residential development less likely along the waterfront than other uses. Demographic and Economic Trends A review of demographic and economic trends establised the context in which development in the Bellingham area, and the Central Waterfront would take place. Historical conditions provided a basis for forecasting future conditions. Both historical and future conditions were used in forecast- ing the type and quantity of commercial space demand. 154 As noted earlier, the study involved a socio-economic analysis of the greater geographic area beginning with the Whatcom County area and culminating with the City of Bellingham. Population Whatcom County grew more rapidly (2.7%) than the entire State (1.9%) between 1970 - 1980 as shown in Table 1. The majority of the growth was in areas outside the City of Bellingham. The growth rate for the Vancouver Metropolitan area over the approximate time was 2.4% per annum, which was greater than the State, but lower than Whatcom County. TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF POPULATION GROWTH RATES Whatcom County, Bellingham, Washington State and Vancouver, B.C. 1970-1980 Growth Rate Average 1960 1970 1980 Cumulative Annual Whatcom County 70,317 81,893 106,701 30.3% 2.7% Bellingham 34,688 39,375 45,794 16.A 1.5% Whatcom County minus Bellingham 35,629 42,518 60,907 43.3% 3.7% Washington State 2,853,214 3,413,244 4,132,180 21.1% 1.9% 1961 1971 1981 1971-1981 Growth Rate Vancouver, B.C I I Metropolitan Area 826,626 1,082,201 1,366,368 24% Comprised of Greater Vancouver, Langley (City and Municipality), Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Statistics Canada; Squalicum Harbor Market Analysis. 155 Table 2 compares the population growth rates of the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County and the State from 1980 to 1985. As shovi in the preceding table, Whatcom County continued to show higher growth rates than either the City of Bellingham or the State during the period, with the largest increases being maintained in the areas outside the City of Bellingham. TABLE 2 EXISTINGj POPULATION City of Bellingham, Whatcom County, and Washington State 1980-1985 Grovkh Rate Average 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Cumulat ive An nua 1 Whatcom County 106,701 109,900 111,100 112,100 113,700 119,000 11.5% 2. rm City of Bellingham 45,794 46,400 45,950 45,900 46,010 50,600 10. TM 2. 00m Whatcom County minus Bellingham 60,907 63,500 65,150 66,200 67,690 68,400 12.3% 2.3% Washington State 4,132,180 4,226,600 4,264,000 4,285,100 4,328,100 4,384,100 6. ro' 1. 2wo Source- Forecasts of the State Population by Age and Sex 1986-2010, Office of Financial Managenent, December 1985; Whatcom County Council of Governnents Fact Sheet, Whatcom County Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 1985-1986. 156 The most recent forecast of population by the Whatcom County Council of Governments (Table 3: Forecast Population) shows an average yearly growth rate of 1.9% for the County and 1.4%'for the City of Bellingham through the year 2000. Those rates compare to 1.2% for the State over the same time period. Once again, the greater growth rate is expected to be in areas outside of the City of Bellingham. TA13LE 3 FORECAST POPULATION City of Bellingham, Whatcom County, and Washington State 1985-2000 Grovkh Rate Tverage 1985 1990 1995 2000 Cumulat iw An nua I Whatcom County 119,000 132,000 144,200 156,700 31.7% 1. 90m, City of Bellingham 50,641 55,069 58,947 62,041 2 2. 9% 1.4% Whatcom County minus Bellingham 68,359 76,931 85,253 94,659 38. 51% 2.2% Washington State 4,384,100 4,640,465 4,941,013 5,249,387 19.7% 1. Na Source: Forecasts of the State Population by Age and Sex 1986-2010, Office of Financial Managertent, December 1985; Whatcom County Council of Governments Economic Fact Sheet, Management and Planning Services calculations. 157 Employment In the decade from 1970 and 1980, employment in Whatcom County increased cumulatively 40% with an annual average of 3.6% as seen below. The unEmployinent rate for the same time period increased from 8.5% to over 10%. TABLE 4 EMPLOYMENT IN WHATCOM ODUNTY Growth Rate 1970-1980 1976-1980 Average' Ave rage 1970 1976 1980 Cumulative Annual Cumulatiw An nua 1 Total Employment 30,920 37,950 44,100 42.3% 3.6% 15.9% 3.8wo Total UnemploynL-nt 2,890 4,230 4,980 72. 7@ 5.6% 17. 70o' 4.2% (Percent Unemployed) (8.5) 00.0) (10.2) - - - - Source: Washington State Employmant Security Departmant, 1982 Annual Planning Report- Bellingham SMSA (Table 4), Management and Planning Services calculations. 158 The 1980-85 employment rates for both the County and the City of Bellingham showed a decrease during the recession years of 1980 and 1981 and an upturn beginning in 1983 and continuing to the present. TABLE 5 EMPLOYMENT IN WHATCCM COUNTY AND THE CITY CF BELLINGHAM 1980-1985 Gr ovk h Rat a Average 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Cumulat iW An nua 1 Total Employment Whatcom County 44,100 42,400 43,200 45,700 44,900 48,400 10.(N 1.9% Bellingham 21,740 20,900 21,300 22,530 22,140 23,860 9 . ro 1.9% Percent Unemployuent Whatcom County 10.2 11.9 12.9 12.1 10.9 9.2 - Bellingham 10.8 12.5 13.6 12.8 11.5 9.7 Source: Washington State Employment Security Department, Research and Analysis Division, February 1986 (Table 4), Management and Planning Services calculations. 159 The average annual population growth rate for the County and the City during the first half of thedecade (1980-1985) was of 1.9%, which is over 50% lower than the rate experienced in the preceding years 1976-1980. Unemployment figures for the County and Bellingham increased from 10.2% and 10.8% in 1980 to 12.9% and 13.676, respectively, in 1982. This compared to national figures of 7.9% and 11.0% in those specific years. The post recessionary recovery in the early 1980's resulted in a decrease in the average annual County and Bellingham unemployment rates from 12.5% in 1983 to 9.5% in 1985. Table 6, on the following page, shows the employment trends in Whatcom County from 1975 to 1984. The Whatcom County employment base contains several resource related industries. The two major resource-based industries in the County are agriculture (e.g. dairy, poultry and vegetable/berry production) and food processing. Whatcom County has ranked either first or second in the entire nation in dairy production in recent years. Commercial fishing and related industries (e.g. processing and cold storage) as well as forestry and related products serve as key job producers in Whatcom County. Overall, total nonagricultural employment showed an equal growth rate between 1975 and 1984. Reflecting the trends in the nation at large, the highest rates of employment growth have been in the services, wholesale/retai-I trade, finance, insurance, and real estate categories. The wholesale and retail trade sector has employed the largest number of workers from 1975 to 1984. 160 TABLE 6 WHATCOM ODUNTY HISTORIC EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR, 1975-1984 i-9 Z-5 1974 1!77 2978 1979 1980 19111 iinz L" B-1 is 8-4 jobs !Lobs J@jL Jobs Jobs i A% -3obs jobs jobs 11-1 Jobs i 'A Jobs -L, L Jobs !A _U - - Total cmiloymant. 36,220 (1001 30,800 11001 40,400 (100) 42,250 (100) 44,680 ji0o) 44,000 (100) 42,300 (1001 42,400 11001 45,340 (1001 44,900 (1001 Total Agriculture/Solt bmp./involv@4 in Labor- Management Disputes 6,340 (17.51 7,140 118.3) 6,730 (16.6) 7,320 117.3) 8,170 118.3) 7,840 117.6) 6,060 11fi.21 7,300 (17.21 9,050 120.01 7,930 117.71 Total Nonagriculturat W,39a and Salary - Workers 29,080 183.5) 31,660 tB1.4) 33,670 (03.2) 34,930 (83.4) 36,530 491.71 36,160 182.2) 35,440 181.81 35,100 (02.01 36,300 lao.11 16,900 152.41 Total Manufacturing 6.410 (17:0) 6,830 (17.61 6,740 (16.61 6,600 115,G) 7,320 116.41 7,250 (16.5) 7,080 (16.7) 7,00D 116.S) 6,810 JIS.11 6,160 415.11 Total Durable 3,010 (0.41 3,140 (8.1) 3,120 17.7) 2,810 16.61 3,590 16.0) 3,430 17.8) 3,230 17.9) 3,200 17.7$ 2,000 (6.81 2,190 (1.11 Total 11ondurable 3,380 19.31 3,690 (g.s) 3,620 (a.9) 3,790 (8.91 3,730 18.4) 3,820 is.71 3,750 18.61 2,720 ((k.11 1,760 (6.31 3.570 (6.01 Mining/Miscallaneous "340 10.91 60340 (0.91 390 (1.01 280 10.7) 280 (0.6) 3@0 (0.61 200 (0.71 230 (0.51 100 (0.21 90 (0.2) Construction 1,010 15.01 11960 (5-01 2,220 (5.5) 2,460 15.8) 2,620 (6.91 2,040 (4.61 1,850 (4.41 1,590 11.71 1,740 13.6) 1.710 (3.9) Transportation, Commni- cations, utilities 1,780 (4.91 1,740 14.5) 1,820 (4.5) 1,970 14.6) 2,100 14.71 2,060 (4.7) 1,650 (3.91 1,570 (3.71 1,660 (3.71 1,660 11.71 141olosale/flatall Trade 6.900 (19.3) 7,890 120.2) a,620 121.3) 9,210 (21.5) 9,550 (21.4) 9,140 (20.7) 9,270 121.91 9,390 122.11 9,890 121.6) la'io 122.61 rinands, insurance, - pool Estate 1,060 j2.9) 1,110 (1.01 1,240 (1.31 1,400 (1.5) .1,540 (1.4) 1,470 (3.3) 1,560 13.71 1,450 11.4) 1,410 13.11 1,410 -(]. I I Sarvices 5,050 113.91 5,430 114.01 5,830 114.4) 6,200 114.6) 6,100 (11.8) 6.580 114.9) 6,610 (15.6) 6,900 116.21 7,440 116.41 7.350 116.41 Goyarnment 6.00 (11.81 6,100 (16.71 6,710 (16.61 �,820 (16.11 6.920 (15.5) 7,320 (16.6) 7,120 (16.8) 6,070 116.41 7.230 (15.91 7,040 117.51 114aans a at total employment. !'rot&4LCy and fishing were Included In this category for then* years. Sougcos# Washington State Employment Socurity Department, March 1981. hit values are annual averages. Bob flue, Seattle Office, Washloigton State Employment Becurity DapartAont, March 6, 1985 lConversation) 1983 and 1904 Statistics The following table lists the top 10 employers in Whatcom County for 1985 and 1986. TABLE 7 TOP TEN EMPLOYERS IN WHATCOM COUNTY 1985 1986 1 Employees Employees 1. INTAL00 1,238 1,214 2. Western Washington University 1,070 1,071 3. Georgia-Pacific 946 984 4. Bellingham Schools 775 801 5. City of Bellingham 502 529 6. Whatcom CDunty 512 504 7. ARCO 428 431 8. Flederal Goverment 400 418 9. St. Joseph Hospital 322 340 10. St. Luke's Hospital 324 334 Dnployment stated as full-time equivalents (FTEs) Source: Bellingham Herald, March 4, 1986 162 The latest employment forecasts (June 1986) for Whatcom County show a stability in the employment rate through 1987. TABLE 8 EMPLOYMENT FORECAST - WHATCOM COUNTY 1985 1986 1987 Total 48,400 47,300 48,300 Unemployment Rate 9.2% 9.4% 9.4% Source: Employment Security Department, Demographic Information Report for Whatcom County, Table 2B due to be released in Ju Iy 1986. Personal Income- Table 9, on the following page, sunmarizes historical and forecast growth in effective-buying income for Whatcom County and the State. Effective buying income is basically defined as per household income available after taxes. It is calculated by the "Sales and Marketing Management Data Service." Overall growth in effective buying income has been modestly higher in Whatcom County than averages observed for the State of Washington, especially in the years between 1978 and 1982. In contrast, the median buying income per household from 1980 to 1982 was 1.5% to 13% lower than the State household averages and is projected to be 23% lower in 1987. 163 TABLE 9 EFFECTIVE BUYING INCOME TRENDS Washington Whatcom County Per Per Year Total Household Total Household 1978 $23,434,436 $15,738 $ 605,588 $15,938 1979 $27,078,090 $17,656 $ 712,586 $18,019 1980 $31,079,904 $19,417 $ 862,840 $19,088 1981 $36,188,966 $20,600 $ 951,538 $20,300 1982 $40,312,059 $22,315 $ 982,953 $19,740 1987 (Projected) $76,927,997 $41,520 $1,539,817 $339601 COMPOUND AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE 1978-1982 12.0% 9.1% 12.9% 5.5% 1982-1987 13.8% 9.4% 9.4% 11.2% Source: Sales and Marketing Management's "Survey of Buying Power", "Data Service", Southport Market Feasibility Study, 1985. Retail Sales The following table summarizes historical growth in total retail sales. TABLE 10 TAXABLE RETAIL SALES ($0001s) Whatcom County Bellingham Washington State 1980 $603,961 $361,588 $1,199,522 1981 636,722 381,278 1,235,716 1982 6729466 424,685 1,5339925 1983 747,956 460,706 1,869,254 1984 751,668 466,462 2,003,787 OOMPOUND AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATES 1980-82 5.57o 8.4% 17.1% 1982-84 5.7% 4.8% 14.3% Source: Washington State Department of Revenue, Research and Analysis, March 1986; Fact Sheet, Whatcom County Chamber of ComflLarce and Industry, March 1985; Management and Planning Services calcula- tions. Growth in retail sales for Whatcom County and Bellingham have been below overall State averages in the period from 1980 and 1984. This may have been due to several factors, among them the slight economic downturn in key non-services industries such as lumber and fisheries and a decrease in Canadian spending, upon which the County and cities have become increas- ingly dependent. 165 The increased dependence on Canadian spending in the Whatcom County econorW was highlighted in the Canadian Impact Study (CIS) prepared by the Whatcom County Council of Governments in 1978. The CIS research team estimated that nearly one-third of all retail sales in the County Wre due to Canadians. More current estimates are not available, although it was felt by individuals interviewed during the course of this study that the level of general spending by Canadians has decreased from past levels because of disfavorable exchange rates. The CIS analysis cited the following reasons why Canadians shop in Whatcom County, specifically in Bellingham: 0 47% - low prices 0 32% - good selection 0 8% - close to Canada It was estimated in a current study (Bellis Fair Draft EIS, January 1985) that 61% of Canadians visiting the United States had conL- for shopping. Of the 61%, 6576 had come to shop in Bellingham. The table below lists southbound border crossings at Blaine. TA13LE 11 SOUTHBOUND BORDER CROSSINGS AT BLAINE, WASHINGTON 1981 1982 1983 1984 7,593 6,790 7,853 7,100 Source: United States Customs, Southport Market Feasibility Analysis lee As shown, border crossing decreased by 6.5% from 1981 to 1984. Much of the decrease in southbound crossing and therefore Canadian spending and investment can be attributed to the decrease in value of the Canadian dollar from the early seventies to the present. Table 12: Average Monthly Exchange Rate on the following page lists the historical value of the Canadian dollar from 1973 to 1984. The exchange rate for Canadian to U.S. dollars is currently around 70.50 (29.5% discount). The declining Canadian dollar has had an adverse affect on retail sales and Canadian land investments in Whatcom County. TABLE 12 AVERAGE MONTHLY EXCHANGE RATE (%) Canada/United States, 1973-1983 Month 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981- 1982 1983 Janua ry 100.09 100.87 100.52 99.36 98.92 90.92 82.50 84.50 82.25 82.50 80.00 February 100.45 102.39 99.95 100.63 97.29 89.63 82.25 85.25 81.94 80.75 79.75 March 100.34 102.88 99.97 101.44 95.14 88.84 83.00 84.25 82.50 80.50 80.00 April 99.94 103.30 98.90 101.70 95.14 89.60 85.00 80.50 82.50 80.25 79.75 May 99.95 103.94 97.67 102.04 95.37 89.37 86.25 82.00 81.75 79.50 79.75 June 100.17 103.48 97.42 102.71 94.56 89.16 84.00 85.50 81.50 77.00 79.25 July 100.06 102.45 97.02 102.06 94.25 88.93 84.10 85.25 81.00 76.50 79.50 August 99.62 102.06 96.59 101.49 93.03 87.69 84.10 85.00 79.50 78.25 79.00 Sept. 99.20 101.39 97.45 102.56 93.17 85.74 84.70 84.25 81.50 79.75 79.50 October 99.91 101.73 97.45 102.82 91.01 84.55 83.25 84.00 81.50 79.75 79.75 November 100.12 101.30 98.64 101.45 90.16 85.27 83.50 82.92 82.75 80.25 79.50 December 100.06 101.20 98.64 98.16 91.14 84.78 84.25 82.08 82.50 79.25 78.25 Source: Bellingham National Bank 167 Market Analysis Commercial Office Space Survey Findings Current Market Conditions Based on the most recent Whatcom County Real Estate Research Committee survey (Fall of 1985), the metropolitan Bellingham area can be subdivided into the following 17 tracts or geographic market areas as shown in Table 13: Bellingham Area Census Tracts and Figure 69: Census Tracts City of Bellingham. TABLE 13 BELLINGHAM AREA CENSUS TRACTS Tract Area 1 Mount Baker 2 Bellingham Airport 3 Birchwood 4 Columbia Cornwall Park 5 Lettered Streets/Sunnyland/York 6 Central Business District 7 Roosevelt 8 Alabama Hill/Silver Beach 8 North Shore 8 South Shore 9 Puget/Whatcom Falls/Samish 10 Sehome/WWU 11 Fairhaven/South Hill 11 Edgemoor 12a Happy Valley South 12b Lake Samish 12c Chuckanut 168 BGkerview 1-5 (D 4 No h 7 Alabarna 5 caltcor@n BELLINGHAM 6 Lakeway Drive V BAY 10 11A Mill Ave. Donovan Ave. w ill q 12*A N ce 11 LA D EN Figure 69 Census Tracts 12 C- City of Bellingham The Target Area of our study is contained within census areas numbers 5 and 6. Refer to Figure 68: Market Area for existing, under-construction, and planned projects. Table 14, on the following page, summrizes the results of the 1985 survey. Historical data on the office niarket is contained in Table 15. Historically the downtown fringe was the principal area for office development from 1977 to 1981, as evidenced by an annual absorption of about 25,000 square feet per year. Overall, annual absorption from 1977 to 1982 averaged approximately 41,000 square feet a year. Areawide occu- pancy of Bellingham office space during the same time period averaged around 85%. The downtown/CBD area currently contains approximately 44% of the total stock followed by the downtown fringe and other areas, with 33% and 23%, respectively. It should be noted that a sizeable amount of office space listed as being in the downtown fringe in the Whatcom County Real Estate Report is actually considered to be part of the CBD, specif- ically the area south of Cornwall Avenue and east of Holly Street. Also, space attributable to conversions of single-family residences to office space may or my not be included in the office survey information. Due to a soft commercial market, the overall occupancy rate for office space has decreased from just under 85% in 1982 to about 82%. The overall annual absorption decreased from approximtely 41,000 sf/year in 1982 to just under 10,000 sf in 1985, a 76% decrease. A total of four new buildings were built from 1980 to 1985, as compared to 19 in the period from 1977 to 1982. During this period (1980-1985), one new building was built in the CBD. The majority of the new office construction occurred in the highest area of historic absorptions, the downtown fringe (two buildings). 170 TABLE 14 1985 BELLINGHAM OFFICE SPACE Existing Stock and Development Between 1980 and 1985 1985 Bellingham Commercial Office Space Space Built Between 1980 - 1985 Number of Total Net Average Average Average Number of Total Net Average Average Buildings Sq. Ft. . Sq. Ft. Age Occupancy Buildings @q. Ft. Sq. Ft. Age Downtown (CBD)' 14 255,876 18,277 38.8 68.8% 1 3,420 3,420 2.5 Downtown Fringe2 22 192,277 8,740 20.7 94.7% 2 39,300 19,650 5 Other Areas3 18 136,980 7i610 6.3 82.1% 1 6,836 6-2-83-6-4 4 Total 54 585,133 10,836 21.9 81.9% 4 49,556 7,476 3.8 Average Annual Average Annual Sq.Ft. Absorption Absorption as % of in the Last 5 Years Current Total Stock Downtown 684 0.1 Downtown Fringe 7,860 1.3 Other 1,367 .2 Total 9,911 1.6 1 Census Tract 6. 2 Oensus Tract 5. 3 Census Tracts 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10. 4 Average based on one building because square footage of 2 new buildings were not available. Source: Whatcom County Real Estate Research Report, Volume 7, 1985, pp. 52-55. TABLE 15 1982 BELLINGHAM OFFICE SPACE 1982 Stock and Development Between 1977 and 1982 1982 Bellingham Commercial Office Space Space Built Between 1977 and 1982 Number of Total Net Average Average Average Number of Total Net Average Average Buildings Sq. Ft. . Sq. Ft. Age Occupancy Buildings Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Age Downtown (CBD)l 9 191,179 21,242 44.1 84.2% 1 17,600 17,600 2.0 Downtown Fringe2 20 187,763 9,388 14.1 91.4% 9 123,678 13J42 2.3 Ot her Areas3 14 133,308 91522 4.1 78.7% 9 63,776 7,972-4 2.8 Total 43 512,250 11,912 17.1 84.8% 19 205,054 10,792 2.5 Average Annual Average Annual Sq.Ft. Absorption Absorption as % of in the Last 5 Years C@irrent Total Stock Downtown 3,500 0.7 Downtown Fringe 24,700 4.8 Other 12,750 2.5 Total 46,950 8.0 1 Census Tract 6. 2 Census Tract 5. Census Tracts 1, 3, 4, 9, 10. 4 Average based on eight buildings because square footage of a new building was not available. Source: Whatcom County Real Estate Research Report, Volurne 4, Spring 1982, pp. 74-75. Projected Office Absorption/Demand The primary office-using employment sectors had the following average annual growth rates in Whatcom County: Annual Growth Rate W Employment Sector 1970-1980 1975-1984 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 8.8 3.2 Services (e.g. accounting, legal) 8.4 4.3 Transportation, Utilities & Communications 2.9 (0.8) Goverment 3.5 2.2 In all cases, growth rates for the period 1970 to 1980 were higher than those for 1975 to 1984. This indicates that employment growth in these sectors slowed substantially during the last half of the decade. As previously mentioned, annual absorption of new office space from 1980 to 1985 averaged about 1.6% of the current stock. Table 16 lists projected office absorption for the City of Bellingham. The forecast was based on historical absorption rates from 1980 to 1985. TABLE 16 PROJECFED CUMULATIVE OFFICE ABSORPTION City of Bellingham 1986-1990 1990-1995 Downtown (CBD) 2,736 6,156 Downtown Fringe 31,440 70,740 Other Areas 5,468 49,212 39,644 126,108 Source: Whatcom County Real Estate Research Report, Volume 7, 1985, Management and Planning Services calculations 173 The forecasts are conservative in that they assume a continuation of recent trends. Under this assumption, the downtovo fringe area, which contains most of the study Target Area, would absorb about 31,000 square feet in the next four years (1990) an additional 39,300 square feet by 1995. As noted earlier, portions of the CBD are contained within the downtown fringe area resulting in a understatement of projected demnd in the CBD. One 12,000 square foot building, as proposed by the Waterfront Plan, located at the corner of Dupont and I'D" Street would represent 40% of the forecast 1990 absorption and 17% of the 1995 estimated absorption. Such a capture rate could be obtained at a prinL- upland, high amenity (e.g. Maritime Heritage Center) site in the next five years. Lease Rates Rental rates for office space are primarily a function of location and prominence (e.g. central business district, suburban, etc.), and the quality of the building finishes and amenities. Table 17, on the following page, lists the lease rates for the City of Bellingham. As shown, lease rates vary greatly due to a mixture of lower- to upper-grade properties within each market area. Projects Under Construction No new large-scale office projects were observed under construction or mentioned during interview sessions held over the course of the study with the exception of 29,000 square feet of medical office space near St. Joseph's Hospital and a recently completed 20,000 square foot mixed-use development at Guide Meridian and 1-5. 174 TABLE 17 BELLINGHAM COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE LEASE RATES 1985 Whatcom County Real Estate Survey Rental Range/Square Foot s2 Tri Gros Downtown (CBD)3 N/A $ 5 - $12 Downtown Fringe4 $ 3 - $11 $ 6 - $15 Other Areas5 N/A $ 8 - $14 1 Includes base rent only. 2 Includes base rent and operating costs such as utilities, maintenance, taxes and insurance. 3 Census Tract 6 (see Figure 68: City of Bellingham Census Tracts) 4 Census Tract 5 5 Census Tracts 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 Source: Whatcom County Real Estate Research Report, Volume 7, 1985, pages 52-55 Planned Projects Due to the current softness in the office market, no major projects are planned in the target or adjacent areas (i.e. CBD and fringe). The only exception being some planned office/mixed use developments north of the City in the Guide Meridian/Cordata areas. More specific inforffation on these projects is not yet available. The Trillium Corporation's Cordata project is a 600-acre mixed use development which is planned to contain a 65-acre free trade zone, 1,500 single/multi-family units, 150 acres of open space and lastly 300 acres of land designed for commercial, and commercial/industrial development. 175 Commiercial Retail Space Survey Findings Current Market Conditions According to the survey conducted by the Whatcom County Research Committee, there was approximately 4.3 million square feet of retail space in Bellingham and vicinity in 1985 as compared to 3.9 million and 2.5 million square feet in 1984 and 1983, respectively. The 1.4 million square foot increase in the retail area between 1983 to 1984 was due to @the large addition/expansion of retail space in all of the market areas, especially the CBD (Census Tract #6), the Roosevelt area (Census Tract #7), the Lettered Streets Neighborhood (Census Tract #5), and the Bellingham Airport area (Census Tract #2). Table 18 shows the retail space distribution, by market area, for the greater Bellingham area. TABLE 18 SURVEY OF EXISTING BELLINGHAM RETAIL SPACE Occupancy Square Feet Total Rate Downtown (CBD)l 1,176,260 27% 94.0% Downtown Fringe 2 1,224,182 2976 97.8% Other Areas -1,862,143 44% 92.3% Total 4,262,585 94.7% 1 Census Tract 6. 2 Census Tract 5. 3 Census Tracts 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12. Source: Whatcom County Real Estate Research Report, 1985, Volume 7, pages 56-74. 176 As shown in Table 19, the majority of retail space is located in the outlying areas. Several major shopping districts or centers account for about 29% of the total retail space in Bellingham. Most of thEm are in freeway-oriented locations. They are listed below. TABLE 19 MAJCR SHOPPING DISTRIC rS AND CENTERS Bellingham, Washington Total Retail Shopper Goods Store (8q!Ft;) Area (Sq.Ft.) Bellingham CBD1 422,500 422,500 Fred Meyer Center 162,500 125,000 Bellingham Mall 150,000 65,000 Meridian Village 128,800 40,000 People's Place 110,000 60,000 Park Manor 100,000 25,000 Sunset Center 84,000 84,000 Fairhaven/South Hill 106,400 80,400 Total 1,264,200 901,900 Square footage of retail area for CBD includes only establishments in SIC Codes 53, 56, 57 and 59. Source: Bellis Fair Draft EIS, January, 1985, Whatcom County Real Estate Research Report, 1985, Volume 7, page 73. 177 The downtown CBD still is the largest single area of retail space in the City. The CBD retail market is centered around 3 rmjor anchor stores, The Bon (53,500 sf), J. C. Penneys (45,000 sf) and Sears (35,400 sf) for a total of 133,900 square feet. Table 20 on the following page shows the growth rates of shopper goods in the CBD by Standard Industrial Code (SIC) from 1980-1984. TABLE 20 GROWTH OF SHOPPER GOODS SALES BY SIC CODE Downtown Bellingham, 1980-1984 SIC Code 53 SIC Code 56 SIC Code 57 SIC Code 59 F urni t ur e/ Mi sc el lane ous Total General Apparel, Furnishings/ Retail Shopper Merchandise Accessories Equipment Stores Goods 1980 $25,258,482 $4,865,729 $2,429,554 $7,349,977 $39,903,742 1981 27,776,491 5,321,272 2,366,733 8,178,301 43,612,797 1982 28,849,096 5,389,793 2,756,261 7,724,791 44,359,941 1983 32,210,029 5,908,100 4,647,660 8,415,207 51,180,176 1984 32,803,065 6,647,749 6,352,443 8,886,601 54,689,903 Percentage 1 Change 1980-84 29 . 9% 36.6% 161.5% 20.9% 37.1% Average Annual Ch ange 7. 5% 9. rA 4 0. 40c' 5. r@ 9.30% 1 Information to explain the rapid growth of volume in the "furnitLwe" category is not available as of this writing. Source: City of Bellingham, Bell-is Fair Draft EIS, January, 1985. 178 The furniture/furnishings/equipment category, SIC Code 57, showed the greatest growth percentage growth (40.4% average annual). Overall average annual shopper goods increased at a rate of 9.3% over the same period' demDnstrating a supportive rmrket base. In order to plaoe the CBD's overall rate of growth in shopper goods in perspective to national trends, a comparison was made to the United States Department of Labor's Depart- ment Store Index, for the period 1979 to 1983. The Department Store Index grew at an annual rate of 5%, which is 1.8 times less than the 9.3% rate observed for the Bellingham CBD area, indicating a stronger than average market demand in retail sales for Bellingham's downtown n-arket. The sales volumes realized by the overall shopper goods establishment by area are shom in Table 21. TABLE 21 SALES VOLUME OF SHOPPER GOODS PER SQUARE FOOT - 1983 City of Bellingham Volume ($000) Volume/SF Bellingham $ 130,318 $158.63 CBD 51,180 121.14 Non-CBD 79,138 198.34 Source: City of Bellingham, DepartTnent of Revenue, State of Washington, Bellis Fair Draft EIS, January, 1985. 179 The actual sales per square foot for Bellingham were compared to median rates observed for regional malls in the Far West. TABLE 22 SALES VOLUMES FOR SELECTED RETAIL CATEGORIES Regional Malls in Far West, 1983 Median Sales Upper Decile Sales Store Type Per Square Foot Per Square Foot Mall Tenant Sales $128.18 $217.80 Department Stores (Owned) 84.08 143.28 Junior Department Store 124.52 --- Apparel: 1 Ladies Ready-to-Wear 110 301 Mens-Wear 131:551 Ladies Specialty 136. 62 1 Statistics compiled from regional malls for entire USA. Source: Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, Bellis Fair Draft EIS, January, 1985. As shown, sales per square foot for Bellingham are about 24% and 5576 higher than the overall median mall sales in 1983. In contrast, sales per square foot in the Bellingham CBD area was about 5% lower than Far West mall averages. Existing retail establishments in the Central Waterfront area are com- prised of a mix of retail /wholesale establishments such as hardware, lumber, marine-related as well as second-hand and antique stores. No specialty retail businesses are currently in the Central Waterfront area. 180 Projects Under Construction With the exception of some minor remodeling and a small addition at Fred Meyers and the completion of Park Manor in 1984 (100,000 sf) there have been no major additions to the retail square footages since 1978. The most recent retail projects in the Bellingham area includes: � Meridian Village & People Place - 1978 (neighborhood shopping centers) � K-Mart (Sunset Center) - 1976 � Fred Meyer - 1974 � Bellingham Mall - 1968 Projects Planned Several major retail projects are planned for the greater Bellingham area and are shown in Figure 67: Market Area. They are: Bellis Fair Regional Mall Located at intersection of 1-5 and the Guide Meridian Will include a regional mall, a hotel and complewntary commrcial space Five major department stores planned with a total of 600,000 GLA of retail space plus 3,000 parking spaces on 61.5 acres Phase 1 (1986 start date) - 372,000 GLA - 3 majors - 37.1 acres Phase 11 (1992 start date) - 228,000 GLA - 2 majors - 24.4 acres Hotel (to be built during Phase II) '220 rooms, complete with meeting facilities Restaurants - 2 freestanding establishments at 5,000 sf each Hays Group Proposal Located south of the Fred Meyer Center 270,000 sf proposed, to include 3 majors and a 60,000 sf health club Piha Project (Downtown CBD) 0 Proposal calls for remodeling/expanding existing J.C. Penneys store from 45,000 sf to 100,000 sf 0 Expand existing Bon store and add 3-story garage * Redevelop 100',000 sf currently occupied by Levin's Department store Sunset Center � Proposal calls for a 350,000 sf expansion of Newman Brettin next to K-Mart � Space includes movie theatre and 60,000 sf of retail Of the major retail projects proposed, Bellis Fair Mall is the most significant in term of new space added and its possible impact on the surrounding retail areas, especially the CBD. The development of Bellis Fair may reduce the feasibility of the above mentioned projects. A major result of Bellis Fair Mall may be the relocation of the major departwnt stores from downtown to the mall. Such a move by one or more of the majors to Bellis Fair may cause the relocation of other downtovn specialty and other support spaces to the mall. Specialty retailers depend heavily on the traffic generated by the major department stores, who usually serve as magnets for shoppers. The Bon has recently announced that they will open a new, 100,000 square foot store at Bellis Fair in 1988. While it is recognized that development of Bellis Fair will probably reduce retail sales in the CBD, the Bellis Fair EIS projected a net gain of retail sales of nearly 20% in the overall Bellingham area. 182 Restaurants Existing Establishments Based on information from the Bellingham and Whatcom County Visitor and Convention Bureau, there are a total of 118 restaurants, including fast food establishments in the City of Bellingham. The Target Area currently contains tvo mid-priced restaurants and one combination fish retailer/ snack bar. All three are located close to the Whatcom Creek Waterway. A key driver of the restaurant business is the level of disposable income in the area. Whatcorn County and the City of Bellingham have historically shown higher per capita spending in the eating and drinking category than the State as a whole. The majority of restaurants are priced in the lower to moderate price ranges. The majority of the popular (and normally.more expensive) restaurants in Bellingham are those either located near the waterfront or with water views. Under Construction and Planned Establishments No rmjor expansions or new restaurant facilities are currently under construction in the City of Bellingham. The only exception being some minor expansions of the Bay Cafe at Squalicum Harbor. The GTM Corporation, owner of several restaurants in the Bellingham area, is, planning a new stand-alone higher quality restaurant at Squalicum Harbor. In contrast to the low potential for restaurants in the general study area, waterfront-oriented restaurants, as noted earlier, have traditionally been very popular and there presently exists a scarcity of such facilities along the water in Bellingham. The Squalicum Harbor and Fairhaven/Southport areas show the greatest potential for new restaurant facilities. 183 Hotels and Support Facilities Existing Market Conditions According to information from Bellingham and Whatcom County Visitors and Cbnvention Bureau, there are a total of 21 hotel and motels in the City of Bellingham with a total of 906 rooms. Room rates range from $17-$140/ night with an overall average price of $37/night. The majority of the hotel/motels are located south of downtown and west of 1-5. Based on the Visitor Bureau's estimates, occupancy rates range between 60-65% during the off-season (winter) and 90-957o during the on-season (fall, spring, sugmer). A telephone survey of conference facilities was conducted. The survey revealed the following conference spaces. TABLE 23 BELLIW3HAM CONFERENCE FACILITIES Estimated Capacity Annual Avg. Facility of People) Occupancy Holiday Inn 90- 750 80% Sudden Valley 60- 85 70-80%1 Park Hotel 55- 70 50-70% Western Washington 2 University (WWU) 20-3,000 N/A Total 225-3,905 60-77% Weekends and some weekdays from May to August 2 Conference must be academic in nature 184 The Holiday Inn is the only downtown facility large enough to accommodate moderately sized groups. As noted, WWU's facilities, the only other large facility near downtown, is not open for use by the general public. Under Construction and Planned Projects No hotel/motels are currently under construction in the City of Bellingham. The Val-U-Inn at 1-5 and King is the newest motel in the area (completed March 1986) adding another 80 rooms to the market. Rates range from $32-$55 per night. Two hotels are planned for the Bellingham area: a 150-room, moderate priced resort hotel at Southport. The Port of Bellingham is also considering Squalicum Harbor as a possible hotel site. Sow temporary conversions of apartments to hotels have occurred in anticipation of the increased traffic due to Expo. These conversions account for approximately 85 additional motel roonE to the area. These converted units will probably revert back to apartments after Expo is closed. No hotels/motels currently exist or are planned for the Target Area. Given the current industrial nature of much of the area, future demand for new hotels/motels would best be met along the current hospitality corridor along 1-5 and water-oriented areas such as Squalicum Harbor and Fairhaven/South Port. Industrial Space No current survey information is available on the amount of industrial space, therefore precluding any analysis at the level done for other commercial uses. Industrial uses are substantial contributors to the economy in Whatcom County and are particularly prominent in the Target Area. Several industrial parks are planned for the greater Bellingham area located northwest of the CBD. They are as follows: � Cordata - 300 acres of commercial/industrial space � Hannegen Industrial Park 185 Woburn Industrial Park - 80-200 acre light industrial park In order to project future waterfront industrial development, recent Puget Sound Marine Institute information was analyzed. The Institute traced urban shoreline industrial development over time. Table 24: Industrial Usage of Bellingham's Shoreline sho%s the analysis findings. Several sectors increased their shoreline use of over the 20 years from 1962- 1982. Those industries are as follows: 0 Construction 0 Retail Trade * Services 0 Goverment Retail trades had the largest increase (6 x's) of all the uses. Those showing a decline were: � Forestry, fishing and agriculture � Manufacturing 0 Transportation and Communications Wholesale trade remained unchanged over the time period. Manufacturing showed the largest decrease of any industry going frcrn about a 39% share of the total waterfront uses in 1962 to 17% in 1982. The industrial trends in Bellingham are indicative of both the regional (i.e. Puget Sound) and national trends. The trend has been the gradual replacement of heavy/light industrial uses by retail trade and services oriented uses. Industrial uses, however, still plays a major role in Bellingham's water- front and overall economy. New commercial uses such as those at newly completed Squalicum Harbor, however, are beginning to be incorporated into the City's industrial shoreline. This trend is expected to continue into the future. 186 TABLE 24 INDUSTRIAL USAGE OF BELLINGHAM'S SHORELINE 1962 1972 1982 Sector Percent Percent Percent Forestry, Fishing and Agriculture 0.00% 1 1.75% 1 1.19% Mining 0.00 - 0.00- - 0.00 Primary Total - 0.00% - 1.85% 1 1.19% Cbnstruction 2 3.39 3 5.26 3 3.57 Manufacturing 23 38.98 13 22.81 14 16.67 Transportation and Communication 8 13.56 9 15.79 9 10.71 Wholesale Trade 15 25.42 11 19.30 21 25.00 Secondary Total 48 81.39% 36 63.16% 47 55.95% Retail Trade 2 3.39 6 10.53 18 21.43 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate - 0.00 1 1.75 - 0.00 Services 8 13.56 11 19.30 15 17.86 Goverment 1 1.69 2 3.51 3 3.57 Tertiary Total 11 18.64% 20 35.09% 36 42.86% NBC - - 0.00 - 0.00- - 0.00 All Sectors Total 59 100.00% 57 100.00% 84 100.00% Percent Change 3.39% 47.37% Source: PSMI Study Inventories Land Values Figure 60: Land Values, shows assessed land values for the Target Area. As shown, land prices range from $1-$10/sf in the Central Waterfront area. Prices in the CBD generally range from $10-$18/sf and lastly outlying areas (e.g. Guide Meridian) range from $5-$8/sf. All price estimates are for improved land (including utilities). Market Analysis Sunmry The following summry statements can be rmde about the overall Bellingham real estate market. Camiercial Office � The rmjority of commercial office space is centered around the downtown and fringe areas. The Target Area is contained within the fringe area. � The office market is currently somewhat soft as evidenced by the overall occupancy rate of 82%, 69% downtown and 95% in the. downtown fringe. � No rmjor office developments are planned or under construction except for proposed developments at Cordata. Commercial Retail * Most retai I space is located outside of the CBD in the suburban areas and the downtown fringe. * The overall occupancy rate remains high at 95%. 0 No major projects are currently under construction. 0 Major expansions and/or new projects proposed include a new 600,000 sf regional shopping center (Bellis Fair). 188 Restaurants 0 Moderate to high quality restaurants with water views are in demand. Hotels/Motels 0 most major hotels/motels are located south of downtown and along the I- 5 corridor. No hotels are located along the waterfront. * Occupancy levels average 60-70% year-round. 0 No hotel projects are now under construction. 0 Proposed projects include developments at Southport, CDrdata and possibly at Squalicum Harbor. Industrial Trends � Major uses of urban waterfronts have gradually changed from manufacturing uses to more retail/commercial/mixed uses. � The make-up of urban waterfronts over the last 20 years has changes with gradual replacement of heavy/light industrial-oriented uses with retail trade, services-oriented uses. Sunmry Conclusions The following potential commercial development is deemed feasible in the Bellingham Central Waterfront area: * Small scale office development 5-15,000 square feet 0 Small scale support retail development, i.e. antique and other specialty stores Hotels and restaurants would likely have little success in the Target Area. Hotel development would be particularly risky. A mediun to high quality restaurant could be successful if properly located, i.e. water- oriented. Several market areas adjacent to the Target Area would have a greater potential for commercial development, especially for hotels. They are Fairhaven/Southport and the Squalicum Harbor areas. The above market analysis findings were reviewed by key area businessmen and public officials. All parties were in basic agreement with the study's conclusions and recommendations. 189 BUSINESS SURVEY In order to understand the types and needs of existing businesses in the Central Waterfront area, the City of Bellingham's Planning and Economic Development Department conducted a survey of the businesses in the area. The survey was done between March and April of 1986. A total of 70 businesss were surveyed. Interviews were not conducted with six busi- nesses due to scheduling difficulties or owners absence. The following results are summarized and expressed as a percentage of the total responses. 1. Number of Employees (including owners) Full-Time 1-5 68% 6-10 15% 11-20 9% > 20 8% Part-Time 1-5 18% 6-10 6% 11-15 3% 0 637o Seasonality 21% 2. Property Ownership Own 42% Lease 42% (years remaining 1-13; average 3-1/2) Rent 15% Rental Costs $1-3/sq.ft./year 21% $3-5/sq.ft./year 9% > $5/sq.ft./year 6% as a % of sales 3% No Response 61% Special Facilities Requirements Two require 3-phase power Tvio require a storage yard 190 Utilities Costs - average of $1.50/sq.ft./year Range of 270/sq.ft./year to $9/sq.ft./year 3. Business Age 0-5 years 17% 6-10 years 16% 11-20 years 20% over 20 years 47% Current owner average 11.5 years Current location average 19 years 4. Business Ownership Status Proprietorship 42% Partnership 16% Corporation 42% 5. Market City and County 70% Tourists 6% City Only 6% Multi County 18% 6. Customers Retail 68% Wholesale 12% Retail and Wholesale 15% Service 5% 7. Annual Revenues Less than $100,000 21% $100,000-$199,000 18% $200-$299,000 9% $300-$399,000 11% $400-$499,000 9% $500-$999,000 3% More than 1,000,000 970 No Response 2076 8. Sales and Profit Trends Sales Last Three Years Increase 50% Decrease 12% Constant 38% Projected Sales Increase 59% Decrease 970 Constant 30% Unknown 2% Profit Last Three Years Increase 15% Decrease 12% Constant 73% 9. Bank Rainier 5% SeaFirst 18% NW ODmmercial 29% BNB 18% Bank of Washington 24% Peoples State 5% Education Credit 1% 192 10. Expansion/Relocation Plans (Actual #1) Expand with Increased Employment 6 Expand with No Additional Jobs 3 Possible Relocation 6 Possible Branch 2 11. Capital Investment Last Five Years Less than $100,000 18% $100-$300$000 6% More than $300,000 6% No Investment 70% Last Year Less than $100,000 18% No Investment 82% Next Five Years Less than $100,000 26% $100-$300,000 3% No Investment 71% Next Year Less than $100,000 3% $100-$300,000 3% No Investment 94% Type Investments Building and Land 26% Machinery/Equipment 74% 193 Business Problems Industry Trends 4 Undercapitalized 2 Customer Traffic 4 Space Needs 2 Taxes Too High 1 Parking Needed 11 Appearance 1 Economy Bad 2 A/R and Cash Flow 2 "Old Town" Naim 1 Personnel 1 Competition 1 Customer Awareness 1 Bookkeeping 1 Location 1 Government Regulation I City Assistance Develop Creek/Waterfront Park 7 Improve Streets/Traffic Light 9 Waterfront Development 4 Building Rehab 5 Develop Citizens Dock I Change Zoning 3 Brochures 2 Promote Growth 11 Financing I Limit Competing Street Vendors 1 Provide Public Restrooms 1 Promote Art I Support Local Business 1 194 Location Unfavorable Mission and Transients 12 Area disrepair 3 Parking 10 Old Building 1 Foot Traffic 4 Low Visibility 2 Location Favorable Common/Similar Businesses 6 Good Traffic 13 Central/Easy to Find 10 Low Rent 2 View 1 GP: good neighbor 26 snell bad 7 Future: Bellingham Needs Jobs 4 Growth 17 Downtown Faultering 4 Promote Small Shops 1 Slow Growth 3 Negativim 1 Future: Area Positive 5 Stagnant 3 195 Several key observations were mde upon analysis of the Central Waterfront business survey. They are: 0 Nearly half of all existing businesses in the area have been in opera- tion over 20 years, signifying a significant stable business base for the area. * About 42% own their own property while 58% either lease or rent. The number of years remaining on existing leases averages about 3.5 years. 0 Rental costs range from $1-$5/sf/year (Triple Net) as compared to $3- $11/sf/year for the remaining downtown fringe area. 0 Most businesses are retail in nature and rely. on the local customer base (City/County). 0 Annual gross revenues range from 21% at less than $100,000 to 9% who reported earnings of $1 million or more. 0 Approximately 50% of the businesses reported historical and projected increases in sales. Profits, however, were reported as constant the last three years for 73% of those surveyed. 0 Few business expansions or relocations were mentioned. This is in conjunction with the fact that very little capital investment has recently taken place in the area. Nor is there much planned in the near future. 0 The single-most mentioned business problem was insufficient parking and the transient traffic generated by the local mission. a The City's assistance in promoting growth was cited by most of those surveyed as being significant to the area. 0 Good traffic generation was mentioned as the most desirable attribute; especially given the predominance of retail establishments in the area. DERIVATION OF ALTERNATIVES Based on the data collected during the Issues and Directions Charrette, a number of market-driven and physical based Land Use Alternatives V@ere developed. The alternatives addressed a wide range of coranunity, busi- ness, and City goals and objectives for the area. The purpose of the charrettes was to collect and synthesize input from all key community interests and to temper these with practical facts and forecasts for the near- and long-term development of the Central Waterfront Area. The alternatives were developed so that a full range of possible Land Use actions and improvement projects could be suggested for the area. The derivation of the alternatives involved the following elements: 0 Precepts 0 Concept Components 0 General Concepts 0 Economic Development Incentives 0 Identification of Opportunity Areas 0 Refined Alternatives 0 Evaluation of Alternatives 0 Plan Directions The first of the Concept Charrettes involved a review of the key issues, directions and suggested actions. Expressed during the first Charrette were these key issues: 0 That the plan be an Implementation Plan 0 Concern for the Type, Amount and Location of Land Uses 0 A need for Economic Development within the area 0 A need for Group Consensus for Action 197 Suggested Actions - Based on the Issues and Directions Charrette, the following objectives viere suggested for further investigation: � Encourage investment, not just market response � Change or modify zoning in the area � Protect and enhance existing businesses � Improve Roeder and Holly Streets � Improve the.Maritime Heritage Center � Control Nuisances such as odors � Create land use flexibility through such things as design guidelines The key issues and direction s and the objectives sLggested to remedy them were used as a basis for the development of Precepts, or general organiz- ing principles or ideas. Precepts Precepts are used in different combinations to create alternative concepts and solve similar problem in different ways. The precepts-for the Bellingham Central Waterfront were based on four basic areas of concern: 0 Practical Considerations: Overall organizing principles comnDn to all The concepts. 0 Land Use Compatibility: Should land use compatibility be achieved through grouping of similar uses, isolation and separation or a mix of uses? Should the mix of uses be horizontally or vertically zoned? Can the differences between uses be celebrated to achieve a sense of com- patibility? These are the questions asked by these precepts. 198 0 Linkages: A major goal of the plan was a way of linking the CBD with Squalicum Harbor. The linkage is to contribute to the viability of both areas and not compete for uses. 0 Development Plan. A number of levels of development actions were suggested including rehabilitation, paint-up/fix-up solutions to infill and re-development. Participants in the General Concept Charrette review these precepts and added to the list of principles. The following are the precepts used in the development of the General Concepts for the Central Waterfront. Practical Cbnsiderations 0 Balance of practicality and imagination 0 Group consensus will allow action 0 Compatibility of land uses with people intensive activities 0 The key is the type, location and amount of land uses 0 Economic development will benefit all 0 Riblic/private cooperation 0 Economic/land use influences of the environs 0 Incentives for economic development; should be more than just rmrket response * Flexible regulations for predictability * Distinctive support area between CBD, Government Center, Squalicum fiarbor and the Lettered Streets Neighborhood � Juxtaposition of contrast, including diversity and blend � Quality environment � Whatcom Creek is the amenity � Waterway vista and visua-I access � Preserve Citizens Dock; relocation or reconstruction is acceptable � Land assemblage should result in cooperation for wtual benefits � Good, clear accessibility between districts, within area, and to waterfront � Efficient vehicular movement � Convenient parking � Consider the vehicle travel experience in term of perception at traffic speeds, gateways and signage � Pedestrian amenities such as the walking and bicycle experience � Better understanding of industry such as interpretive centers and information exchange Ybe plan should assume access at other po ints along the bay and no public access in som areas 0 The plan is not giving up access to the waterfront 200 Land Use Compatibility Precepts 0 Grouping of similar uses and activities to achieve use compatibility 0 Orientation and isolation of uses to achieve use compatibility 0 Land use conflict mitigation 0 Celebrate the differences; compatibility through individuality 0 Buf fers/Edges - Complete physical/visual separation - Separation but some connections - GDntrolled and limited separation 0 Land Use Organization - Uses separated - Uses mixed; horizontal or vertical - Independent support uses - Shared support uses 0 Landmarks - Visual prominence assists orientation - Location is anchor to development and movement - Historical image such as "old town" establishes theme 201 Linkage Precepts Linkages - Connection clearly defined but subordinate to places it connects - Uniform and continuous development - Corridor is more distinctive than the end points - Sequence of secondary activities - Whatcom Creek trail system is an existing linkage to be built upon Circulation - Combined modes such as vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, waterborne - Separated modes - Distinct hierarchy primary, secondary, Local - UniforTn netvork - Roeder Avenue improvements Development Action Precepts 0 Rehabilitation such as paint-up, fixed-up, clean-up and remodel � Infill � New Construction and re-development � Eliminate any undue constraints in ternr-, of flexibility and phasing 202 Concept Components Following the development of the planning precepts, eleven concept components or "building blocks" were identified and used in different combinations to create each unique concept. 0 Whatcom Creek Focus: This is the "waterfront" in the Central Water- front area. It provides open space, visual interest, fish and wildlife sanctuaries, and the historical precedence of being the original t own site. The Creek and Maritime Heritage Center SalmDn Life Cycle Facility along with the park, are existing public amenities that need to be protected and reinforced with other people intensive activities. 0 Linkages: The primary physical linkage expressed in this component would be that between CBD and Squalicum Harbor along Holly and Roeder Streets. It is the preferred path for travelers between the two areas and should reinforce the land use activities between the areas. In addition, there was expressed a need to link the CBD and the Lettered Street Neighborhood to the Central Waterfront by way of pedestrian linkages. 0 Land Use Mix: The idea here is that the Central Waterfront District has historically been and should continue to have a mix of land uses and activities including residential, commercial, industrial, cultural, recreational, and public services. However, the concern for land use compatibility suggests zones within the Central Waterfront appropriate for each use. 0 Land Use Interfaces: A land use interface between the mix of uses upland of Roeder Avenue and the predominately heavy industrial uses south of Roeder was identified. The interface included the railroad tracks, the Roeder truck route, and the change in topography. A need for this interface to act as a buffer was identified in,the process. Another interface identified was the one separating the upland land uses from those in the Central Waterfront. This interface runs along the IIrinYI of the bluff that is defined roughly by Astor, I'D", Dupont, and Prospect Streets. 203 � Vista and Overlooks: The opportunity exists within the Central Waterfront to take advantage of a number of dramatic vistas and overviews that contribute to the overall image of the area. These include panoramic vistas from the uphill rim out toward the bay and of the CBD and overlooks into the Whatcom Creek. Views are also oriented down streets and terminated by landmarks such as I'D" Street to the Old Train Depot and the view up Holly to the Church at Broadway. The museum is a prominate landmark that accents views from within the Maritime Heritage Center Park. Views down the Whatcom Creek Waterway should also be reinforced to allow for the viewing of marine industrial activities within the waterway and unique to this area. � Gateways: Currently the sense of entry into the Central Waterfront Districts is poorly defined. The need to reorganize the transition from one area to the next was identified, as was the desire to cele- brate the arrival to the Central Waterfront. To accomplish this, a nunber of bridges and changes in the street grids were identified as needing architectural treatments to reinforce their gateway qualities. The principle gateway was identified as the Holly Street Bridge over Wbatcom Creek and at the entrance to the Maritime Heritage Center Park. Public Right-of-Ways: One mechanism identified as a way of improving the quality and image of the Central Waterfront was the land held as part of the public right-of-way or streets and easements. A number of street improvements were identified to contribute to the linkage and identity of the area, and street vacations to consolidate industrial land uses wre recommended in the concepts and plan. Parcelization: The sizee and shape of blocks and lots within the area contribute to their appropriateness for certain land uses. A number of blocks are standard 200 foot by 200 foot square, but with no alley. This is a smaller block than those in the CBD which measure about 250 feet by 300 feet. Also, a number of triangular and irregular shaped blocks are formed by the change in street grids or the steep topo- graphic changes. 204 City-Owned Property: The City is a major property owner in the Central Waterfront. In addition to the public right-of-ways, the City has the Maritime Heritage Center Park and Salmon Life Cycle Facility property as well as Citizens Dock and a parcel along Holly Street near the bridge. The use of portions of the City-owned property through land swaps, ground leases or sale, was identified as a mans of stimulating economic re-development in the area as well as providing revenue to pay for other improvements. Vacant Parcels: Another component identified as providing redevelop- ment potential were the number of vacant parcels or "missing teeth in the snile" of the area. Specific sites were identified as appropriate for iDfill development that would contribute to the street edge definition, retail continuity and general visual quality of the area. Surface parking lots and open storage yards were included in this category and guidelines were developed to require their screening or their placement to the rear of buildings. Zoning: Zoning was identified early on in the process as a major deterrent to redevelopment within the area. Currently 'a number of non- conforming uses exist within the area based on the Waterfront Commer- cial Zoning designation. This requires retail uses to be water-related when in fact the number of parcels with waterfront exposure is limited. AlsD the Creek beyond the Roeder Street Bridge is not navigable. Zoning changes that would allow non-water related retail uses in the area is suggested as a remedy. Also identified was the density requirement for residential development in the Lettered Streets Neighborhood which set a minimum lot area per unit and a percentage of the land area usage as open space. A number of large vacant parcels exist within the Influence Area above the Central Waterfront area. Reducing or eliminating these density standards and allowing payment of fees to the park in-lieu-of providing open space rmy be a way of encouraging increased residential development in the area. These concept components, when used in different combinations, contributed to the development of the General Concepts. 205 General Concepts Based on the principles identified in the Precepts and Concept Components, six categories were defined to characterize potential land use directions for the Central Waterfront. These six General Concepts were organized around distinct land uses or emphases. Within each organizational concept a number of variations suggested themselves. Dispersed Development Concept Cbaracterized by continued independent -quo" basis. Rnphasis is placed on property development on a "status n P i ",m@ _'I NXIi 4, 8 the llseparateness@l of development and on the diversity and uniqueness of the individual parts. Linkages could or could not be used. Rede- velopment activities would be of a paint-up/fix-up type and land use r"111:11i 41 would continue to be a mixe of light industrial/light manufacturing uses with sone retail uses being non-conforming. Another variation on '4 7, this mould be a multiple centers model in which a number of center of 7. k activities would exist within the area side by side. Ga4GF_fT: U15FEReEO MVMLP eRr BELUNGMM CENTM MEMCHT This mould be characterized by a hierarchy of uses clustered around DEVELOPMEW PLM specific uses, and potentially link via rrajor circulation routes and improvements. A light industrial area might be clustered around those existing like uses. Expanded Industrial Core: Ibis concept recognizes the importance and permanence of the Georgia-Pacific Mill and its influence over existing 05'-;1 nearby land uses. The land use most compatible with Georgia-Pacific </ A- would be other heavy industrial uses. These might be emphasized and expanded out from the Georgia-Pacific plant to include the majority of the area in the Central Waterfront. This could require the assemblage of larger track or blocks of land to accommodate such land intensive uses. This might be accomplished, in part, throuM the vacation of streets in the area in order to create larger tracks of land. t capr: ewm 1:4 KP Baija3km CWMAL The Maritime Heritage Center would becone important as a "buffer" DEVELOPMEW PLM Fj between these uses and the CBD and Lettered Streets Neighborhood. Citizens Dock would be moved in order to allow for the more intensive use of the Whatcom Creek Waterway. 206 Expanded CBD Core: Ibis concept is characterized by an expansion of the types of land uses in the Central Business District into the n rp, Central Waterfront District. Ibis mould create a single large business '4@ center with the emphasis on office, financial institutions, department stores, and specialty retail uses, entertainment and cultural facil ities, perhaps including governmental facilities. @4 -XA P@7 Concern over this concept centered,on competition with.the CBD, limited nrarket demand for the additional office and retail uses, concern for existing uses in the area and zoning issues@. 0-'RF- BELLNGHW CENTPAL VOTEWPONT DEVELOPMEW PLM MA*MM -40! RplaRIMIo, Expanded Port and Squalicum Harbor Core: This concept would expand the VOMDFROUT marin commercial and recreational activities at Squalicum Harbor and/or DEVELOPMWT IN expand the marine industrial and shipping activities the Port has at Ak 10 r the South Terminal. OW W4 R., One idea was the relocation of the Georgia-Pacific treatment ponds and Upland of creation of a new 1,000 slip marina within the breakwater. this new marina would be a hotel convention center facility with a support retail and restaurants and residential uses. The other direction was a major new trade and distribution center with cargo and container yards and new wharfs in the waterway. Concerns again centered on competition with the Port and the obvious diffi- culties of relocating the treatment ponds. 207 Whatcom Creek As Focus: This concept is a direct expression of the goals and objectives and precepts which emphasized the importance of 'U r r 1@1'1 the creek, existing facilities and amenities along the creek and the @-,r I'T P desire to add to them. r7 i . XHP Fr The Emphasis here is on an inward looking focus for redevelopment of @iT@r it-T@- the area. .... ......... .......... .. . ............ Concepts for the focus included: Cr@. WRATCCAA a@BEK AS, BEU34GHM CENTM MMUFFOW A Whatcom Creek Walk, or the "Venice on the Whatcom," where city- DEVEU)PMMF PLM owned property is used.to redevelop the area in a very intense urban way. The prototype for this concept would be the River Walk in San Antonio, Texas or the Grand Canal of Venice. A pedestrian promenade would be created along the creek and enclosed by new building; which would create small "vest pocket" type urban squares and parks. A Central Park concept which suggested enlarging the Maritime Heritage Center Park by acquiring additional land along the railroad tracks and the creek. The park would stretch between the CBD and S4ualicum Harbor and would have pedestrian trails throughout. This enlarged park would also act as a "buffer" between the Lettered Streets Neighborhood and intensive indus- trial activities south of Roeder. A Convention and Arts Center envisioned the expansion of the cultural and entertainment activities occurring in the CBD into the Central Waterfront area. The convention and performing arts facility would ideally be located adjacent to the Maritime Heritage Center Park, perhaps on City-owned land or on acquired land adjacent to the Creek which mould act as a recreational amenity. Pedestrian linkages would tie this facility to the CBD and Squalicum Harbor. 208 The "Elbow" was an idea which expressed the fact that the Central Waterfront area occurs at the junction of three different street grids and land use platting patterns. These different platting grids are also expressed in the different land uses that occur in each area, i.e. residential on smIler blocks, CBD on larger uphill blocks and industrial, manufacturing as irregular or consolidated blocks. Each of these concepts suggests a reinforcement of Whatcom Creek as a focus of activity for the area. It is the "waterfront" in the Central Waterfront District, and a goal of fh-e City is to provide additional opportunities for the public to enjoy and have access to the Waterfront. The heavy industrial activities along the Whatcom Creek Waterway, and the treatment ponds adjacent to Bellingham Bay, limit the amount of Waterfront accessible to the public from the downtown area. Hence, the emphasis on focusing in on the Creek as an amenity and on ways of improving that unique amenity. Following a review of the various concepts for the Whatcom, Creek focus, the idea of the "ElbovP emerged as an expression of an appropriate mix of land use activities and at a density closer to what the market demand analysis indicated as practical in the near future. 209 Linkages and Corridors: This concept was characterized by an intensi- fication of land uses directly along the major vehicular corridors through the Central Waterfront. The two principal corridors would be A along Roeder and Holly Streets and would develcp as a "couplet" with the land area located between these two streets having frontages and access fran each side. The Holly Street Corridor emerged as a recommended concept which acted UW ItOmm^21 as a linkage between the CBD and Squalicum Harbor and allowed for a Ell, C4W-ePT-: CCRRIP4@5 continuation of retail frontage along its length with a mix of land SEU14GHAM CENTRAL VWUERFFAM uses on either side. During the charrettes, a number of people also PLAN expressed the need to think of the linkages beyond the CBD and Squalicum Harbor to neighborhoods and areas outside the Influence Area in a comprehensive manner. The attempt was made to recognize these interrelationships within the scope of this planning work and to tie proposed linkages and pedestrian and bike paths to those existing and proposed systems. Al V .611 -4@ CEWMAL V4VERFRCNT DEVELOPMENT MAN BELLNGHAM CENTRAL rA r- VIVERFRONT 7w DEVELOPMENT PLAN ,.15 JF F - @-l P L4 210 As part of the participatory and consensus building effort, participants were all given "stick-on" dots to use as votes to express their prefer- ences for a particular concepts. The Technical Committee and public sessions voiced a clear preference for the Whatcom Creek Focus and the idea of Linkages a d Corridors. During the Task Force charrette, a number of votes v&-re given to the concept of an expanded industrial core and use of the Central Waterfront area as a light industrial and manufacturing area. In addition, a nunber of public comments were collected on maps of the study area. The public was asked to "create their own plan." The comments and ideas included: 0 Wbatcom Creek as a tourist-oriented area 0 Limited new development around the Creek with an emphasis on the park and the general visual improvement of the area 0 A public market A "boatel" or a transient moorage area. "Let alone?' much of the area. 211 Evaluation Criteria The following evaluation criteria were discussed as a means of comparing the refined Land Use Alternatives. The criteria were agreed to be neces- sary for a successful plan. � Land use compatibility � Linkages/water access � Environment quality improvement � Economic growth and feasibility � Ease of implementation � Public/private acceptance In addition to these rather general headings each of the categories were further defined with subcategories to provide a finer tuned evaluation. The subcategories are as follows: Land Use Compatibility � Historic preservation � Development of amenities and open space � Compatibility with heavy industrial uses and residential areas � Whatcom Creek Waterway emphasis � Mitigation of potential conflicts/liabilities � Protection and enhancement of existing uses Linkages and Water Access � Increase of public access to waterfront � Improved access between Squalicum Harbor and CBD � Improved access between Lettered Streets Neighborhood and Maritime Heritage Center � Improved vehicular access on Roeder and Holly Street � Improved access to Maritime Heritage Center Environmental Quality Improvement � Improved visual quality of streetscape � Improved pedestrian experience within area � Nuisances controlled � Improved image and identity � Improved security and safety � Improved Maritime Heritage Center Development 212 Economic Growth and Feasibility 0 Fiscal impact to the City 0 Fiscal impact to private sector 0 Encouragement and enhancement of existing business 0 Potential funding sources Ease of Implementation � Flexibility in phasing � Regulatory change necessary 0 Equity � Consistency with existing plans and regulations Public/Private Acceptanc 0 Public/political acceptance 0 Flexibility in land use 0 Relationship to residential neighborhoods Opportunity Areas Seven sub-areas within the Central Waterfront area were initially identi- fied based on both natural and physical separations and on regulatory designations of the Bellingham Plan. These opportunity areas would assist in the development of concepts for the area and could be used to identify specific improvement projects for the area. (See Figure 17: Opportunity Areas.) The seven opportunity areas are: 9 The Whatcom Creek Focus 0 Old Town Core 0 Hilltop/CBD Transition 0 Old Town Fringe 0 Industrial Expansion Area 0 Holly/Roeder Street Corridor Linkage These opportunity areas are used to describe the various public improve- ment projects, use Emphasis, regulatory changes, and development poteD- tials of each of the land use alternatives. 213 Refined Alternatives Based on the general concepts discussed earlier, three illustrative Development Plan alternatives were developed based on the preference for and the potentials of a Whatcom Creek Focus and the idea of linkages and corridors. The three illustrative Development Plan Alternatives discussed ranged from an industrial/manufacturing based land use emphasis to a intensified commercial/retail/recreational emphasis. The previously expressed preferences for a Whatcom Creek focus, mix of light industrial/cotmiercial uses and CBD - Squalicum linkage along Roeder/'IF" /Holly Streets are all developed at different levels of emphasis within each alternative. The three alternatives are: Alternative 1: Waterfront Rejuvenation: The emphasis here is a continuation of the light industrial/manufacturing and retail uses currently in the area. Zoning would be brought in line with the many non-conforming uses in the area and those uses would be allowed to expand. Safety stabilization of Citizens Dock at its current location is included. Alternative 2: Waterfront Catalyst Plus: This alternative would use City-owned property around the park as a catalyst to stimulate private development and increase economic and employment opportunities in the area. The land use emphasis would be a mix of light industrial and increased commercial /retail and recreational uses. Moving Citizens Dock into the park is suggested. Alternative 3: Waterfront Renaissance: This alternative would encourage increased commercial/retail /entertainment and recreational use of the Central Waterfront. City property in and around the park and Maritime Heritage Center would be used to stimulate private sector investment. Increased opportunities for,public access to the water- front is suggested by a lagoon for historic ships, and bulkheaded wharfs. Citizens Dock is moved to the park and is a focal point of the interpretive center. 214 @4@T r! UN inn -LAYCRO D aF%l i ! -- 7 C5. prnf!7 7_7 P! - ----------------- OUPONT ST 41 7)" L cnx 6 Ell % 17-1 C7. L T 7e. q Y % IT --------------- - ---------- ----------- < @kREAS-,@ r4_1 % N OVEMEN7 I'm ARD T, 504C W71@4w, 4., NA ----------------------------------- -------- ----------- ------ - ------------- > -77- ---------- - u L_ RADE 'A. IT -L r r J@I L1, J Figure 70 Alternative 1: Waterfront Rejuvenation Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group -I FT !'PLAYGR IT @T -------------- ---- IL I L3 I L (7@: Jr! L-j ILI % U7 47 % 171 ALIG EDE81RKN BRID ULn TOYKN r ;L %7 .... ION Mo 7 LI. c A.-Es r --K77@ r@ TED u 5AL @-9@4 -- --------------------------- @1-1 ----------------- - - ----------------------- I& -T@ WALL TO Lo INDUSTTIULCAREN EAS @..l T!LA. 7- @T----, LT .1 7i7 ---------------- Figure 71 Alternative 2: Waterfront Catalyst Plus MIL-r /The NBBJ Group 0 Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services A, yon' i rn 40 urn, I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DUPONT SI rni iL 11 nn@ (I Ong, HI M! % DE LAG 11JV E M." I M .7r ------- ----- - ---- -------- ------ -:;:::= ------ .... ---------- -------------------------- ARN47 PARxING OIL M-WAI (4. P =0E S F STRE6T Z': ---------------- ir Figure 72 Alternative 3: Waterfront Renaissance YGROUNDI Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group 0 Continuing the efforts to build consensus for a preferred Development Plan among the various interest groups, participants at the public session %ere again asked to "vote" using "stick-on" dots for the alternatives they felt best represented the goals and objectives for the area. The following are the results of the public nueing vote. Votes Alternative 1: Waterfront Rejuvenation 19.5 Alternative 2: Waterfront Catalyst Plus 20.5 Alternative 3: Waterfront Renaissance 10.0 During the charrette session a number of key issues also arose concerning each of the alternatives. These included: a Whether or not Citizens Dock should be moved from the Whatcom Creek Waterway to north of Holly in the Pa rk. 0 The cost of rehabilitation of Citizens Dock and possible cost reduc- tions if it were used as an open air pavillion. 0 Parking requirements and location to accommdate new retail/commercial uses. 0 A need for zoning changes to bring land use in line with non-conforming uses. * Screening or buffering industrial uses south of Roeder from upland uses. 9 A need to address greater density and encourage new development in the Lettered Streets Neighborhood Area 8 along the bluff to talie advantage of views into Park and Maritime Heritage Center and of this areas proximity to downtown and Squalicum Harbor. 0 The need for 'IF" Street/Holly/Roeder Connection. 218 � A need to involve Burlington Northern Railroad as a significant participant in land use direction for the area. � A two-way I'D" Street to provide improved access to not only the Maritime Heritage Center, but the entire Central Waterfront District. � Uphill pedestrian connections from the park to the museum. � The idea of a "theme!' development such as "Old Town" with design guidelines or standards to encourage a scale and character to this -area. Based on the review of these three alternatives, and on the key issues that arose, a fourth or "hybrid" alternative was developed. This alterna- tive combined those element or "coamn threads" of the first three alternatives as well as new ideas and actions suggested during the refined alternative charrette. The "common threads" that were part of the Composite Alternative include the following: Common Threads 0 Relocation of Citizens Dock to the north of Holly Street. 0 The Waterfront needs attention in terris of accessibility. 0 Extensive retail activities my not be viable given,the limited n-arket. 0 Preserve existing businesses in the area. 0 Establish higher intensity of land use along Holly to link to,Squalicum Harbor. 0 The need for design guidelines mechanism to address development over time. Perhaps the use of a planned commercial designation in zoning to control design. 219 A A @LAYG@OUND 40 DUPONT ST s.z' @Mj A, \rl Y71*LL 11 11"11"-ITI.1 A.4 1_77-1 -- -------------------------- '7 ----------------- _4 Figure 73 13 C:3 ,1AY u - 7- V, Alternative 4: Composite M_r Bellingham Central Waterfront Development Plan - Management and Planning Services/The NBBJ Group -IT � Design attention needed for the Holly/11FI/Roeder Street intersections in order for it to work as a linkage. � Recognize the maseum/theatre district adjacent to CBD in Plan. � A mix of land uses is acceptable. Alternative 4: Composite Based on the comments received during the planning charrettes and directions from the Technical Committee and Task Force, a Composite Alternative was developed that addresses the concerns of the various interest groups as well as achieves the goals for the area as expressed early in the planning process. The following is a description of this Compositive Alternative: � Citizens Dock: Save it and move it north of Holly into Whatcom Creek Maritime Heritage Center Park. Renovate architecturally significant parts of the building, but keep the central portion of building as an open-air pavilion in order to reduce renovation costs. Use the open air portions for recreation; nusic/performance (stage); picnic tables; interpretive center; use front and rear portions of building3 for restroorns; park offices; small retail tourist shops, and/or a small restaurant or deli type sandwich shop that would cater to park users. If necessary, due to the scale of the building in relationship to the size of the park, portions (bays) of central section might be left out. Ibis action is dependent upon both its financial feasibility and political acceptance. � Whatcom Creek Waterway: Emphasis of Waterway will be on its importance as a working industrial waterfront with barge staging; tugs and marine dependent/water-related uses. By removal of Citizens Dock, more intensive waterborne traffic can use the Waterway wbich should benefit industrial users and increase the value of properties along the Waterway for those types of activities. Enhancement of opportunities as considered an asset to the Central for these water-dependent uses w Waterfront particularly with enhanced public visual access and under- standing of industry. 221 Seaplanes and existing transit moorage will be allowed to remain. Additional moorage will occur at Squalicum Harbor. Holly Bridge Gateway: Relocate Citizens Dock in the park and front the building along the northeast side of street just south of Holly Bridge (on/or in the vicinity of the Shrimp Shack site). Use old concrete light standards with globe-type fixtures in a close spacing on bridge railings to visually enhance the "gateway" quality of bridge. Con- struct a public viewpoint and platform with tower and interpretive materials on City-owned property south of Holly. CDnsideration must be given to public acquisition of the remaining private property in this location (Shrimp Shack and St. John's Glass). Old Town Core (Opportunity Area B): Cbnsolidate properties within industrial area through possible street vacations in exchange for public access along Whatcom. Creek north of Holly (along "B" street Raw). This' pedestrian route could be on land or a boardwalk extending over the creek. Construct new entrance to Maritime Heritage Center (MHC) and fish rearing facility from I'D" Street and close entrance from IICII Street. Make I'D" Street two-way with parallel parking. Improve crosswalk/intersection at I'D" Street and Holly to emphasize entrance/ orientation to MHC. Streetscape I'D" Street. Land use emphasis on mixed-use light industrial, manufacturing and retail /comn@eercial uses (within opportunity Area B). Develop design standards or policies for this area. Change zoning to allow non-water related retail uses. Let Shoreline Master Program regulate setbacks, etc. within 200 feet shoreline boundary. Opportunity Area B might be considered a special review district, or a "planned" designation applied to zoning to allow for site plan review. Hilltop_CBD Transition (Opportunity Area C): This area should continue to be an intensive activity center for entertainment and cultural activities. The area between Holly and the proposed realignment of Chestnut and Roeder is proposed for a structured parking garage that would serve Georgia-Pacific parking needs as well as the general public. Due to the topographic grade change a structured parking garage could have access from a nunber of different street locations and at different levels without ramping. 222 In order to blend the parking garage into the Holly Street area, retail street frontage should line the Holly Street side of the structure as much as possible. A public/private project is suggested. Access could be from Central, Bay, perhaps Chestnut/Roeder Ramp; and even Holly as long as vehicular traffic did not adversely impact pedestrian traffic. A portion of this area is within the old alignment or ROW of Army Street, a street ROW that is between Bay and Central. This City ROW could be used to act as a catalyst for development of the parking and any retail frontages. The use of City-owned property near the corner of Dupont and I'D" Street for commercial development through ground leases was identified as a means of stimulating economic redevelopment in the area. The mount of development should reflect a market driven response and not compete with private development in the CBD. Lettered Street Neighborhood /Area 8: Change development standards to allow greater residential densities in Area 8 of the Lettered Streets Neighborhood. Greater density is appropriate in,this area due to its close proximity to downtown, the CBD, and the large open space at the Maritime Heritage Center. Greater lot coverage and less lot area per unit with possible reductions in parking requirements are incentives that could increase the residential development in the area. Fees in lieu of providing these amenities could be one implementation approach. Office densities should remain the same. Whatcom Creek Focus (Opportunity Area_A): Retain Opportunity Area A's land use designation of Waterfront Commercial but expand the allowed retail uses to include non-water related ones. Opportunity Area F Holly/Roeder 'IF" Street Corridor: Widen out curb return radii to maximum 35 feet to 50 feet to provide a smooth transi- tion at 'IF" Street and Roeder and Holly Street. A problEm at 'IF" and Roeder is with the number of RR tracks that exist. Smother track crossings should be installed. Signage and signals should be in-proved at this location for easily understandable traffic movement and safety. Through Holly traffic should continue to occur as well. 223 qeportunity Area E Industrial Expansion Area: Change zoning of this area between the Roeder/Chestnut Realignment and the vacated portion of Chestnut to Heavy Industrial to accommodate GP expansion. Figure 74 following describes the specifics of each of the four Development Plan alternatives by the seven opportunity areas. 224 Figure 74 Description of the Alternatives 0 T OPPORTUNITY AREAS ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 A -Retain public property and - Retain park/open space -Urban park-smaller open spaces Retain Maritime Heritage WHATCOM CREEK FOCUS maintain as park with public-private develop- Center Park -Create demonstration pr6ject milt -Retain natural creek shoreline with reconstruction of Citizen -.Relocate Citizens Dock to park Dock north of Holly Street -Lease/sale of city property to and renovate -Create(active maritime dis- stimulate private development plays i.e. boardable fishing -Pedestrian bridge across creek boats on land) -Develop up-hill pedestrian -Develop historical museum/ linkages . p-hill estrian inkages interpretive center around -Up-bill pedestrian linkages to lagoon with historic ships -Interpretive center within museum and government center -Include historical mseum/ *Safety upgrades to preserve interpretive center -Creek shoreline improvements pa rk Citizen Dock until -Develop new entrance to Mari- funding oUse emphasis - public/ -Upland pedestrian linkages time Heritage Center from "D" available for renovation recreation/education with with development projects Street Use emphasis - public/ limited Private commercial -Pedestrian bridge across creek -Develop a public view point recreational/educational/ S.W. of Holly on city-owned cultural -Creek dam/fish ladder to property control tidal flows -Improve Holly Street Bridge to -Reconstruction of Citizen Dock create a "gateway" north of Holly -Develop a pedestrian promenade -Use emphasis - mix of public/ along Whatcom Creek Private/commercial -Use emphasis: public/ recreational/educational/ waterfront access 0 Figure 74 Description of the Alternatives (cont) <k. _j 4 PPORTUNITY AREAS ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 B -Paint-up, fix-up, clean-up Zoning changes/design guide- Zoning ebanges/design guide- - Change waterfront commercial OLD TOWN CORE with screening of open storage lines for improvement of area lines for continuous building zoning to allow a wider range - flexibility in uses. ftha- facades along Holly Street. of non-water related retail -Zoning changes to stimulate sis on "old town" architectur- Emphasis on "old town" archi- uses private development al style and scale. tectural style and scale. - Consolidate light manufactur- -Eluffer historic buildings from I, Provide for water-related and Pedestrian amenitit-, A street ing and industrial properties industrial uses water-dependent uses within level between creek, I'D" Street, ------ --- the 200-foot shoreline bound- Maritime Heritage Center and -Enact asign/billboard ordi- ary along Whatcom Creek Create old town center around Holly by street vacations to nance to regulate size/type of train depot - consolidate 3 provide more on-site parking signs -Screen industrial areas south blocks - develop shops, public and reduce circulation ---- of Roeder Street along RR market with historical charac- problems -Enact minimal maintenance tracks ter ordinance for older buildings - Close entrance to Maritime *Enact sign and minimal main- Renovate key historical struc- Heritage Center at "C" Street -Use empbasis - mix of light tenance ordinances tures industrial/commercial/retail - Widen I'D" Street to two-way (reinforcement of existing) -Improve connections to Mari- Develop pedestrian overpass time Heritage Center along "C" from Holly Street over Roeder - Screen open storage areas and and "D" Streets at 'IF" Street surface parking lots -Use emphasis - mix of light Change shoreline programs to - Develop design standards to industrial/camnercial/retatl allow non-water-dependent/ emphasize "old town" archi- water-related uses within 200 tectural style and scale loot boundary along Vmtcom Creek Use Emphasis of commercial/ retail Figure 74 Description of the Alternatives (cont) > 0 n,!i - L_J OPPORTUNITY AREAS ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 C -Pedestrian linkages to Whatcom - Joint public/private building - Public parking structure south -Develop pedestrian linkages to HILLTOP/CBD. TRANSITION Creek project at Dupont/"[)" Streets of Holly Street between Maritime Heritage center -Relo,@ate fire station through grou"d leases Central -and Bay Streets -Develop a joint publie'and - Relocate fire station and post - Relocate fire station and post private commercial development -Screen surface parking lots office office at corner of Dupont and "D" from view of park Streets through the use of - Improve pedestrian linkages to - Provide for ground leases/sale ground leases of city-owned -Improve signage to direct park, Maritime Heritage Center "C', of upland properties along property visitors to park, Maritime and trail system Street, Dupont and Prospect to Heritage Center and trail stimulate private development Develop a parking structure ---- syston - Design guidelines for new south of Hol Ly between Central structures to emphasize "old - Redevelopnient of post office, and Bay Streets and the -Use Emphasis - mix of town" character and scale other hilltop sites Chestnut realignnent to be cownercial/governmental/ shared between Georgia Pacific cultural/light industrial o Use emphasis - raix commercial/ - Hill-climb retail along pedes- and public south of Holly Street with governmental/cultural trian linkages at rMseum and design review Central Avenue R.O.W. to Pros- Develop new retail storefronts pect Street along Holly frontage of park- - Use emphasis - Wx of ing structure commercial /gover nmental -.Intersection imiprovements at cultural Prospect and Champion, Central and LA)ttie, including special paving materials, bollards, lighting, signage and street- scaping Figure 74 Description of the Alternatives (cont) 41 0 L! PPORTUNITY AREAS ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 D - Holly Street upgrading with -Reduce estimated square -Reduce square foot lots/unit -Buffer railroad switching OLD TOWN FRINGE streetscape amenities footage required/unit for multi-family yards from uphill residential -Retain existing zoning multi-family residential -Encourage mixed use office/ and office use by landscaping -Encourage mixed use - office/ residential/retail -Develcp a public viewpoint at -Use emphasis - mix of residential Broadway Street end commercial/residential -Develop viewpoint at Broadway -Develop public viewpoint at Street end -Establish a new lettered end of Broadway Street streets neighborhood area 14 -Develop pedestrian overpass with increased residential -Use Emphasis - mix of to/from Broadway viewpoint to densities between Astor and ccemercial/residential Squalicum Harbor over Roeder Dupont and "U' and mid-block V Streets. --- Avenue between "F" and 'r maintain current office densi- -Develop buffer park along ties Great Northern RR R.O.W. at bottom of bluff between "F" Allow for reduced open space Street and Squalicum Harbor requirement in residential development by payment of fees -Rezone of area "D" to earmarked for Maritime fleri- commrcial/office/retail tage Center Park improvements buffer residential neighbor- hood transition zone Streetscaping improvements along 'T", "D", Astor and -Street improvements along Dupont Streets Holly between 7" Street and Broadway -Use Emphasis - mix of commercia I /resident ia I Z 0 Figure 74 Description Of the Alternatives (cont) i t .3 y L OPPORTUNITY AREAS ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 E -LAnd swap with/G.P. for street -Screen industrial areas from -Vacate Chestnut Street -Vacate Chestnut Street and INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION AREA re-alignment Holly Street Central Avenue to consolidate -Screen industrial expansion property --- --- -Encourage heavy industrial -Vacate Central Avenue south of area development Roeder and Chestnut Streets -Screen industrial expansion -Develop G.P. Interpretive from Central Business District -Vacate Chestnut Street -Use emphasis heavy indus- Center and Museum in Old Grain trial Mill Buildings along Central -Change zoning to heavy indus@- -Use emphasis heavy indus- Avenue and Roeder Street trial trial -Use empbasts heavy indus- trial Figure 74 Description of the Alternatives (cont) [3 C=3,, PPORTUNITY AREAS ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 F - Continue streetscape improve- -Underground utilities -Underground utilities Develop intersection improve- HOLLY/ROEDER STREET ments from Roeder Street and ments including special paving CORRIDOR LINKAGE CBD -Continue streetscape improve- -Right turn islands at Holly materials, bollards, special ments from Roeder Street and and Roeder and 'IF" Streets; lighting standards with ban- - Improve/coordinate signage CBD use island for public art work ners, and streetscaping, along depicting unique Bellingham the length of Holly between - Special traffic/gateway tra.- -Design guidelines for coor- theme from history such as CBD and Broadway pravements at 'IF" Street dinated signage, lighting, "4th of July t883" building development Intersection improvements at - Special bridge improvements -Continue street scape improve- Holly and Broadwayp 'IF", I'D", across Whatcom Creek Traffic plus amenity projects ments Central Avenue, Champion at 'IF" Street (park) and Street, and Bay and Roeder, -J Whatcom Creek (overlook) -Additional intersection im- 'IF" Street, and Tom Glenn provements at Roeder and Holly Drive Right turn lanes at Holly, Streets at "C" Street as se- Roeder and 'IF" Streets condary linkage between CBD, Underground utilities between Squalicun Harbor and Maritime "PI Atreet and Bay along Holly Heritage Center Encourage visual screens along -Improve "gateway" image of southwest side of Roeder to Holly Street bridge over block industrial areas from Whatcorn Creek with banners9 view overlookst etc. -Intersection improvements at Holly and Prospect, Bay, "C", I'D,'- IIE,11 'IF," and Roeder and '101 and 'IF" Streets and at Tom Glenn Drive at Squaltcum Harbor QL Y Figure 74 Description of the Alternatives (cont) r-4ck. 41 0 0S OPPORTUNITY AREAS ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 Re-align Chestnut Street -Re-align Chestnut Street -Re-align Chestnut Street - Realign Chestnut Street ROEDER/CHESTNUT STREET REALIGNMENT Designated truck route allow- -Designated truck route allow- -Designated truck route allow- - Designated truck route allow- ing access to heavy industry ing access to heavy industry ing access to heavy industry ing access for heavy industry -Iron fence along RR tracks and 0Iron fence along RR tracks and - Screen industrial areas from Roeder Street to visually Roeder to visually screen area view at Holly screen area -Intersection improvements at * Make necessary roadway im- "C" Street and Roeder Street provements to Roeder Street as Secondary linkage to Holly and bridge to improve traffic Street and to define RR Depot circulation ---- block redevelopment area -Develop overlook on Roeder Bridge at Whatcom Creek water- way -Improve "gateway" image of Roeder Bridge at Whatcom Creek Figure 74 Description ofthe Alternatives (cont) 7K 41 PPORTUNITY AREAS ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY/ -Level development/improvements * Level development/improvements - Speculative development versus -Level of development/ FUNDING SOURCES in line with current/forecast in line with current/forecast, market driven improvements in line with market conditions (mrket market conditions (market current forecast market responsive) responsive) - High level of capital invest- conditions -Lowlevel or capital invest- - Moderate level of capital Wnt required -Moderate level of capital ment required Investment required - Funding sources (public/ investment required -Infrastructure funding - Infrastructure funding private) -Funding sources could include sources: sources: - UDAG use of city-owned property - SBA loans through ground leases and - CEERB - CERB - Block grants/loans "development fees" paid in - Public infrastructure - Public infrastructure - Private sector lieu of open space and sale of trust program trust program (equity/debt) vacated street right-of-ways - EDA - Title I - EDA - Title I - Public sector (local to produce capital - GO Bonds - OD Bonds governments) Interagency commission for - Funding required for rehab/ outdoor recreation as possible reconstruction/relocation of part and Citizen Dock funding Citizen dock (public/private source sector) Evaluation of the Alternatives Following the development of the fourth Development Plan Composite Alternative, each of the alternatives were comparatively evaluated against the evaluation criteria discussed earlier. Figures 75 and 76 describe the comparative evaluation and ranking of the alternatives. 233 Figure 75 Evaluation of the Alternatives Za T' EVALUATION CRITERIA ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 LAND US E COMPATIBILITY Citizen's Dock remains Citizen's Dock relocated and Citizen's Dock relocated and Citizen's Dock relocated and within Whatcom Creek renovated - opens waterway renovated; railroad depot renovated within Maritime waterway - limits industrial renovated for commercial use Heritage Center park as HISTORIC PRESERVATION uses . Major new amenities and open public open air pavilion an d space Smaller urban park, more public view point DEVELOPMENT OF AMENITIES AND . Land use amphasis remains extensive waterfront OPEN SPACE light industrial/light . High level of compatibility promenade Mix of land uses compatible manufacturing due to mix of land uses with industrial and residen- COMPATIBILITY WITH HEAVY Intensive commercial uses tial areas INDUSTRIAL USES AND . Limited improvements to . Increased water my be incompatible with RESIDEYrIAL AREAS Maritime Heritage Park; dependent/marine industry industrial uses Marine industrial emphasis little change in amenities use of Whatcom Creek of Whatcom Creek waterway WHATCOM CREEK WATERWAY EMPHASIS waterway Marine industrial use of . Conflicts between Whatcom Creek waterway Consolidation of light MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL manufacturing/industrial Relocation of Citizen's Dock industrial - manufacturing ODNFLICTS/LIABILITIES users and Martime Heritage mitigates potential Displacement of existing uses between 11311 and I'D" Center - access liabilities/conflicts and uses Streets, Holly and Maritim enhances existing uses Heritage Center mitigates potential impacts and project uses LINKAGES AND WATER ACCESS Public access to waterfront . Increased public access to . Extensive waterfront access . Waterfront promenade and along creek limited to waterfront within park public viewpoint along creek Maritime Heritage Center . Improved vehicular and provide public access INCREASE OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO park improvements . Improved circulation between pedestrian movement between WATERFRONT C.B.D. and Squalicum Harbor Squalicum Harbor, C.B.D. and . Improved pedestrian and Limited improvements to with right turn lanes at 'IF., bettered Streets vehicular movein-ot between IMPROVED ACCESS BETWEEN Roeder and Holly provides Street, Roeder and Holly Neighborhood along Holly, Squalicum Harbor and C.B.D. SQUALICUM HARBOR AND CBD somewhat improved Roeder, IICII and 'IF" streets - with improvements at 'IF", circulation between C.B.D. Improved access to Maritime Holly, and Roeder IMPROVED ACCESS BETWEEN LETTERED and Squalicum Harbor Heritage Center through new Extensive street STREETS NEIGHBORHOOD AND development at Dupont and improvements, signage and . New entrance to Maritime MARITIME HERITAGE CENTER Somewhat improved access to I'D" Street and improved signalization Heritage Center at I'D" Maritime Heritage Center access at "C" Street Street IMPROVED VEHICULAR MOVEMENT ON along "C" street ROEDER AND HOLLY SrREETS . Improved access to Lettered Streets Neighborhood from IMPROVID ACCESS TO MARITIME Maritime Heritage Center HERITAGE CENTER with public/private development at Dupont and I'D" Streets Figure 75 Evaluation of the Alternatives (cont) 0 EVALUATION CRITERIA ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY . Sign and billboard Improved image and identity Extensive streetscaping and Streetscape improvements IMPROVEMENT regulations improve visual with streetscaping along pedestrian Improvements to along Holly, Astor, Roeder, quality Holly Street and mix of land improve Image, identity, "D" and IT" Streets - uses security and safety improve identity and IMPROVED VISUAL QUALITY OF' . Limited improvement to pedestrian experience SrREETSCAPE pedestrian access along Improved pedestrian linkages . Industrial uses isolated Holly and within @Iarltlme betueen park and C.B.D. and southwest of Roeder Street 'nateway" improvement to NUSANCES ODNTRDLLED Heritage Oenter park along Holly to control nuisances Holly Street bridge to enhance sense of entry to IMPROVED IMAGE AND IDENTITY . Low potential for nuisance Relocation of Citizen's Dock . Waterfront center area complaints due to industrial and mix of land uses redures development around railroad IMPROVED SECURITY AND SAFETY Image and use potential for nuisances/ depot enhances images of . Extensive pedestrian liabilities "old town" improvement along creek and IMPROVED MARITIME HERITAGE . Improvements limited to within park CENTER DEVELOPMENT paint-up/fix-up solutions Improved vehicular and some environmental quality pedestrian safety along . Consolidation of light Improvement Holly, Roeder and "C" industrial/manufacturing Streets uses between "B", "IT and Holly Streets and the Maritime Heritage Center to control nuisances and Improve security and safety . Maritime Interpretive Center wi thin Maritime Heritage Center park Figure 75 Evaluation of the Alternatives (cont) EVALUATION CRITERIA ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 ECONOMIC GROWTH AND Area would remain Joint public/private Waterfront center Joint public/private FEASIBILITY predominately industrial and commercial development development around railroad commercial development manufacturing in use - provides positive fiscal depot major retail positive fiscal impact to little incentive for impact to city (ground commercial developmLnt - city (ground leases) and FISCAL IMPACT TO THE CITY economic growth or change leases) and incentives to increase in revenues incentive to private sector private investment FISCAL IMPACT TO PRIVATE SECTOR . Low level of capital Substantial public/private Amenities encourage investnent Amenities encourage development would provide investment ENCOURK@EMENT OF PRIVATE investment incentives for private INVESTMENT . Existing businesses would investment albeit Ri of land uses protect remain Mix of land uses allows for speculative vs. un rke t exxisting businesses and PHOTECT[ON AND ENHANCEMENT OF existing businesses driven allow for new EXISTM BUSINESSES . Potential Funding Sources (Local, State, Federal) Potential Funding Sources . Displacement of some Potential Funding Sources POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES - GO Bonds (Local, State, Federal) existing businesses (Local, State, Federal) - CERB - GO Bonds - 00 Bonds - Public Infrastructure - CERB . Potential Funding Sources - CERB Trust Program - Public Infrastructure (Local, State, Federal) - Public Infrastructure - EDA-Title I Trust Program - GO Bonds Trust Program - IAC - EDA-Title I - CERB - EDA7Title I - IAC - Public Infrastructure - IAC . Market Responsive - UDAG Trust Program - UDAG - SBA Loans - EBA-Title I - SBA Loans - Block Grants/Loans - IAC - Block Grants/Loans - Private Sector - UDAG - Private Sector (Equity/Debt) - SBA Loans (Equity/Debt) - Public Sector (Local - Block Grants/Loans - Public Sector (Local Governments - Private Sector Govertments (Equity/Debt) � Market Responsive - Public Sector (Local . Ma rket Responsive Governments . Speculative EASE OF IMPLEMENTATION . Limited improvements would . Flexible phasing . Phasing somewhat less flex- . Flexible phasing of projects require simple phasing ible due to the intensity of � Zoning and Comprehensive re-development . Zoning and Comprehensive FLEXIBILITY IN PHASING . Zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments necessary to Plan amendments necessary Plan revisions required to allow wider range of retail . Rezoning and Shoreline for rwre retail uses REGULATORY CHANGE NECESSARY bring existing uses into uses in Waterfront Program revisions required conformance Commercial . Limited public/private de- EQUITY Amount of public/private velopment does not coq)ete Inconsistent with existing Land use enphasis consistent development rmy raise ques- with private sector CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING PLANS zoning and shoreline plans with Bellingham Plan goals tions of equity and competi- AND REGULATIONS and regulations tion with private sector Uses consistent with Bel- lingham Plan goals Figure 75 Evaluation of the Alternatives (cont) Mal VALUATION CRITERIA ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 PUBLIC/PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE . High acceptance due to mint- High level of public/private Difficult public and poli- High level of public accep- mal level of change (no acceptance due to mix of tical acceptance due to tance due to mix of land action plus) land uses, public amenities intense level of speculative uses, public amenities pro- PUFLIC/POLITICAL ACCEPTANCE provided and public/private change, capital costs and vided and public/private . Little flexibility in land partnership potential incompatibility partnership FLEKIBILITY IN LAND USE use with industrial uses Mix of land uses provides Increased flexibility in RELATIONSHIP TO RESIDENTIAL . Industrial/manufacturing flexibility Increased retail/cawyercial land use with zoning changes NEIGIBORHOODS uses would continue to ad- activities could adversely versely impact residential Mix of land uses compatible Impact residential Increased residential den- areas uphill with residential neighborhoods sities would provide incen- neighborhoods tives for new residential People intensify conflicts development uphill with industry SUMMARY EVALUATION' . Fair land use compatibility Good land use compatibility . Moderate land use Good land use compatibility compa b ty . Minimal level of improved Moderate level of improved Extensive linkage and vater- linkages and waterfront linkages and waterfront . Extensive linkage and water- front access access access front access improvements . Moderate to high level of . Some environmental quality Moderate level of economic . High level of environmental environmental quality upgrades growth; moderate level of quality caital investment; market . Moderate level of economic . Low level of economic responsive . Speculative level of growth; moderately high growth; low level of economic growth; high level level of capital investment; capital investment; market Requires moderate level of of capital investment; not market responsive responsive implementation mechanisms market responsive and monitoring . Requires moderate level of . Requires low level of imple- . Requires high level of im- implementation mechanisms mentation mechanisms and Moderately high level of plementation mechanism and and monitoring monitoring public acceptance because of monitoring land uses and amenities . High level of public accep- . Moderately high level of . Moderate level of public tance due to land use mix, public acceptance due to acceptance due to extensive/ amenities, and level of lack of significant change speculative capital capital investment investment RANK: 3rd RANK: 2ND RANK: 4th RANK: Ist EVALUATION CRITERIA A LT. 1 A LT. 2 A LT. 3 ALT. 4 Land Use Compatibility Linkages and Water Access Environmental Quality Improvement Economic Growth and Feasibility Ease of Implementation Public/Private Acceptance Summary Evaluation Figure 76 High 0 Moderate@@ Low 0 Summary Evaluation of Alternatives Based on the Comparative Evaluation of the four Development Plan Alterna- tives, the fourth or Composite Alternative was recomnLanded for further refinement and implementation as the Recommended Development Plan for the Central Waterfront. Following the discussion of the evaluation of the alternatives, comments were taken from the Task Force, Technical CMMAttee, and general Public on how the Recommended Plan could be further refined prior to its implementa- tion. The following are comments received on the preliminary consultant recommendations. Comments voiced by the Technical Committee and Task Force Sessions: The Port expressed a desire to change the allowed uses within the Marine Industrial designation along the I & J Waterway to allow some retail /commercial uses such as retail fish imrkets or other commercial uses due to the lack of demand for fish processing plants and the general decline in the industry around Bellingham. Georgia-Pacific voiced concern over the designation of its property between Central and Bay Streets and Holly and Roeder/Chestnut Realign- ment only for parking. Georgia-Pacific indicated that portions of their property might be needed for a water filtration/punp station and/or an electrical substation. The City had some concern over the vacation of Central Avenue between Cbestnut and Roeder for pedestrian access. A street vacation would mean that the City would dispose of the property. The City indicated that perhaps all but a 20 foot wide strip of the street might be vacated in order to allow pedestrian access along it. Georgia-Pacific initially indicated no desire for acquiring the property as it is located on pilings 6ver the water and is in disrepair. Later Georgia- Pacific indicated that it might indeed be interested in acquiring the property together with the R.O.W. Public access to the existing transient and seaplane moorage on the waterway near the Roeder Street Bridge should be continued. 239 The City suggested prioritizing and phasing improvements to intersec- tions with the first intersection to be improved being those near downtown and along Holly and at 'IF" Street. Other intersections would follow as budgets allow. Intersection improvements could also be prioritized in terms of the type and amount of improvement given. Important intersections might have special paving, streetscaping improvements, signage and lighting, and bollards to signify their importance, while other intersections may only receive minimal improve- ments such as bollards that relate them in theme to the area. 71be City and the Port suggested keeping a sLggested pedestrian overpass between Squalicum Harbor and the Broadway Viewpoint even though the funding of such an improvement would depend on'capital. improvement budgets. It was suggested that the refined plan call for maintaining the Old Burlington Northern Depot as it occupies a significant location at the terminus of I'D" Street which will take a more significance as a two-way connection to Dupont and the Maritime Heritage Center. The Mayor suggested that the new Lettered Streets Area 14 might be extended to include more of Residential Area 9 to provide more incen- tive for high density residential development near the CBD and the Maritime Heritage Center. � The appropriateness of seaplanes on the Whatcom Creek Waterway was discussed. For the time being this is the only place to accommodate this use and it should continue until a new location can be found. � The need for the entire length of Central Avenue for public access was discussed with Task Force members. Planning staff will investigate the use of the street right-of-way for parking purposes. 240 Comments voiced during the public sessi on centered upon Citizens Dock and public waterfront access: 0 Opposition to moving of Citizens Dock 0 Public access to the Whatcom Creek Waterway should be enhanced. A desire to be able to actually/physically get down to the waterway was expressed. 0 Concern was voiced for the waterway being solely heavy/marine indus- trial in use * Public access and parking on Central Avenue right of way between Georgia-Pacific and Roeder was thought to be very important 0 Use of City-owned property within the Maritime Heritage Center for joint public/private commercial development was a concern 0 There was concern that new commercial development within Maritime Heritage Center would compete with commercial development in the CBD and other areas around downtown * There is a need for parking near Citizens Dock to make it more accessible to the public 0 Impacts may occur from increased residential densities in Lettered Street Area 14 upon other residential areas 0 Bellingham Sash and Door had concerns over access to their business and the vacation of Astor and "C" Streets in exchange for pedestrian access along the creek Despite the continuing issues which must be addressed, there appeared to be considerable agreement on the majority of the problems/solutions of the Central Waterfront. Based on these comments, the Composite Alternative was further refined. 241 Plan Directions The fourth or Composite Alternative was further refined and the implement- ation phasing recommended. The plan and its specific! improvement projects are detailed in Section II of this report. The following are the signifi- cant refinements made to the plan following its review by the Task Force, Technical Comindttee and general public. Refinements to the Composite Alternative Keep Central Avenue between Chestnut and Roeder as a public right-of- way and provide for diagonal on-street parking, a vehicle turn around, and a landscaped pedestrian sidewalk along the waterway. This area will provide necessary parking and pedestrian access to the waterway following the realginment of Chestnut and Roeder. The sidewalk will be widened and extended along the Roeder Bridge to a pedestrian viewpoint at mid-point on the bridge. This viewpoint will have benches, lighting and interpretive matrials to describe the working waterfront and industrial activities occurring on the waterway. Access to the existing transient moorage and seaplane moorage is retained as well as a means to physically get down to the waters edge. Four key intersections along Holly Street were identified as contribut- ing significantly to the linkage between the CBD and Squalicum Harbor through the area. These intersections would receive major iWrovemeants such as special street paving, bollards, special lighting, and signage, banners, kiosks, bus shelters, and street furniture. The four intersections are: - Holly at Central - Holly at I'D" Street - Holly at 'IF" Street - Roeder at 'IF" Street Other intersections have been prioritized as to the type and amount of improvements necessary and when they would be implemented. Other improvements vould be consistent with those already existing in the CBD .and at Squalicum Harbor. 242 The old Burlington Northern Depot should be maintained as a histor- ically significant structure in the Central Waterfront and as contrib- uting to the scale and character of the area and to the historical importance of the railroads to the area. The building also acts as a visual terminus at the end of I'D" Street which, when widened to a two- wa@ street with a new entry to the Maritime Heritage Center, will be a major route through the area. The depot also acts as a buffer between tracks and Holly Street. � The suggested new Lettered Streets Area 14 was extended to include more of Area 9 to provide additional incentives to housing within the area. � The pedestrian boardwalk or promenade along the creek adjacent to the "B" Street right-of-way and Bellingham Sash and Door will be designed in such a way as not to impede vehicular access to Sash and Door's parking. The boardwalk could be constructed over the creek's sloping bank and on the waterside of the "B" Street right-of-way. This would follow the historic location of the Old Colony Wharf that ran along the waterfront at this location prior to land fills in the area. The promenade could be built out over the creek on pilings as it turns along the backside of Sash and Doors' property to link up to the Salmon Life Cycle Facility. If this appears to be physically or financially a problem, a new pedestrian bridge could be built over the creek to link it back to the pedestrian trails in the Maritime Heritage Center Park. � Citizens Dock is moved north of Holly Street into the park and will be partially restored and act as a pavilion for a maritim interpretive center with boats and historic materials. The front and rear portions of Citizens Dock are to be reused as enclosed leasable space wbich might contain a small retail food outlet providing seafood to the public that use the park, and leasable office space in the upper floors. The central portion of the building might only contain two or three bays of the original building in order to reduce the mass of the building and provide for views through the building to the creek from upland areas. The front and rear portions of the building should be located the same distance as the original buildings mass and footprint was. An open air pavilion could provide space for the display of boats, or provider for fair weather gatherings, music or theatre events. 243 The Citizens Dock pavilion is located with its architecturally significant front facade facing on to Holly Street near the Holly Street Bridge. Tbis helps to define the street edge and from a Itgateway" into the Central Waterfront area. This gateway would be accented with brightly colored banners, flags, and seasonal flowering plants to male it can inviting ad colorful place. A boardwalk along the creek could be terraced down toward the creek and provide areas for seating and fair weather dining. Historic ship might be moored along this boardwalk/pier if adequate water level in the creek is achievable to allow for it. A fish ladder and spillway type dam with tide gate recommended in the Whatcom. Creek Open Space Plan would allow for a constant water level to be maintained in the creek and reduce tidal changes in the creek level and the occasional salt water low tide odors. The dam muld create a salt and'fresh water estuary and adjustment area for outgoing steelhead. The lagoon created could actually enhance steelhead breeding by providing another feeding station for outgoing fish. Feeding of fish and the fish ladder would be an additional attrac- tion for visitors to the park. The details of other specific improvement projects are given in Section II of this plan along with phasing and implementation descriptions. Figure 5 shows an illustrative site plan and Figures 6 through 10 are illustrative sketches of a number of the suggested improvements. 244 I I Appendices I I 1, I I I I I I I I I I STUDY WORK SESSIONS Full-day %ork sessions were held throughout the Central Waterfront study. (Charrettes) The typical organization was a morning session with the Technical Committee, afternoon sessions with the Task Force and evening public meetings. All meetings were open and all participants welcomed throughout the day's "charrette". March 4, 1986: Issues and Directions March 18, 1986: General Concepts April 15, 1986: Refined Concepts May 13, 1986: Comparative Evaluation June.3, 1986: Refined Plan PROGRESS REPORTS The following documents were produced during the study. They are separ- ately bound and are considered a Technical Append ix: 0 Issues/Directions Charrette Report 1 March 10, 1986 0 General Concepts Charrette Report 2 March 25, 1986 * Refined Concepts Charrette Report 3 April 21, 1986 Comparative Evaluation Charrette Report 4 - May 19, 1986 Recommended Development Plan Summary Briefing June 3, 1986 245 STUDY PARTICIPANTS Waterfront Task Force Hal Arnason, Jr., Cbairman - Fourth Corner Development Group Tut Asnundson, Commissioner - Port of Bellingham Carl Nielson, Board Member - Fourth Corner Development Group Tim Douglas, Mayor - City of Bellingham Don Fleming, Executive Director - Port of Bellingham Mark Asnundson - Bellingham City Councilperson Dr. Robert Ross, President - Western Washington University Georg Leshefka, Planning Commission Chairperson Technical Committee Bill Geyer, Planning Director - City of Bellingham Ed Dahlgren, Manager of Engineering Service - Georgia-Pacific Corporation Jeff Kaspar, Assistant Deputy - Port of Bellingham Wayne Schwandt, Executive Director - Fourth Corner Developwnt Group Others Rick Fackler, Project Manager - City of Bellingham Vickie Matheson - City of Bellingham William Hager - City of Bellingham Mark Asmundson - City Council Foster Rose - City Council Tip Johnson - City Council Don Cole, Vice President - Western Washington University Art Choat, Harbormaster - Port of Bellingham Dan Dahlgren - Georgia-Pacific Corporation Harriet Spanel - Planning Commission Louise Bjornson - Planning Commission George S. Graham Anne Nelson Kevin Baker Catharine Stimpson Larry Harrimn George Thomas Verga Whittaker Glo Harriman Michael Newlight 246 Others (cont.) Brent Walker Carl Akin Steve Brinn Ralph Akers Carl Akers Roger Almskaar Larry Willmn Rick Gilbert Susanne Stevens Elizabeth Wiley William J. Ruff Ta im i Dunn George Livesey, Jr. Duane Schenck Wm. Wistocki Cecilia Michel Lee Walkup Robt. Whittaker David Seymour Anthony Gabriel Terry Galvin Jay Gunsauls Terry Taylor Teresa Carson Trace Goodnight Byron Elmendorf John Templeton M.A. Kennell Dick Metcalf Jim Sands Eleanor Gravem Les Leal David Seymour Matt Peach Brent Walker Gloria Johnson Richard Moreau Cecilia Michel 247 Others (cont) Jim Humphreys Terry Peterson Bill Vonk Joy Keenan Dennis Archer Emil Bayot Joe Orem Consultant Team Management and Planning Services, a member of The NBBJ Group Vincent Vergel de Dios Dennis Tate Yves Mizrahi 248 COST ESTIMATES The following cost estimates are expressed in 1986 dollars and were derived using a unit cost bottom-up building-up approach. All estimites are rounded to the nearest thousandth including construction and costs plus expenses for additional iteas such as fees (architectural/ engineering), taxes, permits, outside consultants, overhead, and general contingencies. The cost estimates portion is divided into two parts: � Project Cost Sunmary by improvement item � Detailed Project Costs by improvement item PROJECr COSF SUMMARY - BY ITEM 1. Citizens Dock Partial Rehabilitation Upland at Maritime Heritage Center plus land acquisition $ 517,000 2. Public Waterfront Access a. Pedestrian Stepped Deck 435,000 b. Old Colony Wharf 634,000 c. Public Viewpoint (between Roeder and Holly) 254,000 d. Public Viewpoint (on Roeder; Old Citizens Dock site) 325,000 e. Central Avenue Public Access 380,000 Subtotal $ 2,028,000 249 PROJECT COST SUMMARY - BY IT@M continued 3. Maritime Interpretive Center - variable dependent on type and extent of exhibits $ 0 4. Public Private Development Projects a. Office Building (12,000 GSF) @ Dupont and D Street 1,159,000 b. Retail Space on Holly between Bay and Central 864,000 5. Consolidated Development Area - Costs not included 0 6. Heavy Industrial Expansion - Costs not included 0 7. Holly/Roeder Streetscape, a. Streetscaping 527,000 b. Utilities 894,000 c. Road Improvements at Railroad teaches turn widening/smoothing) at Holly and Roeder 12,000 8. Holly Street Bridge and Gateway 288,000 9. Intersection Improvements a. Main Intersections (4) Roeder/F, Holly/F, Holly/D, Holly/Central 767,000 b. Secondary Intersections (11) 1,164,000 10. Chestnut/Roeder Realignment 0 Funding Assumption (60% public/40% private) 2,400,000 11. D Street Improvements (widen from I to 2-way) 462,000 250 PROJECr ODST SUMMARY - BY ITEMY continued 12. Upland Pedestrian Linkages a. Maritime Heritage Center $ 71,000 b. Broadway Overlook 55,000 $ 126,000 13. Parking (structured, 350 stalls on Holly Street south of Central) Funding Assumption (50% public/50% private) $ 3,305,000 14.- 17. Non-Cost Items,; Complexity Zoning related, etc. 0 Grand Total $14,513,000 COST BREAKDOWN � Private Portion - Office $1,159,000) - Retail 864,000) $ 4,636,000 - Parking 1,653,000) - Roeder Realignment 960,000) � Public Portion 9,8772000 Items #1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 10 (60%), 11, 12 13 (50%) Total $14,513,000 251 DETAILED PROJECT COSTS - BY ITEM 1. Citizens Dock A full range of rehabilitation and new construction alternatives were examined for Citizens Dc)ck (shom on the following page). Relocation and partial revaluation was the chosen alternative. Construction Cost = $34/sq. ft. x 10,220 sq. ft. $347,480 20% Contingency 69,496 Land Purchase $5/sq.ft.* x 20,000 sq.ft. 100,000 Total $516,976 2.a. Pedestrian Stepped Deck (2001 x 50') Descri2tion Quantity Unit Costs Total Site Preparation Lump Sun $ 5,000 Pilings Lump Sum 60,000 Decking and Framing: Tr. Wd. 10,000 sf $10.50 105,000 Railing - Pipe 300 If 20.00 6,000 Lights 25 ea 1,500 37,500 Potted Trees 50 ea 1,000 50,000 Benches 12 ea 500 6,000 Trash Cans 12 ea 250 3,000 Fire Sprinkler 10,000 sf 2.50 25,000 Life Safety Provisions NIC NIC Power to Site Lump Sun 51000 Subtotal $302,500 Cbnstruction Costs + 25% $378,125 Project Cost + 15% $434,844 For estimation purposes only actual value will have to be determined by an MIA appraisal. 252 CITIZENS DOCK ALTERNATIVES ($000's) 20% Action Construction Costs + Contingency_= Project Costs 1. Do Nothing 0 0 0 2. Renovate In-Place Full $75/sf x 20,440 sf = $1,533 $307 $1,840 Partial $40/sf x 10,220 sf = $ 409 $ 82 $ 491 3. Demolish $ 3/sf x 20,440 sf = $ 61 - $ 61 4. Relocate Upland A. Full Rehab $61/sf x 20,440 sf = $1,247 $249 $1,496 Land Purchase $ 5/sf x 20,000 sf = $ 100 - 100 $1,596 B. Partial Rehab $34/sf x 10,220 sf = $ 348 $ 69 $ 417 Land Purchase $ 5/sf x 20,000 sf = $ 100 - 100 $ 517 C. Dew & New Full Replica (New Constr.) $43/sf x 20,440 sf = $ 879 $176 $1,055 Land Purchase $ 5/sf x 20,000 sf = $ 100 - 100 D. Dew & New $1,155 Partial (New Construction) $28/sf x 10,220 sf = $ 286 $ 57 $ 343 Land Purchase $ 5/sf x 20,000 sf = $ 100 100 $ 443 Preliminary cost estimates are expected to vary + 10-15%. 253 2.b. Old Colony Wharf (1,000' x 12') Description Quantity Unit Costs Total Site Preparation Lump Sun $ 5,000 Pilings Lump Sum 72,000 Decking and Framing: Tr. Wd.. 12,000 sf $10.50 126,000 Railing - Pipe 1,000 if 20.00 20,000 Lights 50 ea 1,500 75,000 Potted Trees 50 ea 1,000 50,000 Benches 50 ea 500 25,000 Trash Cans 50 ea 250 12,500 Fire Sprinkler 12,000 sf 2.50 30,000 Life Safety Provisions NIC NIC Power to Site Lump Sun 5,000 Security Fence (10' tall) 1,000 if 20 20,000 Subtotal $441,000 Construction Costs + 25%, $551f250 Project Cost + 15% $633,938 254 2.c. Public Viewpoint (between Roeder & Holly, 60' x 1001) Description Quantity Unit Costs Total Site Preparation Lump Sum $ 10,000 Pilings Lump Sun 25,000 Decking and Framing: Tr. Wd. 6P000 sf $10.50 63,000 Observation Tower (all wood-mtl roof-mtI railings) Lunp Sun 25,000 Railing 220 If 20.00 4,400 Lights 10 ea IP500 15,000 Potted Plants 10 ea 1,000 10,000 Benches 6ea 500 3,000 Trash Cans 6ea 250 1,500 Fire Sprinkler 69000 sf 2.50 15,000 Life Safety Provisions NIC NIC Power to Site Lump Sun 5,000 Subtotal $176,900 Construction Costs + 25% $221,125 Project Cost + 15% $254,294 255 2.d. Public Viewpoint (on Roeder/Old Citizens Dock site) (100' x 22' + 400' x 81) Description Quantity Unit Costs Total Demolition Lump Su-n 10,000 Pilings Lump Sum 10,000 Decking and Framing: Tr. Wd. 5,400 sf $20.00 108,000 Street Paving 1,000 sf 2.00 2,000 Walk Paving 4,400 sf 2.50 11,000 Curbs 500 if 5.00 2,500 Railing 500 If 20.00 10,000 Lights 25 ea 1,500 37,500 Potted Plants 12 ea. 1,000 12,000 Benches 6ea. 500 3,000 Trash Cans 6ea 250 1,500 Fire Sprinkler 5,400 sf 2.50 13,500 Life Safety Provisions NIC NIC Power to Site Lump Sum 51000 Subtotal $226,000 Construction Costs + 25% $282,500 Project Cost + 15% $324,875 256 2.e. Central Avenue Public Access Description Quantity Unit Costs Total Demolition 20,000 sf $1.00 $ 20,000 Piling-Upgrade Exist-Allowance Lump Sum 50,000 Patch Existing Deck-Allowance Lump Sum 6,000 New Paving 20,000 sf 3.00 60,000 Curbs 300 If 6.00 1,800 Railing 580 If 20.00 11,600 Lights 20 ea 1,500 30,000 Potted Plants 20 ea 1,000 20,000 Benches 10 ea 500 5,000 Trash Cans 10 ea 250 2,500 Fire Sprinkler 20,000 sf 2.50 50,500 Life Safety Provisions NIC NIC Power to Site Lump Sun 5,000 Subtotal $264,400 Construction Costs + 25% $330,500 Project Cost + 15% $380,075 257 7.a. Holly/Roeder Street Streetscaping (12 blocks, 161 x 200'/each) (Project costs) Description Quantity Unit Costs Total Street Trees with Grates 72 ea $2,000 $144,000 (6 trees/block x 12 blocks) Street Lighting 48 ea 3,450 165,600 (4/block x 12 blocks) Trash Cans 12 ea 414 4,968 (1/block alt. sides x 12 blks) Scored Paving 19,200 sf 5.52 105,984 Demolition 38,400 sf 2.76 105,984 $526,536 7.b. Utilities (Power & Telephone Utility Lines) - Relocate from above ground to buried - 12 blocks at 200 ft/ea; power on one side, phone on other - Includes manholes, excavation and backfill Description Quantity Unit Costs Total Remove Lines & Poles 7,200 If $20.00 $144,000 Replace Line & Bury 7,200 If $70.00 504,000 $648,000 Construction Cost - 20% $777,600 Project Cost - 15% $894,240 259 4.a. Public Private Developme nt - Office Building Wood frame, stucco walls, built-up roof, stepped footings, ACT ceiling, carpet floor, minimum partitions, elevators, parking under building for 30 spaces Description Quantity Unit Costs Total Demolition & Site Prep Lump Sun $ 10,000 Building 12,000 sf $ 50 .600,000 Parking 30 stalls $6,500/stall 195 000 Subtotal $805,000 Construction Costs + 20% $966,000 Project Cost + 20% $1,159,200 4.b. Retail Space Description Quantity Unit Costs Total Retail Space 12,000 sf $ 50 $600,000 Construction Cost + 20% $720,000 Project Cost + 20% $864,000 258 7. c. 'IF" and Roeder: Smooth out road over tracks and widen turn Description Quantity Unit costs Total Site Prep Lump Sum $ 2,000 New Pavement 1,600 sf $ 3.00 4,800 Steel Rail to RRT 200 If 7.50 1,500 Curb 70 If 6.00 420 Subtotal $ 81720 Construction Cost + 20% $ 10,464 Project Cost + 15% $ 12,034 8. Holly Street Bridge and Gateway Description Quantity Unit Costs Total Demolition Lump Sm $ 10,000 Upgrade Existing Structure Lump Sum 15,000 Replace Decking Lump Sum 6,000 Scored Concrete Paving w/brick 5,000 sf $ 5.00 25,000 Street Lights: FOIC 40 ea 800 32,000 Flag Poles 10 ea 29400 24,000 Bollards 80 ea 200 16,000 Potted Trees 20 ea 1,000 20,000 Walk Signals 4ea 6,000 24,000 Trash Cans 10 ea 250 2,500 Concrete Railings 200 If 30 6,000 Power Lump Sum 10,000 Benches 20 ea 500 10,000 Life Safety Provisions NIC NIC Fire Sprinklers NIC NIC Subtotal $200,500 Construction Costs + 25% $250,625 Project Cost + 15% $288,219 260 9.a. Intersection Improvements - Main Intersections (4 each) Description Quantity Unit Costs Total Per Intersection: Paving 2,000 sf $ 2.50 $ 5,000 Demolition - scraping Lump Sum 5,000 Curbs 400 If 6.00 2,400 Scored Sidewalk Paving 1,500 sf 4.00 6,000 Brick & Concrete @ Crosswalks 2,560 sf 10.00 25,600 Handicap Ramp 8 ea 200 1,600 Striping Lump Sum 700 Concrete Bollards 48 ea 200 9,600 Street Lights 8 ea 2,500 20,000 Walk Signal 4 ea 6,000 24,000 Trees w/Grates 24 ea 1,500 36,000 Trash Cans 4 ea 250 12000 Utilities: Power Lurnp Sum 2,000 Subtotal $138,900 Construction Costs + 20% $160,680 Project Cost + 15% $191,682 x 4 = 1 $766,728 261 9.b. Secondary Intersections (11 each) Descri2tion Quantity Unit Costs Total Per Intersection: Demolition Lump Sum $ 5,000 Curbs 400 If $ 6.00 2,400 Sidewalks 1,500 sf 3.00 4,500 Paving 2,000 sf 2.50 5,000 Striping Lump Sum 1,000 Concrete Bollards 24 ea. 200 4,800 Trees w/Grates 12 ea 1,500 18,000 Walk Signals 4ea. 6,000 24,000 Street Light 4ea 2,500 10,000 Power Lump Sun 22000 Subtotal $ 76,700 Construction Costs + 207o $ 92,040 Project Cost + 15% $105t846 X 11 = $1,164,306 10. Chestnut/Roeder Realignment $2,400,000 * Cost estimates from City of Bellingham Planning and Economic Development Departrwnt 0 City assumes funding will be distributed as follows: - 60% public sector ($1,440,000) - 40% private sector ($960,000) 262 11. "D" Street Improvements (Widen from 25' to 661 x 1,0001) Description Quantity Unit Costs Total Demolition/Site Prep 41,000 sf $ 1.00 $ 41,000 Pavement-Asphalt 30,000 sf 1.50 45,000 Sidewalks - Concrete 20,000 sf 2.00 40,000 Curbs 2,000 lf 6.00 12,000 Street Trees 40 ea. 1,500 60,000 Street Lighting 30 ea 2,500 752000 Walk Signal 8 ea 6,000 48,000 Striping Lump Sun 4,000 Power Lump Sum 10)000 Subtotal $335,000 Construction Costs + 20% $402,000 Project Cost + 15% $462,300 263 12.a. Upland Pedestrian Linkages Marit ime Heritage Center (Stair 1001x6t) Description Quantity Unit Costs Total Site Preparation Lump Sum $ 2,500 Stairs 600 sf $15.00 9,000 Curbs 200 If 15.00 3,000 Rail 200 If 20.00 4,000 Lights 10 ea. 1,500 15,000 Potted Trees 10 ea. 1,000 10,000 Trash Cans 6ea 250 1,500 Power Lump Sun 61500 Subtotal $ 51,500 Construction Costs + 20% $ 61,800 Project Cost + 15% $ 71,070 2e4 12.b. Broadway Viewpoint (Area 50' x 501) Description Quantity Unit Costs Total Demolition/Site Prep Lump Sun $ 2,000 AC Pavement 1,300 sf $ 3.00 3,900 Concrete Pavement 600 4.00 2,400 Curbs - Curved 250 lf 10.00 2,500 Railing 50 sf 20.00 1,000 Retaining Wall 501/41 200 sf 15.00 3,000 Benches 4 ea. 500 2,000 Trash Cans 4 ea 250 1,000 Lights 4 ea 1f500 6,000 Grass 600 sf 3.00 1,800 Trees w/Grate 6 ea 1,500 9,000 Power to Site L?dmp Sum 5,000 Subtotal $ 39,600 Construction Costs + 20% $ 47,520 Project Cost + 15% $ 54,648 265 13. Parking Structure Description _Quantity Unit Costs Total Demolition/Site Prep Lump Sun $ 20,000 Parking 350 stalls $6,500/stall 2,275@000 Subtotal $2,295,000 Construction Cost + 20% $2,754,000 Project Cost + 20% $3,3042800 Grand Total $14,513,083 COST BREAKDOM Private Portion Office $1,159,000) Retail 864,000) $ 4,636,000 Parking 1,653,000) Roeder Realignment 960,000) Public Portion 9,8779000 Items #1, 2, 3, 7, 89 9 W (60%), 11, 12 13 (50%) Total $14,513,000 26e Figure 77 Alternatives for Citizens Dock ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS TRADE-OFFS Construction Cost Vehicular/Pedestrian/ Magnitude Parking Shoreline Access Historical Impact 1. Do Nothing No Cost; continuing No change from exist- Reduced access as Eventual deterioration to cost exposure post- ing conditions building/deck deter- extent beyond salvage; poned to future iorates historical building loss 2. Renovate In Place A. FULL $75/square foot; Pot ential for small Increased pedestrian Full preservation/ High Cost; question- amount of on-site and shoreline access; restoration of landmark able condition of parking continued restric- pilings and structure tions for vehicular access; greater vehicular/pedestrian conflicts B. PARIIAL $40/square foot; Potential for small Increased pedestrian Destroys pure preservation/ Moderate Cost but amount of on-site and shoreline access; restoration of landmark depends on existing parking continued restrictions physical conditions for vehicular access and amount restored 3. Demolish $3/square foot; Low No on-site parking Access eliminated Significant impact with Cost; increased costs unless improved with building loss. if dredge waterway Roeder Bridge up- grades SUMMARY TRADE-OFFS RECOMMENDATION Economic Impact Land Use Compatibility waterway Viability Urban Design/Aesthetics question of needed No people/industry con- Limited public use Poor, visual blight, Not Recommended public safety flicLs but vacant use and continuation of creates image of neglect upgrades/City creates dia-incentive rest'ricted industrial liability and poten- to area investment use tially high public fiscal loss Qualifies for invest- Possible conflicts of Direct public access; Creates quality activity Not Recommended menL Lax credits; on- concentrated people same existing center within industry going costs/revenues activity with heavy limit on industrial dominated area depend on use (com- industry use mercial vs. public) May not qualify for Possible conflicts of Some increased area Creates quality activity Recommended Third Choice investment tax people activity with of waterway for center within industry credits; potential heavy industry marine use; direct dominated area operating costs/ public access benefits proportional to space/use Eliminates liability; Good compatibility Waterway available Eliminates historical Recommended Fourth Choice no operating costs for with all Industrial for deep water element but opens positive fiscal impact waterfront activity marine functions with waterway vista upland visual links Figure 77 Alternatives for.Citizens Dock (cont) ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS TRADE-OFFS Construction Cost Vehicular/Pedestrian/ Magni t ude Pa rki nq Shoreline Access Historical Impact 4. Relocate Upland A. FULL REHABILITATION $61/square foot No parking at exist- Improved vehicular Destroys original historic ($56/sf construction ing dock; surface and pedestrian access; location attributes but + $5/sf demolition); lots nearby within increased shoreline retains landmark facsimile High Cost; poor soil Maritime Heritage access of creek but condition will in- Center; building less at waterway crease foundation consumes large land costs area B. PARTIAL REHABILITATION $34/square foot ($30/ No parking at exist- Increased shoreline Destroys original building sf construction + ing dock; surface access of creek but character and location $4/sf demolition); lots nearby within less at waterway values; historic remembrance Moderate Cost but Maritime Heritage depends on salvage/ Center new construction amounts C. DEMOLISH AND FULL REPLICA $43/square foot ($40/ No parking at exist- Increased shoreline Similar building at differ- (New Construction) sf construction + $3/ ing dock; surface access of creek but ent locat-ion; not historic af demolition); Mod- lots nearby within less at waterway preservation but copy erate Cost; some cost Maritime Heritage savings with modern Center materials/techniques D. DEMOLISH AND PARTIAL $28/square foot ($25/ No parking at exist- Increased shoreline Not preservation but REPLICA (New Construction) sf construction + $3/ ing dock; surface access of creek but "ghost" of lost landmark sf demolition); lots nearby within less at waterway Moderate Cost depend- Maritime Heritage ing on building size Center and - materials SUMMARY TRADE-OFFS RECOMMENDATION Economic Impact Lard Use Compatibility Waterwat_KLtil1_tX_ Urban Desiqn/Aesthetics No historic preser- Good compatibility but Waterway available Possible scale/dominance No t Rec om me nde d vation fiscal bene- requires large anount for deep water problems in park; opens fits; lower costs; of land marine functions with waterway awareness potential revenues upland visual links depend on use (cam- mercial vs. pLblic) No historic preser- Good compatibility with Waterway available Opens waterway vista; Recommended First Choice vation fiscal bene- pLblic/recreational ror deep water historic Image retained fits; lower costs; emphasis marine functions with potential revenues upland visual links depend on use (com- mercial vs. public) No historic pr*eser- Good compatibility but Waterway available Possible scale/dominance Not Recommended vation fiscal bene- requires large! amount for deep water problems In park; opens fits"; lower coats; of land marine functions with waterway awareness potential revenues upland visual links depend on use (com- mercial vs. public) No historic preser- Good compatibility Waterway available opens waterway vista; Recommended Second Choice vation fiscal bene- for deep water good site fit fits; lower costs; marine functions with potential revenues upland visual links depend on use (com- mercial vs. public) DATE DUE GAYLORD No. 2333 1-.14TED IN USA 3 E668 14108 2067