Jackie,

<brad@affoinfo.com>

11/16/2007 02:02 PM cc

bee

Subject FAIRHAVEN DRC2007-00021 800 Harris/Fairhaven Harbor Ill

Here is my comment on the latest design submittal for the Fairhaven Harbor project.

Thanks

Brad Rose

RE: FAIRHAVEN DRC2007-00021 800 Harris/Fairhaven Harbor III

This latest submittal is an unfortunate consequence of quashing the Fairhaven Design Review Code update put forward by the Fairhaven Neighbors. I am not opposed to developing this parcel ofland, I do however have 3 main concerns. These concerns are: Impact on Padden Creek, Height of the tower & building the project 20 feet into the view corridor.

The first concern - Impact on Padden Creek has been dealt with - for now - and is not part of the design review. We have to trust Mr. Mischaikov and his claims that what they are proposing to do to handle the water runoff will be sufficient to protect the creek - even during heavy rains.

The other concerns are applicable to the overall design of the project. The new tower design is more reflective of the original design that Mr. Mischaikov presented when he went around and "Briefed" the neighbors on his intentions. That original design shocked the neighbors and started the animosity towards this project and Mr. Mischaikov. Over time the design was enlarged to the IO+ story wall that successfully made it through the loophole laden Fairhaven Design Review code. Thankfully this design expired - and the subsequent submission last year did not comply with the original SEP A document. So now we are back to something closer to the original plan -which didn't fit then as still does not now.

The key point to consider in regards to the design review is if the tower is harmonious in size with the historical structures that are currently in Fairhaven. The last approved design made it through the Design Review process because of subjective interpretations in regards to the size and bulk. The problem is that the tower of this project is more harmonious with the size of the Chuckanut Square public housing tower than the existing Historical buildings. This new design will put a similar block tower at the bottom of the hill which will effect the views of the bay from the street level as well as for existing residences that happen to be up hill form the site. Having this tower at the bottom of the hill in Fairhaven is a poor design on a city-scape level. From the water, Fairhaven' s skyline currently follows the contour of the hill. Buildings step down gradually as the slope of the hill meets sea level. This tower will permanently destroy this visual design. The various future plans for Fairhaven recommend that the design of Fairhaven follow the contour of the hill - this project disregards these reconditions. The tower is too tall and its block design will be an eye sore from the water and anywhere it will be visible - which will be from just about everywhere. The height should be limited to not exceed the height of the next building up hill form it

The next concern I have is that fact that this project will be built 20 feet in to the view corridor of McKenzie Ave (actually 15 feet because of the "mistake" made by the builders of the Harris

vacated to allow the Bellingham Tennis Club to fulfill its parking requirements. This project will remove the parking that is currently used for the Tennis Club. Where will the members of the Tennis Club park when this project is built. The number of on-site parking spaces for the Fairhaven Harbor development is only I 00 spaces. There is a claim that this project also includes 23 street spaces. In looking at the drawings, those on-street parking spaces are on both sides of McKenzie. This removes most of the parking for the Tennis club. Does this mean that the Tennis Club will have to shut down because they cannot accommodate the number of spaces required in the BMC? - No. It means that the people that use the tennis club will need to park in other parts of Fairhaven that are already parking deficient. 1bis vacation was intended to be used for parking not skyscrapers and in the end, the Parking will be gone.

In the plan of Fairhaven originally platted in the 1800's made the McKenzie right of way 100 feet wide while all other streets are 80 ft- Intending McKenzie to be a central corridor of Fairhaven. This project will forever kill that intention. Allowing the parking right-of-way vacation to be used for tall permanent structures will pinch this I OOft view corridor to 60ft. With an 85ft tower on one side and whatever size tower that will some day be proposed by the owners of the Tennis Club will effectively ruin the view. It would be one thing if what was on the other side of the tower was not appealing as far as aesthetics, but as it happens what is on the other side of the tower is part of what defines Fairhaven -having views of the water/sunsets form the street level. The street-scape is of vital importance to the residents and visitors of Fairhaven and pinching McKenzie Avenue's corridor to 60 ft would be a shame and should not be allowed to happen.

This latest submittal is a slap in the face to the desires of the residents of Fairhaven. It goes against the spirit of the Fairhaven Design Review Code and brings to the forefront the need to get the FDRC revised so that the loopholes are closed and any future development will follow the intent of the code and allow Fairhaven evolve harmoniously.

Thank You

Brad Rose 224 Bayside PI 901 Harris Ave.

Tim Stewart, Director Dept. of Planning and Community Development City of Bellingham 210 Lottie Street Bellingham, WA 98225

I I 11 13•h Street Bellingham, WA 98225 November 14, 2007

Re: Fairhaven Harbor design review application DRC #2007-00021

Director Stewart,

I would like to take this opportunity to renew many of my previous objections to aspects

of the Fairhaven Harbor project, in particular to the excessive height of the southeastern

tower and to certain incompatible modem architectural aspects of the building's fas:ade.

My understanding from conversation with Ms. Lynch is that this is truly a new

application, not bound by prior decisions or policies. It is my hope that a genuinely fresh

look at this project will lead to a better outcome, one that does not sacrifice neighborhood

character and architectural harmony, and does not ignore the democratic wishes of the

neighborhood.

As I have argued at some length in previous letters to the Planning Department, I believe

that both the Comprehensive Plan and the Design Review code (section 20.26 of the

municipal code) provide the rationale and the authority to limit new buildings Jn the

Fairhaven design review district to roughly the same scale as the existing historic

buildings (average height 37', tallest building 54'; see attached illustration). This would

put a practical limit at around five stories or 54 feet, plus or minus, in order to honor the

requirement for harmony of scale and to avoid adverse aesthetic impacts, as called for in

the law.

As we all know, the city's land use laws and design regulations have not kept up with the

times, both in terms of the new priorities and vision for Bellingham' s future, and in terms

of the changing regulatory landscape. Nonetheless, I believe it is within the authority of

your office, and in keeping with the duties and obligations of that office to serve the

people of Bellingham, to require a further reduction in the height of the tallest building as

I of I

a condition for permit approval. Our new Comprehensive Plan does not just call for

minimizing and mitigating negative impacts. Rather, it calls for compatibility in order to

preserve and enhance neighborhood character. For example, CDP-39 says, "Enhance the

sense of community character in Fairhaven by coordinating site orientation, building

scale, and streetscape elements of new development to complement the unique historic

district." (It should be noted that this policy is absolutely identical to old policy CDP-34,

in effect for the last decade.)

I would also draw your attention to the results of the 2007 Fairhaven Neighborhood

Questionnaire, submitted to your office earlier this year. You will find that the great

majority ofrespondents support height limits (35' to 54') in the Fairhaven commercial

core and believe that a very tall building in the proposed location would be harmful to the

character of Fairhaven. I believe that, in order to provide for beneficial and attractive

forms of infill and to avoid sprawl, we need to reject the false choice between low­

density single family housing and high rise towers. Community planning processes, such

as our own Growth Forum, have consistently shown a preference for mid-density, mid­

rise development of the sort that Fairhaven has been know for and has experienced in

recent years. The positive need for greater infill and for denser, transportation-oriented

urban design should not be used to push the pendulum too far in the wrong direction.

High-rise towers would detract from and degrade the "urban village" experience, and

would undermine this important initiative before it gets off the ground. We need to chart

the reasonable and moderate middle course. It is my belief that a five-story limit is not

only in keeping with the requirements of the Design Review law, and is not only in

keeping with the democratic will of the majority of Fairhaven stakeholders, but is also in

keeping with our city's fundamental goal to guide growth in a manner that serves our

human values and our community needs.

I would also like to renew some of my objections to the architectural style and features of

the building, again referring almost exclusively to the tallest, eastern-most buildings.

Bellingham municipal code 20.26.050 requires any new building to be in harmony of

architectural style and materials "consistent with the existing architectural and historic

character of the area." To achieve architectural harmony, any new building "should mimic

or achieve compatibility with architectural features of existing buildings of significance."

The letter and intent of the law is to provide for buildings that fit into historical Fairhaven

2 of 2

by looking ahnost as if they are historic buildings themselves. New building should match

the older buiklings, if not exactly, then grossly and in overall visual impact. As proposed,

major aspects of the Fairhaven Harbor project are visibly dissimilar and inharmonious;

and, as a consequence of this mismatch, the character of Fairhaven would be damaged, and

the economic and cultural vitality of Fairhaven would be harmed. The two most obvious

conflicting architectural features are the penthouse level and the overall window scheme.

Put simply, the historic buildings of Fairhaven do not have a penthouse level that is

pulled back and placed atop a second defined roofline. The top stories of such historic

buildings are often decorated with ornamentation and horizontal banding, but the top

story is not actually a separate and smaller element in these old buildings. As a rule, the

top story is very similar to the lower levels in terms of size and window layout, and is

crowned by a parapet or favade that hides HV AC vents and mechanical utilities out of

sight. I urge the Planning Department to condition a design review permit on redesign of

the penthouse level to achieve greater architectural compatibility.

As is well documented, including in the city's own design guidelines for the central

business district as well as in the existing historic buildings of Fairhaven, windows in

older buildings are ahnost invariably tall and narrow, rather than wide or square. In

addition to a prominent windowsill and set-back from the plane of the building face, these

windows are very often framed by an arch on the top. Deep arches are more common on

the upper stories, which tend to receive extra treatment. In fact, I think that window

arches are found on every single historic multistory building in Fairhaven. The windows

on the eastern buildings of the proposed Fairhaven harbor development, on the other

hand, follow none of these general architectural themes. Instead, they are huge glass

squares set immediately adjacent to other huge glass squares. Under the dubious principle

that they eye will be fooled into thinking that there are half as many stories as in reality,

the architects have grouped the glazing of two stories together, to create huge, two-story

expanses of glass and steel.

The Fairhaven design review code does not call for simply minimizing or mitigating

incompatibility; rather it provides a positive mandate to achieve compatibility. Yet, in

3 of 3

previous submissions to the city, the project's architect said that the more modern style

of the southeastern tower was the intentional result of "creating a dichotomy between

'old and new"' and this building "takes on a more contemporary approach," in order to

define it as distinct from other parts of the project. Although the stylistic compatibility

of building is better than in earlier submissions, the extensive glazing remains jarringly

dissimilar to and inharmonious with the historic character of Fairhaven. I would strongly

suggest that the City require a redesign of the window scheme, in order to bring it in line

with the architectural character of Fairhaven, as required by law.

Let me close by noting that this project would be a welcome and contributing addition to

Fairhaven in many ways. In order to accommodate growth in a manner that improves

rather than erodes our quality of life, and moves us towards a more sustainable urban

design, Bellingham will need to continue to foster denser, mixed-used buildings in

identified urban villages such as Fairhaven. The preferred model is mid-rise

development of the sort that has occurred in Fairhaven already. We must guide growth in

a manner that preserves and respects local character and a sense of place, even as new

elements are introduced. This is a difficult challenge, but I believe that the design of the

Fairhaven Harbor project can and should be modified to meet this challenge. Foremost

among these changes is a reduction in the height and elimination of the large glass

expanses of the southeastern tower.

I look forward to your decision.

Respectfully,

Michael Lilliquist

CC: Jackie Lynch, Planner II

Attachment: Comparison of eastern elevations

4 of 4

l'-0 0 N ... ~ E ~ 0 z

Tim Stewart, Planning Director Bellingham Planning and Community Development

Comment: Fairhaven Harbor III DRC 2007-00021

\ ·· ::::, 11\/ED

t-1a\l 16 ioo7,

C\\'I o1 ue11~0~ P\111111109

November 15, 2007

Dear Planning Director,

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Design Review permit application for Fairhaven Harbor III. This property presents a valuable opportunity for productive infill development and corresponding area improvement. Your consideration of input from the public is appreciated.

The project described in the application should be considered for approval only if it fulfills Design Review criteria and objectives. The subject project building plan, like previous plans for this project, appears exceedingly extensive in scope and dimension to satisfy BMC 20.26.050, and should not be approved at this time. Conversely, the parking allocation may be exceedingly reductive for a project of this size in this location. The subject project plan also may not be consistent with underlying regulation including Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Bellingham Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and Bellingham City Council Street Vacation Ordinance 10259 and therefore should not be approved until compliant.

Comment on underlying permits and approval is appropriate for fulfilling the intent of Design Review. BMC 20.26.010 - PURPOSE: The design review district shall be utilized in conjunction with and in addition to the regulations of the underlying land use designation of the subject property. It is the purpose of the design review district to promote the economic health of the area by reducing unnecessary advel"Se aesthetic and other impacts which may arise from uncoordinated site development in historic or architectural districts and other adjacent influence areas having high visual impact and association with that district.

A similar plan, somewhat reduced in scale and bulk and conforming to underlying regulation, would complement this area and should be encouraged.

Please consider with your decision the following inconsistencies with BMC 20.26.050 and underlying regulation.

SECTION 1. Design Noncompliance. Scale and Orientation

BMC Design Review provides specificity for determining appropriate building height and orientation on the property. io.26.050 - STANDARDS A. Generally. (1) A development plan shall be approved if it satisfies the standards herein and (b) Results in harmony of scale, architectural style, sidewalk level use and materials consistent with the existing architectural and historical character of the area when

development involves construction of a new building.

(2) The design review decision shall address all development aspects necessary to further the purpose, intent and standards of the design review district including but not limited to the following:

(a) Height and bulk of structures;

(b) Orientation of the structure on the lot;

Design Review invokes a specific standard for building height and orientation on the lot, a project may be approved when height and orientation "results in harmony of scale ... consistent with the existing architectural and historical character of the area" and other criteria have been satisfied. The design review standards are more specific and include a higher standard than standards given in the "Planned Development" chapter of the zoning code.

The Planned Development chapter includes the following language: BMC20.38.050 -STANDARDS. A. Generally. C. Planned Commercial. 4. Building Height. b " •.• there shall be no expressed general height standard. Final height standards shall be determined by the Planning Director. vaguely limiting height detennination to Directors discretion while expressly permitting imposition of a limit.

BMC grants control to most specific section in code, in this case Design Review. BMC 20.04.040 - SCOPE D: •.• where this ordinance imposes a greater restriction upon the use of land and/or buildings or in general requires higher standards than other ordinances, rules, or private agreements, the provisions of this ordinance shall govern. The Planned Development chapter also defers to Design Review, reading BMC20.38.050 - STANDARDS. A. Generally. 3. All planned developments must conform additionally to any more stringent minimum standards provided within the applicable neighborhood plan.

Design Review dictates that height and orientation of new buildings must "result in harmony of scale ... consistent with the existing architectural and historical character of the area."

Webster's Third defines "consistent:" "2a: ... showing no significant change, unevenness, or contradiction; b: ... showing no noteworthy opposing, conflicting, inharmonious, or contradictory qualities or trends."

"Consistent" provides an express limit, unlike "appropriate" or "compatible."

The generous limitations set forth in BMC 20.26.050 do not present any hindrance to other goals of Bellingham land use policies, infilling, for example, nor do these generous limitations contradict other Bellingham zoning regulations. They merely imply that the maximum development envelope for this property would result in a block 200 x 200 feet,

c-

·-:;:--.

• -. L.

····o ·-;,~;.:_:,~.::.;. :;-, ~ -.- ~ ,,,,. "' -- .-_<. _:_ ~;r.

~""'"""t"~~~;~;:;~~;;;'..~~~~~isl"'c:~~

(11\'~l. @.mt!l~~

c

RECORO Of PllOC(EDlllB OF cm COUllCIL CITY Of BElllltGllAH, llASffl!IGTIIR

HOY 12 1991 80QIC 4Q. WE 3$7

TUE$0AY 7:00 P.H.

RfliUlAll llEET!l!G cm wt

COUNCIL C1WlllERS

CALL TD ORDER: The -meeting Wis i;allied ta arder b.Y Cauac11 President, Oort . Gtsdter.. Caiunc111111!iber Bjornsvn led i1t a salute. to th!- flc;.

Pre:sefttt First Vari Caunc11llelllber Don Gisdlar Second ~ ~11-;p-•7*' F.>ster Rosi! 1h1nl Ward Caurteil.aber Arne Hanni. Fourth Varel Coqnci].ember Hark As1111ndson Fifth llori '°wx;;1-.r letl;J Ktncr Slxtll Von! tvuncil-r Tip Johnson Couru:1lllelllber At Large Louise Bjornson

APPROVAL Of BIUIUJS '

ftl!IUTES uf !1/04/91 ASHUKDSON ROUD, KIN£R SECOllDED, tho 1pprau1 of the subJect 11lnates. llOTIOll CMIRIED.

REPms OF cmmmm Ml IC MJJQ;S MD UTILITIES COf!IUJEE Tuesd~, HuvClllber lZ, 1991;: J:30 p.m., MilJor•s: Bo~rd ROOlll

All99lB I. SPEED LlllIT 'IHI ~

~ir ICiner lllde a br1ef cvmitte.e ~ 011. the considera.tiaa of tll• feaslblltt)- for 10 .. Mng th• speed limit ,...,,. 35 llllh to 25 mph on AlUuti Street.. lltfs ~s .affected by resideots wtth drtvewvs an Al~, as wll as restdenb o" side strceu. havi119 diffiCMilty in abta1n\ng accessfbilit.Y during p&ik hDU1"S. ~fter considerable d1scuss1vn uw6 ~on1.r1but1Dn fram tK~t naigldm'hood. the- C'olmn1tt'.ee recoaaendatioo vu. far the Aliiba.a speed l1•1t ta rmaia at JS ll?h- In clo.s1ng, tha1r Ktner ~lucled that if 'there 1s 10 df5Rnt frDll f1111 Counc11. wo further ctt1an 11ould bt necess•r.r. The Coa•t.ttee recoBllR:Pdation '"11!1d stand, accordtngly.

PJ ANflUI§ Nm CQMMUNITJ DB'f! DPftEHT CQ!!llTIEE Tuesday, llovtaber lZ. 1991; 4:00 p.IR •• ttuor•s·1oan1 lall!'l

· A898'3

CBIU77

l. STR££T YACATIOK, POllTIOll Of ftCICDIZIE AYEllUE

M ORDlllMC£ llEIJ.1111& TO lll£ TACAllllN Uf llttl:ENZIE AYBlllf Sl'RtET YACATIOR All SITUATE WITlllR THE CITT OF BELLINGllJlll;·sAID. YAl:ATIOll 10 llE SUll.JECT 10 WEUATIClllS Of Rl&llTS Of WEIEllTS BY lltE cm FUR Al.l l'VBLIC munES. FlllOlllG MID MIJWGIHG TlfAT RD IMllAGE ACCRUE TO AllT PWOft OR PROPERTY. IT · UAsOll • TllEll£Gf. MD urn.xms llllYED SIW.l IE llllYED AT. TltE EXl'Ell5E OF . 1ltE PEflTJDNEll; MO Fllllffi 1HE Ufa:TIVE 111\lE vu. n1ntrtd..ced. . . ...

C.

. (:,,

..

.......

ll£tVllD Of PlllltEIDlllG Of cm CIJUllCJL tITT Of BElllRQWI, llASll!NGTON

!IOV 12. !9'l! B001C co, PACE 358

AB9935

AB9936

At pnsent, !llalr J- .. phlned that •hff Nd rese11'cbed the h1sbr'1 1mt Ii COllJH'Ollis~ •e.rs1n had develuped 1n the fonri of.,. -..i on11n....,, ""lch nric.111 pTOy'ld .. for• zo foot v1c1tton on tact. std~ of' the street. Tad~'s C-ittee recu .. end1llon was t' iDDreYe ~~e ••ended Drd.1nance. KWrd1ngly. with the $U. Of ·S71520 1ruerted in Sec:t1vn 4 of tlle fln•l dra~.

JDHllSON IKWm, BJDRllSOff. SECOHDED1 that Couac11 ·1111 11677 be read a first time. After dt.satSsian, the questton was called :and llOTIOll CARRl£0. upon •tlon, nid bill w .. read • •l!cond t1w.

z .. lEllUEST FOR DEllPTIOR n THE INTUIM llETU~D• AID mEM IRDlllAllC[ (HIJPEllTT LOCATm IK 1llf: 11.E. ClllllEll DF lH£ 6111°" llERIDIM AID PalNtE AWIUE)

Cli1.tr .labnsan aade a brief eaa1ttee: repart. B1 vay af bo1.ck9T0Yncf, Z.af Sungur ts reque$tfng an Uetapt1an ~or the filling of • .9 acn C•tegoty Ill wetlOlld oed the n-creatloo of ~ts funct.tons inc.luding detention, ftltratton and. l•ruls~ing, 5uldect proporv I• tocatod In tll• I.E. coner of the livlde llerldl•n and Prbce A,...ue. St.ff'> ....-ndod Kt'lon vas ta approve. The llit1ptfan plan would ntiltt· the necassary functions of the watl~nd. The ca .. ttiee reCOlllll!ftd&t.ion vu h -Camp1y ..

.JOHffSOR KOVED. ASKUllDSOJI SECDHDeJi fn CD111Pl1illnu with the st•ff/co111111ttee racoll!IMtndattons, recorded abv¥e. llOTIOH tARlllll>.

3. REQUEST FOR Elll!PTIDN TV 11ft JllTElllR llETLARllS AllD STREAK DADJllMCE (Yltl•ITY GF SIA 11111 CIROLlllA SREET)

Chair Johnson ••de 1. brief rnmittee reputt. a,- w1.7 of backgrvund. Ken Andrews is requesting &n axellJltton fot" cm:roo.-t Into • "Otl•nd for 3 dtffer••t bulldfoQ lot. l• ei.:dH1nge for tbe enbhC11111&nt and ·upgradG of Ua we.tl and IDn each lot tlmP119h 1 canftlll7 deol9ned ... tlan.t llndscape pl .. for uct. lat. Stiff•s recOlllduded "t:tn was for ~proval-.. The preposal lliOllld proY1da greater atflfntton af HCh lat 1 as l'ell as dtver-sify aqd lteaat\f.y the ..etlud 1rea. The Coemtittee rccomendativrt ns ta cmply. ·

.JOHllSO!I lltlVEll. AS!WNDSDI $EtUNDED, 1n camplhnte wlth the staff/caJ11111ttee reco11111end1:t1ons 1 recvrded 1:1Jove. ROTION tARllIED.

N!NOl!NCE!!EJITT

1. PACIFT DEADl.lllE FDll llllVElllEll 18 ~; ~Y, 11/131 2&lm..rB

Z. PMZEf DEMJUllE FOR ~ER .l _, TUE$11AY, ll/Hi 1111C111

3.. CQllUDIF Of THE WOLF lhbrsdu. Have.lier J•. 1991; 6-.1:20 P-•- ~r•s loanl Roa.)

A. Rut ... of lludgot lSSlllptlUS

bol ~·· lludpt -·· • B. C.,tllll 11(1\0iWWWlt ......... . t. L\IM'arJ' • I ..... i ..... . D • ..._ .... • • •· ......... • • • ... •

.·

' ..

·• -..: J

I -! I

· l ! I '

(' I

l I I

I i

I ! 1 · I

(. '

·c· .

!ft)\' l!!

[. f.

l~

.. -. .....

llrc•k •••••••••••••••• Pilbl1 t Vorb • • . • • • • • • • • • • 1. Adaiotnr.t1 ......... 2. lri.ffic. uid Coa.amt~atiOPi. 3. ll>ter ••.•••••••• 4. - ••••••••••. 5. Strut ••••. S. ll>nllouse o,..-.1.,;,: : : : : : · 7. ~lneertng ••••••••••• e. He Vom eap1n1 ,...,... • .,,..t.. '. Solid 11 .. u . . . . . . . . . . .

ll!lal( !Q, PA!lE ~U

7:Z5 I'll 7:3S I'll

lfi·Z!IT 2"·309 llO·nl 324-337 33&,355 356·359 1'0-3'4 365-316 317·38?

~il!t!mrr 9f lJlli l!lllll.£ Th"1'&d:IJ, - ... 21, 1991: 6:00 p.•. • f:llO p.!!. ""1Ur'$ 9cNrd aoo.

fi!lli Dn A.

a.

c. o.

·£.

l!Jl9l2!I Acflll1n1striiltire Setv~ct:s ..•. , ... - U4-2tZ &:00 I'll

474.475 l. folu.1teer se,..,.ft:e.S • • - - ... 111& t. u....,1.,_t '->cas•tlon •• 702 487·48!1

llon-tJei>• ..... nt•l. • • • • • . • • . 7:00 I'll 1. Generol •••••.••••• 465·'71 z. Pro•lde Penst0q B•oefits ••• 701 484-186 J. Od>t and Jnten.st led_u .... 711 493-49&

•• Into,.,,.., to.11> •••••••• 71Z 49> ... ,9 s. l.I.o. Mt• letetcst .......,,,.~ 7l4 50z.504 ~- Contrllllltl.., to Artiff FUl!ds •• 121 505.507 1. """'ra 1 Flllld lasur•nn. • • • • • n1 5UB~ 9. Geoer~l FUnd Tel~ltatlons • ns 5JZ·Sl3 9. Election Fus/Voter llegl<il'itian. 751 516-517

10. II.Ir Pall•tiG!t tontnl •••••• 1~ Sl&-5111 u. Huttk s.ntces •••.•.. 1S. SZU..SZl IZ. ll!scell .... llS •• · •••• • • 199 524·$t5 '"""" ......... . - ..... 7:25 Pll Fi111~e ............ Z41·~ 7:35 Pll J. t. J .D .. £u1r1nty . 113 ~-501

Fl"' •Ill! Aobulanco ••• 383-411 1 :45 Pll

I. Qll!7! • AN Olllllllll!ICE RELATIHG TO TffE VAtATlllli Of. THE lOUllU SU£ET RIM..(lf·llA~ ~Lt S!"IVAlE 11111111 TllE cm Of l!ElLlllGIWI""" 'rouglit on •

ASllUliDS/111 tlllVED, JllHll5Gll SEtllllllED. tltat CGlm<ll tlll 1167$ ~e rod a third t.f... llOTlll!I ClllllUEll. llpOft •ttoo, s•ld bill 11U ploced .. ft .. 1 ion•ase >ml appni""6 b.J 1lle foll""1ns roll call YD": AYU: kl&.. HSllllA, ASltUli050H. tlOHHSOlt, IJbAKSON, and GlSCllEll: ...i ft ,... thereafter .-....r llt<lll\illC!! m&·

:J'

Attachment H Buildings near 800 Harris .. View to NE from site

910 Harris (Harris Square)