At the Eastsound Planning Review Committee meeting on Nov. 4, EPRC members met with county planning officials, Eastsound Design Review Subcommittee members and council members to expedite the processes of the advisory review group.
Rene Beliveau, County Development and Planning Director and “Administrator” of the Eastsound Sub-area Plan, discussed the long-standing difficulties in the review processes among county planners, the Eastsound Design Review Board and the EPRC.
Near the close of the meeting, Beliveau said, “The Planning Department is driven by the political realities under which it serves. It’s been built and destroyed several times over the years. Now, with one code enforcement officer, there’s triage you deal with, especially when there’s a political will that’s reflected in the department.”
Sean DeMeritt’s building project near the corner of Main Street and Lovers Lane in Eastsound has prompted complaints about the roof pitch. DeMeritt had presented his plans for the building at an EPRC meeting in 2007.
EPRC member Patty Miller said, “In our meeting today, we want to focus on developing a functioning process going forward.”
She said that it would be appropriate for the Design Review Sucommittee to “meet and look at the issue related to noncompliance with the architectural standards in the sub-area plan and … come back with a recommendation.”
Beliveau said, “On permits we’ve issued, we can’t go back and change anything, once the building permits for a residential building have been issued.”
Referring to the DeMerritt project, Beliveau said, “These buildings are what’s driving it: we still haven’t decided if it’s noncompliant because of the roof pitch. There is ambiguity in the code.
“What did you guys really mean, and how do we apply that?”
Architect Bill Trogden, from the Design Review Subcommittee asked, “How do we deal with the precedent that’s been established?”
Beliveau responded, “The precedent that we’ve authorized mistakes in past doesn’t mean we’re authorized to make mistakes in the future.”
EPRC member Clyde Duke said, “The process needs clarification so a procedure can be followed.”
Beliveau said that the planning department would get all needed review documents to the EPRC and asked which documents needed review.
Miller replied that in the past, the EPRC had requested review of all permits and land use applications in the Eastsound Sub-area Plan. When asked how stormwater related to the EPRC’s purview, Miller replied, “It’s a matter of sharing with us these land use modifications; we then have a continual picture of what’s going on in Eastsound and continue to advise the Planning Commission and the Planning Department and look at the changes that may need to be made in sub-area plan.”
EPRC member Fred Klein noted, “The Design Review Subcommittee doesn’t come into play unless the applicant chooses not to abide by a architectural standards: we want to see anything that applies to multi-family and commercial building in the Eastsound Sub-area.”
EPRC Chair Gulliver Rankin told the county planners, “We’re here to help advise you.”
Beliveau responded that land use is supposed to go through the EPRC, and then “the permit coordinator planner will look at it and make a decision in how to move forwards.
“We don’t have a good communication chain; I’d like to have a primary point of contact from us to you – probably Colin [Maycock, County Senior Planner]… and from you — probably the chair — to him.”
Trogden proposed that the Design Review Subcommittee meet with an applicant “to get a conceptual scheme” before investing time “in preparing documents for the county to review and then find a problem that doesn’t comply with the standards.”
Klein said it was incumbent on project architects to be familiar with the Sub-area plan and building standards.
Miller said that De Merritt’s plan was submitted with the non-compliant roof and building height issues, but it “didn’t get caught [in review] by the building department.
“We’re presented with conceptuals; we’ve never formalized [process]. We’re dealing from a schematic where you can’t tell what the roof pitch and setbacks are.”
Duke suggested a process using a “simple, checkbox system.”
When Beliveau said he would like something official from the EPRC, Rankin replied, “Our role should be educational to applicants. The permit department is responsible for reviewing plans; if there’s a variance, it should go to design review subcommittee.”
Wally Gudgell commented that the plan review process has been unresolved for 20 years. “Something needs to be changed between the county and the EPRC.”
Trogden said that the Design Review subcommittee should review plans, to which Miller responded “If the EPRC doesn’t have a qualified architect on it, they may not realize [a design plan]’s not in compliance.
“The Design Review Committee also needs “to clarify conflicting code, and say ‘this is an an area that’s a problem; this needs clarity; here’s a void.’”
Rankin reminded the group that the liquor store on the corner of Rose Street and Prune Alley had amended their plans after review by the Design Review Committee.
Gudgell again advocated for a streamlined process, saying “We need to get everybody together at one table.” He suggested a comprehensive checklist with review by the various agencies involved, to make the review “more of a service for all the different things you need to be aware of; make development in Eastsound friendlier.”
The EPRC meeting then considered the suggestion of moving the subarea plan into the UDC (Uniform Development Code and out of the County Comprehensive Plan.
Beliveau said that he was in favor of that proposal, adding that the UDC still has sections covering Eastsound, Deer Harbor, Olga, Doe Bay and West Sound. He noted that if the EPRC move forward now with that proposal, “It will be March 2012 before it happens.”
Duke and Miller both asked for more clarity on the suggestion. “We want our house in order,” said Duke.
Colin Maycock suggested that, as the EPRC made progress on defining the proposal, “In the meantime I can be working on the adoption process, and things would go back and forth, and you can get changes put in that you want to see in the existing regulations.”
“Although the county has its own internal restrictions on changing the UDC, there is no time restriction imposed by the state or federal government for changing the UDC at anytime desired,” Maycock said.
The EPRC then moved and approved the motion to “request direction from [development and planning] director to start the process of moving the regulatory portion of the [Eastsound] Sub-area plan out of the Comprehensive Plan and into the regulatory portions of the UDC.”
Beliveau will see that the County Council put that process in its work plan.
In addition, Miller proposed that the EPRC write a letter to the County Council “reemphasizing the importance of timely updates to the Eastsound Sub-area plan and ask to be prioritized in the 2011 docket process; articulating the real problems that this is causing — real world, on the ground problems for our community.”
Beliveau said that while the planning department is “not geared to looking at architectural standards – that’s a culture that I have to change – your success is determined by how well you articulate your need to the council…I’ll support it.”
The EPRC agreed unanimously to send the letter to the Council, prior to the EPRC’s Dec. 2 meeting.
County Council member Richard Fralick said that the Dec. 7 Council meeting would be looking at the UDC and Council priorities for 2011.
The EPRC set Thursday, Nov. 18 for an Open House at the Eastsound Fire Hall, from 4 to 6 p.m.
