EPRC Eyes Eastsound Parking, Zoning and Green Spaces

County Advisory Committee to meet this Thursday, July 3 from 3 to 5 p.m. at the Eastsound Fire Hall

— by Margie Doyle —

Eastsound showing UGA boundaries(red line) and subarea boundaries (dark black line)

The original planning document for the village of Eastsound, the Eastsound Sub-area Plan, has long been in need of revision and now it appears to be entering the home stretch towards adoption by the County Council. The latest step was a page-by-page review of the latest draft at a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Eastsound Planning Review Committee (EPRC) late last month.

The Eastsound Sub-area Plan
This plan, first created in the 1980’s and last revised in 2002, has served as the quasi-governing vision and regulations document for development in Eastsound. As an unincorporated town, Eastsound suffers from an abundance of regulations: the afore-mentioned Sub-area Plan, the County Comprehensive Code, the Uniform Development Code and the often-overlooked Airport Overlay District.

The effort “to streamline, clarify and correct more anomalous regulations,” in the words of Senior County Planner Colin Maycock, who shepherded the process, has resulted in two draft documents, available in their draft form on the county website at https://sanjuanco.com/cdp/Eastsound

At the joint EPRC-Planning Commission meeting on June 20, Maycock said that developing the land use tables was a major focus of the project. “It’s important because, currently, each of 11 different districts has allowed uses and prohibited uses, all else [is categorized as] a conditional use, which creates great uncertainty for [property and business] purchasers and owners.

“The revised documents are easier to administer and interpret; they serve the community very well. The EPRC deserves recognition for its commitment to updating the plan and tables,” said Maycock.

When asked by Planning Commission Vice-Chair Barbara Thomas about the public involvement in this work, Maycock said that at most meeting there were “a few comments on the service light industrial area… and informal discussions outside of meetings…as part of the way this community works.”

Gulliver Rankin, member and past Chair of EPRC said that during the public process “all meetings were open and minutes were posted on the county web site.” He cited the Open Houses during the development of the drafts, and presentations to and discussions with the Realtors Association.

EPRC member Fred Klein said, “The diligence and engagement of EPRC members in this effort intensified after we got consistent professional support from CD and P (Community Development and Planning) in the person of Colin Maycock. We do appreciate the professional focus he’s brought to a plan that was put together 30 years ago.”

Thomas asked if there were “any big issues that Eastsound has to resolve before we get into the nitty-gritty?”

Service Light Industrial Zoning
EPRC member Greg Ayers described the discussions regarding the service light industrial zoning and “the desire of the community in some cases to have retail in service light industrial.” He described the draft solution as confining retail “fairly tightly to people’s ability to sell only items related to primary use of building.”

He added that, in Eastsound’s commercial core, there has been growth of “artisan products” which are more low-impact tourist attractions than manufacturing, which is prohibited in the Eastsound Village Commercial. Ayers described the final wording as “a good compromise to balance needs against concerns.”

Rankin said that Eastsound has “unique design standards not applicable in other parts of county; still [there remains the ] issue of tracking change of use.” Such use does not requiring a business license, “which is the only ‘hoop’ that identifies change, Rankin said.

This issue comes to bear as service light industrial-zoned businesses take on retail uses. The retail must be linked to the original use of building. While this solves the “product manufacturing” dilemma in retail zoning, it impacts the relative scarcity of service light industrial zoning in Eastsound Sub-area.

Planning Commissioner Brian Ehrmantraut asked for specific examples of “artisan non-manufacturing” that will be allowed in Eastsound commercial and was told businesses such as a bike shop that outfits, rents and/or sells, customized bikes, that doesn’t create a great impact, as such as an example of specialty work.

Klein said the discussion was triggered by a property owner who applied to build an art studio and discovered CD and P considered art creation to be manufacturing. Ken Katz said that the Island Hoppin Brewery business is considered a craft “and is thus not allowable in town.”

EPRC Chair Clyde Duke said,

“We’re trying to portray our citizens’ image of what the community should be. People are struggling, yet creativity is everywhere. There’s a resurgence in Eastsound; vacant buildings are slowly becoming businesses.”

Rankin said that the EPRC would like to hear comments on what people consider acceptable and allowable standards for kiosks – information only?

Parking
Duke said, “Parking in Eastsound presents different viewpoints: those that live here would say yes, there is a problem; public works said maybe not.”

Klein said there is “overwhelming consensus that we do have parking problem, but implementation of the parking plan has never happened. Speaking for myself, I’d like to see the plan be a reflection of what is possible and nobody seems to be able to solve this parking plan issue.” He recommended that the reference to a parking plan be deleted from the subarea plan.

Green Space – Transportation Hub
Members of the EPRC discussed the use of the County-owned lot across North Road from the Village Green. It is defined in the ESAP as a Transportation Hub, (p. 19) which many consider a misnomer, even though non-motorized transportation has been emphasized.

A “rural definition” was sought at the meeting, with the property described more as a rural community center, surrounded by open land. However, Fred Klein said, “We were not very close to consensus in defining the rural element of Eastsound.”

He noted that there has been “great cooperation with public works on the streetscape plan… In 2012 we proposed a plan to all property owners on Prune Alley and got consensus to buy into it.

“On the face of that, we went in and created a plan, public works supported it; we had hopes of getting federal money for sidewalks and curbs and undergrounding. Recently only the northern portion was chipsealed, and public works found some money to design for stormwater for southern area.

“EPRC has been working hand in hand with Public Works in this [effort].”

However, Klein continued, “The entire language of this “transportation hub” section was not developed by EPRC. It was brought to the EPRC after minimal and perfunctory discussion and was then voted upon,” said Klein. “I know there are a number of groups of interested citizens, artists, gardeners, who have their eye on that piece of property. By defining it as a transportation hub, it would prejudice community conversation on how this parcel would be used. I don’t think it belongs in there.”

Greg Ayers challenged Klein by saying, the plan calls for an “entire list of possibilities, such as public art. It’s a good way to recognize that piece of land is on public works as a transportation project.”

In the staff report to EPRC about the two documents, the Transportation Hub language was defined by Maycock as being “exemplary rather than definitive.”

John Campbell, architect and Homes for Islanders director, wrote a letter for the meeting in which he advised that the property be developed in collaboration with San Juan County Public Works, property owners, local design professional and engaged citizens to implement the street standards on an incremental basis.

The question of the potential use of property purchased by Public Works road funds has been forwarded to County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord, according to an email message from Shannon Wilbur of Public Works.

Duke said, “It’s an ongoing discussion, and passionate among islanders. We feel [the property] is at the heart of our community, a green space and a pass through. We’re concerned because we understood it was purchased with public works and discussed among public work staff.”

Planning Commissioner Brian Ehrmantraut questioned whether Public Works can sell the lot to remove the road restriction.

Klein said that, among others, County Councilman Rick Hughes has said he wants to see the community plan for what they want to do with that property and “create a plan that reflects what community wants, and we’ll find a way to do that.”

Gulliver Rankin noted the issues that aren’t covered in the ESAP update:
• change of use for business license,
• affordable housing element
• and transportation element of sub-area plan not revised
• food trucks, now only allowed to operate on private property,
• kiosks

Moving forward, Planning Commissioners indicated that the Aug. 15 meeting would be the first public hearing before its body; with the plan to go before the County Council in September or October.