–by John M. Campbell —
Exhibit depicting aerial view of split zoning ( red line)at the corner of North Beach Road and Mt. Baker Road
To: San Juan County Council, EPRC, Port of Orcas, Orcas Issues, OPAL [and private citizens]
Subject: Proposed rezoning of the Port-owned NW corner of North Beach Road and Mt. Baker Road (dog park) from Residential to Industrial.
Since its inception, the Eastsound Plan has recognized the importance of protecting the airport from encroaching residential development. To that end, the surrounding properties have been zoned Service Light Industrial. The issue now is the Port encroaching on the surrounding residential zoning. The present zoning is not a mistake or mapping error but a deliberate intention to make North Beach Road an attractive urban residential road. It is a widely recognized planning principal to have residential uses facing residential uses, commercial facing commercial whenever possible. When the Port bought this property there was a large house facing North Beach Road. Now the house is gone but the site faces a conspicuous, major road intersection facing two churches. It is not an appropriate location for industrial zoning.
The Staff emphasize the point that the rezoning is required in order to comply with the UDC regulation SJCC 18.10.040(C)(1) which states in part:
Land use designation boundaries, unless otherwise indicated by natural land forms, shall follow lot lines or the centerlines of streets or alleys as shown on official maps.
Split zoning is to be avoided whenever possible. In an expanding urban area like Eastsound, large rural parcels may occasionally be enveloped that extend across or into more than one district as has happened here when the Port purchased the farm extending from the airport to residential North Beach Road. Split zoning is a common inconvenience that plans generally accommodate in various ways.
Fortunately the authors of the Eastsound Plan anticipated such conflicts between the urban Eastsound Plan and the Rural County Plan by including the provision, existing 16.55.040.A Section 2. Applicability (Draft Plan page 3):
A. General…………….The provisions of this (Eastsound) Plan shall prevail over any conflicting provision of other portions of the Comprehensive Plan except as provided in subsection………………….
In other words, if the Eastsound map conflicts with 18.10.040(C)(1), the Eastsound map prevails.
The present zoning is a deliberate intention to make North Beach Road an attractive urban residential thoroughfare with the industrial zoning boundary behind the North Beach Road properties.
The North Beach/Mount Baker intersection is a major gateway to beautiful Eastsound Village, a world visitor attraction. This is an important site for a civic or institutional use, not an industrial one. The EPRC, who understand the visual significance of this site, unanimously oppose this rezoning.
Presently this rezoning has been brought forward by the Department of Community Development staff as legislative housekeeping to correct an apparent mapping error or mistake. The current zoning is neither a mistake nor a mapping error. Neither is it a legislative action as none of the other numerous split zoned parcels in Eastsound including another Port parcel is under consideration. What is involved is the zoning of this specific parcel and the ”rights, duties and privileges” of the owner. This is a site specific rezoning, whether legislative or ordinary and subject to the rezoning criteria of SJCC 18.90.030, public notice non-compliance and quasi-judicial.
At a minimum, the criteria for approval of legislative amendments, 18.90.020, are :
a. The change would benefit the public health, safety or welfare.
No public benefit is apparent or suggested.
b. The change is warranted because of one or more of the following:
- changed circumstances;
- a demonstrable need for additional property in the proposed land use designation;
- to correct demonstrable errors on the official map; or
- because information not previously considered indicates that different land use designations are equally or more consistent with the purposes, criteria and goals in the Comprehensive Plan.
There is no changed circumstance and the Port has said they have no use in mind at all for the subject portion of the property. There is no error or new information.
c. the change is consistent with the criteria for land use designations specified in the comprehensive Plan.
The change is not consistent with the intention for a residential thoroughfare.
d. The benefit of the change will outweigh any significant adverse impacts of the change.
No benefits are apparent but the adverse impacts are significant.
The puzzle is why this proposal is being brought forward by staff as legislative. This is a site specific property owner responsibility. Since it is a site specific, quasi-judicial matter, it is important that Councilman Hughes state for the record any ex parte discussions he has had on this issue, if any.
The Port is an important constituent of the Eastsound community. If they have plans to expand or needs to be accommodated, the place to begin is in coordination with the EPRC, the official planning body for the community. The EPRC must not be circumvented by an administrative power play.
But there is a better alternative. Deny this proposal and ask the EPRC to consider rezoning the currently residential portion of the subject properties to be Eastsound Institutional/Residential with a restriction on residential use. Perhaps extending this zoning across North Beach Road as well (without the restriction).
This would meet the Port’s need to comply with the FAA prohibition on owning residential land, it would preserve appropriate zoning on this important intersection and most desirably, meet the rezoning criteria of 18.90.020.G.1. And perhaps take the opportunity to notify the affected property owners and neighbors of what is proposed.
I would like to comment on Mr. Campbell’s proposal. I believe it is a brilliant, win-win solution for what has been a long-simmering dispute between the Port of Orcas and EPRC.
As I read it, this proposal addresses the very legitimate concerns of all parties, whereas the present course of action…heading, in my opinion, towards a solution which seriously compromises the primary goals of the Eastsound Subarea Plan…will result in some very unhappy citizen volunteers attempting to perform an often thankless role in an effort to plan for Eastsound’s future.
Can anyone confirm that the Port is planning to move and expand the terminal in response to yet another FAA directive? It seems that the Port’s ultimate plans in this regard would be relevant.
This is the best concept that has been offered as a solution for the Ports situation.
To change the zoning without regard of why that partial has a buffer in the first place undermines the intent of community zoning.
John, thank you for your clarity and eliquance, you summed this up with a high note, which blesses all.
Clyde
Agree with John Campbell;
Service/light industrial zoning unfortunately includes industrial buildings, retail sprawl, and uses that are toxic and inappropriate for abutting Critical Areas and high-density residences. Retail sprawl hurts existing businesses in the downtown core, and creates ugliness and more light pollution for surrounding neighbors. These uses do not belong in residential areas in the Eastsound UGA – neither in Village commercial nor Village residential zones. I would like to see this honored; we seem to have forgotten about the original vision of the Comprehensive Plan and the original Eastsound SubArea Plan, which actually had some wholistic thought and purpose, besides developing everything to the max with no thought to surrounding neighbors and the ugliness we must look at from our homes or apartments each day.
The traffic increases alone from any airport building expansion are cause for concern. That corner would be a terrible place for a new terminal.
It would behoove us to honor and maintain the planning and vision that went into our Comprehensive Plan and the original Eastsound SubArea Plan. I see no benefit in Port building expansion of any kind on one of the busiest intersections in the UGA.
In disagreeing, I think it’s important to begin with the history. This lot was purchased with FAA money for “future aeronautical use.” That purchase was supported by members of the community that now are advocating the continuance or application of land-use restrictions that severely inhibit the property’s “future aeronautical use.” As the county attorney noted almost 10 years ago, having a land-use boundary on a single parcel is problematic because the land-use boundary is not delineated by a surveyed boundary. Dividing the property to accommodate the application of different land uses is not something the Port will accept because it encumbers both properties with additional setback restrictions. In addition, the additional restrictions of Village Residential/Institutional are not conducive to aeronautical use.
I have previously provided commenters here with our Airport Master Plan which shows conceptual uses of this property that conform to SLI (but not to the existing land use designation). While some suggest that SLI opens up the Pandora’s box of the construction of a smoke-belching factory, do not lose sight of the encumbrances of the FAA Grant Assurances, which effectively run in perpetuity. Those constrain any use of the property to “Aeronautical Use,” and the topography itself of that portion of the property means that this portion is not suited to hangar construction, ramps, aprons, taxiways, etc. As those concepts show, the only possible use of that portion for aeronautical use is possibly for entryway roads and parking. As concepts, they are extremely preliminary, but any engineering/permitting would be fully vetted and presented to the county. We strive to run a functional airport…the last thing we want to do is screw up traffic and parking. On the subject of parking, having parking on that portion of the parcel might also alleviate parking in the downtown core, something everybody seems to think is important.
If there is real interest in “preserving” the character of this corner for something other than aeronautical use, the proponents of that effort should find an entity to purchase the property at fair market value. That is the only way for the Port to legitimately get out from under the Grant Assurances that accompanies the purchase of this property.
Following my previous response, I was asked whether the Port would seriously consider selling the upper 1/3 of this parcel at FMV. — Upon further consideration, my answer is yes, but with significant hedges. I’ve made clear the Port’s preferred solution which is to designate this entire parcel SLI. In reality, the port needs this parcel for options (entry, parking, buffer), so my next preference is simply maintaining the status quo. If at some point it becomes permanently less needed by the Port, we would still need it as a buffer. In that case, we might consider selling it to the Land Bank or the Preservation Trust, with permanent development restrictions to prevent further encroachment by residential, institutional or other non-compatible (to the airport) development. — So, in reality, we won’t sell it free and clear.