Last Hearing of New Eastsound Plans Before Council’s “First Touch”

Friday, August 15 at 8:45 a.m. in Friday Harbor — Teleconference from Orcas, Lopez Islands

The San Juan County Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on the proposed Eastsound Subarea Plan update. The SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance regarding the plan will also be discussed before the County Planning Commission at the August 15 meeting in Friday Harbor.

The meeting is being held in the County’s Legislative Conference Room in Friday Harbor so that video teleconferencing may be used for broadcasting. The hearing will begin at or after 8:45 a.m., August 15, 2014, in the County Council Chambers, 55 Second Street, Friday Harbor. Interested parties are encouraged to attend and provide comment. To allow for distribution to Planning Commissioners, written comments submitted prior to the hearing should be received by 1:00 p.m. August 13, 2014.

Teleconferencing for comments will be available for the meeting. To use this feature:

• Call 1-877-868-6863
• when prompted, put in the pass code: 418271 and the # sign
• You will then be participating in the conference call.

Copies of the proposed amendments, SEPA checklist, SEPA Determination & associated documents are available from the County web site at sanjuanco.com/cdp/cdpdhome.aspx (Select Eastsound Subarea Plan Update). For more information or to submit comments contact Colin Maycock AICP, San Juan County CD&P, PO Box 947, Friday Harbor, WA, 98250, (360) 370-7573, colinm@sanjuanco.com

Colin Maycock, San Juan County Community Development and Planning Senior Planner, released a staff report on July 29 that says the county has worked with the Eastsound Planning Review Committee (EPRC) to identify issues that create “unnecessary difficulties in the plan’s execution.”

Following are excerpts from the Staff report submitted July 29 by Senior Planner Colin Maycock. To read the full report, go to San Juan County Code Chapter 16.55  which contains the Eastsound Subarea Plan (ESAP) or click 2014-07-29 Subarea Plan update PC staff report.

“Staff was originally directed to split the aspirational goals and policies from the practical implementation regulations in the Eastsound Subarea Plan (ESAP).

“In conjunction with the Eastsound Planning Review Committee (EPRC), staff has reorganized and streamlined both the plan and the regulations.

“While changing the format of the plan and regulations is the most significant change to the ESAP there are other amendments that address issues identified by the EPRC, the public and staff as creating unnecessary difficulties in the plan’s execution. The most pertinent proposals are listed below:

1. The creation of land use tables reduces the number and variety of Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) while the development standard tables help to ensure consistent interpretation of regulations;
2. The prohibition on off-site A-Frame signs has been lifted;
3. Appropriate sites and standards for kiosks and vending trucks have been designated;
4. The parameters controlling retail in Service Light Industrial (SLI) have been clarified;
5. Four amendments to the land use map are being proposed;
6. The role of the Eastsound Design Committee has been clarified;
7. Artisan activities have been identified and permitted in Village Commercial.

“Although the scope of the project was limited and the draft documents do not represent a comprehensive update of the Eastsound Subarea plan, the proposed amendments are considered new text.

BACKGROUND: “The Eastsound Subarea Plan was originally adopted [in] 1981 and then amended [by 13 Ordinances, the most recent being in 2010]

“During monthly public meetings, the Eastsound Planning Review Committee (EPRC) has been working with County staff to update the existing Eastsound Subarea Plan. The current Eastsound Subarea Plan was developed and written in a style that combined both aspirational statements such as goals and policies with the regulations to implement the aforementioned goals.

“One of the more unusual stylistic quirks of the Eastsound Subarea Plan is the absence of a land use table setting forth the allowed and prohibited uses in each district by type. The ESAP identifies allowed and prohibited uses and their respective permit requirements by listing groups of allowed and prohibited uses. Any use that is not expressly prohibited may be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Allowed uses must meet the development standards of the land use district, such as height limitations, front, side and rear setbacks, open space and lot coverage.

“Although originally conceived as a strategic move to split the goals and policy plan elements from the implementing regulations, the scope has expanded throughout the process to include a variety of regulatory and amendments.

“The administration of the ESAP has, on occasion, been challenging and oversights in implementation have occurred.

“To complicate application and interpretation of the current code, terminology is deployed inconsistently both within the subarea plan and between subarea plan and the Unified Development Code. Some allowed uses are subject to additional restrictions or different permitting procedures depending on the size of the structures or location within a district.

“The current plan also contains regulations whose purposes are not consistent with the broad objectives of the plan or the specific purposes of the respective land use district.

“The Planning Commission reviewed the draft update documents on June 20, 2014 at a public workshop held in the Eastsound Fire Station. Issues identified by the public and Planning Commission as part of the workshop were subsequently discussed and addressed at the regularly scheduled EPRC meeting on July 3^rd, 2014.

ANALYSIS:

“The update is mainly a significant reorganization of the existing regulations into a more accessible format rather than substantive regulatory changes.
…

1. “Transportation Hub: The identification of a specific parcel owned by the County as the site for a possible ‘transportation hub.’ The ‘transportation hub’ concept refers directly to the fact that the parcel in question was purchased with road funds and must be, under RCW 36.82.070, used for transportation related purposes. The description of the Eastsound ‘transportation hub’ is far ranging and may include community gardens, public art, picnic tables and bike racks along with rideshare and shuttle stops. While the title indicates a conventional space for a shuttle bus stop and bike racks, it’s clear the moniker is strategic rather than descriptive. The idea is that by using the term ‘transportation hub’ in the plan, the county may be eligible for state or federal grants to implement the local vision.
2. “Land Use Tables: The most significant change to the regulations that will codified in the Unified Development Code (UDC) is the addition of land use tables. The current plan is unique in the County in that each land use district contains a list of allowed and prohibited uses and any uses not explicitly identified as prohibited in the district may be allowed as a CUP. This provision is repeated throughout the plan and expands the range of options without providing guidance as to how it may be applied which increases the uncertainty for applicants, as applicants will not be able to determine if their project is allowed (and if so under what constraints) until after a public hearing and the Hearing Examiner issues a decision.

“Staff began by creating land use tables based on categories and uses set forth in SJCC 18.30.030, showing what was allowed and prohibited in each of the districts with uses that would be considered CUPs left blank. The EPRC considered the currently allowed and prohibited uses and discussed the permit levels appropriate to each. The goal was to increase predictability for development options within Eastsound.

The County currently considers 4 permit options:

i.         Yes: Allowed outright (i.e. without a project permit) subject to development standards and if a building permit is required a consistency review will be carried out;

ii.         Provisional: Project permit required and subject to development standards and performance and use specific standards in the UDC;

iii.         P/C: An administrative review process to determine whether a provisional or conditional permit would be most appropriate for the project;

iv.         Conditional (CUP): Subject to public notice and public hearing

3. “Provisions for retail in the Service Light Industrial (SLI) district: The provisions for constraining retail activities in SLI were the subject of a spirited debate within the community and the EPRC. The debate focused on concerns arising from maintaining the ‘walkability’ of the Eastsound Village Commercial district and the possibility of businesses in SLI pulling attention away from the village’s southern waterfront. The other side of the discussion emphasized the need to provide a wider array of opportunities to the community’s entrepreneurs.

“While the term ‘incidental’ was defined as ‘subordinate and minor in significance’ the replacement term, ‘related’ doesn’t allow the reviewer to make a value determination that the use is subordinate, merely ‘connected logically, causally or by shared characteristics.’ … The implementation regulations make the relationship clearer by stating that retail sales are allowed provided one of the following conditions is met:

i. Retail sales are related to one or more allowable uses;

ii. Retail sales are part of a business that requires substantial storage; or

iii. Products sold are manufactured at the same facility.

4.  “‘A’ Frame Signs: One of the issues that highlighted the need to update the ESAP was the proliferation of offsite ‘A-Frame’ signs advertising businesses and activities. Off-site signs are expressly forbidden by the ESAP to protect the visual environment. Local businesses and non- profit organizations however, need to inform the public of their availability, activities or specific events and some small signs have become ubiquitous. Lacking staff to consistently enforce the prohibition on off-site signs, the proposal provides three locations for off-site signs to be placed in the public right of way. The chosen locations offer both high visibility and high traffic. It has been clarified that signs will only be allowed in the public Right of Way on the west side of the intersection of Lover’s Lane and Main Street.

5.  “Eastsound Design Review Committee: The proposal clarifies the role, make up and activities of the Eastsound Design Review Committee, the draft plan states that projects seeking a variance should approach the committee early in the process and requires the Committee to issue its decisions and reasons in writing.

6. “Artisan Activities: The idea of designating a class and intensity of manufacturing activity as artisanal arose from enquiries and permit requests for projects that would be ideally suited to the Village Commercial area but included manufacturing facets prohibited in the district. As the title implies, the goal is to provide opportunities to pursue traditional commercial manufacturing activities on a scale that limits the potential negative offsite impacts on neighbors.

“Following the development standards that constrain and define Cottage Industry uses in the County, the proposal allows for Artisan Activities in the Village Commercial district.

7. “Miscellaneous Issues: The ESAP contains a wide variety of regulatory artifacts that can only be described as anomalies the proposed update attempts to address. These issues include:

i.         “The activities and uses the UDC currently defines as Cottage Enterprises and Home Occupations have a tense relationship with other categories of land uses, primarily because the code deploys the terms as land uses while the terms actually describe an intensity of development and use rather than a specific activity. The upshot is that a use that is specifically prohibited in a land use district, (e.g. Offices in Eastsound Residential)are simultaneously allowed under the banner of a home occupation. On this point, a note has been placed in each land use districts development standards table to draw people’s attention to this regulatory feature.

ii.         “The ESAP contains provisions for the development of a public parking plan and creates a parking fund to accept financial contributions in lieu of the parking spaces required for specific projects within Eastsound. SJCC 16.55.300(C)(4)states the purpose of the fund is to “acquire, develop, maintain, and manage public parking areas within the Eastsound Subarea Plan boundaries.

“In addition to the language specifically authorizing the creation of a public parking fund, the subarea plan contains a goal of developing a public parking plan that will provide “sufficient off-street parking to mitigate the need for on-street parking,” and requires the Council appointment of a Eastsound parking committee that reports to the Eastsound Plan Review Committee about the “operations and management of the Eastsound Parking Improvement Fund.”

“The provision that creates the parking fund identifies the Public Works as the funds administrator while the Auditor’s Office is to be responsible for “all financial transactions.”

“Furthermore the code contains provisions for prospective business owners to purchase credits before submitting permits.

“Both Public Works and the Auditor’s Office report that there is no fund in place, no contributions have ever been received, no Eastsound parking committee has been appointed, no land has been leased or acquired and there is no Eastsound public parking plan to ‘mitigate’ the need for off street parking.

“The ESAP sets a base fee of $5,000 per parking space; however, there is nothing in the code or in the adopting Ordinance 4-1996 that describes how the fee scale was determined. In the absence of supporting documentation, the County will need to carry out new studies in order to identify the most appropriate and defendable fee schedule.

“All references to the parking plan, potential locations and funding mechanism have been removed in the draft plan.

Kiosk development standards; The draft plan contains development standards for kiosks, although with some minor amendments, could be used as general rules for non-farm stand, temporary structures throughout the County. The basic idea proposed here is that kiosks should be considered accessory to the primary structure and use, should meet the design standards, and may not impinge upon existing parking. Following the workshop on June 20^th, 2014, the EPRC recommended allowing Vending trailers in following districts; Village Commercial, Marina, Country Corner Commercial and Airport use. With the exception of Country Corner Commercial the EPRC recommended allowing Kiosks in the same districts.”

The hearing will also consider the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review. An Environmental Checklist for the proposed Comprehensive Plan and code amendments was prepared. It was determined that adoption of the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and an environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Under WAC 197-11-340(2), a Determination of Non-Significance was issued on July 23, 2014. Comments on this determination must be submitted by August 7, 2014. Following a final decision this determination may be appealed with the underlying action to the Growth Management Hearings Board as provided in RCW 36.70A.290. The appeal period is 60 days from publication of the notice of ordinance adoption.

(Please find copies of the last draft of the Subarea plan and regulations at the following location: sanjuanco.com/cdp/Eastsound)