— by John Campbell, Chairman, Eastsound Design Review Committee–
History:
25 years ago there was a general outcry in favor of minimum architectural standards in response to a big dowdy building that engulfed a treasured old landmark. There are two legal bases for community architectural design standards: good design and community character. Years ago, there was no precedent for “good design” but a lot of interest in village character.
Zoning and building standards in Eastsound are the responsibility of the Eastsound Planning Review Committee (EPRC) who advise the County Planning Commission and County Council.
Eastsound village character is sometimes described as “not like Friday Harbor.” That may be translated to mean that Eastsound has narrow streets (at that time unpaved without sidewalks) small scale (many one story former dwellings) with landscaped open space between, around and in front of buildings (Eastsound Square, Brown Bear Baking Company and Orcas On-Line). It is flower beds and picket fences, not a solid wall of storefronts against a wide sidewalk. Architecturally, village character was assorted, ordinary and generally unremarkable.
It was clear that Eastsound village character was not a unique moment in architectural history (Williamsburg or Santa Barbara) nor was it an imagined creation (Bavarian Leavenworth, Wash.) or contemporary Celebration, Florida). It was a very ordinary little crossroads village without any architectural pretensions which wanted to retain its informal scale and character. Whatever rules were to be adopted should be simple and inclusive.
In discussing legislating architectural standards, one of the first questions is whether they are to be prescriptive, i.e. specific permitted or prohibited features; or discretionary, i.e. subject to individual discretionary review by a review committee and if so, who?
In the end, Eastsound adopted a combination regulation. Prescriptive regulations permitted most common materials and “styles” were not discussed. Shape is regulated to the extent that large buildings have offsets to reflect the desire for small scale and roofs are required to be generally sloped between 6/12 to 12/12.
Projects complying with these broad prescriptive requirements are automatically allowed without any subjective review. Projects that want an exception to the prescriptive shape and material provisions may apply for an exception to the Eastsound Design Review Committee on the basis of village character. See detailed regulations at SJCC 18.30.670 on County website.
Compliance with the prescriptive requirements is so easy that there are few applications for exceptions. Some examples of buildings complying with the prescriptive requirements include Island Market, a large building with offsets and pitched roof (behind which lie all the mechanical equipment), Orcas Library, the liquor store with offsets on Rose Street, Emmanuel Parish Hall, Windermere Realty, Washington Federal to name a few, all of which sustain a modest village character.
Recently there have been questions asking why buildings must have pitched roofs. There is plenty of precedent for flat roofs; Ray’s Pharmacy, Sea View theater, Village Stop. Other voices have suggested a more deliberate village theme or a requirement for good architectural design. In other words, both less control and more.
Now, 25 years later, Eastsound continues to grow. It is appropriate that EPRC review the existing regulations and either reaffirm the original commitment to traditional village character or adopt new criteria and/or regulations or abolish design requirements entirely. At a minimum, the current regulations need more tangible criteria for approval or denial of Exceptions and a clear appeal process.
What do you think?
John, I would concur, our village seems to have diversity that some how complements the whole.. While by accident or design, I sure enjoy it humble presence.
Clyde Duke
I agree with Clyde. I LIKE the humble presence of Eastsound. It is definetly NOT Friday Harbor. My favorite view of our town is coming south on Prune Alley in April when the trees are in bloom. My thought is always, year after year, that THIS is my home. Let’s not wreck that humble presence with an excess of planning. Certain restrictions are important. The lack of gas stations in the village is wonderful. Cutesy design standards that result in “cookie cutter” buildings like Leavenworth don’t result in a warm inviting community like the place I have called home for 42 years.
The only restriction I’d like to see with new structures is height. Unfortunately, the Windermere building, contrary to John’s descriptions, does not seem to follow the prescriptive requirements: smack up to the road, and too high for it’s placement near the water, too big & too imposing. We forget how we could see the water before.
I’m looking forward to see how the street light project will blend in with our “humble presence”.
Just a quick post to note that were it not for our innocuous little architectural design standards, we’d likely have a building akin to the Anacortes Safeway dominating our village.
As John writes, design standards were adopted in the aftermath of the insensitive treatment of our old school house (now Mia’s restaurant) as it was enveloped by the “Our House” mall, a structure which ignores in every way the scale and character of the N. Beach Rd. streetscape.
While it’s certainly true that we have several prominent buildings with flat roofs, they were not among the buildings cited by the capacity crowd at the Madrona Room when they were asked to name the buildings which contributed to the charm of the village. This occurred during a series of meetings sponsored by EPRC at a time when pending developments were of such a scope and size as to overwhelm the existing character of the village…a threat which could easily resurface today.
It’s my opinion that the village benefits when it grows in a cohesive manner which respects the context…where it might be said that buildings have respectful conversations rather than arguments w/ one another or stand alone in their aloofnee.
I appreciate John raising the subject…it’s time for a robust community conversation.
Eastsound has a charm that is an asset to our tourist industry. Articulating what that charm is in architectural terms it probably worth our time.
It does seem that authentic rural character arises principally by accident, and the imposition of additional design standards, including such details as “themes,” required colors for paint, mandates for retail spaces, and “street furniture” only takes us further down the road to the Disneyfication of Nantucket. We don’t need to legislate “charm.” I see no problem with the Our House building or flat roofs. I’m appalled at notions such as Grand Stairs, Grand Canals, and “promenades,” though.
I will simply say that the moment it appears that mandatory paint color schemes are likely to happen in Eastsound, I will preemptively paint every space I own in the village a bright cheery rainbow.
If you want to tell me what color to paint my buildings, by all means, feel free to buy them and indulge yourselves.
Oh Brian I’m in, I’ve got a bunch of bright GRAY!! It’s really cool! It just needs the right sunlight.. And maybe the proper sunglasses..
I remember the strong opposition to adding sidewalks to North Beach Road when we were planning the street landscaping in ’94 because it would take away from the rural character of the village. What was helpful at that time was the outreach to the community by our committee to explain the benefits of the sidewalks. I am very grateful to the EPRC for their attention to the many ongoing design concerns for the village and their efforts to always welcome community participation.
Brian,
How about we make that the new design standard? All buildings in Eastsound must be painted in a rainbow pattern. We could be the envy of every small town in America!
Justin – as long as it is a voluntary standard, I’m in :-)
I personally think Lunenburg in Nova Scotia (a World Heritage Site) has one of the best color schemes for a seaside village. They have some pretty robust Heritage Protection codes for Old Town Lunenberg. Yet they leave paint choice up to property owners.
See page 20:
https://www.explorelunenburg.ca/index.php?option=com_docman&view=download&alias=885-heritage-conservation-district-plan-and-bylaw&category_slug=planning-and-development&Itemid=893
“Part of the visual appeal of the Town comes from the diverse and often unique colour combinations chosen by property owners. The Town is particularly well-known for its brightly coloured waterfront buildings, painted in primary reds and blues. Many houses are also painted in vibrant blues, greens, and yellows. While some colours may not be “historically correct” there can be no doubt that they contribute to the rich variety for which the town is widely known.
Although the Council has the authority to regulate building colour under the Heritage Property Act, it has chosen not to do so, in order to preserve individual freedom of expression. At the same time, Council recognizes that the historical ambiance of the Town could be enhanced if buildings were painted their original colours. …
“
Change is happening in our village at a fairly rapid pace. The design guidelines put in place a number of years ago that John describes have helped shape some of that change in recent years in a positive direction. With no guidelines we will likely get the least positive result from change. One aspect of that might be a parking lot as the street frontage for all new developments. I don’t think that is the village of walk-ability, permeability and discovery that many of us would like to preserve. Kudos to John for putting this on the table.
On the issue of paint colors…the beauty of this aspect of village character is that whatever colors are chosen, they can easily be changed. Though it’s a subject worthy of discussion, I don’t know of anybody who is advocating that an Eastsound Village Color Palette should be adopted. In the current design standards, color is not mentioned except w/ regard to metal roofing where there was a recognition that a large, bright, primary color metal roof (say IHOP blue, or Dairy Queen red) would be unwelcome.
Color selection for large, outdoor surfaces in the bright sun can be a surprisingly difficult design decision…something many have learned after picking a color from a small swatch in a pamphlet.
I for one was delighted w/ the new paint scheme of the Long House…but then color choice is sooooooo subjective.
When I read Peg Manning write, “I see no problem with the Our House building”, I’m not sure whether I’m reading an expression of wilful ignorance or just a knee-jerk libertarian reaction to any notion of community control over the look and feel of the central commercial and cultural gathering place for Orcas Islanders and those who visit us.
Surely she can “see” and appreciate the difference between the Our House building…a large, bland, uniform, 100 foot long lump crowding the curb and sidewalk…and the predominant expression of small scale structures, each with side yards, landscaping and secondary elements like fencing and arbors…all the things which contribute to a rich, varied, visual and tactile experience when walking or driving thru Eastsound.
Are we so oblivious to our visual environment that these distinctions escape us? Would another “Our House” diminish or enhance the village character?
(There is, BTW, a fascinating backstory behind the development of “Our House”, complete w/ it’s owner moving off-island immediately after its completion.)
Fred–
I see no problem with the Our House building in the CONTEXT of the village, which was the point I was making–neither in “wilful ignorance” nor a “knee-jerk libertarian reaction” to community control. It is startling to me that, somehow, a disagreement over the aesthetic impact of a particular building in a rural village requires someone to be “right” and another to be “ignorant” or–the ultimate insult, I suppose–“libertarian.” The Our House building seems to me (and while I visited here long ago, I moved here only in the mid-aughts, so I missed the oft-referenced community drama) to be an organic, authentic building in a grouping of organic, authentic buildings, each a little different from the next.
I was unaware of there being a “right” and a “wrong” way to design a building, from an aesthetic viewpoint, and that that decision was now within the purview of the EPRC. Instead of judging the building on its architectural merits, I think of the Our House building as a place where I dined at three truly wonderful restaurants, and purchased scarves for my daughter and little tutu costumes for my granddaughter.
I worked for a while in architecture and planning before choosing law school for a graduate degree instead, so my reaction is also a bit influenced by the knowledge that deciding WHO makes aesthetic decisions about other peoples’ property and HOW to articulate and enforce those standards (“charm”) is a very difficult legal undertaking–one that would likely contribute to the lack of interest in building affordable housing in the village.
I agree that parking is an issue and that the County has failed miserably to enforce the putative requirement that each new building provide parking. One positive aspect of the Our House building and Templin Center, which have both been called out by architectural tastemakers, is that both actually provide parking for the people going there (and, indeed, for people going elsewhere).
We moved to the island knowing that it was essentially a rural community, and changing slowly, which was fine with me. The color palette and other possibilities that I raised as seeming antithetical to that rural character (more design standards, white and gray Nantucket-y color palettes, “street furniture,” “grand staircases,” a “grand canal,” and “promenades,” not to mention visual examples of what I associate with suburban or planned resort architecture), are found in the latest “visioning” document produced for comment by the EPRC and brought to our attention by Orcas Issues last week. I do hope you read it and comment, Fred.
I wonder if there is anyone who remembers WHY the Our House building is built right on the street ? I will bet that Velma knows as Doty’s A-1 was directly across the street. And, of course, you new-comers will ask, “What was Doty’s A-1”?
So the answer to my wonderment is that, back in those long ago times, the community, in the earliest stages of the Eastsound Sub-Area Plan, determined that all parking for new development should be BEHIND the buildings. And so, there is no parking on the street there, nor any building set-back.
I am not opposed to some degree of community land-use planning, though there should be a practical limit to “Big Brother’s” directives. I will say again that I am comfortable with Eastsound as my home, and, most certainly, would resist any effort to over regulate our town into another Friday Harbor.
Peg…when you write, “The Our House building seems to me…to be an organic, authentic building in a grouping of organic, authentic buildings, each a little different from the next”, I’m simply baffled by the equating of Our House and its neighbors and your (reluctance?, unwillingness?) to acknowledge what are for me the obvious differences in concept, scale, massing, character, lack of detailing, and siting. And more to the point, how the impact of such structures alters the (cherished?, valued?) character of the village.
No insults intended…and I too have had pleasant dining and shopping experiences at Our House…which is quite beside the point.
Fred- I am neither reluctant nor unwilling to acknowledge YOUR belief that there are “obvious differences in concept, scale, massing, character, lack of detailing, and siting.” What I was saying is that I view the building as part of the village as a whole, and have no problem with it. And I do consider the use of phrases like “ignorant” and “knee-jerk” to be insulting.
Just to throw my two cents into the heated fray, I worry that authentic rural character may be neither charming nor visually appealing but the indifferent or worse result of haphazard or nonexistent planning. An authentic result may not be a desirable outcome. Many examples of “organic” authenticity in both cities and rural areas have sent citizens scurrying to the ramparts too late, creating widespread frustration or just bad-tempered schadenfreude.
I applaud the efforts of all whose work and comments suggest there is indeed a community interest in this important topic.
WOW! Not sure where to start or if I should. History is an intriguing element in this blog. Our House (O.H.) was the second school house in Eastsound first “stick frame” 1892. It certainly has taken on another look over time. There are old photos of the original building inside the hallway for your enjoyment and edification. More than happy to share my “Virginia Jensen” knowledge in a side bar. The tenants would love your stroll through there commerce. Fred has been very supportive, and made great recommendations for changing the “front” to better serve the comfort of architectural challenges that it presents to the community. The counter point to that is it serves the purpose, and I doubt that many look at it now and say “I’d never enter it because it’s ugly”. I must admit I did not like the building and the “change” it brought when it was built. Never thought I would own it then! BUT the key is the people within and there pleasant greetings, work, and contributions that they bring to the community is really what COUNTS!!! “Form before function” for those who know me understand that is my struggle with the demands of my utilitarian ways. This building meets the needs of the functionality that is often missed in our community. Sorry Fred I could spend my money on something more appealing to the eye, but frankly I have to many basic maintenance needs to feel compelled to increase the rent for a distinctive promenade. In the end for me it is a lot like “water over the dam” learn that we need to embrace our diversity both good and bad. Enjoy the sows ear!:)
Why on earth can’t we just let Eastsound become what it is to be? Maybe you won’t think it is cute enough for you or cute enough for tourists. Oh Well…..
Paul…your question, “Why on earth can’t we just let Eastsound become what it is to be?”, goes to the heart of the matter.
The authors of “Seeking a Vision for Eastsound” asked a similar question, namely:
“How shall we answer the question of the Future of Eastsound?
Shall it be:
…allowed to evolve on its own in accordance with existing regulations and whatever market forces are brought to bear…?…
Or, shall it be:
…consciously enhanced as a nurturing hometown within a beautiful natural environment, provider of essential services for the island community while supporting low impact employment and residential neighborhoods, with a culture
which emphasizes both the visual and performing arts, and is attractive to young families, wealthy and not so wealthy retirees and visitors alike…?…”
I’m not sure where “cute enough” fits in to the narrative.