[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6517693,"mediaKeyId","5403285-f99defb4189a99fdf3ed313288aeeb28","parentId",5403285,"title","Coupeville planning staff previews rewrite of historic-preservation rules for Ebey’s Landing reserve","audioSeconds",713,"startMs",108000,"endMs",821000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5403285-f99defb4189a99fdf3ed313288aeeb28&start=108&end=821","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5403285-f99defb4189a99fdf3ed313288aeeb28/thumbnail_108000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6517693/Coupeville/Island-County/Washington/Coupeville-planning-staff-previews-rewrite-of-historic-preservation-rules-for-Ebeys-Landing-reserve","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6517693-c180fb77793a5c77f527609b7eb0c1d9/orig.mp4?Expires=1773607765&Signature=U0S8nwTgP3UzTm0x-DSqaG5nyOut8YJIS2oZYO0qUKzSFpTHMNYQ9WSWNXFZD8cFh~2aUOu1aE4Vt2zi6eHaylYVSBlRnUsUuwycPVBBGIu7p2A~hADqWnjjjI5utfoOd6BnIXd0Z2QVFeW~PCVhv26WJEjthAkYzpViyaKfbV-RHVfopqIifR41VRvq1Bv6De9liWVcQ5VvWdHSxaZtnxdr98J-M24LIJ5G~fpiNt0U2i9IsVT97Sma0Uz9U8J6ZfOh4UT6mDqQHFbBAFkh80fkHS8ZDfuf8ISiEL4P~9U6QfIYvvc6Gf13wWwMi~BBqXsWz5i8~62~9PDa~CLw7A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Coupeville Planning Commission Meeting","date","2025-07-15T00:00:00Z","article","Planning staff presented draft revisions to Coupeville’s historic-preservation code and design guidelines on July 15, telling the Planning Commission the changes aim to make project review more objective, predictable and easier to administer.

The draft updates would align a portion of the Town of Coupeville code (chapter 16.13) with parallel county language (chapter 17.04A) used in Island County for projects inside Ebey’s Landing National Historical Reserve. Planning staff said the revisions include clearer review-area maps, a four-level certificate-of-appropriateness system, and more explicit treatment of landscaping, significant trees and “demolition by neglect.”

Why it matters: Coupeville’s historic resources are regulated under multiple jurisdictions — town, county and the Ebey’s Landing National Historical Reserve — so staff said the town needs clearer, more predictable rules so property owners and review bodies reach consistent outcomes.

Planning staff said the updated framework groups projects by activity and place. Staff described three review areas (VRA 1, 2 and 3) with different scrutiny levels and said the draft designates most unspecified applications as a mid-level review (level B) that staff or the reserve may handle; more complex projects would go to the Historic Preservation Commission. Staff said the proposed structure will allow routine, low-impact work to be handled administratively while reserving formal commission review for larger or precedent-setting projects. “We want it to be more streamlined, more practical, more concise, more objective and…predictable,” the presenter said.

Key proposed changes discussed by commissioners and staff:
- Review-area mapping and buffer: The draft increases the buffer for stricter review from about 100 feet to 500 feet in some places; staff said 500 feet better captures neighborhood-scale impacts around historic properties. Staff noted mapping will be refined to show where VRA 1/2/3 apply.
- Certificate-of-appropriateness levels: Staff described four vertical levels to clarify what kinds of projects require what level of review, and said items not listed would default to the mid-tier (level B) process.
- Landscaping and tree protection: The draft adds more explicit guidance on landscaping and tree retention, and staff said some larger vegetation removals (for example trees above a minimum diameter threshold) would trigger review. Staff gave an example threshold discussed in the meeting (trees 12 inches diameter at breast height and larger were described as beyond the threshold for routine maintenance) but said details will be refined.
- Demolition by neglect: The draft includes language to address owners who allow historic resources to deteriorate to the point of loss; staff said that policy would require community policy direction and could be paired with information on grants and other help to maintain historic properties.
- Appeals process: Staff clarified appeals for town decisions would go to the town’s contracted hearing examiner, while county appeals follow Island County’s established appeal route; the draft highlights places where town- or county-specific references must remain distinct.

Commissioners asked for more clarity in several places — for example, how review-area boundaries look on a map, whether landscaping rules should be a tree ordinance rather than a landscaping provision, and how the code will treat ordinary maintenance vs. repair that could change a structure’s character. One commissioner supported renaming “contributing structures” to “historic resources” for clarity.

Staff said the draft is the result of a multi-year process that started with design-guideline revisions and has been coordinated with reserve staff and Island County; staff also noted that turnover among reserve staff (reserve staff leaving) complicates final coordination and that additional onboarding of reserve staff may be required before formal adoption steps.

The commission did not take a vote on the code changes during the July 15 meeting; staff asked for feedback and signaled additional refinements and public hearings will follow.

Ending: Staff said they will refine maps, thresholds and the draft table that ties project types to review levels before returning with formal amendments for public hearings and council/county consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Coupeville Planning Commission Meeting - Jul 15, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Planning staff presented draft revisions to Coupeville’s historic-preservation code and design guidelines on July 15, telling the Planning Commission the changes aim to make project review more objective, predictable and easier to administer.","taxTitle","Coupeville, Island County, Washington","taxId",54106,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6517679,"Coupeville planning staff to pursue shoreline code tweak to enable resilience work on overwater buildings",169,4923000,5092000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5403285-f99defb4189a99fdf3ed313288aeeb28&start=4923&end=5092","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5403285-f99defb4189a99fdf3ed313288aeeb28/thumbnail_4923000.jpg","/articles/6517679/Coupeville/Island-County/Washington/Coupeville-planning-staff-to-pursue-shoreline-code-tweak-to-enable-resilience-work-on-overwater-buildings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6517679-50667632ff6c9d2e9dd017a3fe51ed9c/orig.mp4?Expires=1773607765&Signature=CDZgzsTRWRE6yg2Yt6rGPrl0lYt-blEbWPLM2odE7-ThSW6CfV2p65VXp2l6CWk6h2tIkaixBXFtlfMCiYU2fhGEsY0Nr-ZsPSDB9m~L2iC6c1B2R4N3QkjSbQ2e1JXk0hfl3S5qgOnksdAqkOTnDZt-wFWzEt1Ip66hamdmAr3p0pfexXY8jNczf5ihhdEnLiww9I1~pGKE-ngz6yB6fddhSzwlGlgL5BPj4Ix0ufXTOomOzCkYPBKzZ7fW6pYK2~1oEGNqBLF6BP6C-2PINDtpIQEBzSxYObUhjQm3kkd47GxYFWTz2fNu~zRlSUhbbBdHs3kii6oC~4AATVFEFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff told the commission the town will pursue a locally initiated amendment to the Shoreline Master Program to better enable resilience work for overwater buildings at the wharf and waterfront.

Why it matters: Many Coupeville pier- and overwater buildings sit on piles and piers whose foundations are affected by erosion and sea-level/flood changes; current shoreline ordinance language restricts “hard armor” shoreline modifications below the ordinary high-water mark and can block some protective measures owners say are necessary to protect historic overwater structures.

What staff proposed: Staff said the amendment’s goal is to align the town’s shoreline ordinance more closely with Department of Ecology guidance so owners of culturally significant overwater buildings can pursue foundation reinforcement and limited protective measures consistent with ecological and shoreline-management objectives. Staff called the change a narrowly focused, locally initiated amendment that will be routed through the Department of Ecology review process and likely will take longer than the standard timeline.

Commissioner questions focused on scope and overlap: Commissioners asked whether the change affects short-term-rental rules or other waterfront land-use items; staff clarified the Shoreline Master Program amendment is focused on resilience/adaptation measures and is a separate effort from short-term-rental policy work, which the council will address at a later meeting.

Next steps: Staff will prepare the locally initiated SMP amendment and begin the Department of Ecology review and public-notice process. No ordinance changes were adopted at this meeting.

Ending: Staff emphasized the effort is narrow — focusing on making protective options available for overwater buildings while seeking to preserve ecological functions — and that coordination with Ecology will guide the timeline and scope.","Staff said the town will begin a locally-initiated Shoreline Master Program amendment to reduce local barriers that prevent owners of overwater buildings from pursuing certain flood- and foundation-protection measures; Department of Ecology review will be required and the process may take longer than standard timelines.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6517684,"Coupeville staff to study A-frame sign rules after council directed limited code review",625,3974000,4599000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5403285-f99defb4189a99fdf3ed313288aeeb28&start=3974&end=4599","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5403285-f99defb4189a99fdf3ed313288aeeb28/thumbnail_3974000.jpg","/articles/6517684/Coupeville/Island-County/Washington/Coupeville-staff-to-study-A-frame-sign-rules-after-council-directed-limited-code-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6517684-3b29219720239fe58178e781c6f5dc2f/orig.mp4?Expires=1773607765&Signature=mc8Xj~YaOteSF64Mun~DShA9BQadBf5wdhSGth~EJ8O68r7ftNuEmA23bkx1vBCUK2rKhh25ZL7K6~7dSCDCWw2wwjAEuXSmSnIGhWSmWIUDiTItXZ9Elp49FjdJkTIupeCKdMZbgPrLQfZSkwP8OmvjXVN-SHTUHxB0SFE1FOKFomRw3o1tblv54ByuZzSNIQAfyJZiv7ofwLK8n358mx57QItrEI8Xkb~5865UGu~STgirZpkUDeydnBPle7wTN-XsbxAUFSOxKKjFxJkF1xL2brAQv5MICZckDN7AeUfXDhSiHTVB0TzuQw1P4q-GtlguWSqObW3B8ql6nmh0rg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Coupeville planning staff told the commission the Town Council directed a focused review of the sign code to consider whether temporary A-frame (sandwich-board) signs should be allowed and, if so, how to regulate placement, design and pedestrian access.

Why it matters: A-frame signs are a frequent local complaint when they obstruct sidewalks or create visual clutter, but small businesses say temporary signs help attract customers, particularly in lower-visibility areas.

What staff described: Staff said the council’s direction was narrow — to examine A-frame signs — and that the next step is to draft targeted code language. Council guidance discussed design cohesiveness (potentially requiring permitted or standardized frames), rules to prevent placement that impedes sidewalks or bike routes, and limits on off-site advertising. Staff warned that adding permit requirements for temporary signs could complicate enforcement and asked the commission for input on where civility and access thresholds should be set.

Commissioner comments and public input: Commissioners and commenters raised several practical issues: whether a uniform percentage-of-façade rule (the “5%” standard) should apply to A-frames, how existing public or quasi-public uses (library, fire department, public markets) should be treated, and whether different parts of town (historic downtown vs. wharf area or outlying commercial strips) warrant distinct rules. One commenter suggested a permit system for standardized signs designed by a local group to reduce visual clutter.

Next steps: Staff said they will return with draft language focused on A-frame signs and clarified that council asked them to avoid addressing murals or neon signs at this stage.

Ending: The council’s direction appears to be a narrow code amendment process that will include public notice and further commission review before council action.","Town staff said the council asked staff to examine allowances for temporary A-frame signs and related sidewalk/right-of-way issues; commissioners discussed visual clutter, permits and possible design standards.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6517689,"Coupeville staff says development-regulation updates will address state rules for religious organizations and temporary shelter allowances",587,3210000,3797000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5403285-f99defb4189a99fdf3ed313288aeeb28&start=3210&end=3797","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5403285-f99defb4189a99fdf3ed313288aeeb28/thumbnail_3210000.jpg","/articles/6517689/Coupeville/Island-County/Washington/Coupeville-staff-says-development-regulation-updates-will-address-state-rules-for-religious-organizations-and-temporary-shelter-allowances","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6517689-4e48655e43c9dce3fe5f4e55423477c7/orig.mp4?Expires=1773607765&Signature=ShRHfzokB4OhrdL41ePSa0oaUVFKoL3yZoqSUza0KBWlcWCiLo-4KhiiwvXOJqNLLeSsbKlgwFSEEGjgXBFoW5989AogFfu56jn7VfuACY~TZZEun6syjJlciuam2ZWhPP~TqpUkcmHkrbAYXqMi5DFrkT1kyPi3WYwtTFPvwPUM0Txu3R25bk5URhE3aNtkQe1M6k~OOiMkZNYTcj60ZekmxmNcY06p6xlAU~5vSUcQgICR7vs-8Yzmh8KZnhbbf-tGJIgla0ol83xwry94NjegSCnbhJMypICPsvqpmOA6~VmW7D5gK7iujZQePs8cwgbQZIituPQtFD1sIMDnPg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff told the commission the town is using checklists from the Washington State Department of Commerce and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to identify which development regulations must change to comply with recent state legislation and guidance.

Staff said the checklist work focuses on statutory requirements — notably rules that relate to religious institutions offering temporary housing, safe parking or similar services — and that the immediate task is to ensure the town’s code is not creating unintended barriers to activities statutorily permitted on sites controlled by religious organizations. “Outwardly the checklist…says if those things occur on an organization inclined to provide that service, then we should reduce our barriers to making that happen,” staff said.

Why it matters: State legislation in recent years has created limited allowances for religious institutions to host temporary sheltering activities in some circumstances; local codes must be reviewed and amended where necessary to avoid conflict with state law.

What staff said and next steps: Staff said the development-regulation update is an early-stage effort that will include consolidated drafts, public review and formal public hearings over the next six months. The goal is to address only the statutory compliance items in the checklist first — not to create new municipal programs for sheltering — and to present drafts for public comment before any formal code amendments.

Commissioners and commenters raised practical concerns: infrastructure (sewer, water, ADA access) and costs associated with operating safe-parking or tiny-home projects were mentioned by commissioners who cited experiences in other counties. One commissioner asked whether the statutory allowances apply only to property owned or controlled by religious organizations; staff said they will double-check applicable RCWs and the checklist and report back.

Ending: Staff committed to drafting code amendments and scheduling public hearings; they said they will identify where local regulations must be adjusted to conform to state law and will keep the commission updated before any adoption vote.","Staff previewed checklists from Washington agencies and said the town will review development regulations to align with state statutes that reduce barriers for religious organizations hosting temporary encampments, safe parking or small temporary dwellings; public hearings and drafts are planned.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Coupeville planning staff previews rewrite of historic-preservation rules for Ebey’s Landing reserve

Coupeville planning staff to pursue shoreline code tweak to enable resilience work on overwater buildings

Coupeville staff to study A-frame sign rules after council directed limited code review

Coupeville staff says development-regulation updates will address state rules for religious organizations and temporary shelter allowances