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

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.