Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Density topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Sound planning committee reviews proposal to raise village‑commercial minimum to 12 units per acre
Summary
San Juan County planning staff presented a code amendment to align the East Sound sub‑area code with a comprehensive plan update that would raise the village commercial minimum density from 4 to 12 units per acre; public members raised concerns about buildable acreage, parking and how the change would affect future permits.
San Juan County planning staff on Dec. 4 told the East Sound Planning Review Committee they have drafted a code amendment that would change the East Sound village commercial minimum density from 4 units per acre to 12, leaving the 40‑unit maximum unchanged. Sofia, a county planning staff member, said the change is intended to align the development code with the recently updated comprehensive plan and avoid inconsistency between the plan map and code.
Sofia said the ordinance has been published and will be heard by the planning commission on Dec. 19 before going to the county council in January and February; she said the county will need to set the code amendment effective date to match the comp‑plan effective date so the map and code do not conflict. To illustrate the scale of development implied by the new minimum, staff showed local examples: a 0.18‑acre parcel with five units (about 25 units per acre) and a recent project averaging roughly 16 units per acre.
Residents and committee members asked whether the minimum should be based on buildable acreage instead of gross parcel area, because critical‑area constraints can render much of a parcel unbuildable. "If you have a lot of critical areas, you may only be allowed to build on a small percentage of the acreage," one resident said, urging language that recognizes usable buildable area. Sofia replied that a proposed comp‑plan policy accompanying the map amendments would direct staff to clarify lot coverage, setbacks and how minimums interact with the critical‑areas ordinance during the upcoming code rewrite.
Committee members also raised concerns about parking and feasibility. Evan Westcott, an EPRC member, questioned whether the county’s parking rules and removed parking‑credit programs will make it difficult to achieve 12 units per acre on some lots. Sofia and other staff pointed to ongoing state and legislative efforts to de‑emphasize parking requirements in urban areas to increase density, and said the code‑amendment process next year will address parking, setbacks and other implementation details.
Why it matters: raising the minimum density would make single‑family homes less likely in village commercial zones and is intended to direct future growth into denser village cores rather than rural areas. The change could affect what types of housing and how much housing can be developed on small island parcels, but implementation details—how the rule treats critical areas, parking and lot coverage—will determine whether the minimum is achievable in practice.
Next steps: the planning commission is scheduled to hold a hearing Dec. 19 on the code text amendment; the county council may take up the ordinance early next year. County staff advised interested residents to submit written comments by noon the day before the Dec. 9 comp‑plan hearing and to participate in the Dec. 9 hearing if they want their remarks entered into the record.
