change matrix to level of review for certificate of ......simpler process; including commercial and...

Change matrix to level of review for Certificate of Appropriateness ( Ebey’ s Reserve)

of 3

Section Item # Change Explanation

Throughout 1 Wordsmithing and small clarifications Response to staff concerns.

ICC 17.04A.090Exemptions)

2 Removing the distinction between exempt activities and contingentexemptions ( now all in one group). This included changing the wording forboth sections into one activity and amending the definition.

Staff and public found that the different types of exemptions tobe confusing. All have to meet the guidelines, but are exemptfrom a COA.

3 Reclassifying accessory structures & fences that do not need a buildingpermit.

FROM: Level ATO: Exempt Activities

There are many activities that may seem to unnecessary toaddress, but staff finds it helpful to the applicant and staff to beclear on what is exempted from a COA to reduce futurequestions.

4 Adding additional exemptions:

Changes to a foundation to meet FEMA requirements; BulkheadsProjects that receive grants from the Ebey’s Forever Grants Programor DAHP; and

Clarification that raising a house within the flood plan and newbulkheads are exempt; An Ebey’ s Forever Grant will have more review to Secretary ofInterior standards than a COA will.

5 Reclassifying demolition of a non-historic structure

FROM: Level ATO: Exempt Activities

Received no public comments from prior applications andmatched what other historic districts require.

ICC 17.04A.100Level A-

Ministerialdecision)

6 Reclassifying new construction and accessory structures within Design Area 2of Rolling Hills, Sierra, Crockett Lake Estates, Penn Cove Park, and on anyexisting lot in manufactured homes parks

FROM: Level BTO: Level A

Staff has received complaints about requiring the Level B inthese areas. In the last six years, Staff has received one publiccomment during the public comment period within one of theseareas. The public comment was over drainage, which is outsideof Ebey’s COA process.

7 Reclassifying aircraft hangars in Airport zone

FROM: Level BTO: Level A

Staff recommendation because the County received no publiccomments from prior applications.

8 Increasing flexibility by including additions less than 25% of building footprintof non-historic structures as a Level A.

FROM: Level B or C (all additions, not distinguished by size) TO: Level A

Recommendation made from HPC that new additions on non-historic structures should not be reviewed as new construction. This provides an opportunity for small additions to have asimpler process; including commercial and institutional uses


of 3


9 Increasing flexibility and clarifying by including exterior material or structuralalterations for non- historic homes as a Level A.

Removing uncertainty. Did not see the need to treat smallalterations ( like a new window) to be reviewed as newconstruction.

ICC 17.04A.110Level B -

Administrativedecisions)

10 Reducing the review for Rolling Hills and Sierra that are in Review Area 1

FROM: Level CTO: Level B

To be consistent with #6. The Steering Committee felt that thepublic views of Rolling Hills and Sierra justify in a public reviewprocess.

11 Clarifying that any accessory structure that needs a building permit is to bereviewed as a Level B.

Existing code just states that all accessory structures require alevel B, removing uncertainty around accessory structures thatdo not need a building permit.

12 Clarifying that commercial and institutional accessory structures uses


The existing commercial and institutional permits required aLevel C review, no matter what was proposed; this smallclarification allows new commercial or institutional accessorystructures to be reviewed as a level B.

13 Increasing flexibility by including new additions within Review Area 1 that arebetween 25% and 75% of the existing building footprint are to be reviewed asa level B.


This simplifies the review process for mid- size new additionswithin Review Area 1. Any addition larger than 75% begins tohave more of a visual impact and an effect to the reserve, andwill still warrant a level C review.

14 Reclassifying retaining walls or fences that would need a building permit


Retaining walls over feet in height and fences over 7 feet inheight require a building permit and could have a large visualimpact to the Reserve which justifies the public process but thecriteria is straight forward to not warrant a public meeting.

15 Clarifying that clearing and grading activities would be reviewed under aclearing and grading permit.

Clarification on review process only. No change to reviewprocess, will remain a Level B.

ICC 17.04A.120Level C - HPC

review)

16. Simplifying by combining the two categories for Level C reviews to one list. The HPC makes a recommendation for all COA’s.

It is the code intent that any COA before the HPC become arecommendation

17 Removing “alterations” to non-residential buildings from the list of Level C, which will allow non-residential additions, and alterations to be a staff review.

Consistency with the other changes proposed


of 3


18 Simplifying by combining all buildings for agricultural use that are over 10,000as a Level C.

Removing the complication of what review an agriculturalbuilding over 10,000 square feet would require.

19 Adding duplexes, triplexes, and four-plexs to the list of activities that wouldrequire a Level C.

FROM: not listed in County code, but listed in Town codeTO: Level C

Duplexes, triplexes, and four-plexes defined by Island CountyCode are different from the Town Code. ICC lists thestructures different from a single-family residence and multi-family units.

20 Simplifying by combining the two categories for over-water shorelinedevelopment physically connected to the uplands and shoreline developmentnot physical connected to the uplands into one activity.

Simplification only. No change to review process.

21 Reclassifying and changed the wording of highway, road, and streetimprovements to a level B and clarifying that the only roads to be reviewedare work done on contributing roads as listed in the inventory.


Staff recommends removing unnecessary review for non-contributing roads

22 Deleting activities that require a site plan review and made the languagematch ICC 17.03.

Improving consistency.

23 Removing projects that require Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council ( EFSEC) or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval.

The projects that the EFSEC or FERC would review are alreadylisted as level C permits (unnecessary duplication).

change matrix to level of review for certificate of ......simpler process; including commercial and...

Documents