Letter: Town Council decision on Front Street uses needs clarifying

Published 1:30 am Saturday, September 20, 2025

Editor,

I respect the Town Council’s legal ability to decide counter to the majority of public opinion and the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission, but think it is important to clarify and correct for the record a few things about the Council’s decision on Aug. 26 regarding allowing residential in the back sides of buildings in the Historic District.

1) It is not true that there is no guidance on this issue. The Washington State Arts Commission identifies providing live work opportunities in designated Creative Districts as key to their success. Coupeville became an officially designated Washington State Creative District in November 2024 and is still finding traction.

2) The meeting minutes for the July 1 Planning Commission are incorrect as to whether there was a consensus and unfortunately the posted recording of the public forum on the town’s website is completely blank. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously in support of the change. There was a consensus of building owners that support the change. Four of the six owners on the waterside of the street expressed their support for the change with only one owner actively opposed and the owner of 2 Front Street opting not to get involved. Five of the nine building owners on the south side of the street expressed their support with four building owners opting to not get involved.

3) It is not true that retail spaces are in short supply in the district. The building at 9 NW Front Street has 2,368 sf second story retail/office space that has been vacant and listed for rent for almost a year. The Elk Horn Antiques building has been for sale for several years. Seaside Spa recently terminated its lease and the building is vacant.

4) As part of our building restoration, the historical storefront was restored to its original design in 1886 consistent with Department of the Interior standards. We created a space within that storefront the size and scale of other businesses in the district. We did not create an unusable space in the back side of the building. The space was built out as commercial space considering both ADA accessibility and an open floor design to provide flexibility. It was permitted and has been occupied as office space. A portion of the space was leased to Greenbank Cidery for about a year, but they struggled and ultimately asked to be released from their lease.

5) There is a disconnect between the commitment to preserve the historical buildings and the desire to keep rents low to support highly seasonal retail businesses. In our large multi-tenant building, residential subsidizes the commercial spaces. I expect that it is true in both 10 and 22 Front Street as well. All our commercial leases combined when we purchased the building, or our current tenant, would not even pay the insurance on our building, let alone the costs to operate, maintain or repay our investment to restore it. The Council ought not be blind to the economics or the need to create year-round demand to support a thriving commercial district and preserve the historic buildings.

6) It is accurate that I expected the Town would support a waterfront ADA accessible vacation rental in the back side of 12 Front Street. The statement from a council member that “there are a lot of ADAs. They don’t have to be in Coupeville” disappointingly clarifies the Town’s position.

7) Listing the agenda item at the Town Council meeting as a clarification on the legal issue of whether the change to be made to affect only the waterside buildings versus all buildings in the district left me and others unaware of the potential for a council vote. It seems like that was, at a minimum, a procedural misstep.

Barbara Summers

Coupeville