Yes, the three story condominium building at 306 Center Street proposed by Brandon and Katie Atkinson can be built.

Hearing examiner David Lowell approved their conditional use permit May 11.

In a 20 page decision, Lowell found the couple, doing business as Atkinson Development / KSA, are permitted to construct “14 multi-family dwelling units on the 2nd and 3rd floors and six lodging (i.e.

hotel) rooms on the first floor of a new structure” at the site, subject to 12 conditions, including total building square feet being under 30,600 square feet, maximum building height of 30 feet above base flood elevation, landscaping requirements and specific SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) mitigation measures remediating contaminated soil.

Lowell’s approval of the permit was reached six weeks after receiving testimony at a 90 minute hearing March 31. His conclusion of law was that the application satisfies procedural and substantive requirements of SEPA and the conditional use permit and complies with CUP criteria and parking, screening and landscaping requirements.

Six people, parties of record, spoke against granting the permit at the hearing. Additional comments opposing the project were received in April when the case was still open. Criticisms were numerous, centering on the size and scale of the building, its location abutting a residential neighborhood, and included soil contamination, blocking views, parking, landscaping, streetscape, noise and monitoring short-term residents concerns.

The town planning commission did not agree with town planner Michael Davolio approving the application. At its March meeting the commission voted, recommending the CUP not be approved. Davolio re-stated before Lowell his view that the project meets town code requirements and that the CUP should be approved.

The six first floor hotel rooms are permitted at the commercial zoning site. The conditional use permit was for the 14 residential units. Lowell found “The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use considering size, shape, location, topography, existence of improvements and natural features” for the first floor rooms and the second and third floor units.

Lowell determined “the character of the surrounding area will not be altered by the proposed multi-family dwelling units in a manner that substantially limits, impairs, or precludes the use of surrounding properties for the primary uses listed in the underlying district(s). The surrounding areas to the north and east of the site are zoned Residential” in his findings of fact.

Lowell noted that a three story hotel is a permitted use and that “the potential adverse effects of these two uses, hotel rooms versus multi-family dwelling units, are substantially similar.” Since it will be a unique building, Lowell found “there are no cumulative impacts that need to be taken into consideration.”

“Reconsideration:” internal appeal process

Lowell summarized the appeal process at the end of his decision. The La Conner Municipal Code, section, 15.12.100, provides for requests for “Reconsideration” of a hearing examiner’s decision that “show that the requestor is a party of record or the town and must allege a specific error of law and/or fact.” Town resident Linda Talman and the Town have filed motions, Town Administrator Scott Thomas informed the Weekly News Tuesday. The motioners pay a $250 filing fee and for the hearing examiner’s time.

In April Talman learned of a 1986 contract rezone agreement the Town signed with Gerald and Donna Blades, who then owned the property.

The contract rezone was agreed to recognizing that the town council had rezoned 306 Centre Street to commercial from residential.

In exchange for the Town changing the zoning of the site to commercial the owners agreed that if they sought to improve the site application to approve the plan would require the site to be treated as if it were located within the Historical Preservation District.

Any violation or failure to comply with this would cause the site to revert to residential.

The parties agreed that this agreement shall become an encumbrance upon the land.

This document was not part of the permit application. Town staff were unaware of this agreement until Talman’s March public record request. Thomas wrote it “was buried in the Town’s archives; staff typically does not research archives when a new project is proposed unless there is a reason to do so. Contract rezones were never common.”

The Town was to record the agreement with the Skagit County Auditor “so that this agreement will become a matter of public notice to subsequent purchasers.”

The agreement apparently was not recorded with the Skagit County auditor, Thomas wrote, and “is not identified on any of the Town’s zoning maps or in other zoning documents for whatever reason.”

The Town will not challenge submitting the document and “will rely on the hearing examiner to decide whether to consider the document,” Thomas wrote.

Talman’s position is that the contract rezone is valid and that the Town must impose its conditions: that prior to development the applicant must seek approval to develop the property as though it was within the historic district. If the hearing examiner adopts this position, he will determine if the proposal complies with historic district requirements pursuant to section 15.135 of the town code Thomas noted.

Talman lives across the street at Center and Fourth streets.