La Conner Weekly News - Your independent hometown award-winning newspaper

The Town of La Conner’s hearing examiner will have another look at a conditional use permit for Brandon and Kate Atkinson’s three story condominium building at 306 Center Street. The Town of La Conner, its fire department, resident Linda Talman and the Atkinsons filed requests for reconsideration of examiner David Lowell’s May 11 decision between May 12 and 18.

The Town request asks first for a reconsideration of interpretations of the municipal code for corner lot setbacks, to eliminate the 25-foot rear yard setback for more flexibility in providing landscaping in wider front yards.

The Town also seeks to clarify that the development is allowed to designate “up to 49% of the building’s first floor from short-term to long-term residential use.”

Planner Michael Davolio explained “we listened to the concerns expressed by some neighbors about the potentially greater impacts of short-term residential uses, and we wanted to allow the developer some flexibility in this area to enable him to address those concerns, if he chooses to do so.

The code doesn’t allow us to mandate this change, so it was my intent to encourage the developer to listen to his new neighbors and give him the option of responding to those concerns.”

Davolio affirmed that the Atkinson’s proposal meets the several standards set forth in our code. He again noted his duty is “to adhere to the code that has been considered and adopted by the town council over the course of many years. That code is consistent with state law and with the town’s comprehensive plan.”

Town Fire Chief Aaron Reinstra noted the parking lot design fails to provide access for fire apparatus and does not meet the municipal code. He requested the permit be amended to require compliance with fire code access requirements

Resident Linda Talman filed her request May 13, alleging that the commercial zoning as a matter of fact is in error. The Town of La Conner failed to provide its 1986 contract rezone document with then-owners Gerald and Donna Blades. That agreement obliges improvements “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 agreement became an encumbrance upon the land.

Talman claims not considering the document violates the municipal code and “is error and denies procedural due process and appearance of fairness to the parties”

The Atkinsons requested reconsideration of the 30 feet building height limitation May 18. They asked to have “minimal height overruns” allowing elevator infrastructure on the roof. They also asked for “time and opportunity to respond” to other submitted reconsideration requests.

In their list of five considerations, they noted that their primary market is “seniors wishing to downsize and live in a secure manageable home. Elevators are a priority.” They point out that The Channel Lodge and Retirement Inn have “rooftop overruns exceeding the 30’ building height." The municipal code “does not restrict (height) overruns for elevators and other necessary equipment to operate the building safely” they write.

In response to Weekly News queries on the Talman filing, Administrator Scott Thomas responded the Town would not challenge the validity of the contract rezone agreement. Mayor Ramon Hayes does question its validity. He told the Weekly News “the biggest issue with the document, in my opinion, is that it was not ratified by a town ordinance as far as I can tell. Last time I checked, all rezones must be approved by ordinance per RCW (Revised Code of Washington).”

RCW 36.70B.200 states “A county or city shall only approve a development agreement by ordinance or resolution after a public hearing.”