Proposed development talk of the town

The La Conner Planning Commission met on Tuesday to review the historic design components of Michael Girdner’s plans to renovate and expand the old Lighthouse Inn building on First Street.

Several of the project’s detractors were there ... and so were some who want Girdner’s plan to proceed.

The California businessman purchased the dilapidated building last year for $385,000 after it had been sitting mostly vacant since a bank took it over in 2010.

Girdner initially planned to expand the building over the entire property two stories high, including a parking lot on the north side. But after public outcry last summer, the plans were scaled back. Now the parking lot will remain open, though plans call for a second story over the existing building, which would be expanded to enclose a deck on the south side.

But the scaled-down plan, which includes retail space downstairs and three apartments and four offices upstairs, has been met with opposition, as well.

Attorney Brad Furlong, who represents the town, told about 35 people at Tuesday’s meeting that the Planning Commission’s role was only to determine whether the proposed project meets requirements of the town’s Historic District. Although the Lighthouse building, the site of the old Palmer’s Restaurant, is not considered a historic building, its design must adhere to the historic nature of the downtown neighborhood.

A hearing examiner will make the determination on other aspects of the development after a public hearing on Nov. 29.

Speaking against the development were several homeowners on Second Street, which is on the hill overlooking First Street and the Lighthouse building.

“We don’t want Tillinghast-like buildings on First Street,” Second Street resident Jean Wharton told the commission.

John Black, who also lives on Second Street, said the proposed development “destroys views from the Benton Street stairs.”

Tom McMichael, whose Second Street home also offers a view of the project property said it makes no sense to him for the developer to “tear down a 90-year-old building to build a ‘historic’ building.”

Second Street resident Jack Thomas argued that the scale of the building is not in keeping with the neighborhood, “Gigantism is a sign of a late stage of culture,” he said.

Supporters of the project included Town Council member and former Planning Commission member Bill Stokes who said he believes the project complies with the historic design criteria.

Also Town Council member John Leaver said he’s seen the old building sitting vacant for years and, “here we have a developer willing to do something about it ... I don’t see why we don’t proceed.”

Bud Moore, a former Mayor whose family has lived in town for more than 100 years, said every good project in town has had naysayers trying to stop it. “This looks like a tremendous project for the town,” he said. “I hope you go through with it.”

Resident David Elling came to the meeting with a petition signed by dozens of residents supporting the project, but was told he was at the wrong venue to present it – that’s something for the hearing examiner.

Seattle attorney David A. Bricklin, representing the project’s opponents, argued that the project is not in keeping with historic design criteria and that a state historical architect was wrong when he told the town it meets the standards.

Last month Bricklin challenged the Notice of Application and Proposed Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance and demanded that an environmental impact statement be prepared for the project.

However, the town’s attorney Furlong said there is no requirement for an environmental impact statement on this project.

The Planning Commission’s role is to make a recommendation to the hearing examiner, who will consider all the evidence and decide whether the plan can go forward after a hearing scheduled for Nov. 29.