Locals question Center Street apartments

In a two-page memorandum to La Conner’s town council Dec. 6, planner Michael Davolio provided a status update on the proposed 20-unit apartment development at 306 Center Street. This followed 12 correspondences from residents by the Dec. 1 deadline in response to the town’s November public notice of preliminary determination of non-significance. A thirteenth letter came Dec. 8.

Davolio noted council members “have been inundated by comments from residents regarding this proposal.”

To briefly summarize comments, artist Maggie Wilder shared her concern that a “rich and diverse community (is) disappearing. Already there are few artists who can afford to live here.” She fears a future where “La Conner became inhospitable to children, pets, Little Leaguers, grandparents, artists and writers.”

Bruce Cornwall finds it to be “a partial city block with questionable zoning that is in an established residential area despite how it is defined in statute or comprehensive plan. This location is appropriate for four homes at best; it should be defined that way.”

Gerald George is concerned that the cars from a “20 unit apartment complex pose a significant risk to seniors” walking from the La Conner Retirement Inn to Pioneer Market and the library.

Georgia Johnson raised detailed concerns about petroleum contamination, sharing her history of living across the street. She also challenges the six vacation rentals that “confronts a hotel environment right up against a residential neighborhood,” noting “the Town Comprehensive Plan has something to say about this under 6A-7, ‘protect residential zones from encroaching commercial use.’”

Gary Nelson also calls for testing based on the site’s history with “large capacity fuel tankers,” and expresses concerns about excess parking and the threat a 35 foot tall building will have to life and safety, including firefighters who would respond to the site.

Jerry and Linda Schull note the “4-inch water line installed in 1958 will not be sufficient along with the sewer system in the area.”

Amy McFeely wants oversight that “demand(s) a development that will truly enhance the aesthetics and quality of life of this neighborhood.” Her concern is that “the sheer size and density of this building will overwhelm the existing neighborhood. Meeting code does not equate to appropriate scale.”

Linda Talman’s 11-page letter finds the “applicant has not submitted ‘complete applications’ for the master permit or conditional use permit – the determination of completeness should be withdrawn for both applications and the applicant should be directed to submit new applications with complete information in order to proceed with the project.” Her point-by-point critique is too detailed to sum up here. Like the other letters, it is on the Town’s website.

Other letters from Jim and Renee Matthews, Mollie Rights, Rachael Sobczak and Frank Liddell raise these concerns in each person’s individual way.

All 13 letters offered more details than quoted here.

After Davolio issued his November preliminary determination of non-significance, he learned of the site’s history and challenged applicant Ken Olsen’s State Environmental Policy Act checklist, which “had no indication of this prior use, or of any existing soil or environmental conditions that may have an impact on the proposal.”

Olsen is having a geotechnical study prepared, Davolio informed council.

Once the application is complete Davolio will prepare a report and the town’s planning commission will review the proposal at a public hearing, in January, Davolio projects. “The staff’s recommendation to the hearing examiner will rest solely on our determination as to whether the proposal meets the requirements of the town’s development code” he wrote the Weekly News.

The town’s hearing examiner will get recommendations from both the planning commission and Davolio. That allows “the examiner to make informed decisions regarding the application. It also ensures that the hearing examiner will receive a formal recommendation from citizens of the community,” Davolio wrote council.

The hearing examiner also holds a public hearing, in the two weeks following the planning commission’s recommendation. Davolio expects the examiner’s final decision from the examiner within two weeks of the hearing, which could be by February.

Davolio informed the town council that they have “no role in this process. The hearing examiner makes the final determination at the local level.” Appeals can be made within 21 day to the Skagit County Superior Court.