La Conner planning commissioners on reconsideration approved an application for work in the town's Historic Preservation District with a condition that new construction use horizontal wood siding of 4- to 6-inch clapboard or shiplap and that vertical siding, batten siding, panelized siding and artificial stone be avoided. The commission's motion passed after extended discussion; two commissioners (Corey and Bradford) recorded opposition on the motion.

The vote resolved a months-long debate about whether the town's preservation code allowed vertical siding on new construction. The commission's decision followed legal and historical discussion about wording in the municipal code and the uniform development code that dates to 1995. Commissioners and staff reviewed the code language distinguishing mandatory words ("shall/will"), advisory words ("should"), and the directive "avoid," which several commissioners said signals an active exclusion.

Planning staff member Adrian said the town had provided public notice for the earlier hearing and pledged a paperwork fix going forward: "Public notice was I've been fully provided for, for the public hearing during the last time. And moving forward, I'll update my staff my staff reports to include a specific public notice section that talks about the steps taken for that." Adrian spoke while commissioners clarified process and record requirements.

Applicant Bruce addressed the commission in support of his request, characterizing the local context and the presence of other buildings with mixed siding, saying he had documented existing conditions: "I have I think it's 70 pictures of the historical district of vertical siding." Commissioners scrutinized whether those existing buildings were legal nonconforming structures predating current code, and several urged that a code update be pursued to clarify allowable materials and percentages for siding and to make the rules more equitable across the town.

Separate but related, the commission reviewed a permit application for exterior paint colors on a multi-unit building on Morris Street. Commissioners agreed to defer any final decision on a disputed dark red (crimson) until staff can verify the paint's exact color code (hex code) and whether that code appears in historical color collections commonly used by the town (Sherwin-Williams and Benjamin Moore). Staff said the gray color on another facade had been approved; the crimson paint raised questions because work began before a final decision and because the town lacked an objective, codified color standard.

Planning staff told commissioners that work done without a permit would be handled administratively; staff said owners who proceeded without a permit would be charged the appropriate permit fees and that the commission could require repainting if the final permit review determines the color is not acceptable under the code.

Commissioners asked staff to draft a proposed historic-district color policy that would include objective color references (hex codes tied to accepted historic palettes) and to return with a timeline and recommended language for a code amendment. Staff estimated a code amendment process, from draft to final town-council adoption, could take roughly five to six months if advanced quickly.

The commission's action on siding was a formal motion to approve the application with conditions to comply with LCMC 15.5.0.09(2) (the town's historic preservation regulations), including the siding specification described above. Commissioners also discussed outreach and enforcement for existing nonconforming properties, and staff said a townwide review could be performed if directed by the commission or town council.

The commission's decision does not change the underlying historic-code language; commissioners agreed the code needs revision for clarity, and several members urged staff to return with draft code language and objective color specifications.

What happens next: staff will verify paint color hex codes and historic-palette matches, draft proposed code edits on siding and color, and present those revisions to the commission for recommendation to the town council. Enforcement or remedial action for older legal-nonconforming buildings was discussed but not directed; staff said follow-up would require explicit direction from the commission or council.

(Reporting note: quotes and attributions are taken verbatim from the planning commission transcript and are attributed only to speakers identified in the hearing record.)