Historic board denies dark crimson on Phoebe’s unit, asks owner to submit full‑building application

The La Conner Historic Preservation Board voted on Oct. 7 to deny a single‑unit exterior color permit that would have allowed a dark crimson paint under the front overhang of one end unit in a four‑unit commercial building (permit LU2541HDR) and asked the owner to submit a single Class 3 application covering the full building.

Board members and staff repeatedly discussed whether the bright red selected for the Fifi’s/Phoebe’s space fits the town’s guidance for historic colors and whether tenant‑level changes and newly added fencing should be treated as part of the building site. Planning staff said the permit as submitted described painting the building’s upper overhang gray and the front exterior of Fifi’s to be dark crimson, and that the gray portion had already been approved earlier in September. Staff also said the unpermitted red had been painted prior to the application and that staff would notify the owner and request the building be brought into compliance.

The board’s conversation centered on three practical points: 1) whether the dark crimson is consistent with colors “considered appropriate at the time the structure was designed and built,” language that appears in the Historic Preservation District guidance; 2) whether a property owner or individual tenants are responsible for coordinating façade and fence materials and colors, given tenants on short‑term leases; and 3) whether fences and other site features should be included in review even when the permit application did not explicitly list them.

Planning staff showed commissioners historic‑palette samples from Benjamin Moore and Sherwin‑Williams. Several commissioners said the board’s historic swatches tend toward darker, brick‑toned reds and that the painted crimson appears brighter in sunlight than the typical historic reds. Commissioners noted multiple, different fence types on the single building—vertical enclosed screening, cedar horizontal fencing and a white picket—which they said contributes to a mismatched façade when combined with the differing tenant colors.

Because several units on the ground floor remain possible future applicants, the board concluded it would be difficult to assess one unit’s color in isolation. The board voted on a motion to deny the requested dark crimson for the single unit and to request the owner submit a Class 3 application for the full building so the commission may consider a cohesive color palette and any fence modifications together. The motion carried on a voice vote; the chair announced “motion carries.” The record does not include a roll‑call tally of individual yes/no votes.

Planning staff said they will notify the property owner of the board’s decision and that the owner may resubmit a consolidated application showing proposed colors for all street‑facing portions of the building. Staff also noted the town’s current process: an applicant may request paint work for part or all of a façade, but the board can evaluate any proposal in the context of the full structure.

The board also recommended the owner consider coordinating tenant colors and fence finishes to avoid repeated retroactive permit requests and additional painting costs. Staff told the board the town will email the owner about the unapproved changes and ask for an updated historic design review permit covering the full façade.