Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Astoria Planning Commission denies appeal, upholds variance for Southeast 2nd Street lots
Summary
After hearing neighbors' safety concerns about slide-prone slopes and tree removal, the Astoria Planning Commission denied appeal AP25-01 and upheld administrative approval of variance V25-01 to reduce a corner-lot side-yard setback at 1991 and 1993 Southeast 2nd Street.
The Astoria Planning Commission on Thursday denied an appeal of an administrative variance that reduces a corner-lot side-yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet for two lots at 1991 and 1993 Southeast 2nd Street, upholding the planning staff's earlier approval.
Commissioners heard more than an hour of public testimony from neighbors who said the parcel sits on a steep, slide-prone slope and that grading and large-scale excavation could threaten adjacent foundations. Mark Funk, appearing under power of attorney for appellant John Thompson, questioned the sufficiency of notice and said the proposed design would push the house closer to the area of existing slippage. "We're not adverse to development of the lot, but . . . the house is going within 10 feet of the rear property line and that gets well into the slope," Funk said.
Heather Thompson, who identified herself as John Thompson's daughter, described visible movement behind her father's house and a history of foundation problems on neighboring parcels. "If that hill starts to come down, he does not have a chance of getting out of the house," she told commissioners, pressing for extra safeguards.
Planning staff had recommended denying appeal AP25-01 and upholding the administrative approval of variance V25-01. In its presentation, staff described the variance as limited to the side-yard setback and said slope stability and grading controls are addressed later in the permitting process. Staff noted that an engineered grading plan is required when an area's average slope meets or exceeds the development code threshold (discussed in the hearing as roughly 35%); staff said the contour immediately south of the rear lot averaged about 42% and would therefore trigger engineered grading and a stamped plan from a registered professional engineer.
Commissioners debated whether the variance met the legal "hardship" criterion. Supporters of the staff recommendation said the lot's practical constraints'an undeveloped right-of-way treated as corner frontage and utility easements on the west'create real siting limits that can make reasonable use difficult without a reduced setback. Dissenting commissioners said they were uneasy making a setback decision without a formal design in hand and wanted clearer demonstration that no reasonable house could fit without the variance.
Cindy McGee moved to adopt the administrative findings and deny the appeal; the motion was seconded by Chris Womack. The commission voted to deny the appeal and thereby uphold the administrative approval of the variance. The chair said the decision may be appealed to the City Council in writing within 15 days of mailing of the planning commission's final decision.
What happens next: the variance approval does not eliminate subsequent permit requirements. Any grading, erosion-control, and building permits will be evaluated by city engineers and will require a licensed engineer's stamped plans where the grading threshold applies; appeals related to those permits follow separate processes (limited land-use appeals or, for building permits, the state-level process).
