Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors raise setbacks, siding and traffic safety concerns over 1686 Grand proposal
Summary
Multiple neighbors told the Historic Landmarks Commission that setback variances and material choices could alter the historic character of the block, reduce views and create pedestrian or traffic conflicts; staff and the applicants responded with procedural and design clarifications.
A string of neighbors told the Astoria Historic Landmarks Commission they were worried a new house at 1686 Grand would change the rhythm of the street, reduce adjacent homeowners' views and put a new front door and porch closer to pedestrian paths.
Daniel Cervantes, who lives at 677 17th Street, told the commission the area has a strong visual alignment ‘‘from Irving ... to the maritime museum’’ and said moving the proposed house forward would harm that continuity. "If you go from Irving, look down to, Franklin, Grand, and look all the way down to the maritime museum, you know, they're all lined up perfectly," Cervantes said. Sherry Hall, also at 677 17th, told commissioners the corner lot was long known locally as a small park and said bringing the house closer to the sidewalk would make the property feel ‘‘on top of’’ pedestrians.
Other speakers raised architectural and material concerns. Jeffrey Bale, a nearby homeowner and historian, said most neighborhood houses are a century old and questioned whether modern products could replicate the material feel of historic wood construction. Contractor and neighbor Chris Botero argued that a recessed slider and composite siding "don't have the same feel" as traditional cedar and recommended natural products for better compatibility. Carl Johnson also flagged traffic concerns tied to tour buses that operate on the nearby route and asked whether closer setbacks could increase collision risk.
In response, staff explained how setback averaging is calculated (using adjacent properties), noted that the V25-02 variance had been processed through the planning variance procedure and that the appeal period for that variance had passed, and said the city engineer had reviewed sightlines. The applicants emphasized that the porch projection affects a limited area and that the front door itself would remain set back, and they said they worked with the city historian on design choices.
The commission heard these concerns during NC25-02 public comment and considered them in deliberations before approving the project by voice vote.
