Astoria City Council rejects appeal on affordable housing complex

Apr. 5—A decision by the Astoria Historic Landmarks Commission to approve design plans for the expansion of the Owens-Adair, an affordable housing complex near downtown, was upheld by the City Council.

In a divided 3-2 vote Monday night, the City Council denied an appeal by neighboring property owners to the Historic Landmarks Commission's January decision.

The Owens II, a new four-story, 50-unit apartment complex, would mirror the Northwest Oregon Housing Authority's building on 15th and Exchange streets and serve low-income seniors and people with disabilities.

Design plans for the building had to go before the Historic Landmarks Commission to determine whether the proposed building design was compatible with adjacent historic buildings and suitable for the location. In a 6-1 vote in January, the commission agreed the design met the criteria, allowing the housing authority to move forward with applying for building and engineering permits. The decision came after the commission asked the applicant to revise the design plans during the first public hearing in December.

On Monday night, the City Council reviewed the decision based on the record from the Historic Landmarks Commission.

City staff said the Historic Landmarks Commission only considered relevant criteria in its purview and advised the City Council that unrelated issues should not be considered in making a decision on the appeal.

"The design and the architectural detail, the facade — I'm just not happy," said Mayor Sean Fitzpatrick, who, along with City Councilor Tom Hilton, voted in favor of the appeal.

The mayor pointed to the character of the former St. Mary's Hospital, which existed in a similar footprint as the proposed building until the east side was demolished in the 1970s.

"I see a blank facade broken up by two drain pipes and the setback and the garage entrance," Fitzpatrick said of the proposed design. "So while maybe it has met the absolute bare minimum criteria on paper that the (Historic Landmarks Commission) felt that they had to work with, I don't see compatibility with the surrounding properties."

However, City Councilor Tom Brownson, Councilor Elisabeth Adams and Councilor Andy Davis found the criteria was properly applied by the Historic Landmarks Commission and that the proposed design is compatible.

The appeal was filed by Brian and Margarita Colonna and Bob and Cindy Magie, the owners of two properties across the street from the Owens-Adair.

Through their attorney, the Colonnas, who own the historic Capt. John Merriam residence, and the Magies, who own the historic Gilbaugh Building, argued that the proposed design was not compatible with neighboring properties. They also argued that the commission and council should consider concerns about the potential for the construction of a subgrade parking garage to disrupt the foundation of their properties, and disagreed with the city's position that the issue is outside the Historic Landmark Commission's purview.

Jeffrey Kleinman, a Portland attorney representing the Colonnas and Magies, argued that the city has a responsibility in its code to help preserve existing historic structures and districts and that approving a project that could cause damage to an adjacent historic property is a violation.

However, City Attorney Blair Henningsgaard argued that is a misread of the city's code, and that the Historic Landmarks Commission can only review what is in its purview, independent of the section Kleinman was referring to.

"This is a project overall that my clients support," Kleinman said. "It's not a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) situation. They support affordable housing. They support it at this location. That's not an issue. The issue is the design and the related seismic and parking issues."

Next steps

City staff noted that the next steps would include a review of construction documents, engineering plans and the application for a building permit. The building permit review includes assessements by multiple city departments, as well as consideration of geotechnical aspects of the project site.

If during the process it is determined changes need to be made to the design, there is a procedure in place to make those changes, city staff said. And depending on the size and scope of the changes, they could be reviewed by either staff or the Historic Landmarks Commission.

"If in the strange or unforeseeable circumstance that we get to building permit review and we can't meet some of the Astoria development code standards for geotech, for parking, for transportation — that's a risk we're taking," said Christen White, an attorney with Portland-based Radler White Parks & Alexander LLP, representing the project team.

"And as staff mentioned, and as is true under the code, we will then have to modify our development permit to be sure that we can make those findings. And if we have to do that, we'll be back here. So trust us that we were smart enough to be sure we designed a project that would not require that we revisit the public process. We were sure that we could meet all of these standards."

Upon opening the public hearing, Fitzpatrick disclosed that he had communication with the parties involved prior to the decision by the Historic Landmarks Commission, but has not discussed the issue with them since.

He said he is familiar with all of the buildings adjacent to the Owens-Adair, and has friends on both sides of the issue.

"Specifically and directly related to this appeal, David Oser is a member of the Northwest Oregon Housing Authority board, and I appointed Mr. Oser to the Astoria budget committee," Fitzpatrick said. "Cindy Magie is one of the appellants. I appointed Mrs. Magie to the Astoria Planning Commission. Neither has spoken to me about the project since the appeal was filed. My wife and I are friends with both the Oser family and the Magie family."

Fitzpatrick, who owns Wecoma Partners, also noted that he owns a number of apartments in Astoria. While the proposed project offers lower-income housing, he said his units are priced at market rate.

"The proposed project complements my properties, but does not compete with my properties," the mayor said.

Fitzpatrick said he did not believe he had a conflict of interest and was able to vote impartially on the appeal.

The Astorian reported in August about a dispute between the Magies and the city over whether the units in the Gilbaugh Building can be rented as vacation rentals.

In the story, the newspaper reported that Fitzpatrick advised the Magies as part of his role as an adviser with the Clatsop Small Business Development Center. Fitzpatrick also wrote a letter of support for an application the Magies submitted to the city last year in an effort to get approval for the conversion of the property from housing to vacation rentals.

Fitzpatrick deferred to the city's attorney and the appellant's attorney before choosing not to recuse himself.

'We're not redesigning this'

In addition to taking issue with the design of the proposed building, Fitzpatrick also expressed concerns about the proposed setback of the building and potential traffic impacts on 16th Street. He said he is not convinced the setback meets the historical requirement.

Adams asked that the City Council stick to the information presented to the Historic Landmarks Commission.

"And specifically, mayor, in regards to some of the things you brought up about the parking and engineering, while those are incredibly important things that we are wanting to look at and discuss, we also have to remember that we're not redesigning this," she said.

Brownson reiterated that many of the issues raised by the appellants will be thoroughly and professionally addressed by city staff during the next steps for the project.

"To say otherwise, to bring in somebody and make conjectures about potentials — to me that just doesn't hold water," he said.

Brownson noted that the proposed design was signed off by the city's historian, the Historic Landmarks Commission and State Historic Preservation Office, and that the appellants have not shared any analysis that undermines the credibility of those experts.

"It's not about whether I like the design or not," he said. "It's not whether you like the design or not. It's whether the design conforms to the criteria that were laid out for our Historic Landmarks Commission to apply."

Davis said he does not see any valid reasons to reverse the Historic Landmarks Commission's decision.

"I believe it is as compatible as you could get given the makeup of all the structures in the neighborhood — that you would always have incompatibility with some elements of the neighborhood," he said. "So this is as high of a bar as I could expect."

Hilton argued the proposed design is incompatible with the city, calling it a "giant box."

"I'm just going to be straight honest," he said. "I think that the design is just — I don't like it at all. I think it's horrible."

He pointed to other examples of good architecture in the city, including the Cannery Pier Hotel & Spa in Uniontown.

"Of course I'm concerned about the neighbors' integrity of their homes," Hilton said. "I'm also concerned about the value of their homes, the investments they've built to put into that. And I would not want to look at a giant building that does fit the integrity of my community."