Some neighbors oppose a new annex near Bethany Free Lutheran Church in Uppertown.

A family is threatening to take a fight against a proposed church annex in Uppertown to the state Land Use Board of Appeals to protect their views of the Columbia River.

The argument has revived the issue of how Astoria, a city known for panoramic views, balances quality-of-life values with property rights.

Members of Bethany Free Lutheran Church, located on 34th Street, want to build a 5,000-square-foot annex across the street in a vacant lot the congregation purchased in the 1980s. The building, gabled to mimic the church, would rise to 34 feet in an east-west orientation.

The church annex would block the view of Vincent Tadei, who has lived next door for 88 years, and whose family built the home in 1904. The family has installed yard signs decrying the potential expansion and has hired a lawyer to fight the project.

After failing to convince the Historic Landmarks Commission and City Council to deny the project’s design, the Tadei family filed a notice of intent with the state appeals board to intervene. The deadline is approaching for the city to prepare a written record of its decision for the state to review.

“The city is going to be preparing the record on the decision and won’t be weighing in or providing any more direction or testimony, based upon the City Council’s decision,” City Manager Brett Estes said.

Carrie Richter, the lawyer for the Tadei family, has argued that the landmarks commission improperly compared the church annex to large commercial buildings along U.S. Highway 30 and a nonhistoric church built in the 1980s when determining neighborhood compatibility, rather than accounting for the nearby historic homes it would dwarf.

City councilors commiserated with the Tadei family over concerns with the size of the church annex. But they backed the commission’s decision, agreeing with the argument that the neighborhood includes larger buildings.

“I feel for the neighborhood who disagree with the structure itself, the size of it,” City Councilor Joan Herman said. “But for its site right along U.S. (Highway) 30, or very, very close to it, I don’t think it’s incompatible.”

The project came before the Planning Commission last month for a conditional use permit to build on residentially zoned property. But with a deal in the works to realign a sewer line, move the church annex about 30 feet east and clear the view for the Tadei family, the application was held off until June.

“I showed a member of the Tadei family exactly what the realignment would look like and he seemed very receptive to it,” said Randy Stemper, a developer representing the church. “So I would assume, based on the conversation, that if we can make this sewer realignment work, this whole thing’s going to go away.”

Tadei and his son, Peter, a co-owner of the home, declined to comment on whether the appeal would continue if a deal was reached. Stemper said he wants an amicable ending with the Tadei family, but has maintained that the church is within its rights to develop the property.

“If LUBA sides with them, we’ll cure the deficiency and continue forward,” Stemper said. “But LUBA’s not going to side with them, in my opinion, because we meet all the codes and criteria of the city of Astoria. View is not part of the code.”

Regulating views

Members of the Tadei family argue that while the Riverfront Vision Plan created by the city has protected views and minimized development on the water, historic properties like theirs south of Highway 30 in Uppertown have not been provided the same protections.

Peter Tadei, a commercial real estate agent, recalled the proposed Fairfield Inn and Suites off Second Street. The four-story hotel, since denied building permit extensions by the City Council, spawned amendments to city code that shrank the allowed height and mass of buildings on the waterfront to protect views.

“How is it OK for everybody to shout down the hotel, but when it comes to the Tadeis’ house, there’s not such a concern by City Council, by (the Historic Landmarks Commission)?” he said. “Nobody seems to be ready to stand on our side of that issue.”

After the church annex application was continued, Planning Commissioner Sean Fitzpatrick noted the lack of language concerning development that could block the view of an existing property.

“With the Riverfront Vision Plan, virtually all of the discussion focused on the loss of views,” he said. “I think that maybe it’s something that ought to be explored.”

Daryl Moore, the president of the Planning Commission, said there has been a long history of property owners assuming their views are protected, getting angered when they realize they aren’t and wondering why the city does nothing.

Commissioner Brookley Henri called the discussion timely, given the red-hot real estate market and the importance of views to property value.

“I think we have a responsibility to help people protect their property values, or at least have some way to address it, if it comes up as a concern,” she said.

Commissioner Chris Womack cautioned that the city needs to balance the value of a view versus the value of a property that should be buildable based on city code and zoning rules. But a majority of planning commissioners showed interest in asking the City Council and Estes whether they should discuss codifying the value of viewsheds.

A complex process

Asked about the issue later, Estes cautioned that such a process could prove complex, time-consuming and expensive, given that most of Astoria is built on a hillside with views. City staff has already been overwhelmed with other City Council priorities, development reviews and code amendments, budgeting for a new planner in the coming year to help meet the demand.

Estes also questioned whether protecting viewsheds citywide would hinder efforts to develop more affordable housing. View protections in other cities have often been enacted in high-end, affluent neighborhoods and resulted in expensive legal challenges, he said.

“One that I can think of specifically is in the Puget Sound and Seattle where there were lawsuits between neighbors over this whole issue,” Estes said. “I would ask that if these are set up in a similar situation in Astoria, would we have a similar set of circumstances?”