91视频

Developers of a pair of proposed Pearl District buildings are moving ahead with site work, though design appeals are impeding anything more.

Security Properties‘ development plan for Block 136 鈥� consisting of a five-story building and a 15-story building 鈥� was approved by the Portland Design Commission, but neighborhood group Preserve the Pearl LLC has appealed that decision.

Karen Karlsson, founder of KLK Consulting LLC, last week applied to the Portland Bureau of Development Services for a permit to demolish the existing single-story building on the site in preparation for construction, which is scheduled to begin this spring. Karlsson did not return a call for comment on the demolition schedule.

鈥淭he Pearl (District) as we know it is a development neighborhood,鈥� said Portland attorney Burton Francis, who’s been retained by the preservation group to handle the appeal. 鈥淧reserve the Pearl isn’t against development; we just want development that follows the design guidelines set forth in the zoning laws.鈥�

The proposal for the 15-story tower has concerned neighbors since it was first presented to the design commission. Nevertheless, commissioners said that the building height was appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood and praised Seattle-based project developer Mithun for its proposal.

Francis contends that the design commission erred in issuing its approval on the basis that Pearl District residents were not adequately consulted during the process, the height allowance afforded the tower building was improper based on city code regulations and not all design guidelines were met.

鈥淚 know (the Bureau of Development Services) has its own classification of what notice goes out and under what circumstances,鈥� Francis said. 鈥淏ut the fundamental question is: Did they go through the democratic process with this? There should be input from stakeholders, and as far as we can tell there was no outreach at all done for the residents of the Pearl.鈥�

While the design commission didn’t take issue with the height allowance given for the taller building, Francis says the group interpreted the zoning code incorrectly when allowing the height increase.

When reading zoning code, Francis found that the design commission allowed the bonus height exception under a subsection D, a section that he says pertains to office space. But the taller building would contain residential units.

鈥淭here appears to be a drafting error in the code which has resulted in a misapplication of the administrative intent,鈥� he said. 鈥淏y structure of the statute, the portion of the project seeking the height exception is solely residential except for the ground-floor commercial portion. The developer is 鈥榙ouble dipping’ and benefitting from not one, but two residential housing exceptions.鈥�

Finally, the development doesn’t meet all of the design guidelines required to qualify for the height exceptions, Francis said.

鈥淲e just want to say, 鈥楬ey, if you think the height exception is correct, then let’s address each of these criteria,鈥� he said. 鈥淚f you look at the notice of hearing from the bureau, it says the burden of proof is on the developer to show how each and every one of the design aspects meets design criteria.鈥�

Preserve the Pearl, in its appeal, says specifically that the design doesn’t preserve historical districts, doesn’t protect public spaces from shadow and fails to preserve 鈥渢he city’s visual focus on important buildings.鈥�

鈥淥ne of the outstanding and uniquely Portland qualities of the middle-Pearl is the visual focus of the Union Station clock tower,鈥� Francis wrote in his memorandum to the City Council in support of the appeal. 鈥淭his proposition is apparently so obvious that it warranted specific mention in the zoning code. However, the project in question will create a (150-foot)-high wall across the 鈥榲isual focus’ of the tower in relation to at least half the neighborhood.鈥�

The group is also concerned that the 15-story building would block Pearl District residents’ view of the Willamette River, another aspect of the city’s stated design guidelines.

鈥淲hat happens is usually there’s a lot of apathy; neighbors appeal and they lose and say, 鈥榳ell, you can’t fight city hall,’鈥� Francis said. 鈥淏ut it’s not going down that way this time. This is what happens when a neighborhood group actually reads the design guidelines and says, 鈥楬ey, we really want this appealed.’ 鈥�

The appellants and the developer will have their hearing in front of the City Council on April 8, at 3 p.m., at the Bureau of Development Services, 1221 S.W. Fourth Ave., Room 140.