91视频

In Portland, the line between demolition and preservation apparently can be quite fine.

An owner seeking to demolish a property in one of the city’s historic districts must obtain a permit and demonstrate that the merits of demolition outweigh those of preservation. But a recent case before the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission showed how the size of a structure can become an issue in such cases.

鈥淭he problem arises with small building accessory structures,鈥� said Willie Dean, owner of Ground Up Design Works.

One of Dean’s clients wanted to turn a 9-foot-by-20-foot garage at 1445 S.E. Division St., in the Ladd’s Addition Historic District, into an accessory dwelling unit. The plan was to preserve the existing walls, structure and materials within an expanded building. But first the foundation had to be repaired.

The contractor disassembled the building and set the materials aside before working on the foundation. However, the city designated that a demolition, despite the intention to reassemble the building according to plans approved previously.

鈥淲ith a larger building, they don’t move it; they jack it up,鈥� Dean said. 鈥淭hat isn’t practical when you’re dealing with a building that is 9 (feet wide) by 20 feet long.鈥�

Confusion arose as to what constitutes preservation for a structure that size.

鈥淢y interpretation was to preserve the structure,鈥� said Patrick Hickey, co-owner of Structure PDX, the contractor for the project. 鈥淚 didn’t see it as preserve it in one place.鈥�

Plans to expand the building’s footprint made the project more difficult, he said.

鈥淭he garage was also moving a few feet, so we needed to get this thing out of the way,鈥� he said of the decision to disassemble the structure and lean its six panels against a backyard fence. 鈥淚t would have been potentially a dangerous situation to try to work while moving it.鈥�

Then an inspector came to examine the new foundation work.

鈥淭he foundation inspector said this no longer (is) a demolition, (but rather) new construction,鈥� Dean said, 鈥渁nd that threw us down the rabbit hole.鈥�

That rabbit hole has included a trip to the Historic Landmarks Commission. An appearance before the City Council for a final decision also is in the works.

While the city understands the confusion (a similar case happened in the Ladd’s Addition Historic District last year), it has been wary of setting a precedent. The best solution, Portland senior planner Hillary Adam said, would be to revise the city code to address small accessory structures in historic districts.

鈥淚t’s definitely been on our radar for a while,鈥� she said. 鈥淢aybe there could be a lower level of scrutiny in these cases. That is the intent. We haven’t gotten into that yet. That is a project that is waiting in the wings at BPS (the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability).鈥�

Brandon Spencer-Hartle, historic resources manager for BPS, said that the process to revise the code would require at least a year. The challenge, he said, would be to avoid opening a loophole that would allow people to skirt the rules and demolish larger structures without city oversight.

鈥淲e don’t want to inadvertently create a policy that would result in the loss of buildings,鈥� he said.

The Historic Landmarks Commission’s answer for Dean was equally confusing. It recommended that the city deny approval of the demolition permit. That would, in theory, allow the project team to reassemble the building as planned and then move forward.

鈥淭echnically it was a demolition, which wasn’t approved,鈥� Adam said. 鈥淲e are in the position if we recommend approving this, we open a can of worms that you could demolish other types of buildings.鈥�

That morass has cost the designer a lot of time and the contractor a lot money, and caused headaches for the owner. The project has been on hold since August 2016 while the city and the builders determine the best course of action.

鈥淚 am putting my faith in the people that are helping me at the city,鈥� Dean said. 鈥淭hey also threw me into this process.鈥�

The fees for the permitting process alone will add up to $10,000, Dean said. Delays have cost Hickey close to $8,000, he said.

鈥�(The city) did cut us a break on the fees,鈥� Dean said. 鈥淚t’s frustrating. (The owners’) backyard is useless. It’s a construction site with nothing happening. It would have been done by now if not for this.鈥�

Contractors, architects and designers should present detailed plans to the city, Adam advised, and then stick to them.

鈥淒o not tear down your garage without asking us first,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e try to communicate that to the best of our ability.鈥�