Search sponsored by Coast Marketplace
Home News Local News

Size is at issue at the Pearl

Decision delayed in Prom resort appeal
By R.J. Marx

The Daily Astorian

Published on March 14, 2017 9:41AM

Architect David Vonada spoke on behalf of plans for the Pearl Oceanfront Resort.

R.J. Marx/The Daily Astorian

Architect David Vonada spoke on behalf of plans for the Pearl Oceanfront Resort.

Buy this photo
Driveway grade differential can be seen in this neighboring driveway.

R.J. Marx/The Daily Astorian

Driveway grade differential can be seen in this neighboring driveway.

Buy this photo
Owner Antoine Simmons said the driveway grade made a request for a height variance essential.

R.J. Marx/The Daily Astorian

Owner Antoine Simmons said the driveway grade made a request for a height variance essential.

Buy this photo

SEASIDE — A snafu in the submission of a legal notice delayed a decision on the future of a new hotel on the Prom.

But parties in favor and against a height variance allowing construction of the proposed three-story, 45-room Pearl Oceanfront Resort on 341 South Prom made their cases before city councilors during an appeals hearing Monday night.

Because of an 8-foot grade difference between the east and west sides of the building, a variance was needed to allow the increase to 60 feet for the roof height at the west building wing, an addition of 15 feet over the 45 feet allowed by city zoning.

The Planning Commission granted the variance in January, a decision appealed to the City Council by Susan and Dan Calef, owners of a duplex at 25 Avenue A. This is their second appeal of the proposed structure. City councilors returned the project to the Planning Commission last year after rejecting a setback variance approval.

“The hardship is developing this property at all, given not only the 8-foot grade change, but also the variances that have been granted to the adjacent property,” Pearl architect David Vonada said Monday night.

Dan Calef told councilors the proposed building would cast a “permanent afternoon shadow” on his house.

“We would be perfectly willing to accept a slightly smaller unit that doesn’t completely overpower our house,” Calef said. “We just don’t want this huge thing that would shade and block our house.”

“Once again we ask you to vote ‘no’ for the height,” Susan Calef said. “It’s very distressing. I’m not opposed to the building. We just ask that it be built to the specifications.”

Without a height variance, the building would lose two floors and be limited to 30 rooms, owner Antoine Simmons said after the meeting.

“That wouldn’t work,” he said.

A continuance of the public hearing was granted at the recommendation of the city’s legal counsel Dan Thiele. The hearing will resume at the city’s April 10 council meeting.





Marketplace

Share and Discuss

Guidelines

User Comments