A developer is fighting another denial of a proposed four-story hotel along the Astoria waterfront.

In an appeal to the City Council submitted this week, lawyers representing Hollander Hospitality argue that the city’s Design Review Committee misapplied standards dealing with size and massing — criteria the committee considers when evaluating projects.

The City Council will hold a hearing on the appeal on Dec. 12.

Bellingham, Washington, developer Mark Hollander hopes to build a 60-plus room Marriott-brand hotel at the base of Second Street where the former restaurant, The Ship Inn, now stands. The site falls under Bridge Vista, a section of the city’s Riverfront Vision Plan that outlines design standards and criteria.

The Design Review Committee, in a split 2-2 vote, denied the project in October. It was the second time the committee had looked at designs for the Fairfield Inn and Suites.

A previous version of the hotel failed to get approval from both the Design Review Committee and the Historic Landmarks Commission this summer, decisions Hollander also appealed to the City Council.

The developer later presented an entirely new and significantly revised design to the City Council instead of defending the original version. City councilors decided to send this new design back to the Design Review Committee, though not to the Historic Landmarks Commission. 

Residents who spoke against the new version of the project continued to criticize the size of the hotel, as well as its design, calling it boxy and unappealing. Some committee members were in favor of the new design, while others maintained it still needed tweaking and was too large.

Hollander and his representatives have expressed frustration with the design review process, telling the City Council during the first appeal that they needed clarity about what the city wanted.

The redesign they presented in October was intended to echo historic cannery buildings and “bridge the gap between the old and the new,” said architect Craig Riegelnegg. 

In the new appeal, Hollander’s lawyers argue that a standard the Design Review Committee applied to address scale, massing and building material along street facades applies only to existing buildings, not new construction.

The first design the company submitted to the city incorporated The Ship Inn as a lobby area, but feedback from city boards convinced Hollander to drop the idea. The new design consists entirely of new construction.

Hollander’s lawyers note the Design Review Committee did not address the Second Street facade when it determined that the hotel did not meet criteria for scale and massing.

The company also debates the idea that the hotel is too large.

In materials submitted to the city as part of the appeal, the Portland-based firm Carleton Hart Architecture compares the hotel to other buildings in the area, including the Columbia House condominiums, Astoria Warehousing, Buoy Beer Co. and two cannery buildings that no longer exist. In all the examples, the Fairfield Inn would be the smaller building.

They also argued in favor of the building’s simplicity, noting a city standard that states building forms should be simple, single geometric shapes.

Community Development Department staff did not recommend either approving or denying the project in reports presented to city boards. In findings of fact staff wrote to represent the split decision and denial by the Design Review Committee in October, staff prepared findings to outline both positions.