A battle over a proposed medical building in Oakland is pitting the city against its own Historic Review Commission.

The city has joined the building's developer, the Elmhurst Co., in appealing to Allegheny County Common Pleas Court the commission's decision in July to reject the project. The move could force the city, which typically represents the commission, to hire a private attorney to defend the review panel.

Commission Chairman Michael Eversmeyer said yesterday that he could not recall another instance of the city joining in an appeal of a commission ruling.

"It's very unusual," he said. "Under normal circumstances, the city Law Department would represent the Historic Review Commission."

Further complicating the matter is that George Specter, who has advised the commission in the past as the city's deputy solicitor, now is serving as acting solicitor and representing the city in the appeal.

"In 11 years working at city hall, I have never heard of the city joining a lawsuit against a city commission," said Councilman William Peduto, who is trying to knit a compromise that satisfies the developer, the commission, the city and Oakland residents who oppose the project.

Mr. Specter said he saw nothing odd about the situation. He said it has happened in the past, although he added he could not cite an example "off the top of my head."

"The city appeared before the commission in support of a project. Every once in a while we do something like that," he said. "We don't regard it as unusual."

The battle is over the proposed Schenley Place project, which would be built on Bayard Street in a parking lot owned by First Baptist Church of Pittsburgh. The property is in the Oakland Civic Center Historic District and adjacent to the Schenley Farms Historic District, which is why the commission is involved.

The building would be about 140 feet tall, or 10 stories, and would be anchored by a 85,000-square-foot long-term acute care facility. The size of the structure has prompted objections from some neighbors.

Last month, the Historic Review Commission voted 5-2 to deny Elmhurst a certificate of appropriateness for the project. Mr. Eversmeyer said the majority felt the proposed building was too big for the site, particularly one directly across from a historic residential district.

In the appeal, Elmhurst and the city are arguing that Mr. Specter, in his capacity as deputy solicitor and commission counsel, advised the panel that it could not consider height as long as the height complied with zoning code limits.

According to the appeal, the commission said it would approve a building of four to five stories. Elmhurst argued that a 40 percent reduction in the size would make the building too small and jeopardize the project.

The developer and the city maintain the commission abused its discretion in tying its approval to a reduction in the height. Mr. Eversmeyer said he believes the commission was within its rights.

The project is in Mr. Peduto's council district and, in trying to work out a compromise, he has asked Mr. Eversmeyer to consider putting together an executive committee to work with the developer, residents and the city to find a solution.

"A parking lot is not the best use for that site," he said. "I believe that we can work together to make [the building] more appropriate."