Facing outraged citizens and the vexation of colleagues, Mayor Charlie Hales is pulling rein on recent changes that would likely mean clear sailing for the controversial 37th Street Apartments.
The mayor sent out a press release at 5:40 pm indicating he’s instructed Portland’s Bureau of Development Services to stall its vetting of a revised permit for the project — an 81-unit apartment building that’s drawn umbrage for its lack of on-site parking.
“The city strives for fairness and doesn’t always get it on the first shot,” Hales said in the release. “That’s why I’m taking this action.”
This is backpedaling by the mayor.
It was only on Monday, after all, that BDS Director Paul Scarlett decided to allow the developer of the project — Beaverton builder Dennis Sackhoff — to revise his permit application, a move which ran contrary to BDS’ earlier position Sackhoff would have to file a brand new application (and face a public hearing).
The 37th Street Apartments were brought to a halt last month, when the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals ruled the city erred issuing a permit because of a minor design matter. The building now sits on the corner of SE Division Street and 37th Avenue, partially built.
Sackhoff was ready with a revised permit on Tuesday, and only after he turned it in did BDS announce it had changed its mind. BDS had been in contact with Hales’ office throughout the whole process, staffers said.
The sudden reversal set off no shortage of anger, both from the neighbors who oppose the project and city commissioners.
“If you tell people something and a few days later you learn it might not be true, I think you have an obligation to say: ‘Hey we were wrong,'” said City Commissioner Steve Novick, who’s been deriding Hales’ treatment of the matter since Tuesday.
Novick said he’d expressed his displeasure to Hales’ office, and that he received a response today — though he declined to say what it was or whether it satisfied him.
The timing of the permitting process is vitally important for Sackhoff now, as the city council prepares to discuss new mandatory parking minimums approved by the city’s Planning and Sustainability Commission last week.
As the Mercury has reported, Sackhoff could be walking a fine line with this project. Depending on how his permit application is handled, the development could be left subject to any new rules council passes.
In this evening’s release, Hales signaled an intent to take the matter up in council April 4. He also seemed to indicate Sackhoff would have to file for a new permit, after all, and that he’ll need to wait until April 11 to do so.
“If the mayor has come out like this, it’s a very powerful statement saying what BDS was doing was questionable at best from a legal standpoint,” said Judah Gold-Markel, a member of the citizens’ group that’s fought the development. “We hope there will be more transparency. “
Dirk, if the City makes this go through subject to new rules (e.g., parking required), there is no way that they can do that without being sued and losing. This was a huge screw-up by the City, long before Hales took office. The City failed to enforce its own code, issued permits, and now needs to correct the error. The sole issue that was remanded, if I’ve read everything correctly, was the entrance location, which could have been remedied fairly easily and would NOT have been subject to further public review. So, now the issue seems to be that the City didn’t know it’s own code again, and promised review when review isn’t warranted.
None of these issues has anything to do with the neighbor’s base complaint, by the way: scale and no parking.
Sweet! This means even more time spent staring at yellow-wrapped partial construction! Thanks, neighborhood activists! Do you think we can keep this project partially built … forever? Oh, a guy can dream!
Can we just tear this down and rebuild Weird Bar?
As much as I hate these no-parking apartments, this seems like a mistake. They thought he’d have to get a new permit, then they figured out he could revise his current one, so he did.
I understand why the neighborhood is pissed, but I think it is futile. Setting up a lawsuit and a eyesore on that site for the foreseeable future.
I should add that Hales is falling into the Sam Adams “I can please everyone” trap.
What a bunch of wimps. “I think it is futile.” Well, we’ll see. Plopping 100+ new residents in a neighborhood without adding any parking is just wrong.
I agree TM. I’m just considering the actual technical merits of this case. The city looks like a chicken with its head cut off.
If there was a process set up for revising a permit, and the developer followed it, then those are the rules.
At this point we just need to require one spot per every two units (at least) and stop these disasters in the future. But for the ones under construction, humpty dumpty is already broken and not much we can do about it.
What a cluster. Do these neighbors realize that if they get what they want — mandatory parking minimums for this building, and future buildings — it won’t keep their neighborhood streets from being full of cars? The owner has no obligation to bundle the parking to the rental rate. It’s highly likely that the parking spaces will cost extra. Just as we’ve seen all over the city, many tenants will simply avoid this cost and park on the street. They’re perfectly happy to ruin the mayberry dreams of nimby homeowners in pursuit of urbanism and more beer money. Hope you like looking at VWs and Volvos that aren’t yours!
I think this clearly showing that we need to build more parking garages.
btw, that’s Starbuck’s (Battlestar Gallactica) dad. Katee Sackoff. irrelevant trivia.