91视频

For building codes, a single word can make a big difference.

Dennis Sackhoff‘s 81-unit apartment project on Southeast Division Street should resume in about a month, but this time without the “nonresidential” component. That word was added as part of a series of code amendments that Portland city commissioners adopted on Wednesday in response to residents’ complaints about multifamily projects like Sackhoff’s being built without parking for tenants.

That simple addition provided a simple solution to a big problem for the developer.

“Once we eliminate that commercial space, the main entrance requirement goes away,” said David Mullens, a project manager for Sackhoff’s Urban Development Group. “It was the most sure-proof way of filing a new building permit.”

In late February, the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals revoked the building permit because the development did not provide a main entrance to each tenant space on Division Street, as required by code. The rule was supposed to apply only to nonresidential spaces, but the word “nonresidential” had been left out.

Richmond Neighbors for Responsible Growth had filed an appeal with LUBA in part to challenge the Division Street project’s lack of parking. LUBA did not take issue with that aspect, but rather with the main entrance. Commissioners have since clarified the code.

Also, because commissioners did not adopt new parking amendments as an emergency ordinance, Sackhoff’s project is not subject to minimum parking requirements. Mike Hayakawa, a supervising planner for the Bureau of Development Services, said elimination of the ground-floor retail aspect makes the building’s use entirely residential, and therefore not subject to LUBA’s decision.

The space formerly pegged for retail will now be used as lounge and lobby area. Mullens said that Urban Development Group may apply for a new building permit to add retail later, but for now it’s just concentrating on construction.

“Until the new code changes take effect, and we get the building completed, we can’t put retail in,” he said. “It’s kind of a shame because that’s what we wanted, and I know it’s what a lot of people wanted 鈥� but (the neighbors) are the reason for it not being there anymore. That’s just the way it had to work out.”

Mullens said there is a chance that neighbors could again appeal the permit, but he doubts they would have any grounds to stand on. Judah Gold-Markel, a representative of RNRG, said neighbors are still discussing whether to proceed with any kind of challenge to the new permit.

鈥淚 think that Dennis Sackhoff lost an opportunity to really impress people within the Portland community on how dedicated he could have been in making these apartment buildings dynamic, and making them an important part of our infill growth,鈥� Gold-Markel said. 鈥淚nstead, he just chose to continue with profiting with minimal overhead.鈥�

Mullens said he’s looking forward to getting the project over with.

“I kind of wish the neighbors would just move on,” Mullens said. “I mean, we’re going to build the building, and complete the building. Somehow, I just wish they would realize that now. But they’re still against us and pretty much anything we do.”