 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
MEMO BLOG | |
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memos | Loaves & Fishes | Letters | Home |
LEE PERLMAN
THE MID-COUNTY MEMO
A proposed new zoning regulation meant to control the use of garages on skinny houses was frozen last month when only one activist spoke in favor of it, and the development community turned out in force to oppose it.
The proposed rule - part of a package of 50 minor zoning changes known as RICAP 5 - would have prohibited garages as part of the front facade of houses less than 22 feet wide. Planner Eric Engstrom told the Portland Planning Commission that the rule would not prohibit garages on such houses if they loaded from the side or rear. He also said that the city has received numerous complaints from neighbors about skinny houses that consist primarily of garages on the ground floor.
The code amendment is the city's latest attempt to control this sort of development. In 2002, the city passed a code amendment that allowed development on existing platted lots. An unintended consequence was that developers were free to subdivide lots at twice the density for which they had been zoned and traditionally developed because they were platted as 2,500-square-foot parcels in the early 20th century. Although many community activists have complained that development produced in this way does not keep with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods, City Council has declined to prohibit such development. The city has taken steps to either encourage or require designs that are more in keeping with older homes; often, this has had to do with the prominence of the garage as part of the front facade.
Developer Tom Skaarr testified, “Garages are a critical component of a house. I wouldn't consider trying to sell without one, even in a market where you can sell anything. There's a market for affordable homes. They fill a need.”
Developer Steve Harkins attacked Engstrom's argument that skinny houses could have garages accessed by back alleys. “Most alleys are totally unimproved,” he said. “You're going through trash and junk and who knows what kind of illegal dealings going on. It's unreasonable to ask a builder to improve someone else's property.” He added, “There's a market for affordable housing, for people who want to get into a house, raise a family. For single women, a garage is a safety feature.”
Several builders repeated this last argument. One said that most skinny lots “are in stabilization neighborhoods that are blue collar, have more crime, and you need garages for security.” Storage is also needed for bikes. By being so prescriptive, “You're removing an opportunity for good design and replacing it with a bad standard.”
Finally Chris Smith, the Planning Commission's newest member, said, “If we're building a community where the only way to feel safe is to drive directly into your garage, that's not a community I'd want to live in. We're encouraging people to use the street.”
Opponents of skinny houses charge that developers have torn down sound older homes to make way for the new additions. To discourage this, council passed a rule that skinny lots must be vacant for at least five years before they are redeveloped. RICAP 5 relaxed this prohibition somewhat, allowing development immediately if a house is removed as a public nuisance. Developer Jeff Fish testified that he had torn down a house in the hope of redeveloping the lot, complaining that the new requirements could deprive him of a chance to cash in on his investment.
Russell Neighborhood Association Chair Bonny McKnight gave the only public testimony in support of the change. She had been part of the skinny house opposition in 2002 because they were “disruptive to virtually all neighborhoods.” She was less definite about the proposed amendment and confessed that she drives straight into her own garage but said, “People buy neighborhoods as well as houses. If you disrupt the Roseways of this world, we're not getting where we want to go.”
The commission eventually decided to hold this change back for further study. Since the RICAP 5 review process was not funded this year, this means the amendment is dead for at least two years. Member Irma Valdez agreed with McKnight and said, “We want the feel of Irvington without the price.” However, she also agreed that garages are important features that can be used for storage or home offices if not for cars.
RICAP 5 also increased the amount of bicycle parking required in large central city multi-family buildings, relaxed constraints on building auxiliary dwelling units on single family lots, and relaxed codes and height requirements to allow people to put small wind generators and solar collectors on their yards and homes. Stay tuned for more developments as RICAP 5 now goes to City Council for review and action.
 |
 |
 |
 |
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home