Up Sucker Creek: Housekeeping

Sorry honey,

I didn't get it all done, but I'll get back to housekeeping in Part B.

The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing last night for the Annual Housekeeping Code Amendments. For those who didn't watch the hearing on TV, there were several decisions you might like to know about.

"May" or "Shall"
The wording in the code regarding the number of stories downtown buildings may have is very important, and the decision between "may" and "shall" means a great deal. Staff said the word "shall" was inadvertently changed to "may" during the code reorganization a few years ago. The mistake did not not come to their attention until the DRC hearing on the Wizer development. Commissioners discussed whether changing the wording would have the effect of making a policy change from the existing status, and if it could lead to court actions. There was concern that if the wording were changed now, then Wizer Block developers might withdraw their application and resubmit it using the revised code, and that more development could occur before the City Council could make any policy decision.

The Commission decided to keep the wording as is.

Downtown Parking
Code amendments would apply new parking standards and modifiers that would reduce the amount of parking required by new development. Example: Since there is a good supply of on-street parking in downtown now, new construction could reduce their on-site parking requirement by 0.75%. LONAC's position is that one big development could easily wipe out all available on-street parking, and at the same time max out the functional capacity of of streets and intersections causing congestion and road standard failure. Future development would be seriously impacted, as well as residents of nearby residential areas. The city had an obligation to deal with what is a known problem before it becomes a disaster.

Another big problem for the Commission and the public was that Planning staff brought a multi-page revision of the parking section with them to be reviewed and decided upon that night. The Commission rightly took them to task for the timing on this, as neither the Commission nor the public got a chance to see and comment on the revisions prior to the hearing.

The Commission tabled this section of the code package in order to get a briefing from a Chamber of Commerce Task force that will study parking. The Chamber did a thorough study a few years ago which determined there was insufficient parking in the East End core now, without any new development. Commissioner, Adrianne Brockman, suggested that the task force use national parking standards to determine no. of spaces needed per building use.

"Roadway" or "Pavement"
This code amendment sought to clarify what a "roadway" is by adding what "pavement" means. On roads that have no sidewalk or curb and gutter, the idea was to include as public (street?) all paved areas that extended beyond the natural, perceived edge of the road (the shoulders). This brings up some big issues: What are these areas to be used for? Many, most or all were installed by homeowners - would the city or homeowner rebuild or maintain them? Why are planners suggesting this very odd road alignment in the first place? Is the goal for the city to create this new code for just the downtown area to accommodate the city and add on-street parking for developers' needs?

There are more questions. It is known that some within the engineering and planning staff would like the neighborhoods in the downtown area to be more urban with wider streets and lots of concrete sidewalks and curbs. Just like Portland. Is this a first step toward taking over parts of the soft-shouldered streets to get to their end goal? Nothing would surprise me in explaining this very odd idea.

The Planning Commission moved the discussion to the Housekeeping Part B section (next meeting) that deals with codes that might have Measure 56 consequences.

Front Porches
The First Addition Neighborhood is having trouble with the City's interpretation of their own codes requiring a front porch on new construction. This applies to corner lots, but the staff has been allowing some new homes to have a "dummy" porch facing the frontage street and making the side street their front entry instead. But it also appears that the homes follow the same setbacks (size of side yard or front and rear setbacks) as if the house had a frontage on the main street. One Commissioner noted that the code was clear as written and everyone could see that. But it is also clear that some planners cannot.