Peduto proposes eliminating parking minimums in rowhouse neighborhoods... (Allentown, California: townhouses, buyers)

[eschaton]

Link here. It's on PBT, but this article is viewable in incognito mode.

Essentially Peduto is going to propose to City Council that the parking minimum for new houses in R1A (single family attached) zoned portions of the city be lowered from 1 space per unit to 0 spaces.

This is fantastic, and something which residents have been pushing to change for awhile. The central problem is that except where homes have access to an alley for parking in the rear, under current zoning all infill homes are basically required to put a front-facing garage on. This necessitates a curb cut, which in turn means that on-street parking is reduced (meaning the garage doesn't actually benefit nearby neighbors at all). Not to mention front-facing garages are ugly and more or less make the first story unusable as living space.

I have no doubt that some homes will still be built with garages. However, by eliminating it as a requirement more affordable infill construction projects can be constructed - particularly on smaller alley lots.

[Geeo]

This has been a long time coming, and a lot of neighborhood groups have been requesting it. When I lived in Deutchtown, we were lucky that there was an alley behind a row of infill houses that could accommodate parking pads. And there was a townhouse development spanning Avery and Lockhart that was able to put the parking in a courtyard between the two streets so that there wouldn't be curb cuts or garages visible. There is nothing worse than an ugly garage taking up space and ruining the effect of an intact row house street.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Would this mean that curb-outs for front facing garages won't happen at all, or would at least be less likely be approved as variances?

[Lost_In_Translation]

Honestly I don’t think it will change anything. There is not a market for “new” garageless townhouses, even if it means the “new” house is 350k vs 450+
The only place I see this helping is URA properties on the “Hill” or Allentown/Knoxville/Beltzhoover. Maybe a few weird lots in Southside slopes. Flats/Northside/Lawrrencville land is too expensive to build a new building

[robrobrob]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Link here. It's on PBT, but this article is viewable in incognito mode.

Essentially Peduto is going to propose to City Council that the parking minimum for new houses in R1A (single family attached) zoned portions of the city be lowered from 1 space per unit to 0 spaces.

This is fantastic, and something which residents have been pushing to change for awhile. The central problem is that except where homes have access to an alley for parking in the rear, under current zoning all infill homes are basically required to put a front-facing garage on. This necessitates a curb cut, which in turn means that on-street parking is reduced (meaning the garage doesn't actually benefit nearby neighbors at all). Not to mention front-facing garages are ugly and more or less make the first story unusable as living space.

I have no doubt that some homes will still be built with garages. However, by eliminating it as a requirement more affordable infill construction projects can be constructed - particularly on smaller alley lots.

I think a garage is the same a parking chair. Takes a spot away from everyone for the benefit of one person.



I would think that if a townhouse can be built for 350,000 without a garage you would have some buyers interested. Problem is if the developer can't hit that price point. At some point people want a garage for the amount they are paying.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

Would this mean that curb-outs for front facing garages won't happen at all, or would at least be less likely be approved as variances?

Is a variance normally needed for a curb-cut? I really don't know, but if so, it would be a huge disincentive to developers to build integral garages on the infill homes now.

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

Honestly I don’t think it will change anything. There is not a market for “new” garageless townhouses, even if it means the “new” house is 350k vs 450+
The only place I see this helping is URA properties on the “Hill” or Allentown/Knoxville/Beltzhoover. Maybe a few weird lots in Southside slopes. Flats/Northside/Lawrrencville land is too expensive to build a new building

In hot neighborhoods you're probably right, although I could see small homes still being built in alleys in Lawrenceville and South Side without off-street parking. There are some people in the market for more "affordable" new build homes who either don't have a car or don't care about a garage.

Anyway, I was curious, so I looked at the zoning map...

Neighborhoods with R1A zoning:

North - Lots:
California-Kirkbride, Manchester, Allegheny West, Central North Side, East Allegheny

North - Some:
Brighton Heights, Marshall Shadeland, Perry South, Spring Garden. Spring Hill, Troy Hill

South/West - Lots:
Duquense Heights, Southside Flats

South/West - Some:
Elliott, Southside Slopes

East - Lots:
West Oakland, South Oakland, Lower Lawrenceville, Central Lawrenceville, Upper Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Homewood South, Hazelwood

East - Some:
Central Oakland, North Oakland, Garfield. Shadyside, Morningside, East Liberty, Larimer. Highland Park. Point Breeze, Greenfield

In terms of affordable housing, the big areas this will help potentially are California-Kirkbride, Manchester, Homewood South, and Hazelwood. Typically affordable infill homes do not have integral garages, instead relying upon rear parking pads, but the zoning change would allow for denser/cheaper construction, allowing more units to be built on less space for less $$$.