Contested two‑story garage at 442 NW 20th continued after neighbors and commission disagree

The Historic Preservation Commission continued consideration of an application to demolish a one‑story garage and construct a two‑story garage at 442 NW 20th Street after residents and commissioners raised concerns about scale, neighborhood precedent and sightlines.

Applicant Jeff Blake and homeowner Bailey Sparrow had proposed demolishing the existing roughly 450-square-foot garage and replacing it with a new structure that would increase the footprint and include a second floor. Staff noted the existing garage was in poor structural condition and that the proposed design matched many guideline details, but it also exceeded the commission’s typical 450-square-foot benchmark for new garages and would increase visibility for adjacent neighbors.

Multiple neighbors spoke in opposition. Chris Stevens, who lives across the street, said the present garage was functional and maintained and that the record did not clearly show the existing space could not accommodate the owner’s vehicles. Marva Ellard and other neighbors pointed out that, although a partially below‑grade two‑story garage exists nearby, it reads as a one‑story from much of the block; several speakers urged the commission to treat the block as having predominantly one‑story garages. Neighbors raised privacy and scale concerns about windows on an upper story looking into adjacent yards.

Commissioners and staff discussed the guideline language: when photographic or documentary evidence exists of a historic garage, a replacement should approximate that historic building; two‑story replacements are considered only when the original garage was two‑story or where two‑story garages are dominant or budding on the block. Commissioners said the presence of a partly below‑grade two‑story structure nearby did not necessarily justify a two‑story replacement here. Some commissioners said they were comfortable with demolition given the structural condition, but not with approving a two‑story replacement. Others were more open but noted strong neighborhood opposition.

After discussion, the commission voted to continue the application to the May 7 meeting and asked the applicant to provide revised materials by April 15 if he wished to remain on the May 7 agenda. Staff suggested options the applicant might pursue, including reducing the proposal to a one‑story replacement with a slightly larger footprint (a common compromise), or returning with clearer evidence justifying a two‑story replacement.

The continued item will return to the commission for further review on May 7, 2025, or the applicant may revise the proposal and submit new documentation for staff review beforehand.