The Studio: planning, demolition, building

<b>Summer 06</b>
Scott meets with friendly knowledgable people down at the city permit office. He asks questions about what can and can not build, and how it must be built. He and his family tear down old garage.

<b>September 06</b>
Wrapping up the initial drawings of studio based on that conversation with the city, Scott posts them on internet so that friends can admire and ridicule them. "What is up with that left edge?" echoes through the world wide web.

<b>October 06</b>
Scott takes them down to the city for initial review. Told they look great. Fill out these forms, bring back copies and so on. It will take six to eight weeks, possibly less, to get approval.

<b>November 06</b>
After some other things get in the way, finally take a stack of copies and forms down to the city. Told, "This looks GREAT! I love this building! It'll be gorgeous, a perfect addition to the neighborhood! But, no, you can't build this. I don't know who told you that, but they were wrong." A sound of a small explosion reverberates around Portland when Scott's head detonates. A thorough conversation with some city people with a clue reveals that it can't be classified as a garage and needs to meet seismic requirements.

<b>Winter 06</b>
Scott puts head in sand and ignores studio. A nervous tick says hello whenever someone asks about it.

<b>February 07</b>
With brand new drawings, tentatively Scott heads down to the city and is told, "Yes. You can build this. But you'll need to apply for a setback variance since this isn't a garage. Why isn't a garage? Because not all of it is for vehicle storage."

<b>March 07</b>
Scott takes a stack of drawings and paperwork down to the city. Told, "You could, if you wanted to, turn this in as is, but I recommend these changes to your narrative." The friendly woman hands Scott a sample of an application. Scott wonders why they didn't give him this sample six months ago. He contemplates another detonation involving shrapnel and gallons of spilled blood that isn't his own. The next day he returns to the city with rewritten paperwork and hands over $595 dollars for the setback variance. Scott is told that it isn't six to eight weeks as first told, it's eight to ten weeks.

A couple days later...laughter and another explosion is heard.
​

March continues (note change in point of view - I'm not a great writer)
When paperwork was dropped off to the city, it was suggested that adding a few photos to the application might be helpful. When I brought them in the person I spoke with pulled out my application. She looked over the drawings, complemented me on the design and asked, "Why are you applying for a setback adjustment for a garage?" (a garage under 24' can be built within the setback without requiring a variance)

I confidently replied, "Because it doesn't qualify as a garage due to its shape. Or so I was told by this office several times over the past months."

Squinting quizzically, she answered, "Hmm...that doesn't make much sense" and pulled a binder off the shelf, flipped to a page, and showed me their definition of a garage.


She took the application back to one of her bosses. He confirmed her conclusion. Not only would it qualify as a garage if I shorten it back to 24 feet, but I can build it right on the property line - another thing someone else got wrong. She apologized profusely for the erroneous information I'd received and made several notations in our file noting this more accurate information to spare us from some future mix ups.



The decision was made. I didn't need to apply for a setback. I just needed to crank out the more specific building plans. I lost a big chunk of time to this nonsense, but there's nothing I can do about it now.​