HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-17 City Council (20)TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL "~Z
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
NOVEMBER 17, 1997 CMR:470:97
CITY COUNCIL-INITIATED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
TO THE PROVISIONS IN TITLE 18 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE GOVERNING CARPORTS IN SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONES
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the Council amend the Zoning Ordinance,
Chapter 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAC), as follows (see Attachment A, Draft
Ordinance):
Amendment of Section 18.04.030(a) to add the following:
(24. 5) "Carport" means a covered area for the storage of an automobile or vehicle.
Amendment to Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(C) as follows:
(v)Carports shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area to a
maximum of 200 square feet per site.
Creation of new Section 18.83.105 to read as follows:
In the R-1 and R-E zoning districts, the following regulations shall apply to carports:
a. A carport shall have three (3) sides completely open from the structural
header to grade, with the only exception being corner supports which may
extend a maximum of 18 inches in each direction from the center of the
support.
b.The side(s) of a carport facing a street must be completely open except if the
carport is located a minimum of 75feet from a street facing property line, in
which case one of two allowed enclosed sides can be a garage door.
c.The open sides may not be enclosed. This prohibition includes garage doors
and other similar doors, and construction or any structures within eight (8)
feet of the perimeter of the carport, including but not limited to fences,
CMR:470:97 Page 1 of 5
trellises, half walls, lattice work, planter boxes, and fences on the property
line.
The carport roof must be separated horizontally from other roofs a minimum
of six (6)feet, except where it may be attached to the residence or accessory
structure along the single enclosed wall of the carport.
There can be no area over the carport deemed by the Chief Building Official
to be useable area.
Amendment to Section 18.88.020 as follows:
(c)(1)Residential garages, carports, and parking facilities, together with access and
circulation elements necessary thereto;
Alternate Staff Recommendation
As an altemate to the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the Council may amend the
Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) as follows (see Attachment
A, Draft Ordinance). Italicized wording denotes proposed changes.
Creation of a definition of a carport within Section 18.04.30, entitled "Definitions" to read
as follows: ~
(24.5) Carport means a portion of a principal residential building or a accessory
building to a residential use designed to be utilized for the shelter of one (1) or more
motor vehicle which is open (unenclosed) at the vehicular entry side and has no more
than two (2) sides enclosed.
Amendment to Section 18.88.020, entitled "Accessory uses and facilities," allowing carports
as an accessory use to residential use, to read as follows:
(c)(1)Residential garages, carports, and parking facilities, together with access and
circulation elements necessary thereto;
Creation of a new provisions within Sections 18.12.050 and 18.10.050, entitled "Site
development regulations," requiring carports to be counted towards floor area ratios (FAR’s)
within R-1 and R-E zoning districts to read as follows:
(I) (4) Carports shall be counted towards the maximum allowable floor are ratio
requirements.
Amendment to the definition of "gross floor area," Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(C), requiring
carports to be counted towards floor area ratios, to read as follows:
Carports shall be counted towards the maximum allowable floor are ratio
requirements.
CMR:470:97 Page 2 of 5
~
BACKGROUND
On May 12, 1997, City Council directed staff to prepare interim regulations that would
prohibit the use of garage doors on carports and to require builders to post written notice
inside the carport that advises the homeowner and potential home buyer of the City’s
regulations. Other issues staff was requested to research included the following:
Installation of additional planters, trellises or other similar architectural features
which were subsequently added and left the appearance of an enclosed carport or a
poorly designed garage.
2.Overall effect or consequences of the proposed changes.
Coundil direction was precipitated by the construction of residences that utilized a carport
with a street-facing garage door instead of covered parking, as required by the PAC.
Carports are interpreted as being exempt from the FAR requirements. The garage door
construction technique results in the building mass and appearance of a house with an
attached garage, but the carport did not count towards the FAR. This is regarded by many
as a loophole in the City’s single family zoning regulations.
DISCUSSION
On August 27, 1997, staff forwarded a recommendation to the Planning Commission
defilfing a carport as an area that is to be open on two or more sides, with the from of the
carport (portion facing the street) open. Staff noted that this definition excludes the floor
area of a carport from calculation of"gross floor area."
The Planning Commission significantly revised staff recommendations based on design
concerns (see Planning Commission minutes, Attachment C). However, after the Planning
Commission public hearing, Planning staff completed further research and had further
discussions with the Chief Building Official, Building Inspection Supervisor and the
Planning Department counter personnel regarding the issue. All of the above personnel
indicated that the majority of complaints they received from the home buyers and neighbors
reflect a desire that carports should be enclosed. The use of a carport to reduce the mass and
bulk was not having the desired effect in the long rim, because the "open" carports often had
front facing garage doors and were utilized for storage and habitable area, which diminished
the desired open effect. Furthermore, home buyers wanted carports enclosed to increase
security and conceal items stored within the area. Therefore, staff has reevaluated the issue
and developed a more simplified alternative recommendation to address the issue. Staff is
of the opinion that the revised wording of the alternate recommendation still addresses and
satisfies all the issues identified by the Planning Commission in its recommendation.
Staff will present the alternate recommendation to the Planning Commission at their
November 12, 1997, meeting for information. Staff will provide at the Council meeting a
CMR:470:97 Page 3 of 5
memorandum of the Commission’s discussion. Staff believes the alternate recommendation
provides the same result as the Planning Commission recommendation; however, in staff’s
opinion, the revised wording will simplify the implementation and subsequent enforcement
of the regulations.
The altemate recommendation includes a simplified definition of a carport, permits carports
as accessory uses, and counts all carports as a part of FAR requirements. To ensure all
sections of the PAC clearly identify these provisions, staff recommends specific provisions
be provided in the accessory structures section of the PAC, the R-1 and R-E zoning districts
requirements and within the definition of"gross floor area."
Staffwould note carports are currently included in FAR calculations in all zoning districts
except R-1 and R-E. Therefore, requiring carports to satisfy FAR requirements in R-1 and
R-E zones would be consistent with other regulations.
Staffwas initially concerned that counting carports within FAR requirements would penalize
the Eichler-style residence, which typically utilizes the carport. However, since the Eichlers
are single story residences, the site coverage for the parcel is more limiting than the FAR.
For these residences, enclosing the carport does not add sufficient FAR to reach the
maximum allowed floor area. Staff would also note for both structural and design reasons,
it is very difficult for these residences to add a second floor. If a second floor is added, the
original residence with its carport would be required to undergo such a significant change
that staffbelieves there would not be any justification in treating them differently from other
properties.
Pre-1950 houses very rarely utilized the carport concept and, therefore, generally do not
exceed the maximum FAR limit. However, staff believes carports should not be encouraged
on pre-1950 structures due to the fact they are usually not compatible with the earlier design
features. Staff’s recommendation to count carports as FAR would encourage a design that
is usually more compatible with these structures.
Typi~all3?, 6arpol~s constructed since 1989 are on r~sidences that maximized the FAR.-
Carports on these residences will now be non-complying, but could be enclosed, since they
count as FAR. Staff believes that, in the long term, tlfis will have a positive effect and will
allow the homeowner to fully utilize garage space for the use intended.
Note that the Planning Commission did not support the posting of a written notice as a
requirement. The Commission felt it was difficult to monitor and enforce.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Adoption of the carport definition and the counting of carports as FAR will not directly
impact City resources. Simplification Of the interpretation of the regulations will have a
positive benefit on staff in the application of the regulations.
CMR:470:97 Page 4 of 5
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will change the current City policy to
require carports to be counted towards FAR requirements.
TIME LINE
Staff will forward the Planning Commission’s comments from the November 12, 1997,
meeting (not including the minutes, given the immediate scheduling) to the Council for
consideration at the November 17, 1997, meeting. The second reading of the ordinance will
occur on December 1, 1997.
ENVIRONMENTAL,,ASSESSMENT ~ _.
Exempt pursuant to Guidelines Section 15303, new .construction or conversion of small
structures, in that the ordinance will modify the design standards for individual single family
homes which are already exempt from California Environmental Quality Act review.
ATTACHMENT
Attachment A: Draft Ordinance
Attachment B" November 12, 1997 Planning Commission Memorandum
Attachment C: August 27, 1997 Planning Commission Memorandum
Attachment D: August 27, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes (excerpt)
Prepared by: James E. Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
City Manager
CMR:470:97 Page 5 of 5
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALOALTO
AMENDING SECTIONS 18.04.030 AND 18.88.020 AND
ADDING SECTION 18.83.105 TO TITLE18 OF THE PALO
ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDINGCARPORTS
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
A.The Planning Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing held August 27, 1997, has recommended that Title 18 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth; and
B.The City Council, after due Consideration of the
recommendations, finds that the proposed amendments are in the
public interest and will promote the public health, safety and
welfare.
SECTIQN 2. Section 18.04.030 of Chapter 18.04 of Title 18
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new
subsection (24.5) and amending subsection (65) to read as follows:
18.04.030 ,Definitions.
(a) Throughout this title the following words and
phrases shall have the meanings ascribed in this section.
(65) (A) "Gross floor area" means the total area of all
floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior
walls, and including the following:
(±)
(±±)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Halls;
Stairways;
Elevator shafts;
Service and mechanical equipment rooms;
Basement, cellar or attic areas deemed usable
by the chief building official;
1
971105 lac 0080566a Commission rezommendation
(vi) Open or roofed porches, arcades, plazas,
balconies, courts, walkways, breezeways or porticos if located
above the ground floor and used for required access;
(vii) Permanently roofed, but either partially
enclosed or unenclosed, building features used for sales, service,
display, storage or similar uses;
(viii) In residential districts, all roofed porches,
arcades, balconies, porticos, breezeways or similar features when
located above the ground floor.
(B)Gross floor area shall not include the following:
(i) Parking facilities accessory to a permitted
or conditional use and located on the same site;
(ii) Roofed arcades, plazas, walkways, porches,
breezeways, porticos, and similar features not substantially
enclosed by exterior walls, and courts, at or near street level,
when accessible to the general public and not devoted to sales,
service, display, storage or similar uses.
(iii) Except in the CD District and in areas
designated as special study areas, minor additions of floor area
approved by the director of planning and community environment for
purposes of resource conservation or code compliance, upon the
determination that such minor additions will increase compliance
with environmental health, safety or other federal, state or local
standards. Such additions may include, but not be limited to, the
following:
a. Area designed for resource conservation,
such as trash compactors, recycling and thermal storage facilities;
b. Area designed and required for hazardous
materials storage facilities, handicapped access or seismic
upgrades;
(iv) In commercial and industrial districts except
in the CD District and in areas designated as special study areas,
additions of floor area designed and used solely for on-site
employee amenities for employees of the facility, approved by the
director of planning and community environment, upon the
determination that such additions will facilitate the reduction of
employee vehicle use. Such additions may include, but not be
limited to, recreational facilities, credit unions, cafeterias and
day care centers.
(C) In the R-I and R-E single-family residence
districts, "gross floor area" means the total covered area of all
floors of a main structure and accessory structures greater than
one hundred twenty square feet in area, including covered parking
and stairways, measured to the outside surface of exterior walls,
subject to the following exceptions:
2
971105 lac 0080566a Commission recommendation
(i) Floor area where the distance between the
floor and the roof directly above it measures 5.18 meters
(seventeen feet) or more, shall be counted twice;
(ii) Floor area where the distance between the
floor and the roof directly above it measures 7.92 meters
(twenty-six feet) or more shall be counted three times;
(iii) Basements where the finished level of the
first floor is not more than .91 meters (three feet) above the
grade around the perimeter of the building foundation, shall be
excluded from the calculation of gross floor area, provided that
lightwells, stairwells and other excavated features comply with the
provisions of Section 18.10.050(m), 18.12.050(o), 18.17.050(p), or
18.19.050(o), as applicable; and
(iv) 60.69 square meters (two hundred square feet)
of unusable third floor equivalent, such as attic space, shall be
excluded from the calculation of gross floor area.
SECTION 3.. Chapter 18.83 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new section
to be numbered and to read as follows:
971105 la¢ 0080566a Commission re~mmcndation
3
$L~C~T!~Q~_~. Section 18.88.020 of Chapter 18.88 of Title 18
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
18.88. 020 Accessory uses and facilities.
(a) Accessory uses and facilities shall be permitted in
any district when incidental to and associated with a permitted use
or fecility, or when incidental to and associated with an allowable
and authorized conditional use therein, subject to the provisions
of this section.
(b)Accessory uses and facilities:
(i) Shall be subordinate to the primary activity of
the principal use or the principal facility, respectively;
(2) Shall contribute to the comfort, convenlence,
efficiency, or necessity of the occupants or the activities of a
principal use, or the function of a principal structure;
(3) Shall be located on the same site as the
principal use or structure served, except as otherwise authorized
by this title.
(c) Accessory uses and facilities include, but are not
limited to, the following list of examples; provided that each
accessory use or facility shall comply with all provisions of this
title:
(~) Residential garages~i!~i~~ii~ and parking
facilities, together with access and circulation elements necessary
thereto;
(2) Customer, visitor, and employee parking
facilities, and off-street loading facilities, together with access
and circulation elements necessary thereto;
(3) Facilities for storage incidental to a
principal use;
(4) Recreational uses and facilities for the use
and convenience of occupants or employees, or guests thereof, of a
principal use or facility;
(5) Newsstands, gift shops, drugstores, and eating
and. drinking facilities, or similar services intended solely for
971105 1~ 00~0566a Commissionre~omm~ndation
4
the convenience of occupants or employees, or guests thereof, of a
principal use, when conducted entirely within a principal facility;
(6) Building management offices when located within
the principal facility and limited to the management thereof;
(7) Refreshment and service facilities in parks, in
playgrounds, and in permitted public or private recreation
facilities or schools;
(8) The operation of service facilities and
equipment in connection with schools, hospitals, and similar
institutions or uses, when located on the site of the principal
use.
(d) No use or facility permitted as an accessory use or
facility pursuant to this section shall be construed to be
permitted as a principal use or facility unless specifically
authorized as a permitted or conditional use in the district in
which it shall be located. Operation, occupancy, and continuance
of allowable accessory uses and facilities shall be conditioned
upon the continued occupancy or use of the principal use or
facility being served.
(e) Accessory buildings located within a required
interior yard, as permitted by this section, shall not individually
or cumulatively occupy an area exceeding fifty percent of the
required rear yard.
~F~T.T~[_~. Except as amended by Section 1 of this
Ordinance, all provisions of Section 18.04.030 of Title 18 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code remain unchanged.
~1~2/__~. The Council finds that this ordinance is exempt
from CEQA in that it modifies design standards for single-family
residences, which are already exempt from environmental review.
//
//
//
//
//
/!
//
!!
5
971105 lac 0080366a Commission recommendation
~~L~. This ordinance shall be effective
thirty-first date after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
on the
971105 |ao 0080566a Commission recommendation
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
2
TO:PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:Eric Riel, Jr.
James E. Gilliland
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
and Community Environment
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
November 12, 1997
Staff Recommendation regarding City Council initiated Zoning
Text Amendment to the provisions in Title 18 of the municipal code
governing carports in single-family zones.
RECOMMENDATION
This report has been prepared for informationpurposes only. This item is scheduled for City
Council consideration on November 17, 1997. Staff has deve!oped an alternative
recommendation to the Planning Commissions recommendation based upon further
research completed by staff since the August 27, 1997 Commission meeting. Staffwill
present both the Commission’s recommendation and the alternative recommendation to the
Council.
BACKGROUND
On May 12, 1997, City Council directed staff to prepare interim regulations that would
prohibit the use of garage doors on carports and to require builders to post written notice
inside the carport that advises the homeowner and potential home bu)er of the City’s
regulations. Other issues staffwas requested to research included the following:
Installation of additional planters, trellises or other similar architectural features
which were subsequently added and left the appearance of an enclosed carport or a
poorly designed garage.
Overall effect or consequences of the proposed changes.
S:]PlaNPladiv]PCSRlCarpons.sr Page 1
11-12-97
Council direction was precipitated by the construction of residences that utilized a carport
with a street facing garage door garage door instead of cdvered parking as required by the
Code. Carports are interpreted as being exempt from the FAR requirements. The garage
door constructiontechnique results in the building mass and appearance of a house with an
attached garage, but the carport did not count towards the FAR. This is regarded by many
as a loophole in the City’s single family zoning regulations.
Staffforwarded a recommendationto the Planning Commission defining a carport as follows
(see attached 8/27/97 staffreport for further explanation):
Area that is to be open on t~vo or more sides.
Requires the front of the carport (portion facing the street) to be open.
Excludes the floor area of a carport from calculation of Gross Floor Area.
The Planning Commission significantly revised staff recommendations based on design
concerns. Based upon the Planning Commissions recommendations at the August 27, 1997
meeting (see attached minutes), staff subsequently prepared proposed changes to the Code
to include the following (italicized wording denotes proposed changes):
Amendment of Section 18.04.030(a) to add the following:
(24.5) "Carport" means a covered area for the storage of an automobile or vehicle.
Amendment to Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(C) as follows:
Carports shall be excluded-from the calculation of gross floor area to a
maximum of 200 square feet per site.
Creation of new Section 18.83.105 to read as follows:
In the R-1 andRE zoning districts, the followingregulations shall apply to carports:
1. Shall have three(3) sides completely open from the structural header to
grade, with the only exception being corner supports which may extend a
maximum of 18 inches in each direction from the center of the support.
2.The side(s) of a carport facing a street must be completely open except if
carports are located at minimum of 75 feet from a street facing property
line, then one of two allowed enclosed sides can be a garage door.
3,The open sides may not be enclosed. This prohibition includes garage
doors and other Similar doors, and construction or any structures within
eight(8) fe, et of the perimeter of the carport including but not limited to
S:lPlanlPladiv!PCSRICarports.sr Page 2
11-12-97
fences," trellises; half wa!ls; lattice work; planter boxes, and fences on the
pr.operty line.
The carport roof must be separated horizontally from other roofs a
minimum of six (6)feet, except where it may be attached to the house or
accessory structure along the single enclosed wall of the carport.
There can be no area over the carport deemed by the Chief Building .
Official to be useable area.
Amendment to Section 18.88.020 as follows:
(c)(1)Residential garages, carports, and parking facilities, together with access
and circulation elements necessary thereto;
However, after the Planning Commission public hearing, planning staff completed further
research and had further discussions with the Chief Building Official, Building Inspection
Supervisor and the Building/PlanningDepartment counter personnel regarding the issue. All
of the above personnel indicated that the majority of complaints they received from the home
buyers and neighbors were that carports should be enclosed. The use of a carport to reduce
the mass and bulk was not having the desired effect in the long run because the "open"
carports, often had front facing garage doors and were utilized for storage and habitable area
which diminished the desired open effect. Furthermore, home buyers wanted carports
enclosed to increase security and conceal items stored within the area. Therefore, staff has
reevaluatedthe issue and developed a more simplified alternative recommendationto address
the issue. Staff is of the opinion, that the revised wording of the revised recommendation
still addresses all the issues identified by the Planning Comm, ission in their recommendation.
DISCUSSION
The alternate recommendationincludes a simplified definition of a carport: permits carports
as accessory uses, and counts all carports as a part of FAR requirements. To insure all
sections of the Code clearly identify these provisions, Staffrecommends specific provisions
be provided in the R-1 and R-E zoning districts requirements, accessory structures section
of the Code and the definition of"gross floor area." Staffwould note carports are applicable
as FAR requirements in all zoning districts except R-1 and R-E. Therefore, requiring
carports to satisfy FAR requirements in R-1 and .R-E zones will be consistent with other
regulations.
Staffwas initially concerned that counting carports within FAR requirements would penalize
the "Eichler" style residence which typically utilizes the carport. However, since the
S:lPlanlPladivlPCSRICarports.sr Page 3
11-12-97
Eichler’s are single story residences, the site coverage for the parcel is more limiting than the
FAR. For these residences, enclosing the carport does not add sufficient FAR to reach the
maximum allowed floor area. Staff would also note for both structural and design reasons,
it is very difficult for these residences to add a second floor. If a second floor is added, the
original residence with its carport would be required to undergo such a significant change
that there would not be any justification ,in treating them differently from other properties.
Pre-1950 houses very rarely utilized the carport concept and generally do not exceed the
maximum FAR limit. However, staffis of the opinion carports should not be encouraged on
pre-19 50 structures due to the fact they are usually not compatible with the earlier design
features. Staff’s recommendation to count carports as FAR would encourage a design that
is usually more compatible with these structures:
Typically, carports constructed since 1989 are on residences that maximized the FAR.
Carports on these residences will now be non-complying, but could be enclosed, since they
count as FAR. Staff is of the opinion, that in the long run this will have a positive effect and
will allow homeowner to fully utilize garage space for the use intended.
ALTERNATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As noted herein, Staff has developed an alternative to the Planning Commission
reconamendation based upon further research. Staff is of the opinion the revised wording
will simplify the implementation of the regulations and achieve the same outcome. Under
this alternative the following amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code) would be made (italicized wording denotes proposed changes):
Creation of a definition of a carport within Section 18.04.30, entitled "Definitions" to read
as follows:
(24.5) Carport means a portion of a principal residential building or a accessory
building to a residential use designed to be utilized for the shelter of one (1) or more
motor vehicle which is open (unenclosed) at the vehicular entry side and has no more
than two (2) sides enclosed.
Amendmentto Section 18.88.020, entitled"Accessoryuses and facilities,"to read as follows:
(c)(1)Residential garages, carports, and parking facilities, together with access
and circulation elements necessary thereto;
S :[PlanlPladivlPCSRlCarports.sr Page 4
11--12-97
Creation of a new provisions within Sections 18.12.050 and 18.10.050, entitled "Site
deve!opment regulations,"requiring carports to be counted towards floor area ratios (FAR’s)
within R-1 and R-E zoning districts to read as follows:
Carports shall be counted towards the maximum allowable floor are ratio
requirements.
Amendment to the definition of"gross floor area," Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(C), requiting
carports to be counted towards floor area ratios to read as follows:
(v)Carports shall be counted towards the maximum allowable floor are ratio
requirements.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Adoption of the carport definition and the counting of carports as FAR will not directly
impact City resources. Simplification of the interpretation of the regulations will have a
positive benefit on staff in the application of the regulations.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will change the current City policy to
require carports to be counted towards FAR requirements.
TIMELINE
Staffwill forward the Planning Commissions comments (not including the minutes given the
immediate scheduling)to the Council for consideration at the November 17, 1997 meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT _
Exempt pursuant to Guidelines Section 15303, new construction .or conversion of small
structures, in that the ordinance will modify the design standards for individual single family
homes which are already exempt from CEQA review.
ATTACHMENT
August 27, 1997 Planning Commission Memorandum
August 27, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes
S:lPlanlPladivlPCSR[Carports.sr Page 5
11-12-97
Prepared by:James E. Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official
Department Head Approval:
Kenneth R. Schreiber,
Director Of Planning and Community Environment
S:[PlanlPladivIPCSR{Carports.sr Page 6
11-12-97
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
TO:PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:Therese M. Schmidt DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA DATE: August 27, 1997
SUBJECT:CITY COUNCIL INITIATED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT:
AMENDMENTS TO PROVISIONS IN TITLE 18 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE GOVERNING CARPORTS IN SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONES.
REQUES.T/PROJE(~T DESCRIPTION
Staff requests that the Planning Commission review the proposed Zoning Text Amendment
(Attachment 1) which would 1) add a definition of "Carports," 2) amend the definition of
"gross floor area" to exclude FAR for carports in R-1 and R-E zones, 3) Amend the parking
design standards to require 2 open sides on carports in R- 1 and R-E zones, and 4) amend the
special provisions of the Municipal Code regarding accessory structures to include carports.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the
Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) be amended as follows:
Add the following definition to Section 18.04.030:
(24.5) "Carport" mea’ns a covered automobile shelter having two(2) or more
sides completely open such that fifty percent (50%) or more of the automobile
shelter, excluding the roof, is not enclosed. The completely open sides of a
carport must be open from eave line to grade and may not be enclosed in any
manner including, but not limited to: trellising, half-walls, lattice work, or
planter boxes.
Amend Section 18.04.030(65)(C) by adding the following:
(v)Carports shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area.
Amend Section 18.83 by the following:
18.83.105 Design Standards: Carports in R-1 and RE Districts
In the R-1 and R-E district, the side(s) of a carport facing a street must be
open.
Amend Section 18.88.020(C)(1) to read as follows:
Residential garages, carports, and parking facilities, together with access and
circulation elements necessary thereto;
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The following Comprehensive Plan policies and programs apply to this amendment:
Housing Element, Policy 3: "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo
Alto’s neighborhoods especially desirable." The proposed amendment would clarify
the appropriate design of carports and eliminate the current confusion between a
garage and a carport. Garage doors will no longer be allowed to be installed on the
open sides of carports. Carports will be required to maintain an open wall on the
street(s) facing side(s) which will reduce visual impact and provide for an enhanced
neighborhood appeal.
BACKGROUND/DESCRIPTION
In November of 1989, the R-1 single family regtllations were significantly revised to reduce
the deve!opmentpotential on single family lots. A significant issue at the time was the mass.
and bulk of the residences that were being constructed. In adopting the revised regulations,
the Planning Commission and City Council recognized that the inherent openness of carports
could reduce the apparent bulk and mass of residences.
Since that time it has been the policy to exempt carports from FAR calculations and to allow
up to two sides of the carport to be enclosed on the premise that the open and airy nature of
a carport has less of a Visual impact on a parcel than.a fully enclosed garage. Under the
current policy a homeowner may elect to build a carport and not have it count as floor area.
This allows the floor area to be added to the main structure. -The two sides that must be open
have not been specified.
s:\plan\plandiv\pcsr\carports 8-27-97
Page 2 "
A visual and aesthetic problem has arisen because some homeowners are electing to use
garage doors on the side facing the street as one of their two permitted enclosed sides. Once
th’e garage door is closed it is not readily apparent from the street that the structure is a
carport. As a result of the addition of the garage door, the visual mass of the structure is
increased.
On May 12, 1997, City Council directed staff to prepare an interim regulation that would
forbid the use of garage doors on carports, and further, to re, quire builders to post written
notice inside the carport that advises the home buyer of the City’s regulations. Further, that
staff address the issue and any unintended consequences of the action.
In order to address this issue and reduce the visual impact to the residential neighborhoods,
staff is .recommending the addition of the definition of carport, an amendment to the
definition of gross floor area, an amendment to the parking design standards, and amendment
to the special provisions in the zoning ordinance regarding accessory structures.
The proposed definition for carport provides explicit criteria for what Constitutes a carport
and provide a definition of what constitutes an open side. The definition will prohibit the Use
of garage doors or walls on any side of the structure facing a street. As a result, the visual
impact of the carport will be diminished. In addition, excluding carports from FAR will give
the homeowners an opportunity to either construct smaller houses if they desire a garage or
have the option to build a carport and use the FAR in the main structure.
By amending the Special Provision and Exceptions section of the Municipal Code, carports
will be considered an accessory structure and subject to the same regulations governing
accessory structures, including garages.
A consequence of these recommendations is that a variance would be required to modify the
requirement to have the street-facing side of a carport unenclosed. Thus this requirement
is not subj ect to an HIE. Other consequences may be found as the ordinance is implemented.
The City Council alg6 directed that the draft change be an interim solution and that a notice
be required to be posted inside a carport notifying a homeowner of the carport regulations.
Staff believes that the proposed ordinance is sufficient to serve until a full-scale revision of
the zoning ordinance is prepared and no further action will be necessary. In addition, staff
is concerned about the effectiveness of posting a notice and the amount of time to enforce
and monitor. Postings are not required in similar instances, such as when a parcel has
reached the maximum FAR or lot coverage. Staff recommends against including the plaque
language.
s.\plan\plandiv\pcsr\carports 8-27-97
Page 3
If the Commission or Council desires to include language requiring placement of a plaque,
staffrecommends that Section 18.83.105 be further amended as follows: "In the R- 1 and R-E
districts, the side(s) of a carport facing a street must be open. A notice no smaller than 8 ½"
x 11 shall be conspicuously posted in the carport that advises the homeowner or buyer that
carports must be left permanently open on at least two sides, including all street facing
sides.".
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact to the City will result from action on this application.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Exempt pursuant to Guidelines Section 15303, new construction or conversion of small
structures~ in that the ordinance will modify the design standards for individual sing!e family
homes,which are already exempt from CEQA review.
ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance
Prepared by:Therese M. Schmidt, Associate Planner
Division/Department Head Approval:
James E. Gilliland
Acting Chief Planning Official
s:\plan\plandiv\pcsr\carports 8-27-97
Page 4
EXCERP~ of the August 27, 1997 minuter
of the ~i?-.;~ Alto Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, August 27, 1997 at 7 p.m. in
the Council Chambers with Chairman Schink presiding. The audio recording of this meeting had
to be done from the video recording, due to equipment breakdown. Tapes are not clear, so some
inaccuracies may result.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Commissioners Beecham, Bialson, Byrd, Ojakian, Schink and Schmidt
Commissioner Cassel
StaffPresent: Sue Case, Senior Assistant City Attorney
David Docktor, City Planning Arborist
James Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment
~OMMUNICATIONS "’
Chairman’N4zhink: This is the portion of our agenda where you are allowed to speak to us on any
subject which"~ot specifically covered on the agenda, and you have five minutes to speak. We
have one speaker. ~"~ . .
John K. Abraham, 736 E~orth Place, Palo Alt0.: Basically, I have submitted a page concerning
the draft minutes, of.the July~1997 hearing on 3009 Middlefield Road. I feel that the minutes
are very fine, and I do not want ~y anything other than three corrections that I would ask to be
made before making the draft final. ~ have written on the page I handed out, the first one is on
Page. 17 at the bottom of the page, and i~ 18 in the middle of the page. The quotes are fine,
but they were~attributed to Dr. S~m. on, and’t~speaker was myself, John Abraham. That is one
correction. The second correction is at the top ~age 32, and the sentence should read, "...that
the city try its h~ject that is likel~ meet those limits" rather than "...the city
has tried its har~." In the interes’b~f accuracy, I am making these
corrections. ~ .33, Mr,.. R.od .ki~omments in the middle of the first
paragraph ~a.ta and_ tryingto un~tand them, it looked to me
from some ~~f the heights that ~. Pack recommended in his
addendum repo eight-and-a-half or~e feet would be
sufficient." That should read" may be sufficient "... . It changes the meam’n~!~,,great deal, so I am
asking that th~ctual hearing. Those~ the only
corrections I wish to ma~ T~ would consider mal~ those
changes.
Chairman Schink: Thank you for your comments. That completes Oral Communications.
A:lPCMins81PC0827.reg Page 3
CITY-COUNCIL-INITIATED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: Request to amend
Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to add the definition of"Carports," amend the
definition of "Gross Floor Area," and to clarify that carports shall not be counted in the
calculation of floor area ratio (FAR) provided that at least two sides of the structure are
completely open and that the side(s) facing the street(s) be open.
Chairman Schink: Would staff like to introduce, this item?
Jim Gi!liland: This is a council-initiated request to amend the zoning ordinance to add a
definition of carports, and in that definition of carports, to define it that at least the two street-
facing sides must be open. Essentially, this is getting at an issue regarding the mass and bulk of
some of the carports tha~t are being built with actually having garage doors towards the street.
Chaimaan Schink: I will now open the public hearing, but seeing no one who wishes to speak, I
will close the public hearing and return this to the commission. Are there questions for staff?.
Commissioner Schmidt: I have a couple of detailed, interpretive questions. The definition of
"carport" that is suggested says, "’Carport’ means a covered automobile shelter having two or
more sides completely open such that fifty percent or more of the automobile shelter, excluding
the roof, is not enclosed." I have designed carports in the past where two sides are open but have
as a corner element, a piece of wall that has dimension perhaps in both directions maybe 18
inches or two feet so that it is not supported by a simple four by four or a little steel post just to
give it more substance and make it look better. Would that be allowed under this definition?
Does the definition need to be altered a little bit to allow for design flexibility with the same
intent? Is someone at the counter going to interpret that as having to be a four by four or a steel
post and cannot do anything else there?
Mr. Gilliland: What you have described is a wall, not a post, so it would be counted as part of
the 50% that is enclosed. There was quite a bit of discussion about just such instances as that
when we were formulating this, and in fact, discussions about what is carport and whether it is
open on two or three sides. In the case you mentioned, there would have to be an equal portion
of some other part of what you are considering as the enclosed two walls that would have to be
open in order for that to occur.
Commissioner Beecham: We are talking about two walls, but as written, it says, 50%, so it could
be half of one side, the back and half of the other side, for example. Would that meet the
requirements?
Mr. Gi!!iland: No, because of the next sentence that is in there, "The completely open sides of
the carport must be open from the cave line to grade and may not be enclosed in any manner,
including, but not limited to: trellising, half-walls, lattice work or planter boxes." So you could
not have half-walls on the open sides.
A:[PCMins8[PC0827.reg Page 20
Commissioner Schmidt: I think what is being stated is going to encourage bad design. It will
encourage only one thing. Most carports are designed with two open sides, and that single little
post at the comer looks like a toothpick. As an architect, I would not want to be constrained by
just putting up a four by four or a pipe column at that comer. I would hope that we can do some
wording that would make this better.
Mr. Gilliland: We encourage you to come up with any wording that you can that would get at.
what you are trying to accomplish.
Mr. Schreiber: Whatever wording seems to be appropriate, keeping in mind that the council’s
referral was to find a way of precluding the front door so that the carport looks like a garage and
has all of the street-faclng size and visual impact of a garage. Secondly, we do not have design
review for single-family residential, so whatever you come up with will need to be clear enough
so that the technicians at the counter can quickly review plans, give advice, and hopefully not get
a lot of people pushed off into talking with the planner who may not be available that day, and
have to make an appointment and come back with all that type of delay built in. That is certainly
a frustration factor that we are trying to minimize.
Commissioner Beecham: My thought on how to solve this goes a bit further. I think the council
is certainly right to bring this issue a bit more to a head. I think our objective in tiaving carports
and in giving them some kind of benefit is the intent of reducing mass, the sense of mass in front
of a house. I think that no matter how we write these things for a carport, you get mass. You get
a structure; you get a roof, you get it filled up with stuff or crap one way or the other. In my
garage, there is crap. IfI don’t have the four walls, it is still crap there. It is not attractive. I
think we are going to a lot of effort to try and give people some benefit to save some FAR and to
reduce mass a little bit, but what we wind up’ does not look attractive and is not a benefit to the
neighborhood in general, and especially if you build a carport at the front of a house, it is ugly. I
would rather have a garage: frankly, because at least that way, you have a finished front to it as
opposed to a forever open facility full of all the storage that goes in there and not normally a car.
So I would go a ways and only, in fact, give FAR benefits to a carport that is at the rear of the lot.
In that case, I would probably modify Item v on Page 3 of the ordinance to specify location, and
also to add in here a benefit for a garage at the back of a lot if we don’t have it in some other
place. In that case, I don’t think it is quite so important how we define how the two sides go,
because the basic intent is that you put it at the back of the facility altogether.
Mr. Gilliland: One of the things we did discuss around your concern Was to reduce the
percentage from 50% to 47% or something to account for that wall. We ended up not making
that as a recommendation because we can all imagine the loopholes that that will create, and
developers find them very easily. That was an option that we did talk about.
Commissioner Byrd: Since one of the council’s primary concerns was the appearance of
massing caused by a garage door on the front of a carport, why did you choose not to call out in
the definition or in the later language that very issue, and prohibit enclosing the wall of the
A:[PCMins81PC0827.reg Page 21
carport that faces the street? Or am I misunderstanding council’s intent?
Mr. Gilliland: We have called for the open sides of the carport, the street-facing sides of the
carport, to be open.
Commissioner Schmidt: It is difficult to legislate design, as we can all tell. I would not be in
favor of Bern’s suggestion saying_that all carports are ugly and all carports have to be in the .
back if they are not going to count, and the same with garages. It depends on what neighborhood
.it is in. In my neighborhood and in Bern’s neighborhood, we would want them in the back. In
other neighborhoods, that may not be necessary. In that case, I would certainly want to be able
to have something that would allow for a well designed carport. I understand the problems with
developers, or with certain people (I don’t want to use that word) who would find loopholes, out-
of-town developers, insensitive developers finding loopholes around this. I think this is a bad
idea to state it the way it is stated. Can people go through an HIE to get a design difference at
the corner? Does there have to be a variance to get any sort of design change?
Mr. Gilliland: One of the things that the council asked us to do in putting this together was to
look at the unintended consequences. By definition, that is hard to do, but one that we do know
is that where we had to put these definitions and make She recommendations that wehave, it
would not subject the carport openness to an HIE. It does have to go through a variance process.
Believe me, we tried to get it into where it could go through that. This was an assignment from
council for us to do this very quickly on an interim basis. With our ordinance, you never do
anything quickly and easily. We have done what we can to address the problem as best we can.
There are certainly going to be issues like yours that will come up during the Process.
Commissioner Beecham: Kathy, I am not intending to ban carports in the front, but just not give
them the advantage of an FAR benefit. To me, the traditional carport is four poles and a roof:
That is what I tend to imagine. If it at all helps your concern, and if it is where the commission
would want to go, I will work on a motion that would say "A carport with no walls in the front
can get an FAR benefit. A carport on the back of a lot with two walls can get an FAR benefit."
Maybe even a garage in the back gets some benefit up to a certain limit.
Commissioner Schmidt: Again, I think that making statements like those might encourage all
kinds of designs that we are no.t intending. Four poles and a roof in front of the house does not
look beautiful in my mind’s eye.
Commissioner Beecham: I agree. I am just trying to get at something that satisfies the concern
that you have, otherwise, I would not do that.
Chairman Schink: Bern raises a good point, and it is the real challenge that we face in
considering this ordinance. Essentially, what this ordinance is saying is that currently, people are
putting garage doors on carports on the front of houses, creating more mass or the appearance of
mass than the ordinance was intending. So we are going to take those doors away and force
A:[PCMins81PC0827.reg Page 22
them to put a carport on the front of these expensive new million-dollar houses and see if they
can still sell them for a million dollars. We are not going to force you, if you want to try to use
this loophole to make this house really, really ugly. UnfortunatelY, I think that there are enough
people doing enough bad houses that all we are going to end up with, or are very likely to end up
with, are a lot of really ugly carports, spindly little carports now supported by one steel post on a
comer supporting an enormous amount of mass so that we are actually going to go backwards.
People are going to be saying to us, how in the world can you have these av, fful looking houses.
that are teetering on top of these carports? We may end up in a worse situation. I like the idea of
the incentive of telling someone they can have a garage and not count the FAR in the back, or put
a garage door on it, and maybe give people some incentive flit is 75 feet from the street to build
back there. But if we do not allow that, or if we do not think that is a sufficient incentive, I think
the ordinance should be crafted to suggest that it cannot be considered a carport if it is supporting
a living structure above. I don’t know if you can do that, but I believe the Menlo Park zoning
ordinance is written in that way, that anything that supports a living structure up above is counted
as FAR. At least, that will get away from these houses are built with a lot of mass over the
carport.
Commissioner Beecham: Acfually, there is a house that went up this past summer that is built
exactly like that. They just carved out two walls from where the garage would be. They have a
structure above it, and they say, this is a carport so it does not count. There is no benefit to the
neighborhood like that.
Mr. Schreiber: Just a little bit of history to keep in mind. When this issue was wrestled with
back in 1987-88-89, and the city’s single-family family regulations were adopted in 1989, the
concern was that in South Palo Alto, a traditional development style included carports. The
proposal originally was that carports would be treated as garages and would be counted as FAR.
There were any number of people in the public process who were concerned that this would be
unfairly penalizing South Palo Alto houses that have carports. As the commission moves toward
taking an action, beware of the unintended consequence of sticking people who already have a
carport as we generally think of a carport into a nonconforming or noncomplying situation,
causing them problems.
.Commissioner Beecham: And how do people normally think ofa.carport?
Mr. Schreiber: I think the mental image of a carport is an Eichler, a single-story Eichler, where
the carport has one side, generally, which is the side of the house, and ~he rest is open. That is
the mental image that I think was very present in the process ten years ago. So my caution is that
as you think about how to treat carports, remember that the rules can also apply to existing
situations. You do not want to end up creating problems for a lot of existing houses with
carports when those homeowners come in for remodeling or modifications.
Chairman Schink: I am wondering what staffs reaction would be if we went at this in a little
different direction and tried to attack it by saying, if it supports living space, it must be counted
A:[PCMinsS[PC0827.reg Page23
as FAR. Do you see any problems with that?
Mr. Schreiber: The council’s concern very clearly was the presence of a garage door having
several impacts. One is that for all intents and purposes from the street, it is the same as a
garage. Secondly, once you have the garage door, it really would tend to facilitate people’s
feeling that they could enclose, over time, the other walls that have been left open to create the
carport. There are examples in town of individuals who put the garage in front, put a moveable
half wall in back, a tool storage container or something like that, moveable but it looks like a half
wall. It is a clear invitation to say, okay, we have a front, we have one wall, now all we have to
do is just enclose the top four feet or so above our tool storage building or shed, and suddenly,
we have an enclosed garage. With the front door such as it is, doing that and not calling attention
to it (and the city does not have a proactive code enforcement effort) is much easier than having a
regulation that says you cannot have a front door, and then adding a front door. That becomes
pretty obvious if you do that.
Mr. Gilliland: I would also add that in trying to decide what is over the carport that would make
the carport be counted as FAR, is there a certain percentage? If it is set halfway back in the
carport, is that okay? If it is a closet that is up above it that only has a five-foot height, then is
that okay? We would face those issues on a regular basis.
Commissioner Beecham: Taking into account Ken’s note of concern for some of the older areas
with true carports, let me offer a wording for this Item v on Page 3 of the ordinance which is
grayed. "Carports with three open walls or carports located within three feet of the rear of lot
line or a minimum of 75 feet from the front lot line (in case you have a very deep lot) shall be
excluded from the calculation.of gross floor area." So it does three things. One is that it says, if
you have what I would call a true carport with three open walls, at least you can have that
anyplace. If you have two open walls, it’s got to be in the back, or at least 75 feet from the front
lot line. Now the definition of carports will be a little bit different.
Ms. Case: Can I ask you for a clarification? One of your phrases was, "located within three feet
of the rear lot?" Or are you speaking of farther than three feet from the rear lot? Or have I
totally misunderstood what you said?
Commissioner Beecham: No, that is what I said, and maybe it is an assumption that it is difficult
to put it right on the rear lot, but you can put it more easily within three feet, or is that difficult,
too? I want to get it as far back as possible.
Commissioner Schmidt: I believe that for something to be considered an accessory building, it
has to be 75 feet from the front anyway, so I think you could eliminate the 3-foot requirement.
Ms. Case: That seems to be sort of a non sequitur.
Chairman Schink: I like Bern’s addition, but I still think we need to come up with some
A:lPCMins81PC0827.reg Page 24
language to address Kathy’s previous point. We just cannot have these carports sitting on
spindly little posts. So we must come up with a bit of an exception to allow for some comer
treatments.
Commissioner Schmidt: When you were considering the wording here, did you consider
anything like "A comer support can be 18 inches wide in both directions"? Anything like that,
and it then becomes a wall?
Mr. Gilliland: Yes, we talked about it, and the short answer is that no, we did not consider it,
because every time you put in an exception, it creates the problems. Trying to deal with what is
now a comer wall? How wide is it? What is it made out of?. You really are getting into a design
review issue, not the definition of what is a carport.
Commissioner Beecham: How would one interpret the difference between a four-inch metal pipe
as a comer versus some more built-up structure and still say that it is only a comer?
Mr. Gilliland: I think the analogy of saying a four by four pole is fairly accurate. That is
probably what we would consider as the comer support.
Commissioner schmidt: That might not even work very well structurally these days with
seismic requirements.
Mr. Gilliland: And the caution I would give you is exactly what we are going through right now
is what the counter personnel would have to do if you put anything in there. We will have to
deal with what that comer support is when it does come up, and we will. We will be making
interpretations as to what it is, but you used a dimension of 18 inches, and I assume 18 inches
down either side. That, to me, gets into a wall.
Commissioner Schmidt: But you would still have to get the car in from the front.
Mr. Gilliland: And nothing in from the side. I am just trying to be very cautious about what we
do in defining this definition of a carport.
.Commissioner Schmidt: I am trying to be very cautious about encouraging even worse design,
as well as more square footage. It is very hard to legislate.
Commissioner Byrd: It seems to me that if the definition, as written, presumes at least the
minimum number of inches on each of those open sides required bY the building code for
structural integrity, then we can call out in the definition what that width should be. So even if
we go with the staff suggestion, it ought to call out four inches or something like that. Then the
policy question is, can we call out 12" or 18" or something else that does not create an
administrative headache but still allows for some sort of reasonable architectural treatment at the
comer.
A:lPCMins8[PC0827.reg Page 25
Commissioner Schmidt: I am going to suggest that we change it to: "Comer support can extend
18 inches in either direction, and the rest must remain open." It is just comer support, and it still
means that the rest of each side must be open.
Commissioner Beecham: Would you state it again please?
Commissioner Schmidt: I would say that the definition of a carport is that "The comer support
can extend 18 inches in both directions on the open sides."
.Commissioner Byrd: Kathy, should we define that comer to be the comer where the two open
sides meet?
Commissioner Schmidt: Yes.
Chairman Schink: And in saying that, those 18 inches then do not count.
Mr. Gilliland: Yes, if you put something like that in there, that would definitely be the
interpretation that that does not count toward the wall.
.Commissioner Beecham: For example, if here is the front of your garage, and you have a wall
here along the back, and then you put an 18-inch comer on either side here, you will want 18
inches over here, as well. Otherwise, it will look very strange.
Commissioner Byrd: It is creeping towards an enclosure.
Commissioner Beecham:. And it is going to look like it is enclosed, except that they do not have
a door. To me, that is getting away from what a carport is.
Mr. Gilliland: IfI could make a suggestion, since we have had a lot of these conversations, I
think the better way to do it, if you really want something like this, is to reduce the percentage.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, let’s reduce the percentage.
Commissioner Beecham: When you talk about percentage of walls, if you just extend the roof,
then you get more wall space to enclose, and the neighborhood is not getting any benefit out of
it. This is a sticky wicket. There is not a good definition, and putting architectural design aside,
to me, a carport has four-inch tube comers, and that is all there is to a carport. I would continue
to support that here if there is any kind of consensus on that. Also, we need to address Jon’s
concern earlier about what should be a prohibition on any kind of second-story space above the
carport.
Commissioner Schrnidt: Jon was earlier suggesting 15% of a side, of either side, or maybe a
side, to be able to be c!osed off for support. I think that might be a reasonable way to go.
A:[PCMinsSIPC0827.reg Page 26
Commissioner Beecham: So two sides must be 85% unenclosed, basically, is what that means.
That certainly would enable you to have some architectural comet; post.
Commissioner ,Schmidt: And each carport space has to be a minimum size, I believe, 8-½ by 18
feet?
Mr. Gilliland: Yes. I did not follow the 15%.
Commissioner Schmidt: Up to 15% of both sides can be enclosed from the domer.
Mr. Gilliland: IfI can suggest, you are getting very complicated. Why not just say that instead
of 50% must be open --
Chairman Sehink: Forty-two and a half percent.
Mr. Gilliland: What that does allow is that the one open side can have all of it. We were not
going down to 42-1/2%. That is much more than we would have given away on it.
Commissioner Beecham: I think the way the numbers work, if you look at Page 1 of the
ordinance, Section 24.5, "Carport means a covered automobile shelter having two sides 85%
open such that 42.5% or more of the automobile shelter, excluding the roof, is not enclosed." I
think those numbers are consistent with your point.
Chairman Schink: Great.
Commissioner Beecham: And I would add to the bottom of this that "There can be no second-
floor Space overhead."
Commissioner Schmidt: That would be a good addition.
Commissioner Beecham: Are those the right terms?
Co.mmissioner Schmidt: Or no habitable space?
Commissioner Beecham: Or even uninhabitable space with attic, with basically no second story.
Mr. Gilliland: I think you need to limit it to habitable living space.
Chairman Schink: Jim, if you prohibit anything over 12 feet above a carport, if there is structure
above 12 feet above a carport, then the space below has to be counted as FAR.
Commissioner Beecham: What you want is in case there is a different roof line on the carport?
A:lPCMinsSIPC0827.reg Page 27
Chairman Schink: The 12 feet allows for a normal roof over a carport but prohibits any other
space above it.
Mr. Gilliland: Would it be sufficient, Jon, to get a slope all the way from the front to the back of
a normal carport? My concern is that again, we are getting into unintended consequences, and
when somebody is designing it and they are putting on a sloped roof to match the rest of the
house, I am not sure that 12 feet allows you to get there.
Commissioner Schmidt: I think that the habitable space limitation might be sufficient.
Mr. Gilliland: In general, habitable living space would limit it to something less than five feet in
height, inside dimensions.
Commissioner Beecham: So at the end of Section 24.5, "There shall be no habitable space over
the carport" or "overhead."
Commissioner Byrd: My concern about the use of the wording "habitable space" is that if you
are creating substantial storage space above the carport, it may not be habitable, but it is the kind
of use that would typically count towards your FAR. So"habitable" may be too narrow.
Commissioner Beecham: I think it is conceivable that that could happen, but I think this is
probably going to take care of 99% of the problems that we foresee with this. Possibly someone
could do an unfinished attic over a garage, but it is probably not so likely.
Commissioner Schmidt: Isn’t the definition that it is habitable if it reaches a certain height
inside? You cannot just say this is a storage room and have a 15-foot square bedroom that you
are calling storage.
Mr. Gilliland: Yes, that is correct. What I need to look through is to see exactly what the
language is that we use in the other parts. There is a height limitation where it begins to be
called living space, and where it is not. It is either five foot 6 or five foot 5, somewhere in there.
I would have to check on that. We will have to come back with this,to you in any case.
Mr. Schreiber: What I would really hope is that the commission can set a direction tonight, make
a recommendation to the council, and then we may have to come back with cleaned up wording,
etc. But there is certainly a strong desire on the part of others to try and get this to the council as
an interim measure until some future time in the next couple of years when we redo the zoning
ordinance.
Chairman Schink: I think we have everyone’s issue addressed.
Commissioner Beecham: Except for the issue of how to allow carports where they truly are the
traditional carport and they are up front, but they have essentially three or even four open sides
A:lPCMins8[PC0827.reg Page 28
versus having the kind of carport we are talking about tonight such that it must be on the rear of
the lot. Again, on Page 3, Item v, the wording I would think of there is, "Carports with perhaps
70% open walls would have no limitation on location." Then "Carports as defined must be 75
feet from the front lot line." Does that make sense?
Chairman Schink: It sounds fine to me. -
Commissioner Beecham: For example, it might read, "Carports with open walls of at least 70%
shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area. Carports for definitions otherwise
located at a minimum of 75 feet from the front lot line shall be excluded from the calculation of
gross floor area."
Commissioner Bialson: I think we need to address in Section 24.5 the other completely open
sides referenced in the second sentence of that section. ,The completely open sides of a carport
must be open from cave line..." Don’t you think we need to strike the word "completely" there,
as well? Also, on Page 3, we have Section 18.83.105 where we again say, "must be open". I
think that once we fiddle with what we want the definition of "open" to be, we must be
consistent throughout, or somehow reference back to it. This is the third highlighted item on
Page 3 which says, "In the R-1 and Re districts, the side(s) ofa carpog facing a street must be’
open." If we do have the comer support able to come out somewhat, which is what we are
aiming for, I don’t know if"open" is going to be read the same way there. Or do we reference it
back?
Commissioner Beecham: Well, we can put "85% open at that location."
Commissioner Bialson: That would be fine.
Commissioner Beecham: And on Section 24.5, I think the way staff has it about open from the
eave line refers from the top down. I suspect that does not change what we have done tonight so
far.
Commissioner Bialson: I think that it says "the completely open sides." Once we fiddle with
percentages, we must be consistent.
Co.mmissioner Beecham: So in that case also, "completely" changes to 85%?
Commissioner Bialson: I think so. Does staffread that as being understandable? A snort does
not count as a response. All I am saying is, maybe you do not say the 85% repeatedly, but
somehow reference it back or in some way be consistent in what we have defined as "open."
Mr. Gilliland: I think it is not necessary to do it in Section 18.83.105, because what you are
referring to there is the definition of"carport." So I think that if we get it squared away under the
definition, of"carport," then we are okay with the other sections that reference what a carport is
A:lPCMins8[PC0827,reg Page 29
and what sides must be open.
Commis’sioner Bialson: You do not feel that the term "open" is going to be questioned?
Mr. Gilliland: No.
Mr. Gilliland: Sue Case says that she agrees with you that we have not defined. "open" so we.
should put it back there, as well.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you, Sue.
Commissioner Schmidt: Also, we might want ~o think about back in the Section 24.5 definition,
where we are saying it must be open from the cave line to grade, you might want to say "the
structural header" or something like that. The cave implies the edge of the roof, and you will
need to have something supporting the cave.
Mr. Schreiber: Your use of"header" or perhaps "structural header" would be fine.
Commissioner Beecham: I would like to try and wrap this up in a motion, if you are ready.
Commissioner Schmidt: I have one more concern here. Maybe it is an area that we are
excluding. I have designed carports that are a single space, open on two sides, but have storage
on two other sides. The building is called a carport and is free-standing. Would you exclude all
of the square footage in that, even if it had 200. square feet of storage, or would you want to say
that you are excluding the open automobile space from the calculation?
Mr. Gilliland: Quite honestly, I think I would have to see a drawing. I don’t believe I can follow
that well enough here to give you the determination that I would have to make at the counter.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. I can giv~ you something to think about later, or I can show you
a plan. I can draw you something right now. Would you like to think about it later and decide if
that should be refined?
Mr. Gilliland: Please give me the description again.
Commissioner Schmidt: It is simply a carport, what I would call a carport structure, that has a
comer on it that is 18 inches in either direction, with’ a couple of little storage rooms. It is not
unlike for the people who came to my home a few weeks ago. I actually have a garage and a
carport and storage.
Commis.sioner Bialson: Are you talking about closets?
Commissioner Schmidt: Yes, they are storage rooms.
A:lPCMins8[PC0827.reg Page 30
Mr. Gilliland: If they are storage rooms, and it is not a parking facility for the car, then it is
probably going to be floor area.
Commissioner Schmidt: I have just handed you a plan, and it is called a carport.
Mr. Gil!iland: It looks like floor area to me.
Ms. Case: Are you describing more or less what Ken was describing about somebody who does ’
something to make it look somewhat like a wall, and then, it is an easy thing to do to make it a
wall?
Commissioner Schmidt: No. This is built as with two two by fours and stucco and plywood. It
gives some substance to what could have been a little spindly building. All I would suggest is
that we check the definition to exclude just the open space that the car Occupies and not exclude
that storage area.
Mr. Schreiber: Clearly, the storage area in the drawing would count as square footage.
Commissioner Schmidt: Yes, and I think it should.
Chairman Schink: I have another question for staff so that we address some of the "unintended
consequences," getting your impression of whether we could have an exemption for carports
constructed prior to 1970 so that we would not be drawing into the web all of the Eichler homes
with these changes. When someone has an Eichler who proposes a renovation, and the architect
calculates their square footage, and their carport is enclosed in too much area so that it takes
away from their FAR, they come along and say, well, we might as well put a garage door on this
carport because it is counting against us anyhow with this current ordinance. But if we were to
exempt all carports built prior to 1970, we would not catch the Eichler carports in the web of this
ordinance. It would allow them more flexibility in remodeling.
Mr. Schreiber: What staff is struggling with is, what part of this is now getting them caught?
C.ommissioner Beecham: I think that if they kept the traditional carport in the Eichler tradition, it
still has three sides open. If they have begun to enclose it, then that is a different problem. What
it means is that they either reopen it, allowing them to build elsewhere, or they enclose it
altogether, as you say.
Mr. Gilliland: In our discussions in looking at this, that was one of the reasons that we did not
go to the three sides, because it was felt that with most of the Eichlers, there are some with two
sides of the carport that are enclosed..That is why we stuck with the definition of two sides,
because we did not want to capture them in this definition. We may be missing some that have
more than two sides enclosed, but I think that with your 85%, they are probably covered, as well.
Again, it may be unintended consequences, but I do not see this definition creating a problem for
A:lPCMinsSIPC0827.reg Page 31
any of the Eichler homes that currently have carports. We would still not count them in FAR.
Chairman Schink: I have a recollection that more of the Eichlers are enclosed on three sides.
There is one section that is kind of a walkway. You see a lot more of the remodel plans so you
are probably more familiar with them. I am going back a long time. This is just something to
ponder if the issue comes forward in the future.
Mr. Gilliland: That may be one of the things that will come up. I will certainly read it and will
put it into the record that our intent was not to include the standard Eichler carports in this
definition and that the carports would be exempt from FAR.
Chairman Schink: Are we ready for a motion?’
Commissioner Beecham: I would be ready for a motion as long as Kathy’s last issue is covered
otherwise.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would just ask staff to look at that to make sure that things are clear.
Mr. Schreiber: Again, the issue you refer to is having a carport, and attached to the carport
would be additional, enclosed space. And that enclosed space is the back, the sides, whichever
two sides had walls, and would clearly count as floor area.
MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: In that case, I move the staff recommendation with the
following changes: In Section 24.5, the definition shall read, "’Carport’ means a covered
automobile shelter having two (2) sides at least 85% open such that 42.5% or more of the
automobile shelter, excluding the roof, is not enclosed. The 85% open sides of the carport must
be open from the structural header to grade, and it may not be enclosed in any manner, including
but not limited to, trellising, half walls, lattice work or planter boxes. There can be no habitable
s_pace overhead."
Mr. Gilliland: We want to change that to "areas deemed useable by the chief building official".
Commissioner Beecham: Okay.
Mr. Gilliland: That is some language we have in there otherwise. Also, staff would like to go
back and at least look at where that might should be located, rather than in the definition. It may
end up in the definition, but I would like to see if there is a better place for it.
Commissioner Beecham: Okay. To continue, on Page 3, Item v, "Carports with three walls 85%
or more open shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area. Carports with less than
three walls 85% open and located a minimum of 75 feet from the front lot line shall be excluded
from the calculation of gross floor area."
A:IPCMins81PC0827.reg Page 32
Ms. Case: Would you repeat that last phrase again?
Commissioner Beecham: It is basically two sentences, and the difference is that the first
sentence specifies carports with three walls 85% or more open. The second sentence specifies
carports with less than three walls 85% open and located a minimum of 75 feet from the front lot
line.
Ms. Case: I assume that it could actually be located farther back and be more open, as well as
less open.
Commissioner Beecham: That is correct.
Ms. Case: Hopefully, we can play with this a little.
Commissioner Beecham: Certainly.
Mr. Gilliland: Help me a minute with this. If you are talking about more than three walls 85%
open, wouldn’t that already be covered by the definition of"carport" but then not count as FAR?~ -..
I think the issue you are trying to get to is for carports located 75 feet back..
Commissioner Beecham: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Gilliland: I think that is what you have done before.
Commissioner Beecham: I have already specified the second sentence. You are correct.
Chairman Schink: Is that your motion?
Commissioner Beecham: Yes, that is my motion. No, I am sorry, the lawyer’s conclusion was
that just below, "In the R-1 and RE districts, the side(s) of a carport facing a street must be 85%
open."
Mr. Schreiber: Would be "at least 85%"?
Commissioner Beecham: Yes.
Chairman Schink: Is there a second to the motion?
SECOND: By Commissioner Bialson.
Chairman Schink: As a point of clarification, Bern, was it your intent that you could then put a
garage door on a carport that is ,75 feet back from the street?
A:[PCMins8]PC0827.reg Page 33
Commissioner Beecham: No. After this motion, we might want to consider giving an
exemption to garages on the back lot line, as well, but I did not want to include that in the carport
issue.
Mr. Schreiber: Commissioner Beecham, did you decide to drop the second sentence from Item
v?
Commissioner Beecham: No. On the second sentence, I was only going to delete the part about
85%, because that was an over specification.
Commissioner Schmidt: So how does Item v read?
Mr. Schreiber: Yes, that is what we are wondering about.
Commissioner Beecham: "Carports with three walls 85% or more open shall be excluded from
the calculation of gross floor area. Carports located a minimum of 75 feet from the front lot line
shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area."
Mr. Gilliland: Forgive me, but I do not understand why we are doing this, because you have
already defined "carport."
Commissioner Beecham: I want to do two things. The first one says, if you have a carport with
even fewer walls, that is, you have three open walls, basically, you can be anywhere and get your
FAR exemption. If you have only two open walls, you must be 75 feet from the front lot line.
MS. Case: What Jim is saying is that if you fall under the definition of"carport" that we have
given, you do not uninclude it in gross floor area anyway. What you have perhaps done is to
have made it worse for carports, rather than better.
Commissioner Byrd: Can I speak to this? Your intent is clear, but I don’t believe it is executed
by that second sentence. It is already defined as something that does not count in FAR,
regardless of where it is.
Commissioner Beecham: It is only defined right here in Item v, correct?
Commissioner Byrd: No. You are using the word that is defined previously here.
Ms. Case: Actually, Bern, your new wording here under Section v would probably allow Jon,
otherwise, except that you use the word "carport," to put a garage door on the front.
Commissioner Beecham: But below that, you still have the limitation that the side facing the
street must be 85% open.
A:lPCMins81PC0827.reg Page 34
Ms. Case: Yes, I understand, except I think what everyone is getting at is that if you continue to
use the word "carport," you are not gaining anybody anything, even if they are located that far
back. The word "carport" is already defined without reference to where it is located on the lot.
Commissioner Beecham: Yes, so what I am doing it is that I am limiting it. In Section 24.5, we
define a carport. Right?
Ms....Case: Yes, so what you are saying is that any carport is -- you are doing it a little
backwards. You are saying that carports have to be considered as floor area. Okay, I was
missing your point.
Mr. Schreiber: But that is a different modification of the first sentence in Item v.
Ms. Case: It is somewhat writing it backwards.
Commissioner Beecham: Read it the way it was before and let me hear what it sounds like.
Mr. Schreiber: Perhaps the intent is to say that carports shall be excluded from the calculation of
gross floor area if they are located 75 feet from the front property line. Is that the intent?
Commissioner Beecham: Yes, that is the basic intent. And it is also to provide an exclusion for
a carport with at least three open sides. It can be anywhere on the lot.
Ms....Case: It might be better expressed if you put it in a more forward manner, saying that it
otherwise will be --
Commissioner Beecham: If staff understands my intent and if the commission understands my
intent, I am happy to have staff write it correctly.
Mr. Gilliland: I am not sure that I do, because the way I would interpret what you were giving us
at that time is that unless the carport had three walls with 85% or more open, it is going to count
as gross square footage.
C.om~nissioner. Beecham: That is correct, unless it is also at least 75 feet from the front lot line.
That is my intent.
Chairman Schink: And are you saying that if it is 75 feet from the street, it only has to have two
sides open?
Commissioner..Beecham: It then can meet the minimum requirements of a previous page. If it is
closer than 75 feet, then there is a tighter requirement. That is to make sure we do not catch
many of the people with the preexisting, traditional carports.
A:[PCMins8]PC0827.reg Page 35
Chairman Schink: We have a motion and second which I will not try to repeat. It is important
that staff understands it.
Commissioner Beecham: Staff should read it back to ensure that I have been clear.
Chairman Schink: That is what Ken is going to give us.
Mr.... S.chreiber: I was trying to get your attention, but not to do that. Before you vote, there is
something else in the staff report that I do want to highlight for you, as it was part of the council
referral which staff did not include in the ordinance. I want to at least acknowledge it in the
record.
Commissioner Schmidt: Before you go on to that, I would like to say that in the discussion we
just had, would we want to go back to the definition? Or did we say in the definition that it is an
automobile shelter having at least two sides, where we said 85% open? The way it was was just
two sides. Does that then lead more to what Bern was saying, that it could be more open and still
be a carport? Or did we already state it that way?
Commissioner Beecham: That second line altogether reads two sides at least 85% open such that
42.5% or more is not enclosed. Does that get to what you were thinking about?
Commissioner Schmidt: It does say "two or more sides." As you work through this, I am sure
you will get it worked out.
Chairman Schink: Let me ask a procedural question. It sounds like there is enough confusion
with the exact language here. Since we have a minimal agenda on September 11, could you
bring this back and have a second reading on it?
Commissioner Beecham: Or alternatively, we could take a 10-minute break and staff can work
their little fingers to the bone.
Chairman Schink: Either way.
Mr. Gilliland: I hate to put it this way, but we need to ask you if you know what you are doing.
I want to make this very clear. The way I- am interpreting what is being done (and I think I am
correct in this and this is the way we would write it if we came back with it) is that you are
defining carports as being open on two or more sides, with some things in there to allow a post at
the comer. That is defining a carport. But what you are doing in the other section is then saying
that in order for that carport not to count in FAR, it needs to be more of a carport. It not only has
to have two sides open and can havea post somewhere, it now has to have three sides open, and.
the 85%, and including the front open, and also including 75 feet back. If there is a clear
understanding that that is where you are, then we can do it. Staff would support you on that.
A:lPCMins81PC0827.reg Page 36
Commissioner Beecham: Aside from the 85% and so forth, the basic definition is how many
sides are enclosed. If a garage has three sides open and one side enclosed, it can be anywhere.. If
it has two sides open and two sides closed, it must be 75 feet back.
Mr. Gilliland: That is fine. The only thing is that it is kind of a backwards way to go about it,
and I would question why we have a definition of"carport" that does anything different. The
definition of "carport" is in there for the purpose of defining what the floor area is and .whether.or
not it is going to count as floor area. By changing it in the back and saying what floor area is, the
carport definition does not have a real reason for being there. That will become confusing to
people who go through the ordinance.
Commissioner Beecham: In that case, I am happy to amend my motion in order for staff to take
the intent of what we have said and craft it in a subtly worded, superbly clear ordinance.
Chairman. Schink: Is that acceptable to the seconder?
Commissioner Bialson: Yes, it is.
Commissioner Schmidt: Excuse me for interrupting, but Ken was trying to tell us something.
Mr. Schreiber: Before you vote, I do want to highlight a paragraph on Page 3 of the staffreport
which notes that part of the City Council motion was to have a notice to be posted inside the
carport to notify the homeowner of the carport regulations. Staff did not include that in the
ordinance. We felt that it would be really very difficult to enforce and monkor. There are a lot
of regulations for which one then might make the argument that they should also be posted. So
we did not include it in the "plaque laying" in the ordinance, but I wanted to highlight that,
because it was part of the council motion. If you disagree with staff, we can come back and add
some wording into the ordinance to do that.
Commissioner Beecham: I was intending to agree with staffon that to not include the plaque, It
would be impossible to enforce it, as you say, and people will tend to want to put lattices and
other things out, but I don’t know how we will prevent that from happening. That is why I want
the carports to be in the back as much as possible, because I think it will happen.
Chairman..Schink: I would like to comment that I, for one, would prefer the plaque language. It
provides some of us Who try to do it right some protection for users two or three down the line
that the person we handed it off to and said, you are not supposed to enclose this thing, and they
conveniently forget when they sell it to the next person after they have enclosed it, and those of
us who are the people who built it in the first place look like we were the bad guys. So I, for one,
would prefer the posting.
Commissioner Beecham: Over the years, I can see that, too. I can imagine people moving in
here that have no history saying, oh, why don’t I do this, and they have no idea that they should
A:]PCMins81PC0827.reg Page 37
not do it.
Commissioner Schmidt: Wouldn’t people just take the plaque down?
Chairman Schink: With disclosure laws being what they are today, once people are put on
notice, it is different when it is there in writing as opposed to our coming forward and telling
them that they should not do it.
Commissioner Schrnidt: I am wondering if that is something that would be revealed in the
disclosure when that person sellstheir home.
Commissioner Byrd: I would agree with staff on this point just because if you are going to
create a plaque requirement on this one, it opens up a Pandora’s Box of what other issues should
also be posted in order for notice to be given to buyers or owners. We might want to look at that
issue structurally rather thanin an ad hoc way if we decided we wanted to pursue posting. It
Seems to me to be hasty to just apply it here without thinking where else it might have impacts.
Chairman Schink: After hearing my fellow commissioners’ comments, I guess the prudent thing
for the responsible developer to do is to simply post it himself. Then some of us are covered.
Mr. Gilliland: That way, we do not have to add a phrase that says, "Do not remove under penalty
of law."
Commissioner .Ojakian: I am in a quandary between whether I am going to vote for the notion or
not vote for the motion. I guess the reason why I feel that way is that sometimes in our haste to
make policy, for whatever reasons we have to do that, we are not always as clear on what it is we
are doing. To me, when we are doing text amendments like this, my preference is to maybe have
¯ something like a workshop or a study session initially so you can hash through a little bit of what
the actual cases would look like as opposed to tonight where Kathy throws out a slight variation
on something and asks,, does this apply or not apply. So my preference would be, when we do
these text amendments, that we actually lay out a few live examples and see what we really end
up with, and maybe compare that against what we actually have out there. Those are’ my
thoughts.
Commissioner Beecham: Well, I don’t think this is in much haste. This is an interim regulation.
The intent of an interim regulation is to take a good first swipe at it, which is what I think we are
doing. Staff will hopefully improve the language we have here and let it go to council. Also,
this is not hasty in that we have had this condition building for about eight years, ever since we
did the R-1 downzoning in 1989. We have seen what happens, and over the eight years, we now
see we have a small correction to make.
Mr. Schreiber: As Jim just observed to me, the direction in which the commission is heading
will now include almost every Eichler carport in the definition of floor area. For many of them,
A:]PCMins8]PC0827.reg Page 38
if they are not open on three sides, they will become part of the floor area.
Chairman Schink: That leads to my next comment. I think that when you take this to the
council, you will need to be able to answer the question, how do you exempt pre- 1970 or pre-
1968 homes? I think that was about the last of the Eichlers. Actually there were some built in
1974, but I really think that that solves your problem.
Commissioner Beecham: And what I was doing was relying on what I thought I heard staff
indicating which was that those carports were "traditional" and if that is an appropriate
interpretation, then I was not wanting to do that. As I recall in the R-1 zoning, what we tried to
do if we wanted to limit something was to take it down to about the 90th percentile, and not
make too many things therefore illegal. I was assuming that that is right. If we are missing this,
then Vic, I fall back to your point, which is, let’s not go forward in haste if we have a substantial
issue here on what is really out there in the neighborhoods,. If we have uncertainty there, then I
think we need to find out, and the intent of what I would want to do is to help ensure that new
carports are not in the front yard, basically. But if we cannot do that without making a lot of
other carports change status, then we have a different problem.
Mr. Schreiber: This was an interim measure. This was a simple assignment. This was to go and
write a simple regulation to amend the zoning ordinance. I don’t think staffhas the time, nor is it
part of the scope of this work to go out and start surveying which parts of the community to
calculate the number of existing carports that are caught by a regulation versus not caught by it.
I would strongly recommend that you go back to the initial staff recommendation. You either
vote yes or no and send it on to the council.
Commissioner .Ojakian: Then let me ask a question offmy other comments that I guess I did not
bring up. When we talk about an interim ordinance, and we say this is going to last for a short
period of time, I would like staff to define what that means.
Mr. Schreiber: Realistically, two to five years.
Commissioner .Ojakian: That is what I was assuming, and that is why I raised the issue before. I
think we could have gone a little slower, looking at this a little more carefully in a different
format and probably come up with something that would be sufficient for two to five years,
because what we are really talking about is an interim ordinance that is going to last until we put
the new zoning ordinance in place, if I understand you right. Am I correct about that?
Mr. Schreiber: Yes, and I think there is a potential that in undertaking the development of a new
zoning ordinance, there may be a lot of interest in separating out and initially doing the single-
family-related regulations, rather than doing the entire zoning ordinance. But even if that is the
case, that two to five years would still hold, or maybe closer to two to three years, but it is still
several years out in the future. This discussion, if nothing else, has illuminated some of the
problems. This is not a particularly difficult.or intricate issue, as far as single-family regulations.
A:lPCMins81PC0827.reg Page 39
It gets a lot worse!
.Chairman Schink: We have a motion on the floor. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioner Ojakian: Yes. I will then vote against the motion not because I think
Commissioner Beecham’s intent is not good. I think it is good, but I still have some concerns
about how this really does play out, because the word "interim" is a lot longer than I would care
for it to be, so I have trouble justifying a vote on this.
Commissioner Schrnidt: I am going to vote for the motion. I think the original staff suggestion
will bring us a lot of unattractive carports. I think we have modified it in a way that will prevent
second stories above carports. It will prevent spindly corners on carports. I would like to see it
come back, as suggested. My one remaining question is whether we should tinker with the
location of carports. I would be content with just excluding the carport area as defined by what
we did in the carport definition, but I will suggest that we go ahead with what Bern has
recommended, and it will come back to us. If it looks bad when it comes back to us, we could
perhaps modify that one thing, but I think we need to do something.
Commissioner Beecham: It is not coming back to us.
Commissioner Schrnidt: I thought it would be coming back. to us for wording review.
Mr. Schreiber: The last understanding is that staff will take your wording, and I think the intent
is clear. I think the unintended consequences may be substantial, but the intent is clear. This
will go on to the council. Whoever has the September duty can join us at that time, and we will
have an interesting discussion.
Mr. Gilliland: On that subject, you might want to discuss who should be there, because Phyllis
Cassel is slated for September.
Commissioner Bialson: Could we possibly modify the motion to exclude carports placed before
1970 so that we do have the Eichler carports that we are all very concerned about excluded from
the definition?
Commissioner Beecham: I would like to do that for Eichlers, but I don’t know how we can do it
for Eichlers. My intent in doing all of this is to not make the Eichlers suddenly come under an
FAR regulation. I think that right now, I would go ahead with this, and when staff brings this to
the council, there must be an assessment of how it does affect the Eichlers. The intent is for it
not to do that, but if it does, then it must be modified. At this point, we do not have enough
information on it.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would guess that there are other Eichleresque houses, not just pure
Eichlers, that fall into this category, as well.
A:[PCMins81PC0827.reg Page 40
Mr. Schreiber: Yes, thank you for that. When we talk about Eichlers, we are talking about a
generic type of construction that was popular from the end of World War II through the early
1970s. Many of those were built by Joseph Eichler, but a lot of the houses along the same lines
were built by other developers.
Chairman Schink: I think that ifwejust exclude all of the pre-1970 houses, those ca.rport
structures have been there for a long time, and the neighbors are used to them. The community is ’
used to them and the landscaping has built up and grown up around the area, so you do not want
to overly encumber them as they try to renovate or remodel their homes. We should just exempt
those, and I think that solves a lot of problems.
Commissioner Ojakian: Then I have a question for you, Jon. What happens if somebody having
one of those homes decides to alter the structure that is there, or they decide to put a garage door
on it? Does that mean that using your phrasing, they are excluded and can go ahead and do that?
Commissioner Beecham: If it meets the definition of Section 24.5 and was built before 1970.
On Page 3 of the ordinance, Item v would then have a third sentence, I suppose, or however staff
wants to do it. The intent is to say that if you have a carport meeting the definition in Section
24.5 and it was built before 1970, then by the definition of its age, it is exempt from FAR
regardless of location. The intent of that is to ensure that we do not catch all of the Eichler type
houses.
Chairman Schink: Is that acceptable to the seconder?
Commissioner Bialson: Yes, it is.
Chairman Schink: Does staff understand this latest change?
Mr. Schreiber: We believe so. What we are starting to ponder in our own minds is, what
happens if someone wants to rebuild it, to move the carport, to use it as part of a different
structure? I have no end of confidence in the ability of Palo Altans, both residents and
developers, to find a way around the regulations. There may be a variety of interesting
interpretation questions on that, but I think the intent is quite clear.
Commissioner Beecham: And I agree with staff that this is fraught with issues that we have not
figured out yet, but at this point, I am willing to toss it over to the council and let them work on
the rest of it, with staff’s sage comments in between.
Chairman Schink: In defense of what we have done here tonight, I think we have made an
ordinance which is more rigorous than what you brought to us. I think it may have fewer
unintended consequences, and it will be easier for people to work with in some ways. So it is
better as it leaves us,
A:lPCMins81PC0827.reg Page 41
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schink: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those
in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner Ojakian voting
no and Commission Cassel absent.
A:lPCMins81PC0827.reg Page 42