September 02, 2005

Back to the table of Contents Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

Commission compromises on carport rule

by Jocelyn Dong

The city commission that unanimously decided to rewrite a rule on carports last year backed down -- a bit -- in light of some residents' protests.

On Wednesday night, the Planning and Transportation Commission decided 200 square feet could be added to a new or remodeled house if it is equipped with a carport and is located in a low-density neighborhood.

A carport is a structure with a roof and three completely open sides, while a garage is defined as having at least two walls.

Since May, the zoning ordinance allowed all the square footage of a carport -- which could range higher than 200 square feet for a multi-space structure -- to be allotted to a home's buildable size.

Though homes in the city are limited to a certain amount of floor area, some properties divide that space between a main house and a detached garage. Residents who protested charged that bigger homes would be built -- possibly reaching three stories -- if the floor area of a carport didn't count and all the area were "given" to the house instead.

If the City Council approves the recommendation, residents applying to remodel or construct new homes in the future would get the 200 bonus square feet to add to their houses if they build a carport instead of a garage.

The commission reasoned that carports are not massive structures -- just posts, a roof and one wall -- and therefore should be treated differently than garages.

City regulations regarding privacy, massing and scale of the home would still be in effect.

The carport issue triggered dissension in the community this summer, when resident Nancy Alexander discovered her next-door neighbor planned to build a new three-story home.

She said the house would have more mass because her neighbors' carport area was being allotted to the home's total floor area.

However, the neighbor, Bob Stefanski, has said repeatedly that his new home will actually be smaller than the current one, and that it complies with all city regulations on height, massing and scale.

The issue struck a chord among residents beyond the immediate Old Palo Alto neighborhood where the proposed home is planned. Monday night, people from various parts of the city appeared to speak on the issue.

Four of the six commissioners present Wednesday were on the panel last year, at which time they made the zoning ordinance update.

Michael Griffin, a former commissioner who had voted in favor of the carport exclusion last year, also attended the meeting -- to say that their decision had been wrong back then. He urged the commission to consider carports just like garages, and to prevent homes from becoming more massive in Palo Alto.

"I'm here to tell you mea culpa ," he said.

Two of his colleagues who are still on the panel agreed, but two stuck to the original decision -- the change that was ultimately approved Wednesday. Two new commissioners, Dan Garber and Paula Sandas, voted for the small revision as well, making the final count 4-2.

Pat Burt, who was elected to be the new chair of the commission Wednesday, made the motion, saying he was seeking a proper balance.

"This addresses concerns raised in recent months and recognizes that we do have tools to address abuses on carports," Burt said. He referred to the fact that some residents in the past have converted a garage to a carport so that they could have more floor area for a new addition, only to later go back and rebuild the garage.

His motion included a stipulation that residents could build carports larger than 200 square feet, but the extra area beyond 200 square feet would count toward floor area.

Garber said he found it compelling that young families with small homes could benefit from keeping the carports exempt, as the 200 square feet could be used to build another room or to expand a kitchen.

However, Commissioner Karen Holman, who was elected vice-chair of the board Wednesday, warned that unintended consequences could unfold by continuing to allow the carport exemption. City staff, she noted, had not researched what could result from Burt's motion.

After the meeting, Alexander said she felt the recommendation was "a step in the right direction.

"It's much better than it was. It's a compromise," she said. "It still allows for a bonus of square footage across the city though."

Alexander's next-door neighbor's project would not be affected by this revision, city staff members said, because the application is already completed.

Stefanski said he thought that the decision was good to the extent that it did not completely reverse the ordinance exempting carports.

The council, which asked the commission to reconsider the issue, will now have a chance to review the recommendation and make its decision on Sept. 26.

Senior Staff Writer Jocelyn Dong can be reached at jdong@paweekly.com.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.