Loading...
Item 21 Staff Report Consider Adoption a Resolution to Establish Clear and Attic PoliciesCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: October 16, 2002 TO: MAYOR AND TOW _ OUNCIL FROM: TOWN MANAG SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: 10/21/02 ITEM NO. CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH CELLAR AND ATTIC POLICIES. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution establishing Cellar and Attic Policies (Attachment 1). BACKGROUND: The draft Cellar and Attic Policies were developed as part of the General Plan implementation. Staff worked with the Architectural Standards/Hillside Committee to prepare the draft policies. A complete background is contained in the report to the Planning Commission (see page 1 and 2 of Attachment 3). The objective of this policy is to set forth a consistent set of criteria for overall structural floor area included in the floor are ratio (FAR) calculation. This policy will help reduce the bulk, mass and scale of buildings because more overall floor area will be included in the FAR whether it is considered habitable or non -habitable space. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission considered the draft cellar and attic policies on August 28, 2002. The Commission considered three alternatives for the Cellar Policy and decided to recommend approval of alternative 2 (refer to Attachment 3) with one modification. This modification reduced the exposed building height of a cellar from four feet to three feet in triggering the area that will be included in the FAR calculation. Conversely, the Town has been using four feet of exposed cellar height as the trigger for calculating FAR. This practice is consistent with the Building Code. (Continued to Page 2) PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Attorney Clerk Finance Community Development Revised: 10/16/02 4:26 pm Reformatted: 5/23/02 a PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH CELLAR AND ATTIC POLICIES October 16, 2002 Ultimately, any proposed building is evaluated by bulk, scale, mass and neighborhood character rather than FAR. The objective of this policy is to trade floor area for "hidden" or "buried" building bulk and mass. Four feet seems to be working well as a means to reduce bulk and mass while also balancing the requests of applicants. Exhibit A of Attachment 1 is the draft policy as recommended by the Commission. In terms of the attic policy, the Commission also made one change to the wording which included the elimination of language precluding a specific style of architecture such as Victorian. Attachment 1 includes the recommended Planning Commission policies identified as Exhibit A (Cellar Policy) and Exhibit B (Attic Policy). The purpose of establishing cellar and attic policies is to provide clear direction to developers (General Plan Implementing Strategy L.I.7.4), to aid staff in the consistent review of new and remodeled homes, and to help reduce above ground (visible) bulk and mass of structures. While it has been standard practice to exempt cellars from the FAR calculation, there is not currently a specific policy or code stating this. There is also no specific code or policy that addresses attics. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution (Attachment 2) establishing Cellar and Attic Policies (Exhibits A and B of Attachment 1). FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution for adoption of Cellar and Attic Policies (two pages) 2. Draft Planning Minutes of August 28, 2002 (nine pages) 3. Report to the Planning Commission dated August 22, 2002 for agenda of August 28, 2002, with attachments A-D 4. Letter from Gary Schloh dated October 14, 2002 (two pages) BNL:SD:mdc N:\DEV\S UZANNEICouncil\Reports\FY2002-03\BasementPolcy. wpd TOWN COUNCIL POLICY TOWN OF LOS GATOS Subject: Cellars Page 1 of 2 Enabling Action: 2002- Approved: Randy Attaway, Mayor Effective Date: PURPOSE: General Plan policy L.P.2.3 states: "Encourage basements and cellars to provide "hidden" square footage in -lieu of visible mass." The following policy shall be used by staff when reviewing plans that include a cellar. DEFINITION: A cellar is an enclosed area that does not extend more than three feet above the existing or finished grade in any location. Cellars, as defined here, shall not be included in the FAR. That area of a cellar where the building height exceeds three feet above existing or finished grade shall not be included in this definition and shall be included in the floor area calculation. For purposes of this policy, whichever grade (existing or proposed) results in the lowest building profile of a building shall be used. POLICY: In reviewing plans for cellars staff shall consider the following: • A cellar shall not extend more than three feet above the adjacent finished grade at any point around the perimeter of the foundation. Below grade floor area must meet the above definition of cellar to be excluded from the floor area calculations for the structure. If any portion of a cellar extends more than three feet above grade, that area shall be included in the floor area calculation. N:IDE VISUZANNE\CounciIPolicies\Cellar-policy. wpd Revised September 20.2002 Exhibit A • Light and exit wells may encroach into front and side yard setbacks provided that a minimum three-foot wide pedestrian access is provided around the light well(s). Light wells and exiting shall be the minimum required to comply with the Uniform Buildind Code criteria for natural light and ventilation. • Below grade patios may extend out from a cellar into the required rear yard provided that a minimum 10 foot setback is retained from the rear property line. • Cellars and basements (except light and exit wells) shall not extend beyond the building footprint. • The Planning Commission may allow an exception to this policy based on extenuating or exceptional circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. The Commission shall make findings to support such a decision. N:\DE V\SUZANNE\Council\Poticies\Cellar-policy.wpd N:1DE V\SUZANNE\CounciRPolicies\Cellar-policy.wpd Revised September 20.2002 o TOWN COUNCIL POLICY TOWN OF LOS GATOS Subject: Attics Page 1 of 1 Enabling Action: 2002- Approved: Randy Attaway, Mayor Effective Date: PURPOSE: The following policy shall be used when reviewing development plans that include attic space. The intent of this policy is to reduce the visible bulk and mass of structures. DEFINITION: An attic is a non -habitable space (that may or may not be used for storage) with a maximum height of seven feet as measured from the upper surface of the attic floor to the underside of the roof above. For the purposes of this definition, attic spaces are considered to have floor surfaces. POLICY: Attics that meet the above definition shall not be counted as floor space for purposes of determining compliance with Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limitations. Note: Once an attic space exceeds seven feet in height, all areas down to 4'/2 feet will be counted toward the floor area ratio (FAR). N:\DEV\SUZANNE\Counci \Policies\Attic-polcy.wpd Revised March 21, 2002 Exhibit B (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) BSA PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2002 XMAX(35/35) Page 1 CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Second? COMMISSIONER DUBOIS: I'll second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: discussion? All those in favor? (Ayes.) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Aye. Ca es unanimously five -zero with Commissio r Tales - excuse me, Trevithick abstained - re sed, that's the word I was struggling for. You .ave me the wrong word, Bud. Okay, I'm geng a little giddy here. Thank you. Appeal righ •.-? MR. LORTZ: Anyone • at chooses to appeal this item - CHAIRWOMAN Q TANA: Are there appeal rights, 'cause it's j _t a recommendation? MR. LORTZ: is an item that will be re -noticed. It i- 'tan appealable action. It is a recommen• =tion that goes forward to the Council. CHAIR OMAN QUINTANA: Okay. Next item on the ag da is - is what'? Where's my - S VE HAUCK: Would it be - HAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Oh, God, we still Piave - excuse me. STEVE HAUCK: Would it be possible to get Okay. No other/ Page 138 (1) the letters back? Those are all originals. I'm (2) sorry. (3) MR. LORTZ: We'll need to keep those as (4) evidence - (5) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Yeah. (6) MR. LORTZ: - but we'll make copies of (7) them and get them back to you. (8) STEVE HAUCK: Okay. (s) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Yeah. (10) STEVE HAUCK: All right. (11) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA:We - once you give (12) them to us, they're part of ouyrecord, so - (13) STEVE HAUCK: Okay/ (14) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: - we'll get copies (15) back. (16) STEVE HAUCK: / Great. And I can pick those (17) up when? / (1a) MR. LOR Tomorrow afternoon. (1s) STEVE UCK: Great, thank you. (2o) CHAI OMAN QUINTANA: Okay. I don't know (21) about, nybody else, but I sure would love a five (22) mirtute break before we go on. (23) /(Break taken.) (24)/ CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: - is under new (25) business, I have to look at my agenda. Page 139 (1) MR. LORTZ: Consider adoption of basement (2) and attic policy. (3) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Yeah. Under new (4) business a discussion of the basement and attic_ (5) -policies. And Staff, do you have anything to add to (6) the Staff Report? (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) MR. LORTZ: No. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: have any questions of Staff? MR. LORTZ: You might want to take questions after public input. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Commission, do you True. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak on these issues? This is not a public hearing, but we will take public input. Seeing none - Mr. Davis, come on up. RAY DAVIS: Nice new podium. Boy, listen to that sounding board. Boom, boom, boom, boom. It's my kind of podium. Oh, yeah. I got to tell you, I read this literature, and I ask myself where does all this stuff come from. Let me - let me read this. On page two, in summary the ASC, Architectural Standards Committee, concluded that if a building area is entirely below grade, does not extend more than three feet above Page140 (1) grade at any point, it does not significantly affect (2) the above ground mass, it should therefore be (3) exempted. (4) With regard to attics, the ASC concluded, (5) that once an attic space exceeds a height of seven (6) foot, it is to be counted as floor area down to a (7) height of four and a half feet. That's not the (8) problem. Anything over seven foot. You know, (s) further along here it says and the exception starts (10) at seven foot, all right. And there's no (11) qualification for an average height up to seven (12) foot. (13) So that means that anybody can come in and (14) do a Mansard style roof, flat roof, and have a seven (1s) foot high attic and not have it count. I mean, a (16) huge attic, seven foot high, 30 foot across by 50, (17) 60, hundred feet and not have it count. You know, (1e) non compos mentis. (1s) When I - when I leave here, what are you (20) going to do? What are you going to do? So, you (21) know, the attic is nonsense. Also, it says - I (22) notice that the - where is it now? Oh, suggested (23) policy alternative, as recommended again by the ASC, (24) the deciding body will have the ability to allow an (25) exception to the basement policy for extenuating or Attachment 2 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 137 to Page 140 BSA XMAX(36/36) PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2002 Page 143 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Hurry up and lock (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 14 exceptional circumstances. That is such nonsense. You know, the average architect looks at that, and he says well, they got a policy, but yet it's wide open. It says here that we can apply for an extenuating circumstance. And you know damn well the bulk of them are going to push you to the limit, and they're going to say well, we have extenuating circumstances. You don't even describe what might be an extenuating circumstance. You know, you ought to get back to the variance law in this town. So the variance law will give you - CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Thank you, Mr. Davis. RAY DAVIS: - criteria. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Thank you, Mr. Davis. MR. DAVIS: I am - CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Commission - MR. DAVIS: I wonder if it's worth my time coming down here. I keep seeing all this nonsense. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Mr. Davis, your time is up. You are disrupting this meeting, and I am not going to give you another warning in this or the next meeting. If you continue to disrupt, I will (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 142 have you removed. Thank you. Commission, let's go back and discuss what we're here to do, which is discuss the attic policy and the basement policy. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Bud, under recommended policy on the attic, what made us pick seven feet? Is there - I know the UBC, the Uniform Building Code, has seven and a half right now. I mean, why do we pick seven? Is it a - CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: I think - COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Could we just as easily pick five and a half or - CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: - as - Bud's throwing his hands up. I think either Paul or I could maybe give some background on that since we're on the - COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Well, I'm anxious to hear - CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: - Architectural Standards Committee. That was picked because seven feet is actually a very livable height for me, for other people. I've seen whole houses that people have made bedrooms out of - and what have you less than seven feet, and - and so it does add to the bulk of the mass of the house. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (t9) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) it. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: And what we were trying to - I think what we were looking at is that we're dealing with the FAR, and we're looking at - we were looking at the attic and the basement policy as if the object of the FAR is to reduce mass and bulk, how can we accomplish that by setting regulations that allow for attic space, basement space, et cetera, but don't take advantage of it to make the house more massive rather than less massive, and - that's where we were going. MR. LORTZ: The Building Code establishes seven and a half as habitable space. Anything below that is not habitable by definition. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: So it's just the definition. MR. LORTZ: Yeah, by definition of the Building Code, seven and a half is not - COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) MR. LORTZ: Well, I think - I think you kind of have to go back to this whole idea of FAR, and this is going to apply to cellars and basements as well. And I really need the Commission to (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 144 understand this. The FAR was developed sitting around that table there in 1987, with an Architectural Standards Committee. None of you were on it. And we didn't have an FAR. And we looked at every community in the Bay Area, how they evaluated mass and scale. We had monster homes coming into our neighborhoods, and we wanted to do something about it. So we looked at all these different formulas and whatnot. There was a desire to put an empirical methodology behind the concept of compatibility, because some people have a real hard time understanding compatibility. So they talked - some communities use FAR. And so we decided well, how big of a home should you have through this FAR. Well, let's take a 10,000 square foot lot. We sat there, and we decided 3,500 square feet. Why? Because it seemed like a reasonable sized house on a 10,000 square foot lot. People gravitate towards this FAR like it's the Bible. It isn't. It's just a number. It's a nominal limit, not a goal. It says it right in the ordinance. And the point is more important than FAR is compatibility. I can make - plenty of Page 141 to Page 144 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC BSA PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2002 XMAX(37/37) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 1 architects can make a big house look small and a small house look big. I just don't want the Commission to gravitate too much towards FAR and say oh, if it meets the FAR it must be okay, because it may not be. So when we talk about the attics, and we talk about the cellars, if you use seven feet, seven and a half feet, the reason we use the Building Code is because the more we deviate from established practice, the - well, the more complicated it gets for the building community. I mean, it becomes real clear for them. If we say an attic as defined in the Building Code, they know what it is. So, you know, we do deviate from time to time. And mass and scale is extremely important. That's the bottom line of all of these things. So but one thing that we've got to do, and that's why this needs to be moved forward, is the Architectural Standards Committee studied this thing for a long time. It's not easy. I just don't want us to put too much emphasis on these two policies in an attempt to try to think that this is going to solve all of our questions and issues. It's not. I - but we are right now following - (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 146 doing it. We count what is an attic per definition in the Building Code. Staff is doing that. We are exempting cellars. Everyone knows that, the Council knows that. But there's no policy that says that. And that's exactly what we're trying to do here. We're just trying to memorialize the policy. Now, one thing that I - one caveat on this I want the Commission to understand is that we're working real hard on the hillside standards, and they're just about ready to be released. The next thing that we probably need to do is take a look at our hillside - or the flatland standards. Those were - I wrote those in 1987. There was a reason why there's no illustrations in them. The Commission and the Council didn't want illustrations. We're now in an illustration mode. That's great. We'll do the illustrations. So we've got to take a look at the residential design standards just like we did the hillside standards and expand on those. So I just want to make sure everybody understood that. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. In my usual democratic manner, I will let the Commission speak before I do. Commissioner Trevithick. COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: (Inaudible. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (72) (23) (24) (25) Page 147 Microphone not on.) MR. LORTZ: It is. COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Commissioner Burke. COMMISSIONER BURKE: Just a couple thoughts on - on what I read in this, since the attic - and it has to be - and you know, I won't say concern, but just thing that went off in my head. One is we talk about once an attic hits seven feet, then we count the area down to four and a half feet. What bothers me about that is it could hit seven feet one inch. I mean, it could hit seven feet over a, you know, one inch width of the peak of the roof as opposed to, you know, - and be a shallow - a shallow peak, and so a lot of this is unusable. It's almost like we need - it has to hit - in my mind, to be counted, that it has to hit seven feet over a reasonable, you know, width rather than, you know, the very peak. That's just a thought I have here. MR. LORTZ: That's why FAR needs to be taken with a grain of salt. COMMISSIONER BURKE: Right. And - yeah. (1) (2) (3) (4) Page 148 MR. LORTZ: And when we do define this, and we've been using this - COMMISSIONER BURKE: Uh-huh. MR. LORTZ: - you know, I think it's (5) been - the attic thing is not as tough as a cellar (6) and basement. Cellars and basements is more (7) problematic, 'cause you've got sloping property and (8) that sort of thing. (9) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Uh-huh. (10) MR. LORTZ: But at least it will - you (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) know, if we use either - if we use what the Architectural Standards Committee came up with, it's very similar to what we've been using over the last five or six years. COMMISSIONER BURKE: Right. And I'm just wondering is if we need a calculation that may be not part of FAR, but needs to be shown on drawings that this house has X number of square feet with attic space over five or four feet high if we are doing a mass and scale. The other thing is you could raise the ceiling in a room to ten foot high ceilings, therefore decreasing your base - or your attic to five feet high and you suddenly have a lot Tess floor area than if you lowered the - the ceilings ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 145 to Page 148 BSA (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2002 XMAX(38/38) Page 14 to eight feet from ten. Same mass, you know, everything, and it's just a function of how much head room do you want in your main part of the house. And suddenly you have a smaller house because you've raised the ceiling two feet - MR. LORTZ: Well - COMMISSIONER BURKE: - which I don't think plays with the mass and scale. MR. LORTZ: - kind of along that line, we've had people that came in and have asked to take a vaulted ceiling room that's 18, 19 feet tall and split it into two levels. Exactly the same mass and scale from the outside, but it might go over the FAR. Does it change anything in terms of mass and scale? Absolutely not. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: No, but if we didn't - 11 we counted that as two floors in the first place towards FAR, then we would be affecting mass and scale. MR. LORTZ: And all these - CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: And - MR. LORTZ: - machinations that you want to go through in terms of creating, quote, a formula for good design, it all comes back to the rhythm and (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 150 the fabric of the neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: 1- I'd like to make a statement, and then I'd like to make a suggestion. I think the FAR is something that's out there that gives us some kind of a gauge to start from. It's not absolute by any means. But what you count towards the FAR does have some effect on how the architects look at what they're going to show you in the first place. If it technically meets FAR. The way I look at it, the FAR has a lot of components to it. It has square footage. It has volume. It has whether you count basements. It has how you count attics. It's how you look at third story elevations. All of it sort of feeds into the total picture. Having said that, I understand that there's a desire that we move forward on these two policies. So I'm going to make a suggestion. That we do that, but we also do it with the recommendation that not too far in the distant future that we look at the policy, we ask Council to look at the policy as a total so that there's a better understanding of what's counted towards FAR (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 151 and what's not counted towards FAR. Because the whole idea, I think, is - of the FAR is to get a handle on mass and scale, and the whole idea of these policies is to make it easier to assess a project before it even gets in any kind of concrete. l don't think I'm explaining myself well here. But the other - the other thing that I also think is that these things are related to one another in a sense. You know, if you do this, then you do that. There's a push-pull. And somehow it would work better if there was an incentive to do less than more. And I'm not going to waste our time to go into an idea that I had that - that I think does that, but I think it's something that might be explored in the future where you're rewarding people with more square footage if they keep their height down and that kind of thing. But what we have to do tonight is work on these policies. So I'd like to start with the attic policy, 'cause I think it's definitely the easier of the two. And I would like to recommend two things for the Commission to do. One is to accept the definition as (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 152 proposed by the Architectural Standards Committee. Second, I'd like to suggest that the note on this policy, once the attic space exceeds seven feet, et cetera, be moved up as part of the policy and not as a note, and that thirdly, the part that says this policy is not intended to preclude a specific style of architecture be eliminated, because as with, you know, saying exceptions to something, that would encourage that particular style, which may or may not be good, but the FAR policy has mechanisms that if the applicant doesn't agree with the determination that he's - even though he's over FAR, his house isn't too big mass and scale, he can appeal it, and we can evaluate on a case by case basis. So rather than write in exceptions, let's leave it the way we currently operate on that. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Exhibit A. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Page 1. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: We were lost. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: I'm sorry. And the other - I had - well, I wanted to get a little bit of reaction. I can make it a motion. Okay. Now Page 149 to Page 152 (408) 920-0272 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC BSA PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2002 XMAX(39/39) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 1. that you have it in front of you, it says there's a definition of attic, and then there's the policy, Exhibit A, draft, there you go. Attics that meet the above definition shall not be counted as floor space for purposes of determining compliance with FAR. Then move the first sentence under note into the policy and eliminate sentence two under note. A VOICE: (Inaudible.) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: My understanding that one of the architects who attended the meeting asked that the architectural style, especially Victorians, be included in there because he felt it would preclude the ability to design Victorian under this policy, and I don't particularly agree. And again, if - if there's reason - if you design a Victorian, even if it violates the specific of the policy FAR, but you meet the intent and it's compatible with the neighborhood, they can argue that - COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: The - CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: - under the current Page 155 CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Yeah. Not only that, I think the statement itself is confusing and could be interpreted in 180 degrees, depending on how you look at it. Commissioner Burke. COMMISSIONER BURKE: Question. And maybe this - you know, maybe I'm being too much of an engineer here and, you know - well, these things happen. But I think about crawling around in my attic, and it's - it's - it's a convoluted of trusses and beams, and how do you measure what the height of that is? I mean, it has no floor, and it says here for definition it has a floor. So if it is doesn't have a floor, it's not an attic? Or do we just pick an imaginary floor somewhere? MR. LORTZ: The top of the ceiling joist would be the floor, and the bottom of the rafters would be the ceiling. COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay. MR. LORTZ: And so if it's more than seven feet, it's going to count down to four and a half feet. COMMISSIONER BURKE: So even if they're support trusses that take you down to four feet. MR. LORTZ: True. Now, you've crawled around in your attic and you go how would I ever (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 154 policy. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible.) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Can you comment on that? Why you believe that was - I mean, I'd like to hear the other comment on it. MR. LORTZ: Well, you know, yeah, there was some discussion about that this - by doing this, you know, the steeper the pitch of the roof, which is typical of a Victorian, you know, what the architect that commented said well, I want to make sure that people understand that we're not precluding Victorian style homes. I don't know that you'd necessarily have to have that comment in there. I mean, I don't think there's any architectural style that we're precluding. It's just how we're counting the floor area. Once again, it gets back to my same point is being careful about this floor area. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) MR. LORTZ: As a restriction, like an arbitrary restriction. (Inaudible discussion.) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 156 make this a livable space. The reason the trusses are in there for - are for structural reasons. Now, it's possible to use engineering roof rafter - (End of Side B-II.) (Beginning of Side A -Ill.) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. You want me to repeat what I'm suggesting? Okay. The definition would remain the same as in Exhibit A. The policy would read attics that meet the above definition shall not be counted as floor space for purposes of determining compliance with the floor area ratio regulations. Once an attic space exceeds seven feet in height, all areas down to four and a half feet will be counted towards the floor area ratio, period. And I will so move that. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I second that. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. All those in favor? (Ayes.) • CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Aye. Carries unanimously, okay. Basements. I think this one's more complicated. You think it's easy, okay. Why don't we start with you. Why is it easy? ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 153 to Page 156 BSA PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2002 XMAX(40/40) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 15' COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I think alternative two is the next (inaudible). I think that it defines it all. What it does, it says any part of it that's over 50 percent doesn't count. And if it's - if it's below the 50 percent, it does count. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: on? Now I'm lost. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: two - MR. LORTZ: Page 4. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: - on page 4. MR. LORTZ: Last page of the Staff - COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: We're going to count anything according to this that's over four feet above finished grade, right? MR. LORTZ: Right. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: foot - MR.. LORTZ: Head height, right. COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: sense? MR. LORTZ: That's what we're doing now, and the reason that we inserted that in there is because right, wrong or indifferent, the Town Code What page are you I'm on alternative Assuming an eight Does that make (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 158 has a definition of cellar and has a definition of basement. And we have been interpreting that cellars are exempt. That portion of a lower level that qualifies as a cellar is exempted in terms of the floor area. If it becomes more than half above grade, it's counted as floor area. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Now, can I clarify, are we - are we counting as floor area that portion of the basement whose perimeter is higher than four feet? MR. LORTZ: Uh-huh. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: And we're not counting the portion whose perimeter is Tess than four feet. MR. LORTZ: Right. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: So it's not an all or none. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Right. It's - CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: - proportional to whatever you've got. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Commissioner Talesfore. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Yeah, okay. So is this taking into - is this taking into account light wells? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 159 MR. LORTZ: No. It's - COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Just asking. MR. LORTZ: No is the answer. And I just want to make sure people understand that the one thing about the cellar thing on a sloping lot, we've got these new hillside standards that are very involved in terms of looking at the elevations, 360 degrees around a structure, so the FAR is going to be part of the hillside standards, but - and so a cellar would be removed from that floor area. A basement would count. Now, when you daylight, and you have a whole story that's exposed on the downhill side of a single family home, that counts as a story. So three story elevations are prohibited under our rules. And so what has to happen is essentially if you're across the valley looking straight across at a home, essentially, it can only be two stories. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Now, is it is it two - can you have one story, one story and one story? It's three stories total whether it's set back or not. MR. LORTZ: If I remember the Architectural Standards Committee and their direction in terms of the hillside standards, it was (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 160 three story elevations were prohibited. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Yeah, I think that's consistent with the way the General Plan policy is written. MR. LORTZ: Regardless of how much you step it back and all of that. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. MR. LORTZ: And so the - the floor area becomes interesting in terms of how the cellar thing would work, but more importantly is how the new hillside standards are going to affect the design of hillside homes. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Now, I have another question. On the day - well, so the hillside - it's been so long since I've read the hillside policy, I've forgotten already. We specifically addressed basements, and it's slightly different than what we have here, or is it exactly the same as alternative two? MR. LORTZ: 1 believe it's the same. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. I remembered three feet, not four feet. Four feet is really high for a basement exposed. MR. LORTZ: All I'm - what we're saying is this is consistent with the Town Code. Now, if Page 157 to Page 160 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC BSA PUBLIC HEARING (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2002 Page 163 the definition that's in the Town Code. It's still a mass and scale issue. And mass and scale - COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Will prevail. MR. LORTZ: - prevails. Mass and scale trumps FAR. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: If it comes to us. MR. LORTZ: If it comes to Staff. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Comes to Staff, okay. MR. LORTZ: We better (inaudible) - CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Umm. MR. LORTZ: - aligned with the Commission and the Council on this. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Commissioner Burke. COMMISSIONER BURKE: I'm quoting from my favorite document right now in the land use. We talk about incur - policy 2.3 in Land Use. Encourage basements and cellars to provide hidden square foot - hidden square feet in lieu of visible mass. But I look at this policy, and it's that cellar is becoming a freebie in addition to visible mass. I mean, we're really - MR. LORTZ: You're doing your engineer thing here, too. You're taking the words out of the Page 1 you adopt - if you recommend adoption of the first one, we have to amend the Town Code. And what it really does confuse is it confuses this whole concept of cellars and basements as it's defined in the Town Code. So you'd almost want to delete those or redefine the term cellar and add that - CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. Can we - MR. LORTZ: (Inaudible.) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: - for the sake of expediency now recommend perhaps approval of this with the recommendation that when the Town Code is updated next year that we re -look at - at this, lowering the height of what's considered - MR. LORTZ: Well, the comment - CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: - countable? MR. LORTZ: Your comment is on the record, so it would go forward to the Council, and if the Council was so inclined to include that in some of the changes that are going to be contemplated, we would pursue that, certainly. What we're dealing with here is policy • issues, and what we want to be careful about is making sure that the Council is concurring with the changes that the Commission are discussing as we move forward with other work that will be - be (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 162 undertaking within the next year or two. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Don't we have other policies that conflict with the codes? MR. LORTZ: We have a lot of codes, and we have a lot of regulations, and there's sometimes some internal conflicts (inaudible). If there is an internal conflict, there's a section in the code that says you take the most restrictive. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Well, then, okay. I'm going to - I like alternative two, but I like three feet rather than four feet, and I don't like alternative one, because it's an all or nothing, and I don't think we need to have an exception under exceptional circumstances because, again, the FAR and the appeal process takes care of that. MR. LORTZ: Well, the reason I used four feet is because the definition in the Town Code says more than half below grade is a cellar, and typically your head height in a room, the lower head height are eight feet. The higher the head height, you know, you could have - like let's say you have a ten foot plate height, then five feet - it could be, you know, five feet above grade, and I thought it was too much, so that's how I picked four, because I thought that was the most consistent with (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) XMAX(41/41) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 164 General Plan and - you know, I wrote the section. I know what cellars are all about. Cellars have been useful in this Town in terms of hiding mass, 'cause you've got a whole area of the house that really is more below grade than above grade. You still have to come back to the compatibility of a neighborhood. In the Almond Grove neighborhood, there are a lot of homes that have stairs going up to the first floor. That's a compatibility issue. All of these things add to the fabric of the neighborhood, and you have to look at all of these kinds of things. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: But I've never heard anybody say this isn't compatible with the neighborhood because the - the house - the first floor of the house is three and a half or four feet above grade, and none of the houses around it are. MR. LORTZ: We did have a home, I believe it was on Shannon Road, that basically we talked about that. How many steps were up on the - the proposed house, how many steps up to the first floor, as opposed to other homes in the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: The only reason ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 161 to Page 164 BSA (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESD Page 16! I'm a little confused, what does it really matter? I mean, if it's bulky and massive, we're going to tear it apart anyway, right'? We encourage burying something in the hillside. And what we're saying, this is a formula that seems fair to me. If it's over 50, you go one way. And I don't see the difference between three and four. What's - can you explain for me what - how that is so significant? That's - is high. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Commissioner Dubois. COMMISSIONER DUBOIS: The Committee, when they were talking about that in their attempt to I think save Commission time, was suggesting we look a little closer at three feet as opposed to four feet just to help bring the mass down, that's all. Yeah, and it was - (Inaudible) they CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: COMMISSIONER DUBOIS: settled on three. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: It was a mass issue, and it was also an architectural style issue, and I can tell you that I made less than a casual survey, more than a casual survey, less than a real scientific survey. But I went around and looked at a whole bunch of houses to see in the architectural style, the Victorian, Craftsman, Mission, all that, (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 166 what was the average height of the first floor above grade, and it was around three feet. Actually usually lower, but three feet was about max. Very few were over three feet. Unless they were on a sloped lot, and then it's adding to the mass. And there were those who argued for less than three feet, and that was a compromise. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) MR. LORTZ: So what - CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Especially since this is only a recommendation, and the Council. can choose four feet if they choose. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) MR. LORTZ: Two or three feet, is that the consensus? COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Well, let's take a fast poll. Three, four, four. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Three. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Three. A VOICE: Three. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Three, three. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) AY, AUGUST 28, 2002 Page 167 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: XMAX(42/42) And my reason is because I - I had a basement that was - and it was three feet above, and it was - I know why. MR. LORTZ: So on a four to two, it's alternative two with three foot. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: And I want to add in the recommendation - COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (inaudible. Microphone not on.) MR. LORTZ: Yeah. If - anything. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) MR. LORTZ: That's right, uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: I would just like to say it again that - COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) MR. LORTZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible.) MR. LORTZ: Correct. It all goes back - CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Then it may become a story. Commissioner Burke. COMMISSIONER BURKE: Just a clarification, (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 168 and I'm trying not to be the engineer, but is the three feet to the bottom of the floor joist to the first floor, or is it to the first floor itself? MR. LORTZ: It would be to the top of the plate on the - so it would be the top of the ceiling joist. COMMISSIONER BURKE: The top of the ceiling joist, so it would be basically the subfloor. MR. LORTZ: The subfloor, yeah. That's a good way to look at it, uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: above, MR. LORTZ: Well, it depends on the thicknesses of his floor joist, but yeah. If that's what the Commission is talking about here. A VOICE: (Inaudible.) MR. LORTZ: That's what you said when you just mentioned the top of the floor joist of the - COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible.) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Two and a half. (Inaudible discussion.) MR. LORTZ: So - so there may be - where The top of the floor Page 165 to Page 168 (408) 920-0299 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC BSA PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2002 XMAX(43/43) Page 1 (1) we measure it from is - (2) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Yeah. (3) MR. LORTZ: - an issue that - (4) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: (Inaudible. (5) Microphone not on.) (6) MR. LORTZ: - requires some additional (7) dialogue. (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Absolutely. Maybe we need more information on this. You know, do we have all the information? COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) I'm sorry. ('m glad you brought it up. MR. LORTZ: Well, I'd like to - you know, I always try to achieve some consistency between various documents in the Town Code whenever we're running into a - you know, a question like this, and the Building Code seems to be measuring it from the bottom - from the top of the floor joist to the bottom of the ceiling joist. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Yeah, that makes more sense. MR. LORTZ: Okay. That's what we'll do. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: So we're still four -two on it. Okay. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 170 MR. LORTZ: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: And I'd just like to reiterate that I would like to recommend to Council that when we do the zoning code update, that we take a more comprehensive look at how we define FAR and roll it all into one big - big package. And find some incentives, not just penalties. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I think that's a good suggestion, and maybe, you know, that needs to be written down somewhere, you know, how to - how to actually consider it more than just, you know, what the one, two, threes are, but the general - MR. LORTZ: What I'm hearing from the Commission is looking at ways to provide incentive for developers - CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Yeah. MR. LORTZ: - to bury floor area. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: And attic - space in attics and, you know - I have my nice little matrix that I used as a jumping off point for discussion, but we never got to discuss it, but I thought it was a good starting point for thinking outside the box, and if anybody wants to see it, I'd be happy to give it to them. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Page 171 MR. LORTZ: We can circulate - just provide it to us, and we'll circulate it to the - CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: You have a copy of it? I can give you another copy of it. MR. LORTZ: I think we've got one. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Yeah. MR. LORTZ: That's fine. We'll circulate it. (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (251 CHAIRWO • N QUINTANA: N94 actually, there's one othe ' em under new, -business that I'd just like - no, go ah=-d. Go ahead. Sorry. COMMISSIONER B KE: The General Plan Committee looked at a'pr osal for a General Plan amendment proparty on Win kester at the - between the 85 off ramp and the railroad tracks on the north side of Winchester, but on the southside of Highway 85 and.recommended approval for a General Plan amendment to - from low density residential to medium Density residential, and I believe the existing proposal called for 21 single family homes, CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. Okay, now e're up to reports from - no, we have any co ittee reports? CO + ISSIONER BURKE: General Plan' Committer - Page 172 approximately 1,800 square feet each. (2) (3) (4) (5) squa feet each. (6) CHA WOMAN QUINTANA: Yeah. Okay. ow (7) we're at t e Director's Report. (6) MR. LO . No report this evening. (9) CHAIRWO 'AN QUINTANA: Oka Adding to (10) that, I'd just like o jump off from thand ask (11) any - the Commi- ion is anybo. , planning to attend (12) the study session o the VTA? (13) COMMISSIONER CCI ' E: Was that Tuesday, (14) the 4th? (15) CHAIRWOMAN QU +T A: Yeah, I think so, (16) One, two, three - (17) COMMISSIO ' - MICCIC : What time is that (18) again? (19) MR. LOR : That's going to ticket 6:00 (20) o'clock. (21) CH • WOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. I just want (22) to -te that if there are more than three of us, we (23) : nnot discuss anything that's being discussed or (24 any other town issues among ourselves. We're ( ) attending as citizens, not as the Commission. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: How much - how marry uare feet each? OMMISSIONER BURKE: I think about 1,800 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 169 to Page 172 BSA (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2002 Page 17: COMMISSIONER DUBOIS: Yeah, I thought we were - we were as citizens - COR. LORTZ: Right. MMISSIONER MICCICHE: We're going as citizen COMIV4SIONER DUBOIS: - why at all? We're just ing there listening (inaudible). CHAIRWOM N QUINTANA: No, It's not a Brown Act notice - meeting, so we cannot discuss COMMISSION5R\MICCICHE: Citizens. CHAIRWOMAN QUjjNTANA: As citizens, we can comment to - my understanding - and Bud will certainly correct me if I'm wrong - as citizens, if we wish to, we could comment to the Council just like any other citizen. What I'r aying is that because it's not a Brown Act meeting, it hasn't been publicly noticed as a Planning Commission meeting, if there - you know, we have to be very careful not to discuss Town issues among.ourselves, because then we would be in violation of the Brown Act if, - especially if there are more than three of us. , MR. LORTZ: Yeah, the point is just to have an opportunity to attend that meeting and observe. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: The - (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (2 Page 174 CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: But we can speak if we feel strongly about something as a citizen; is that correct or incorrect? MR. LORTZ: Well, you - yes, you can always speak as a resident of the Town, but/' naturally you'd use your - CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Discretion. MR. LORTZ: - discretion on that/� COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: /Excuse me. The Town Council minutes, are we fitting those or - MR. LORTZ: Yes. The Au ust was a month off for them. We kept you w rking, though. CHAIRWOMAN QUIN NA: Okay. I - COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: How come we didn't get a month off? MR. LORTZ: a tried it last year, and we ended up with me agendas that were awfully heavy, so I thought ' might be good if we just sort of spread o e items a little bit. CHAI OMAN QUINTANA: We had August off last y r? I don't remember that. . LORTZ: Yeah. HAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. I think we're t the point of adjournment. I don't know. We don't need a second. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 175 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Goodnight all. (End of Hearing.) (End of Side A -III.) XMAX(44/44) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 176 (, LISA A. GLANVILLE, C.S.R. #9932, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of California, do hereby certify: That the preceding tape transcription was taken down by me in shorthand to the best of my ability and thereafter reduced to computerized transcription under my direction and supervision, and I hereby certify the foregoing transcript is a full, true and correct transcript of my shorthand notes so taken. I further certify that I am neither counsel for nor related to any party to said action nor interested in the outcome of this action. Witness my hand this day of September, 2002. LISA A. GLANVILLE CSR No. 9932 State of California Page 173 to Page 176 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC Date: August 22, 2002 For Agenda Of: August 28, 2002 Agenda Item: 5 REPORT TO: The Planning Commission FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of Basement and Attic Policies ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: It has been determined that this project would not have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15061(b)(3)). RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Forward recommendation of approval to Town Council. EXHIBITS: A. BACKGROUND: A. Draft Attic Policy (one page) B. Architectural Standards/Hillside Committee Minutes of March 21, 2002 (two pages) C. Survey of Local Communities (two pages) D. UBC Story and Basement Diagrams Since adoption of the General Plan in July 2000, and as part of the General Plan implementation effort, staff has been working to improve the Town's regulations related to various design issues such as neighborhood compatibility, bulk , mass, scale and density. The Town uses the concept of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as a way of regulating the mass and scale of single-family homes. While the Residential Design Standards are the primary method of evaluating the compatibility of new and remodeled homes, it is typical that applicants design structures to the maximum allowable FAR because they assume that if the home meets the FAR it will be approved. FAR regulations were adopted as a way of limiting the size of new and remodeled homes, but were never intended to be the sole measure of compatibility. It is important to emphasize that the FAR formula does not necessarily equate to a desirable or reasonable floor area when site constraints, neighborhood character, building bulk and mass are considered in the overall review of a proposed development. Often there is an inherent conflict between an applicant's desire to achieve a certain home size (typically maximizing the FAR), and the Town's objective of reducing the bulk and mass of the structure to ensure neighborhood compatibility. As one method to balance this conflict, the Town currently uses its discretionary review authority to allow more floor area by "hiding" or "burying" mass through the incorporation of cellars. The Town does not currently have an adopted policy stating that cellars are excluded from the floor area of a home for the purpose of calculating FAR. But since the adoption of the FAR ordinance in 1989, the Town's practice has been to exclude cellars from the FAR calculation. Council has requested that a written policy be developed to reflect this practice. For several months, staff has been working with the Architectural Standards/Hillside Committee (ASC) to develop a policy clarifying what floor area will be included when calculating th FAR of a home. A basement policy was drafted and subsequently revised based on input from the Attachment 3 The Planning Commission - Page 2 Basement and Attic Policies August 28, 2002 Committee and the public. In working with the ASC, the issue of attics was also discussed. Attic space is another element that potentially increases building volume, bulk, height and mass. Staff has included those areas with a ceiling height greater than seven feet as floor area. In those instances where the ceiling is sloped, pitched, angled, curved etc., any floor to ceiling height less than five feet is not counted in the FAR. In summary, the ASC concluded that if a building area is entirely below grade, or does not extend more than three feet above grade at any point, it does not significantly affect the above ground mass and should, therefore, be exempted. With regard to attics, the ASC concluded that once an attic space exceeds a height of seven feet, it is to be counted as floor area down to a height of 41/2 feet. Two General Plan policies relate to the issue of cellars, basements and attics: L.P.2.3 - "Encourage basements and cellars to provide "hidden" square feet in -lieu of visible mass ";and L.P.2.1 - Development applications should be reviewed in light of overall mass and scale of development. B. DISCUSSION: Basements The purpose of establishing policy to address basements, cellars, and attics is to provide clear direction to developers (General Plan Implementing Strategy L.I.7.4), to aid staff in the consistent review of new and remodeled homes, and to help reduce above ground (visible) bulk and mass of structures. While it has been standard practice to exempt cellars from the FAR calculation there is not currently a written policy or code stating this. The Town Code includes the following definitions as part of the Zoning Ordinance: basement means that portion of a building between floor and ceiling which is partly below and partly above grade, but so located so that the vertical distance from grade to the floor below is less than the vertical distance from grade to ceiling. cellar is that portion of a building between floor and ceiling which is wholly or partly below grade, and so located that the vertical distance from grade to the floor below is equal to or greater than the vertical distance from grade to ceiling. The current definition of a cellar is that it is more than 50% below grade. A basement extends more than 50% above grade. A cellar is exempted from counting as floor area and a basement is not. While this practice has worked well on property with limited slope, its application on steeper parcels is problematic. For example, a cellar could potentially be entirely below grade on one side of a home and completely daylight on the other. The side that is daylighted appears as another story and adds to the bulk and mass of structure, yet it is not counted as part of the FAR. However, in hillside areas three story elevations are prohibited. This demonstrates the importance of using development standards over FAR as a means of truly evaluating mass, scale and compatibility. The Planning Commission - Page 3 Basement and Attic Policies August 28, 2002 Uniform Building Code Although the Town uses the Uniform Building Code (UBC) definitions as a basis for evaluating projects, the actual definition of a basement pursuant to the UBC is defined through the definition of a story. The UBC does not use the term "cellar". The following excerpts from the UBC are related to basements: The critical part of the definition of a story involves the definition of the first story. The UBC defines the first story as the lowest story in a building which qualifies as a story (Section 220-S). The first story may be either an inhabited story or may be unused under- floor space. The following provides the UBC criteria to determine if a given level is either the first story or basement (see Exhibit D for diagrams presenting story and basement definitions). First Story definition:" If the finished floor level above the level under consideration or above under floor space is more than six feet above grade for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter of the building, the level under consideration is the first story." or "If the finished floor level above the level under consideration or above under -floor space is more than 12 feet above grade at any point, the level under consideration or the under -floor space shall be considered as the first story". Definition of Basement not in a Hillside: "If the finished floor level above the level under consideration is 6 feet or less above grade for more than 50 percent of the perimeter and does not exceed 12 feet at any point the floor level under consideration is a basement". Definition of a Basement in a Hillside: "Where a building is partially excavated into a hillside location and consist of only one level, that level is considered to be a basement by the code unless the floor level is four feet or less for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter or is eight feet or less below grade at any point. In this latter case, the level is considered to be a one story building. Given the definition of the UBC and the need to achieve the Town's objective of establishing policy to determine what floor area is included when calculating FAR, several options are presented for consideration by the Planning Commission. Upon concurrence of a selected policy by the Planning Commission, staff will proceed with the formal adoption process through the Town Council. Suggested Policy Alternatives Alternative 1 - As recommended by the Architectural Standards/Hillside Committee, if a space meets the criteria for exemption (no more than three feet above grade), it will not be counted toward the allowable floor area. If it does not meet the criteria, it will count as floor area. The deciding body will have the ability to allow an exception to the basement policy for extenuating or exceptional circumstances. The basement criteria is proposed as a policy so that it can be applied for a time, and later evaluated. If successful, the policy could then be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission - Page 4 Basement and Attic Policies August 28, 2002 Alternative 2 - Based on Town Code definitions, the exposed building height of a cellar shall not exceed four feet above existing or finished grade in any location. That area of a cellar where the exposed building height exceeds four feet above existing or finished grade shall be included in the floor area calculation. The area of the cellar that is more than four feet below existing or finished grade shall not be included in the floor area calculation. For the purposes of this policy, whichever grade (existing or finished) results in the lowest profile of a building shall be used. Alternative 3 - Based on Uniform Building Code, the exposed building height of a basement shall not exceed six feet in any location. If the area of basement wall height is exposed above finished grade from 3 to 6 feet in excess of 50 percent of the perimeter walls then the entire basement area shall be computed in the floor area calculation. If the area of basement wall height is exposed above finished grade from 3 to 6 feet for less than 50 percent of the perimeter walls then the entire basement area shall not be computed in the floor area calculation. The Architectural Standards/Hillside Committee (ASC) recommends adoption of the policy included as Alternative 1 (above). The minutes of the March 21, 2002 ASC meeting are attached for the Commission's review (see Exhibit B). The Commission should review the three suggested policies, listed above, make any desired changes and forward a recommendation to the Town Council. Attics The intent of the attic policy is to provide written criteria clarifying when an attic space counts as floor area for the purpose of calculating FAR. The policy would not preclude an applicant from having storage space, but it would help reduce large volume spaces that contribute to the apparent bulk and mass of a structure. Staff surveyed other communities and found that attic space is counted based on a variety of criteria including height, accessibility and whether a space could potentially be converted to habitable floor space. Height criteria ranges from five to 71/2 feet (space counts as floor space when it is at or exceeds the specified height). The survey results are contained in Exhibit C. • Current Policy: The Town does not currently have a definition for attic. • Uniform Building Code: The UBC states that when an attic space is 71/4 feet in height or greater, it is counted as habitable space down to areas five feet in height. • Recommended Policy: Once an attic space exceeds a height of seven feet, it is to be counted as floor area (habitable space) down to a height of 41/4 feet. This area would be counted toward FAR. The Planning Commission - Page 5 Basement and Attic Policies August 28, 2002 C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission should take the following actions: a. Consider the three alternatives for the basement policy and decide which to forward to the Town Council; and, b. Recommend the attic policy included as Exhibit A to the Town Council. Bud N. Lortz, Director of 42bmmunity Development Prepared by: Tom Williams, Assistant Community Development Director Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner BNL:SD:mdc N :! D E V \S U Z A NN E P CIRE P O RTS! Basem en t s-A ttic s. wpd DRAFT TOWN COUNCIL POLICY TOWN OF LOS GATOS Subject: Attics Page 1 of 1 Enabling Action: 2002- Approved: Randy Attaway, Mayor Effective Date: PURPOSE: The following policy shall be used when reviewing development plans that include attic space. The intent of this policy is to reduce the visible bulk and mass of structures. DEFINITION: An attic is a non -habitable space (that may or may not be used for storage) with a maximum height of seven feet as measured from the upper surface of the attic floor to the underside of the roof above. For the purposes of this definition, attic spaces are considered to have floor surfaces. POLICY: Attics that meet the above definition shall not be counted as floor space for purposes of determining compliance with Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limitations. Note: Once an attic space exceeds seven feet in height, all areas down to 41/2 feet will be counted toward the floor area ratio (FAR). This policy is not intended to preclude a specific style of architecture such as Victorian. N:1DEV4SUZANNE\Council\Policies Attic -policy wpd Revised March 21, 2002 Exhibit A TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354-6872 SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS/HILLSIDE COMMITTEE, MARCH 21, 2002 HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. ATTENDANCE Members Present: Suzanne Muller, Planning Commissioner Paul Du Bois, Planning Commissioner Peggy Dallas, Architect Staff Present: Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner Bud Lortz, Director of Community Development Others Present: Tony Jeans The meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. by Acting Chair Suzanne Muller. Verbal Communications Tony Jeans expressed concern about the proposed attic policy. In his opinion, it would preclude people from doing Victorian style architecture. ITEM 1 Basements: Review Draft Basement Policy The Committee reviewed the draft policy and reached a consensus on the following: • A bullet was added stating that if any portion of a basement extends more than three feet above grade, the entire basement will be counted as floor area. • The first two bullets were modified and combined into one statement. • A statement that in exceptional circumstances the deciding body can make exceptions to this policy was added to the end of the document. Tony Jeans suggested minimizing light and exit wells when they are within a setback, but not restricting otherwise. The policy will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as amended. ITEM 2 Attics: Review Draft Attic Policy Suzanne Muller suggested asking the consulting architect to review the policy in response to Mr. Jean's concern. Exhibit B Architectural Standards/Hillside Committee Regular Meeting of March 21, 2002 Page 2 of 2 Bud Lortz said that there is a provision in the Code allowing the FAR to be exceeded if findings are made. The Committee agreed to adding a provision stating that the intent of the policy is not to preclude a specific style of architecture such as Victorian under the purpose section. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Prepared by: ? _cc. ..l eC(y/I Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner N:1DE V\S UZA NNE\AS C\ Minutes-2002 \ MIN3-2 I -02. wpd Attic and/or storage space 9- O O O U 2-3 U ° c CC') C0 O Q) U ) co 0),._ Q) c C) L- 00 -0 (0 • • 0 (0 L Q Q) 0) 0) LE O o O 0 co c U 0 • Basements E (0 2 U U CO Q) X N Q 0 .0 a) E co cu cn C O a) (0 -c p L L O c a)�E"— X a) cn a) a) Ems'- .1= 0) a) 0_ (0 c 0 -o c0 C) •-, C) .4- E�«-ca) a) 00 4- C0 c0 0 .0 Q...Q N O) C J (CS J Q ccn O a 0 07 X> O c c0 a)+' E(i) to L "0 -0 Cn - • c - (0 E 2 .0 O c ° CO (0 ors 0 O -0 E n_ CO CD -0 C (0 > 4- a)(0 O Bulk & Mass 0 a) 0) 2 C L -*E.0 .� -a co a) 0 a 0) 4 a) cn cm 2 (7U A a) O < c0 > "0 LL -0 C0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0) c U 10 2 -0 m a) -4--' a) -c C) a) a) O a) p a) ti ° N c c0 X a) .0).0) 0) a) a) .L a) a) c o3.-. o.cL cu CY L 0) � X X Q) < 00 a) \ (0 c0 -Da.=.cN E E • • • • • • 0 v Los Gatos O 4- co 0 J Los Altos Hills Monte Sereno c0 0 0 Exhibit C Hillside RegulationsComparison• 1 Attic and/or storage space 1 • subject to interpretation (typically count areas that are considered accessible) • if space is accessible, areas that are five feet or greater count as floor area • attic spaces do not count as floor area unless the roof pitch exceeds 12:12 Basements • habitable space exempt from floor area if FF level of first floor is no more the three feet above grade around perimeter of foundation (cannot extend beyond building footprint) • basement (no more than 1'/2 feet above adjoining grade) is exempt from floor area • allow UBC min. standards for light, ventilation & access • basement is exempt when it does not extend more than two feet above natural grade Woodside • maximum size for residence • basements that are wholly (volume based) below grade are exempt • total floor area (TFA) maximum • basements that extend above • covered decks area more than grade are counted and affect eight feet of the building are the plate height used to counted as floor area regulate floor area/volume • design guidelines • Architecture & Site Review Board Bulk & Mass • FAR (lowers from .45 to .30 once house reaches 5,000 s.f.) • daylight plane • max. site coverage 25% • daylight plane • height limitation 28 feet • max. height low to high 34 ft. • design guidelines • Architectural • slope density based maximum floor area • sq. footage cap (8,000 sq.ft.) • design guidelines • max. impervious coverage 25% • color restriction City/Town Palo Alto Portola Valley Saratoga NADEV\S UZANNEIASC111I LLSIDE\hill-comp. wpd SECOND STORY FIRST STORY CASE I BASEMENT CASE II ONE-STORY AND BASEMENT BUILDING MULTILEVEL BUILDINGS THE LOWER FLOOR LEVEL IS CLASSIFIED AS THE FIRST STORY IF THE FLOOR LEVEL ABOVE IS: n .Zig TN AN 6 FEET__AaME �RDE FOR MORE THAN 50 PEFICENTOFTHTETOTAL PERIMETER OR MORE THAN 12 FEET ABOVE GRADE AT ANY POINT. TWO-STORY BUILDING THE UPPER FLOOR LEVEL WILL BE CLASSIFIED AS THE FIRST STORY IF THE FLOOR LEVEL IS: NOT MORE THAN R Ear ABOVE GRADE FOR AT LEAST 50 PE IHE ERIMETER AND DOES NOT �XCE ^ 12 EGGT eanvE. GRADE AT ANY POINT, ' FIRST STORY FOR A BUILDING HAVING ONLY ONE LEVEL: For SI: 1 foot = 304.8 mm. FLOOR LEVEL IS CLASSIFIED AS THE FIRST STORY WHEN THE FLOOR LEVEL IS: NOT MORE THAN 4 FEET BELOW GRADE FOR MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PERIMETER NOR MORE THAN 8 FEET BELOW GRADE AT ANY POINT. BUILDING HAS NO FIRST STORY AND THE FLOOR LEVEL IS CLASSIFIED AS A BASEMENT WHEN THE FLOOR LEVEL IS: MORE THAN 4 FEFT AEt rust_ GRADE FOR MOR TE HAN 50 PERCENT OF THE 10tAL PERIMETER OR MORE THAN 8 FEETBE OW GRADE AT ANY POINT. CASE .III SINGLE -LEVEL BUILDINGS Figure 220-1 Exhibit D For SI: 1 foot = 304.8 MM. 4 10. CROSS SECTION 1 co CONCRETE WALL —A FINISH GROUND ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION OPEN m LOWEST GRADE TWO-STORY AND BASEMENT BUILDING Figure 209-3 2'6" Alambar of Tina AnranWn tntfltore Of Arch,tects E. GARY SCHLOH, ARCHITECT 213 Bean Ave. LOS GATOS, CA 95030 (408) 354-4551 SHEET NO OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE l4 OOT 0 a SCALE ro : tv16im ktv of,e ttAc -reinvCovo6il 1 atm ooxvicertleol a4 u t occ v oe-Plvt c lc�vi aP a, ca, f 1 ate- am o, wl y a.- ecd, u d Lr.. w► 6evre c vt+d Gu'l c c 1( 1 �`'Yt)ct (6'14 faa and et fi o -f- ca,fc,..... sec rt e 6 av' cz, l (ma c troo-vv c 1 - � v� i ►�� > vv�� w1.c� c1 re-? L N -t-f i e w c o i vn u v fie. in t o c� w r cAd s).(-v �o cti- ire (r- w, a 2)-0' 1 LOUoreco-vi l 1-1/1(' 110 W c, 69c v, c ttd- i o{� a- c l la/in CA i + ! r -&Vr Ouwi ice' atetd e,c; to it) hoc) wac4, ct,�t' v c v c -ua r lit re-re-e ;f ' re.* w i I 1 r re a ._..... G X C a v a -tt t t ug- i 6Lt... 7eeww!� loe. 4a/ 6. • 1 664- tfnait a r:ro (Jo coot (, 6o it a c /i T(>4 -1- 71 I e9.146 1 c& 1 ta'r o rt ;i4a in.00 C, 01 . 1-140zA/t/ boc.0 RECEIVE© OCT 1 4 2002 Attachment 4 Member of The American Inslitefa of Architects E. GARY SCHLOH, ARCHITECT 213 Bean Ave. LOS GATOS, CA 95030 (408) 354-4551 JOB /�W v,(r Ft: SHEET NO OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE l.k 0G1- p 2 SCALE t RESOLUTION 2002-167 RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ADOPTING CELLAR AND ATTIC POLICIES WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos does not currently have any written codes or policies regulating cellars and attics, and WHEREAS, the General Plan encourages use of basements and cellars to provide hidden square footage in -lieu of above ground visible mass (Policy L.P.2.1); and WHEREAS, adoption of such policies will help provide clear direction to developers and homeowners processing development applications (General Plan Implementing Strategy L.I.7.4); and WHEREAS, adoption of such policies will help reduce the bulk and mass and scale of new and remodeled homes; and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: the Town Council of the TOWN OF LOS GATOS does hereby adopt the Cellar and Attic Policies attached hereto as Exhibits A and B. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on the 21 st day of October 2002, by the following vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker, Steve Glickman, Joe Pirzynski, Mayor Randy Attaway. NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: None None None SIGNED: /s/ Randy Attaway MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA /s/ Marian V. Cosgrove CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA TOWN COUNCIL POLICY TOWN OF LOS GATOS Subject: Attics Page 1 of 1 Enabling Action: 2002-167 Approved: Effective Date: October 21, 2002 Randy Attaway, Mayor PURPOSE: The following policy shall be used when reviewing development plans that include attic space. The intent of this policy is to reduce the visible bulk and mass of structures. DEFINITION: An attic is a non -habitable space (that may or may not be used for storage) with a maximum height of seven feet six inches as measured from the upper surface of the attic floor to the underside of the roof above. For the purposes of this definition, attic spaces are considered to have floor surfaces. POLICY: Attics that meet the above definition shall not be counted as floor space for purposes of determining compliance with Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limitations. Note: Once an attic space exceeds seven feet six inches in height, all areas down to five feet will be counted toward the floor area ratio (FAR). C:\Documents and Settings\MRasmussU.ocal Settings \ Temp \Attic-pilicy.wpl Revised March 21.2002 TOWN COUNCIL POLICY TOWN OF LOS GATOS Subject: Cellars Page 1 of 2 Enabling Action: 2002-167 Approved: Effective Date: October 21, 2002 Randy Attaway, Mayor PURPOSE: General Plan policy L.P.2.3 states: "Encourage basements and cellars to provide "hidden" square footage in -lieu of visible mass." The following policy shall be used by staff when reviewing plans that include a cellar. DEFINITION: A cellar is an enclosed area that does not extend more than three feet above the existing or finished grade in any location. Cellars, as defined here, shall not be included in the FAR. That area of a cellar where the building height exceeds four feet above existing or finished grade shall not be included in this definition and shall be included in the floor area calculation. For purposes of this policy, whichever grade (existing or proposed) results in the lowest building profile of a building shall be used. POLICY: In reviewing plans for cellars staff shall consider the following: • A cellar shall not extend more than four feet above the adjacent finished grade at any point around the perimeter of the foundation. Below grade floor area must meet the above definition of cellar to be excluded from the floor area calculations for the structure. • If any portion of a cellar extends more than four feet above grade, that area shall be included in the floor area calculation. C:\Documents and Settings\MRasmuss\Local Settings\Temp\Cellar-policy.wpd Revised September 20, 2002 ri _ • Light and exit wells may encroach into front and side yard setbacks provided that a minimum three-foot wide pedestrian access is provided around the light well(s). Light wells and exiting shall be the minimum required to comply with the Uniform Buildind Code criteria for natural light and ventilation. • Below grade patios may extend out from a cellar into the required rear yard provided that a minimum 10 foot setback is retained from the rear property line. • Cellars and basements (except light and exit wells) shall not extend beyond the building footprint. • The Planning Commission may allow an exception to this policy based on extenuating or exceptional circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. The Commission shall make findings to support such a decision. C:\Documents and Settings\MRasmuss\Local Settings\Temp\Cellar•policy.wpd C:\Documents and Settings\MRasmuss\Local Settings\Temp \Cellar-policy.wpd Revised September 20.2002 Town Council Minutes October 21, 2002 Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California MINUTES OF OCTOBER 7, 2002 (06.V) Ray Davis pulled this item from consent and spoke to the issue of his comments not being addressed in the minutes to his satisfaction, but on this particular occasion he was satisfied. Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council approve the Minutes of October 7, 2002, Joint Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting as submitted. Carried unanimously. FIRST QUARTER BUDGET PERFORMANCE & STATUS REPORT (19.09) Town Finance Director, Steve Conway, gave an overview of the status of the Town's financial condition as of the end of the first quarter of the fiscal year for Council's consideration. Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mr. Pirzynski, to accept the 2002-2003 first quarter budget performance and status report and authorize budget reserve utilization as recommended in the attached first quarter budget performance report. Carried unanimously. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM/QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT (20.09) Town/Agency Public Works Director, John Curtis, gave an overview of the status of the Town's/Agency's Capital Improvement Program at the end of the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2002- 2003. Ray Davis questioned the 15 million designated for road repair and asked when this work would be completed. He asked that the Town charge Park Fees on all new construction to go toward a Park Fund for the construction and upkeep of the Skateboard Park. He asked that the Skateboard Park be built at the old Bus Depot Lot. He also applauded the installation of the new audio visual equipment in the Council Chambers. Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mr. Blanton, to accept the quarterly status report on the Town's/Agency's Capital Improvement program. Carried unanimously. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS/CELLAR & ATTIC POLICIES/RESOLUTION 2002-167 (21.37) Mayor Attaway stated that this was the time and place duly noted to consider adopting resolution establishing Cellar and Attic Policies. Bud Lortz, Planning Director, noted that the Cellar Policy would be changed from 3 feet above grade to 4 feet above grade and the Attic Policy would be modified from 7 feet measured down to 41/2 feet to the Uniform Building Code of 71/2 feet measured down to 5 feet. Ray Davis disapproved in the change to the permitted size of attic space believing that it will encourage the utilization of illegal living space. Gary Schloh, Architect, spoke of homes on level sites not presenting a problem but of those on hillsides that do not adhere to the requirements consistently. He noted that the 4 foot policy would be far easier to work with giving light and accessability to the living space. Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mr. Pirzynski, that Council adopt Resolution 2002-167 entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ADOPTING ARCHITECTURAL POLICIES FOR CELLAR AND ATTIC CONSTRUCTION. Carried unanimously. N:\C LK\Council M inutes120021M 10-2 I-02.wpd 6