Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2000.10.10 -1- MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA October 10, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the October 10, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7: p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: Commissioner Deal, Osterling ( Osterling arrived at 9:06 p.m.) Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES Three corrections were made to the minutes of the September 25, 2000, regular meeting 1) page 15, paragraph 2, correct the vote to 7-0; 2) page 6 line 3 add presented a petition signed by 60 neighbors in opposition; 3) relocate the name and address Edward Chen, 1113 Dufferin from Page 5, paragraph 4 to page 6, paragraph 2 so that it is shown with those who spoke regarding Dufferin Avenue. The minutes were approved as amended. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. V. FROM THE FLOOR Leigh Taunton, 845 Linden Avenue, spoke regarding the second unit amnesty issue noting that the City Council and Commission have been discussing this issue since the mid-1980's and no program has been implemented, we are still discussing the housing crisis; the housing element identifies this issue as important to meeting the city=s housing need; in April 2000 asked for a permit to have a second unit but City Attorney sa id could not have because there is no program; suggest that Commission lay off design review for a while and provide input to the City Council on second unit amnesty; have a room with a toilet and sink in his house but cannot rent yet group of kids rent next door; know will not enforce unless there is a complaint; CA noted that staff has a goal to get a study paper on this issue to the Commission in November. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1443 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED R-3 - APPLICATION FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R- 3 TO C-1 FOR AN EXISTING CHURCH (CHARLIE KAVANAGH, KAVANAGH ENGINEERING, APPLICANT; UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: if the rezoning was to benefit future activities at the church, what would these activities be; why do they need to rezone, can=t they ask for a sign exception in the City of Burlingame Planning Commission minutes October 10, 2000 -2- R-3 zone; are there other examples of dual zoning on a property, even some with signage issues, and how were they resolved. Commissioner added: regarding From the Floor the Commission should note to commenters that they cannot respond indicating action on items raised because the items have not been noticed on the agenda. This item, second unit amnesty, will be scheduled for a regular agenda and commissioners can comment then. The project at 1443 Howard Avenue was placed on the regular action calendar, for the meeting of November 13, 2000, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. 2. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 100 & 101 - ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 - APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (MICHAEL NILMEYER REPRESENTING CHARLES SCHWAB, APPLICANT; PATSON DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commission asked for clarification on the number of employees since on the plans it shows a different number of employees when you count offices and work stations; how many employees are in the San Mateo office, how will this compare to that; will they offer seminars at this location as they do in San Mateo, if so where will they be and do they need an additional permit, where will the attendees park, how many will attend. The item was placed on the consent calendar, for the October 23, 2000 meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 3. 800 AIRPORT BOULEVARD - ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LEASE ON-SITE PARKING SPACES (TODD GREEN, 800 AIRPORT PARTNERSHIP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commission asked how long would a lease be for using these parking spaces; what would happen to the leased spaces if a restaurant returned to this building; how will they decide what business could rent the parking spaces; will there be a restriction on the type of use of these parking spaces, for example, no car rental storage, does the applicant have a tenant in mind. The item was placed on the consent calendar, for the October 23, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT. Two members of the audience asked that 1108 Vancouver Avenue be taken off the consent calendar and moved to regular action for discussion. C. Bojués noted he lives within 300' of the project and would abstain from 1108 Vancouver Avenue. C. Dreiling requested 1322 Carlos Avenue also be called off for discussion. No items remained on the consent calendar. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM City of Burlingame Planning Commission minutes October 10, 2000 -3- 4A. 1108 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN & ENG., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GARY ERNST, PROPERTY OWNER) C. Bojués noted that he lives within 300' of the project and stepped down from the dais. Reference staff report 10.10.00, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Commission asked no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. James Chu, applicant and designer, was available for questions. The following commented on the project from the floor: Stuart and Sheila Reed, 1112 Vancouver Avenue; Erin Pryczbocki, 1104 Vancouver Avenue; Bill Van Dyke, 2101 Roosevelt Court. A letter was submitted from James Quinn, 1116 Vancouver Avenue. Issues of concern were the special permit for height, feel it isn’t necessary and will dwarf the two single-story houses adjacent to the proposed dwelling; too many windows at south side of structure gives the house the look of an apartment complex; feel commission has not given this proposal the same scrutiny that it gave the previous project proposed at 1108 Vancouver. The applicant responded he could clip the roof and be within the required height if Commission wanted this change; there are only three windows on the south elevation, two of which are in bedrooms and required for egress by the Building Code; has already reduced the size of stairwell window. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: special permit for height was created to enhance design and this proposed desi gn is good example of where extra height is necessary, only a small portion of the peak is above the 30'-0" height limit, support the special permit; concern with front entrance of proposed house, it does not have welcoming facade, want to see a porch instead of a turret at front of house, turret is not round like a typical turret, but rectangular which makes it bulky, applicant has not addressed the grandiosity of the front of the house; proposed house is pushing the limits of what is allowed and represents a new species of monster-home which meets all zoning requirements, but does not incorporate design elements in guidebook; feel turret feature is fine and large porch would not necessarily fit with rest of design; reducing the size of the windows at the front of the house would improve the facade. C. Vistica made a motion to approve the project, by resolution, with the conditions listed. C. Luzuriaga seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: also a concern with a new style of monster-home, but this project meets all zoning requirements and Commission has approved many like it before. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote to approve. The motion failed on a 2-2-1-2 (Cers. Dreiling and Keighran dissenting, C. Bojués abstaining, Cers. Osterling and Deal absent) roll call vote. Commission comment: applicant brings many houses before Commission, feel referral to a design reviewer is too extreme when design changes can be made by applicant with direction from Commission; would requesting a substantial change in design from the applicant require the project to start over? CP responded if denied the project would have to start over; referring the project to a design reviewer is not necessarily a long process, reviewer is given 8 days to assess project. Chairman Luzuriaga made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer with direction to retain the special permit for height, but address the grandiosity of the front of the house and other issues discussed. C. Keighran seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Bojués abstaining, Cers. Osterling and Deal absent) voice vote. This decision is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission minutes October 10, 2000 -4- 4B. 1322 CARLOS AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN & ENG., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report 10.10.00, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the project, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Commission asked no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. James Chu, applicant and designer, was present to answer questions. Commission asked the applicant: big concern with original design was the mass and bulk of the second story, how was this addressed in the revised plans? Applicant responded that a bay window enclosure had been added on the second floor to break up the mass and bulk of the wall on the right elevation. There were no further comments from the Commission or the audience and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this design pushes the boundaries of what is allowed by code; the first story footprint is merely repeated on the second floor, creating a massive, bulky structure, no effort made to bring roof line down to first floor at side property line to reduce the impact on neighbors; applicant has addressed concerns Commission expressed during study hearing, design has more simplistic look and grandiosity of entrance is reduced. C. Keighran noted in this case changes were made, front is not as grandiose as it was, left elevation has more articulation to break up mass, added bay window, moved to approve the project, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 29, 2000, sheets A-1 through A-4 and sheet L-1; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official=s August 28, 2000, memo and the City Engineer=s August 28, 2000, memo shall be met; and 4)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Vistica seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: this is a large house, but it meets all requirements; agree that house still looks a bit massive, but that is fault of Commission, should have given more specific direction to applicant during the study meeting. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-1-2 (C. Dreiling dissenting, Cers. Osterling and Deal absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. 5. 1016 TOYON DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND-STORY ADDITION (JONG HO LEE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CHANG H. LEE, DESIGNER Reference staff report, 10.10.00, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Commission noted that plans showed property corner elevations of A0", which is impossible, and asked that in the future staff ensure applicants have provided accurate elevations. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Chang Lee, designer, was present to answer questions. Commission asked of the applicant: what is style and detail of windows proposed? Applicant responded that City of Burlingame Planning Commission minutes October 10, 2000 -5- windows will be vinyl with wood trim and stucco will match existing. There were no additional questions from the Commission or the audience and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués moved to approve the project, by resolution, with the listed conditions. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Discussion on the motion: commission requested a condition to clarify the window trim so project would be built with traditional wood stucco mold, where window is inset and stucco is rounded, completed to edge of window to create curved molding; also requested a condition which would prevent sitting room on second floor from being closed off in the future to create a five bedroom house where only one covered parking space is provided. C. Bojués and C. Dreiling agreed to the amended motion to approve the project, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 15, 2000, sheets A0, A0A, and A1-A4, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that if at any time in the future the residential structure is further enlarged or remodeled to require two covered parking spaces, a floor area ratio variance may be required; 4) that the City Engineer=s April 17, 2000, memo shall be met; 5) that the sitting room on the second floor whose wall is open 50% to the adjacent room shall never be closed off by a door or wall without meeting all on site parking requirements for a five bedroom house and review and approval by the Planning Commission; 6) that the project shall be built with traditional wood stucco mold installed as part of stucco system; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (C. Osterling and Deal absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:21 p.m. 6. 300 CHANNING ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND- STORY ADDITION (FREDERICK MORELL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER, FREDERICK AND LIESL MORRELL, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report 10.10.00, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the project, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. The commission asked no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Frederick Morrell, applicant and owner, was present to answer questions. Commission asked of applicant: are all the skylights necessary?; it appears there is a mistake on the plans, window C and E are shown on the second floor plan, while only window E is shown on elevations, and on the elevations window E should actually be labeled window C. There were no comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: there are too many skylights, these do represent an impact on neighbors because of night glow and the appearance of the roof, can see the need for the skylight above the existing kitchen but throughout addition light should be obtained from additional windows instead of skylights, add windows in the blank walls of the addition so it will blend with the original house; and the windows on the second floor addition (i.e., C and E) should match the existing windows on the first floor. City of Burlingame Planning Commission minutes October 10, 2000 -6- C. Vistica made a motion to continue the project to the November 13, 2000 agenda, with the direction that the applicant remove skylights and add windows which match those existing to the design of the second story addition. C. Keighran seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: noted that the Commission did not address the skylights during the study meeting for this project; made some suggestions for using windows to add light including: lengthen window above the toilet, add small window above the vanity, could add windows in closets, all these added windows will liven up facade of house and improve access to natural light in living areas. Commissioner Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Osterling and Deal absent) voice vote. This decision is not appealable. The item concluded at 8:36 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1228 BERNAL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES AND MICHELLE DELIA, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) CP Monroe presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Jim Delia, property owner, represented the project noting that their intention was to design a craftsman style house and used an existing house on Cabrillo Avenue as their example. Commissioner asked why chose to use a Doric column on the front porch, would consider another style, stick style- square posts extending from the enclosed porch rail height is typical; also concerned about the overhang on the garage, it needs to get bigger/deeper to match the house better. Should be conditioned accordingly. There were no more comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Vistica moved to put this item on the consent calendar at the meeting of October 23, 2000. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Discussion on the motion: this is a good example of a nice design, what looking for, good craftsman features; conditions need to include real brick for the chimney, and deeper eaves on the garage. Maker and second of motion agreed to add conditions for the consent item. Chairman Lurzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this on the consent calendar for October 23, 2000, with conditions providing the information on the change in plans is provided to staff in time. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Deal, Osterling absent). Planning Commission action is advisory and is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. 8. 1653 LASSEN WAY - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND-STORY ADDITION (STEVEN LESLEY, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, MIKE AND LISA MILLER, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented the project description. Commissioners noted that the FAR numbers on the table in the staff report were reversed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission minutes October 10, 2000 -7- Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Steven Leslie, architect, represented the project noting that the request is for a declining height exception, not a height exception, feels the overage for declining height is pretty minimal 22 SF in a triangular area which is not visible. Commission asked for the reason why the FAR was 50 SF over, what was the hardship on the property; applicant noted did not realize that the area in the dormers would count, could reduce if removed dormers but they are important to design, break up the roof and add light to the attic area. Commission noted that the floor plan could be adjusted to remove 50 SF since there did not appear to be a hardship on the property to justify an FAR variance; plans note 12/12 pitch on the dormers but the elevations show them to be flat, prefer steeper pitch better design; the second floor roof is clipped into a hip, this may be a place to ask for a declining height exception to complete the gable roof design; is the chimney real brick or veneer; brick is preferable. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission Discussion: do not see any exceptional hardships on this lot for an FAR variance, design is fine need to increase the pitch on the roofs of the dormers, there is merit for the declining height exception; feel that there are unresolved issues with the FAR variance, dormers, window detail. Chairman Luzuriaga moved to take this item to action at the November 13, 2000, meeting if the information on the revisions is submitted in time to staff for plan check and preparation of a staff report, the revised drawings should resolve and reduce the FAR, show the 12/12 pitch of the dormer roofs, add information on the windows, note that the chimney will be brick. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: good design, issue is in the detail; seems to show large expanse of glass without mullions, need to break up expanse. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to set item to action on November 13, 2000, if the revisions can be made to the plans in time for staff to review, notice and prepare report and there is room on the agenda. Motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Deal and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. The item concluded at 9:05 p.m. Commissioner Osterling arrived at 9:06 p.m. and took his seat. 9. 1328 DRAKE AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE, AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR EXISTING SUBSTANDARD COVERED PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION (THOMAS R.B. AND TERRI C. BOESCH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GUMBINGER ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) CP Monroe presented the project description. Commission asked why the family room was called a bedroom making this house five bedrooms; staff responded that to not be counted as a bedroom one wall would have to be opened up 50% between the family room and an adjacent room. There were no further questions. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Thomas Boesch property owner, represented the project. Matt Maloney, 1329 Drake also commented. Commissioners discussed with applicant: have stairs which extend into parking area and trees block door of garage, how easy is it to use for parking; do you need the second floor deck, it impacts the privacy of the neighboring one story houses on each side; concerned about FAR, how far did you go in studies to see if you could comply with code; what kind of fireplace are you considering. This is a typical lot, with the most generous FAR calculation because of the detached garage, still not comply with FAR; family room is not resolved with the City of Burlingame Planning Commission minutes October 10, 2000 -8- house, it does not maintain the charm or character of the existing house. Applicant responded: the fire place will be wood burning; the basement has too low a ceiling height to turn into living space, there is a sump pump which runs almost all year round, would need to excavate to get ceiling height of 7'-6", there is a 5 foot cripple wall more than half of it above ground. Commission discussion: how does this basement fit in with the proposed changes to the code. Staff noted that the walls are more than 2 feet out of the ground and the ceiling more than 6 feet in height so it would be counted in FAR under the proposed regulations, currently is it counted because more than 50% of the walls are above grade. Need to look to the interior of the house and use of space to resolve the FAR problem, including the basement, kid space? can work with roof lines and lower mass, upper floor is a large rectangle added; front has nice articulation but stops on other elevations, need to pay more attention to other elevations; family room looks like a box tacked on, needs to be integrated with rest of the house; need to find a way to eliminate the FAR variance because there are no exceptional circumstances; second floor deck should be reduced; left elevation needs articulation, concerned about the parking would like to see enough FAR left over from house to allow reconstruction of the garage to a standard two car garage in the future without requiring an FAR variance. C. Bojués moved to send this project to the design reviewer with the direction given. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: want to have the interior space work functionally in this house. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to send this project to the design reviewer. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Deal absent) on a voice vote. The Planning commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. 10. 832 FAIRFIELD ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND-STORY ADDITION (TODD VARLAND AND AMY WELCH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; SHARON WILSON, DESIGNER) CP Monroe presented the project description. Commissioners asked if staff would check the building permits issued to this property, particularly for the addition at the rear. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Todd Varland, property owner and applicant, represented the project. Commission asked what the ceiling height in the basement area was, what is the intended use for the remainder of the area, and the reason for a full bath in the basement area. The applicant noted that front to back the ceiling height was less than 7'-6", the rest of the area would be used for storage, and the basement is accessible from yard so nice to shower there and not take dirt into the rest of the house. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission discussion: noted that there is a 10 foot fall from front to rear on this lot and existing house has an attached garage, so FAR formula is affected because detached garage is not an choice; concerned about what will happen when a new addition is proposed, then there will be a real FAR problem, the basement area is close to 1700 SF, if this is granted how do you avoid more additions. CA pointed out that action can void FAR variance if the house is removed. Much of decision on FAR revolves around the permits; design nice, have added articulation to the rear; concerned about the bathroom added in the basement area, need to eliminate that shower; concerned about the cantilevered deck, it is inconsistent with this type of architecture should use corbels/outriggers/posts to make it work better; why is basement bathroom needed, have to track through family room while upstairs bathroom is off the stairs; issue is basically the FAR variance. City of Burlingame Planning Commission minutes October 10, 2000 -9- Chairman Luzuriaga moved to put this item with revisions on the regular action calendar at the meeting of November 13, 2000. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on the motion: design needs to be changed for resubmittal, deck needs to be addressed, remove cantilever, bath in the lower level needs to have shower/tub removed, documents on the issuance of building permits for the addition at the rear need to be submitted. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote to place this item on the regular action calendar at the November 13, 2000, meeting if the revised plans and information are submitted in time for staff to review them before noticing. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal absent) voice vote. The Planning commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:58 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS S Review of October 2, 2000 City Council Meeting Staff reviewed the last City Council meeting and referred the commission to the Council discussion about the County Transportation Plan. Commissioner noted that we should make our procedure clear regarding From the Floor in our handouts and crib sheet for the chairman. S Basement FAR Subcommittee Report on Proposed Changes to the Zoning Code to Specifically Address Basements in Calculating FAR for Single Family Development Commission reviewed the provisions of the proposed changes to extend FAR to address basement areas. Discussion included: whether the size of bathrooms in basement areas should be limited, and if so what would be a good size, discussed special permit if larger than 30 SF; feel that separate entry is a key issue for a dwelling unit potential; how would the 1000 SF exemption be dealt with-- 1200 SF basement count only 200 SF or if 1200 SF larger than 1000 SF and entire 1200 SF counted in FAR; feel that 600 SF is a better number for exemption; think should use exemption as an incentive to have less mass in the house so regulations should reflect that; consensus was that 600 SF should be the square footage exempt rather than 1000 SF. Staff noted that they would address these issues and bring this item back to the Planning Commission for study at a meeting in November. Staff also noted that we would need to discuss how we would notice the commission=s public hearing on this ordinance. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Secretary MINUTES10.10