Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.08.08 PC Minutes - APPROVED0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES September 8, 2008 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the September 8, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Lindstrom, Terrones, and Yie Absent: Commissioner Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker and Assistant Planner Lisa Whitman. III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg to approve the minutes of the August 25, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: ■ Page 9, vote on motion for Item 6; replace "Consent" with `Action". ■ Page 10, first bullet at top of page; replace "additional' with "original'. ■ Page 11, vote on motion for Item 7, replace "Consent' with "Action". ■ Page 12, vote on motion for Item 8; replace "Consent' with "Action". Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR None. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 755 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADULT DAY CARE FACILITY IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND 755 CALIFORNIA DRIVE LLC. PROPERTY OWNERI STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated September 8, 2008. Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 8, 2008 ■ Clarified hours of operation. ■ Asked if activities will occur inside and/or outside. ■ Asked if there will be security provided for seniors at the center. ■ Requested that the applicant identify similar facilities in the area; somewhat concerned that the parking demand fits perfectly with the parking provided; look at other similar facilities and examine their needs from a parking standpoint. ■ Take a look at the parking layout; seems that more handicapped spaces would be required; would think that handicapped parking should be closer to the building. ■ Seems that the bathrooms are not as accessible as they should be; take another look at the layout from an accessibility standpoint for varied degrees of independence and mobility. This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:09 p.m. 2. 1145 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A CHILDREN'S TUTORING CENTER (CLASS USE) IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (LEIZELLE PAISO AND RACHEL LEVINE, KUMON, APPLICANT; RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; AND RONALD AND STEVEN KARP, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Assistant Planner Whitman presented a summary of the staff report, dated September 8, 2008. Commission comments: ■ Identify ages of students using the facility; asked if high-school students will be using the facility. ■ Think through the signage for the facility; guiding parents into the parking lot from California drive is a key issue to ensure that they don't pass the parking lot. ■ There may be a better way of maneuvering people into and out of the parking lot; avoid backing up onto California Drive. ■ Great use. Great service for community. ■ Appears that a number of the parking spaces are assigned to users in the adjacent building; are they being over -assigned; clarify who spaces are assigned to. ■ Think concretely about how to get all of the parents into the parking lot; important to think this through. ■ Concerned about safety of using parking across the street in the CalTrain lot. This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:14 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon 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. Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Consent Calendar Item 3b was pulled for discussion by Commissioner Brownrigg. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 8, 2008 3a. 100 ARUNDEL ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DON DONOUGHE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Commissioner Brownrigg moved approval of Consent Calendar Item 3a, based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Cauchi called fora voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (CommissionerVistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:18 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3b. 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED SL—APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXTEND OPERATION OF A PARK & FLY PROGRAM AT AN EXISTING HOTEL (KEITH JURCAZAK, PACIFIC VALLEY INVESTORS, APPLICANT; AND BURLINGAME HOTEL VENTURE, LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated September 8, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Three (3) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Keith Jurcazak, 1050 Ralston Avenue, Belmont; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Asked if it was the applicant's intent to subdivide the property into two parcels in the future; if it is intended, then it needs to be certain that the "park -and -fly" parking spaces remain on the Holiday Inn Express portion of the property (Jurcazak — indicated that they do not intend to divide the property at any point in the foreseeable future). Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the park and fly program shall be allowed to operate at this hotel with a maximum of 15 vehicles, the vehicles shall only be parked in the hotel parking lot, and shall be located only in the designated park and fly spaces as described in the application materials submitted to the Planning Department and as shown on the plans date stamped no vehicles associated with the park and fly program shall be parked on any part of the adjacent public or private parking lots or on the street; 2. that the hotel operation shall provide along with the quarterly transient occupancy tax report to the Burlingame Finance Department, the number of rooms rented with the park and fly package and the 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 8, 2008 number of days each car was parked on the hotel site; only one car shall be parked on the site for each hotel room rented as a part of a park and fly promotion/package; 3. that any increase of the maximum 15 vehicles parked on site at one time because of the park and fly program shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; and 4. that in the event that the property is subdivided in the future, the designated park -and -fly spaces shall remain on the property occupied by the hotel use. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. Commissioners Auran and Yie were recused from participating on Item 4; Commissioner A uran is related to the applicant, Commissioner Yie lives within 500-feet of the property in question. Both left the Council Chambers. 4. 1115 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND MICHAEL AND LISA MILLER, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated September 8, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Michael Gaul, P. O. Box 1616, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Reduced the size of the family room, but still need additional room due to limited living space. Excluding the penalty for the front porch and the garage that is included in FAR, the living space falls below the maximum FAR if you eliminate the garage. The garage was not part of the original design, was excavated in the 1940's. Is more than 50% below grade, does not add to mass of the structure; in fact enhances the design by making the building smaller due to lack of attached garage at grade. Commission comments: ■ Clarified floor area is being decreased, but that overall the structure still exceeds the maximum FAR. ■ Asked if a supplemental Variance application submitted (Gaul — wasn't aware of the need for a supplemental Variance application). ■ How far is finished floor above grade (Gaul — approximately 6-feet from top of curb). ■ Encouraged by decrease in FAR and reducing non -conformity. ■ Property is being penalized by the front porch and the garage; can support and commends the applicant by preserving a good piece of architecture. Public comments: 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 8, 2008 None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ There is a penalty for the attached garage and porch area; there is a reduction in the non- conformity with the current design. ■ Nice to see someone try to preserve a structure and work with the system without overbuilding the property; the style is unique. ■ The trellises were not permitted, should not be able to build to the maximum and add beyond the FAR. ■ The attached garage is appreciably below grade, and therefore does not add to bulk and mass. ■ From the rear, the addition is being trimmed down to more like a cupola type feature to reduce the mass, due to the upstairs trellis. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 28, 2008, sheets 1 through 6; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 27, 2008 and July 31, 2008 memos, the City Engineer's June 27, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 30, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 30, 2008 memo shall be met; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 8, 2008 issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ Understands and supports concerns about setting precedent; however, the current owner did not appear to build the trellises; need to be judicious in this type of situation, and address this type issue on a case -by -case basis. ■ Can support request because the home is a nice piece of architecture; not a large lot, but house is still only roughly 3, 000 square feet. ■ Feels that the property may qualify as an historic structure, this is a special consideration. ■ Some portion of the overage on FAR is due to the generous porch; the Commission has supported Variances for generous porches in the past. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Auran and Yie recused, Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. Commissioners Auran and Yie returned to the dais. 5. 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SAMUEL AND ELAINE WONG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND T. PETER LAM, AIA ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 8, 2008 Reference staff report dated September 8, 2008, with attachments. Assistant Planner Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Peter Lam, 840 Folsom Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Asked to view sample of shingles. Public comments: Ron Wong, 1320 Skyview Drive; feels that material submitted conforms to the Commission's concerns; keeps in the color of roofs in the neighborhood, will blend with the area. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: The roofing material passes muster. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, 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 October 12, 2007, sheets Al. 1 through A1.3, and A3.1 through A3.3, and August 15, 2008, Sheets PA through PAS, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that a tree protection plan shall be prepared, to be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist, to ensure the preservation of all trees on the property during the construction process, the tree protection measures shall be installed before a building permit is issued; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's, and NPDES Coordinator's May 14, 2007 memos, and the City Engineer's May 17, 2007 memo shall be met; 4) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, 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 Planning Commission review; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 8, 2008 7) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 9) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 10) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 11) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:48 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 1709 RALSTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND MIKE AND JENNIFER BUCKLEY, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated September 8, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Questioned whether the upstairs room qualifies as a bedroom since it does not have a stairway. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Applicant requested that the addition be invisible from the street. Commission comments: M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 8, 2008 ■ Noted concern about privacy of neighbor's pool (Robertson — neighbors have reviewed the plan and accepted it). ■ Clarify if existing chimney at front of house needs to be raised. ■ Like the project. ■ Asked about the date of home construction (Robertson — 1920s). ■ Can accept Variance request due to rationale in application; but put more work into the Variance justification. ■ Provide revised Variance application. Public comments: None There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:57 p.m. 7. 1425 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (BG PACIFIC, APPLICANT; B & S BENITO, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; AND JACK MCCARTHY, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated September 8, 2008, with attachments. Assistant Planner Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period and noted that four desk items related to the item had been received. Jack McCarthy, 5239 Prospect Road, San Jose; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Commissioner Terrones noted that he had discussed project details with the applicant, but not the merits of the project. ■ The site is hindered by the upslope; a major portion of the buildable area is up a story from street level; would the applicant be opposed to building the house slab -on -grade to bring the height of the house down somewhat; consider decreasing roof pitch; nice application though. ■ With respect to desk items; noted concerns about privacy of neighbors due to window placement; noted that some of the bedroom windows do have some blank spaces that could have windows, but this could conflict with the neighbor's concerns about privacy; consider adding small windows to kitchen and bedroom areas. ■ Noted blank walls on right side elevation, could have windows flanking chimney to enliven the exterior elevation. ■ Work with neighbors with respect to window placement. 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 8, 2008 A nice design but the wrong design for the lot; consider a Prairie -style with a low-pitched roof; would be more appropriate for site; could eliminate need for Variance. What is roofing material (McCarthy — asphalt shingles). Bring the ridgeline of the roof down. Public comments: Craig Srabian, 1428 Benito Avenue; Aria Kasuga, 1418 Alvarado Avenue; Paul Lorence, 1416 Alvarado Avenue; and John Funghi, 1421 Benito Avenue commented as follows: the house is too tall for the block; street peaks at project site; more in favor of a Prairie -style home; too massive for the lot, would block sun; this home is being built for profit; neighbors have to live with the result; project not in keeping with styles in Burlingame; concerns about privacy if it is as tall as it seems; would like to see story poles, particularly with pitched roof on the garage; would like the front setback to be placed at the average of the existing dwellings on Benito Avenue; look at the sidewalk transition in front of the dwelling; move driveway 5-feet north; supportive of southern elevation (facing property at 1421 Benito Avenue), refrain from adding additional windows on this side; if a second floor bath, include obscured window if provided; likes hip roof to minimize height variance; concerned about 8 '/2 foot height variance, hasn't adequately met the findings for a variance; incomplete, based simply upon minimizing grading costs at the expense of the neighborhood; driveway slope is approximately 15-20%, could be hazardous; lower the pad grade, this would flatten the driveway, would also address the water problems on the property; planting strip adjacent to the driveway, plant trees instead of vines to provide privacy; work with the neighborhood to implement design suggestions addressing neighbor concerns. Mr. McCarthy indicated that the Parks and Recreation Department requested the sidewalk relocation. He asked who will adjust transition areas in the future as adjacent properties are developed. No problem with story poles, even for garage. Would like to consider other options for bringing roof down, if pitch reduced too much only the fascia line will be visible from street; need to be able to see the roof from street to maintain design. Would like to work with neighbors, requested contact information. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Requested clarification of the Parks and Recreation Department's policy regarding planter strips and sidewalk relocations. ■ Nicely executed design, but not convinced right style for this lot. ■ Not clear that shifting driveway to north would accomplish anything. To address neighbor's concern, could make sidewalk transition on south side of property similar to that on north side. ■ Agrees with adding windows on side elevation in a manner that protects the neighbor's privacy, for example, above cabinet line in kitchen. ■ The house is extremely large and includes a basement that doesn't count toward FAR; less sympathy for granting a variance; there is a greater burden to minimize height with a house of this size; the style requires a defined roof element; agrees that another style may be appropriate. ■ This is a good case to require story poles. ■ Clarify the requirement to move sidewalks (Meeker —will get clarification and discuss the problems with the Parks and Recreation Department). ■ Neighbor's issues need to be addressed; should meet with neighbors. Applicant needs to bring technical expertise to bear regarding drainage issues, and make clear what they can make better and what they cannot. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 8, 2008 ■ Incumbent upon the applicant to provide a large mass tree in front yard to address mass and bulk of structure; show on a revised landscape plan. ■ A more generous front porch may help to reduce the appearance of mass and is in keeping with the proposed style. ■ The lot is oversized, home doesn't come close to maximizing the lot coverage; could the home be spread over the lot, rather than up. ■ Like style of house, but a bit large. ■ Reduce height to eliminate variance. Chair Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion failed on a voice vote 2-4-1 (Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Terrones, and Yie dissenting, Commissioner Vistica absent). Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer, with the direction provided by the Commission during the discussion. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: ■ Feels that applicant has the expertise to address concerns, but would not save time to allow a re- design without input from a design reviewer. ■ The more and more the house is revised, the further it gets from the Victorian feel. ■ Would be difficult to story pole without knowing ultimate design. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:36 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of September 2, 2008: ■ Adopted regulations permitting conversion of stock cooperatives to condominiums. FYI: 2724 Martinez Avenue — review of required changes to a previously approved design review project: 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 8, 2008 ■ Schedule for a public hearing. FYI: 1320 Burlingame Avenue — review of minor change to existing recessed entry in Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A: Accepted. Commissioner Brownrigg requested that an item be placed on the next agenda to allow him to report on the progress of art selection for the Peninsula Hospital property. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 8:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Richard Terrones, Vice Chair 12