Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2000.04.10 page -1- MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA April 10, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the April 10, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: Commissioners Bojués and Dreiling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Janice Jagelski; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES On the minutes for the March 27, 2000, meeting staff noted a correction to the action on 1705 Murchison Drive noting Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. It was noted that the meeting adjourned at 12:02 a.m. Commissioners also noted that they wanted more time to review the comments in the minutes on the office project at 301 Airport. They will contact the City Planner with their understanding so the minutes can be corrected. Action on the minutes was delayed to the next meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that item 11, 1705 Murchison Drive, has been continued at the applicant =s request. Chairman Lururiaga noted that the commission did not have a quorum for the item at 2100 Poppy. Since he lives next door to this project he turned the chair over the Vice-Chairman Vistica and stepped down from the dias for the discussion of processing this item. C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant and also stepped down from the dias. Vice-Chairman Vistica noted that in the absence of a quorum for this item this evening, and because C. Bojués would probably be well soon, the commission should reschedule this hearing for a special meeting on April 18, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers since the applicant was requesting the soonest possible date. C. Keighran moved to set the public hearing for 2100 Poppy for a special meeting on April 18, 2000, in the Council Chambers; the Commissioners would also have time for a discussion of the Ralph M. Brown Act at that meeting. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Vice-Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to set 2100 Poppy Drive for hearing at a special meeting on April 18, 2000. The motion passed on a 3-0-2-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Bojués absent and Cers. Luzuriaga, Deal abstaining) vote. CP Monroe noted that staff would notice the property owners in the vicinity of 2100 Poppy of the special meeting tomorrow. Chairman Luzuriaga and C. Deal took their seats on the dias. Chairman Luzuriaga requested that From the Floor be moved to follow the study items so that anyone who might come late to this meeting for the 2100 Poppy item could have an opportunity to comment should they not be able to come on April 18, 2000. He then noted that there were no other changes to the agenda and the revised agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2000 page -2- From The Floor moved to after Study Items. STUDY ITEMS 1200 CORTEZ AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACK, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW TWO-CAR DETACHED GARAGE (WILLIAM C. AND NOREEN ELLEN WEST, OWNERS; ALAN D. OLIN, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT) CP Monroe presented the staff report and its attachments. Commissioners asked: would staff clarify if the side setback variance is for the existing wall or for the addition; would the applicant provide a justification for the existing basement; could the skylights be reconsidered and one placed on the rear so that it cannot be seen from the street (the one closest to the ridge on the front elevation is the one that should be relocated); the skylights should be tinted in any event to reduce night glow; what does minor modification to the existing bedrooms mean; if the skylight can be addressed would like this item to be placed on the consent calendar. There was consensus among the commission that in if the skylight was relocated and all tinted the item could be placed on the consent calendar. Chairman Luzuriaga set this item for the consent calendar for the meeting of April 24, 2000. 217 CHAPIN LANE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A HALF-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY RESIDENCE (DOUGLAS SNOW, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; LYNN AND MARSHALL BEHLING, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented the staff report and its attachments. C. Vistica noted that because of possible bias he would step down on this item. He left the dais. Commissioners asked: there is a triangular skylight at the rear on this project which does not work well, think it should be changed; this house looks good but the would like to see the proportion of the front dormers made to have a better (tall) proportion, presently look Asquat; if dormers can be corrected would like to see this item on the consent calendar; clarify the ceiling height of the basement area, looks as if height to lowest joist is 6 feet not 7 feet, this would eliminate the FAR variance; is it possible to add a condition to this variance that would lock in the use of the FAR in the basement area. This item was placed on the consent calendar for the meeting of April 24, 2000, with the direction that the dormers be adjusted and a condition be added to clarify the limitations on the use of the basement area. The item was set for the April 24, 2000 meeting providing all the information can be submitted to the Planning Department in time to prepare the staff report. C. Vistica returned to the dais. 1516 CAROL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (RAY BRAYER, BC & D, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT AND TERRI S LINENBACH AND PAMELA LEE, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented the staff report and its attachments. Commissioners asked: the photograph of the house on the packet seems to be reversed, the driveway is on the other side; have a question about the porch, it does not seem to be related to the house or to reflect other porches in the neighborhood, applicant needs more justification for the variance, the house seems to close to the sidewalk now; many houses have side entrances, this house has a wide driveway, could entrance be reoriented; can the skylight be eliminated; there are a number of errors on the drawings which should be corrected before this application is resubmitted for action; the composition of this building is very horizontal, could emphasize with trim or belly band and add a window sill line, would help; front porch seems closer to the street now reduce distance by 5 feet and it will look as if it crowds the sidewalk, need to rethink the porch, inset it or move to a side entrance; would the applicant provide the front setbacks of the other houses on the block; driveway is 19 feet wide City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2000 page -3- all the way to the garage at the rear, would like to see it narrowed at the front and landscaping added, maybe the entrance relocated; the front door is off center from the porch and the center line of the roof, looks odd. There were no further questions from the commission and the item was set for public hearing at the Commission meeting on April 24, 2000, providing the corrected plans and information requested is available to staff with sufficient time to plan check and prepare a staff report. 804 PENINSULA AVENUE - ZONED R-3 - APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR SIDE SETBACK FOR ONE- STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (REBEKAH GUNDUNAS, OWNER; LOUIE AND REBEKAH GUNDUNAS, APPLICANTS) CP Monroe presented the staff report with its attachments. Commissioners asked: the variance is based on the existing house as shown on the plan being 2 feet from property line, how was the location of the structure determined; am unclear about the plans, clarify which walls will be removed and which added; the existing room at the rear has few windows, know that the addition being within 2 feet of property line is a problem with CBC, check with Chief Building Inspector and see what is possible; clarify ceiling height at the rear, particularly under the sloping part of the roof. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on April 24, 2000, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. 1333 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED C-1 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR ADDITION OF A 546 SF MEZZANINE TO AN EXISTING APPLIANCE STORE. (RAY BRAYER, BC & D, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT AND MICHAEL AND ATHIA GIOTINIS, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: does the applicant have another storage location, if not why is this storage mezzanine so small; has the applicant considered revising the streetscape in front of this business and adding some trees; would like a condition added that would clearly limit the use of this added mezzanine to the storage of appliance boxes and that any change in use from that specific storage use would require that this mezzanine area be removed, that way this variance would be reviewed if the use of this mezzanine and store ever changed from an appliance store; indicate that now using the attic space to store boxes, is this legal under the California Fire Code; if the storage mezzanine is denied can they go back to storing boxes in the attic area, do not want to condone that use of the attic area; does this plan meet the required emergency egress from the mezzanine; realize that this mezzanine will not be used for additional office or people, but how will it be supported from below, there is a kitchen display area there now. There were no further questions from the Planning Commission and the item was set for public hearing on April 24, 2000, assuming that all the information requested is submitted to the Planning Department in time. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - TO INCLUDE BASEMENT AREAS IN FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS CP Monroe presented the staff report and discussed how staff had incorporated into the proposed code revisions the Planning Commission=s previous suggestions for extending FAR to basement areas. Commissioners commented: agree that the definition of basement needs to be changed to 2 feet above grade to the top of the finished floor above, but feel that if a basement meets the three tests it should be exempt from any review; if exceed 250 SF then should be subject to review under a special permit; amend special permit findings to include intensification so can address the addition of sleeping areas in basements which will increase the intensity of use of a single family residence; CA Anderson pointed out that code could be constructed that if a, b and c are met no permit is required but if they are exceeded then a basement area would be prohibited; how do we keep people from sleeping in a basement, how do we enforce it; think a basement should be allowed if it does not contribute to the mass of the house or the intensity of its use; would like to allow basements if they do not affect the bulk and mass of the structure, up to 250 SF exemption OK, new definition addresses the height/bulk issue; CA Anderson noted can make an exception for over 250 SF then would need a finding to have it, this would put the burden of justification on the applicant to prove that a bigger basement is a City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2000 page -4- good idea; if 250 SF is the dividing line, and the basement is larger, is the 250 SF then included in the FAR calculation; CP Monroe, yes then it would all count. There was no more discussion of this item. The study items ended at 8:10 p.m. FROM THE FLOOR Chairman Luzuriaga noted that this was the time for any member of the public to comment to the commission on any item, he noted that there would be a public hearing and opportunity to speak on any of the action items. Lorraine Riddiough, 2105 Adeline Drive spoke regarding the application for 2100 Poppy, noting that she lived behind the property and would be unable to attend the meeting on April 18, 2000. She is concerned about the pine tree at the rear of the proposed garage, will it be removed? She submitted pictures of the tree, noting that an arborist they had look at the tree, Davie Tree, said that it was 75% dead and it encroaches into the easement to the foundation of their house, limbs fall on their roof; submitted a letter from the arborist; cannot attend the meeting so would like to be informed about what happens regarding the tree. Louis Candus, 804 Peninsula Avenue, do not understand the study questions about there not being enough windows in the bedroom, know I cannot put in another but the ceiling is high enough. Commissioner noted saw two windows but wanted to know if they are large enough to meet emergency egress requirements and if not how that will be addressed. Candus noted that the property line is three feet away so window is not a problem, commissioner noted plans show property line 2 feet away, need to clarify location of new wall to property line. There were no further comments. 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. 207 CLARENDON ROAD - ZONED R-1 - DESIGN REVIEW FOR A TWO-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE; (DAVE HOWELL, PENINSULA BUILDING DESIGN, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; JOHN AND LYNN LAZCANO, PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Cmsrs. Bojués and Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. REGULAR CALENDAR 1617 MONTE CORVINO, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACK AND FRONT SETBACK FOR A TWO - STORY ADDITION (LAUREN AND RICARDO ORTIZ, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RICHARD B. MORRALL, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 4.10.00, with attachments. Planner presented staff report, reviewed materials submitted in response to study meeting and referenced five conditions suggested for consideration, and corrected condition no. 1 to reflect date revised plans were submitted. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicant and owner, Ricardo Ortiz, 1617 Monte Corvino Way, was present to respond to questions. Commissioners reviewed floor plan of area with addition and noted a 3'-0" deep closet in new office to be located behind garage. If closet was removed, project would not require front setback variance. Applicant responded that intention of addition was to provide additional space and that the office expansion City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2000 page -5- was a necessary component of their proposal. Wife works at home and fold-up desk area would be installed in closet area. Design would keep kids out of office materials. There were no further questions of the applicant and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission stated that it would have been good to see revised drawings. Do not see hardship for request, room at rear of lot. Closet protruding into garage can be eliminated to make addition fit within zoning standards. Cricket drawn on roof still not correct. Cricket too steep with 3:12 pitch, cricket will extend 18" above peak of roof addition. Cricket needs better resolution. Bringing garage forward into yard makes dark tunnel and dark entrance at the front door. Closet in office drives need for variance. Should be redesigned. Chairman Luzuriaga reopened public hearing so applicant could respond to lot issue. Mr. Ortiz stated that his written response to support the variance included statement that lot slopes up in rear yard and if they expanded into small rear yard, not only would they lose valuable space, but would have to excavate yard to fit addition. Chairman Luzuriaga closed public hearing. Further discussion by commission: Commission concerned that cricket design is too tall, but this can be resolved with lower pitch. Don’t want galvanized reflective metal cricket, but something that blends with roof. Variance tough consideration; the lot tapers to rear and house pushed back deep onto lot. Wider front yard and deep setback help negate variance. 60% in favor of variance, but need to work out roof and cricket design. Applicant has provided setbacks of other houses along this block and demonstrates that his house has a greater setback, even with addition. Protrusion of garage will have minimal impact. Asked for comparison of this setback to other houses, and data shows that even with addition, this house is located further back than others. Not fair to require applicant to dig out rear yard to accommodate expansion; rear yard already smaller than others. Roof can be resolved. C. Luzuriaga moved to approve the application, by resolution, with an added condition that the cricket be designed to fit roof as approved by the Chief Building Official and that the cricket be coated so that it is not reflective, as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 16, 2000, Sheets 1A through 6A, and the roof plan and elevations of the corrected elevation identifying the cricket in the roof, date stamped March 31, 2000, and that all window trim, wood trim, window placement and roof slopes shall be constructed as shown on the approved plans, and Condition No. 6 to require the applicant to resolve roof drainage at building permit stage; 2) that the cricket be designed to fit roof as approved by the Chief Building Official and that the cricket be coated so that it is not reflective; 3) that the left side setback variance is permitted only for construction of the garage, all other portions of the structure must meet the side setback requirements; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first and 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; 5) that the conditions of the City Engineer=s October 18, 1999 memo shall be met;; and 6) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-1-2 voice vote. (C. Vistica dissenting, Cmsrs. Bojués, Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 2100 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO RECONFIGURE THREE PARCELS INTO TWO PARCELS TO CREATE TWO BUILDABLE SITES (DENISE LAUGESEN, APPLICANT; TECHROMET CAPITAL INC. PROPERTY OWNER; JERRY DEAL, DESIGNER) and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2000 page -6- 2100 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON THIS THREE-PARCEL SITE TO RE-EMERGE THE PARCEL LINES, AND DESIGN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH DETACHED GARAGES; SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHTS OVER 30'-0" FOR BOTH NEW HOUSES; AND A VARIANCE FOR SECOND STORY FRONT SETBACK FOR THE NEW HOUSE PROPOSED ON LOT B (DENISE LAUGESEN , APPLICANT; TECHROMET CAPITAL INC., PROPERTY OWNER; JERRY DEAL, DESIGNER) This project was continued to a special meeting on April 18, 2000 because a quorum was not present to act on the project. Commissioners Bojués and Dreiling were absent, and Commissioners Luzuriaga and Deal stepped down from considering the project. 1540 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE WITH A SHOP/HOBBY ROOM. (WILLIAM E. POLLETT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; PLANS DRAWN BY JG LEW) Reference staff report, 4.10.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Applicant and property owner, William Pollett, 1540 Newlands Avenue, was present and presented his request. He has an extremely large lot and requests an accessory structure that is 380 SF larger than the permitted 600 SF accessory structure. His reasons are because he owns a large truck that is difficult to park on the street and needs a large garage to park in. He also has a boat that needs extra room for clearance within the structure, and extra width to pull boat in and out of garage. The structure was designed to be sensitive to the materials, mass, scale and dominant design characteristics of other structures on this site. Commission asked applicant to confirm that in his application he offered to reduce the width of garage from 28'-0" to 24'-0". Yes, applicant confirmed that this reduction has been offered; he would prefer a 28'-0" width garage, but could reduce to 24'-0". Commission asked why a 9'-6" plate height was needed? Applicant responded that because of the size of the vehicles and the height of the boat=s windshield, the additional height is helpful to work on the vehicles inside of the garage. Commission asked whether the proposed design is compatible with existing structures, the roof is not steep enough to match Tudor style of other buildings on site. Applicant responded that the garage would not be noticeable on site; is way back on lot with design similar to other structure visible from rear of house. There were no further questions and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission liked reduction of width of garage to 24'-0"; reduced plate height would be good, but keep 15'-0" peak increase roof slope, use different joist support inside can get needed ceiling height with lower plate. Because accessory structure has special use for storage of large vehicles, 28'-0" width could be supported. More in favor of 24'-0" width so building does not infringe on adjacent single family neighbors; it is already large than allowed. C. Vistica moved to approve project with reduction to 24'-0" width and reduction of plate height from 9'-6" to 8'-0", the 8'-0" plate height to force steeper roof pitch. If clearance within the garage is a concern, can change truss design to scissors truss to increase headroom. There was no second to the motion and it died. Chairman Luzuriaga reopened the public hearing to address plate height which was not previously discussed. Mrs. Gail Pollett, owner at 1540 Newlands Avenue, stated that an 8'-0" door height would be okay, but want taller plate City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2000 page -7- height because meeded height inside. Commission reiterated that truss design could be modified to increase available interior height. C. Vistica moved to approve the project with 24'-0" width, 8'-6" plate height, and door height as needed within the aproved plate height, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 8, 2000, Plot Plan, and February 14, 2000, Floor Plan and Sheets 2 and 3, with a maximum overall height of 15'-0" measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge, maximum width of 24'-0" interior clear, and a maximum plate height of 8'-6" measure from adjacent grade, and a door of any size required by the applicant, which fits within the plate height; 2) that the accessory structure shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes; shall never include a kitchen, and shall not include additional utility services other than electricity and/or a toilet without an amendment to this conditional use permit; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-1-2 (C. Osterling dissenting and Cmsrs. Bojués, Dreiling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 1705 MURCHISON DRIVE, ZONED C-3 - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR NEW SIGNS (APPLICATION PREVIOUSLY DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE) (CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, PROPERTY OWNER, AND JIM CHIN, SIGN-A-RAMA, APPLICANT) CONTINUED TO APRIL 24, 2000 This item was continued to the April 24, 2000 meeting. 500 AIRPORT BLVD, ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR TWO 35 SF WALL SIGNS ABOVE THE FOURTH FLOOR WITH ONE PROPOSED ON THE PRIMARY FRONTAGE AND ONE ON THE SECONDARY FRONTAGE. (JEFFERSON HOWERY, ARROW SIGN, ANNE YARDLEY SERENA, APPLICANTS; ANGELO ORPHAN, PROPERTY OWNER; PLAN FROM ARROW SIGN) Reference staff report, 4.10.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked whether the 37'-0" maximum height was to top or bottom of sign. City Planner clarified that 37'-6" height was measured from top of sign to adjacent grade, this is an added condition of approval. Compared this sign with 2'-10" tall letters to Crossworlds sign that has 2'-6" tall letters that are placed 97'-0" above adjacent grade. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Applicant, Jefferson Howery, Arrow Sign Company, was present and stated that he agrees with the conditions in the staff report. There were no questions of the applicant. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission stated that they had been concerned with the sign=s illumination, but proposal does not include any internal illumination or exterior illumination of sign. Size of lettering and color is okay. C. Keighran moved to approve the project, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the wall signs (Sign B and C) shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 22, 2000 (site plan, building elevations and sign elevations); 2) that the maximum height of the letters on Sign B and C shall be 34" (2'-10"); 3) that the maximum height of letters above adjacent grade shall be 37'- 6"; 4) that the letters shall not be internally illuminated, nor shall any exterior light be installed and directed at Signs B or C; 5) that if this tenant leaves this building, the sign shall be removed within 30 days after the lease is terminated; 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2000 page -8- The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cmsrs. Bojués, Dreiling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Chairman Vistica asked City Planner that all future sign exception applications include an elevation to scale of the face of the building with the sign to the same scale, located appropriately as well as a visual. City Planner noted request and stated that such practice shall be implemented for future sign exception applications. PLANNER REPORTS - REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 3, 2000. CP Monroe reviewed the actions related to planning items at the last City Council meeting. - FYI - REVISIONS TO WINDOW LOCATION FOR AN APPROVED 7-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 535 ALMER ROAD, ZONED R-3. Commission acknowledged these changes and had no comment. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Secretary MINUTES4.10