Loading...
PC 01-13-97CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 13, 1997 ORI)ER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Austin, Doyle, Mahoney, Vice Chair Harris. Chair Roberts Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michelle Bjurman, Planner II; Eileen Murray, Deputy Counsel Vice Chair Hams chaired the meeting in Com. Roberts' absence. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the December 9, 1996 Regular Meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the December 9, 1996 Planning Commission minutes as presented. Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 Minutes of the December 16, 1996, Adjourned Meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve the December 16, 1996 Planning Commission minutes as presented. Com. Austin Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 SVRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Hanis noted a memorandum and workshop information on West Valley Hillside's Public Workshop. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 4-EXC-96 LLM Investments (Lany Miller) Same Lot 2 - Upland Way Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 13, 1997 Hillside Exceplion to construct a residence on slopes greater than 30% in accordance with Chapter 10.40.050J of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REMOVE FROM CALENDAR Applicalion No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 5-EXC-96 LLM Investments (Lany Miller) Same Lot 3 - Upland Way Hillside Exceplion to construct a residence on slopes greater than 30% in accordance with Chapter 10.40.050J of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANN1NG COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REMOVE FROM CALENDAR MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to remove Items 4 and 5 from the calendar. Com. Austin Com. Robarts Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin movedtocontinueItem8 m theJanuary27,1997Planning Commishon meeting. Com. Do~e Com. Roberts Passed 4~ Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, stated that the applicant for Item 2, Davco Associates, requested that the item be continued to the Janum'y 27, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 20-U-96 (Mod.) Davco Associates 10165 D~Anza Blvd. Director's Minor Modification to increase the canopy height and parking space location, with referral to Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to postpone Item 2 to the January 27, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 13, 1997 Com. Austin requested that Item 6, Historic Preservation Ordinance be continued to the February 10, 1997 Planning comnUssion meeting, so that a decision could be reached with all Planning Commissioners present. Application No.: Applicant: Location: Historic Preservation Ordinance mad 4-EA-96 City of Cupertino Citywide Consideration of Historic Preservation Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: January 21, 1997 MOTI ON: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to poslponc Item 6 to the February 10, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENTCALENDAR Application No.: Applicant: Location: 6-ASA-96 (Mod.) Ron Herman (Cupertino Waterfall HOA) Cupertino Waterfall HOA 10272 Danube Drive Director's Minor Modification to emend a landscaping plan to remove 14 poplars and replace with pines, with referral to Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.132. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANN1NG COMMISSION DECISION FiNAL UNLESS APPEALED MOTION: Com. Mahoney SECOND: Com. Austin ABSENT: Com. Roberts VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 ARCH~ECTURALREVIEW ga. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 21-ASA-96 Symantec Corporation Symantec Corporation South DeAnza Blvd./Torres Avenue Request for approval of fmal landscaping and site plan for the proposed Symantec City Center 5 (CC5). Building located at South DeAnza Blvd. Said plan will include site location for public art. Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 13, 1997 2. Request for approval of landscaping plan for western portion of existing Symantec site located at 10201 Tone Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: Janum-y 21, 1997 3b. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 11-U-96 CC5 Building Symantec Cupertino City Center, Apt. II South DeAnza Blvd. approximately 400 tt. from the intersection of Rodfigues. Minor Amendment of Use Permit to permit approximately 2,000 sq. ti. of lobby space to be categorized as amenity space resulting in a total building area of 143,000. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: January 21, 1997 3C. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 7-U-81 (Mod.) - Lincoln Propea-ty Symantec Symantec 10201 Torre Avenue Minor Amendment of Use Permit 7-U-81 to: a. Modify landscaping plan including pedestrian link to Symantec's proposed CC5 Building. b. Modify parking plan to shift surface parking spaees to the below grade parking structure for CC5. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: January 21, 1997 3d. Application N o.: Applicant: Location: 9-U-95 (Mod.) City Center Associates City Center Associates East side of Torte Avenue between Stevens Creek Blvd. and Rodrigues Minor Amendment of Use Permit to shit~ 12 on-street parking ~aees to the below-grade parking garage for Symantec Building CC5. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: Janumy 21, 1997 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed S~tec's application for final approval of the landscaping and site plan for the proposed 4 story building located on South DeAnza Blvd., known as Symantec City Center 5 (CC5). The "dean up" actions listed in the attached staff ~ were also reviewed. They included: The circle-shaped recreational area; the site location and height for public art; pedestrian links between Symantec's CC5 building and the existing Symantec World Headquarters Building; parking spaces on the surface and below-grade garage; and lobby space. Staffrecommends Planning Commission Minutes 5 ]anua~ 13, 199~ approval of the final landscaping and site plan as well as the minor "clean up" actions. The Planning Commission's decision will be forwarded to the City Council meeting of January 21, 1997. Refemng to the site plan, Mr. Cowan reviewed the plan for the proposed Symantec CC5 Building and the proposed changes to the adjoining Headquarters Building in terms of replacing surface parking spaces with underground parking spaces, as outlined in the attached staff report. Mr. Cowan noted that if the shift in parking spaces presents problems to other adjoining properties in the City Center because of the employees choosing to seek closer parking, the management will have to resolve the problem. Mr. Cowan discussed the proposed "public art" to be placed near the f~ont lobby. Staff recommends that neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council review or approve the specific art work, but limit their involvement to the placement of the art and the height of the art work on the site, as outlined in the attached staff report. Mr. Cowan discussed the issue of amenity space, Domting out that the 2,000 square foot discount was consistent with the amenity space criteria contained in the general plan appendix. Mr. Cowan explained that the 12 on-sa-eet parking spaces on the private street separating the new Symantec building and the apartment would be delated to allow the fire district access to the site. The proposal is to put the 12 spaces in the underground parking garage. A brief discussion ensued regarding the loading dock, wherein Mr. Cowan explained the type of vehicles that would be accessing the area. He illustrated the emergency access on the site plan. Mr. John Sorci, Director of North American Facilities, Symantec, expressed appreciation for the approval of the project in September, and stated that they hoped to be able to begin construction in the Mr. Paul Latefi, landscape architect, referred to the landscape drawings and explained the modifications and improvements to the landscape plan. In response to Chair Hams' question regarding the plata cover, Mr. Lateri explained that he was uncertain of the materials to be used, and that it was dependent on what the lobby-materials would be. He said the concept was unit paving with the reddish color bands and poured colored concrete with striping. There would be two different materials similar to the pattern used in City Center. He said there would be no planters in that area. Mr. Lateri said that all plantings would bloom, dependent on the time of year. He explained the various types of plantings proposed. Mr. Sorci responded to questions about the shift in parking spaces to the parking garage. He explained that the approved parking garage is 3-1/2 levels. He said that management did not perceive a problem with employees parking closer on adjoining properties because there would be ample space available in the garage with easy access to the office buildings. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Mr. Cowan explained that the applicant is required to show how they have addressed the need in Condition 2 of the Use Permit relative to providing parking spaces before the building permit is issued. _ Com. Doyle questioned security in the parking garage. Mr. Sorci said it was open 24 hours a day and that the garage was equipped with elevators. Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 13, 1997 In response to Com. Austin's question about the Fmc Arts Commission role m reviewing sculptures, ]Mr. Cowan said that staff recommended that neither the Planning Commission nor the City Coundl be revolved in selection of the public art for the private building. However, it was the Planning Commission's decision whether or not it and the City Council should be involved. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one who wished to address the issue. The following issues were summati/lx[ and discussed: 9-U-95: Issue: Shithng of on-street parking spaces from the apartment to the below-grade parking facility; security issue. Discussion: There was consensus to approve the shifting of the 12 parking spaces because of the safety issue relative to fire district access. 7-U-81: Issue: Modification to shift the surface parking to the new Symantec garage and modify the landscaping and parking plan related to the original building; comment on any maximum depth of the garage and any condition with employees seeking closer parking that management needs to take some responsibility. Discussion: There was consensus that the shit~ of parking was an improvement to the appearance. Chair Harris expressed concern about security in the 24 hour garage, and suggested that it be staffed by a security officer. Com. Austin agreed. There was consensus that a condition be imposed relative to management solving any problems arising from displaced employees parking in other locations and causing problems for other tenants. Relative to security, a condition to have SheriWs Department review with the owner, taking into account the SheritYs recommendations. 11-U-96: Issue: Approval of 2,000 square feet of ameinty space. Should the square footage of the building be increased from 141,000 to 143,000 square feet? Discussion: All Commissioners, but Chair Harris agreed. Chair Harris noted that Cupertino was the only city that discounts part of its property in determining FAR in its property in determining FAR in Use pernuts. She did not support the concept. Mr. Cowan suggested further discussion at a future datc. 21-A,gA-96: Issue: Approval of landscaping plan for new building; major change is thc volleyball court; address the plaza area; sign size; whether or not public art should be reviewed or not. Discussion: Com. Austin said she felt it was an attractive plan for the grounds and approved of the plaza area. She said that the height of the art work should be limited to half the building height, and that the Frae Arts Commission should have input into its design. Sign size, if it meets the sign requirements is appropriate; she voiced approval of the volleyball court and landscaping. Com. Doyle said he preferred thc "clean lawn" appearance but was not opposed to thc proposed plan. He said he felt the public art should be reviewed by the Fine Arts Commission for input and go to City Council for approval; no resections on height of the art work. Relative to sign size, if the sign meets the ordinance, it was appropriate. The base of the sign should not be lfigher than the hedge, perhaps even lower. Mr. Cowan suggested that thc landscape architect articulate a design condition to address concerns. Com. Doyle said that the plaza area was suitable; volleyball court approptiate; noting that active spaces were more suitable than non-active. He said he was uncertain whether the colors shown were definitive, and would not comment on color of the building. Planning Commission Minutes 7 January 13, 1997 Com. Mahoney said the landscaping was appropriate. He concurred with Com. Austin's recommendation for the Fine Arts Commission input on public art, reslrictmg height to half the height of the building. The sign size was suitable; plaza suitable and volleyball court suitable. Chair Hams said that the landscaping was suitable. She said she felt that the art would should be reviewed at least by the Fine Arts ConUmssion and should have final review by the City Council. The height of the public art work should not exceed half the height of the building. She said she was opposed to the plaza area because it was too open and blank with pavers and no trees and pots. She commented on the negative comments received from the large brick building on the comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard. She said that she was opposed to the volleyball court because it was a primary street. Chair Hams said that the sign should be reviewed. She summarized that she was opposed to the architectural issue, but was in favor of all others. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 9-U-95 (Mod.) Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 7-U-81 (Mod.) including a condition that applicant prepare a security plan which should be reviewed by the Sheriff s Department. The security plan shall be approved by city staff and implemented prior to issuance of the final occupancy penmt. If the shift in parking causes parking problems for other adjoining properties, the building owner shall take effective measures to require employees to park onsite. Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 11-U-96, to include approval of accounting of 2,000 square feet of amenity space in the approved Use Permit; including a condition that the horizontal and vertical envelope of the original use permit is not exceeded; and a condition that applicant prepare a security plan to be reviewed by the ShexifF s Department. The security plan shall be approved by city staff and implemented prior to issuance of the final occupancy permit. Com. Austin Chair Hams Com. Roberts Passed 3-1-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 21-ASA-96, including the condition that the public ar~ be no more than one-half the height of the building, requiting Fine Arts Commission review and recommendation and final approval of the City Council; the maximum height of the sign, including the base, be 4 feet. Com. Mahoney Chair Hams Com. Roberts Passed 3-1-0 Chair Hams stated her concerns about the plaza which is barren and the volleyball court, previously Planning Commission Minutes 8 January 13, 1997 Mr. Cowan reported that the recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council at its Janumy 21, 1997 meeting. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 6-EXC-96 Michael Helm Glen and Melissa Smith 21667 Rainbow Drive Hillside Exception to enclose a deck area on an existing residence located on a prominent ridgeline and to vary from the required second sto~ setbacks in accordance with Chapter 19.40 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 1996 Staff presentation: Ms. Michelle Bjunnz~ Planner II. reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the attached staffreport. Staffrecommends approval of the application. Mr. Michael Helm, architect, referred to the overhead of the west elevation and explained that he had worked with staff to revise the proposal, reducing the mass and eliminating the request for the th/rd floor deck. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. David Benjamin, 21667 Rainbow Drive, said he lived on lot 16 of the subdivision and supported the addition to the Shen residence. He said as President of the Rainbow Neighborhood Home Owners Association, he reviewed the proposed addition and the architect's modified design blends the new addition to the existing structure successfully. He said that immediate neighbors in lots 2 and 4 have completed additions to their homes within the last five years which the Sheas have been the most impacted. Letters of support have been submitted from both neighbors in support of the project. He urged approval of the project. Chair Hams dosed the public input portion of the meeting. Chair Hams requested that the subconclusions portion of the resolution be deleted as there were no recommended subconclusions. Following staff clarification, there was consensus that the statement be amended to read: "That the .findings and conditions in this resolution are contained in the public record concerning application 6-EXC-96, as set forth in the minutes qf the Planning Commission meeting of January 13, 1997, and are incorporated by rqference as though fully set forth herein." MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 6-EXC-96 according to the model resolution with findings and conditions specified. Com. Mahoney Com. Robarts Passed 4-0-0 _ Mr. Cowan noted that the Planning Commission decision is final, unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Planning Commission Minutes 9 January 13, 1997 Chair Harris declared a recess at 8:25 p.m. Upon reconvening at 8:35 p.m. the same comrmssioners and staff were present. Application No.: Applic~mt: Property Owner: Location: 24-U-96 Martial Arts School Emile Nijmeh 19997 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 5 Use Permit to locate a specialized school (martial arts) in an existing retail center. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FiNAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for the martial arts school, as outlined in the attached staff report. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, clarified that on Saturdays, there is an parking excess and the school would be able to have adult students on Saturday. The school will be limited to 6 students on Saturday, with no age restriction; the only age restriction being 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays. Ms. Wordell stated that the print shop with 11 parking spaces was closed on Saturdays. She clarified that the approval of the application was contingent on the present mix and if hours of operation changed for other businesses in the center, the parking issue would have to be addressed with the owner of the center. Mr. Billy Richardson, General Manager, Martial Arts School, said that he did not have any information to add. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. Them was no one present who wished to address the issue. In response to Chair Harris' question about operating hours, Ms. Wordcll said that the hours of operation could be expanded to allow flexibility. Chair Hams commented that she would rather the hours of operation be stated as 3 p.m. so that the application would not have to be resubmitted if the hours were to change. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 24-U-96 Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 10. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 9-TM-96 Kelly Gordon Evangelina Chavoya 10210 Randy Lane Tentative Map to subdivide a .4 acre parcel into 2 lots of approximately 8,700 sq. tt. and 8,450 sq. ft. respectively. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNiNG COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Planning Commission Minutes 10 Janumy 13, 1997 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish two single family homes aad construct two new single family homes, as outlined in the attached staff report. It was noted that one of the homes was evaluated as a potential historic structure but that a consultant concluded that the structure was not historically significant. The application also requests removal of eight specimen sized trees, four of which are om~anental and the other four agricultural trees. Staff recommends approval of the application. Mr. Scott Kelly, applicant, said that the arborist report specified No. 3 was a 12 inch golden rain tree, which was designated as a previously topped tree with water sprout growth only and slated for removal. Mr~ Cowan clarified that it was a 27 inch diameter tree. A discussion ensued regarding the arborist's report and trees proposed for removal. Mr. Kelly stated that if the driveways infringed upon the trees in the park strip on Chavoya, there would be replanting. Chair Hams opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Joe Mendez, 20118 Forest Avenue, referred to the site plan, and illustrated the location of his residence. He illustrated on the site plan that there was a one foot elevational difference which he said should have a retaining wall along the line. He said that presently a thirty year old redwood fence was all that was retaining the dirt. Mr. Cowan said that in order to have the site drain positively toward Chavoya, the proposal is to have a two foot difference in elevation, with a two foot wall topped by a six foot fence. Mr. Mendez said that thc applicant's home had a direct view into his bedroom window. He requested the Planning Commission require some natural privacy screening along the back wall to be maintained in perpetuity. He pointed out that a fence would have to be 10 to 12 feet high to provide screening and it would block the sun from his residence. Mr. Mendez requested that the issues of a retaining wall and some privacy screening be addressed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Joe Martinez~ 10240 Randy Lane, said he shared Mr. Mendez' concerns. He questioned the proposed orientation of the homes on the property and said his mare concern was the privacy issue in terms of maintaining or improving it, particularly the side yards. He said that any natural type privacy screening for the side yard would be viewed favorably. Referring to the site plan, he illustrated the distance between the structures. In response to Chair Hams' question, Mr. Cowan responded that the Planning Commission had the ability to approve or not approve the removal of trees. He said that the applicant could be requested to replace some of the trees that would be removed, but the Planning Commission could not approve a landscaping plan per se or evaluate the design of the homes other than what is required by the City's zoning code. He suggested that the recommendation could be to plant 5 trees to replace those 5 being removed and plant the replacement trees along the sensitive areas. He noted that street tree removal was a function of the Pubhc Works Department. Mr. Mary Kirkeby, civil engineer, said that the applicant was not opposed to the condition relative to replacement of trees. He commented that the problem of views into yards was mutual and that a natural landscaping buffer between the properties would occur as it does anywhere there are two story houses facing each other. He said that two story against two story is common in the neighborhood with the exception of one lot. Planning Commission Minutes tt January 13, 1997 Chair Harris closed the public input portion of the meeting. Chair Hams summarized the issues to be: approval or non-approval; should there be a restriction on removal of the street trees; should there be a requirement to replacement the five trees with other screening trees along the back? Com. Doyle said that the tentative map was suitable; street trees did not need to be addressed as it was a function of Public Works. Relative to the tree removal and adding more trees for more blocking, he said he preferred to retain as many of the existing trees as possible. Com. Austin said the tentative map was suitable. She recommended a two foot retaining wall topped with a 6 foot fence. She recommended adherence to the arborist's report based on the condition and location of the trees. She said she would prefer the trees be removed and replaced with box trees for privacy screening. Com. Mahoney said he was in favor of the tentative map. He recommended replacing the existing trees in relation to the new homes, with a condition relative to size. Mr. Cowan suggested that the condition stipulate that the replacement trees would be installed prior to occupancy. He recommended the planting of three 24-inch box trees on each property in the rear yards. Chair Hams said she was in favor of the tentative map. She said she was in favor of replacing six of the removed trees with three 24-inch box trees in the rear yards for privacy. MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to approvo Application 9-TM-96 with the retention of trees No. 3 and 4, with the planting of six 24-inch box trees, 3 on each parcel, to be defined by the developer. Com. Doyle's motion failed for lack of a second. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney Application 9-TM-96 replacing six of the eight trees, three in each back yard with 24-inch box trees at the time of final building permit Com. Austin Com. Robes Passed 4-0-0 Mr. Cowan stated that the Planning Commission decision is final, unless appealed within 14 calendar days. NEW BUSINESS: There was a brief discussion about the West Valley Hillside's Public workshop. Further information is available from the Planning Department. The annual League of California Cities' Planning Commission conference will be held in Monterey, March 12-14, 1997, in Monterey. Chair Harris requested that the present requirement for specialized schools in retail centers be changed so that a certain percentage of the square footage of the center could be specialized schools if the parking requirements were met without Planning Commission review. Mx. Cowan said that it was Planning Commission Minutes 12 January [3, 1997 feasible. Following a brief discussion, there was consensus that the policy remain as is because of safety issues in certain cases. OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Cowan explained that the City Council approved the Thompson Residential applications at the January 6, 1997 meeting with minor conditions of approval. He said that the lot~ units were deleted from the buildings facing the lieeway and those units facing the central pool. He noted that the general plan change for the increase from 500 to 560 units has not been completed. Mr. Cowan reviewed the City Council's decisions on the Sandhill properties. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. to the Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council on January 27, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary Minutes approved as presented: danuary 27, 1997