Loading...
PC 02-11-85 n,?)CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA PC-4 59 (/ 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino,Ca. 95014 Page 1 Telephone : (408) 252-4505 411 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 11, 1985 SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7: 30 P.M. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Adams Commissioner Szabo Commissioner Sorensen Chairperson Claudy Staff Present : Dir. of Ping. and Devel. Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant City Engineer Whitten City Attorney Kilian APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 28, 1985 as submitted. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Szabo abstaining, since not at the Meeting) • POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS i) Chr. Claudy announced to interested parties that when conti- nuance was requested by an applicant, it was policy to grant it . MOTION: Com. Adams, to continue Item #3 until the Meeting of March 11, 1985 SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed , 5-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Letter from Mr. Sobrato concerning Item #2 on the Agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ,CONSENT CALENDAR •• ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS: • 1. Application 30-U-84 of ROBERT PALMIOTTO & SCOTT PETERSON: USE PERMIT to operate a restaurant in a portion of an existing cocktail • lounge (Nite Kap) and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 150 ft . west of Blaney Avenue in a P (Planned Development with commercial office use intent) zoning district . First Hearing. Tenta- tive City Council hearing date - February 19, 1985. PC-459 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, FEBRUARY 11, 1985 Page 2 Assistant Planning Director Cowan„ reviewing the Staff Report, strongly recommended that the site and sidewalk be upgraded in accordance with City policies . He advised it was possible to restripe the parking lot, but that it was felt parking could be kept to 100 spaces, since the Japanese restaurant in the building did not require much parking space in the late evening. He noted there was a good distance between the building and residen- tial areas. Questioned by Com. Sorensen, he confirmed there had been no legal kitchen facility since 1977,, as noted in a letter from the Health Department . Mr. Palmiotto and Mr. Peterson, joint applicants described their small business, presently located in San Jose, and its community involvement . Chr. Claudy explored the applicants ' feelings regarding the proposed improvements and discovered they did not think such were justified,. and probably would not be viable for the property owners. Mr. Palmiotto suggested the undergrounding of utilities might be done at a later time when the lease might be bought out and the property redeveloped, and pointed out that not all nearby properties had sidewalk improvements. There was a discussion on the topic of sidewalk improvements in the area, which had and had not been done. Chr. Claudy established with Assistant City Engineer Whitten that the undergrounding of utilities in the area was scheduled 'for the Fall of 1985, and that monies had already been set aside . 'Steve Hoffman, attorney, representing Cali Land Associates, Ilandowners, .. said the applicant ' s business would make the present tenant more viable and would benefit the established clientelle, rather than adding new business, 'and therefore rebutted the comparison to P .J. Mulligan' s in the Staff Report . He queried the non-conforming use issue and the necessity for a Use Permit, challenging the letter from the County Health Department and stating that the tenants and landowners had advised him that there had been food prepared on the premises on and off contin- uously since the Nite Kap had opened. In regard to the supposed lapse in kitchen. use, he quoted Ordinance 1200, Section 30, which, he conjectured, grandfathered in 'the use. He surmized that the eventual purchasers of the property would have the funds to improve the property at that time. Com. Adams determined with Mr. Peterson that the estimates for kitchen equipment were based on used egipment . prices. MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Szabo IVOTE: Passed 5-0 • I � � I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, FEBRUARY 11, 19.85 PC-459 The Commission discussed the suggested improvements and the Page 3 410 restriping of the parking lot . It was felt the parking might still be inadequate and might cause problems . The consensus of the Commission was that the application did ,not fulfill. the City goal of upgrading, and continuance was suggested so the applicants could explore solutions . Answering a question by Mr. Hoffman on whether the Commission felt there was a non-conforming use involved, City Attorney Kilian stated that the question was irrelevant since there was no way to determine at the Hearing whether the use had been continuous or not, and, additionally, the Commission had only to find that the Conditions imposed on the Use Permit were reasonable, he said. Mr. Hoffman reported the landowners ' feelings, that they were prepared to give the subtenants their approval at this point . Chr. Claudy cautioned that if the Use Permit was not granted and the applicants opened without one, they would be subject to such abatement procedures as the City chose to use . MOTION: Com. Szabo, to continue Application 30-U-84 until the Meeting of March 11, 1985 SECOND: Com. Sorensen Ilk VOTE: Passed 5-0 2 . Application 1-U-85 of EDWARD STORM (RONG SHING SITE) : USE PERMIT to remove the existing Rong Shing Restaurant and construct a new two-story, 38,700 sq. ft . office building and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committe - recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the west side of North De Anza Boulevard approximately 130 ft . north of Valley Green Drive in a P (Planned Development with General Commercial, Light Industrial. and Residential 4-10 dwelling units per gross acre intent) zoning district . First Hearing. Tentative City Council Hearing date - February 19, 1985.. Director of Planning and Development Sisk, reviewing the Staff Report, advised that the project conformed to the General Plan, specific community plans and trip constraints, but drew attention to a letter from Sobrato Development Company expressing concern regarding the architecture. Mr. Ed Storm, the applicant, advised the y had examined several options and this was the best, given the constraints. In a discussion on the position of the building and the pad height, Mr. Storm advised that Staff had suggested the position of the building, to present a strong image to traffic coming off the freeway at that point . • PC-459 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, FEBRUARY 11, 1985 Page 4 The Commission was not impressed with the appearance of the _ building at the gateway to the City, and felt it needed more "pizzaz" . It was suggested Mr. Storm look to Mr. Sobrato ' s neighboring building for inspiration. Mr. .Storm, commenting that Mr. Sobrato ' s building was too expensive for him, said he would do his best . It was ascertained that the roof screening was not shown on the architectural drawing, and the Commissioners were very disturbed. Director of Planning and Development Sisk advised the ASAC* Minutes indicated the equipment would be hidden behind the parapet, and it seemed something different was being proposed here. Craig Almeleh, Dennis Kobza and Associates, architects, explained that the roof screen would not be visible, except from the rear parking lot, which iwas why it was not shown. He further explained that at the 'ASAC 'Meeting it had been brought up as a screen and not a parapet and had been discussed as such. He advised that it would be blue, to match the . adjoining Any Mountain building. ' He discussed with the Commission the equipment and screening to be used, advising there was no fear of inadequate screening, since the building did not lend itself to large equipment units. It was the consensus of the Commission that they would want • to see more details of the screening and how it would appear on the building, its size and materials, before approval. They advised they expected to see screening elements designed as a part of the building. MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to continue Application 1-U-85 until °the Meeting of March 11, 1985 SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 4 . Applications .2-Z-85 and 3-U-85 of PAN CAL INVESTMENT COMPANY (JOE CHOI) : REZONING approximately 2.14 gross acres from R1-10 (Residential Single-Family, 10, 000 sq. ft . minimum lot size) zone to P (Planned Development with Residential 5-10 dwelling units per gross acre intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to construct 25 attached townhouse units and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Blaney Avenue and Price Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - March 4, 1985. . Assistant Planning Director Cowan, reviewin g the Staff Report, noted that the density range hadbeen discussed by the 110• * ASAC - Architectural and Site Control Committee • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, FEBRUARY 11, 1985 PC-459 Page 5 410 Commission informally a few weeks before, and also that the permanent status of the Wilson school site adjacent could change in the near future, it was thought . He pointed out similar zonings in the neighborhood, but advised that though Staff was not concerned with the Site Plan, they felt the density was inappropriate, and that between six and eight units per acre would be more suitable . A private street • that could be widened to a public street, should the Wilson school site develop, rather than a street coming off Blaney and Price was favored, he said.. Jim Jackson, 10455 Torre Avenue, attorney, representing the applicant, commenting on the density issue said that the Cit needed to take the upper end of the density range to keep up with housing demand, and that the drainage canal would serve as a divider between densities. He agreed with a suggestion of Staff that a turf area should replace a formal common area, but thought that Staff' s suggestion of a privat : street was inappropriate, since the plans of the School District were unknown. However, they would. consider providing a mutual ingress/egress from a portion of the site to properties to the south, he said. He noted that parking worked out at three spaces per unit and mentioned a neighborhood meeting held at Wilson school when the main issue had been that the buildings should have shake roofs 411 and not tile, he said. Kinzen Wong, 19965 Price Avenue felt that, because of traffic and. the potential development of the Wilson school site, for which this development would set a precedent, high density should be disallowed and single family zoning remain. Gary Evans, 10170 Mello Place, read a petition signed by 90a of residents along Price, Mello, Deeprose and Portal, he said. It reflected concerns with traffic and keeping the Blaney corridor zoning as single family to retain home values in the area. James Burke, 19535 Price Avenue, submitted several petitions' regarding traffic .and parking, noting that hundreds of cars an hour travelled down Price already, and reiterating that if the development was allowed to be high density it would set a precedent . Referring to a remark by Mr.Jackson, he said he did not agree that housing in the middle of a • single-family neighborhood should be multi-family for the purpose of supplying the manpower required for new office buildings, and felt there were more appropriate places in the City for such density. Vic Dervin, 10109 Mello Place, felt the area should remain single-family detached, and noted that provisions could be made within that category for a higher density than the traditional 4 units to the acre, but not as high as 12 . PC-459 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, FEBRUARY 11, 1985 Page 6 David Trotter, 10144 South Blaney supported previous speakers regarding traffic and parking problems . i Com. Sorensen and Mr. Trotter discussed the peak hour traffic on Blaney and the difficulties of getting out onto Blaney. Dave Garelick, 10132 Deeprose Place, questioned the appropriate- ness of the rezoning, and felt this site should be considered one development with the Wilson school site adjacent . He felt the traffic would soon be as bad as at Stelling Road, where mitigating measures had had to be taken. Ed Yerman, 10150 Miller Place, reiterated the traffic concerns and felt that the development adjacent to the U. S.A. gas station, previously mentioned as an example of high density in the neighborhood, was part of the Stevens Creek corridor area, not the Blaney neighborhood. Carol Murdock, 10179 Blaney, advised that she had lived on the property for half a century and felt that the neighborhood must accept change . She noted sh,e liked the plans very well. Roberta Garelick, 10132 Deeprose Place, described the homes along Price, Mello and Deeprose as rural in character with large lots, and felt they would become an island in the midst of high density if it was allowed here and on the Wilson school site. Many residents said they had not received notice of the Pan Cal neighborhood meeting, and some had not received notice of the Planning Commission Meeting either. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Adams abstaining) I It was the consensus of the Commission that a six to eight density y range would be more appropriate and that anything higher would set an unfavorable precedent . This site and the Wilson school site were part of a single family, east of Blaney residential neighborhood, they felt, and some of the higher density projects in the area noted by Staff and Mr. Jackson were not . The option of a duplex zone was discussed with Staff. Mr. Jackson asked for a thirty-day continuance to explore the possibility of reducing the density. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to reopen the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Adams abstaining) MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to continue Applications 2-Z-85 and 3-U-85 to the Meeting of March 11, 1985. SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Adams abstaining) BREAK 10 : 10 - 10 :15 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, FEBRUARY 11, 1985 PC-459 Page 7 5. Applications 3-Z-85 and 5-U-85 of DR. KENNETH FRANGADAKIS ® (DE ANZA PROFESSIONAL CENTER) : REZONING approximately 1. 7 gross acres from CG (General Commercial) zone to P (Planned Development with commercial and office use intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to construct a 6, 600 sq . ft . single- story office building and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environ- mental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the west side of De Anza Boulevard approximately 450 ft . south of McClellan Road. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - March 4, 1985. Director of Planning and Development Sisk described the proposal, advising that . 33 F.A.R. * was consistent with the General Plan, and that 300 sq. ft . excess was due to a dedication for future widening of De Anza Boulevard. He further advised that the landscaping proposed was consistent with the De Anza Boulevard plan and that tle major issue was privacy for some of the surrounding dwellings. William Plimpton, Ray Rooker Architects, representing the applicant, noted the present substandard condition of the buildings and advised they would all be re-roofed to hide equipment and would be refinished to compliment the De Anza Square buildings opposite. He also noted that alternatives 411 for maintaining privacy were set out in the conditions of approval, and that they were in agreement with all conditions, except for condition 30 wherein Staff had requested installation of 5 ft . perimeter landscaping on the north and south, but on the northerly boundary the existing transformer would be hard to move, he said, so that they preferred to have 2 ft . of landscaping with a trellis at the soundwall . He suggested they might remove one or two parking stalls in order to create a planter area, which would be permissible, since there was an excess of parking stalls,he thought . Another suggested change was that they wanted more flexibility in the landscaping mounding, since 3 ft . was not enough to create undulations, he said. Chr. Claudy established that the towers shown on the drawing, though an architectural element, were also used as mechanical and plumbing chasers . Robert B. Hall, 20565 Kirwin Lane, established that the rear building would also have a roof added to match the main structure . He did not think trees were a good alternative for privacy control . Joe Waltrip, 20532 Blossom Lane, bordering the north of the property, mentioned disused wells, sewers and septic tanks that might create problems during construction. He mentioned that a floodlight presently shone into their backyard and felt they would suffer severe privacy problems . He wanted to be sure that the wall would not encroach on their property, as had happened in the past . *F.A.R. - Floor Area Ratio PC-459 PLAMING COMMISSION MINUTES, FEBRUARY 11, 1985 Page 8 Mike MacNamara, 20544 Blossom Lane, noted the development was surrounded on three sides by residential units, and felt that the commercial had an obligation to the residential community in terms of privacy, traffic and noise impact, and did not want their property values lowered by an addition of only 6, 600 sq . ft . , whereas something more efficient could be built elsewhere in the City, he said. Mr. Plimpton noted that the extension towards the north contained restroom facilities and that the height of the towers could be lowered, though the roof could not because of the equipment space required. He suggested that louvres would be a good solution and expressed a willingness to work with Staff on the matter. He pointed out that the space in question could be built without taking up land, and felt this was a good reason for building it there. Fred Bassett, 1381 Aster Lane stated that tre architectural drawing did not satisfactorily depict the appearance of the finished project . He was assured that the soundwall would be solid masonry when he questioned Staff on the matter. Debbie MacNamara, 20566 Blossom Lane commented that improving the value and aesthetics of the property in question took away from the value of their property. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 In discussion, the Commission agreed that this was an upgrade of • the property and was desirable, but that the privacy and lighting issues needed to be addressed. Theyarchitect ' s favored the architect s landscaping changes and discussed with Staff whether the sound- wall should run the entire length of the northern property line, since there was the potential that the adjacent properties would eventually become commercial. There was an objection from the audience. MOTION: Con. Sorensen to reopen the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 Clara Waltrip, 20532 Blossom Lane, wanted to be sure that the soundwall was built along the entire length of her backyard, since she did not intend to sell her property for commercial purposes. The Commission felt the soundwall should be built along the length of the northerly property line, since there was no guarantee the properties adjacent would become commercial, and Staff agreed. MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Szabo to recommend acceptance of the Negative Declaration of the Environmental Review 110 SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, FEBRUARY 11., 1985 PC-459 MOTION: Com. Szabo to recommend approval of Application Page 9 3-Z-85 per the Findings and Conditions of the Staff Report and the subconclusions of the Hearing SECOND: Con. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to recommend approval of Appli- cation 5-U-85 with Standard Conditions 1-15; Conditions 16-26; Condition 27, second paragraph to read "along the entire northerly property line"; Condition 28; Condition 29 to include lighting; Condition 30, first paragraph, substitute two and a half feet of landscaping strip with trellis, and fourth paragraph (mounds) deleted. Subject to the findings of the Staff Report and t1� subconclusions of the Hearing. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 6. Application 4-U-85 of SNEAKERS OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA - DENNIS CHARGIN (VALLCO PARK, LTD. ) : USE PERMIT to enlarge the bar area (by approximately 1, 000 sq . ft . ) and increase the bar seating of an existing 15, 000 sq. ft . restaurant (Red Coach Restaurant) . The new operator proposes to continue the banquet, dining and entertainment functions at approximately their current level of intensity. ENVIRONMENTA REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence, no actin S is required. The applicant proposes to locate the new "Sneakers Restaurant and Bar" in the current Red Coach Restaurant site located in the Vallco Village Shopping Center at the northwest corner of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue. The Center is located in a P (Planned Development wiht Commercial intent) zoning district . /First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - February 19, 1985. Director of Planning and Development Sisk, giving the Staff Report, explained that the application pertained to the interior remodelling that would increase bar seating and decrease banquet seating. He noted that the parking in the Center would now • be one space short . Com. Mackenzie questioned how the reduction in banquet seating would be achieved. Dennis Chargin, •Vice President of Sneakers, advised that creating open space on the ground floor would take away from the upstairs space, and also that 6 ft . along the existing west wall was to be enclosed to accommodate storage thus making a reduction in seating space. He described the interior changes, noting that they were incorporating an interior service alley into the lounge area for the purpose of adding natural light . He mentioned the exterior signing change and entrance projection, both of which ASAC* had found pleasing, he said. MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 *ASAC - Architectural and Site Approval Committee PC 459 PLAJINu COPMISSI0N MINUTES, FEB PUARY 11, 1985 Page 10 Com. Mackenzie noted that the Vallco Village parking lot now had no free spaces, and that this was stressed in the Resolution. 40 Com. Sorensen commented that she liked the idea of opening up the building in this manner. MOTION: Com. Szabo, to recommend approval of Application 4-U-85, subject to Standard Conditions 1-15; Conditions 16, 17, 18, 19 as per Staff Report, and subject to the findings of the Staff Report and the subconclusions of the Hearing. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS : 7 . Application 6-Z-69 of SKAGGS PAYLESS (FRANCO & BENZO) : Modification of site plan (Homestead Square Shopping Center) Southwest corner of Homestead Road and De Anza Boulevard. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explainedthat the matter was before the Commission because it was a significant change that required their approval, and that the Commission would set the basic design plan, leaving ASAC* to examine subsequent increments. He advised that Staff was recommending approval subject to conditions that would help the neighbors ' problems, and further advised that ASAC* had discussed the Application conceptually, and though they had no problem with the R.E.I. • store to be immediately built, they liked better the site concept which presently existed. He noted the De Anza Forge condominium project had visual access and recommended a 15 ft . landscaping barrier be maintained and planted as requested by ASAC* and that attention be paid to the screening of mechanical equipment . Chr, Claudy, opposing a concept of ASAC*, didnot want PP g condo- m inium owners to have the impression of driving down an alley- way to get to their residences, so that any building along Franco Lane should not present a back wall to the street, he felt . Lester G. I4eiu, 555 Howard Street, San Francisco, architect, representing the applicant, said theyhad taken no exception to the ASAC* proposal to shift the building, and said that in the past it had been indicated that when any additional development occurred, the site would have to be completed out, but that ASAC* had indicated this was not necessary if they could meet parking requirements, therefore allowing them to seek tenants to complete the Center and make proposals later regarding the balance of the pad area. He described the proposed building tenant, R.E.I. , as having only a one truck per week delivery, during business hours, and noted that air conditioning units would be towards the front of the building and wrapped round by the front canopy, therefore directing noise upwards . He also advised that Mr. Franco had no objection to screening the existing rooftop condenser on the P & W Market and stated that they were in agreement with 110 Staff '. s landscaping suggestions. ASAC - Architectural and Site Approval Committee PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, FEERUARY 11, 1985 PC-459 Page 11 411 Com. Adams wondered why the layout had been changed from the original. PrIr. Mieu advised that the tenants had not worked out, and also that the owners had been concerned about store frontage being accessible to parking. ASAC* had suggested coming along the frontage in line with the R.F. I. store and making a knuckle facing a fair amount of parking space, he said. Chr. Claudy, commenting on the ASAC* suggestion, advised that the permissible building area would have to be redeli- neated to prevent the matter having to come hack to the Commission. Corns . Adams and Mackenzie felt the proposed building next to Carl ' s Jr. should be integrated with the rest of the building area and should be contiguous. Mr. Mieu noted that ASAC* had not taken exception to it, and thought that putting buildings to the front of a property, rather than car count, was favored. A discussion ensued on the matter of moving the main pad forward. Assistant Planning Director Cowan suggested that the R.E.I . store building might be approved now and the applicants Ilk be required to comeback to the Commission for further approvals . John Vidovitch, developer of the adjacent De Anza Forge Condominiums, whilst realizing that notification of those residents was not required, felt it should be done, since this was a substantial change. He commented on the unscreen=d air conditioner on the existing building which violated the noise ordinance extremely, and also the back of the Center which was not painted. He felt a commercial develop- ment could beautify the area, but it had to be non-offensive and compatible with the neighborhood; in that vein, he did not like the block wall and the truck dock. The consensus of the Commission was that they wanted to see more of the balance of the Center before approving it . Com. Adams established with City Attorney Kilian that this could be done. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that residents could be notified next time . Chr. Claudy established that any new stores would have to come to the Commission for a Public Hearing, since the previous conceptual plan was negated. Director of Planning and Development Sisk advised that in th- ® near future there would be a Hearing to zone all commercial properties in the CG zone into the PD zone . ASAC - Architectural and Site Approval Committee i PC-459 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, FEBRUARY 11, 1985 Page 1- MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to approve Application 6-z-69 subject to Conditions 1-15 of the Staff Report, 111 Condition 16 modified tolindicate that approval was specific to the R.E. I . store in Exhibit B only; Conditions 17-19 per the Staff Report, with the findings of the] Staff Report and the subconclusions of the Hearing. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 Chr. Claudy stressed that approval was limited to the R.E. I. store and advised that it could be appealed to City Council if desired. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Com. Sorensen reported on the Mayor' s lunch, advising that the main item had been the topic of the community center. Com. Adams commented on the lack of success of the Post Office to find a site. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Director of Planning and Development Sisk suggested that since the agenda for the next meeting was light, the issue of • CG zoning being changed to PD and the use of potential school sites might be discussed. City Attorney Kilian reported that surplus City properties would be going up for auction on the following Tuesday. Adjournment, February 12, 1985 12 : 07 A.M. ATTEST: APPROVE: /s/Dorothy Cornelius /s/John Claudy City Clerk Chairperson