Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 26 88 PC MinutesJanuary 26, 1988 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 26, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tim Michel; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of January 12, 1988 were approved as submitted. ZMA-87-16 Seville Associates - Seville Associates petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 1.47 acres from RA, Rural Areas, to EC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 34 and 60A, is located in the southeast quadrant of the I-64/Rte. 250E interchange in the Rivanna Magisterial District. 0 SP-87-94 Seville Associates - Seville Associates petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a Parking Structure (24.2.2.12) on 0.87 acres to be rezoned from RA, Rural Areas to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 60A is one of two parcels subject to ZMA-87-16. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval of M 87-16 with two provisions: (1) That the following language of the written proffer is not accepted "This proffer will continue the limitation of above -ground use of Parcel 78-34 until zoning of rural changes on Parcel 78-35;" and (2) That the proffer related to landscaping plan shall be applicable only with the understanding that landscaping shall be provided and that such proffer shall in no manner foreclose the requirement of additional landscaping or other buffering by the Planning Commission at time of site plan approval. Staff recommended approval of SP-87-94 subject to three conditions. Mr. Bowerman expressed uncertainty about staff's recommendation related to landscaping in ZMA 87-16. Mr. Keeler explained that staff's recommendation meant that "you're accepting this plan in spirit but not as it's drawn because you can't do it as it's drawn." He added that you cannot plant trees in Interstate right-of-way, as shown on the plan, and also stated it would not be possible to get trees as large as shown on the plan to grow next to a four-story structure. Mr. Wilkerson expressed concern about the water issue being delayed until the time of the site plan. Mr. Keeler explained that this property is outside the growth area and is the only piece of property on this side of the Interstate that's shown for water only. Mr. Keeler /V January 26, 1988 Page 2 stated it was his understanding that problems in thepast had related to the operation of the water system and not the actual water supply. Mr. Gould asked why the facility was being referred to as a "Parking Structure" since the proposal is for 75,000 square feet for commercial use and 75,000 square feet is for a garage. Mr. Keeler explained that a special permit is required for any structure involving parking above ground level. Mr. Gould asked if the commercial use generated the parking. MIr. Keeler replied that that was not the case. He explained that the proffer limits commercial service business unrelated to the motel to not more than 1,000 square feet and the remaining area is to be conference rooms, a fitness center and uses of that nature that are directly related to the motel and available to the motel guests. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. St. John if staff's suggested recommendation concerning the applicant's third proffer as related to landscaping presented any problem. ylr. St. John replied that it did not. Mr. Keeler again clarified staff's recommendation regarding landscaping. He explained: "We don't believe that this landscape plan is doable in terms of the landscaping to I-64. If you do not have a problem with the visual quality or this building, this landscape plan is probably in fact doable with reference to the rest of the landscaping. ... So we have no objection to accepting this landscape plan for this. area over here (Mr. Keeler indicated on the plan); what we're saying is that if you feel that visual screening from I-64 is necessary, we don't feel that this is going to do it." Mr. Keeler pointed out that if the adjoining property were available, the plan could likely be located in such a way so as to make the variances unnecessary. Ms. Diehl stated she was unclear as to whether there are any implications of approval for this particular building of this dimension if the Commission apprcwes RITA-87-16. She stated she was concerned that this was overdevelopment of the site. She stated: "I want it to be understood that this in no way interferes with my decision on the site plan when it comes before us." She asked if discussion of the dimensions of the building were implying acceptance of something of this site. Mr. Keeler stated he felt if that was an issue it should be addressed at this time. Mr. Bowerman added that he felt the variances that have been granted "anticipate a certain configuration for the building." He added: "1 think when we are contemplating a special permit we are contemplating the basic outline of the structure that he is proposing that should be forthcoming on a site plan. I can't separate the two." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Walter Alford, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: i.3 Y January 26, 1988 Page 3 --The applicant acquired the property in May, 1987 and then realized there was a severe parking problem. --The property which the applicant is proposing to heavily landscape "in the front," the Washington property, has been tied up by the applicant in a 20-year lease and there are no plans to ever develop the property. --The rear 80-feet will not be used until such time as the applicant might be granted a change of zoning on the residence which Ms: Washington currently lives in. --The lease gives the applicant the right of first refusal of purchase of the Washington residence in the event Ms. Washington might wish to sell at some future time. --The applicant has no objection to Ms. Washington residing on her property for the remainder of her life, if that is her choice. --The proposed fitness center will be a health and fitness center whose use will be made -available to Martha Jefferson Hospital for cardiology care. --The building will be very attractive and will be constructed of brick. --He stated that the applicant would be.glad to honor any landscaping requirements, but he noted that the existing vegetation, which .includes several mature trees, is ample to screen I-64 and Rt. 250 from the property. --The applicant has made an attempt to please surrounding neighbors, including Ms. Washington, Monticello and Worrell Newspapers. They have received no objections. --The applicant's proffer was made in an attempt to address staff's concerns. --The building will be approximately 35,000 square feet per floor. The existing motel is approximately 250,000 square feet (50,000/floor). --In.response to Ms. Diehl's question regarding the current status of water, Mr. Alford explained that the sewer needs are met with a private treatment facility monitored by the Water Control Board. The capacity of the facility is 40,000 gallons/day and with the addition of the proposed structure, 25,000 gallons/day will .be used. Regarding water, he explained that 7 wells are located on the property with a large storage tank. He stated that if the storage tank system is not operated properly, it will go dry in the summer. He added that this proposed facility will have to have a sprinkler system and that will necessitate the extension of the water line. He stated he would have no objection to the requirement for public water to be made a condition of approval, because that is already planned. --Mr. Alford explained the "personal service area" included facilities like beauty salons. --It was determined the fitness facility would not be entirely limited to motel guests. Mr. Alford defined it as being "quasi-public/quasi- motel." --It was determined the gas tanks would also be for public use, but because of their location they would not attract much traffic. --Mr. Alford indicated he understood the property was subject to Interstate Interchange Policies -and he confirmed he was willing to accommodate any concerns of staff or the Commission with respect to landscaping. JIV January 26, 1988 Page 4 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined the property lies within the service area for water, so no adjustment of boundaries would be necessary. -Mr. St. John stated that it should be made clear that the County was :Waking no commitment to extend water to the property. Mr. Alford stated it was his intent, by working .with other developers, to complete the private extension of water to the property, and without public water the plan could not be done. Mr. Stark stated he felt the proposal seemed to fit the topography of the land and was a useful addition. Mr. Stark :coved that ZMA-87--16 for Seville Associates be recommended to the Board for approval,.including acceptance of the applicant's proffer, provided the followiag sentence of the applicant's proffer is NOT accepted: "This proffer will continue the limitation of above -ground use of Parcel 78-34 until zoning of Rural is changed on Parcel 78-35;" and also with the understanding that landscaping shall be provided and that such proffer shall in no manner foreclose the requirement of additional landscaping or other buffering by the Planning Commission at time of site plan approval. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Mr. Michel expressed several concerns: (1) That staff be given latitude to address the landscape plan; (2) The fact that this is being treated almost as if Ms. Washington's home is a part of the site plan, which it is not; and (3) Some question as to whether this is a commercial zone of 105,000 square feet, or whether this is "motel related". Mr. Michel asked Mr. Keeler if, given the applicant's description, he still considered this to be motel -related in terms of an auxiliary use. Mr. Keeler responded that the only use he understood would be available to other than motel guests would be those such as the beauty salon. M.r. Michel pointed out that the applicant had indicated that the other uses would also be somewhat open to the public. He asked Mr. Keeler if this in any way changed his comments about the proposal. 411r. Keeler stated the only change in the staff's report would be related to a possible increase in traffic. Mr. Horne added he felt the major difference is the increased traffic as it relates to the health center. Mr. Gould stated he found it very difficult to separate the two proposals and therefore he found it difficult to support the proposal. He stated he could not support either request because he did not feel there was any justification for the variancesthat have been granted. Hestated he found very little rationalization for motel -related uses. Ms. Diehl stated she could support the rezoning request, but she was having difficulty with what she considered to be aver-development.of the site. 10 January .26, 1988 Page 5 Mr. Bowerman expressed some indecision about his position on the proposal but stated that it was basically a use that was compatible with the existing use on the property. Mr. Stark pointed out that there had been no public objection. The Chairman called for a vote.on the previously -stated motion for approval of ZMA--87-16 for Seville Associates. The motion passed, 5:2 with Commissioners Michel and Gould casting the dissenting vote. The matter was to be heard by the Board on February .15, 1988. SP-87-94 Seville Associates - The Chairman called for a motion on SP-87-94. Mr. Stark moved that SP-97-94 for Seville Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. County Engineer approval of increased usage of central sewer system prior to Planning Commission review of site plan; 2. Submittal of landscape plan at time of site plan submittal. Landscaping/buffering measures to be approved by Planning Commission. 3. Staff shall recommend reduced building length or other measure if such action is necessary to maintain sight distance.. 4. Public water to be extended to property at no public cost. (Note: This condition was added at the suggestion of Mr. Wilkerson after Mr. Stark had made his motion. Mr. Stark accepted the addition of this condition as part of his motion.) Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Mr. Gould stated he could not support the.motion because he felt it was over -development of the site and would have a visual impact on I-64. Mr. Bowerman stated he had no strong reason to deny the application. Ms. Diehl stated she felt it was an over -development of the site. Mr. Michel indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Gould. The motion for approval of SP-87-04 for Seville Associates passed (4:3) with Commissioners.Gould, Diehl and Michel casting the dissenting votes. SP-87-100 George Garrison - Request in accordance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a double wide mobile home on a vacant 4 acre lot zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 103, Parcel 21, is located 600 feet on a private drive off of Rt. 795, J4/ January 26, 1988 Page 6 tl.2 miles northwest of,intersection with Rt. 727. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. The applicant was present but offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Gould moved that SP-87-100 for George Garrison be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6..2 of the County Zoning Ordinance. 2. Mobile home shall be located as indicated by sketch on plat by Robert Lum, dated October 14, 1987 (Revision). Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Indian Hill Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 4 single-family residential lots of average size 5 acres, with a residue of 14 acres, from a 34 acre parcel.. Proposal is to be served.by a proposed internal private road with access to St. Rt. 711. Property located on the east side of St. Rt. 711 and on the west side with St. Rt. 712. Tax Xap 87, Parcel 56. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. The applicant was represented .by Mr. Katurah Roell who offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. tilt. Michel moved that the Indian Hill Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final subdivision plat will not be approved until the following conditions are met: a. County Engineering approval of the private road and drainage plans and calculations; b. The Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of- way improvements. 2. Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of a commercial entrance permit. 3. County Engineer issuance of an erosion control permit. 4. Administrative approval of the final plat. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. January 25, 1988 Page 7 Donnie McDaniel Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 4 single family residential lots of average size 2.01 acres from 8.7424 acre parcel. Proposal is to be served by a proposed internal public road with access to St. Rt. 643. Property is located on the west side of St. Rt. 543, approximately 0.5 mile from its intersection with St. Rt. 743. Tax Map 45, Parcel 55. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Mr. McDaniel, the applicant, was present but offered no additional comment. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Golden, a neighboring property owner, asked what type of homes were envisioned by the applicant. The applicant responded to Ms. Golden's question and explained that the homes would be 1,400 square foot cedar homes on basements. There being no .further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Gould moved that the Donnie McDaniel Preliminary Subdivision Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final subdivision plat will not be approved until the following conditions are met: a. County Engineer approval of the following: 1. Public road and drainage plans and calculations; 2. Stormwater detention plans and calculations; b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of public road and drainage plans and calculations. 2. County Engineer issuance of an erosion control permit. 3. Administrative approval of the Final Plat. 4. Building Permits will not be issued unless the following conditions are met: a. Dwellings shall be limited to three bedrooms maximum, unless otherwise approved by the.Healtb Department; b. Class IIB wells shall be installed, unless otherwise approved by the Health Department; c. This parcel is located within the Airport Noise Impact Area; Construction methods shall adhere to Section 30.2.5.1 of the County Zoning Ordinance. J�� January 26, 1988 Page 8 Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Meadowfield Final Plat (Woodburn Farm) - Proposal to create 27 lots ranging from 0.92 to 1.65 acres in size, for an average 1.05 acre lot size. Lots are to be served by new public roads with one entrance on Rt. 649, Proffit Road. The property is presently improved with two dwellings, of which one is to remain. 31.75 acres, zoned R-1, Residential. Property, located on the south side of Rt. 649 (Proffit Road), between the Maple Grove Christian Church and Jefferson Village. Tax M-ap 32, Parcel 27A. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Rick Beyer who offered no additional comment. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Donnie Dodd, a neighboring property owner, expressed her approval of the proposal. She asked which way the houses would face. Mr. Beyer explained the houses will face the internal road. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel moved that Meadowfield Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Health Department approval of delineation on plat of approved septic sites and notation restricting their disturbance; b. issuance of an erosion control permit; C. County Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; d. County Engineering final approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and calculations, to include commercial entrance and turn lane; f. County Engineering approval of access easement to Lot 20 to include guardrail if deemed necessary; g. County attorney approval of maintenance agreement. 2. A waiver of Section 18-36c is granted to permit Lot 20 to be served by a private road. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 14W January 26, 1988 Page 9 The meeting recessed from 9:15 to 9:25. The Ridge Preliminary Plat - Proposal to locate 336 one (1) bedroom apartments in 28 buildings, served by 511 parking spaces on 24.5 acres. Zoned R-15, Residential. Property located on the east side of Route 781 (Sunset Avenue) and north side of I-64. Tax Map 76, Parcel 46. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. A primary issue of this review was the use of Sunset Avenue. The staff report stated: "The City of Charlottesville Department of Planning and Community Development has written to express concern over additional traffic on Sunset Avenue. As the Commission is aware, the northern portion of this road is in the City and from Moore's Creek southward it is in the County. Staff is hopeful that with the proposed realignment of Fifth Street/Old Lynchburg Road, traffic will be likely to use that route." Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Ms. Patterson noted that the applicant was requesting administrative approval of the final plan. There was some discussion concerning the 8% grade of the road. The County Engineer felt the road design was acceptable. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards. He stated the applicant had no objections to the suggested conditions of approval. Ms. Diehl asked if the project would be a "phase development." Mr. Edwards was uncertain as to the answer to this question. He stated it seemed obvious that the project would start at the bottom and go towards the top. However, Mr. Cangiano, the developer disagreed and stated the construction may start from the back and come down. Ms. Diehl asked if the recreation lot which is isolated at the top could be moved so as to be more central to the sites. Mr. Edwards replied that the area referred to by Ms. Diehl was a natural area and if the recreation lot were to be placed there a lot of natural vegetation would be lost. Mr. Keeler added that staff had chosen the recreation area as a result of the location of the power lines, i.e. the recreation area should be.kept as far away from the power lines as possible. It was determined the access road to the adjoining property was primarily for emergency access. The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons, residents of the Sunset Avenue neighborhood, addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition to the proposal. The main reason for their opposition was the existing hazardous condition of Sunset Avenue and its inability to handle the increased traffic from the proposed development. Many of those speaking pointed out the increased January 26, 1988 Page 10 hazard that occurs during periods of heavy rains when the road floods. Those opposed were: Ms. Betty Signor; GIs. Josephine Williams, President of the Fry Springs Neighborhood Association; Ms. Joyce Winfield; and Mr. James King. Mr. Huja, Director of Planning and Community Development for the City of Charlottesville, addressed the Commission and expressed his opposition to the proposal. His reasons included the following: --Unsafe condition of Sunset Avenue; --Inadequate access; --o public interest to be gained by the granting of the waivers; --Building on 25% slopes is undesirable, dangerous and costly; --Drainage problems; --If Sunset Avenue is flooded, access will be cut off, including emergency access; --Will add to the traffic and safety problems in the City; --Project is not good planning and not in the best interests of the community; --If the project is built, it may lead to the closing of Sunset Avenue on the City side. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. -Mr. Bowerman stated this application was no different than any other and was not a City -County issue. He added, however, that the location of this project is in an area which is currently being addressed by the three -party agreement between the City, County and University. Mr. Bowerman asked :sir. Armm if there were any waivers granted for the design requirements for the road. Mr. Armor responded that the road is being designed as a private road. He explained: "T-hat we have worked out with Mr. Edwards is that the entrance from Sunset Avenue to the first set of units is going to be designed per VDOT 25 mph design speed. We have not addressed the rest of the roadways because we have not got into site plan detail. We're treating them as part of the site plan, not as roadways to be constructed within a right-of-way." Mr. Bowerman asked if this did not require two alternative access points because it is not a subdivision. Mr. Keeler explained that this plan was submitted before the current site plan ordinance. He pointed out that the applicant has made provision to access through the adjoining development which has access to a public road. Mr. Michel expressed concern about the fact that during times of flooding when Sunset Avenue is blocked, there would be no vehicular access or emergency access out. Mr. Keeler stated this was correct. Mr. Keeler stated there was no current easement, but that issue would be addressed when the other property is developed. Mr. Keeler pointed out that though during flooding Sunset Avenue is closed between the City and this property, residents can still go to Fifth Street. (A member of the public stated this was not correct since fifth Street and Lynchburg usually flood also.) 4t l- January 2 b, 1988 Page 11 Mr. Horne explained that the flooding being referred to by members of the public was flooding on Moore's Creek. He agreed that if a person wanted to exit this site and get to downtown Charlottesville, there is a temporary problem, but the site does have vehicular access by other routes which do not cross Moores Creek. It was determined the bridge across Moores Creek was in the County, but on the other side of the bridge the road becomes City. It was determined there are currently no plans to improve either that bridge or Rt. 781 (Sunset Avenue).. It was determined the City has no power to appeal a site plan. Mr. Horne recalled the Sunset Avenue issue had also arisen with the Sherwood Commons Site Plan. He stated the Commission had deliberated over whether or not Sunset Avenue could be determined to be unsafe to the point where a by -right site plan could be denied. He stated that at that point the Commission decided it could not determine that there was a danger to safety. He added: "Clearly, the roadway as currently built is insufficient to meet the level of service than we would normally want on a roadway serving this amount of traffic, but to say it is unsafe to the point that you turn down a by -right site plan is an entirely different matter. You certainly have that discretion if you determine it to be, but I think you are all aware of the issues surrounding that." Mr. Keeler stated that if the road is currently unsafe, then someone ought to be improving the road, but this development has nothing to do with that issue. However, if the Commission finds that this additional traffic will make the road unsafe, that is a different matter. He stated the developer could not be required to improve the road. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Armm if there were any special run-off control measures required of this site because of the elevation. Mr. Armm pointed out that this property is in a detention basin area and not a run-off control area. He stated that because of the steep slope a lot of consideration would have to be given to the inlet spacing and pipe size diameters that carry the water down to the detention pond. Mr. Michel asked Mr. St. John to comment of the Commission's ability to determine if Sunset Avenue is an unsafe road. Mr. St. John responded: "You don't have to leave your common sense at home. ... You can have people testify that it's a sheet of ice and impassable and there are wrecks there ... but without more scientific study you can't decide that it's dangerous. I don't believe that. I.believe you can apply ordinary common sense and listen to these people, and unless you have reason to disbelieve what they say, then use your common sense and your own definition of what is dangerous. If this fits what you think is dangerous, then that is a finding on your part that what you are doing here is either creating or adding to a danger to the public safety. It's just an ordinary plain English thought process." January 26, 1988 Page 12 fir. Stark stated he felt this was a very unsafe situation. Mr. St. John added that if the Commission should deny the application, the law no longer requires that the applicant be advised as to what he can do to make the proposal approvable. He stated that all that is required is that the reasons for denial be stated. He stated it becomes a ministerial act to approve a site plan once it has been found to meet all the requirements of the ordinances UNLESS it is found to present a danger to the public health and safety. Ms. Diehl pointed out that even a low estimate of increased traffic on Sunset Avenue would amount to over 1,00.0 cars. Mr. Gould agreed with -Mr. Stark. He stated he felt it was the Com- mission's responsibility to consider the conditions of the roads upon which people must travel when they leave the site. He stated he could find no reason to support the proposal. Mr. Bowerman noted that this property is in the Comprehensive Plan and has the necessary zoning for the proposal and there have been opportunities to deal with these issues prior to this meeting. He said if the zoning is incorrect it should be changed. He felt that to deny a by -right site plan at this late stage sends very misleading signals to the community and the developers as to what is trying to be accomplished in this community.. He felt that if concerns are sufficient to deny the application, then the zoning should be considered closely along with the road issue. Mr. Stark pointed out that when the decision on zoning was made, the Commission had not had the public input as demonstrated at this meeting. Mr. Gould pointed out that developers are having an impact on the community and having no responsibility for that impact. Mr. Wilkerson stated that if both the City and County agree there is a major problem with this road, then something should be done about it. Mr. Horne clarified the staff's position: "In terns of Sunset Avenue in the County, it clearly is not unsafe. We are not in a position to dispute what has been said about Sunset Avenue in the City." He added: "At the point of total traffic generation (1,700 vtpd), if there were no improvements to Sunset Avenue., and we allowed the full 336 (units) to be built before we did anything, yes then, at that point, we may be able to say it is unsafe." He stressed that the County has no control over the worst portion of the road. :GIs. Diehl expressed agreement except for the bridge. She also indicated she was in agreement with Mr. Bowerman's assessment of the situation. Based on Mr. St. John's comments, she stated she felt approval of the project would be creating an extremely hazardous situation. January 26, 1988 Page 13 Mr. Gould moved that The Ridge Preliminary Plat be denied based on the fact that approval of the plan would cause an increase of traffic on Sunset Avenue which would be unacceptable and a clear danger to public health and safety. Mr. Stark seconded the motion. The motion for denial passed (6:1) with Mr. Jenkins casting the dissenting vote. The Chairman advised the applicant he had 10 days in which to appeal the Commission's action to the Board of Supervisors. Premier Plaza Site Plan - It was determined the Commission would hear a citizen's appeal of a condition of a site plan regarding parking lot lighting at the February 2nd meeting. MISCELLANEOUS Joint Meeting with City - Mr. Horne reported the City Planning Commission was requesting a joint meeting for the purpose of general discussion. It was the consensus of the Commission that such a meeting would be counter -productive. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. ➢S 1')