Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-03-20arc 2 1 8 R lar i M ' A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 20, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. in Meeting Room 7 of the County Office Building, 401'McIntire ~Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PresenT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia M~. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. ~Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. Absent: None. Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive; Mr. Robert W. Tucker,.Jr., Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R..St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. James R. Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. order at 7:32 p.m. Call to Order. Board Chairman, Mr. Fisher, called the meeting to Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. On motion by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Henley, the consent agenda was approved by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Item No. 4.1. Monthly Building Activity Report for January and February, 1985, dated March 6, 1985, from the Planning Department (copy on file). ~Item No. 4.2. Letter from William M. Henry, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation re: Safety of gas transmission lines in Albemarle County. "January 31, 1985 Mr. Gerald E. Fisher Chairman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Route #5 West Lee Sheffield Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. Fisher: Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, in compliance with Federal regulations and in a continuing program of public education concerning emergency situa- tions or conditions affecting natural gas pipeline facilities, is endeavoring to establish channels of communication and liaison with certain public officials within Columbia Transmission's operating area. Our objective is to inform these public officials of the types and locations of Columbia Transmission's pipe- line facilities within or near their areas so that they might be better prepared to respond to the concerns of their constituents in the event of an emergency which could involve Columbia Transmission's facilities. Columbia Gas Transmission presently owns and operates the following natural gas pipeline facilities within or near your governmental jurisdictions. A 20" natural gas pipeline that enters Albemarle County, White Hall District, at approximately 2,000 feet west of the Skyline Drive and continues on into Greene County leaving Albemarle County, White Hall District, at approximately 4,000 feet east of Route 663. Within the above mentioned section we also own and operate Measurement and Regulation facilities near the pipeline crossing at Route 673, and Measure- ment and Regulation facilities at the pipeline crossing at Route 601. Operation of these facilities is the responsibility of the following area office: Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation P.O. Box 1152 Lexington, Virginia 24450 Tel: 703-463-3138 William M. Henry, Area Superintendent These facilities were designed, constructed and tested in accordance wih all applicable governmental and industry safety standards in effect at the time of their installation and are operated and maintained in accordance with federal safety standards for the purpose of transportation of natural gas by pipeline. In spite of strict compliance with safety regulations and a resultant excellent safety record, emergency situations occasionally arise which may directly or indirectly involve Columbia Transmission's facilities. This company's personnel are trained and equipped to respond quickly and effectively upon notification of an emergency situation. Emergency response will be 184 arch 20 _ 1 8 e ular ' ht Meeti ~'~)_=.~.__~_~ coordinated with local agencies such as fire departments, police, rescue squad, sheriff's department, etc., as necessary to minimize danger to life or property. Since prompt notification is essential to efficient response to an emergency we urge you to immediately notify our Gas Control Office at Dranes¥ille, VA, phone 703-759-2037 or 703-759-2115, of any dangerous or potentially dangerous situation near a Columbia Transmission facility which is brought to your attention. Should you desire any further information to familiarize yourself with our facilities or procedures, you are invited to contact or visit the area office listed on the first page. Respectfully yours, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (SIGNED) William M. Henry Area Superintendent" Item No. 4.3 Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of March 5, 1985. Item No. 4.4 Copy of request from Appalachian Power Company to the State Corporation Commission dated March 6, 1985 advising the County of APCO.'s.intent to revise its fuel factor.': and cogener~tion tariff pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 56-249.6. A public hearing on this i~eht>~is scheduled for May 29, 1985 in the Commission's courtroom, Richmond, Virginia. Agenda Item No. 5. H.C.M.F. Development Corporation. Request to locate a 120-bed nursing home on a vacant 9-plus acre parcel. Zoned R-6, Residential, the property described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 26 is located on Rio Road West, approximately 1/10 mile west of Route 659 (S.P.C.A. Road). Charlottesville District.- (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 5 and March 12, 1985.) ~ Mr. Donnelly presented the staff report: "Request: Nursing home (16.2.2.9) Acreage: 9 acres of 11.6 acre tract Zoning: R-6, Residential Location: Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 26 (.part) is located north and adjacent to Four Seasons PUD and Berkeley subdivision. CHARACTER OF THE AREA: This site is vacant and wooded. The property is currently served by a 60 foot pipestem which intersects Rio Road west and adjacent to the Garden Spot retail nursery. The Four Seasons patio homes (4.16 dwelling units per acre) are adjacent on the southwest with a 50 foot wide strip of open space between the patio home lots and this site. Berkeley subdivision (2.25 dwelling units per acre) is adjacent on the southeast. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff opinion is that a nursing home would be comparable to residential development in terms of intensity. Special consideration should be given to buffering along Four Seasons and Berkeley. One access should be estab- lished to serve all undeveloped properties. Staff recommends approval with conditions. STAFF COMMENT: H.C.M.F. Development Corporation proposes construction of a 120 bed nursing care facility with an employment of about 120-130 people. The facility would operate on three shifts with 80-90 employees on the major shift. Staff has calculated comparative traffic from generation figures provided by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: R-6 Residential (Six Dwelling units per acre; low-rise/condomini'um) 5.4 vehicle trips per day x 6 dwelling units per acre - 292 vehicle trips per day. R-6 Residential (Nine Dwelling Units per acre; general apartment) 6.1 vehicle trips per day x 9 dwelling units per acre x nine acres = 494 vehicle trips per day. Nursing Home (120-bed) vehicle trips per day per bed x 120 beds = 240 vehicle trips per day. vehicle trips per day per bed x 120 beds = 480 vehicle trips per day. Section 5.1.13 of the Zoning Ordinance contains supplementary requirements for nursing care facilities: 5.1.13 REST HOME, NURSING HOME, CONVALESCENT HOME, ORPHANAGE 2m__Marc~h 2 1 8~ula~ Ni_h~ t Meetin : . a. Such uses shall be provided in l'oc'a~t'io'ns' Wh'e'r'e''t'h'e ph'ysical surroundings are compatible to the particul'a'r'a'r'ea. '(The site is surrounded by residential uses/zoning and remote from Rio Road.) b. No such use shall be established in any area 'e'i't~her by right or by special use permit until the A'l~be~a'r'l'e''Co~t'y. Fi'r'e'O'ffi'c'i'al'has deter mined that adequate fire protect'i'on''iS''av'ai't'ab'.le''t'o'su'c'h''Use. (Fireflows in the area exceed 1,000 gallons per minute and in some areas-approach 2,000 GPM at 20 PSI. Due to non-ambulatory patients, sprinklering of the building will be required. Fire Official approval of fire protection plan should precede Planning Commission review of site plan. c. Generally such uses should be located i'n p'r'ox'imi't'y'to or in short response time to emergency medical and'fi're'p'ro't'ect'io'n fac'il'ities. Uses for the elderly and handicappe'd'Sho'Ul'd, be' co'nve'nien't t'o shopping, social, education, and cult'ural uses. (This site would be served by a volunteer fire company and rescue squad located on Berkmar Drive, a travel distance of about 1/2 mile. Access to shopping and other such uses would require vehicular transport.) d. No such use shall be operated without approval 'and, Where appropriate, licensing by such agencies as'~t'he ¥i'r'g'i~i'a D]ep'a~r't~e'n't 'o'f Wel'fare, the Virg~nia:~D~pa~ment of Heal't~, 'a'~d''o't'~e'~.',s'u~.'app'r-op'r'i'a't'e''l'oc-al', state and ~edera'l agencies as may'~a¥'e''au't'~o'r'i't'y''i'~ 'a 'p'a'r't'i'c~l'ar'c'ase. (This should be incorporated as a condition of approval.) Staff would address two other issues related to this proposal: access and buffering/screening. ACCESS: Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has commented that: 'The Department cannot support a request that would generate more traffic than what the land is zoned for in the Comprehe'nsiv~ Plan. The Department has preliminary plans for the widening of this section of Route 631 and recommends that the right-of-way for this ultimate construction be dedi- cated, or, as a minimum, reserved. A minimum of 450 feet of sight dis- tance would be required for an entrance to serve this site, and only :350 feet of sight distance can be obtained to the east. To obtain the necessary sight distance in this direction would require lowering the grade of Route 631 and sight easements across the front of the properties. A sight easement would also be needed to the west to obtain the necessary sight distance. At the time of a site plan, the Department would address specific comments regarding requirements for access to this property. If turn lanes are necessary to serve this site, additional right-of-way would have to be obtained for their construction. Other undeveloped properties in the area consist of about 18 acres, zoned R-6. Staff opinion is that, even with future improvements to Rio Road, ~obtaining commercial access in this area will be' limited. Staff would recommend that the applicant and seller pursue location of one entrance to serve all vacant parcels. BUFFERING/SCREENING: Common boundary with Berkeley is about 870 feet and 625 feet with Four Seasons. Staff recommends a fifty-foot wide undis- turbed buffer strip be maintained along these common boundaries. Depending on site plan layout, additional screening (vegetative or fencing) may be needed along parking areas due to continuous operation of the facility. Staff opinion is that with appropriate conditions of approval, the require- . ments for issuance of a special use permit (~.'2.:~.1)can be satisfied. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1.Nursing home facility limited to 120 beds. Future expansion shall require amendment of this special use permit; 2.Approvals of appropriate state and local agencies; 3. Maintenance of an undsitrubed buffer area at least 50 feet in depth along all common boundaries of Four Seasons PUD and Berkeley sub- division; - -~_. Additional buffering/screening may be required by the Planning Commission at time of site plan review, as well as measures for maintenance of existing cemetery; 5. Fire Official approval of method of fire protection prior to site plan review by Planning Commission." Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 5, 1985, unanimously recommended approval with the five conditions of the staff and the addition of two conditions: "6. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance location prior to Planning Commission review of site plan; 7. No access to be allowed through Berkeley or Four Seasons subdivisions." Mr. Lindstrom asked where the staff obtained the figure of two vehicle trips per day per bed as set out in the staff report. Mr. Donnelly said the figures were supplied by the Highway Department. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any guideline that would tell the Board what these are for. Mr. Donnelly said these are the maximum traffic numbers that the Highway Department has supplied for nursing home traffic. 186 Mr. Fisher asked if the property is large enough to support a facility with 120 beds along with the necessary parking and infrastructre. Mr. Donnelly said that. would be addressed on the site plan. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant has done anything to meet the Highway Depart- ment's request for sight distance and widening easements. Mr. Donnelly said this, also would be addressed in the site plan review stage. In response to a question from Mr. Bowie, Mr. Donnelly said condition six would force the applicant to meet the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's site distance requirements and possibly to get the property owners to work together to locate a different entrance from the one currently planned. He said that, ideally, one entrance would serve several properties. Mr. Fisher asked if this was a requirement and Mr. Donnelly said it is listed under condition six in the Planning Commission's conditions of approval. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Highway Department has the authority to require all these things and learned that it does. Mr. Fisher remarked that they cannot require different lots to have a single entrance. Mr. Donnelly said that was a suggestion, not a requirement. Mr. Fisher said it seemed to him that the entrances to this property and the other R-6 properties in the area are considered potential problems by the Highway Department. He then opened the public hearing. Mr. Carroll Mason was present to speak for the applicant. He said he really had nothing to add to the staff report, but would like to bring the 'Board up to date on several items addressed in the report. Mr. Mason said the homeowners in Berkeley and Four Seasons subdivisions concurred with the buffering proposed and actually supported the creation of the nursing home. In answer to the Board and Highway Department concern about the entrance, the property owners are now negotiating to move the pipestem and this will be complete, Mr. Mason said, prior to the site plan review. Mr. Mason said the developers feel that the nine-acre lot will more than adequately accom- modate the nursing home and its attendant density'. Mr. Fisher asked how close, the developers are to a signed agreement on the entrance. Mr. Mason said the agreement should be drawn up and signed by the end of the week. This would provide one entrance for two parcels. Mr. Fisher said he has been at this business of special use permit issuance for a long time, and has seen a number of good intentions sidelined. Mr. Mason said he, too, realized that the agreement may fall through, but he expects the agreement will be worked out. There being no more questions from the Board and no one else present to speak on the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher asked if the lower density created by the nursing home would be made up some- where else in this area. He said this is implied, if not stated, in the staff report. Mr. Donnelly said the maximum number of units that could be placed on this property is 81. The staff has not really addressed the dislocation of dwelling units in this area, but the general trend has been toward a lowering of densities in some areas. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not willing to approve this on the strength of an agreement that may or may not be signed, but he is willing to approve it on the strength of the authority of the Department of Highways and Transportation to require adequate sight distance as a condition of approval. He then made motion to approve SP-85-4 with the seven conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. ~ Mr. Fisher said the language in condition one, second sentence, seems to imply that the special use permit can be amended to allow expansion of the nursing home. He said he wants to make it clear that this is not the intent of this condition. Approval is for a 120-bed facil- ity only. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-85-6. William Stevenson/Alton Martin. Request to locate a drive- in window for video and music sales on an existing vacant lot zoned C-t Commercial. The pro- perty described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 40 is located on the east side of the intersection of Georgetown Road (Route 656) and Hydraulic Road (Route 743~. Charlottesville District. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on March 5 and March 12, 1985.) Mr. Donnelly began the staff report, but Mr. Fisher, seeing that the applicants were not present, asked that the matter be deferred to later in the meeting. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-85-2. Blake Hurt/Larry McElwain. Request to rezone 1.691 acres from R-4, Residential to C-1 Commercial. Located on the east side of Greenbrier Drive near Wynridge, .01 mile north of the intersection with Whitewood Road. County Tax Map 61W, Parcel 45 (part). Charlottesville District (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 5 and March 12, 1985.) Mr. Donnelly said the applicants had requested that ZMA-85-2 be deferred to April 9, 1985 for hearing by the Planning Commission. The Board of Supervisors has been asked to defer the item until April 17. i87 Mrs. Cooke made motion to defer to April 17., 1985, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Roll was Agenda Item No. Sa. Memoranda from the Virginia Association of Counties, re: Sharing and HB 1377 - Fire Programs Tax. ' Revenue Mr. Fisher said that VACo has recommended that boards of supervisors take positions on two items and relate those positions to various legislative representatives. The first is on federal Revenue Sharing, which is now before Congress. He asked if the Board wished to send a resolution in support of revenue sharing funding from the federal government. Mr. Henley said he thought revenue sharing should be done away with completely. member of the Board expressed an opinion. No other Mr. Henley asked for an explanation of HB 1377. Mr. Agnor said this bill would place a tax on fire insurance and return 75 percent of the income derived therefrom to the localities for fire protection. The insurance companies are opposed to this measure, but Governor Robb has indicated that he intends to sign the bill into law. The Board had no further comments. Agenda Item No. 8b. CPA-85-2. Amend the Comprehensive Plan to include provisions for citizen request for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 5 and March 12, 1985.) Mr. Donnelly presented this policy with an addendum placed in the policy by the Planning Commission: "1. Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, made by the public, shall be reviewed twice annually. The Planning Commission or the Board of Super- visors may initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment study at any time as deemed appropriate. 2. Comprehensive Plan amendment applications may be filed at the Depart- ment of Planning and Community Development on or before the first Tuesday, respectively, of the months of March and September. ADDENDUM: The application for requesting a Comprehensive Plan amendment shall consist of the following: It shall be the applicant's responsibility to submit, in writing, a response to each of the criteria specified in this report, including justification for the requested change. The criteria are outlined herein as items A through E. An application form would be prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, summarizing the guidelines of each criteria point and provide a framework for a written response to be prepared by the applicant. This application in full would then be submitted directly to the Planning Commission for determination regarding the adoption of a resolution of intent to amend the Compre- hensive Plan. Should the Planning Commission adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to an application, such application would then be forwarded to staff and the Site Review Committee as applicable. In addition to the application, it is the responsibility of the applicant to submit, in a timely fashion, to the Planning Department, additional information which is required for review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. SUch additional information may include, but is not limited to, slope studies, soil 'studies, engineering calculations and profiles, preliminary site plans, etc. The applicant will be informed of what specific items will be required prior to the scheduled Site Review Committee meeting. 3. Notice of Comprehensive Plan amendment submission shall be sent by first class mail to the last known address of all owners of property adjacent to the development. In any case in which the property so adjacent is owned by the applicant, notice shall be given to the owners of the next adjoining property not owned by the applicant. Mailing to the address shown on the current real estate tax assessment books of Albe- marle County shall be deemed adequate compliance with this requirement. No Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be approved within ten calendar .days of the date of the mailing of such notice. The notice shall state the type of use proposed, specific location of development, appropriate county office where the site development plan may be viewed, and the date of Comprehensive Plan amendment public meeting. The applicant shall reimburse the County the cos~ of postage for notifi- cation of adjacent property owners incurred during the Comprehensive Plan -'.amendment process. 4. Prior to the deadline for Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the Board of Supervisors, or its agent (the Planning Commission) should hold a public hearing for the purpose of discussion and to entertain public comment on the Plan, in general. This pubilc hearing would also provide a -~public forum for Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors requests to amend the Plan. The date, time and purpose of the public hearing should be advertised in the newspaper in advance. 188 March 2~lar Night Mee~tin~:_'_~ 5. Within ninety days of the application deadline, the Board of Super- visors shall take action to approve or deny Comprehensive Plan amendment requests initiated by the public. Prior to the Board of Supervisors review of Comprehensive Plan amendment applications, the Planning Commis- sion shall review all Comprehensive Plan amendment requests and make recommendations to the Board. The Technical Site Review committee shall be consulted for recommendations as necessary. 6. No public Comprehensive Plan amendment applications will be pro- cessed within six months prior to the expected date of a major five- year Comprehensive Plan revision. CRITERIA FOR THE REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 'AMEND'MENT'A'P"P'LICA'TIO~NS' A. The Comprehensive Plan provides a iong-range guide for direction and context of the decision-making process for public and private land uses. The Comprehensive Plan is general in nature rather than attempting to identify specific geographic locations. The Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan suggests the relationship of recommended uses to general areas. Proposed amendments to the Land Use Map should be reviewed for compliance with the general plan rather than area specific or parcel-specific requests for a change in the recommended use. The purpose of the Land Use Map is to provide and plan for a balance of land uses, equipped with adequate utilities and facilities, in a comprehensive, harmonious manner. Any proposed change in the Land Use Map will be evaluated for protection of the health, safety and welfare of the general public rather than the proprietary interest.s of the individual. B. The merit of Comprehensive Plan amendment requests shall be largely determined by the fulfillment of support to the "Goals and Objectives" specified in Chapter 9 of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan "Standards" outlined in Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan. C. A primary purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use map is to facilitate the coordination of improvements to the transportation network and the expansion of public utilities in an economical, efficient and judicious manner. Comprehensive Plan amendments which 'direct growth away from designated growth areas shall be discouraged unless adequate justification is provided. Amendments to the boundaries of growth areas may be considered appropriate if the request is comprehensive, proposes to follow a logical topographic or man-made feature and is supported by adequate justification (i.e. neighborhood is built out). No Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be considered in areas where roads or utilities are considered non-tolerable or inadequate unless the improvement of those facilities is included in the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal. ~. Proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be evaluated for general compliance with adopted County plans, policies, studies and ordinances and to determine if corresponding changes are necessary. E. Except as otherwise provided, the following conditions may be considered in the evaluation of a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan: Change in circumstance has occurred (i.e., external factors, policy change, etc.); or 2. Updated information is available (i.e., census information); or The adoption or development of subsequent portions of the Compre- hensive Plan (i.e. CATS Study or Stormwater Detention Plan); or A portion of the Plan is incorrect or not feasible (i.e. Route 631/ Route 742 connector road); or The preparation of the Plan as required by Article 15.1-447 of the Virginia Code was incomplete or incorrect information was employed." Mr. Donnelly said this puts the burden of proof on the applicant and requires him to justify a Comprehensive Plan amendment by adding written criteria and allowing a place to respond to the criteria. Mr. Fisher said he talked with a member of the Planning staff this morning about this policy and he would try to summarize those comments for the Board. Mr. Fisher said the Plan- ning Commission basically wants the applicant to fill out a form explaining exactly why the Comprehensive Plan for the properties involved should be changed. The Planning Commission wil] then review the application without any staff work. Mr. Donnelly said the Commission has suggested that the staff review the applications and give them a short staff report on how the application meets the criteria. Mr. Fisher said at this point the Commission can review the application and decide if it merits a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan. If the application does not meet the criteria, then the Commission can deny it and not approve th~ resolution of intent. If the application goes forward, the staff can do a more intensive study Mr. Donnelly said that in the past all the staff has received from the applicant is a basic request, and then it has had to do all the work in preparing the application. Since the Planning Department cannot charge a fee for this, it hopes that requiring the applicant to do some of the preliminary work will relieve some of the staff burden and give them additional information. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Bowie asked why the Planning Department cannot charge a fee. Mr. Donnelly said this is not set out in the state code. 189 ~_ M_arch 20~ 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) ' .~_~Mr-.. Fishe~ asked what the Board should do with this policy. Mr. Donnelly said the policy would be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission advertised the amendment for a public hearing and held one on March 19, 1985. Although it was advertised for the Board's review tonight, the staff report was not ready until today. Mr. Tucker said he saw no reason why the Board could not endorse this as policy and give the Plan- ning Commission indication that the Board intends to adopt the amendment. The process of amending the Comprehensive Plan by the addition of the policy could then be started. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board should not hold a public hearing. Mr. Agnor said it should. Mr. Fisher apologized for having this item on the agenda, saying he had the impression that the Planning Commission was ready to start hearing Comprehensive Plan amendments and wanted the policy in place. Mr. Donnelly said the staff has one application at this time. Mr. Fisher said this item is a long one to start tonight. Mrs. Cooke suggested that it be deferred to some other time. Mr. Fisher said he does not want to slow the Planning Commission and asked if it can go ahead and hear the one application without having the policy in place. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Planning Commission could Just review the amendment the way it always has in the past. Mr. St. John said that is possible. He added that he is not sure he under~ stands what the problem would be. This amendment is ready to be adopted as soon as the Board holds a public hearing. Mr. Fisher said the amendment will be rescheduled for public hearing, and the application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment that is currently before the Planning Commission can be heard without the policy. Agenda Item No. 6. William Stevenson/Alton Martin. Mr. Fisher noted that the applicants were still not present. Mr. Lindstrom made motion to defer the public hearing on SP-85-6 to April 3, 1985. Mr. Way seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters not on the Agenda. public were brought up at this time. No matters from Board, staff, or Agenda Item No. 10. Adjournment. Mr. Way made motion to adjourn to April 3, 1985 at 3:30 p.m. for a meeting with the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion, and the meeting adjourned, after the roll call, at 8:05 p.m. AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None.