Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-21August 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) 0000~9 (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 21, 1996, at 7:00 P.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Attorney, Mark Trank, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by the chairman, Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. There were no other matters brought to the attention of the Board. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve Item 5.1 and Item 5.2, and to accept the remaining item on the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Mumphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Item 5.1. Appropriation: HUD Section 8 Housing Assistance, $1,421,347 (Form #96016). It was noted in the staff's report that the Section 8 Housing Program is an on-going rental assistance program offered by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (MUD). The Section 8-001 program provides housing assistance with 178 subsidies, and it is funded through June, 2002. The Section 8-002 program provides 34 housing vouchers. The Section 8-003 program provides housing assistance for 34 units. The final amount of the Federal HUD grant will be determined by the final amount of assistance rendered to residents. The estimated amount of the grants is: Grant 8-001, $1,046,947; Grant 8-002, $188,222; and, Grant 8-003, $186,378, for a total of $1,421,347. By %he recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96016 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 1996-97 SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1122781920300205 1122781920312800 1122781920579001 1122781921300205 1122781921312800 1122781921579001 1122781922300205 1122781922312800 1122781922579001 DESCRIPTION ADMINISTRATIVE FEE AUDIT HOUSING ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE AUDIT HOUSING ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE AUDIT HOUSING ASSISTANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $94,611.00 400.00 951,936.00 19,822.00 200.00 168,000.00 19,942.00 200.00 166,236.00 $1,421,347.00 REVENUE 2122733000330015 2122733000330016 2122733000330017 DESCRIPTION SECTION 8-001 SECTION 8-002 SECTION 8-003 TOTAL AMOUNT $1,046,947.00 188,022.00 186,378.00 $1,421,347.00 Item 5.2. Appropriation: Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) Grants, $424,507 (Form #96017). It was noted in the staff's report that Albemarle County serves as the fiscal agent for the Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board and in that capacity must appropriate funds awarded to the CCJB by the Department of Criminal Justice Services. The County contracts with community agencies to provide the services stipulated in the state grant. August 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) O0'O'O~O (Page 2) For FY 1996-97, the DeP~'~%" ~''~r'iminal Justice Services awarded $424,507 to the CCJB to be allocated in the following way: Offender Aid and Restoration, Inc. for pretrial and community corrections services at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Joint Security Complex and community corrections services at the Central Virginia Regional Jail, $283,822; Central Virginia Regional Jail for pretrial services, $60,155; Region Ten Community Services Board for a public inebriate center (Mohr House), $78,530; and, Community Criminal Justice Board for office expenses, $2,000. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96017 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 1996-97 CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1152029405566120 PRETRIAL - OAR 1152029405566140 PRETRIAL - CVRJ 1152029406566120 CORRECTIONS - OAR 1152029406580000 CORRECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS 1152029410566150 REGION TEN TOTAL AMOUNT $70,787.00 60,155.00 213,035.00 2,000.00 78,530.00 $424,507.00 REVENUE 2152024000240440 DESCRIPTION COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS TOTAL AMOUNT $424,507.00 $424,507.00 Item 5.3. Sister City Affiliation - Investigate membership in Sister Cities International, had been deleted from the agenda. Item 5.4. Letter dated August 9, 1996, from A. G. Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, forwarding a copy of the Commonwealth Transportation Board's approval of funding alloca- tions for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 Revenue Sharing Program, was received as information. Albemarle is listed for one project described as Project #0631-002-128,C502, from the northern city limits of Charlottesville to CSX Railroad, four new lanes, VDOT match, $358,910.00; County match, $358,910.00. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-96-22. Branchlands Land Trust. Public Hearing on a request to establish an assisted living facility (Whistler House) on approx 1 ac zoned PUD on Branchlands Dr W of the existing Branchlands Manor House. TM61Z,P5A, Sec 3. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 5 and August 12, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 23, 1996, unanimously recommended approval of the request subject to three conditions. There were no questions from Board members. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ron Langman, developer of Branchlands, was present in-support of the petition. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve SP-96-22 with the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowerman said this is what has been envisioned for this site the last 15 years, and it is consistent with the original PUD criteria. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below: 1. Development limited to 90 units containing not more than 120 beds; 2. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall present to the Zoning Administrator proof of licensure by the Virginia Department of Health and the Virginia Department of Social Services; 3. This use shall be operated only under licensure of the Virginia Department of Health and the Virginia Department of Social Servic- es. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-96-23. C. W. Hurt Contractors, Inc. Public Hearing on a request to establish private school (Northside Christian School) on approx 5.4 ac zoned R-6 located on W sd of intersection of Woodbrook Dr & August 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) O000~l (Page 3) Berkmar Dr. This SUP wili '~i~'~'~~'~hich authorized a day care facility. TM45,P91. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 5 and August 12, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said that one point raised in the report has to do with the intersection of Berkmar and Woodbrook Drives which has been signalized. VDOT has said there will have to be a traffic update of the signalization phasing, as the phasing will need to accommodate the increased trips from the school. That can be done at the developer's expense. VDOT has agreed to install/time the signal for that purpose. Mr. Cilimberg said the one issue raised by the Planning Commission had to do with adequate area for recreation, but the Commission, at its meeting on July 23, 1996, by a vote of 5/1, recommended approval of the request subject to three conditions. Mrs. Thomas asked if the plan posted on the wall shows the actual traffic configuration, which she does not think is conducive to dropping off children at the school. Mr. Cilimberg said that is part of site plan review. Two points of access on the cul-de-sac would be undesirable because they would be too close together. Staff will review the circulation pattern for bringing students in and leaving. Mr. Bowerman asked if a vehicle can make a circular movement to drop off a student, or would they have to back up to turn around. Mr. Cilimberg said a vehicle would have to pull into a parking space and back up to go out. Mrs. Humphris read from the staff report: "The site now consists of 5.391 acres, but will be subdivided, and the school will have a total of 1.045 acres. A fenced playground area of approximately 2500 square feet will also be incorporated on the grounds." She asked for Mr. Cilimberg to point out the area on the map. Mr. Cilimberg said at the time of the Planning Commission hearing that had not been delineated. He said the applicant should answer these questions. Mrs. Humphris asked where the playground area could be located. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out an area and said a playground can be located within the building setback line. Mr. Bowerman asked if a structure such as a gym can be located in the setback area. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes", but there can be no building within that area. At this time the public hearing was opened. Mr. Steve Melton, repre- senting the applicant, said they have decided to have the playground area on the western side of the building. The road and the traffic signal have been completed through VDOT. The applicant has agreed, in writing, to pay for any changes in signalization at the intersection. This will be a state-maintained road which will cul-de-sac; there will be no through traffic patterns from the elementary school to the front area. The church also has an option to purchase Lot B in Phase 3 and the sliver of land to the right of the cul-de- sac (about 3/4 acre). The plat was approved and signed last week, but has not been recorded. Mr. Melton said there are representatives from the church present tonight. Mrs. Humphris asked if anyone would address her questions about circula- tion in the parking area and about the play area space. Mrs. Marian Templeton said she will be the principal of the school. The major portion of the parking lot will be used for teachers' cars. They hope to have a bus come in twice in the morning, and twice in the afternoon, to bring children from the lower campus. Other than that, they do not anticipate a lot of traffic° There will be a few parents who will come in, but many of the children are also enrolled for"before" and "after" care, so will be brought to the school by a school vehicle. Mrs. Humphris asked if the bus would have to back out into the cul-de- sac to turn around. Mrs. Templeton said she was not sure how this would be handled. It is not a large bus. Mr. Melton said it is basically a shuttle bus, holding approximately 25 students. Mrs. Humphris asked about the play area. Mrs. Templeton said there will be two grades per period going into the play space. They have been assured that there is enough area to accommodate their needs. This school will be for elementary grades, kindergarten through Grade 6. Mrs. Humph?is asked how many children would be on the playground at one time. Mrs. Templeton said the lower grades are larger, so there will be only be one class at a time using the playground. From the second grade up, there will be from 17 to 20 children. Ail of the activities are supervised play. Mr. Bowerman asked if there are any cross easements to access the other property to get to the other entrance. Mr. Melton said "no". He said VDOT has stated where they want the entrances to be located, and that all entrances be shown on the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg said that under site plan provisions there is no requirement for a different type of circulation. Mr. Melton said this use will probably not generate any more traffic than for the original special use permit for a day care facility for 100 August 21, 1996 (Regular Night M~eti~g) 000052 (Page 4) children where parents would be brihging the Children to school. With a shuttle bus, it lessens the amount of traffic. Mr. Bowerman asked if the preschool and after school children are dropped off at the Westwood Road facility in Charlottesville. Mrs. Templeton said that is correct. Also the facilities at Westwood open at 6:00 a.m. and close at 6:00 p.m. That will not be case at this building. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the Board members' concern is with circulation on the site. If one or two of the parking spaces could be used for a bus to turnaround on the site, that would alleviate that concern. Mr. Melton said there are more than the required number of parking spaces on the site. It might be possible to take a couple of those spaces and make them a loading zone so the bus would have more maneuverability. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board's minutes could be made available to the Planning Commission when they review the site plan. Mr. Melton said they haVe tentative approval of this site plan all ready. They are just waiting for the soil erosion plan to be completed. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission will not see this plan. Mr. Cilimberg said there needs to be a reconfigura- tion of spaces to deal with the buses which are the size of a JAUNT bus. He understands there will two arrivals and two departures each day. Mrs. Thomas said that only accounts for 50 students. Mrs. Templeton said some students will be brought in by their parents. She said there will be only 70 students this year. Mr. Cilimberg said one thing that dictates site design is the fact that this is an existing duplex unit. That dictates how they can lay out parking and circulation. It is question of how this elementary school site fits with the expansion of 2000 square feet on the lot as it is laid out. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Cilimberg had a problem with what the Board has been discussing, i.e., the number of arrivals in automobiles and the limited circulation on the site. Mr. Cilimberg said "no". This will not be a through road. He woUld be concerned about ingress and egress on a through road, but this is a cul-de-sac situation. Mrs. Humphris asked what happens when there is something going on at the school and all the parents attend. Mrs. Templeton said most of the large programs are conducted at the church. There is no auditorium space at this facility; it is mostly classroom space. Mrs. Thomas asked about a note on the site plan which says "tree line not to be disturbed." She asked if that allows for enough space to have the playground area. Mr. Melton said there are a number of large oak trees which they would like to preserve. They have even put up a retaining wall to protect those trees. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:34 p.m. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve SP-96-23 with the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. He said his concerns have been addressed, and he believes the application meets the spirit and intent of the subdivision and site plan ordinances. There might be a more perfect solution if the applicant were starting from scratch, but he does not find this to be an unreasonable use, and he believes it can be accommodated on the site. Mrs. Thomas asked if there is a certainty that the cul-de-sac will not be opened at some point and the road extended for residential use. Mr. Bowerman said the Western Route 29 Bypass will lie between the uses. Mr. Cilimberg said it will depend on where the bypass actually goes. The school has an option on Phase 3, and could utilize the balance of the land if they decided to expand. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Mrs. Thomas asked if Mr. Bowerman is satisfied that the plan meets the safety concerns of the Board members. Mr. Bowerman said he believes that care has to be exercised in any situation where children are involved, but they will be arriving on the site with their parents, or in a car pool, or on a bus. He thinks it is in the best interests of the school to be sure it is all controlled. He feels that what has been presented is acceptable' Mr. Martin said the building is already there. The use that was originally approved for this site would have had more traffic than this use. He thinks that this is a good option for the property. If there are problems in the parking lot, he does not think it presents a problem to the public. Mrs. Humphris said her concerns have been expressed, and they are a problem for the school. One of those is that she considers the play area to be very limited. She is also concerned about having a bus back out into the cul-de-sac. Mr. Martin said as to the playground area, he assumes that the applicant must meet regulations as to the amount of space required for each student. It is their problem. If they don't have adequate space, then he does not believe they will get a license or certification. August 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) O000~3 (Page 5) With no further discussion, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. Enrollment limited to 130 students; 2. Access limited to Woodbrook Drive; 3. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of revised traffic figures for signalization timing. Agenda Item No. 8. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Public Hearing on a request to extend time frame for outdoor garden center sales/display from Feb 15 through Jul 5 to Feb 15 through Sept 15 each yr & to expand area allowed for outdoor storage & display to allow merchandise display on sidewalk in front of store & allow storage in containers on S sd of store within view of Entrance Corridor. Property on Rt 29 N is zoned HC & EC. TM45,P68D5. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 5 and August 12, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 23, 1996, unanimously recommended approval of the request subject to two conditions. They had basically supported the recommendations of the Architectural Review Board (ARB), with two exceptions. One regarded the area in front of the building. The Commission felt that with a height limit of four feet, material on the sidewalk would not be visible from the entrance corridor, so they removed the requirement that it be used only for plants and planting materials. The Commission also felt that the screening the ARB wanted along the south side of the fence was not necessary to provide screening from the entrance corridor. There is a hill between this property and the Jim Price Chevrolet property, and the Commission did not feel it was necessary to require the planting of trees on the south side of the wood opaque fence. Mr. Cilimberg said in reading the Commission's recommended conditions, he felt it might be good to include some qualifying language. He then handed out a sheet containing amended language for Conditions 2c, 2d and 2e. Mrs. Numphris said there is only one line in the report which mentions the permanent storage containers in the north corner. She asked if there were any permanent storage containers requested on the original special permit. Mr. Cilimberg said the containers were not located in an area visible from the entrance corridor, so they were not subject to the special permit. Mrs. Humphris asked about the relation of these containers to the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg said they were not shown on the site plan for SP-93-38. There was a location shown for a compactor on a heavy duty concrete pad with reinforcements. There was a location shown where trucks bring in their trailers, but there were no permanent sites shown on that first site plan. Mrs. Humphris said she does not understand how these containers fit into the discussion she read in the Planning Commission's minutes. In that discussion, representatives from Wal-Mart said they could not have temporary storage containers as a part of a permanent building because there is not enough additional floor space/sales area to justify the expense. What is the justification now for adding permanent storage containers? Mr. Cilimberg said he understands these containers are necessary for activities which occur year round, and the temporary storage containers are associated with seasonal activities. All of these containers were shown on the site plan, but, they are not subject to special permit review because they are not visible from the entrance corridor. He said the applicant should explain why they believe these containers need to be permanent, and what use they will make of the containers. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain again why there are no restrictions on the containers being there. Mr. Cilimberg said the containers must meet Building Code requirements, but because they are not visible from the entrance corridor, the Zoning Administrator has said they are not subject to special use permit approval. Mrs. Thomas asked if Wal-Mart had approval for the containers on the original permit. Mr. Cilimberg said the containers should have been shown on the original site plan. Mrs. Humphris said the containers were not shown on the original site plan, but are being shown on this site plan. The Board is being told that the only reason this new site plan has to be approved is because the site lies in the entrance corridor, but the containers are not visible from the entrance corridor. How did Wal-Mart move the permanent containers from not being on the original site plan to this new site plan? Mr. Cilimberg said the containers need to be shown as part of site plan and approved. Two different circumstances have evolved over time with Wal-Mart. Firstt Wal-Mart placed the containers, as well as merchandise for display, not in accord with their original special use permit approval or their site plan approval. For over a year and a half the Zoning Department has been seeking a remedy to these violations which were violations of both special use permit approval and site plan approval. Now, Wal-Mart is presenting a plan for both and covering all things they need to cover to get approval of a special use permit from the Board, and administrative approval of a site plan from the County. Mr. Tucker asked if this is the remedy the Zoning Administrator recom- mended. Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended both approvals to correct the violations that Wal-Mart has. Mr. Bowerman asked if the site plan showing the storage containers is before this Board or is it subject to administrative approval. Mr. Cilimberg said it can be handled through the administrative process, it is not before this Board for approval. Mrs. Humphris asked if the site plan being shown tonight has been approved. Mr. Cilimberg said that has not occurred yet. What is displayed on the wall tonight is only the proposed plan. Mr. Bowerman said one of the zoning violations was listed as "storage units on site not shown on the approved site plan." He asked if this is referring to just some of the storage units, or to all of the storage units on site. Mr. Cilimberg said the violation is only to the storage containers on site which were not shown on the original site plan. Mr. Cilimberg said staff identified through the Zoning Department, four zoning violations: 1) time frame in which outdoor storage was on the site; 2) location of storage containers not in accord with site plan and special use permit approval; 3) temporary signs placed without approval; and 4) display of non-garden center merchandise where only garden center merchandise was to be displayed. Mrs. Humphris asked what has occurred since Wal-Mart appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision, and the appeal was heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Cilimberg said that since their application for SP-96-24 was filed, some of the outdoor display has been removed. He understands there are still some violations which could be remedied by approval of this permit, but there is still some non-garden merchandise stored in the garden center beyond the time frame allowed by the existing special use permit, and the location of storage containers which are not a part of the existing site plan still exist on the site. Mr. Bowerman asked if any of the violations were cleared during the last year. Mr. Cilimberg said he understands that the violation regarding the time frame for the garden center to operate was cleared. He does not know the particulars of the zoning violations because they are being handled by the Zoning Department. The public hearing was opened at this time. Mr. Fred Ameen was present ko represent Wal-Mart. He said that everything Mr. Cilimberg said is correct as far as what has taken place. He said Wal-Mart's application for SP-96-24 ~as to follow year-round outdoor display along the front of the store on the sidewalk. The only thing they intended to be temporary was the garden display in the fenced-in area in the parking lot. He thought the Planning Commission · pproved their application subject to the four-foot height constraint, and ~ith the conditions Mr. Cilimberg mentioned, however, that is not the way the Letter they received reads. The only thing they ask that is different from :he Planning Commission conditions is that there not be a time restriction on ]isplay on the sidewalk. They request that they be allowed to be use the ~idewalk year-round for seasonally correct merchandise. Mr. Martin said he thought the Planning COmmission approved the year- round use. Mr. Ameen said the letter states that the sidewalk area can be ~sed only through December 15. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct, but they :an put anything on the sidewalk, they are not restricted just to garden ~aterials Mr. Bowerman asked about Condition 2d where it states "Four-foot height iisplay year-round." Mr. Cilimberg said that is only on the north end of the )uilding. Mr. Ameen said the Planning Commission felt that if the merchandise were )nly four feet in height or less, it would not be visible from Route 29 so :here should not be a restriction on the type of merchandise displayed, and :here should not be a time limit either if it can't be seen. The other reason :his application was made was because Wal-Mart was cited with failure to :omply with Albemarle County regulations. They made this application so they ;ill be in compliance. The store has complied as best they can with the time limit, although there are still a few items outside that must be moved. The ermanent storage containers are a site plan amendment issue. They are shown n the plan with the special use permit because that is the site plan they ubmitted for the amendment. Mr. Ameen said the only thing Wal-Mart is doing that is different from heir submittal has to do with the brick wall they intend to build. It will ook exactly like the existing building, and will have a 24 foot gate for ccess to the storage containers. Once the wall is there, the storage ontainers will no longer be visible from Route 29 so will be out of the realm f the special use permit. Originally Wal-Mart had planned to put a fence in hat area, but the ARB recommended the brick wall instead, and Wal-Mart greed. August 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) 0000~5 (Page 7) Mr. Ameen said they have also agreed to put in a wooden fence (board-on- board fence) which will run along the entire south side of the brick wall up to the head of the retaining wall on the west side of the store. With the combination of the brick wall and the fence, the Planning Commission agreed that Wal-Mart did not need to put landscaping along the side of the fence. There is a very short window where someone could see the fence from Route 29 because of the big hillside and the brick wall in front. They will provide _ landscaping in the front of the wall along the islands there, at least in the corners. Mr. Ameen said the store manager, Mr. Andy Crossnos, and his two assistants are also present tonight. Mr. Bowerman asked if the temporary storage containers are presently on the site. Mr. Ameen said "no". There are two permanent containers on the site now. Mrs. Thomas asked if this Board approves this permit if Wal-Mart will still have any violations. Mr. Ameen said "no". The only thing that he requests which is different from what the Planning Commission recommended, is that there be no time limit for use of the front sidewalk, that Wal-Mart be allowed to use the sidewalk for year-round display. Mrs. Thomas asked if the Board would be taking care of Wal-Mart's violations by this action. Mr. Ameen said that is correct. Mr. Bowerman asked if there are non-garden items in the garden area. Mr. Ameen said the area in the parking lot is gone. Mr. Bowerman asked about the area on the side of the building. Mr. Ameen said there are some items on the side which are not garden supplies. Mr. Bowerman said Wal-Mart is still not in compliance. Mr. Ameen said in that regard, they are not. Wal-Mart did not think they were restricted to garden display items in the original approval. Mr. Ameen said Wal-Mart was cited for having items which were not considered to be garden center merchandise (lawn tractor, etc.), in the garden center, and for that reason he was contacted to make this presentation to help get this rectified. Wal-Mart was also cited for having storage containers on the side of the store. At this time, there are no containers in view of the Route 29 corridor. The only ones that are on the site now, are the ones they propose to be permanent, and that is a site plan issue. Wal-Mart needs the containers in order to address customer needs. They have a tremendous amount of lay-away during the holiday season and back-to-school season, and they do not have the room to take care of those materials without the storage containers. Mrs. Humphris asked why there is the request for permanent containers rather than making an addition to the building. Mr. Crossno, the store manager, said the reason they are asking to make the storage facilities permanent is because the growth of the Charlottesville Wal-Mart store has been much greater than originally expected. There is not enough available space to expand the store; they have almost outgrown the facility. In order to accommodate the sales growth, they need these containers. Mrs. Humphris said when the original permit was approved, she thought it was mentioned that there was the potential for an addition to the building on the south side. Mr. Crossno said he was not the store manager at that time, but, based on the configuration of the building, if they added on, it would add sales space, when the need is for storage space. Mrs. Humphris said everytime the Board talks to Wal-Mart, it talks to a different manager, and that person usually denies knowing anything about what happened in the past. Mr. Crossno said there has been several changes in store managers, but hopefully, that will not happen again in the near future. Mr. Bowerman said there has been an on-going concern about special events and temporary signs which are outside of the realm of this special permit. Those things need approval from the Zoning Department when they occur. Mr. Bowerman said his most serious problem is not what is before the Board tonight, but he is troubled by the lack of performance of Wal-Mart on many of these items. Wal-Mart has been non-responsive over the last year on many of these items. His concern is that, with or without this approval, that not continue in the future. Mr. Crossno said he understands the issue and apologizes on behalf of Wal-Mart. Unfortunately, he can't verify what happened in the past, but it will not happen in the future. Mr. Bowerman said Ms. McCulley has expressed frustration to him about the violations. A letter was sent to one of the managers holding that manager personally responsible, and threatening the most effective legal action possible. His concern was that Wal-Mart was given outdoor display and then the County had to move in and take action when the - permit was violated. Mr. Crossno said he will give his word as manager, that Wal-Mart will try to comply with the County's needs in the future. He, personally, is not used to having these types of restrictions on a Wal-Mart Store. On the sign issue, currently they have a permit pending for a sign which just says "24 hours". If this permit and the site plan are approved, all violations that they currently have, will be covered, and they would have no need to consider violating any more. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Crossno how long he has been at this store. Mr. Crossno said it has been five weeks. August 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) 000956 (Page 8) At this point, with no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Thomas said she thought the applicant was to abate violations before requesting the Board to change a permit. Mrs. Numphris said since she has been on the Board, the Board has operated under an unwritten policy that it would not act on any application until the applicant was in conformance with County ordinances. Mr. Bowerman said that is what he has been trying to determine. It seems that the temporary containers have now been removed from the site. The seasonal display (the square in front of the store) is not there. The display on the sidewalk is garden related. He said he understands that the only violation that currently exists are things like trampolines and boats in the garden center on the north side of the building. Mr. Cilimberg said and the existence of the so-called "permanent containers" which are not shown on the original site plan. Mr. Bowerman said that is a "Catch-22" at this time since Wal-Mart has made application for administrative approval of an amended site plan. Mrs. Humphris asked why Wal-mart had not brought everything into compliance. It seems like a simple thing to do. Mr. Crossno said there are only three items at the present time which are still on display. He was not aware that those are the specific items which are in violation. He thought it was because they had not removed the outdoor garden storage, and that has now been done, as well as removing all non-garden center merchandise on the front sidewalk. Mr. Bowerman said that according to Mr. Dennis Friedrich in Zoning, those are the only items still in violation. Mrs. Thomas asked if Mr. Bowerman had new information which had not been made available to the other Board members. Mr. Bowerman said he had called staff this morning, and asked for an updated report on the Wal-Mart zoning violations. Mrs. Humphris said she does not think the County has ever had this kind of a problem with any other business. The County has been dealing with this situation for a long time. Mr. Cilimberg said Wal-Mart appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision regarding the storage containers. The Board of Zoning Appeals upheld Ms. McCulley's determination. A special use permit had already been filed at that time, and it was deferred because of the appeal. Mrs. Thomas said it seems the Architectural Review Board (ARB) is comfortable with what will be the resulting configuration of the business and the hours. She said Mr. Ameen has indicated that Wal-Mart is still not comfortable with some of the conditions. Mr. Bowerman said if the Board is to approve this permit, he will recommend that it be approved with the conditions originally stated by the ARB. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Bowerman meant to include the plantings on the south side of the building. Mr. Bowerman said he would defer to the ARB on that one conditions. Mrs. Thomas said she is not sure trees will grow in that area. She appreciates the recommendation for trees between businesses, but when dealing with a cliff such as the one in this location, she is willing to drop that requirement. Mr. Bowerman said he does not have a problem with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission or the amended wording handed out by Mr. Cilimberg tonight to make certain conditions more specific. With Mr. Crossno's assurance that the bateau boats will be gone in the morning, and with the understanding that if this Board approves this special permit change, he will ask to be notified of any difficulties, we will move to approve SP-96-24 as recommended by the Planning Commission, with Conditions 2c, 2d, and 2e being amended by language handed out by staff tonight. Mr. Cilimberg asked if Mr. Bowerman meant to change the time period for sidewalk display. Mr. Bowerman said he is not recommending a change in that condition. The motion was then seconded by Mrs. Thomas. Mrs. Humphris said she has been very discouraged with Wal-Mart's )erformance with a lot of things having to do with the entrance corridor. If ~his special permit is approved, under what conditions can it be revoked? Mro Frank said that based on what has transpired during the last year or so, and )ased on what the Board has heard tonight, the Board would have a strong case For non-compliance based on those facts. Generally, the Board has the ~uthority to revoke a permit for wilful non-compliance with either the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance or with the adopted conditions. Mr. Bowerman asked if such a ruling could be appealed to the courts. {r. Trank said "yes". Mr. Tucker asked if such a step requires a public ~earing. Mr. Trank said it would require advertising, notice and a public %earing, the same procedure used for issuance of the special use permit. The )nly difference is that the Planning Commission would not be involved in such process. Mrs. Humphris said she has been disappointed by the lack of respon- iveness to Albemarle County's Zoning Ordinance, and to the conditions of the ~pecial permit under which Wal-Mart is presently operating. She sees it is as 'thumbing a nose" at the community. Wal-Mart knew the conditions under which 000057 August 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) it would be allowed to operate when it came to Albemarle County, and the County welcomed Wal-Mart as a good neighbor. Wal-Mart advertises itself as a good neighbor, and the County expected it to be a good neighbor. She wants it clearly understood that she will be among the first people to bring this permit back before this Board if there are any further violations once Wal- comes into conformity. She will expect that whoever is the manager will know the conditions under which Wal-Mart is to operate in Albemarle County. Mrs. Humphris asked if ignorance of the conditions is an excuse for non- compliance. Mr. Trank said that is not a legal defense. Mrs. Humphris said she wanted that put into the record. At this time, roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris (reluctantly), Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. (Note: The conditions of approval read as follows.) 1. Outdoor display of garden center merchandise may be continued in its approved location (as allowed by SP-93-38) from February 15 through September 15 each year. Such merchandise shall be limited to plants and planting materials. All materials including greenhouse shall be removed from view of U.S. Route 29 from September 16 through February 14 each year; 2. Approval of an amended site plan to include: a. Replacement of existing Note 7 with "Display/Storage/Sales to be confined to areas shown on plan and time periods allowed by special use permit;" b. Replacement of Note i with: "The 30,000 square foot future expansion is not approved at this time. Future development to be limited by availability of parking"; c. Specification of February 15 through September 15 for areas shown as "Temporary Outdoor Sales Display Area" and "Outdoor Sales Display Area for Items up to Four feet (4') High" on front sidewalk area (as illustrated on plan initialled VWC, 8/21/96); d. Specify "Four Foot (4') Height Limit, Year Round Display" for the "Outdoor Sales Display Area" on north side of build- ing (as illustrated on plan initialled VWC, 8/21/96); e. Indicate plants/shrubs to be placed around "Temporary Out- door Sales Display Area"; f. Indicate brick wall and opaque fence and landscaping on south side of building as specified in the July 11, 1996, Architectural Review Board action letter, with the exception that the trees on the south side of the wood opaque fence may be omitted. Agenda Item No. 9. Approval of Minutes: February 1, 1995. Mr. Martin had read February 1, 1995, pages 1 through 10 (Item #6) and ~ound them to be in order. Mrs. Thomas had read February 1, 1995, pages 10 (Item #6) through page 21 (Item 10a) and found a couple of typographical errors. Mr. Bowerman had read February 1, 1995, pages 21 (Item 10a) to the end, and found a couple of typographical errors. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the minutes which had been read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~YES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mro Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ~BSENT: Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from Board Members. Mrs. Thomas mentioned the report of the Solid Waste Task Force which had been distributed to the Board by the task force. She said the Task Force ~ould like to have a joint meeting with City Council, the Rivanna Solid Waste %uthority and the Board. Mrs. Thomas said she would prefer to have a work ~ession first. It was agreed that staff would communicate this idea to the ~ask Force through Mrs. Nancy O'Brien at the Planning District Commission, and August 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) also suggest that a separate' pUblic'hearing be discussed at another time. 000055 Mr. Bowerman said he was at a meeting of the Rivanna Scenic River Committee in Palmyra today. They brought up some concerns about extension of water from Lake Monticello to Zion Crossroads, mainly issues which deal with Fluvanna County. It deals with the low flow of water in the summer and the amount of water in the Rivanna and recreational use in Palmyra and those areas. He learned that Albemarle County is the main user of water on the Rivanna. When the Buck Mountain Reservoir is created, he thinks the Department of Environmental Quality will look at downstream flow of water and what happens later. Mr. Bowerman said he did not realize the effect the use of water can have in the Palmyra area. What Albemarle does in its watershed does have a major effect downstream, and he never had taken that into consideration during any deliberations. That was the interesting part to him. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks everybody is becoming more conscious of the downstream effect. The River is closed for swimming in the Palmyra area because of the coliform bacteria. Albemarle County has at least found one of its point sources to fix that for the County's small segment of the river. Unless everybody all along the river starts finding their point sources, it will remain an unswimmable river with a lot of treatment required to make drinking water out of river water. People don't think about the cost of treating water. Mrs. Thomas said Albemarle County is in the unusual position of controlling almost all of its watersheds. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Mike Collins at the Planning District Office is looking at the Rivanna watershed for the Planning District Commission. Agenda Item No. 11. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.