County planners endorse loosening of restrictions on Albemarle wineries

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, March 18, 2010

The Albemarle Planning Commission has endorsed changes to the county’s zoning ordinance that will give local farm wineries more opportunities to sell their products and hold special events. 

“These are amendments that will… provide wineries as well as the public a clearer understanding of what is allowed,” said Wayne Cilimberg, the county’s planning director.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: [COMING SOON]

In 2007, the General Assembly passed legislation that limited the ability of localities to regulate activities at wineries in order to promote economic development. For the past two years, county staff have been working with local grape growers to amend the ordinance and bring it in line with Virginia law.

Albemarle currently restricts the amount of people who are allowed to attend special events held at wineries to no more than 150 people. Wineries need to apply for a special use permit if attendance is expected to exceed that amount. Additionally, these special events can only be held 12 times a year.

The ordinance change would raise the by-right attendance figure to 200, with permits being required for events that exceed that amount.  Further, there would no longer be a limit to the number of special events that can be held.

Full-fledged restaurants will still be prohibited at farm wineries, but the ordinance clears the way for wineries to operate kitchens to provide finger-foods, appetizers and soups.

Chad Zakaib, general manager of Jefferson Vineyards, thanked county staff for working hard to understand the needs of local winemakers.

“It is not an easy business, but it will be made less challenging by virtue of the clarity that this ordinance will provide,” Zakaib said during the commission’s public hearing on Tuesday.

Planning Commission Chairman Tom Loach said additional visitors to wineries would mean additional cars in the rural areas. He pointed out that parking at the planned Byrom Park in northern Albemarle County was reduced to less than 50 spaces in order to satisfy the concerns of its neighbors.

“We have a 400 acre park with [room for] adequate parking but we’re only allowing 37 parking spaces,” Loach said. “Yet, there could be a winery next door to it and that would allow 100 plus cars.”

Planning Commissioner Duane Zobrist said he understood Loach’s concern, but that the county’s hands were tied.

“I think the problem is that the state legislature has mandated that we give these wineries an awful lot of breadth,” Zobrist said. 

Cilimberg said the commission could further amend the ordinance to include parking requirements for events that require a special use permit.

Wineries will still have to work with the Virginia Department of Transportation to ensure that entrances to the wineries are adequate. Department of Health officials must check to make sure kitchens are sanitary.

The item will go before the Board of Supervisors at their first meeting in May, according to Cilimberg.

Annette Boyd, marketing coordinator for the Virginia Wine Council, said most wineries in the Commonwealth are family-run. While she estimates that the industry had close to $70 million in sales last year, promoting agribusiness can achieve a more important environmental goal.

“Wineries provide for land preservation,” Boyd said in an interview. “If it was just about the money, farmers could make more money by building condominiums.”

Presentation by The Nature Conservancy's Brian Richter

On March 16, 2010 in CitySpace on the Charlottesville Downtown Mall, Brian Richter, managing director of The Nature Conservancy's Global Freshwater Program gave a public presentation in conjunction with Charlottesville Tomorrow's Our Water Our Future exhibit.  Richter spoke about the idea of sustainability and the management of water flows in freshwater ecosystems.  He also discussed his organization's work in the Rivanna River Watershed and took questions from the audience.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast:Download 20100316-TNC-Richter

We need your support!  Your donation can help Charlottesville Tomorrow continue to make presentations and exhibits like this available to the community.

Brian Richter's Bio:

Brian Richter has been involved in river science and conservation for more than 20 years.  He is the Managing Director of The Nature Conservancy's Global Freshwater Program, a program that promotes sustainable water management with governments, corporations, and local communities.  Brian has consulted on more than 120 river projects worldwide, with a focus on the challenge of meeting human needs for water and energy while sustaining healthy rivers and lakes.  Brian has developed numerous scientific tools and methods to support river protection and restoration efforts, including the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration software that is being used by water managers and ecologists worldwide. He has published many scientific papers on the importance of ecologically sustainable water management in international science journals, and co-authored a book with Sandra Postel entitled “Rivers for Life: Managing Water for People and Nature” (Island Press, 2003).

Commission examines purpose of steep slopes ordinance

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Wednesday, March 17, 2010

What is the purpose and intent of an ordinance designed to control development on hillsides within city limits? The answer to that question could affect how Charlottesville grows in coming years.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20100309-CPC-SteepSlopes

Currently, new construction that would disturb an area with slopes of more than 25% is not permitted unless the planning commission grants a waiver. Waivers can be granted for several reasons, including a provision which allows exemptions in case the commission determines the public good generated by the development outweighs the impact on the environment.

The Southern Environmental Law Center has been following the issue for several years, and sent a letter to the Commission in January claiming that too many waivers have been granted.

“The language of the current criteria [for waivers] is vague,” wrote SELC staff attorney Kay Slaughter in a letter dated January 6, 2010. She suggested several ways to tighten up the language in order to ensure development does not lead to soil erosion.

In October, the Commission granted waivers allowing for a new fire station on Fontaine Avenue and the new YMCA in McIntire Park. They based their decision on a criteria in the ordinance that allows waivers to be granted for projects that serve “a public purpose of greater import than would be served by a strict application of the requirements.”

“Taken to its extreme, any project with worthy public goals would be allowed without regard for the purpose of the critical slopes ordinance,” Slaughter wrote .

With Slaughter’s comments in mind, the planning commission explored the purpose of the ordinance at a work session on March 9, 2010.

Staff researched how other cities in Virginia protect slopes, and found that Charlottesville is the only city in Virginia with a population over 20,000 that has a steep slopes ordinance. City Planner Brian Haluska said most of the state’s larger cities are largely flat. 

“Those cities haven’t found the need [to create an ordinance] and are interested in developing as much as they can,” Haluska said.  “Another [reason] is that Charlottesville is in a more progressive spot and has moved ahead on this emerging issue faster than any other cities in the Commonwealth.”

Chairman Jason Pearson began the discussion by questioning whether the ordinance protects steep slopes because they are a public good unto themselves, or whether conserving them addresses a greater environmental purpose.

“Are we saying that slopes that are steep are really wonderful just because they’re steep, or do we protect them because they’re doing other things that we care about?” Pearson asked. He said one view of the city’s future would be to develop on as much land as possible, but that the slopes ordinance could hinder that possibility.

“My concern about a strict critical slope ordinance, that [assumes] a critical slope is in and of itself valuable, is that you ignore the opportunity cost of a high density, very lucrative development on that site that provides tax dollars to invest elsewhere on other sites in the city,” Pearson said.

Commissioner Bill Emory said he doubted whether increased density was the most sustainable approach for the city to take.

“I think we have a lot more progress to make in terms of actually identifying the benefits that we get from green infrastructure,” Emory said. He said without stopping runoff, Charlottesville would have a hard time meeting federal Environmental Protection Agency targets for reducing siltation in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Commissioner John Santoski said he had a soft spot for the aesthetic value of slopes, but agreed with a comment from Commissioner Michael Osteen that building on steep slopes should be okay as long as all impacts are mitigated.

“I’m having a tough time wrestling with how to minimize that impact in a way that makes sense,” Santoski said.

Commissioner Kurt Keesecker said he wanted to find ways to build better on slopes. He said he sided with those who encouraged greater density in Charlottesville and suggested amending the ordinance accordingly.

“In principle, the idea is to just be able to give staff a tool to work through these situations that are relatively minor in their impact,” Keesecker said. Plans for development sites that would have more of an impact on the watershed would receive more scrutiny.

Keesecker presented a rough draft of a proposal that would create a tiered system for review of critical slope waivers. Only those with the greatest impact on the watershed would come before the Planning Commission for their review. The rest would be administered by staff.

“The applicants would know in a relatively easy way up on the front end where they stand in this tiered system and [could] make decisions on their site plan even at the concept decision,” Keesecker said.

Emory said he felt the purpose of the ordinance was to protect water quality by ensuring that the watershed provided a conduit for runoff to flow naturally.

“These slopes are associated with a system of tributaries throughout the city that essentially provide a network,” Emory said. “Not only do they directly address the quality of Virginia’s state waters… but they also provide a network for the hundreds of other species we share the city with.”

Pearson lauded that goal, but questioned whether city planners were using the right mechanism.

“Are we using a critical slope waiver to try to keep our streams daylighted and try to keep green infrastructure connected in our city? If so, I think we’re using the wrong tool,” Pearson said.

Staff are now reviewing feedback from the commission, and the item will come back before the Commission in a public hearing later this year.


 

Some County leaders support withdrawal of funds for YMCA in McIntire Park

By Brian Wheeler
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Three members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors voiced support for revisiting the County’s commitment to invest $2.03 million in the construction of a new YMCA facility in McIntire Park.

At a Monday work session on next year’s capital improvements budget, Supervisor Rodney Thomas raised the question of whether the County’s past action to fund the YMCA was set “in stone.” 

“I would like to see it uncommitted, if possible,” said Thomas.

The Piedmont Family YMCA signed a use agreement with the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County in January 2008.  While the City provided a lease on 3 to 5 acres in McIntire Park, the County committed to investing $2.03 million from its capital budget, funds that have already been appropriated and are awaiting disbursement.

“The County entered into an agreement that funded [the YMCA facility] and that money was appropriated and there was no contingency to not pay that money,” said County Attorney Larry Davis to the board.

Supervisor Ken Boyd asked if the money could be “unappropriated” given the challenging budget facing the county.

“We are in different times right now,” said Boyd.  “I am just really struggling with this particular money that has not been used yet.”

Supervisor Duane Snow also expressed support for reconsideration.

“The problem I have with it…we are talking about closing libraries and cutting education… where is it better to spend that money?” asked Snow.

In the audience was the YMCA’s Executive Director, Denny Blank, who said he was surprised the issue came up so early in the budget presentation by staff.

“To have Rodney [Thomas] bring that up even before it hit the screen was surprising to me,” said Blank in an interview.  “We have worked with staff on this for years, and the fact it came up in the eleventh hour, well it is rather late in the game to withhold the funding.”

Blank and YMCA board Chairman Kurt Krueger said that the YMCA had already spent over half a million dollars on fees for the design of the facility and that they intend to break ground this summer.  The city has already approved the facility’s site plan.

“It is a 72,000 sq.ft. family recreation center with a gym, fitness facilities, community rooms, and a family aquatic center,” said Blank.

“In this era of budget woes, this partnership between the City, County, and the YMCA is a shining example of city-county co-operation, and it would be a shame to reverse that,” said Krueger.  “If you are a fiscal conservative, having the ability to get a $15 million recreation facility...for this seed money is exactly the kind of thing government ought to be looking at rather than doing it themselves.”

“This was a way we could provide substantial recreational amenities to citizens in the County without an ongoing operational expense and only a small percentage of capital expense,” said Supervisor Dennis Rooker who supports the project.  “This is kind of the ultimate, in my mind, of leveraging county dollars.”

One critic of the YMCA investment is County resident Clara Belle Wheeler.

“The Board needs to understand that a YMCA is not an absolute need in the community right now,” said Wheeler in an interview.  “Building it right now in McIntire Park would be a dastardly deed.  Paul Goodloe McIntire gave that land to be used as a park and a playground for the people of Charlottesville, not a Taj Mahal gymnasium.”

Attorney Larry Davis cut off the board’s discussion when he suggested a closed meeting if the board wished to assess the legal options related to the contract.

“We are going to provide them additional information and see if they want to talk about it further,” said Davis in an interview after the discussion. “There is no action in front of them unless they want to revisit the agreement.”

VDOT and City Council at odds over Meadowcreek Parkway interchange

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris said Monday he would not sign a letter, written for him by VDOT officials, that claims City Council was open to endorsing a connection of the Meadowcreek Parkway to the U.S. 250 bypass without a new grade-separated interchange.

“Council has been consistent to say that we will not support an at-grade intersection option,” Norris said in an e-mail.

Download Angela Tucker's November 23, 2009 letter Download Mayor Norris' January 4, 2010 letter Download Brent Sprinkel's March 9, 2010 letter Download Sprinkel's draft letter written for Mayor Norris

The letter, which was written for Norris by VDOT Engineer Brent Sprinkel, is addressed to the regulatory officer at the Army Corps of Engineers responsible for issuing a permit that would allow for construction of the road through McIntire Park.

The Virginia Department of Transportation has classified the Meadowcreek Parkway as three separate projects, each of which has its own regulatory hurdles.

Albemarle County’s portion is under construction, but neither the city’s section of the road or the interchange have yet been cleared by federal and state officials.

VDOT advertised the construction project for the roadway in December, and the lowest bid received was for $3.37 million from Clarksville-based Key Construction Co. Inc. However, the contract cannot be awarded until the Corps gives clearance that impacts on historic and environmental resources have been adequately mitigated.

Last summer, the Corps asked VDOT to submit new plans for the City’s portion of the parkway, called McIntire Road Extended, because the original ones submitted did not depict a southern terminus. In November, city officials sent a letter to VDOT claiming that Council would approve an at-grade intersection if a permit is not granted for the grade-separated interchange.

That prompted Council to send a letter of its own in January reminding VDOT that the city’s decision to move forward with the parkway depended on several conditions, including the use of a grade-separated interchange.

Sprinkel’s letter informed Norris that the bid would expire by the end this month, and that construction costs could rise. Sprinkel also told Norris that Charlottesville has slowed the Corps down by sending mixed messages.

“These two letters from the city appear in conflict and have confused the Corps and resulted in a temporary delay in issuing the permit needed for construction of McIntire Road Extended,” Sprinkel wrote.

Norris said he cannot sign the letter because its last sentence is at odds with Council’s positions.

“Either the letter needs to be amended or a majority of Councilors needs to decide that an at-grade intersection is an acceptable Plan B,” Norris said in an e-mail.

Mark Haviland, a spokesman for the Corps’ Norfolk District, said in an interview that he had not seen Sprinkel’s letter. He added the permit application is still under review.

Meanwhile, the county’s portion of the road is well under construction. This week crews are working on bridges to carry vehicles as well as pedestrians over Meadow Creek. The road is expected to be completed in the fall of 2011.

Council approved a final design for a grade-separated interchange in December, but the project is still under review by the Federal Highway Administration and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.

County approves expansion of University of Virginia Research Park; Playing field dedication to be reviewed

By Brian Wheeler
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, March 11, 2010

The University of Virginia Research Park adjacent to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport will be expanding with a rezoning unanimously approved by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Wednesday evening.

Thirty acres will be added to the existing research park providing a new main entrance off of Airport Road, once Lewis & Clark Drive is extended from the other side of the park.

Concept drawing showing sample building locations on 30-acre addition to UVA Research Park

“This has been in development over the last four years,” said Fred Missel, Director of Design & Development for the UVA Foundation in an interview.  “It started in 2006 after the rezoning for the [Hollymead] fire station.  Our goal was to have a continuous piece of property zoned as [Planned Development – Industrial Park] (PDIP) and available for its highest and best use.”

The expanded facility will allow an additional 700,000 sq.ft. of development in the research park, roughly a 23% increase in existing capacity.  Today the UVA Foundation has only built about 500,000 sq.ft., or 17%, of the 3 million sq. ft. allowed prior to the expansion.

Local developer Wendell Wood was the only member of the public to speak during the public hearing.  He encouraged the board to approve the rezoning as one way to increase local employment options.

“We sold the land to the University of Virginia in 1985 and have been patiently waiting to see some results,” said Wood.  “I think we should do everything we can to support the further development when we have a world renown university.”

Valerie Long & Fred Missel presenting to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors

Valerie Long, an attorney with Williams Mullen representing the UVA Foundation, told the board that the research park is currently home to 1,100 employees.

A number of defense sub-contractors have established offices at the park to be near the Rivanna Station military base located on the other side of U.S. Route 29.  UVA Foundation officials said that is a trend they expect will continue.

In 1996, the project was called the North Fork Research Park and it covered 525 acres.  In addition to research park activities, the county has also approved special use permits to support laboratories, supporting commercial uses (e.g. restaurants and retail), and hotels.

Missel said this new rezoning has generated a lot of questions about the University’s plans for a hotel and conference center.

“A lot of people are excited about a conference center, but that has been allowed in the zoning since 1998,” said Missel.  He said the University has no immediate plans for a hotel or conference center anywhere in the park.

Supervisor Dennis Rooker said he was reminded in his review of the proffers, the contributions from the UVA Foundation to mitigate the impact of the development, that a recreational playing field had been promised in an earlier rezoning.  Rooker inquired about the status of the field to be donated to the county.

“I’ve never noticed playing fields and picnic areas,” said Rooker.  “We have a better system in place today for monitoring proffers… and I just want to make sure we are following the proffers reasonably carefully.”

Long said that there has not yet been a request from the County for dedication of the playing field.

County Executive Bob Tucker said he would bring the matter to the attention of his Parks & Recreation Department to see if the time was appropriate to receive the donation of the field.