CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE

DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

MEMO


To: Fry’s Spring Neighbors

From: Brian Haluska, AICP, Neighborhood Planner

Date: 2/4/09

RE: Neighborhood Issues/Development Update



Fry’s Spring


  1. Fontaine Research Park Rezoning – The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation has submitted an application to the County Board of Supervisors to rezone the Fontaine Research Park to allow an approximate doubling of the density of the Research Park. This action is consistent with discussions that occurred during the preparation of the Area B Study. The concept plan submitted with the rezoning does not show the proposed Fontaine/Sunset Connector going all the way through University property. However, Mr. Sandridge has written the Mayor and indicated that the University is committed to building the connector from Fontaine to their property line that adjoins the Granger Property. At this point they only show the road as necessary to service the development, but he is committed to build an additional road to extend to the property line when the project moves forward. They have not proffered to assist with the bridge over the railroad or Moore’s Creek at this time. At the PACC Tech meeting on 1/30, the proposed intersection with Interstate 64 was rejected. No change.


  1. Center/Hill Development – A rezoning request for a Planned Unit Development for the Center/Hill property has been submitted. The development now shows 13 single family homes – two fronting on Hill Street and 10 fronting on an extension of Center Street. The plan was deferred by the applicant at the April 8, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. No change.


  1. Old Lynchburg Road – The meeting held on September 19th to again meet the team and begin discussing the needs and concerns about Old Lynchburg Road was well attended. This was the first opportunity for adjacent property owners and neighborhood residents to talk about specific issues with the design team. Two concepts have been developed for the area and they are currently under City review. The City held another citizen informational meeting on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at the Cherry Avenue Christian Church to present the two concepts for additional input. Staff compiled the information gathered from all citizen/stakeholder surveys and interviews to be incorporated into a single design. The design for the improvements is tentatively scheduled to be presented to City Council for public hearing in the fall. Staff resolved a conflict with the Fry’s Spring Beach Club property by moving a proposed sidewalk from one side of OLR to the other. Staff held a public meeting on the proposed design on October 14th at the Cherry Avenue Christian Church. The design team addressed the comments from the public, and presented an update to the City Council in December. Citizens of the OLR area will notice some survey markings in the near future. This is so the design team can get more accurate utility information to incorporate in the final plan. The project is moving to final design, and staff anticipates seeking public input on the first draft of the final design in the second quarter of 2009. No change.


  1. JPA Bridge – There was a rescoping meeting held last month with all of the VDOT design team and City staff and a subsequent meeting with the neighborhood. At this meeting, details were emphasized to VDOT to achieve the neighborhood concerns. VDOT is currently working on the redesign. Staff presented an update on the bridge design for the City Council Meeting on 9/2/08 and City Council passed a resolution supporting the redesigned bridge width of 67 feet (reduced from the originally proposed 78 feet).  Staff met with neighborhood representatives on September 17th to discuss details of the new bridge design. VDOT will continue work on the supplemental design details suggested by FSNA and the City will continue to communicate with the neighborhood as the design progresses.  Advertisement date remains Nov 2009 with construction scheduled to begin early 2010. Staff is scheduled to bring the design drawings to the Fry’s Spring Neighborhood Association on February 11th..


  1. Huntley PUD – Jim Tolbert met with the Beyers about the application for amendment to the Huntley Planned Unit Development, along with two members of the Planning Commission. At this meeting, staff was advised by the Beyers that they no longer desire to pursue a rezoning, but instead intend to develop according to the already approved plan on this section of the site. Because they already have an approved site plan, that is their prerogative. We have emphasized to the developer that he needs to quickly submit his reforestation plan so that it can be approved and trees planted during this planting season. We have also suggested to them that the undersized street trees can be replaced without waiting on approval of the reforestation plan. The owners went to the Planning Commission on November 13th to ask approval to plant fifty 2-inch caliper trees rather than the forty 4-inch caliper trees previously agreed to. The Planning Commission approved a substitution of 60 2-inch caliper trees for the 40 4-inch caliper trees. Staff has received an amended planting plan for the Huntley property, and has provided the owners with comments regarding the plan. No change.


  1. Old Lynchburg Road Apartment Complex – The County of Albemarle has received an application for development of a 24 acre parcel of land on the City/County line. The application calls for 308 dwelling units with parking, and swimming pool and other recreational facilities. Based on the County staff report for the discussion on January 15th, the applicant and county staff disagree on several issues, including whether the scheme proposed is by-right. The discussion at the work session indicated that the County would only be supportive of the units built on non-critical slope areas, which would reduce the number of units to around 100. The County also raised questions on the location of the entrance to the property. At this time, the only proposal to have been submitted was requesting preliminary comments. No formal application has been submitted to the County. No change.


  1. Zoning Changes: I will be presented information regarding the proposed zoning changes at the neighborhood meeting on December 12th. Staff is waiting on a statement from the association regarding which possible zoning changes they support before moving the item forward. The Planning Commission at their January work session, made looking at issues with residentially zoned property a priority over the next year. Some of the issues raised by the neighborhood in the past may be examined as part of this process.


  1. Avon Center: This is a 43 acre commercial development in the County of Albemarle, just south of the Ridge Street neighborhood. The development would connect Fifth Street Extended to Avon Street. City staff has met with the developers to talk over the concerns the City has regarding the project, specifically regarding the traffic impact on 5th Street. This development would have an outlet to 5th street Extended via Bent Creek Road. City staff has reviewed the traffic dispersal pattern for the project and agrees with the conclusion that the peak hour traffic figures on Harris Road will not be impacted by Avon Center. Staff has discussed the requirements for improvement at the intersection of Bent Creek and Fifth Street with the developers of the property. The developer is working to acquire additional right-of-way for Bent Creek Road. No change.


  1. Accessory Apartment Violations: The Zoning Administrator has received a list of ten properties form the neighborhood association that are suspected of having violations of the zoning ordinance regulations regarding the permissible use of accessory apartments. The Zoning Administrator has investigated the list and sent notices of violation to four properties. One of those properties has subsequently confirmed that they have a legal accessory apartment, two more are gathering leasing information to demonstrate they have a legal non-conforming duplex, and the final property is appealing the violation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. See the attached document from Read Brodhead, Zoning Administrator, for an individualized list of each property reported to the City. The zoning administrator has been in contact with neighborhood representatives on some clarification on some of the zoning laws. No change.


  1. Longwood Drive Planned Unit Development: An application has been submitted for a Planned Unit Development on Longwood Drive. The proposal covers 34 existing units. The plan development shows the removal of 16 of the existing units, to be replaced with 43 townhouse units, and the renovation of the remaining 18 units covered by the PUD. The proposed density would be 13.32 dwelling units per acre. The application was discussed before the Planning Commission at their November regular meeting, and was scheduled for a joint public hearing on January 13 at 6:30 pm in City Council Chambers. The Planning Commission has recommended to City council that the application be denied. The City council is scheduled to consider the application at their meeting on March 2nd.


  1. November 6, 2008

Dear Fry Springs Neighborhood Association,


I have completed my inspections and re-inspections of the 10 properties that you asked me to look at for illegal accessory apartments. Below I have written a summary detailing the results of each case. If there are any other properties that you feel might be in violation of the zoning ordinance, please don’t hesitate to contact me. My phone number is 970-3995 and my e-mail address is brodhead@charlottesville.org.


Sincerely,


Read Brodhead

Zoning Administrator

City of Charlottesville


1636 Center Ave: after speaking to the upstairs tenant, this property is not owner occupied. Notice of Violation was sent to the property owner on September 16, 2008. According to the tax assessor’s records, 1636 Center Avenue is listed as the mailing address for the owner of this property. The property owner informed me that she is living at this property while enrolled at UVA. There are two people living in both the upstairs and downstairs units. It was communicated to her in a letter dated October 22, 2008, that when she graduates only one dwelling unit could be rented out. This case has been fully documented to protect from possible illegal uses in the future.


1642 Center Ave: initially I mailed the property owner a notice of violation for having an illegal accessory unit, leaving the burden of proof that it was in fact legal, upon Ms. Pratt. Ms Pratt provide me with ample documentation as well has information that she had gathered from her property file at the Tax Assessor’s office. She purchased the property in 1988 from the previous property owner that never resided at this address. This property was not down zoned to R-1 until 1991. Both dwelling unit within this residence have been occupied since 1991 without a vacancy of more than two years. It has been determined that this is a legal non-conforming duplex and may continue to be utilized as two units.


2306 Highland Avenue: It has been determined that there are not two separate units in this dwelling unit. There is no separation between the upstairs and downstairs of this home and all the tenants who reside in it have access to the whole house. However, I still believe that there are too many unrelated persons residing in this house and am working with the property owner’s attorney to rectify the situation.


201 Old Lynchburg Road: This home has been zoned R-1 since it was built in 1972. The owner of this home lives on the property and could have a legal accessory apartment it he chose so. There is a signed affidavit in the zoning file dated 11/13/2006 from the property owner stating that there is only one dwelling unit on the property and no more than four unrelated persons resided in the house. I have sent an additional letter to the property owner reminding him of the zoning laws and occupancy limitations.


207 Old Lynchburg Road: This home has been zoned R-1 since it was built in 1972 and according to our tax records it appears to be owner occupied. If there is an accessory apartment on the premises, an interior accessory apartment provisional use permit is required to make this a legal use. No violation letter was sent to this property owner.


217 Old Lynchburg Road: This home has been zoned R-1 since it was built in 1972. There is no record of there being a second unit at this location and the mail box only shows 3 separate tenants. No violation letter has been sent to the property owner.


110 Raymond Avenue: it has been determined that only one unit may be rented out to no more than four (4) unrelated persons. The owner of this property is well aware of the zoning regulations.


211 Raymond Avenue: This dwelling was zoned R-2 from 1958-1990. The current property owner bought the property in 1986. He must prove to me that he has continuously rented out both units since 1986 to show that this can continue to be a legal non-conforming duplex. A violation letter has been sent to the property owner. The property owner and I met on October 13, 2008 and provided me with old leases and bill statements which were used to prove that two units on this property have been continuously utilized since the property was purchased in 1986. 211 Raymond Avenue has been determined to be a legal non-conforming duplex.


302 Robertson Avenue: The current property owner bought this home on 5/20/2004 and begun to rent out both units in the dwelling between 2007 &2008. This is not a legal non-conforming situation and a Notice of Violation letter has been sent to the property owner.

The property owner appealed this determination to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The packet of information that the property owner submitted to me included a long narrative stating facts of why this address is in fact a legal non-conforming duplex. I realized that the property owner was correct and that I had made an unfair determination based upon my limited resources. As a result I notified the applicant that I had changed my determination and informed the BZA that their services would not be required for this case. This is a legal non-conforming duplex.


205 Todd Avenue: This house has been zoned R-2 since it was built in 1960. The current property owner bought the property in 1998 and has continued to rent out both units since this date. I spoke with the tenant in the basement apartment, who identified herself as the owners step daughter, and she said that two separate dwelling units have been rented on this property long before her Step Father purchased it. No violation letter has been sent to the owner.


213 Todd Avenue: This property was sited in 2004 for being illegally rented to too many unrelated persons and for having rented rooms upstairs. It was determined by the Zoning Administrator at the time that this property was a legal non-conforming duplex. No more than four (4) unrelated people could reside in the basement. The main floor of the home and the second floor are considered one dwelling unit, thus no more than four (4) unrelated persons can reside this unit. I believe that there are three (3) unrelated persons in both the up and downstairs units. No violation letter was sent to this property owner.