Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200400017 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2004-10-11 Page 1 of 2 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 4:26 PM To: Don Franco, 'Ieistrell@thekesslergroup.com' Subject: FW: FLS and FLN Clubs fyi From: Barb Fehse [mailto:baf5a@adelphia.net] Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 8:52 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: Re: FLS and FLN Clubs Dear Elaine, Yes, the Forest Lakes Community Association accepts the number 125 units Thank you for informing us and John Kitzmann remains as our attorney should there be any reason to consult with our legal consul. Barb Fehse Original Message From: Elaine Echols To:jhk@dklawyers.com ; baf5a@adelphia.net Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 5:13 PM Subject: RE: FLS and FLN Clubs Please confirm. Thanks. Elaine From: DFranco@thekesslergroup.com [mailto:DFranco@thekesslergroup.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:59 PM To: EECHOLS@albemarle.org; LMestrell@thek_esslergroup.com; jhk@dklawyers.com; baf5a@adelphia.net Subject: RE: FLS and FLN Clubs my understanding is that FLCA can accept 125 units. Original Message From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:12 PM To: Don Franco; Lori Meistrell; John H. Kitzmann; 'Barb Fehse' Subject: FLS and FLN Clubs Hi -- I just thought I would let all of you know that I need to know the outcome of your conversations relative to the number of additional units which can be added to the Clubs, by October 18 in order for Forest Lakes Associates to keep the November 10/25/2004 Page 2 of 2 3 Board meeting. As October 18 approaches, if you find that you have not come to agreement, would you please let me know so that we can decide on the next steps? Thanks, Elaine Elaine K. Echols, AICP, Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 www.albemarle.org 10/25/2004 Page 1 of 1 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 11.27 AM To: 'Barb Fehse' Subject: RE: FLCA Zoning Permit This will go to the Board of Supervisors for their November 3 day meeting. The condition we are recommending reads like this: 1. The use, as approved, shall be limited to the residents and guests of the following developments: Forest Lakes South, Springridge, Pine Ridge, Lanford Hills, Steeplechase, Amberfield, Cove Pointe, Edgewater, Gateway, Worthcrossing, Chelsea, Arbor Lake, Waterford, Watercrest, Copperknoll, Echo Ridge, Ridgefield, Poplar Ridge, Heather Glen, Whispering Woods, Timberwood, Timber Pointe, Autumn Woods . Any future residential developments, contiguous to the developments listed, may be permitted to use the facilities, if authorized by the owner of the facilities. The total number of additional dwelling units permitted to use the facilities shall not exceed 125. Please let me know if you know of any issues or problems. Thanks. Elaine From: Barb Fehse [mailto:baf5a@adelphia.net] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:32 AM To: Elaine Echols Subject: FLCA Zoning Permit Dear Elaine, What is the status of the permit request from the FLA to rezone the Forest Lakes Swim and Tennis Clubs? I lost track of time and wondered if the permit request was brought before the Board of Supervisors last night? If so, was it passed? Or is it going to be presented at a later date? Thanks for all your help. Sincerely, Barb Fehse 10/25/2004 Page 1 of 1 Elaine Echols From: Barb Fehse [baf5a@adelphia.net] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 10.32 AM To: Elaine Echols Subject: FLCA Zoning Permit Dear Elaine, What is the status of the permit request from the FLA to rezone the Forest Lakes Swim and Tennis Clubs? I lost track of time and wondered if the permit request was brought before the Board of Supervisors last night? If so, was it passed? Or is it going to be presented at a later date? Thanks for all your help. Sincerely, Barb Fehse 10/25/2004 Page 1 of 2 Elaine Echols From: Barb Fehse [baf5a@adelphia.net] Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 8:52 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: Re: FLS and FLN Clubs Dear Elaine, Yes, the Forest Lakes Community Association accepts the number 125 units. Thank you for informing us and John Kitzmann remains as our attorney should there be any reason to consult with our legal consul Barb Fehse Original Message From: Elaine Echols To:jhk@dklawyers.com ; baf5a@adelphia.net Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 5:13 PM Subject: RE FLS and FLN Clubs Please confirm. Thanks. Elaine From: DFranco@thekesslergroup.com [mailto:DFranco@thekesslergroup.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:59 PM To: EECHOLS@albemarle.org; LMeistrell@thekesslergroup.com; jhk@dklawyers.com; baf5a@adelphia.net Subject: RE: FLS and FLN Clubs my understanding is that FLCA can accept 125 units. Original Message From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:12 PM To: Don Franco; Lori Meistrell; John H. Kitzmann; 'Barb Fehse' Subject: FLS and FLN Clubs Hi -- I just thought I would let all of you know that I need to know the outcome of your conversations relative to the number of additional units which can be added to the Clubs, by October 18 in order for Forest Lakes Associates to keep the November 3 Board meeting. As October 18 approaches, if you find that you have not come to agreement, would you please let me know so that we can decide on the next steps? Thanks, Elaine 10/25/2004 Page 1 of 1 Elaine Echols From: DFranco@thekesslergroup.com Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 1.00 PM To: EECHOLS@albemarle.org; LMeistrell@thekesslergroup.com Subject: RE: Deferral of FLS and FLN Clubs? 125 Original Message From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 1:50 PM To: Lori Meistrell Cc: Don Franco Subject: Deferral of FLS and FLN Clubs? Hi Lori, Another deadline sneaked past me. I needed info from you (and the FL Association) on the number y'all had agreed to relative to the additional units for the two clubs. If you have this number, I need it ASAP. I have an Executive Summary that starts going through the process tomorrow for the October 13 meeting and I need to get the conditions approved by the County Attorney's office. I will need to get corroboration of the number from John Kitzmann, so it would be preferable to receive an email from both of you. Will you please let me know as soon as possible whether you can get me the info by tomorrow? If not, we must get this off of the Board's agenda. I am copying Don on this email in case you are not in today or will not have time to see it until later in the day. Thanks. Elaine Elaine K. Echols,AICP, Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 www.albemarle.org 10/25/2004 Page 1 of 1 Elaine Echols From: DFranco@thekesslergroup.com Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:59 PM To: EECHOLS©albemarle.org; LMeistrell@thekesslergroup.com; jhk@dklawyers.com; baf5a@adelphia.net Subject: RE: FLS and FLN Clubs my understanding is that FLCA can accept 125 units. Original Message From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:12 PM To: Don Franco; Lori Meistrell; John H. Kitzmann; 'Barb Fehse' Subject: FLS and FLN Clubs Hi -- I just thought I would let all of you know that I need to know the outcome of your conversations relative to the number of additional units which can be added to the Clubs, by October 18 in order for Forest Lakes Associates to keep the November 3 Board meeting. As October 18 approaches, if you find that you have not come to agreement, would you please let me know so that we can decide on the next steps? Thanks, Elaine Elaine K. Echols,AICP, Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 www.albemarle.org 10/25/2004 Page 1 of 3 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 2:04 PM To: 'John H. Kitzmann' Subject: RE: Forest Lakes No problem. Thanks. Elaine From: John H. Kitzmann [mailto:jhk@dklawyers.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 1:59 PM To: Elaine Echols Cc: Gary McGee; Don Franco Subject: Re: Forest Lakes Elaine: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I've been in court. Since I wrote that email that you want to forward, I've talked to Don and Gary McGee regarding the situation. I've told Don and Gary that the Forest Lakes Community Association is getting tax advice right now on some issues regarding how the two properties are going to be transferred. My understanding is that Don and Gary want to wait until that tax advice comes through and FLCA and FLA figure out how the transfer of the properties is going to be structured before any final decisions on zoning are made. Our accountant should be getting back to me in the next few days, at which point I'm going to call Gary and Don and see what we can work out. I've copied this email to both Don and Gary. Best regards, John Kitzmann John H. Kitzmann, Esq. DAVIDSON & KITZMANN, PLC 211 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Tel.: (434) 972-9600 Fax: (434) 220-0011 Email:jhk@dklawyers,com Web: www.dklawyers.com Original Message From: Elaine Echols To: jhk@dklawyers.com' Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 1.40 PM Subject: RE. Forest Lakes I don't know if you received this email, but, I'd like to forward your current position to Don Franco with Forest Lakes Associates, unless you've been in 8/12/2004 Page 2 of 3 touch with him since last Friday. I have talked to our County Attorney and he believes that we need a solid, not an approximate number. So, whatever number you and Forest Lakes Associates ultimately arrive at will be the ceiling for number of units to be served. Please let me know as soon as you can. I will be out of the office next week. Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 2:04 PM To: 'jhk@dklawyers.com' Subject: FW: Forest Lakes John -- do you mind if I send this email to Don Franco? From: John H. Kitzmann [mailto:jhk@dklawyers.com] Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 12:53 PM To: Elaine Echols Cc: Barb Fehse Subject: Forest Lakes Elaine: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on your phone message. The FLCA has authorized me to assist them throughout the process of getting the two swim clubs transferred from Forest Lakes Associates (FLA) to FLCA. Unfortunately, my main contact with the Board was not previously through the president, but through a Board member. My understanding at that time was that the Board was agreeable to the special use permit as currently written. After speaking with the president, I need to amend my position and clarify that the Board wishes to investigate the potential impact of the proposed special use permit on both communities before putting forth an official position on the special use permit. My understanding of the wishes of the FLCA and the FLA are as follows: 1. FLA wants to transfer the two swim clubs to FLCA on December 15th 2. FLA wants to ensure that its new development of approximately 118 dwelling units adjacent to Forest Lakes South will have the use of one or both swim clubs 3. FLA wants to obtain a special use permit to allow residents of Forest Lakes North to use the South club and vice versa. 4. As to the addition of 118 units, FLCA wants to look at the current capacity of the clubs to ensure that it can handle an additional 300+ members (assuming 2.5 persons multiplied by 118 units). I have to check on the current membership of the South club. I think the combined membership of both clubs is 635 so adding 300+ members would be a 50% increase. 8/12/2004 Page 3 of 3 5. As to North residents using the South club and vice versa, FLCA thinks it is true that some members of Forest Lakes North use both the North and South swim club and some members of Forest Lakes South use both the South and North club. However, beyond anecdotal evidence, I don't think anyone knows how prevalent this behavior is. I, for example, live in Forest Lakes North, but did not know until I became involved in this process,that I could use the Forest Lakes South club if I wanted to. Many members may not know that they can use either club, and many members may accordingly not currently use both clubs. We just don't know. The two clubs are different(the South club being smaller). I'm not confident that the Forest Lakes South club (being much smaller) could handle it if all Forest Lakes North members (as well as the 118 additional units) decided to use the South club. I will try to obtain some statistics from FLA and from FLCA on how much cross- use is going on and if either swim club has a number of person limit on its capacity. Until I get that information, the Board wants to hold off giving its approval of the proposed special use permit. Please let me know your thoughts. Best regards, John Kitzmann John H. Kitzmann, Esq. DAVIDSON & KITZMANN, PLC 211 East High Street Charlottesville,Virginia 22902 Tel.: (434) 972-9600 Fax: (434)220-0011 Email:jhk@dklawyers.com Web: www.dklawyers.com 8/12/2004 Page 1 of 2 Elaine Echols 4 lb- From: Elaine Echols Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:41 AM To: Greg Kamptner Cc: Jan Sprinkle Subject: RE: Forest Lakes Thanks. We will get a hard number that both parties can agree to. We actually do care who uses the facilities. The facilities were originally built for these 2 neighborhoods and rely in small part on the foot-traffic to the facilities and in large part on the neighborhood streets for access. If the facility is open to the general public, transportation impacts will occur that must be analyzed. So far, they have not asked us to do this analysis. The purpose of the special use permit is to legitimize the cross-use by two neighborhoods of facilities built for these two neighborhoods and for the future use of 125 more units adjacent to these two neighborhoods. That is why the condition is important. Thanks again. Elaine From: Greg Kamptner Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:36 AM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Forest Lakes I'm assuming that Zoning will determine that"approximately 125" is unenforceable, so the simple solution would be to delete "approximately." However, I think the approach suggested by Jo's motion ("Ms. Higgins amended the motion to say that it shall be in the approximate range of 125 units." -- page 8 of the July 13, 2004 PC minutes) and adopted by the PC is that staff should consult with the applicant and the HOA and determine what the appropriate, specific number should be, and that specific number should be in the approximate range of 125. Note also in my July 13, 2004 email to Margaret D, I said the following: "Given that the use is allowed by SP, does the County care who actually uses the facilities? The scope of the use would be controlled by the sizes of the lots, the buildings and the available parking." Greg Kamptner Assistant County Attorney County of Albemarle gkamptne@albemarle.org Notice: This email may contain attorney-client privileged information, privileged work product, or other confidential information. It is intended only for the designated recipient. If you receive this message and are not the designated recipient, you are requested to delete this message 8/27/2004 Page 2 of 2 immediately and notify me that you received this email by mistake. Thank you. From: Elaine Echols Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 10:38 AM To: Greg Kamptner Subject: FW: stupid stuff Any chance you have gotten to this yet? From: Elaine Echols Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 1:37 PM To: Greg Kamptner Subject: stupid stuff Hi Greg -- This is stupid stuff but has to be done. I think the conditions are getting back on track for Forest Lakes clubhouses, although it has been deferred for now. Assuming the condition as a whole doesn't change, I don't think we can enforce and "approximately 125" condition. Any thoughts? I think it has to be a discrete number but the PC didn't want it to be. I'd like to recommend it just be 125 but somehow make sure that we didn't neglect to tell the PC that the "approximate" condition wouldn't work. If you can think of how to rewrite that part of the condition such that the PC's intention is included, could you let me know. Thanks. Elaine Elaine K Echols,AICP, Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 www.albemarle.org 8/27/2004 ,0 A9 i I ii 1),y'a'd ton wYu 1r4U •"'OM 'v-ts e w P D ' (7) A g - rrh ape aW aw 2 Lv144 - proms sJoost easYz1 , met d w 9 pJ _ sQ� - $ �� - 1�a� s�I�UbS�S -F yW14.? Gz , Poi vgir ifd, -) 1r9, ‘)-) rrye-i) Atf CT* , vim. fr 40 �J /����1/1� V 5 ;(-) 25-vor /5 2S °'J b Page lof3 Elaine Echols From: Barb Fehse [baf5a@adelphia.net] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 10:30 AM To: Elaine Echols Subject: Re: Forest Lakes Dear Elaine, In trying to eliminate confusion I may have caused more. John Kitzmann is the attorney representing the Forest Lakes Community Association. He is the number one contact person. If you should need to reach me for a reason my phone number is 973-4856. Thanks again. Barb Fehse Original Message From: Elaine Echols To: 'John H. Kitzmann' ; Elaine Echols Cc: Barb Fehse Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 2:05 PM Subject: RE. Forest Lakes Thanks for your email. Albemarle County staff is fine with the special use permit request to allow FLS and FLN members to use both clubs. We are not concerned about the additional 118+/- new units for which club membership could be available. We would only be concerned about traffic if the club were opened to general membership from anyone in the community. At this time Forest Lakes Associates has not requested that the club be opened to general membership. The morning you and I talked, our zoning staff had suggested to me that enforcing the condition that everyone discussed before the Commission meeting could be cumbersome and asked that planning staff consider recommending removal of the condition altogether. The planning staff has discussed the zoning staffs concerns and believes that the recommended conditions to limit use of the clubs by Forest Lakes residents and the additional 118 +/- units still is appropriate. We believe that opening the clubs to general membership from anyone in the community potentially could have adverse traffic impacts to the developments. Zoning has accepted the recommended condition now, with the exception in the paragraph below. We have conveyed to Don Franco that if Forest Lakes Associates wanted to modify its special use permit request to open the clubs to general membership from the community, we would have to reanalyze the proposal. With regards to the Planning Commission's recommended condition below: The use, as approved, shall be limited to the residents and guests of the following developments: Forest Lakes South, Springridge, Lanford Hills, Steeplechase, Amberfield, Cove Pointe, Edgewater, Gateway, Worthcrossing, Chelsea, Arbor Lake, Waterford, 8/5/2004 Page2of3 Watercrest, Copperknoll, Echo Ridge, Ridgefield, Poplar Ridge, Heather Glen, Whispering Woods, Timberwood, Timber Pointe and Autumn Woods and any future contiguous developments not exceeding approximately 125 dwelling units whose use of the facilities is permitted by the owner we are concerned about the word, "approximate" . Zoning needs a discrete number. We are working with the County Attorney to see if there are any ways to satisfy the Commission's desire to allow a little flexibility in the maximum number of lots and satisfy the Zoning staffs need. I do hope that this email clarifies rather than confuses the issues. Please do not hesitate to call if you need additional information or a better explanation. Sincerely, Elaine Echols From: John H. Kitzmann [mailto:jhk@dklawyers.com] Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 12:53 PM To: Elaine Echols Cc: Barb Fehse Subject: Forest Lakes Elaine: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on your phone message. The FLCA has authorized me to assist them throughout the process of getting the two swim clubs transferred from Forest Lakes Associates (FLA) to FLCA. Unfortunately, my main contact with the Board was not previously through the president, but through a Board member. My understanding at that time was that the Board was agreeable to the special use permit as currently written. After speaking with the president, I need to amend my position and clarify that the Board wishes to investigate the potential impact of the proposed special use permit on both communities before putting forth an official position on the special use permit. My understanding of the wishes of the FLCA and the FLA are as follows: 1. FLA wants to transfer the two swim clubs to FLCA on December 15th 2. FLA wants to ensure that its new development of approximately 118 dwelling units adjacent to Forest Lakes South will have the use of one or both swim clubs 3. FLA wants to obtain a special use permit to allow residents of Forest Lakes North to use the South club and vice versa. 4. As to the addition of 118 units, FLCA wants to look at the current capacity of the clubs to ensure that it can handle an additional 300+members (assuming 2.5 persons multiplied by 118 units). I have to check on the current membership of the South club. I think the combined membership of both clubs is 635 so adding 300+ members would be a 50% increase. 5. As to North residents using the South club and vice versa, FLCA thinks it is true that some members of Forest Lakes North use both the North and South swim club and some members of Forest Lakes South use both the South and North club. However, beyond anecdotal evidence, I 8/5/2004 Page 3 of 3 don't think anyone knows how prevalent this behavior is. I, for example, live in Forest Lakes North,but did not know until I became involved in this process,that I could use the Forest Lakes South club if I wanted to. Many members may not know that they can use either club, and many members may accordingly not currently use both clubs. We just don't know. The two clubs are different(the South club being smaller). I'm not confident that the Forest Lakes South club (being much smaller)could handle it if all Forest Lakes North members (as well as the 118 additional units) decided to use the South club. I will try to obtain some statistics from FLA and from FLCA on how much cross-use is going on and if either swim club has a number of person limit on its capacity. Until I get that information,the Board wants to hold off giving its approval of the proposed special use permit. Please let me know your thoughts. Best regards, John Kitzmann John H. Kitzmann, Esq. DAVIDSON& KITZMANN,PLC 211 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Tel.: (434) 972-9600 Fax: (434) 220-0011 Email:jhk@dklawyers.com Web: www.dklawyers.com 8/5/2004 Page 1 of 1 Gf- N Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 2:00 PM To: 'Barb Fehse' Subject: RE: Contact person Hi Ms. Fehse, I am glad to have one contact person and to know who that person is! To my knowledge, the initial contact on-behalf of the Community Association was made by John Kitzmann. It was he who spoke with Margaret Doherty, the planner who recently left the County. So, until now, it was our understanding that he was speaking on behalf of the Community Association. Like I said, we are glad to make you the contact person. Would you please send your phone number so that I might call you if I need to get in touch with the Community Association? Thanks. Elaine Echols From: Barb Fehse [mailto:baf5a@adelphia.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 1:18 PM To: EECHOLS@albemarle.org Cc: Barb Fehse; Bob Laughlin; Debbie Cash; Frank Micucci; Garth Anderson; Julie Wait; Lyn Holt; Steve Grissom Subject: Contact person Dear Ms. Echols, Thank you for your report on Friday. I am serving as the only contact person for Forest Lakes Community Association regarding the permit process for the Swim and Tennis Club. John Kitzmann is serving as the attorney for FLCA. Thank you for including the FLCA on your mailing list. Sincerely, Barbara Fehse 8/5/2004 Page 1 of 2 Elaine Echols From: Jan Sprinkle Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:16 AM To: Elaine Echols Cc: Wayne Cilimberg; Amelia McCulley Subject: RE: SP Comments on Forest Lakes Clubs I know you and Wayne definitely wanted the condition, but please get rid of the "approximately". There is no enforcement of an approximate number. I just got the action letter that says, "not exceeding approximately 125 dwelling units. . ." I don't want to be the one to determine if 139 is approximately 125. Please make it not exceeding some firm number-raise the number to the top limit of your tolerance-but don't leave us to determine something that we didn't support from the start From: Elaine Echols Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 9:17 AM To: Jan Sprinkle Subject: SP Comments on Forest Lakes Clubs Hi Jan, I need some help from you this morning on an item going to the BOS. This project was Margaret Doherty's and John Shepherds, neither of whom can assist in answering my questions today! This is the scenario: Forest Lakes Associates has requested SP approval for the existing facilities to serve both developments. They identified by name the subdivisions for which the SP will apply. They also requested approval for the facility to serve "future contiguous developments". I wondered what analysis had been done on the anticipated number of lots for "future contiguous developments" as well as the parking and proportionality of the facility to #'s of users. I went to John's initials comments and this is what I found: SP-2004-016 Forest Lakes North R4 These are existing facilities, approved as an accessory uses to the Forest Lakes North and Forest Lakes South. The special permits will allow both facilities to be used by the members of Forest Lakes North, Forest Lakes South, Springridge, Lanford Hills, Pineridge and future contiguous development by Forest Lakes Associates These comments may be revised to include provisions for parking. After that time, conditions were prepared for the PC staff report, which I'm hoping that John got to review. No provisions for parking were included. This is the condition that went to the PC: 1. The use, as approved, shall be limited to the residents and guests of the following developments: Forest Lakes South, Springridge, Pine Ridge, Lanford Hills, Steeplechase, Amberfield, lhoi2nna • • Page 2 of 2 Cove Pointe, Edgewater, Gateway, Worthcrossing, Chelsea, Arbor Lake, Waterford, Watercrest, Copperknoll, Echo Ridge, Ridgefield, Poplar Ridge, Heather Glen, Whispering Woods, Timberwood, Timber Pointe and Autumn Woods and any future contiguous developments not exceeding 100 dwelling units whose use of the facilities is permitted by the owner At the PC meeting, there was some discussion over the # and they settled on the phrase, "approximately 125" to replace "100". I found out late in the game that the Planning Commission asked us as staff to make sure that the number and conditions were worked out to the satisfaction of both the applicant and the association. phone conversation to follow Elaine K. Echols,AICP, Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 www.albemarle.org Page l of 3 Elaine Echols From: Greg Kamptner Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 8:46 AM To: Elaine Echols Cc: Sharon Taylor Subject: RE: PC motion This is how my notes read for this condition, and I don't know if they help or not: 1. The use, as approved, shall be limited to the residents and guests of the following developments: Forest Lakes South, Spnngndge, Pine Ridge, Lanford Hills, Steeplechase, Amberfield, Cove Pointe, Edgewater, Gateway, Worthcrossing, Chelsea, Arbor Lake, Waterford, Watercrest, Copperknoll, Echo Ridge, Ridgefield, Poplar Ridge, Heather Glen, Whispering Woods, Timberwood, Timber Pointe and Autumn Woods and any future contiguous developments whose use of the facilities is permitted by the owner. Above this condition, I wrote the following note: "Either delete or amend by dropping last clause [referring to the clause in the original condition "and any future contiguous Forest Lakes Associates developments"] or amend." In the amended condition above, the reference to the use of the facilities as permitted by the "owner," the "owner" refers to the owner of the facilities (who has control over their use and access), not the applicant. Our office thought that this condition was unnecessary in our comments to Margaret on July 13: "We had some concern about tying the future developments to a specific owner and were going to suggest that the condition be deleted. Given that the use is allowed by SP, does the County care who actually uses the facilities'? The scope of the use would be controlled by the sizes of the lots, the buildings and the available parking." My comments continued: "The first fall-back position was to delete the clause "and any future contiguous Forest Lakes Associates developments." This would require the SP to be amended if any future developments were to be added. The next fall-back position was to include the last clause, but rather than tie"membership"to a Forest Lakes Associates Development, make it"contiguous developments whose use of the facilities is permitted by the Owner." We have tried to avoid tying conditions that purportedly address land use impacts to specific owners. In this case, if the concern is the number of people using the facilities, it does not matter, from a land use impact standpoint, who the owner of the contiguous development is. With the latest information in the email your forwarded me, and understanding the current members' concerns, let me suggest the following language: "contiguous developments not exceeding 100 dwelling units whose use of the facilities is permitted by the Owner." This language appears to address the current members' concerns by putting a cap on future membership, and avoids tying those future developments to a particular owner, but allowing the owner of the facilities to control who may join." Given the built-in limitations, I still don't know why the County cares which development's residents may use the facilities. Greg Kamptner Assistant County Attorney County of Albemarle gkamptne@albemarle.org Notice: This email may contain attorney-client privileged information, privileged work product, or other confidential information. It is intended only for the designated recipient. If you receive this message and are not the designated recipient,you are requested to delete this message immediately and notify me that you received this email by mistake. Thank you. 7/7F/7M4 • Page 2 of 3 From: Elaine Echols Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 5:32 PM To: Greg Kamptner; Sharon Taylor Subject: FW: PC motion Importance: High Margaret just called me back -- she said that the language came from Greg, but was ok'd by Lori Meistrell at the PC meeting. I'm going with it. By Monday, we should be able to figure out if Lori really was ok with it! Elaine From: Elaine Echols Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 4:42 PM To: Greg Kamptner Subject: PC motion Importance: High In relation to the BOS 8/4 agenda item for FLS and FLN -Swim and Tennis Club -- I am trying to respond to the PC's request that the conditions be worked out with the Homeowner's Association and the applicant. Not being at the meeting and not having either Margaret or Wayne here, Sharon suggested that I call you. What Sharon wrote as the initial motion was the following: The Planning Commission recommended approval of SP-2004-16, Forest Lakes North Swim and Tennis Club and SP-2004-17, Forest Lakes North Swim and Tennis Club, subject to the following conditions for each as recommended in the staff report with the understanding that there will be a modification to the future portion of the condition that will be worked out cooperatively with the Homeowner's Association and Forest Lakes Associates, and that staff will have that resolved before it goes to the Board of Supervisors. 1. The use, as approved, shall be limited to the residents and guests of the following developments: Forest Lakes South, Springridge, Pine Ridge, Lanford Hills, Steeplechase, Amberfield, Cove Pointe, Edgewater, Gateway, Worthcrossing, Chelsea, Arbor Lake, Waterford, Watercrest, Copperknoll, Echo Ridge, Ridgefield, Poplar Ridge, Heather Glen, Whispering Woods, Timberwood, Timber Pointe and Autumn Woods and any future contiguous Forest Lakes Associates developments. Jo added an amendment "for the motion to say that it shall be in the approximate range of 125 units." We're not sure how to add this language into the motion/recommendation. Sharon thinks that maybe the PC was working from a written recommendation from the applicant -- Sharon didn't get a copy so she asked Margaret for whatever the applicant gave the PC. Margaret gave Sharon an email that said: Sharon, it, f nna • Page 3 of 3 Here's the language that Lori had last night: 1 The use, as approved, shall be limited to the residents and guests of the following developments: Forest Lakes South, Springridge, Pine Ridge, Lanford Hills, Steeplechase, Amberfield, Cove Pointe, Edgewater, Gateway, Worthcrossing, Chelsea, Arbor Lake, Waterford, Watercrest, Copperknoll, Echo Ridge, Ridgefield, Poplar Ridge, Heather Glen, Whispering Woods, Timberwood, Timber Pointe and Autumn Woods and any future contiguous developments not exceeding approximately 100 dwelling units whose use of the facilities is permitted by the owner. Jo's amendment makes sense in this regard. We're trying to figure out if the phrase, "is permitted by the owner" came from the applicant. This distinction is pretty critical -- If the phrase came from the applicant, then we can send the Association's lawyer the language and are pretty sure they will be ok with it. If it came from the PC, then the applicant may take issue with the "is permitted by the owner" because it doesn't automatically give the applicant the ability to add more units to the facilities. The Association could veto it. Can you help enlighten me? Please call. thx Elaine K. Echols,AICP, Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 www.albemarle.org Page 1 of 1 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 5:38 PM To: 'jhk@dklawyers.com'; Don Franco; Don Franco (E-mail) Subject: Forest Lakes North and South Swim and Tennis Clubs Dear Mr. Kitzmann and Mr. Franco, At the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, July 13, the Planning Commission asked that the staff contact the Community Association and Forest Lakes Association to make sure that the following condition is acceptable to both entities. This is the language that the Commission approved as a condition for both special use permits: The use, as approved, shall be limited to the residents and guests of the following developments: Forest Lakes South, Springridge, Pine Ridge, Lanford Hills, Steeplechase, Amberfield, Cove Pointe, Edgewater, Gateway, Worthcrossing, Chelsea, Arbor Lake, Waterford, Watercrest, Copperknoll, Echo Ridge, Ridgefield, Poplar Ridge, Heather Glen, Whispering Woods, Timberwood, Timber Pointe and Autumn Woods and any future contiguous developments not exceeding approximately 100 dwelling units whose use of the facilities is permitted by the owner It is important that both parties agree on acceptable language in order for this item to proceed to the Board of Supervisor's August 4 meeting. Margaret Doherty, the planner who last worked on this project, said that she believed this language was acceptable to both parties; however, I am asking you to please review it and contact me as soon as possible if the language is not acceptable. Thank you. Elaine Echols Principal Planner Albemarle County Planning Dept. Elaine K. Echols,AICP, Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 www.albemarle.org 8/11/2004 Page 1 of 2 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11 41 AM To: Greg Kamptner Cc: Jan Sprinkle Subject: RE: Forest Lakes Thanks. We will get a hard number that both parties can agree to. We actually do care who uses the facilities. The facilities were originally built for these 2 neighborhoods and rely in small part on the foot-traffic to the facilities and in large part on the neighborhood streets for access. If the facility is open to the general public, transportation impacts will occur that must be analyzed. So far, they have not asked us to do this analysis. The purpose of the special use permit is to legitimize the cross-use by two neighborhoods of facilities built for these two neighborhoods and for the future use of 125 more units adjacent to these two neighborhoods. That is why the condition is important. Thanks again. Elaine From: Greg Kamptner Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:36 AM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE: Forest Lakes I'm assuming that Zoning will determine that"approximately 125" is unenforceable, so the simple solution would be to delete "approximately." However, I think the approach suggested by Jo's motion ("Ms. Higgins amended the motion to say that it shall be in the approximate range of 125 units." -- page 8 of the July 13, 2004 PC minutes) and adopted by the PC is that staff should consult with the applicant and the HOA and determine what the appropriate, specific number should be, and that specific number should be in the approximate range of 125. Note also in my July 13, 2004 email to Margaret D, I said the following: "Given that the use is allowed by SP, does the County care who actually uses the facilities? The scope of the use would be controlled by the sizes of the lots, the buildings and the available parking." Greg Kamptner Assistant County Attorney County of Albemarle gkamptne@albemarle.org Notice: This email may contain attorney-client privileged information, privileged work product, or other confidential information. It is intended only for the designated recipient. If you receive this message and are not the designated recipient, you are requested to delete this message R/1 1/7O04 Page 2 of 2 immediately and notify me that you received this email by mistake. Thank you. From: Elaine Echols Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 10:38 AM To: Greg Kamptner Subject: FW: stupid stuff Any chance you have gotten to this yet? From: Elaine Echols Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 1:37 PM To: Greg Kamptner Subject: stupid stuff Hi Greg -- This is stupid stuff but has to be done. I think the conditions are getting back on track for Forest Lakes clubhouses, although it has been deferred for now. Assuming the condition as a whole doesn't change, I don't think we can enforce and "approximately 125" condition. Any thoughts? I think it has to be a discrete number but the PC didn't want it to be. I'd like to recommend it just be 125 but somehow make sure that we didn't neglect to tell the PC that the "approximate" condition wouldn't work. If you can think of how to rewrite that part of the condition such that the PC's intention is included, could you let me know. Thanks. Elaine Elaine K. Echols,AICP, Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 www.albemarle.org R/11/70(14 Page 1 of 2 • Elaine Echols From: Jan Sprinkle Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:16 AM To: Elaine Echols Cc: Wayne Cilimberg; Amelia McCulley Subject: RE: SP Comments on Forest Lakes Clubs I know you and Wayne definitely wanted the condition, but please get rid of the"approximately". There is no enforcement of an approximate number. I just got the action letter that says, "not exceeding approximately 125 dwelling units. . ." I don't want to be the one to determine if 139 is approximately 125. Please make it not exceeding some firm number- raise the number to the top limit of your tolerance -but don't leave us to determine something that we didn't support from the start. From: Elaine Echols Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 9:17 AM To: Jan Sprinkle Subject: SP Comments on Forest Lakes Clubs Hi Jan, I need some help from you this morning on an item going to the BOS. This project was Margaret Doherty's and John Shepherds, neither of whom can assist in answering my questions today! This is the scenario: Forest Lakes Associates has requested SP approval for the existing facilities to serve both developments. They identified by name the subdivisions for which the SP will apply. They also requested approval for the facility to serve "future contiguous developments". I wondered what analysis had been done on the anticipated number of lots for "future contiguous developments" as well as the parking and proportionality of the facility to #'s of users. I went to John's initials comments and this is what I found: SP-2004-016 Forest Lakes North R4 These are existing facilities, approved as an accessory uses to the Forest Lakes North and Forest Lakes South. The special permits will allow both facilities to be used by the members of Forest Lakes North, Forest Lakes South, Springridge, Lanford Hills, Pineridge and future contiguous development by Forest Lakes Associates.These comments may be revised to include provisions for parking. After that time, conditions were prepared for the PC staff report, which I'm hoping that John got to review. No provisions for parking were included. This is the condition that went to the PC: 1. The use, as approved, shall be limited to the residents and guests of the following developments: Forest Lakes South, Spnngridge, Pine Ridge, Lanford Hills, Steeplechase, Amberfield, 7/29/2004 Page 2 of 2 Cove Pointe, Edgewater, Gateway, Worthcrossing, Chelsea, Arbor Lake, Waterford, Watercrest, Copperknoll, Echo Ridge, Ridgefield, Poplar Ridge, Heather Glen, Whispering Woods, Timberwood, Timber Pointe and Autumn Woods and any future contiguous developments not exceeding 100 dwelling units whose use of the facilities is permitted by the owner. At the PC meeting, there was some discussion over the # and they settled on the phrase, "approximately 125" to replace "100". I found out late in the game that the Planning Commission asked us as staff to make sure that the number and conditions were worked out to the satisfaction of both the applicant and the association. phone conversation to follow Elaine K. Echols,AICP, Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 www.albemarle.org 7/29/2004 . • Page 1 of 3 Elaine Echols From: Greg Kamptner Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 8:46 AM To: Elaine Echols Cc: Sharon Taylor Subject: RE PC motion This is how my notes read for this condition, and I don't know if they help or not. 1. The use, as approved, shall be limited to the residents and guests of the following developments: Forest Lakes South, Springridge, Pine Ridge, Lanford Hills, Steeplechase, Amberfield, Cove Pointe, Edgewater, Gateway, Worthcrossing, Chelsea, Arbor Lake, Waterford, Watercrest, Copperknoll, Echo Ridge, Ridgefield, Poplar Ridge, Heather Glen, Whispering Woods, Timberwood, Timber Pointe and Autumn Woods and any future contiguous developments whose use of the facilities is permitted by the owner. Above this condition, I wrote the following note: "Either delete or amend by dropping last clause [referring to the clause in the original condition "and any future contiguous Forest Lakes Associates developments"] or amend." In the amended condition above, the reference to the use of the facilities as permitted by the "owner,"the "owner" refers to the owner of the facilities (who has control over their use and access), not the applicant. Our office thought that this condition was unnecessary in our comments to Margaret on July 13: "We had some concern about tying the future developments to a specific owner and were going to suggest that the condition be deleted. Given that the use is allowed by SP, does the County care who actually uses the facilities? The scope of the use would be controlled by the sizes of the lots, the buildings and the available parking." My comments continued. "The first fall-back position was to delete the clause "and any future contiguous Forest Lakes Associates developments." This would require the SP to be amended if any future developments were to be added The next fall-back position was to include the last clause, but rather than tie"membership"to a Forest Lakes Associates Development, make it"contiguous developments whose use of the facilities is permitted by the Owner." We have tried to avoid tying conditions that purportedly address land use impacts to specific owners. In this case, if the concern is the number of people using the facilities, it does not matter, from a land use impact standpoint, who the owner of the contiguous development is. With the latest information in the email your forwarded me, and understanding the current members'concerns, let me suggest the following language. "contiguous developments not exceeding 100 dwelling units whose use of the facilities is permitted by the Owner." This language appears to address the current members' concerns by putting a cap on future membership, and avoids tying those future developments to a particular owner, but allowing the owner of the facilities to control who may Join." Given the built-in limitations, I still don't know why the County cares which development's residents may use the facilities. Greg Kamptner Assistant County Attorney County of Albemarle gkamptne@albemarle.org Notice: This email may contain attorney-client privileged information, privileged work product, or other confidential information. It is intended only for the designated recipient. If you receive this message and are not the designated recipient, you are requested to delete this message immediately and notify me that you received this email by mistake. Thank you. 7/26/2004 • Page 2 of 3 From: Elaine Echols Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 5:32 PM To: Greg Kamptner; Sharon Taylor Subject: FW: PC motion Importance: High Margaret just called me back -- she said that the language came from Greg, but was ok'd by Lori Meistrell at the PC meeting. I'm going with it. By Monday, we should be able to figure out if Lori really was ok with it! Elaine From: Elaine Echols Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 4:42 PM To: Greg Kamptner Subject: PC motion Importance: High In relation to the BOS 8/4 agenda item for FLS and FLN -Swim and Tennis Club -- I am trying to respond to the PC's request that the conditions be worked out with the Homeowner's Association and the applicant. Not being at the meeting and not having either Margaret or Wayne here, Sharon suggested that I call you. What Sharon wrote as the initial motion was the following: The Planning Commission recommended approval of SP-2004-16, Forest Lakes North Swim and Tennis Club and SP-2004-17, Forest Lakes North Swim and Tennis Club, subject to the following conditions for each as recommended in the staff report with the understanding that there will be a modification to the future portion of the condition that will be worked out cooperatively with the Homeowner's Association and Forest Lakes Associates, and that staff will have that resolved before it goes to the Board of Supervisors. 1. The use, as approved, shall be limited to the residents and guests of the following developments: Forest Lakes South, Springridge, Pine Ridge, Lanford Hills, Steeplechase, Amberfield, Cove Pointe, Edgewater, Gateway, Worthcrossing, Chelsea, Arbor Lake, Waterford, Watercrest, Copperknoll, Echo Ridge, Ridgefield, Poplar Ridge, Heather Glen, Whispering Woods, Timberwood, Timber Pointe and Autumn Woods and any future contiguous Forest Lakes Associates developments. Jo added an amendment "for the motion to say that it shall be in the approximate range of 125 units." We're not sure how to add this language into the motion/recommendation. Sharon thinks that maybe the PC was working from a written recommendation from the applicant -- Sharon didn't get a copy so she asked Margaret for whatever the applicant gave the PC. Margaret gave Sharon an email that said: Sharon, 7/26/2004 ...t • Page 3 of 3 Here's the language that Lori had last night: 1. The use, as approved, shall be limited to the residents and guests of the following developments: Forest Lakes South, Springridge, Pine Ridge, Lanford Hills, Steeplechase, Amberfield, Cove Pointe, Edgewater, Gateway, Worthcrossing, Chelsea, Arbor Lake, Waterford, Watercrest, Copperknoll, Echo Ridge, Ridgefield, Poplar Ridge, Heather Glen, Whispering Woods, Timberwood, Timber Pointe and Autumn Woods and any future contiguous developments not exceeding approximately 100 dwelling units whose use of the facilities is permitted by the owner. Jo's amendment makes sense in this regard. We're trying to figure out if the phrase, "is permitted by the owner" came from the applicant. This distinction is pretty critical -- If the phrase came from the applicant, then we can send the Association's lawyer the language and are pretty sure they will be ok with it. If it came from the PC, then the applicant may take issue with the "is permitted by the owner" because it doesn't automatically give the applicant the ability to add more units to the facilities. The Association could veto it. Can you help enlighten me? Please call. thx Elaine K. Echols,AICP, Principal Planner Albemarle County Dept. of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434/296-5823 x 3252 www.albemarle.org 7/26/2004 THE KESSLER GROUPthekesslergroup.com July 2,2004 Ms. Margaret Doherty Albemarle County Department of Planning&Community Development 401 McIntire Road,Room 218 Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 RE: SP 2004-00017 Forest Lakes South Swim and Tennis Club SP 2004-00016 Forest Lakes North Swim and Tennis Club Dear Ms. Doherty, Thank you for your initial review comments on the referenced application submitted April 19,2004. As required,this letter provides a written response to your comments as outlined in your facsimile dated May 19,2004. Planning Department Comments: These are existing facilities, approved as an accessory uses to the Forest Lakes North and Forest Lakes South. The special permits will allow both facilities to be used by the members of Forest Lakes North, Forest Lakes South, Spring Ridge, Lanford Hills, Pineridge and future contiguous development by Forest Lakes Associates. These comments may be revised to include provisions for parking. These facilities are subject to the supplemental regulations of 5.1.16. The existing facilities at the Forest Lakes South and Forest Lakes North Swim and Tennis Clubs satisfy the requirements as outlined in sections 5.1.16a and 5.1.16b. Included with this letter are the site plans for Forest Lakes South, dated January 4, 1996,and Forest Lakes North,dated May 4, 1989. We would like to include a provision for concessions,section 5.1.16e,as part the special use permits for both Forest Lakes South and Forest Lakes North. Upon the advice of our attorney,we are requesting to revise the language above from the existing"and future contiguous development by Forest lakes Associates"to"and future development subject to the Forest Lakes Covenants and Restrictions." Additionally,we would like to refer to the Pineridge neighborhood instead as TMP 46.26F. We have not received any comments including provisions for parking. Thank you for comments and review. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, 1 livt0 1, Lori Meistrell cc.Don Franco P.O Box 5207, Charlottesville, Va. 22905 (434) 979-9500 FAX (434) 979-8055 tkg@thekesslergroup.com a • .oFALp _(Idli IIII U. '+IJ ALBEMARLE COUNTY Department of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 (804)296-5823 x3250 Fax (804)972-4012 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO. FROM Lori Mestrell Margaret Doherty COMPANY. DATE Forest Lakes Associates 5/19/2004 FAX NUMBER. TOTAL NO OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER. 979-8055 C l Cl Dl S voe12 SP-2004-016 Forest Lakes North R4 These are existing facilities, approved as an accessory uses to the Forest Lakes North and Forest Lakes South. The special permits will allow both facilities to be used by the members of Forest Lakes North, Forest Lakes South, Springridge, Lanford Hills, Pineridge and future contiguous development by Forest Lakes Associates.These comments may be revised to include provisions for parking. These facilities are subject to the supplemental regulations of 5.1.16 which are included for you use. 5.1.16 SWIMMING,GOLF,TENNIS CLUBS Each swimming, golf or tennis club shall be subject to the following: a.The swimming pool, including the apron, filtering and pumping equipment,and any buildings,shall be at least seventy-five(75)feet from the nearest property line and at least one hundred twenty-five(125)feet from any existing dwelling on an adjoining property,except that, where the lot upon which it is located abuts land in a commercial or industrial district, the pool may be constructed no less than twenty-five(25)feet from the nearest property line of such land in a commercial or industrial district; b. When the lot on which any such pool is located abuts the rear or side line of, or is across the street from,any residential district, a substantial, sightly wall, fence,or shrubbery shall be erected or planted,so as to screen effectively said pool from view from the nearest property in such residential district; c. (Repealed 6-14-00) d.The board of supervisors may,for the protection of the health,safety,morals and general welfare of the community,require such additional conditions as it deems necessary, including but not limited to provisions for additional fencing and/or planting or other landscaping, additional setback from property lines,additional parking space, location and arrangement of lighting,and other reasonable requirements; e. Provision for concessions for the serving of food,refreshments or entertainment for club members and guests may be permitted under special use permit procedures. \\Cob-dts01\CityViewLnk\Docs\SP200400016\Forest Lakes Pools 20004-16& 17.doc