SP-2004-16 Forest Lakes North Swim and Tennis Club (Sign #23, 94) - Request for special use permit to allow all Forest Lakes Associates developments within the Forest Lakes North and Forest Lakes South neighborhoods to use the swim and tennis club amenities of either neighborhood in accordance with Sections 126.96.36.199 and 5.1.16 of the Zoning Ordinance which allow for swim, golf, tennis and similar facilities. The property, described as Tax Map 46B3, Parcel B contains 8.559 acres, and is zoned R-4 (Residential). The proposal is located on Rt. 1721 (1824 Timberwood Boulevard) in the Forest Lakes North development, within the Rivanna Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density in the Community of Hollymead. (Margaret Doherty)
SP-2004-17 Forest Lakes South Swim and Tennis Club (Sign # 18) - Request for special use permit to allow all Forest Lakes Associates developments within the Forest Lakes North and Forest Lakes South neighborhoods to use the swim and tennis club amenities of either neighborhood in accordance with Sections 188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11 and 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allow for swim, golf, tennis and similar facilities. The property, described as Tax Map 46B5, Parcel 1B contains 6.552 acres, and is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. The proposal is located on Rt. 1670 (1650 Ashwood Boulevard) in the Forest Lakes South development, within the Rivanna Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density in the Community of Hollymead. (Margaret Doherty)
Ms. Doherty stated that the applicant, Forest Lakes Associates, requests that the existing swim and tennis club for Forest Lakes North and Forest Lakes South be allowed to be used by all Forest Lakes Associates developments. The Zoning Department made a finding that the existing clubs do not qualify as non-commercial because both facilities are open only to the residents of the neighborhoods. So as they are filling in some development within Forest Lakes North and South if they want to allow those residents to use these facilities they would have to go through the special use permit process. This is really just a technical zoning special use permit issue. Staff believes that the extended use of recreational amenities is a good idea in a neighborhood so that people can use the existing facilities in their neighborhoods. Staff does not see any impacts. Staff has been working with the applicant and the Homeowner’s Association because these clubs are soon to be turned over to the Homeowner’s Associations. Up until the last minute they have been working on a condition of approval which was going to limit the use of these facilities to the existing developments and then contiguous developments owned by Forest Lakes Associates and then to be only up to a certain number of units. Staff crafted some language for Mr. Kamptner and the Commissioners to review, but she would like the applicant to speak because they might actually like to work on this condition a little bit more before they go to the Board. She pointed out that they might not even need a condition because they may be able to just approve the special use permits and move forward. She noted that both attorney groups may want a condition that is more specific. The end result is that the clubs are going to be allowed to be used by all of the residents within Forest Lakes North and South.
Mr. Thomas asked if this was before them for the special use permits.
Ms. Doherty pointed out that one-half of the property was zoned PRD and the other half is zoned R-4. In those different zoning districts swim and tennis clubs are permitted as non-commercial. She pointed out that since it was very confusing that she did not think that the Commission would want to go into it.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it was a housekeeping issue. The special use permits accomplish what has been underway in Forest Lakes since the clubs opened with residents in all areas being able to use each club as members. The Zoning Administrator determined that the residents could not use each club under the zoning allowances. This approval will clear that up.
Mr. Edgerton asked if all of the developments listed currently have access to the club.
Ms. Doherty pointed out that it was her understanding that they did. She stated that all of the residents that she had spoken to are all allowed to use these club facilities.
Mr. Edgerton stated that his only concern was if by approving this that they might end up in the middle of a political fight between one neighborhood and the next when new neighborhoods were added on to it.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that having resided there previously that he could tell the Commission that both of the clubs were open to all of the residents. In fact, over the years activities within Forest Lakes, including the swim meets, have been held at both facilities. He pointed out that the Commission was not getting into the middle of anything.
Ms. Doherty stated that they are concerned about future contiguous Forest Lake Associates properties because theoretically Forest Lake Associates could keep purchasing contiguous property and then the membership could go up to some higher number. Therefore, the Homeowner’s Association is interested in limiting it to 100 to 125 units, which was the number that they were working on for the actual number of units that would be allowed to use these facilities.
Mr. Thomas opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward and speak regarding the application.
Laurie Meistrell, representative for Forest Lakes Associates, stated that she would answer any questions about the conditions. The language in the final sentence of the condition is something that was developed today with the Homeowner’s Association. She stated that the original wording of the condition was future contiguous development by Forest Lakes Associates. The condition has now been changed to contiguous developments not exceeding 125 dwelling units. It is our intention that we are willing to make that condition adding a further condition that any future contiguous development beyond 125 units would have to go through an approval vote by the Homeowner’s Association.
Ms. Joseph stated that she was referencing the one condition that calls out all of the road names and then they would be adding to that.
Ms. Meistrell stated that the condition calls out all of the names. Forest Lakes South is a PRD, which was the south neighborhood and included all of its residents. For Forest Lakes North they had to list all of the neighborhoods within to make sure that they included all of the residents because it was developed by right. That is why there is a long list of neighborhoods included in the condition. The contiguous development would be the small pieces of property within Forest Lakes that have a potential for development. That would add up to the 125 units which are actually contained within those areas. Therefore, they would have access to those clubs and it would be logical in the Neighborhood Model.
Ms. Joseph asked if they are part of Forest Lakes already.
Ms. Meistrell stated that they were not currently part of Forest Lakes.
Ms. Joseph asked if the property would have to be rezoned.
Ms. Meistrell stated that the answer was yes and no because there are three different parcels.
Ms. Joseph asked if the three parcels were not part of the original rezoning for Forest Lakes.
Ms. Meistrell stated that they were not. She pointed out that the language of the final sentence still needed some refining.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was any one in the audience who would like to speak regarding this application. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion and a possible action.
Mr. Rieley asked staff if they had seen and read the language that was just read and if they were supportive of that.
Ms. Doherty stated yes, but that she wanted the Homeowner’s Association, who was going to have the burden of this condition very soon, to be happy with it. She opposed setting up a situation that the Homeowner’s Associations might be uncomfortable with. She suggested that the condition be worked out by Mr. Kamptner and the attorneys for the owner and the Homeowner’s Association before the Board meeting.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that it was hard to know how to put that in the form of a motion.
Ms. Higgins stated that if there was a significant concern that she felt that their attorney would have been here to mention that. She stated that it seems to be a very cooperative situation since the staff feels that they could potentially look at it as the last sentence being modified to limit in some way in the spirit of cooperation between the entities handing the club houses over to the Homeowner’s Association.
Mr. Rieley suggested that it be worked out prior to being heard by the Board.
Ms. Higgins stated that it would be worked out prior to the Board hearing.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the Commission just acknowledge the substance of the condition as it was provided with the additional work on the language of limiting the additional membership, which would be taken care of before the Board meeting.
Mr. Edgerton stated that the number should have been worked out before it came to the Commission. He pointed out that he was uncomfortable approving something that he did not know what they were approving.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the question for the Planning Commission was whether that number would make a material difference to their recommendation. It is going to be 125 and potentially modified in some slight way to make sure that the Homeowner’s Association is comfortable with it.
Ms. Higgins stated that number covers all of the contiguous developments on both sides that have different names. She pointed out that they are also already doing this.
Mr. Rieley stated that the Commission has in the past clearly sent things on to the Board with a request that they work out a detail. He pointed out that he could not imagine this coming back to the Commission in a form that would be substantially different than what it is now. Therefore, he was comfortable with passing this along.
Ms. Joseph stated that she was comfortable as long as there was a limit on the number of units because there were a lot of parcels that could be added on to Forest Lakes. She pointed out that she did not want a situation to come up where the applicant says that they already have recreational facilities and they don’t need any more.
Ms. Higgins moved to recommend 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.
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, 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.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
Mr. Rieley asked if he missed hearing the specific number of 125.
Ms. Higgins stated that she did not specify a number because that had to be worked out. She pointed out that if it said 110 or 160 that it would not substantially change their perspective. She pointed out that she made the motion that way so that number could be worked out before it goes to the Board.
Ms. Doherty pointed out that staff knows that number will not go over 150.
Mr. Rieley suggested adding some language to the motion that says approximately 125 because that was essentially what was presented to the Commission.
Ms. Higgins asked where the 150 came from.
Ms. Doherty pointed out that when Forest Lakes Associates added up the number of units that they thought they would have with the contiguous development that they are planning, it was 119. Therefore, staff suggested using 125, but then it was suggested that it go up to 150. She noted that it may be that the Homeowner’s Association will want to leave it at 100 units. Staff feels that number will become lower and not higher.
Ms. Higgins amended the motion to say that it shall be in the approximate range of 125 units.
Mr. Craddock seconded the amended motion to accept the change.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0). (Morris – Absent)
Mr. Thomas stated that SP-2004-16 and SP-2004-17 would go to the Board on August 4.
Return to pc actions letter