02-12-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the planning r iMMISSION meeting JANDARY 16, 1990 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990#1486 ”SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUEDked Gronberg if the use of the tennis court would beto the homeowners?rg replied that he believed that would be the case.^ said that restriction could be a wOndition ofoe Chadwick, property owner of5elieved that locating the tennis court as P>^oP°®®^ act from the rural aspect of the area. He asked they intended to cut all of the existing trees?rq replied that a couple of trees would come down, but ; would remain. Gronberg said that the developer was o plant trees along the west side. y added that the Planning Commission had .received a ing the proposed plantings. ^ ^®^ s though 5 spruce trees were to be planted on the »t line. ladwick asked what height the spruce trees v.Ill be? y said that the tree height could be specified in the approving the subdivision. hadwick said that he will be able to ®®® ^?\® his dining room, living room, kitchen and bedroom and d not approve of that. Chadwick said the privLy of his back yard. Chadwick asked whe^ther 3n of the tennis court will be dug out or built up. »rg replied that the middle of the tennis court will be ^roxim'^tely 3* and the north end will be filled about ick expressed concern about the 3' ^® le said that would place the tennis court higher than and drainage could be a problem. erg said that more area is being cut down than filled. gy informed Mr. Chadwick that the developer cannot unoff from this property onto his. ick objected to the tennis court being located near his nd suggested placing it in a more central location. aerg said that the shape of that lot lends ocation of the tennis court. Gronberg said that the would be willing to do whatever the Planning Commission •gard to screening. Gronberg also noted that the tennis ZONING FILE #1486-SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED court meets all zoning requirements.Kelley observed that a variance is really not required to proceed with the tennis court.Mabusth said that depended on the Planning Commission's interpretation of the various sections of code she has asked them to review with this application. Mabusth said that due to the new accessory structure ordinance, a lot coverage variance may be required. Mabusth said that lot coverage for an outlet was not specifically addressed.Kelley indicated that he would have preferred to see the proposal for the tennis court included with the original subdivision. Kelley said that had the tennis court been initially proposed and had he heard the comments from Mr. Chadwick, he would not have allowed the creation of the outlot in that location. Jann Olsten, 3090 Farview Lane, said that he could appreciate the developer's interest in providing a tennis court or recreational facility for the future owners of the development. Mr. Olsten said the developer is locating the tennis court as proposed because that location is least obstrusive to the future residents. Mr. Olsten said that his main concern regardi'.g this re^jsnt proposal is that it is after- the-fact. He said that It a recreational area is going to be created, the burden ought to be shared by those persons benefitting and using the facility. Mabusth advised the Planning Commission that the City does have the right to approve or deny the creation of outlots and their intended use, even though there are no standards for them. Mr. Olsten further commented that placing individual tennis courts in the back yards of homeowners would have less impact than this shared tennis court. Olsten said that he also had concerns about relying on the homeowners' association for governing the use of the tennis court. Mr. Dan Parten, noted that he was aware of the French Creek tennis court being used by non-residents. Gronberg said that if the developer had known from the beginning there would be such an interest in tennis courts, she would have come in with a proposal for an outlot at the time of the preliminary plat. Cohen suggested that the future homeowners interested in tennis, can build their own courts. Cohen said that he has great empathy for the neighbor. Brown indicated that he was compelled by the argument that one court would preclude the need for having courts on the