Laserfiche WebLink
rnn MBETINGIE plmwihg COMMISSIOM meL486-SOSSBX SQUARE [486 ® reauireinents.'Ll zoning reqrtwlnq requirements. j i, not required to,norvea nnet e variance re re.UVtennis court. ------<«sion'she tennis court. „ntnq Commission ssaia tnat aepenaea^-,tne pj n „Kea^t.embusth said thataddressed. „referred to s®e tn <br />.o. .ane. saia ttat^^.e^^- <br />’L'Tvelope^“;s"^f ,^ne ''£”t«e"%v.ners a_f^ <br />•on/l facility developer is lo least <br />i. Mr. Olsten said the^ that his <br />‘fo t\% <br />tiat"'-.:^. r-^tional^ ponson <br />j*'ana u“sinq"the facility. ^oes <br />riqht to pf though there ,.„,i tennis,„aea use, even fh'^iviaual te <br />the use of the P„nch Cte <br />- >-nn^rrc"ouVtT. Tte <br />" '"ea that the future^t-r/l^^^ <br />Ci\a thtir o»n courts. Cohe <br />for the neighbor. '^Jhe <br />naicatea that he was compel ea^'^'tog ,nurts on <br />;"ou\a“;recluae the neea <br />MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990ZONING FILE #1486-SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED individual properties and reduce the density. Brown said that he did not, however, like the location of the tennis court and would prefer to see it located in the interior of the project which would involve coming back with a revised plan.There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed.It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend denial. Motion, Ayes-4, Brown, Nay.PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTSA. SECTION 10.52, SUBDIVISION 3B. SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14(C)PUBLIC BEARING 10:30 P.M. TO 10:35 P.M.The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were <br />duly noted. <br />Mabusth explained the changes being proposed. <br />Kelley indicated that the inclusion of the availability of <br />municipal water service to the Ordinance for Sanitary Sewer <br />Availability in the Highway 12 Corridor area was fine. <br />The ether Planning Commissioners concurred. <br />Gaffron noted the Council's request for a Planning <br />Commission recommendation regarding inclusion of all pools as lot <br />coverage. He asked the Planning Commission to clarify their <br />intent of the Lot Coverage Ordinance. Gaffron's concerns are <br />that 15% is not a sufficient percentage if pools are included and <br />whether the intent of the Ordinance was to limit visual <br />encroachment of structures that stand above ground. <br />The Planning Commission replied that was their intent. <br />Gaffron noted that there are two different types of pools <br />commonly built, and they should be treated differently. Gaffron <br />said that he categorizes an in-ground pool the same as a patio. <br />Kelley concurred with Gaffron and added, if there is a pool <br />that is 8' abova ground and has an additional deck, that is a <br />structure. <br />Gaffron said that it is his understanding that the Planning <br />Commission would like the Ordinance to remain the way it was <br />written. <br />The Planning Commission said that it was written the way <br />they intended it to be. <br />Mabusth asked if a fence is required around a pool and it is <br />at least 5' high it should not be included in lot coverage?