02-26-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

approval - I. approvad th. Pl.nnia, Co™.l..lo. »ay coa.ld.r on. r »o« of th. follo«ln9 findincfst1. Th. cr.atlon a"n.^***o\ lot atandard‘rnl ‘arr •irt*.iidrnt?a* iota.J Th. t.nnl. court do., not t«iulr. a .tbaok vatlanca. ';l?”ur«und«a by th. aubdlvlaion.4. outlet. A an- » Vn^aaVoViri^ of^^T Outlet A shall be J’ * _f those owners and guests. ho»ao-n.r. for th. “p” pJlJtt cov.n.nt. for th. :SfnV.?.no.%f tUVcc..aory".truotur. and ground.. outlet B .hall b. fo^'h^'T.‘r;d^^^ «rVfihroSjlot ^for futur. ..Ptic expansion. a «h«ii execute a special covenant de ;^'l‘a?*u«‘l:Jd r.Vt*rlcJlon, Sn both outlet.. Ing the Th. approval of thl. aubdlvlaion Is .ubj.ct to th. fol loving ondltlon. t.iot A .hall b. ll.lt.d to 1. 0.. of th. t.nnl. court on Outlo^ A^^b^l ^ IT, !::rof°thrS=-n.;"wl?hlirth. ro. B.na subdivision and their guests. 2 NO outdoor lighting l. approval for Outlet A. 3. BO otbar accaory atructur.a ar. approved for Outlet A. JU-uVlL%«" tV.°"fStu'rV^^^^^^ Zoning File #1486 February 22, 1990 Page 4Additional Exhibits -Exhibit G - Planning Commission Minutes 1/16/90Additional Cements t Planning Comission Recomendation ^The neighbors most impacted by the proposed location of the shared tennis court were in complete opposition to the amended proposal. Although applicant’s representative advised that a tennis court could be Installed by the owner of the residential lot in that same location^ the members noted that there is a big difference in the use of a shared tennis court over a singly owned tennis court.Please review Exhibit G, the Planning Commission minutes for background discussion and the Planning Commission recommendation. The Planning Commission denied the amended preliminary plan for Sussex Square Development and based their denial on the following findings: 1. Introduction of an outlot for a shared use tennis court appears to be introduced too late in the planning process and could have been considered at the time of the original review of the 17 lot subdivision. 2. There would appear to be adequate area for tennis courts on other lots within the plat. 3. Based upon applicant's representative, the shared court would not reduce the number of courts on other lets as applicant does not propose restrictive covenants to prevent construction of individual courts. 4. An interior location for the outlot would have less impact on the existing residential properties that border the property. 5. There is a far greater impact created from a community owned/shared use tennis court and an individually owned court. The applicant has been given the opportunity to withdraw the application prior to presenting it to the Council for their review and consideration. The developer has asked to present her position and has asked to be scheduled before your February 26, 1990 meeting. Council Action - To provide conceptual direction to staff so that an appropriate resolution can be drafted for action at the March 12, 1990 meeting of the Council.