Laserfiche WebLink
01- tbb co«mxssxo» «h,z»c „„‘o the homeowners? ‘ ‘*’® ‘®"nis court would be■etg replied that he believed thatty sa-d that “«•a.d that restriction could b.ie a condition of-Vv/ot Td 0^Sr% ' <br />'tTeVs";ieVHteSr“"iJe ^-el^"; w\“J <br />^ added that the Pl;,n«< <br />® Planted on the <br />dwicJc asked what heiah^ ^.k*at neight the spruce* <br />said that the t <br />^proving the subd!visron."‘ *>* tP«cified i„ the <br />a-/b?d*s privacy Of Chadwick said Ih 5®*!^°°'" and <br />said that more =?-..= a ,. . <br />>'or-ed Mr. chadwi I ' <br />«rom this PropertJ ‘'ontV'his?'’® '^*''®l°Pet cannot <br />Ejected to the t tan- • <br />-Sted Placing i^i^ i^f <br />’bo°5 fl® ‘®""is^court itself best <br />o so “r^Vn\"n!.‘“o'*® th:"p^ ‘Oat thj <br />®^a® Put%'|"t"h'r| ?hTJ|n®n\°s" <br />MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUART 16, 1990ZONING PILE #1486-SOSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINcourt meets all zoning requirements.ii:4»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 out lot was not specifically addressed.Kelley indicated that he would have preferred tc see the <br />proposal for the tennis court included with the original <br />subdivision. Kelley said that had the tennis court been <br />initially proposed and had he heard the comments from Mr. <br />Chadwick, he would not have al cwed the creation of the outlet in <br />that location. <br />Jann Olsten, 3090 Farview Lane, said that he could <br />appreciate the developer's interest in providing a tennis court <br />or recreational facility for the future owners of the <br />development. Mr. Olsten said the developer is locating the <br />tennis court as proposed because that location is least <br />obstrusive to the future residents. Mr. Olsten said that his <br />main concern regarding this recent proposal is that it is after- <br />the-fact. He said that if a recreational area is going to be <br />created, the burden ought to be shared by those persons <br />benefitting and using the facility. <br />Mabusth advised the Planning Commission that the City does <br />have the right to approve or deny the creation of outlots and <br />their intended use, even though there are no standards for them. <br />Mr. Olsten further commented that placing individual tennis <br />courts in the back yards of homeowners would have less impact <br />than this shared tennis court. Olsten said that he also had <br />concerns about relying on the homeowners' association for <br />governing the use of the tennis court. <br />Mr. Dan Parten, noted that he was aware of the French Creek <br />tennis court being used by non-residents. <br />Gronberg said that if the developer had known from the <br />beginning there would be such an interest in tennis courts, she <br />would have come in with a proposal for an outlot at the time of <br />the preliminary plat. <br />Cohen suggested that the future homeowners interested in <br />tennis, can build their own courts. Cohen said that he has great <br />empathy for the neighbor. <br />Brown indicated that he was compelled by the argument that <br />one court would preclude the need for having courts on the