Laserfiche WebLink
PRD Meeting <br />11-25-02 <br />Page 10 <br />Mr. Samac said but under Section 1159.05 (a) talking about the minimal project size, the <br />Planning Commission did vote and it was asplit-actually the motion to be voted on ended up <br />being denied because it was a 3 to 3 vote. We were looking at like 4 contiguous acres as a <br />minimum for that project. <br />Mr. Biter asked, Bernie, did they want bigger or smaller or was there a varied opinion there. <br />Mr. Samac said well, it was varied. Some wanted--would prefer-larger, some wanted <br />smaller.... <br />Mr. Biter said and 3 wanted 4 acres.... <br />Mr. Marcie said 3 wanted 4 and 3 wanted 5 by the way it was split. <br />Mr. Biter said no, he was saying that some wanted smaller. <br />Mr. Samac said let me back up here a little bit. On the-in your package you have a copy of <br />Planning & Zoning Commission meeting minutes from September 9, 2002; it should be in your <br />packet. <br />Mr. Marcie said the 2 that they voted on was 4 and 5 and there was 3 and 3 .... <br />Council President Buckholtz said there was another set of minutes where everyone was kind of <br />polled. <br />Mr. Samac said that's what we're looking at right now; Mrs. Cinco said that's what we have. <br />Mrs. Mills asked did you say September 4th <br />Mr. Samac replied September 9th <br />Council President Buckholtz and Mrs. Cinco said the vote was on the 9th <br />Mr. Samac said right. It would be on the second page at the top, where a motion was made.... <br />Mr. Biter said nobody wanted it smaller, Bernie. <br />Mr. Marcie said well they might have discussed it but when it came down to the vote it was only <br />voted on 4 and 5. It was split 3 and 3; just the opposite each time. <br />Mr. Samac said I really don't remember. I kind of think that maybe someone there didn't have a <br />problem even with 3 acres but I wouldn't swear to it. <br />Council President Buckholtz said yes, it's here somewhere. <br />