Laserfiche WebLink
PRD Meeting <br />11-25-02 <br />Page 12 <br />myself back up to snuff on everything) that second sentence in that part subparagraph "B" it talks <br />and says areas deemed unbuildable. This is where we get into that comment that someone made- <br />-Mr. Biter or someone.... <br />Mrs. Cinco said Steve, I think, did. <br />Mr. Samac said areas deemed unbuildable shall be accepted as gross area; however, in no case <br />shall more than 6 units be placed on any buildable area--acre. Frankly, I thought that was how <br />the thing was sort of recommended. But then when I was going through these minutes, one of <br />the things that popped out at me (and I apologize for this late date that it hit me) was that when <br />the vote was taken, (if you'll turn to page 3 of these comments about how the vote went from <br />those minutes) and take a good look at that, the way that thing was approved or recommended <br />for approval by Planning Commission was that there be a maximum density of 4 acres units <br />per acre--period. The discussions we had had regarding the areas deemed unbuildable and then <br />you could count some with only half of that so that you could have, on a 2-acre site, you could <br />only have one acre being buildable, the other acre not. You could only build 6 units there as <br />opposed to 8. I think it was per acre. That, really, shouldn't be typed in here now. It got typed <br />in there and it probably shouldn't be there right now because that isn't how the vote went on <br />it.... <br />Mrs. Cinco asked how did the vote go? <br />Council President Buckholtz said it was noted in the discussion from Mr. Regan.... <br />Mr. Samac said it was noted in the discussions and.... <br />Mr. Marrie said yes... <br />Mr. Samac said and as you read that, you know, Mr. Farmer states that's not part of the motion; <br />Jerry could add it if he wants; it's just 4 acres right now and then Mr. Catalano states it has been <br />discussed numerous times. So, that's how they ended up voting and it ended up at 4. So, it <br />doesn't mean you can't go back in there if you so choose or.... <br />Council President Buckholtz asked where is that in the ordinance? 1159 what? <br />Mr. Samac said 1159.05(b). <br />Mr. Marquardt said the however and beyond.... <br />Mrs. Mills asked, so you want that struck out? <br />Mr. Samac said no, no, it was in here when we redid these to sort of conform with what was <br />passed that was put in there by the State. <br />Council President Buckholtz said it wasn't an official recommendation by P&Z; it was a <br />suggestion out there but it was never--- <br />