Laserfiche WebLink
PRD Meeting <br />11-25-02 <br />Page 18 <br />Council President Buckholtz said while you are looking that up I will just note-you maintained <br />that in several situations about that redundancy issue. You were saying if it's already covered in <br />residential, don't re-cover it in this particular.... <br />Mr. Marquardt said to me it makes sense to maintain the document in one and when it has a topic <br />you maintain in it one area rather than having it in 5 different areas. If you make a change, <br />you've got to make sure you catch it in all areas. <br />Mr. Samac said right. <br />Mr. Marquardt said and there's a lot of stuff in here that's redundant with what's already in the <br />current ordinances or codes. <br />Council President Buckholtz asked, has that been addressed yet? Do you know, Bernie, on some <br />of that redundancy? <br />Mr. Samac said well what we did was, yes, we addressed most of those that were more or less <br />easy to do by reference. Some we kept in there only because it made a little bit better sense, I <br />think, even though it was redundant to leave it in there because it would have caused us to have <br />to do other changes in another section, so we just left it in there. Because this new classification <br />pretty much stands on its own. If there is a conflict between this proposed section and any other <br />section in the code, this section goes. <br />Council President Buckholtz said you want to be able to pull this section and understand the <br />parameters of the project. <br />Mr. Samac said right and we're able to that. We reference the minimum square footage areas by <br />reference to---- <br />Council President Buckholtz said the first occupant, second occupant, that was a redundancy. <br />Mr. Samac said that is where the thing was just referenced back. There was a few things that we <br />sort of kept in there only because it would have caused another problem down the line-not that <br />it was in itself-you know, something you couldn't do. But there's only a few things in there <br />like that that are done. But it didn't add several pages to this proposal. <br />Mr. Samac said the last thing that I sort of wanted to throw out to you was one of the sections <br />that was submitted for consideration by Mr. Hartt that talked about equivalency considerations <br />and it sort of gave Planning Commission and ultimately Council the flexibility on the very <br />specific requirements that are in this section relative to any development and to consider <br />alternatives or, for lack of a better word, small variances that in the overall scheme of things <br />made the entire development something that was more satisfying, more pleasing to everyone <br />concerned. It wasn't and it isn't supposed to be something that would grant any and all variances <br />but rather something that if you have a unique lot, which most of these things are going to be <br />somewhat less than desirable lots, will be developed through this type of thing-or at least that's <br />