►
From YouTube: BOA & Plan Comm Mtgs 05 21 2015
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
C
A
You
first
item
on
the
agenda:
is
the
approval
of
the
May
16th
2015
minutes
ending
a
motion
in
a
second
second
motion
by
mr.
McGuire
second
by
mr.
stone
bar
all
in
favor,
say
aye
opposed
motion
carries
the
second
item
on
the
agenda.
Is
an
african
Doug
mod
for
mod
Properties
LLC?
Seeks
a
conditional
use
permit
number
one:
six:
zero,
nine,
nine
in
regard
to
a
specific
use
office,
building
at
101
and
103
19th
Street
northeast.
B
What
happened
back
then
is
actually
Doug
came
in
and
went
through
a
number
of
our
processes
to
get
that
property
rezone,
so
that
could
be
redone
into
a
specific
use
office
building,
but
he
never
he
kind
of
failed
to
come
back
and
actually
do
this
for
conditional
use
for
the
specific
use
office
building.
So,
basically,
basically
on
this
today,
he's
back
before
you
just
requesting
nothing
more
than
the
specific
use
office.
A
B
A
In
look
locations
as
it
in
regard
to
collector
and
arterial
streets,
and
he
meets
that.
That
was
that.
That
was
the
two
things.
When
we
put
that
that
zone
together,
it
had
to
do
with
what
zone
it
could
be
in
and
what
it
had
to
be
adjacent
to.
You
couldn't
put
it
in
any
in
his
own
or
any
any
street
in
that
area,
and
then
there
was
some
signage
issues
as
he
comply
with
all
of
those
also.
A
B
A
B
A
It's
general
housekeeping
and
he
meets
all
specifications
of
the
specific
use
office
building
zone
with
the
exception
of
a
sign
and
it's
it's
existing.
It
was
there
at
the
time
when
we
approved
it
original
and
he
just
didn't
come
in
and
get
the
permit.
Has
anyone
here
to
speak
on
behalf
or
against
the
use?
A
Seen
none
I'll
close.
The
public
hearing
ask
for
a
motion
in
a
second
for
further
discussion
motion
by
mr.
McGuire,
second
by
mrs.
Johnson
any
other
discussion
on
it.
Anyone
have
any
questions
with
all
that
specific
use
zone
works,
scene,
9,
I'll,
ask
for
a
vote
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposed
motion
carries
third
item
on
the
agenda:
applicant
Tim
and
Angela
frameboys
building
permit
one
six
one:
zero
zero
is
asking
for
a
variance
on
a
side
yard
setback
at
13,
35,
third
Street
northeast.
B
Again,
yes,
this
is
a
application
for
building
permit
number
one.
Six
one:
zero
zero
application
was
submitted.
Question
constructor,
non-conforming,
1216
32
by
38
square
foot,
unattached
garage
on
a
fourteen
thousand
six
hundred
and
fifty
square
foot
parcel
said
structure
was
proposed
to
be
constructed
twelve
feet
from
the
front
north
property
line
where
a
25
foot
setback
is
required
and
three
foot
from
the
side.
West
property
line
were
nine
foot.
Setback
was
required,
the
original
garage
just
sits.
There
was
actually
put
there
back
in
1981
and
went
through
the
Board
of
Adjustment.
B
At
that
time
it
was
granted
to
be
located
basically
where
it's
at.
At
the
time
there
was
a
13
foot
from
the
north
requirement
asked
for
and
a
four
four
foot
from
the
west
requirement
asked
for,
but
someplace
long
might
want
to
get
built
it
to
end
up
being
three
foot
from
the
West
and
twelve
foot
from
the
north.
B
That's
basically
it
if
application
is
endorsed
the
board,
where
you
consider
fulfilling
the
side
rocky
below
our
creators
requirements.
So
Tim
does
have
a
geothermal
drain
field
right
here
and
that's
kind
of
why
he
was
trying
to
keep
it
closer,
real
close
to
where
it's
at
right.
Now
he
is
here
for
any
questions
again.
This
was
public
notice
and
no
one
had
contacted
me
for
work
on
to
this
issue.
Thank.
B
A
A
D
A
B
A
D
D
D
D
D
G
B
A
I
A
A
G
B
F
D
Get
everything
I
own
I
was
thinking
about.
Turning
it
sideways,
like
you
guys,
are
talking,
but
there's
a
power
pedestal.
You
can't
see
it
it's
in
the
shadow,
that's
outside
Mike,
it's
in
the
shadow
right
there
and
I
have
my
driveway
established
and
to
get
turned
it
into
it.
If
I
turned
it
this
way,
it'd
be
yeah.
C
C
Think
our
concern
is
that
you
have
room
for
all
your
toys.
Our
concern
is
more
so
that
you
follow
the
city
guidelines.
I
mean.
If
we
went
by
how
many
toys
people
had
people
would
fill
up
their
whole
yards
with
sheds.
We
can't
be
concerned
with
what
you
need
to
put
in
it.
We
can
only
be
concerned
with
what
we
think
you
should
construct.
C
C
You
know
that's
a
big
garage
plus
yard.
You
got
another
four
stall
garage
up
front,
I,
don't
see
I,
just
I,
don't
understand
why
you
can't
move
it
off
the
alley
to
comply
with.
You
know
if
a
sign
gets
blown
down
or
somebody
tears
down
a
sign.
They
can't
put
it
back
up.
He's
got
a
variance
for
this
garage
here.
If
he
tears
that
garage
down
and
builds
a
new
one,
the
variance
for
that
garage
there's
no
longer
in
effect.
A
G
A
H
A
A
there's,
a
13
foot,
variance
from
the
north,
which
that
is
14th
Avenue,
which
is
a
collector
out
as
a
fence.
His
fences
up
against
that
side,
and
it's
pretty
common
up
there
too.
That's
that
double
front
yard
that
some
people
get
stuck
with
or
yeah.
You
know
what
had
if
it
was.
If
it
was
an
active
side
yard,
it
would
have
a
9
foot
setback
and
because
it's
on
a
corner,
it's
got
25
on
each
side.
So
it's
a
tough
one,
any
other
questions
for
mr.
Lefroy
boys.
A
G
A
A
B
I
A
A
L
L
A
We
need
four
four
we
got,
we
got
five
here.
We
need
four
first
item
on
the
agenda
is
the
approval
of
the
agenda,
but
before
we
do
that
we're
gonna
scratch
number
for
the
Eastwood's
18th
edition
preliminary
plan
modify
the
agenda
to
get
to
or
move
number
four
ask
for
motion
to
approve
the
agenda
motion
by
mrs.
Johnson.
Second,
second,
by
mr.
stone,
bargirl
in
favor,
say
aye
opposed
motion.
Carries
second
item.
Is
the
approval
of
the
minutes
from
April
23rd
2015
I
need
a
motion
in
a
second.
A
A
L
Thank
you.
We
have
a
request
from
mr.
Quinn
he's
the
director
and
mark
is
the
director
of
marketing
and
project
development
for
glacier
Lakes
capital,
and
his
request
was
that
currently
Willow
Creek
Village
has
a
an
approved
preliminary
plan
and
it
was
approved
in
May
of
2013,
so
it's
still
effective
and
it's
still
approved,
but
he
is
requesting
to
modify
it.
L
L
L
I
was
hoping
I
would
have
a
drawing
before
this
day,
but
I
haven't
received
one
so
I'm,
not
sure
exactly
how
that
would
be,
and
that
could
be.
You
know
one
of
you
guys's
recommendations
if
he
decides
to
try
to
move
forward
with
this
that
there
be.
You
know
certain
width
requirements
or
size
requirements,
because
I
read
now,
don't
know
that
information
is.
L
A
E
H
M
A
Gonna
maintain
that
right
away,
that's
the
kind
of
questions.
I
have
I'm
a
little
a
little
hesitant
to
allow
signs
in
the
right
away.
That's
the
city's
property.
Once
we
open
up
that
can
of
worms,
everybody's
gonna
want
to
take
the
signs
off
their
property
and
put
it
in
the
public
right
away.
I
think
it's
dangerous
who's
from
a
liability
aspect.
Council.
K
L
A
A
Tim
would
we
allow
him
to
put
a
sign
we
would
in
as
long
as
it
met
the
over
overlay
specifications
he
could.
He
could
take
10
feet
of
his
own
property,
put
the
sign
on
his
own
property
to
if
he
wanted
and
I
I
assume
he's
saying
aesthetically,
it
would
be
kind
of
neat.
You
come
in.
It
looks
like
a
gated
community,
which
is
fine.
If,
if
the
gated
community
was
all
on
his
property.
M
A
I
F
L
L
A
Think
you'd
have
to
we're.
Gonna
have
to
get
some
more
information.
We're
gonna
have
to
see
the
sign.
We're
gonna
have
to
see
what
he's
going
to
modify
it.
The
right
away.
The
parking
issue
is
an
issue
we
we
do
allow
parking
in
c3.
You
know
he
ever
been
by
McDonald's,
we're
all
that
side
streets
there
parking
on
all
of
that
stuff,
so
we'd
have
to
I.
A
L
L
First
I'll
turn
on
the
zoning.
This
block
in
the
middle.
That's
uncolored
is
currently
outside
of
the
city
limits
and
the
petitioners
requesting
that
that
be
annexed
into
the
city
and
be
zoned
c3.
You
guys
remember
from
last
month
this
l-shaped
piece
that
zone
egg.
In
the
picture
you
guys
recommended
to
the
council
that
it
be
rezone
c3
so
and
if
that
continues
through
the
process
and
gets
approved,
this
property
will
be
completely
surrounded
by
c3
property.
A
Let's
do
it,
let's
do:
let's
do
the
first
two
parts
before
we
take
the
preliminary
plan.
I,
don't
think
there'll
be
any
issues
with
getting
the
annexation
done,
and
the
zoning
well
open
the
public
hearing,
if
it
was
here,
speak
on
behalf
or
against
the
annexation
portion
of
this
resolution,
201
5-1,
seven,
if
anyone's
here
to
speak,
you
can
step
up
otherwise,
we'll
close
the
public
hearing
and
vote.
Seeing
none
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
ask
for
a
motion
in
a
second
for
the
annexation
of
the
East
Park
addition.
I
A
By
mr.
stone
burger
any
further
discussion,
this
is
just
the
annexation
portion
of
it.
I
bring
it
into
the
city
limits.
Seeing
none
I
ask
for
a
vote.
All
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposed
motion
carries
item.
C
is
the
zoning
of
the
same
piece
of
property?
Do
I
need
to
keep
continue
to
open
and
close
public
hearings
for
each
resolution
supposed
to
be.
A
L
N
I
mentioned
at
the
last
meeting
that
if
a
signal
were
to
be
allowed
at
26th
Street,
that
would
change
everything
and
so
there's
some
new
information
I
had
a
conversation
with
the
d-o-t
after
the
last
plan
Commission
meeting,
and
they
indicated
that
there
could
indeed
be
a
signal
at
26
and
at
23rd
there
could
be
a
signal
at
either
one
or
both
of
those
locations
and
so
to
me
that
changes
everything
currently
there.
The
developer
has
hired
HDR
to
do
a
traffic
impact
study
and
they're
working
on
that
right
now.
N
N
Okay,
the
traffic
impact
study
I
want
to
talk
about
that.
Just
really
briefly.
I
spoke
with
the
engineer
from
HDR
who's
working
on
the
traffic
impact
study
and
I
asked
him.
What
kinds
of
information
will
come
out
of
the
traffic
impact
study
and
he
said
that
they
will
be
making
a
recommendation
about
where
this
intersection
should
be,
how
far
back
from
highway
212.
N
If
we
went
ahead
and
approved
the
preliminary
plan
with
this
location-
and
they
came
back
and
said
they
thought
it
should
be
farther
back
then
what
same
thing
here
if
they
felt
this
needed
a
greater
stacking
distance,
then
we're
kind
of
stuck
if
we've
already
approved
the
preliminary
plan.
So
my
recommendation
is
to
table
your
consideration
of
this
preliminary
plan
until
at
least
the
traffic
impact
study
report
has
been
completed
and
submitted
to
the
d-o-t.
How.
N
You
don't
have
to
take
my
recommendation,
though.
As
a
plan.
Commission,
you
have
choices.
You
can
approve
this
preliminary
plan
as
it
is,
or
you
can
approve
it
with
contingencies
and
I
did
write
the
resolution
with
contingencies.
In
case
you
chose
that
option.
I
went
down
the
ordinance
and
every
a
place
where
there
was
information
missing
that
we
hadn't
received.
Yet
that's
required
for
preliminary
preliminary
plan.
Approval
I
put
a
contingency
in
because
we
are
missing
information.
A
Take
a
piece
by
piece
here
for
a
second,
the
one
thing:
when
we,
when
we
see
a
preliminary
plan,
we
were
told
not
in
our
lifetime,
with
these
guys
get
together,
so
we
were
kind
of
stuck
postage
stamp.
This
thing
together
and
taking
our
best
guess
of
where
the
roads
would
be
last
time
we're
here.
We
we
we
determined
in
in
our
in
our
planning.
A
We
don't
we're
not
in
favor
of
a
road
going
from
Willow
Creek
Drive
to
26th
Street
without
directly
without
a
traffic
signal
there,
because
then
we're
we're
encouraging
traffic
to
move
toward
an
uncontrolled
intersection
versus
controlled,
and
at
that
point
it
was.
The
traffic
signal
was
going
to
be
on
23rd
and
until
we
knew
differently,
our
recommendation
was
going
to
be
that
that
Willow
Creek
Drive
come.
It
comes
off
that
and.
C
A
Diverted
toward
23rd
at
this
point
now
they're
telling
us
we
could
have
won
at
23rd.
We
could
have
it
at
26
or
we
could
have
it
at
either
one
or
both
and
we'll
know
by
June
5th,
which
I
think
that's
an
important
part
of
exactly
what
this
study
nook
looks
like
and
at
the
same
time
they
said
now
all
the
owners
get
along.
So
we
should
be
able
to
determine
where
the
roads
are
going
to
be
up
in
this
area.
A
So
that's
one
at
one
issue
there.
The
second
issue:
is
we
really
don't
like
small
little
plots
like
this
and
I
understand
the
developers,
don't
know
what
the
size
of
their
Lots
are
going
to
be,
so
you
really
don't
want
to
plant
it,
but
that
doesn't
that
doesn't
change
the
fact
that
we
don't
like
postage-stamp
plots.
The
third
thing
is
I
think
that
Clippers
are
probably
interested
in
getting
something
going.
A
The
other
thing
we
talked
about
as
soon
as
that
road
is
actually
plaited
utilities
will,
in
the
city,
will
start
to
put
services
in
over
there,
which
we
don't
have
any
fire
hydrants
on
that
side
of
the
road
which
is
really
gonna,
be
interesting
when
they
try
to
build
it.
No
fire
hydrants.
Now,
where
are
we
from
the
city
standpoint?
Utility
standpoint
are
getting
that
utilities
into
the
road,
how
what's
the
what's
the
timeframe
or
the
procedures
once
once
the?
If
we
approve
a
plat
for
the
developers
today,
when
will
the?
H
N
You
were
to
approve
this
preliminary
plan.
All
of
these
Lots
could
be
administratively
approved.
This
could
be
approved
as
one
big
lot
here
if
a
big
box
came
in
and
that
would
essentially
completely
cut
off
this
property
from
any
access
to
this
street
and
this
intersection,
because
we're
not
showing
any
roads
anywhere
touching
this
property.
That's
my
concern.
I
know
they.
They
say
they
get
along
and
and
I
believe
they
get
along,
but
if
either
of
them
sold,
who
knows
if
the
new
ones
would
have
any
interest
in
providing
access?
N
D
A
The
danger
where
you
try
to
protect
someone
else
if
I
open
public
hearing
yet
I,
don't
think
I
have
I
like
public
hearings
open.
So
our
options
are,
as
we
can
look
at
it
and
see
the
plaid
I'd
like
to
hear
from
the
landowners
of
wider.
Why
they're
coming
before
so
the
preliminary
plan
before
they
know,
if
there's
still
gonna,
be
a
stoplight
on
26th
Street
and
what
we
can
do
to
help
them
out
if
there's
a
sense,
urgency.
O
In
a
couple
weeks,
they'll
have
that
complete,
but
I
guess
you
know
a
couple
of
things
from
our
standpoint
was
you
know
just
to
the
west
of
26
this
sherwin-williams
lot?
Now
we
run
the
impression
that
that
would
have
been
approved
as
a
preliminary
plan
for
that
lot.
But
how
could
they
get
approval
when
the
access
was
still
up
in
question?.
O
O
O
We
do
have
the
access
there
already.
We
could
have
had
access
there.
What
what
we
had
to
do
was
go
to
the
DLT,
because
with
that
access
and
a
street,
the
entrance
had
to
be
upgraded
as
what
they
were
telling
us.
So
if
we
had
to
upgrade
it,
you
know
I,
guess
my
question
is:
didn't
the
other
lot
have
didn't,
they
have
the
same
issues.
They.
N
N
N
If
you
wanted
to
leave
it
as
a
driveway
I,
don't
think
they
would
have
required
a
traffic
impact
study,
but
that's
that's
between
them
and
you
and
when,
if
you're
talking
about
the
other
one
23rd
Street
was
a
permit
that
had
been
issued.
I,
don't
know
what
got
approved
many
years
ago
and
then
renewed
and
renewed
and
and
I
don't
know
the
history
on
that.
But
I
don't
think
they
were
required
to
do
a
traffic
impact.
Any.
N
We
did
not
have
a
preliminary
plan
on
that,
but
you're
talking
about
the
street
access
and
then
that's
a
d-o-t
issue
and
I
can't
speak
for
the
d-o-t.
But
I
think
that
there
was
no
traffic
impact
study
required.
I.
Think
there
was
a
traffic
impact
study
required
for
a
Walmart
when
those
roads
went
in
but
for
whatever
reason
it
wasn't
required
at
23rd.
H
A
Kind
of
chicken
and
the
egg
on
this
and
I
agree
that
Morris
is
more
than
likely
do
on
a
street
to
go
through
there,
but
we
don't
have
it's
not
on
the
we've,
never
seen
it
on
a
plan,
that's
where
the
problem
arises.
If
we
saw
if
we
saw
it
on
a
preliminary
plan
that
had
that
Street
through
there
and
then
then
our
only
question
would
be.
Is
there
gonna
be
a
stoplight
at
26th
as
to
what
that
Street
looks
like
up
there?
A
Our
goal
is:
is
to
to
make
this
to
get
you
this
to
get
this
done
right
here.
Why
are
you?
Are
you
comfortable
with
where
you
have
the
road
right
there?
That's
where
that's,
where
the
roads
are
gonna
be
no
matter
what
the
questions
are
is
where
are
the
intersections
off
off
29th
and
where
is
the
intersection
going
to
be
off
26th
with.
O
A
O
O
O
O
O
O
You
know,
a
situation
where
we'd
like
to
see
this
developed
as
much
as
the
city
would
in
the
best
possible
way.
But
when
we
look
at
our
development
just
to
have
you
know
two
or
three
accesses
in
it,
we
don't
think
we're
asking
for
too
much
and
yeah
and
as
far
as
the
26
going
north
there
again,
we
we've
we've
always
had.
O
We
do
have
maps
trip
drawn
and
I
know
that
some
maps
have
circulated
in
the
city
and
with
the
city
engineers
and
the
mayor
and
everybody
down
the
line
showing
26
going
north,
we
put
a
band
in
it.
Basically,
you
know
to
slow
traffic
down
if
that's
an
issue,
but
if
it
develops
where
traffic
you
know
you
get
that
much
traffic
through
there,
then
I
would
think
that
that
the
city
would
want
that
Street
in
and
the
DLT
would
maybe
be
more
lenient
about
not
present.
O
A
O
A
We
look
at
is
on
this.
You
know
we
have
the
option
approach
it
table
in
it
or
denying
it
approving
it
with
contingencies.
I,
don't
think
any
of
us
have
any
issues.
We've
gone
through
this
many
times
as
to
where
that
intersection,
as
the
d-o-t
is
going
to
determine
that
with
you
as
to
where
the
29th
Street
intersection
is
where
the
26th
Street
intersection
is
I.
A
Don't
think
any
of
us
have
any
issues
with
where
that
goes,
I
don't
care
if
it's
100
feet
further
north
or
20
feet
further
south,
that's
gonna
be
determined
by
you
guys
in
the
d-o-t.
So
that's
we
don't
really
have
any
skin
in
that
game.
I
think
the
skin
that
we
have
in
the
game
is
how
the
roads
are
going
to
move
through
there,
and
we
can't
really
determine
what
that's
going
to
be
until
we
find
out
whether
or
not
there's
going
to
be
a
street
light.
There.
C
A
A
C
P
P
P
A
I
think
you'd
probably
want
us
big
of
an
intersection
there
as
you
can,
that
brings
traffic
in
and
flows
through
there
I
would
think
that
would
be.
You
know.
I
know.
I
knew
the
first
thing
we'd
see
is
a
60-foot
right
away,
and
is
that
gonna
be
big
enough
to
service
that
intersection,
but
again
we're
we
hinged
back
to
that
traffic
study
I
foresee
that
being
an
extremely
busy
intersection,
I
think
that's
going
to.
I
Be
the
feeder
that
goes
up
into
that
whole
area.
I
would
rather
see
a
minimum
of
66
foot
right
away
because
by
the
time
you
get
a
four
foot
sidewalk
and
a
DA
wants
five
foot
sidewalks
you
get
six
foot
green
space
to
plant
trees,
that's
22
feet
already
and
if
you
would
have
to
put
it
in
a
40
foot
wide
street,
you
wouldn't
have
it
in
a
60
foot
right
away.
I!
P
P
It
crosses
your
property,
that's
basically
the
minimum
width
for
a
truck
to
make
the
turn
movement
for
a
right
turn
off
a
212
as
well
as
a
right
turn
from
26
to
the
west
there.
So
those
are
the
kinds
of
minimum
radius
to
make
it
around
the
corner
and
also
you'll
have
a
like
a
four-foot
shoulder,
and
then
you
have
your
sidewalk.
P
A
P
A
L
P
H
L
L
A
P
A
The
road
would
be,
sir,
is
that
fairly
common
as
we
approach
that
highway
212
intersection
that
that
we
may
add
a
lane
or
two
in
the
neck
down
to
three
lanes
coming
into
there's
a
turn
lane
yeah
on
the
street
part
it'd,
be
you
know,
they'd
have
a
center
lay.
They
have
three
lanes,
we'd,
probably
end
up
what
how
long
far
back
in
into
this
coil
property.
Do
you
envision
three
lanes.
O
We
do
have
some
sales,
you
know
a
couple
sales
that
are
pending
and
some
interest,
but
nobody
can
do
anything
until
you
know.
Some
of
this
is
put
in
place
that
we
can
start
to.
You
know
show
where
the
streets
are
going
to
be
and
that
type
of
thing
so,
which
is
pretty
understandable
from
a
buyer
standpoint,
but
we'd
sure
like
to
see
some.
You
know
we'd
sure
like
to
have
the
opportunity
to
go
ahead
and-
and
you
know,
get
something
started
as
far
as
you
know:
buyers
and
and
sales.
A
The
real
issue
is
where
the
street
is:
is
you
guys
are
pretty
firm
on
where
that's
gonna
be
it's
where
those
two
intersections
are,
and
that
has
to
do
with
the
d-o-t
in
their
in
their
study?
Three
intersections
really
wanted
to
12
one
at
twenty
six,
twenty,
sixth
and
eighth,
and
one
at
the
d-o-t
has
a
say.
Also,
you
said
we're
26th
and
8th
is
where
that
roads
gonna
intercept
we're
a
thinner,
626.
N
O
J
O
See
we
haven't,
you
know,
been
told
anything
but
a
deal
T
at
the
we
haven't
had
any
feedback,
we're
hoping
that
the
that
you
folks
in
the
city
will
have
some
input
on
that
and
and
if
that's
where
everyone
feels
that
a
street
should
be.
You
know
it's
it's
good
for
us
where
we
show
it.
It
should
be
good
for
everybody.
You
know
we're
back
far
enough
on
Willow,
Creek
Drive
is
from
what
they
had
originally
stated.
As
far
as
the
entrance
I
think
we're
about
four
hundred
feet
deep,
and
so
the
backup
should
be.
O
O
That
works,
it
is
somewhat,
but
on
the
south
side
of
two
twelve
in
the
same
area,
there's
nine
accesses,
counting,
29th
and
twenty-third
and
we're
trying
to
get
one
okay,
we're
calling
them
driveways,
but
eventually
there
will
be
access
through
those
driveways
and
if
they
put
Lots
in
the
back
side
of
that,
you
can
always
have
egress
and
right
a
way
to
get
traffic
through
there.
But
when.
A
It
comes
to
the
do
T.
We
don't
win
those
fights
with
them
very
often
it's
their
highway.
They
they
call
all
the
shots.
We
could
go
west
on
to
twelve
and
I
can
give
you
a
myriad
of
of
people
who
have
tried
to
put
accesses
on
the
d-o-t
for
businesses
and
got
denied
out
that
way.
Any
other
questions
that
you
guys
have
in
regard
to
the
preliminary
plan.
Then
we
have
to
decide
whether
we
want
a
table
or
approve
the
preliminary
plan
with
contingencies
or
deny
altogether
I.
J
Don't
have
a
question
John,
but
I
just
think
you
should
know
that
we
really
don't
care
where
they
are.
It's
just
that
if
the
d-o-t
comes
in
and
says
something
different
than
what
this
group
and
the
City
Council
says,
go
ahead
and
the
DoD
comes,
and
then
everybody
looks,
but
you
know
that
can
I'd
be
okay,
approving
it
I
mean
with
the
city
even
but
with
contingencies.
So
when
they,
but.
O
O
O
O
O
A
stoplight
and
I
think
everybody
agrees
that
the
South
going
into
is
the
second
entrance
into
Walmart,
and
it's
just
a
natural
to
us.
It
looks
like
a
natural
that
that's
where
a
stoplight
should
be,
and
if
you
look
at
the
stoplight,
that's
recommended
for
23rd
I,
don't
know
how
that's
going
to
work,
because
it's
too
it's
too
close
to
the
bridge.
Talking
about
stacking
traffic,
there's
no
way
to
stack
traffic
on
with
a
light
at
23rd
and
our.
A
At
our
last
meeting,
we
all
agreed
on
that
that
the
correct
spot
was
probably
26,
not
23rd,
especially
the
way
the
developments
moving.
Any
other
questions,
anyone
else
to
speak
on
behalf
or
against
the
preliminary
plan
that
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
ask
for
a
motion
in
a
second
for
further
discussion.
I
would.
I
A
A
F
They
would
need
to
know,
especially
if
do
tea
does
make
a
move
that
they're
gonna
have
to
have.
Mr.
DeYoung,
you
know
move
that
Street
he's
gonna
have
time
of
you'll
have
to
replant
it.
Basically,
if
they
do
say
that
it
has
to
be
further
north,
so
they
may
need
that
time
anyway.
I
mean
it
would
kind
of
be
up
to
them
if
they
have
their
stuff
ready
to
go
to
do
the
special
meeting
which,
what.
A
I,
don't
want
to
do
is
put
it
off,
not
be
able
to
pull
it
off
the
table.
I
look
and
say:
if
these
guys
don't
show
up
with
a
traffic
study
on
the
5th
of
June,
we
want
to
be
able
to
pull
it
right
off
the
table
and
move
forward
as
far
as
any
buyers
go
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
issues
that
the
way
this
is
laid
out
is
correct.
A
Our
real
our
only
real
consideration
is
House
26th
Street,
going
to
look
as
it
moves
north
of
there
and
that
that
will
be
guided
by
the
by
the
impact
study.
But
as
as
the
we
see
the
plat
in
front
of
us,
unless
there's
an
issue
with
the
right
away
as
it
crosses
their
property
I,
don't
I,
don't
see
any
problem
with
a
lot
sizes,
a
lot
widths
from
this
from
the
city.
Standpoint,
I,
don't
know.
If
I
got
the
question
answered,
how
long
is
it
going
to
take
two
things
I'm
going
to
ask
one?
N
We
would
expect
if
the
preliminary
plans
approved
they'll
start
bringing
plats
and
depending
on
the
phasing,
and
we
didn't
get
any
proposed
phasing
in
the
preliminary
plan.
That's
part
of
it
they're
saying
it
would
be
all
in
phase,
but
then
they've
got
a
plat
that
isn't
the
whole
thing
that
they're
proposing.
So
there's
information
that
we
don't
have
to
make
those
decisions,
but
I
would
presume
it
would
be
be
coming
from
the
east
to
the
west,
because
that's
the
first
plat
that
they
presented.
Q
Mark
Meyer,
wired
town
utilities,
as
far
as
the
water
main,
we
won't
install
it
until
the
Platts
recorded
and
the
road
is
cut
to
subgrade.
We
have
a
contractor
hired
every
summer,
so
you'd
be
just
a
matter
of
as
long
as
it
happened
this
summer
before
winter
you
know,
but
once
the
plaster
recorded
roads
cut
to
subgrade,
we'll
install
it
roads.
N
N
O
B
A
Any
other
discussion
with
that
I'll
ask
for
a
vote.
All
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposed
motion
carries
I
will
table
it
until
June
5th
Jeff.
Can
you
keep
an
eye
on
that
and
keep
us
posted
via
email
as
to
where
we're
are
with
that?
If
that,
if
that
d-o-t
study
is
delayed
in
any
way,
I
want
I'd
like
to
bring
it
back
off
the
table
and
proceed
with
it.
A
L
A
I'm
sorry,
oh
I
I
think
we
may
as
well
table
the
plat.
What
I'll
need
is
motion
in
a
second
on
6e
resolution,
201
five
to
table
the
plateau.
So
it's
alright,
so
motion
by
mr.
stone,
burger
second
by
mrs.
Johnson,
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposed
motion
carries
item
number
7
lot,
coverage,
ordinance,
revision
and
I
I.
Think
we've
all
I've
talked
to
John
I've
talked
to
Jason,
I
talked
to
Dennis.
L
Yeah
I'll
just
give
a
quick
background
at
the
May
6
boards
essent
meeting.
There
was
a
variance
request
that
was
in
front
of
you
and
it
was
about
a
setback,
variance
requesting
that
the
setback
be
reduced
from
6
feet
down
to
4.3
feet
and
at
that
meeting
the
board.
You
guys
struggled
with
this
variance
because
for
two
reasons,
one
how
much
impervious
area
this
law
would
have.
After
that
addition
was
built
and
to
the
size
of
the
wall
of
the
structure
being
so
close
to
the
property
line.
L
So
then,
at
the
Planning
Commission
meeting
you
guys
recommended
that
staff
draft
an
ordinance
and
the
ordinance
that
was
drafted
incorporated
both
of
those
issues
into
it.
First,
there
was
a
maximum
lot
coverage
and
we
currently
have
a
maximum
lot
coverage
for
the
our
three
zone
and
that's
this
bullet
G.
That
says
the
maximum
allowable
amount
of
light
coverage
shall
be
80%
and
that's
that's.
There
are
three
so
then
we
draft
it
in
for
the
r2
and
r2,
a
the
maximum
allowed
amount
of
light
coverage
shall
be
65%
and
then
for
the
r1.
L
The
maximum
allowed
would
be
50%.
So
that's
that's
to
go.
You
know
with
the
maximum
light
coverage,
and
then
we
also
drafted
in
this
setback
requirement
and
I
didn't
have
a
chance
to
ask
Stan
to
review
it's
my
word.
It
might
not
be
very
good
or
correct,
but
it's
the
required
setback
shall
be
proportionate
to
the
height
of
a
building
for
every
3
feet
of
building
height.
There
shall
be
one
foot
of
required
setback.
This
provision
shall
not
allow
the
setback
to
be
less
than
the
minimum
required
by
any
proof
of
the
previous
provisions.
When.
L
A
A
L
Me
and
Tim
actually
looked
at
a
lot
of
properties
and
it
really
varies
depending
on
where
you're
looking
at
town
and
how
big
the
Lots
are.
You
know,
especially
in
the
r-1
zone.
We
of
we
have
some
newer,
Lots
and
parts
of
town
that
are,
you
know,
12
13,000
square
feet.
So
50%
is,
you
know
a
big
number,
but
it
doesn't
cover
as
much
as
some
of
the
Lots
that
are
in
the
older
existing
part
that
maybe
you
know
7,000
square
feet,
or
you
know
that
that
example
that
he
has
had
at
the
lake.
I
L
I
I
A
I
H
A
I
A
I
A
A
E
A
You
look
like
like
John
saying
what,
if
you
had
a
50
foot,
50
foot
with
two
storey,
can't
how
big
is
a
sidewall
on
a
general
two-story
house.
So
let's
say
it's
18
feet:
that's
six
two-story,
so
that
that
would
require
a
six
foot
side,
yard
setback.
Then,
on
each
side,
which
is
kind
of
where
we
are
now
on
a
50
footer.
A
So
5050
is
about
50
with
a
standard
two-story.
We
really
didn't
change
anything.
So
if
we,
if
we,
if
we
make
it
smaller
to
a
35
foot
same
one
on
a
35
foot,
now
you
got
six
and
six
twelve
off
of
25
you're
down
to
a
23
foot
width
building
would
be
that's
what
John
that's
what
you're
getting
as
we're
limiting
how
wide
that
building
can
be
the
smaller
we
go.
All
those
smaller
Lots.
B
Six
foot
really
is
a
pretty
good
number
that
we're
working
with
just
definitely
I
got
about
three
more.
These
little
40
foot,
35
foot
Lots
at
the
lake
all
wanted
to
put
two
storey
buildings
on.
Currently
you
know
the
night
asking
for
variances,
but
but
the
neighbors
are
already
calling
like
chewing
my
butt
on
I'm,
not
saying
I'm,
sorry,
they're
legal,
that's
about
all
I
could
do
and.
B
A
I
L
Looked
at
a
lot
of
properties
and
it
was
kind
of
a
little
bit
pulled
out
of
the
air
with,
and
we
already
had
the
one
in
place.
We
already
the
80%
place
and
then
we
we
looked
at
a
lot
of
properties.
You
know
with
the
gis
overhead
and
just
kind
of
saw
how
many
properties
meet
that
and
don't
meet
that
and
it
was.
You
know
what.
A
A
So
just
so,
we
know
what
we're
talking
about.
What
did
you
find
and
that's
something?
Maybe
in
our
next
meeting,
if
there's
time,
we
should
take
a
look
at
some
of
those
examples.
What
did
you
find
when
you
look
from
above
you,
the
biggest
distinguishment
that
we
need
is
between
the
old
part
of
town
and
the
new
part
of
town?
My
hunch
is
on
a
150
foot
corner
lot
doesn't
matter,
but
what
about
the
forty
footer
down
in
the
southwest
part
of
town.
L
M
For
most
of
those
were
40%
I
mean
with
with
house
with
the
setbacks.
You
got
that
almost
gets
you
to
50%
anyway,
not
counting
the
concrete,
but
anyway
I
counted
a
couple
areas
becoming
a
couple
years
like
one
just
up
here
on
Broadway,
where
they're
tight,
they're
packed
pretty
tight
together
and
counting
all
of
what's
there.
Presently
they
were
somewhere
in
that
kind
of
65.
Some
were
closer
to
70.
Most
of
them
are
so.
M
M
L
I
A
M
E
H
A
L
A
Know
cuz
I
mean
we
can
say.
Oh
you
know
in
our
two-way
we're
fine,
that's
different,
but
then
we
really
find
we've
got
some
art
to
a
flavor
and
one
of
those
r1
zones
and
those
are
the
people
we
don't
want
to
handcuff
anybody
we,
but
we
want
to
try
to
try
to
wordsmith
an
ordinance
that
protects
all
landowners,
Inlet
and
and
also
lets
people
do
what's
considered
reasonable
with
their
property.
A
L
E
You'll
be
comfortable
in
the
areas
out
east
in
the
newer
ones.
You
go
toward
the
lake
and
you're,
probably
closer
to
your-
are
to
a
district
at
that
point,
at
least
on
some
of
the
older
ones.
So
again,
the
point
is
that
that's
that's
going
to
be
an
issue
regardless
as
to
how
you
look
at
it.
Unless
we
change
the
zoning,
or
else
we
go
buy
an
actual
lot
area
and
I
really
don't
know
that
I'd
advise
that
either
based
on
the
idea
that
that's
kind
of
the
point
of
a
lot
coverage.
E
A
Like
from
a
board
standpoint,
if
you,
if
you
see
any
properties,
could
we
write
the
addresses
down,
get
them
to
Jeff,
so
we
could
get
some
ideas.
If
you
see
one
that
you
think
boy,
this
seems
like
it.
It's
it's
got
way
too
much
structure
for
house.
So
we
could
get
some
visual
examples
of
where
they're
at,
because
that
percentage
I
understand
exactly
what
you
did.
You
said:
hey,
we
had
to
put
a
number
down.
We.
L
A
I'll,
do
it
I
downed
different
parts
of
town,
I?
Think
you
just
look
at
one
and
go
and
we
have
to
remember
the
lot
coverages
to
include
cement.
So
if
we
see
any
that
have
extraordinary
amounts
of
cement,
we
should
write
that
address
down.
Take
a
look
at
it
from
above
and
say
this
would
comply
with
the
new
ordinance
or
this
shouldn't.
We
should
be
able
to
look
at
them
and
say
that
property
is
the
ones
we
try
to
not
to
build
more.
Just
like
that,
you
know
we
discourage
and.
K
A
Grass,
they
guys
so
some
of
the
perception
of
the
green
areas,
not
their
property.
Okay,
any
other
questions
for
Jeff
on
that
I'll
need
a
motion
in
a
second
to
table
that
I'll
make
a
motion
motion
by
mr.
McGuire
second
by
mr.
stone,
burger
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposed
motion
carries.
Eighth
item
is
signage
in
the
specific
use
office.
M
Okay,
if
you
guys
remember
here
at
the
last
meeting,
we
have
a
plank
Commission
or
adjustment.
We
talked
a
little
bit
about
that
North
Highway
D,
one
area
where
there
there
are
right,
aways
being
acquired
by
the
state
and
how
we're
gonna
deal
with
signage
up
in
there,
because
there's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
areas
up
there,
there's
a
an
area
up
there
that
specific
use
office
building.
So
what
Jeff
and
I
had
done
here
in
the
meantime,
since
that
last
meeting
was
we
did
I
had
the
one
of
the
sign.
M
M
Kind
of
here
this
this-
and
there
are
two
of
these
signs
that
will
be
coming
to
you,
guys
that
our
next
meeting
for
sign
code
Board
of
Appeals
this
here
is
one
of
them
they're
signed
there.
This
is
a
seven
by
eight
top
structure.
It's
not
a
great
picture,
but
this
part
of
the
structure
right
here
is
7
foot
56
square
feet,
but
you
also
have
this
is
a
pole
sign
with
a
pole
cover
on
it?
The
top
of
this
sign
I
believe,
is.
M
1516
feet
something
like
that
to
the
very
top
of
that
sign.
The
way
our
present
ordinance
reads
is
is
a
non
illuminated
sign
affixed.
The
building
is
preferred
type
in
a
specific
use,
office
building
and
a
non
illuminated.
Grounder
monument
sign
may
also
be
considered
so
no
direction
on
size.
Anything
like
that,
so
what
we
were
directed
to
to
do
in
the
meantime
was
to
look
at.
What's
up
there
now
kind
of
established
some
sort
of
a
ground
rule
for
size
based
off?
M
What's
there
so
we
kind
of
put
in
this
fifty
square
foot
number,
because,
as
we
go
through
this
white
and
Comus
ones,
the
sign
part
of
it
right
here.
This
is
three
by
six,
but
if
you
count
the
whole
structure
to
total
height
you're
somewhere
in
about
a
six
by
six
total
height
from
the
ground
up,
this
is
another
one
that
will
be
coming
in
front
of
you
guys
these
two,
because.
A
M
Illuminated
because
there's
no
language
to
allow
me
to
put
it
there,
there's
there's
nothing
I
can't
permit
it
because
well,
the
only
thing
it
says
is
what
maybe
consider
that
comes
from
to
you
guys
as
the
Board
of
Adjustment,
for
an
approval
for
a
specific
use,
office
building
and
then
the
resident
this
isn't
our
ones.
These
are.
Our
ones
owns
up
there
and
the
only
thing
that's
allowed
to
be
in
there
is
a
specific
use
office
building
in
an
r1
zone,
some
of
the
other
ones
like
here's
another
one.
M
A
But
this
is
a
chance
we
get
to
go
back
and
the
one
thing
we
have
to
the
one
thing
in
this
area,
specifically
that
we
have
to
remember,
is
we
made
as
a
Board
of
Adjustment
whether
we
were
on
it
at
that
time
or
not.
We
made
promises
to
these
people
up
there
and
all
the
current
occupants
of
these
businesses
were
there
and
part
of
those
promises.
A
So
now
we
go
back
and
say
now
we
have
to
reconsider
and
think
what
were
we
making
promises
for
and
what
was
our
mindset
when
we
made
them
when
it
comes
to
signage?
It
leads
me
to
believe
that
we
were
very,
very
careful
and
I'll
talk
to
some
I'll
talk
to
Bueller
and
Danforth,
and
some
of
those
guys
Arnold
was
there
when
we
did
this.
A
If
I
were
to
read
the
ordinance
and
not
know
I'd
say
there
was
a
reason
they
said
we're
not
going
to
put
us
we're
not
going
to
put
numbers
in
there
for
signs.
We
want
to
look
at
them
case
by
case,
because
it
was
very
precarious.
In
a
careful
situation
and
from
our
standpoint
we
look
and
say:
well
now
the
roads
are
moving.
You
know,
you
know,
we've
said
before.
A
Are
we
gonna
put
a
road
in
when
we
permit
a
building?
If
not,
then,
when
we
also
say
when
we
Sun
set
things
in
an
ordinance,
if
we
don't
Sun
set
it
now
when,
if
we
just
let
it
move
it,
what
well
I
thought
we
were
going
to
sunset?
These
is
this
the
time
the
Sun
sets
on
them
and
they
go
out
and
put
new
signs
in
that
meet
the
ordinance
of
which
the
ordinance
sounds
like
it's
case-by-case.
M
H
A
H
M
A
A
It
was
more
you
see
and
I
think
you
know,
that's
why
I
said
we
have
to
go
back
and
think
through
it
and
talk
to
some
people.
I,
don't
think
anyone
up.
There
really
had
an
issue
with
the
signs
that
were
in
place
at
the
time
that
they
saw
I
think
what
they
were,
and
you
know
talked
to
a
couple
of
them,
but
I'm
I
think
they
were
happy
with
what
was
there
and
I
think
we
could
probably
find
that
quote
in
there
we're
happy
with
our
neighbors
we're
happy
with.
M
People
that
showed
up-
and
maybe
you
know
we
talked
about
this-
maybe
the
right
thing
to
do
here
is
is
do
we
do
we
establish
something
as
a
guideline
for
them
to
design
to,
but
every
single
one
of
them
comes
to
you
guys
in
a
specific
use
office
building
every
time,
because
you
know
we,
we
you,
those
people
will
get
public
noticed
because
we
are
putting
this
out.
It
actually
went
out
today
to
the
PIO
for
white,
coma,
white
and
comas
and
Schneider
eye
clinic.
A
Was
gonna
say
one
thing
when
we
put
this
in
I
think
we
probably
heated
to
the
side
of
caution
and
said:
let's
take
a
look
at
each
and
every
one,
let's
see
how
let's
see
how
these
work
for
a
while
when
it
might
be
time
now,
where
are
we
looking?
Okay,
we
see
how
it
works
and
now
it's
time
for
us
to
decide.
What's
the
right
side
sides,
you
know
if
somebody
says
I'm
gonna
put
a
ground-mounted,
non-illuminated
monument
sign
I,
don't
think
anybody.
A
F
M
Reads
is
that
the
illumination
has
to
be
kept
shielded
from
the
residential
zone,
so
the
way
that
all
of
these
are
set.
If
we
took
the
language
some
of
the
language
out
of
the
way
our
to
use
your
example,
the
overlay
district,
if
we
did
internally
and
internally
lit
sign
like
this,
has
a
lot
less
light
pollution
than
something
that's
shot
at
from
from
outside.
In.
A
Past
years,
even
even
on
where
the
Casey's
is
I
believe
over
a
19th
where,
where
cornerstone
lutheran
churches,
we
get
complaints
from
surrounding
areas.
If
there's
any
light
overflow
so
that
that's
that
the
illumination
or
non
illumination
has
to
do
with
that,
and
that's
probably
why
we
looked
at
it.
But
I.
A
Remember
the
two
complaints
we
had
on
19th
Street
that
when
they
put
the
canopy
on
Kasey's,
their
room
is
now
fully
illuminated
at
night
and
it
never
used
to
be
the
people
behind
cornerstone
when
they
put
the
parking
lot,
lights
up
complained
and
it
just
kind
of
one
of
those
overflow
areas.
You
don't
think
but
I
don't
I,
don't
think
the
illumination
or
non
illumination
was
a
deal
breaker
on
it
whatsoever.
So.
I
M
The
guy
said
next,
you
might
be
able
to
answer
that
question
better,
but
the
illumination
I
don't
think
it
matters
whether
it's
in
certainly
later
externally
lit
it
lights,
lights
light.
As
far
as
our
ordinance
reads,
it
doesn't
really
discriminate
which
way
it's
lit
your
question
John
it's
this
area
from
where
Crawford's
is
there's
a
residence
here,
but
down
to
wear
white
and
Comus
end
yeah,
actually
I.
Take
that
back.
It's
to
this
church
that
Christ
Church
or
whatever.
That
is
right.
There.
M
M
And
the
other
thing
is:
is
you
have
this
church
right
here
in
an
r1
zone,
but
they
actually
are
that's
by
an
institutional
provision
underneath
they're
allowed
to
be
there.
It's
a
use,
that's
allowed
in
the
rest,
our
one
zone,
so
they
actually
are
by
the
institutional
provision
of
the
ordinance
yeah.
M
A
B
P
E
M
K
M
A
At
this
point,
our
ordinance
has
said
each
one
comes
to
us:
I'm
sure
that
was
a
safety
net
we
put
under
that
to
to
appease
everyone
that
was
involved
at
the
time,
so
these
future
ones
will
still
come
to
us.
What
we
have
to
do
is
is
we'll
just
decide
whether
or
not
what
they've
had
is
good
enough
or
do
we
want
to
change
the
ordinance
to
limit
it
to
something
other
than
by.
H
M
To
get
considered
at
this
next
meeting
that
we're
gonna
have
and
see
what
the
feedback
of
the
neighborhood
is
see.
What
the
design
of
these
are.
Maybe
that
will
kind
of
give
us
some
really
good
insight
to
what
the
sign
ordinance
should
be,
because
if
nobody
has
an
issue
with
what's
being
proposed
and
that
gets
approved,
then
maybe
that's
how
we
should
write
the
ordinance
to
allow
for
that.
I
agree.
M
H
M
M
B
M
J
M
E
A
A
M
These
are
gonna,
be
a
pretty
small
sign,
that's
they're,
gonna
be
proposing
and
approved,
so
I,
don't
know
how
that
will
affect
it.
A
lot
on
212,
because
those
are
a
lot
much
bigger
science,
but
it
might
it's
something
to
definitely
think
about
us.
You
know
what
do
we
want
it
to
look
like
and
if
you.
M
M
L
L
L
The
last
couple
of
Platts
that
we've
gotten
here
have
been
approved-
administrative
leave,
they
probably
shouldn't
have
because
the
preliminary
plan
has
expired,
but
we
just
kind
of
want
to
bring
it
to
you
that
we
got
a
plat
for
one
lot
right
here
and
you
know
we
want
to
just
bring
this
stuff
up
to
guys
and
said
it
did
have
a
preliminary
plan
and
they
have
followed
it,
but
that
preliminary
plan
has
expired,
because
it's
been
more
than
three
years
since
it
was
approved.
Probably.
N
Been
15
years,
the
the
reason
that
they
expire
is
to
give
the
opportunity
for
the
Planning
Commission
to
review
and
incorporate
new
regulations
such
as
the
Clean
Water
Act
stormwater
rule,
which
was
passed
after
both
of
these
preliminary
plans
were
approved
and
we
have
no
provisions
whatsoever
in
either
of
these
preliminary
plans
for
water
quality
facilities
and
so
I'm,
suggesting
that
you
either
approve
the
plat
or
ask
to
see.
The
preliminary
plan
is.
N
L
A
N
Can
update
the
preliminary
plan
if
you'd
like
to
see
that
the
infrastructure
is
all
in,
but
the
Clean
Water
Act
requires
when
an
acre
is
exceeded
of
impervious
surface,
that
water
quality
facility
goes
in.
So
if
you
took
the
time
when
that
law
became
effective,
they
probably
haven't
exceeded
an
acre
of
impervious
surface.
Yet
I
was
just
rooftops
because
the
roads
were
already
in
it
would
take
a
while
to
get
there
and
it
may
not
ever
get
there.
But
that's
something
you
could
you.
N
A
A
N
N
You
can
also
make
a
recommendation
that
we
keep
track
of
the
potential
impervious
area
accumulating
because
it's
if
it's
part
of
a
larger
plan,
it's
cumulative
until
it
reaches
that
acre,
and
we
can
track
that
if,
if
you
like
and
and
at
some
point
go
okay
now,
you
need
a
water
quality
facility.
It
could
be
as
simple
as
dirt
work
in
their
pond
area.
I.
A
C
C
A
J
L
N
A
L
A
Okay,
so
we'll
need
a
motion
of
Golf
View,
Estates
11
addition
to
allow
the
plotting
of
lot
10
block
made
a
motion
in
a
second
motion
based
on
burgers
second
by
mr.
McGuire,
all
in
favor,
say,
aye
motion
carries
now
that'll
go
to
the
City
Council
for
final
approval
and
if
two
weeks
from
now
another
one
gets
sold,
it
come
back
before
it's
just
like
this.
Okay
hit
one
other
thing:
Jeff
we.
L
L
N
L
A
N
N
A
How
much
of
an
inconvenience
is
that
for
them?
To
you
know
this
is
a
plat
that
was
put
in
place
prior
to
the
water
quality
issues.
How
much
of
how
much
of
an
inconvenience
is
it
to
them
to
update
it
to
they?
Have
the
water
quality
facilities
are
built
in
there
that
they
would
be
required
to
add
detention,
it
being
they'd,
be
able
to
I
guess
my
questions?
They
would
be
able
to
incorporate
without
losing
any
buildable.
A
It
was
probably
planned
for
that
to
start
with
it,
just
wasn't
called
that:
okay
in
the
area
that
is
just
to
the
north
there
that's
what
they're
bringing
in
right
now
so
they've
got
an
awful
lot
of
this.
Preliminary
plant
hasn't
been
planted
yet
right
all
right.
You
need
a
motion
in
a
second
to
approve
the
plat.
N
A
N
A
To
the
next
plot,
I
would
say:
I
would
say
we.
We
approve
this
plan
as
it
is
prior
to
the
next
plat.
We
asked
them
to
update
their
preliminary
plan
to
include
water
control
issues
fair
enough.
That
way,
we
don't
get
in
their
way
of
anything
and
we
give
them
some
time.
They'll
know
how
long
it's
going
to
take
to
sell
those
Lots,
they
might
say
we're
not
gonna
plat
again
for
five
or
six
years,
I'll.