![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi_webp/2cV-uqlx2JY/mqdefault.webp)
►
From YouTube: BOA & Plan Commission 8 18 2016
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).
A
C
A
Discussion
on
the
minutes,
seeing
none
all
in
favor,
say
aye
opposed
motion
carries
second
item
on
the
agenda.
Is
the
applicant
Daniele
lense
permit
number
one
692
is
asking
for
conditional
use
to
operate
a
home
daycare
business
and
a
single-family
home
in
an
r
2a
district
at
7:15,
first
Avenue
Southwest
a.
B
Daycare
home
is
a
listed
conditional
use
for
the
are
two
a
single-family
attached:
residential
district
421,
1804
21
1603
one
and
twenty-one
1403
one
and
five
provided
that
such
facilities
shall
provide
not
less
than
35
square
feet
of
interior
floor
area
and
50
feet
square
50
square
feet
of
outdoor
recreation,
space
for
each
child.
In
addition,
such
facilities
shall
supply
adequate
off
street
parking
or
other
suitable
plan
for
the
loading
and
unloading
of
children
so
as
not
to
obstruct
public
streets
or
create
other
traffic
or
safety
hazards.
B
Daniele
Lentz
will
regularly
utilize
the
main
level
of
the
1012
square
foot
single-family
dwelling
for
the
daycare
business.
The
property
surpasses
the
minimum
square
footage
of
interior
floor
area
and
fenced
outdoor
recreation.
Space
required
for
12
children
for
city
ordinance,
21,
1403,
31
Lentz,
is
not
registered
with
the
state.
B
The
minimum
number
of
legal
sized
endurable
surfaced
off
street
parking
spaces
required
just
for
the
single-family
use
is
to
this
board
may
consider
requiring
additional
compliant
off
street
parking
spaces
as
a
condition
of
secondary
use
approval
and
to
comply
with
21
1403
one
for
the
safe
loading
and
unloading
of
children.
It
appears
that
vehicles
are
regularly
parked
on
the
boulevard
and
across
the
public
right-of-way,
where
an
improved
sidewalk
should
be.
There
is
not
public
sidewalk
in
this
area.
B
B
Chapter
20,
170,
home
occupations
and
standards
lens
has
acknowledged
by
signature.
Her
assurances
to
her
assurance
to
comply
with
those
home
occupations
and
standards.
No
signage
is
proposed
at
this
time:
chapter
21,
63,
off-street
parking
and
loading
requirements,
as
previously
described
chapter
21,
65,
outside
storage
and
display
requirements
for
specific
uses.
The
outside
storage
will
be
typical
to
the
average
single-family
dwelling
chapter,
21,
73,
landscape
and
lighting
standards.
B
No
improved
sidewalk
is
in
the
area
like
I
noted
before
this
board
must
determine
if
the
request
shows
satisfactory
provisions
and
arrangement
has
been
provided
concerning
chapter
20,
170,
home
occupations
and
standards,
2100
to
2
B
6
a
through
H.
Those
are
the
specific
rules
governing
individual
conditional
uses
and
chapters
21,
6321
65
and
21
73,
as
we
just
went
through.
If
endorsed.
B
A
You
with
that
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
if
anyone's
here
to
speak
on
behalf
or
against
the
permit.
Jill
I
have
a
question.
We
taught
it's
been
a
while,
since
we
had
one
of
these
daycares
come
before
us,
we
had
talked
about
bouncing
the
address
and
the
applicants
off
the
fire
department,
the
police
department.
Did
we
do
that?
Yes,.
D
F
F
A
E
A
D
C
G
C
G
H
G
H
G
A
A
By
mr.
McGuire
second
by
mr.
Hanson,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
opposed
motion
carries
second
item
on
the
agenda.
Is
the
approval
of
the
minutes
from
the
August
4th
2016
meeting
motion
by
mr.
Hanson
sang
by
mr.
McGuire,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
opposed
motion
carries
third
item
on
the
agenda?
Is
the
vacation
of
the
portion
of
10th
Avenue
South
between
blocks
lot
1
block
2
on
the
south
side
edition
and
lot
7
block
2
of
Paulson's
edition.
A
Right
now,
when
I
I
went
down
where
those
storage
buildings
are
and
I
looked
over
and
tried
to
line
it
up
as
best
I
could
to
where
10th
Avenue
was
on
the
other,
the
other
side
in
I
tell
you
what
let
me
open
the
public
hearing
if
anyone's
here
to
speak
on
behalf
of
because
I
see
mr.
Wyles
back
there,
he
can
probably
step
up
and
tell
us
what
it
looks
like
on
the
ground
there.
C
C
If
you
went
down
a
looked
at
the
portion,
that's
south
of
my
property
and
north
of
Tara's
property
is
somebody's
down
there
with
a
chainsaw
kind
of
cutting
trees
and
taking
lumber
or
firewood
out
of
there.
I
don't
know
who
it
was,
but
I
didn't
hurt
it
one
bit
having
an
easement
through
there,
for
your
utilities
is
not
an
issue.
C
I
don't
have
any
intent
to
develop
it,
but
I
sure
would
like
you
guys
to
come
down
and
pick
up
your
trash
and
and
mow
your
weeds
and
spray
it,
because
that's
what
we've
been
doing,
if
you
intend
to
put
a
street
through
there
gosh,
you
know,
I,
don't
know
where
you're
going
to
go
with
it.
I
listened
kind
of
with
some
amusement
to
the
City
Council
meeting
regarding
maybe
having
a
loop
from
three
to
four
and
coming
across
on
tenth
I.
C
C
We
Tara
and
I
joined
because
it
didn't
make
any
sense
to
leave
that
chunk
if
spies
were
gonna
vacate
the
other
end
of
it.
But
in
what
surprised
me
and
Justin
you
started
to
address
it,
there
seems
to
be
some
element
on
the
City
Council
that
believes
that
you're
going
to
sell
these
abandoned
right
aways
and
the
answer
is
no
Justin
you're
involved
in
real
estate,
I
mean
when
you
plat
property,
you
dedicate
public
street
and
it's
an
easement
and
when
you
vacated
it
reverts
to
the
adjoining
property
owners.
C
It's
state
law
just
and
he
started
to
address
it
and
Terra
is
not
involved,
and
you
can
speak
to
this
about
property.
Lying
east
of
4th
Street
that
was
previously
vacated.
She's
got
nothing
to
do
with
that.
So
here
we
sit
with
a
chunk
of
red
hashed
property
in
there
that
half
of
it
would
go
to
the
blue
half
of
what
would
go
to
spies
and
the
rest
of
it
would
go
to
to
concrete
Dakota.
Whoever
owns
that
property
down
there.
But
right
now
you
couldn't
drive
a
vehicle
through
there
and.
A
Been
on
the
record
many
times,
because
I
I'm
an
advocate
saying
if,
after
50
years
we're
don't
need
it,
we
should
give
it
back,
but
others
will
disagree
with
me
on
that
that
we
don't
know
if
we'll
ever
need
it,
but
in
I,
wouldn't
I
think
we'd
run
into
some
developer
issues.
If
they're
going
to
give
us
the
least
amount
possible,
if
they're
ever
thought,
they
would
be
in
a
position
to
have
to
buy
back
generations
later.
I
It
paid
for
mr.
chairman
I'd
like
at
least
clarify
some
of
the
background
of
all
this
discussion.
First
I
want
to
point
out
that,
yes,
when
you
look
at
this
right
away,
it
appears
that
it
can't
be
developed
into
a
street,
but
it
could
be.
It
just
takes
more
effort
to
improve
it
to
build
a
street.
I
The
other
thing
I
want
to
clarify,
as
the
current
petitioners
and
the
previous
action
that
we
were
asked
to
consider,
they
would
be
the
parties
that
would
pay
for
the
improvements
so
now
granted
properties
can
change
hands
over
the
years
and
ultimately,
maybe
we
would
get
a
road
built
in
here,
but
the
reality
is
is
of
the
people
that
are
asking
for
the
vacation
now
are
also
the
same
people
that
would
have
to
pay
for
an
improvement
for
a
roadway
to
be
installed.
I
So
I
just
want
that
to
be
clear
as
well,
then
I
think
the
the
discussion
for
payment
of
right
away
versus
not
being
able
to
is
a
slightly
different
conversation.
The
city
has
recently
taken
over
rights
for
some.
I
We
call
it
right
away,
but
it
really
wasn't
right
away.
Dedication
on
the
north,
bypassed
the
d-o-t
purchased
land
from
adjoining
property
owners
and
then
what
was
to
be
the
north
bypass
and
the
city
did
purchase
that
land
from
the
state,
but
that
land
was
just
deeded
or
purchased
by
the
state.
So
it
wasn't
dedicated
I
think
the
difference
is
purchasing
land.
You
could
probably
resell
that
land,
but
if
it's
dedicated
to
a
public
purpose
through
planning
and
and
that
process,
that's
the
differentiating
piece
between
being
able
to
sell
excess.
E
And
Shane
you
could
correct
man
that
or
Justin,
but
I
think
one
of
the
things
they
talked
about
is
building
a
road
there
to
connect
the
two
sides.
You
know,
and
you
say
it
can't
be
it
not.
You
couldn't
go
through
it
now,
but
that
was
if
you
listen
to
that
John
there
were
people
that
wondered
if
we
would
ever
want
to
connect
it
for
easier
access,
north
and
south.
So.
C
A
So
Shane
from
the
City
Council
standpoint
was
it
tabled
because
they
wanted
to
explore
giving
it
back
or
selling
it
back
or
was
it
tabled
because
they
were
more
concerned
about
whether
we,
whether
it
truly
is
excess
and
the
road
would
ever
need
to
be
there
because
we've
dead
in
we
dead
ended.
You
know
the
the
the
primary
use
of
that.
If
that
tenth
Avenue
existed
would
be
off
highway
81,
but
we've
already
vacated
that
section
of
it
so
yeah.
I
I
A
We
always
look
back
in
Gulf
if
someone
we
vacated
and
they
sell
it
at
a
substantial
value,
while
they
gave
it
to
us
at
a
substantial
value
when
they
dedicated
it
to
us
years
ago,
right
different
different
times
and
different
dollars,
but
it
inflated
dollars.
We
gave
them
back
what
they
gave
us
correct.
I
A
Back
and
that's
the
million
dollar
question
is
is:
are
we
sure
we're
never
gonna
need
it,
because
we
don't
want
to
have
to
try
to
recover
that
right.
Another
time
it's
a
different
way
that
was
in
this
area.
We
worked
on
this
years
ago.
We
had
some
questions
as
to
way
things
were
plotted
there.
Cuz
things
didn't
develop
the
way
they
were
planted
5060
years
ago.
So
here.
I
We
said
once
we
close
the
public
hearing
I'll
give
you
my
closing
comment.
A
I
So
I
think
what
would
benefit
this
board
and
you
can
make
your
decision
independent
of
what
I'm
gonna
recommend.
Of
course,
I
think
what
I
would
recommend
is
that
you
approve
this
vacation
request
based
upon
your
previous
award
of
a
recommendation
of
the
the
other
half
of
the
block,
and
the
council
will
weigh
all
of
the
options
and
discussion
that's
been
had
to
date
and
take
care
of
it
at
the
September
6th
council
meeting.
I
C
A
G
The
petitioner
John
Mills
with
Mills
Development,
is
the
current
owner
of
the
existing
lot,
a
block
3
to
coat
a
Commons
addition.
The
property
is
a
conforming
lot
and
the
PUD.
The
lot
is
approximately
12,000
383
square
feet
and
will
be
divided
into
twin
homes,
which
adheres
to
the
preliminary
plan
proposed
for
the
PUD,
and
the
meadow
7th
edition
is
consistent
with
the
master
plan
of
Dakota
Commons
accepted
in
June
2002.
A
G
A
Well,
where
it
shows
that
pie
shape
behind
it,
his
question
was:
is
there's
a
pie
shaped
piece
of
property
behind
it?
My
assumption
was:
is
that
their
rear
lot
line
will
match
up
with
skip
a
lot
that
hasn't
been
plotted
and
meet
up
with
a
lot
that's
plotted?
The
question
was:
is
that
Park
dedication?
What's
that
space
back
behind
there
within.
J
J
I
I
I
I
I
A
All
right
anything
else
in
the
open.
No
just
no
further
questions.
I'll
close
the
open
ask
for
a
motion,
a
second
for
discussion
motion
by
mr.
McGuire
second
by
mr.
Hansen,
anything
any
other
discussion
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposed
motion
carries
fifth
item
on
the
is
the
ordinance
change
to
revised
city
ordinance,
21
dot,
where
we
want
to
go
back
to
last
one.
Okay,.
I
Well,
we
wanted
some
clarification
direction
for
staff
going
through
this
process.
We
brought
this
to
you
as
a
traditional
plat,
because
we
had
concerns
about
being
able
to
administrative
leap
lat
it,
which
was
how
it
was
originally
presented
to
us
as
staff,
and
then
we
some
questions
arose
because
we
were
following
traditional
planning
procedures,
not
relative
to
considering
this
as
a
PUD.
So
we've
done
some
further
digging
and
the
orden
are
not
digging
interpretation
of
the
pewdie
process
and
how
that
fits
within
our
city
system.
A
I
A
I
And
just
for
clarification,
I
mean
this
is
the
first
time
we've
actually
looked
at
it
from
this
perspective,
and
we
wanted
to
be
clear
and
so
really
what
I'm
gonna
ask
is
I
know
you
just
approve
the
or
did
a
motion
to
approve,
but
I
would
like
to
build
administrative
leap
lat
this
parcel,
it
saves
them
the
publication
dates
and
and
some
time
on
the
back
end
of
the
planning
process,
and
really
there
is
other.
There
are
other
issues
with
the
beauty
that
we
want
to
address.
Going
forward.
A
A
H
Mr.
chairman,
if
I
could
the
handout
before
you
for
agenda
item
four
kind
of
lays
out,
the
authorities
that
underlie
Shane's
point
here
and
his
authority
to
administrative
Lea
prove
the
statutory
authority?
As
many
of
you
know,
eleven
three
six,
which
allows
for
a
governing
body
to
establish
by
ordinance
the
ability
to
appoint
an
official
to
administrative
Lea,
approve,
Platts
and
addition
subdivisions.
H
G
J
Is
an
item
we
can
discussed
earlier
ourselves
that
we
thought
that
30
feet
wasn't
high
enough
for
any
some
of
these
newer
construction
projects
that
might
be
come
along,
and
so
we
opted
on
the
60-foot,
and
this
is
even
being
a
little
bit
promised
on
some
impossible
building
structures
that
will
be
coming
in.
So
again,
it's
really
nothing
new.
This
is
something
we
discussed
as
a
as
a
blank
commissioned
group
already
put
forward
to
raise
this
and
elevate
it
up
and
get
it
into
a
higher
thing.
E
J
B
A
That
I'll
open
the
public
hearing,
if
anyone's
here
to
speak
on
behalf
or
against
the
ordinance
change,
seeing
none
I'll
close
the
public
hearing,
that's
for
a
motion
in
a
second
for
any
discussion
motion
by
mr.
Stein
second
by
mr.
McGuire,
any
other
any
questions
or
concerns
on
that
on
the
building
height.