►
From YouTube: BOA & PlanCommission Meetings 04 21 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
B
C
A
You
first
item
on
the
agenda:
is
the
approval
of
the
April
7
2016
minutes
need
a
motion
in
a
second
motion
by
mr.
stone
burger
saying
by
mr.
McGuire.
All
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposed
motion
carries
second
item
on
the
agenda.
Is
the
applicant
mic
height
permit
number
one
six,
six,
four
zero
seeking
and
conditional
used
to
build
a
contractor
shop
at.
D
B
A
B
A
B
B
F
A
Right
any
other
questions
that
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
ask
for
a
motion,
a
second
for
discussion
motion
by
mr.
Arnold
second
by
mr.
Stein,
any
other
discussion.
Any
questions
seeing
none
ask
for
a
vote.
All
in
favor,
say:
aye
aye
opposed
motion
carries
item
number
3,
Kelly,
Dominic
and
Nicole
Malin
permit
number
one
six,
six,
four
one
again:
a
conditional
use
for
contractors
shop
in
a
c3
commercial
highway
district
at
1639,
12th,
Avenue,
southeast.
B
Kelley
mainland
again,
as
stated,
is
requesting
the
contractor
shops
to
storage
solution
conditionally
uses
ac3
highway
commercial
district,
again
we're
requesting
with
the
waiver
right
to
ProQuest
infrastructure
and
I'll
back
out
a
little
bit.
So
you
can
see
where
this
one
is.
This
was
long
17th
and
12th
Avenue
again
a
little
closer
to
the
Ford
Raj
and
stuff,
and
they.
A
A
See
none
I'll
close
the
public
here
and
ask
for
a
motion
in
a
second
motion
by
mr.
Stein
second
by
mr.
stone
barter
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposed
motion
carries
fourth
item
on
the
agenda:
Jean
and
Cathy
bearish
I'd
permit
number
166
for
two
seeking
a
conditional
or
variance
for
the
property
located
at
1312
South
Lake
Drive.
B
Application
submitted
requesting
to
replace
two
constructed
non-conforming
480
square
foot
12
by
40,
roof
deck
for
treadmill,
comply,
unto
a
non-compliant
single-family
dwelling
said
structure
to
propose
to
be
constructed.
Sixteen
point
four
feet
from
the
property
line:
I
need
to
get
into
the
overhead
here
to
show
you
what's
going
on.
B
B
What
they've
done
is
they've
taken
this
thing
home
and
raised
it
up
four
feet:
to
bring
it
beam,
the
fema
flood
compliance
and
then
a
remodel
in
it.
They're
actually
gonna
build
this
garage
here
to
under
separate
permit,
which
just
doesn't
involve
you
guys.
It
originally
had
a
seventeen
by
eighteen
foot
and
covered
porch
entry,
deck
sudden
room
whatever
in
the
front,
and
they
were
working
to
remove
that
now
and
replace
it
with
a
12
by
33
foot
covered
porch
on
that
side
and
let's
go
back
to
the
map.
No,
please
right!
Thank
you.
A
B
A
C
A
B
B
D
A
A
Any
questions
from
anyone
on
the
board
on
it
at
all:
no
one
in
the
public,
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
ask
for
a
motion
in
a
second
for
further
discussion
motion
by
mr.
Dahle
second
by
mr.
Stein,
any
other
any
questions
see
none
ask
for
a
vote.
All
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposed
motion
carries
item
number
five
Tom
and
Helen
Hoff
teaser
permit
number
one:
six
604,
seeking
a
variance
for
the
prior
side;
yard,
variance
for
property
at
35,
40,
14th,
Avenue,
Northwest,.
B
Yeah
again,
Thomas
and
Helen
Hoth
teaser
application
submitted
request
and
constructor
non-conforming
3980
square-foot
family
dwelling
with
an
attached
garage
on
an
eighteen
thousand
four
and
square
foot
parcel
instructor
said
to
be
constructed
seven
feet
from
the
side
west
property
line
where
nine
feet
is
required.
I.
D
B
A
You
ken
with
that
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
if
anyone's
here
speak
on
behalf
or
against
the
permit
on
on
this
lot
Ken
when
I
looked
at,
is
there
an
easement?
Is
there
any
slow
any
reason
that
it
has
to
be
pushed
over
to
that
side,
that
close
to
the
lot
line,
that
from
slope
easement?
Anything
like
that?
That's
requiring
him
to
move
that
over.
B
A
E
A
B
B
A
The
others
compliant
I
would
say:
I
am
on
a
golf
course
committee,
and
we
were
looking
now
that
I
see
that
we
were
looking
at
that
hole.
There
is
some
idea
of
moving
that
green
a
little
bit
toward
those
trees,
which
you
know
I'm
sure
that
the
city
is
the
adjacent
landowner,
because
I
made
the
comment
when
we
were
out
there
that
that
those
trees
are
going
to
have
to
grow,
to
protect
that
new
home
that
was
going
to
be
built
there
from
that
green.
A
A
little
bit
of
concern
yeah,
you
know
it's
always
a
concern
when
you're
building
up
against
the
golf
course,
the
the
it's
not
a
liability
issue,
I
mean
you
build
there
and
if
you
get
hit
by
a
golf
ball,
you
get
hit
by
a
golf
ball,
but
the
my
opinion,
the
further
away.
You
are
the
better.
You
are
off
well.
I
In
this
case
we
talked
about
you
know,
did
we
receive
any
objections
from
the
adjoining
landowners?
Well,
the
city
is
the
joining
landowner
here,
so
I
guess,
but
speaking
of
behalf
of
the
city,
if
this
is
gonna,
be
a
problem
and
when
I
read
the
application,
I
thought
it
was
interesting.
Was
the
applicant
said
that
you
know
they
only
had
a
90
only
only
at
a
ninety
six
foot
wide
line,
which
I
thought
that
was
I
thought
that
was
pretty
good-sized
line
myself.
No.
A
G
A
Goes
back
to
on
a
perfectly
flat
lot
that
has
no
easements,
no,
no
hardships
whatsoever.
It
would
tell
us
that
our
ordinance,
we
need
to
revisit
our
or
the
side,
yard
setback
and
we're
at
nine
feet
which
to
me
is
that's
about
the
minimum.
You
dare
do
between
houses.
Any
other
discussion,
I
see
none
I
ask
for
vote
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposed.
All
right
motion
fails
any
old
business
Ken,
no.
D
D
There
is
well
I
just
wanted
to
bring
up
a
point
that
you
guys
saw
about
a
year
ago
and,
and
some
of
you
did
some
of
you
did
not
I
think
this
is
the
right,
the
right
group
to
talk
to
do
you
remember
when
there
was
a
lady
in
here
that
was
raising
new
yorkese,
okay?
Well,
she
told
us
I
think
she
said
she
had
three
or
four
keys
at
the
house
just
for
your
information,
the
fire
that
we
had
just
the
other
night.
There
was
thirty
five,
your
keys
in
the
house,
and
we
did.
C
G
D
F
If
I
could
expand
on
that,
one
point
that,
as
far
as
this
board
goes
something
to
keep
in
mind,
if
you
have
one
of
those
requests
to
the
point
of
what
the
mayor
said
is
one
thing
you
could
do
is
require
annual
check-ins
or
annual
reports
through
that
board
back
to
you
to
show
that
they're
complying
with
whatever,
whatever
the
number
you
guys
say,
is
that's
how
many
it
should
be
and
order
to
check
on
health.
If
that's
a
concern,
you
have
one
of
those.
A
C
C
A
You
first
item
on
the
agenda:
is
the
approval
of
the
agenda?
Could
I
get
a
motion
in
a
second
motion
by
mr.
stone
burger
second
by
mr.
Stein,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
opposed
motion
carries
second
item
on
the
agenda.
Is
the
approval
of
the
minutes
from
March,
24,
2016
and
April
7th
2016?
Could
I
get
a
motion
in
a
second
motion
by
mr.
Arnold
second
by
mr.
Hanson,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye
opposed
motion
carries
third
item
on
the
agenda.
F
F
Here,
simple
legal
description,
though
not
the
full
one,
is
it's
a
resolution
to
annex
the
South
half
of
the
Northwest
corridor,
a
section
six
less
the
rest
of
the
part,
that's
already
in
city
limits
and
the
portion
to
attach
a
zoning
to
it
and
then
as
well
to
rezone
a
lot.
Eighth
and
industrial
part
government
a
lot
three
less
portions
in
other
Lots,
better
idea.
Let's
just
look
at
a
map.
This
is
shown.
F
The
area
is
long
xx,
as
we
said
south
of
the
Big
Sioux
River,
a
large
portion
of
land,
let's
zoom
in
closer
the
area,
we're
talking
about
annexing
the
resolution
to
annex
would
be
this
area
right
here.
I've
referred
to
it
as
a
hand
and
farm
property,
although
it
comes
a
little
bit
and
covers
more
property
than
that
approximately
35
acres,
the
area
proposed,
and
for
what
it's
worth?
That
is
proposed
to
be
zoned.
F
That's
proposed
to
be
zoned
I,
as
is
the
property
that
you
see
here
in
this
purple
hatch
as
well
as
proposed
to
be
zoned
I
again.
Currently,
this
area
here
is
donut
hole
within
the
county,
surrounded
entirely
by
the
city
of
Watertown
zoned
agricultural
in
the
county
proposed
to
go
to
I
for
the
use
of
the
track.
That's
planned
on
going
around
that
area.
F
I
have
the
full
legal
description
of
the
property,
but
I
think
rather
than
bore
you.
If
someone
really
wants
me
to
read
it,
I
can
but
trust
me.
It's
there
the
same
thing
with
the
annexation
for
what
it's
worth
this
area
in
your
long
range
land
use
plan,
Machaut
it
to
remain
remain
in
low
intensity
use.
That
was
primarily
due
to
the
floodplain
issues
that
are
in
that
area.
F
However,
the
property
owners
new
property
owners
are
going
through
and
working
with
the
city
to
manage
a
floodplain
and
that
in
that
area,
to
be
able
to
utilize
the
property
for
the
loop,
as
we've
described
in
past
meetings,
as
well
as
a
tank
farm
for
lack
of
a
better
term.
I
guess
I'd
call
it
on
the
site
where
the
farm
used
to
be
that
is
all
I've
got.
Thank.
F
H
Paul
Calkins
with
glacial
lakes,
energy.
We
got
a
conditional
letter
of
map
revision,
which
means
we
are
altering
that
floodway,
but
it's
a
zero
rise
to
the
city.
Basically,
that's
the
process
with
FEMA
and
then
the
next
step
would
be.
If
we
build
it
per
the
plans,
then
we'll
get
the
Lomer,
which
is
the
official
letter
of
map
revision,
meaning
that
the
things
that
we're
changing
in
that
area
will
affect
the
city
zero.
As
far
as
a
zero
rise.
A
Thank
you
any
other
questions
any
time
they
build
within
that
floodplain.
It's
pretty
strict
ordinances
and
I
assume
they
nothing
but
nothing's
ever
approved.
Can
you
see
a
lot
of
that?
You
don't
approve
anything.
That's
hasn't
been
run
through
the
FEMA
mill.
I
mean
it's
unobtainable
if
it
if
they
don't
comply
with
the
federal
flood
ordinances.
A
Okay,
with
that
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
take
it
in
three
pieces.
The
first
vote
will
vote
on
resolution
201,
6-1
4,
that's
the
annexation
of
the
the
Canton
farm
property
is
I
to
need
a
motion
in
a
second
motion
by
mr.
Stein
sang
by
mr.
stone
barred
or
any
other
discussion
on
that
annexation.
All
in
favor,
say
aye
opposed
motion.
Carries
next
item.
Is
resolution
201
6-1
5,
that's
the
zoning
of
the
property
is
I
to
industrial,
any
other.
Any
questions
on
that
in
a
motion
in
a
second
motion
by
mr.
A
Arnold,
who
is
a
second
from
second
by
mr.
Dahle
home
favor,
say
aye
opposed
motion.
Carries
third
item.
Is
the
rezoning
resolution
201
6-1
one
six
and
that's
the
rezoning
of
that
AG
land
to
I
to
the
the
partial
that
was
AG
aye
correct?
Could
I
get
emotional
motion
by
mr.
stone
Berger
second
by
mr.
Stein,
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposed
motion
carries
old
business,
Luke
Southside
addition.
Certainly.
F
Next
item
is
a
is
an
item
that
was
the
first
part
of
it
was
handled
at
your
March
21st
meeting
no
March
24th
meeting
discussion
on
some
rezoning
and
a
vacation
of
right-of-way
had
some
unfinished
questions
about
the
plat.
Those
questions
have
pretty
well
been
answered
and
that
is
applied
a
Southside
addition
Southside.
Second,
addition
on
the
west
side
of
highway
81
south
of
its
intersection
with
highway
212.
F
Do
I
have
the
drawing
I
do
have
the
drawing
what's
happened
here?
Is
they're
they're
planning
off
to
lots?
You
can.
You
may
recall
this
portion
of
4th
Street
was
vacated
a
portion
that
would
have
come
down
here
with
the
intent
to
plat
this
lot
to
and
lot
one
two
questions
had
remained
out
there
and
those
outstanding
questions
were
with
regard
to
what
are
we
gonna
do
about
access
here
and
I?
F
Two
and
that'll
be
a
shared
easement
that
goes
across
all
the
way
back
to
to
connect
with
these
streets
back
into
here
that
are
already
plotted,
and
that
will,
at
this
point,
they'll
pave
that
have
that
as
a
shared
access,
easement
long
term,
a
development
agreement
component
will
be
that
at
some
point
in
the
future,
these
roads
will
be
will
be
expected
to
be
paved.
The
trigger
mechanism
will
be
upon
development
of
of
this
lot
of
lot,
one
or
the
property
on
the
west
or
north
side
of
it.
F
So
it's
kind
of
pushing
back
hand
on
the
road,
but
the
primary
axes,
the
one
that's
developing
is
this
lot
that
I
believe
was
suggested
to
be
a
theater
if
I'm
not
mistaken
one
other
key
component
to
that
to
this
plat.
That
I
want
to
tell
you
about
ahead
of
time.
We
spent
a
lot
of
time
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
work
work.
This
issue
and
in
the
end
in.
H
F
End
what
wound
up
happening
is
there
is
I
could
make
gas
main.
That
goes
up
the
former
fourth
Street
that
was
retained,
the
easement
there
was
retained.
It's
a
ten-foot-wide
easement.
If
I
recall
at
last
estimate.
It's
expected.
The
building
will
go
in
that
area
somewhere
in
that
area.
However,
right
now,
in
order
to
get
final
plans
together,
the
future
property
owner
does
not
have
final
plans
and
won't
have
final
plans
until
they've
purchased
the
property
they're
not
going
to
purchase
the
property
until
it's
plaited.
F
So
the
point
is
in
order
to
get
to
the
next
step,
which
is
renderings
of
plans.
As
far
as
where
they're
going
to
put
the
building
on
the
property,
they
need
to
transfer
it.
It
is
entirely
likely
that
we
may
see
a
petition
to
vacate
that
particular
gas
main
easement
and
move
it
somewhere
else
on
the
property
and
from
a
staff
standpoint.
It's
not
a
huge
deal
for
us.
D
F
It
sounds
like
utilities
is
working
with
them
as
well.
It
would
be
preferable
to
do
that
now,
but
without
knowing
where
it
should
go,
if
they're
gonna
put
it
under
a
future
building.
Why
do
it
now?
So
that's
where
we're
at
those
are
the
questions
that
were
unanswered
that
are
now
mostly
answered.
Okay,.
E
E
F
D
G
F
A
A
F
F
It
was
a
lot
they're,
creating
a
lot
a
lot
too,
which
would
be
slightly
less
than
30,000
square
feet,
which
was
the
minimum
lot
requirement
in
that
zoning
district
I
know
the
intent
or
the
reason,
as
described
to
me,
was
to
was
to
straddle
an
easement
that's
at
there.
The
recommendation
from
this
body
was
to
recommend
approval,
subject
to
moving
the
line.
I
believe
17
feet
to
the
west,
the
property
line
17
feet
to
the
west,
which
would
have
created
a
conforming
lot
of
over
30,000
square
feet.
Mr.
F
Croyden
was
unable
to
attend
the
meeting
that
day
and
he
had
asked
if,
if
he
could
approach
the
board
after
consulting
with
staff
and
and
chairmen,
we
noted
that
he
could
come
back
on
the
open
on
the
open
at
this
point.
Just
for
reference,
since
it's
been
acted
on
already,
you
can't
just
do
a
reconsideration
because
it
wasn't
at
the
previous
meeting
it
would
have
to
be.
You
would
have
to
be
a
new
application.
F
However,
I
guess
the
main
thing
I
think
if,
if
I'm
in
his
shoes
and
everyone's
is
to
know
whether
or
not
it's
to
have
an
idea
as
to
whether
or
not
it's
it's
worth
his
time,
so
that's
I'll,
stop
and
come
on
up
here
and
by
all
means
the
hope
was.
He
could
maybe
answer
some
questions
that
weren't
answered
there.
That
day.
J
J
He
said
that
quite
often
the
the
easement
or
maybe
it
was
the
surveyor
said
that
usually
the
property
line
goes
down
the
center
of
the
easement
each
shared
by
each
side
10
feet
each
way,
so
I
did
feel
that
I
would
move
it
over
and
put
it
where
they,
you
know
kind
of
suggested,
but
it
is
under.
You
know
almost
3,000
square
feet
under
now.
One
of
the
things
is
is
I
am
tied
in
with
my
sewer
to
it.
J
G
Well,
Gerald
you
and
I
visited
about
this
and
and
I
agree
with
what
Jeff
said.
The
natural
place
to
put
the
lot
line
would
be
on
the
easement,
even
if,
even
if
that
law
were
increased,
that
three
thousand
square
foot
to
the
west,
it's
still
not
usable
to
the
lot
on
the
east
because
you
can't
build
over
an
easement.
G
So
in
my
in
my
opinion,
even
though
it's
under
30,000
square
foot,
it
makes
good
sense
to
leave
it
there,
because
you
don't
gain
anything
on
that
lot
anyway,
and
that
lot
can
never
change,
because
that
easements
there.
So
if
you
say
move
it
over
seventeen
feet,
what
goods
are
gonna
do
because
it's
not
usable
and
the
other
lot
in
the
east
lot.
So
am
I
correct
on
that
loop.
You.
C
F
A
A
A
Let's
say,
let's
say:
I
have
my
lot
lines
right
here
and
the
easement
stops
just
three
feet,
but
the
utilities
are
actually
on
the
other
person's
lot
line,
but
there's
an
easement
there.
It's
an
easement
for
city
and
utilities,
not
necessarily
an
easement
for
the
adjacent
property
owner,
true
or
false.
True.
K
A
K
A
K
K
A
E
F
A
J
Is
is
that
you,
rather
than
taking
that
17
feet,
I'm,
probably
I,
could
think
I
just
the
last
few
days,
I
just
felt
well,
I
can
just
hang
on
to
that
lot
and
I
can
actually
build
right
beside
that.
Easement
I
can
put
a
building
because
it's
my
property
I
can
go
right
next
to
that
easement
with
a
building
and
I
can
do
it
on
my
on
my
side
of
it
go
right
to
that
easement
with
a
building.
J
B
D
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
guys
a
little
update
on
on
our
first
blush
at
the
City
Council
level
of
stony
point.
You
know
you
guys
saw
for
two
years.
I
thought
it'd
be
interesting
to
let
you
know
there
was,
of
course,
the
respect.
You
remember
the
report
that
was
given
in
front
of
you
and
and
I
didn't
have
a
chance
to
look
at
that.
So
what
Shane
did
at
the
engineering
side
is
is
took
the
respect
proposal
that
was
done
and
also
the
Austin
engineering
proposal
that
was
done.
He
then
hired
sch.
D
Our
engineering
firm
out
of
Sioux
Falls,
a
gentleman
rocky
I,
don't
know
his
last
name,
looked
at
both
of
those
proposals
and
he's
out
of
the
Omaha
office
came
up
and
presented
it
to
the
council.
I
think
what
what
really
came
out
of
it
is
that
you
know
we're
looking
at
the
water
quality
and
the
water
quantity
is
what
was
really
focused
in
at
that
time.
So
we're
going
to
take
this
in
into
three
different
types
of
steps
to
get
this
done.
D
We've
actually
directed
the
three
engineering
firms
to
work
with
Shane
to
come
up
with
a
a
happy
medium
for
the
water
quantity
of
the
size
of
the
ponds
and
such
you're
all
familiar
with
everything.
That's
going
on
there.
So
I
just
want
to
update
you
and
let
you
know
we
would
expect
or
I
would.
I
would
certainly
hope
that
the
engineering
firms
will
have
some
type
of
an
agreement
by
next
week.
H
D
Pun
intended
on
that
really
I
didn't
mean
that
so
we
could.
We
can
look
at
the
at
the
channel
and
see
and
see
where
that
goes.
So,
that's
kind
of
what's
just
a
little
update
on
that
and
I'll
try
to
keep
you
guys
up
to
date
on
on
what's
happening
because
I
know
you
have
it
all
so
near
and
dear
to
your
heart
and
you
hated
to
give
it
up
like
that.