![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi_webp/X1zk2MFmBoU/mqdefault.webp)
►
From YouTube: BOA & Plan Commission Meeting 08 10 2017
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).
B
C
D
B
E
B
F
F
B
Number
two:
this
is
that
afternoon
is
Tim
boots.
Property
address
is
14
32,
South,
Lake,
Drive
legal
descriptions,
lots
9
and
10.
In
fact,
Ola
Beach
applications
submitted
requesting
construct,
compliant
384
square
foot
16
by
24
foot
addition
onto
an
existing
non-conforming
720
square
foot,
an
attached
garage,
the.
B
45
feet
from
the
rear
west
pop
band,
where
20
foot
is
required,
an
18
foot
from
the
side
yard,
where
9
is
required,
so
the
existing
post
addition
is
is
all
complaining.
The
hour
one's
own
parcel
exceeds
the
minimum
Arian
with
requirements.
The
existing
720
square
foot
detached
garage
is
nine
performing
structure
due
to
the
setback
of
59
from
the
rear
or
the
20
is
required.
The
proposed
380
four
foot
square
foot
addition
would
be
constructed
in
compliance
with
all
current
height
and
placement
regulations.
B
The
addition
is
proposed
to
be
separate
from
a
room
from
the
existing
garage.
No
following
pictures
are
shown
over
poles
in
the
floor
plan.
The
parcel
lacks
standard,
Boulevard
and
infrastructure
requirements,
trees,
sidewalk
trail.
No,
the
sidewalk
trail
is
there
across
the
road
curb
and
gutter
approximately
50
foot
of
frontage,
his
paved
the
board
has
the
authority
to
require
fulfillment
of
any
and
all
Boulevard
infrastructure
requirements
and
conjecture
with
any
structural
improvements
if
authorized
are
required
by
the
Board
of
building
official.
B
The
existing
garage
has
shown
there
mm
I
was
built
under
permit
in
I
believe
1980
by
DeBerg,
not
the
current
owner.
It
was
proposed
to
be
built
over
here
and
ahead.
Conforming
setbacks
at
the
time,
and
it
was
built
over
here
and
for
whatever
reason
was
never
made
to
be
moved
or
anything
else.
The
owner
just
wants
to
add
on
again
just
to
the
east
side.
Here
the
setback
is
required.
All
public
notices
have
been
met.
There
was
one
party
that
was
here
to
speak
against
that
I
know
what
I
got.
Okay.
F
H
My
main
problem
is
at
this
garage
when
it
was
built,
is
in
the
wrong
spot.
No
big
deal.
The
ordinance
says
you
cannot
just
up
and
build
onto
an
existing
building
unless
you
folks,
okay,
it
my
biggest
deal
is
I've
got
to
be
able
to
get
out
in
the
wintertime
when
it
snows
by
two
o'clock:
I've
plowed
the
lake
for
a
hundred
years,
and
last
winter
we
had
quite
a
bit
of
snow
blew
in
there.
Now
all
it's
going
to
do
is
get
worse.
H
So
I've
got
that
snow
coming
in
and
now
I've
got
an
addition
on
the
house
coming
out
to
block
the
snow
and
if
they
had
this
15
feet
on,
it's
gonna
be
tough
out
there,
because
it
takes
me
about
30
minutes
once
I
get
out
to
go
up
north
to
town
and
get
my
blade
and
then
we
started
the
lake
and
that
I
don't
know
why
they
have
an
ordinance
of
a
non-conforming
building.
Why?
Why
should
you
still
be
able
to
build
on
it
if
it's
an
ordinance.
B
B
F
H
H
B
B
L
L
L
L
B
The
east
side
of
the
lake
over
by
lance's
in
front
of
the
Country
Club,
they
found
an
80-foot
area
there
and
almost
every
one
of
those
buildings
for
a
stretch
of
I,
don't
know
15
20
houses
were
actually
either
at
the
property
line
or
across
the
property
line.
So
they
come
in
here
with
the
thing
and
meet
him
and
I
can't
remember
if
they
got
15
feet
20
feet.
You
remember
to
us
brandy,
I
think.
B
L
B
It
bends
all
you
access
to
garage.
If
you
access
a
garage
perpendicular
to
the
road,
it's
got
to
have
a
20
foot
setback.
What
the
intent
of
that
is
all
for
is
so
that
a
car
can
be
parked
in
front
of
the
garage
without
hanging
out
into
the
road
right
away.
In
this
particular
case,
there
is
some
distance
between
the
road
right
away
in
the
edge
of
the
property
line.
If
the
garage
is
coming
in
parallel
to
the
property
line
is
allowed
to
go
whatever
the
side
yard
setback
is
or
not.
K
F
L
L
B
D
D
B
F
L
Issued
and
was
not
constructed
according
standard
I
think
it's
a
different
situation
than
something
it
was
there.
The
ordinance
was
changed
and
that
made
it
automatically
non-conforming.
It
was
the
action
by
the
previous
owner
that
made
the
structure
not
conforming,
and
those
are
the
basis
for
my
decision
duly.
F
B
Yeah
alright,
then
this
is
a
staff
appeal
for
a
number
of
permit
number
of
175
5-2
owner
applicant
is
Dakota
land
Federal
Credit,
Union
property
address
is
1101
9th
Avenue
South
East
legal
descriptions
allows
18
through
24
and
a
South
50-feet
salats
15
through
17
in
Black
Sticks
gisli
Edition
and
Street
locked
three
of
stencyl
motor
street
lots.
Less
h2
application
was
submitted,
require
requesting
to
construct
a
non-conforming
two-story,
seven
thousand
four
hundred
and
forty
five
square
foot
commercial
building.
B
With
a
six
hundred
and
twenty-five
foot
square
foot,
drive-through
canopy
and
approximately
27
thousand
five
hundred
and
sixty
eight
square
feet
parcels
located
in
the
c3
highway
commercial
district
said
structures
proposed.
We
constructed
eight-foot
from
the
side,
north
property
line
or
twenty
foot
setback
is
required,
15
foot
from
the
front
and
west
property
lane
or
forty
foot
setback
is
required
and
lacking
parking
and
requirements.
B
This
is
a
redevelopment
project.
The
existing
structure
is
to
be
raised
and
the
proposed
commercial
building
is
to
be
used
for
the
financial
institution,
which
is
permitted
use
of
the
c3
highway
commercial
district
in
32128
Oh
207.
This
has
already
came
before
the
board
once
on
one
1917
building
permit
number
170
165.
This
came
before
the
board.
This
entire
area
is.
B
In
the
floodway
and
for
that
building
to
go
out
and
the
new
building
go
in,
there
is
a
considerable
amount
of
work
that
had
to
be
done
with
the
floodplain
at
the
time.
The
previous
appeal
when
it
came
before
us
and
and
117
was
granted
the
building
that
was
in
January
they've
done
some
work
on
the
building
and
the
building
became
a
two-story
structure
versus
a
one-story
structure.
B
But
the
physical
setting
on
the
ground
changed
from
sixty
nine
and
one-half
inches
to
sixty
to
seventy
inches,
so
it
gained
eleven
and
a
half
feet
in
one
direction
and
from
71
to
72
in
the
other
direction,
so
again,
a
foot
in
the
other
direction.
That's
the
reason
it's
back
before
the
board
is
because
the
actual
physical
footprint
on
the
ground
change
one
foot
in
both
directions.
B
B
If
application
is
generally
endorsed,
the
board
has
the
authority
required
fulfilling
of
any
and
all
lack
and
requirements.
Subject
of
FEMA
regs
in
conjunction
with
any
structural
improvements
authorized
by
building
permit.
This
was
public
notice.
All
public
notice
requirements
have
been
met.
We
had
to
contact
it
from
one
adjacent,
neighbor
or
Walt
Eckert,
who
is
in
favor
of
the
project.
F
B
B
B
B
The
street
I
believe,
yes,
we
won't
get
landscaping
and
stuff
along
the
west
property
line
that
was
not
there
before.
If
we
granted,
we
again
reserve
the
right
to
allow
us
to
add
fencing,
trees
and
anything
else.
That's
in
the
floodway
that
would
be
allowed,
as
FEMA
would
allow
that
make
sure
it's
again
as
a
flood,
where
there's
a
lot
of
restriction
stuff.
B
B
L
P
J
B
F
C
I'm
Dean
Schultz
I
run
the
yaks
welding
supply
store
right
to
the
east
of
there.
We've
been
working
with
Mac
and
had
things
surveyed
and
talked
to
City
Hall.
Here
we
wanted
to
build
in
our
empty
lot
in
the
back
and
Mac
came
back,
petitioned
FEMA
to
let
us
raise
her
to
do
whatever
and
they
came
back
with
a
big
negative.
C
B
B
C
C
F
C
P
Right
when
you
came
to
city
staff,
we
were
giving
you
only
a
recommendation
as
to
what
we
believe
the
FEMA
is
going
to
give
you
answers
now.
These
folks
went
to
FEMA
with
an
engineering
design
team
and
effectively
went
through
all
FEMA's
regulations,
hoops
and
parameters,
and
what
they
were
able
to
prove
was
that
the
net
improvement
to
the
building
site
will
reduce
the
amount
of
restrictions
to
the
floodway.
P
C
C
P
C
P
C
E
I'm
Dan
Kumbi
and
I'm,
the
president
of
Dakota
Land,
Federal,
Credit
Union,
and
essentially
we
would
be
you
know.
Our
plan
is
to
build
a
brand
new
office
here,
we're
looking
at
approximately
a
1.3
million
dollar
investment
into
the
facility,
and
we
want
to
do
it
right
and
so
we've
we,
we
do
have
the
loma
and
that's
what
you
get
from
from
fema.
E
But
this
loma
is
similar
to
the
concrete
foundation
that
the
building
sits
on
and
the
concrete
that's
outside
the
building,
that's
at
a
fixed
height,
and
so
they
take
the
elevation
of
that
and
that's
what
we
with
this
loma.
We
actually
are
out
of
the
floodplain
based
on
the
elevation
of
that
concrete,
and
so
that
area
is
allowable
to
build
the
other
area.
This
area
over
here
that
is
not
allowed.
You
can't
put
a
tree,
you
can't
put
a
fence.
You
can't
fill
in
this
concrete
approach
with
a
curb
unless
you
get
permission
from
FEMA.
E
G
E
With
the
drive
up
we
would
like
to,
but
you
know
right
now:
the
current
facility
is
approximately
four
feet
off
the
alley.
We'll
go
to
an
eight
feet
off
the
alley,
and
you
know
we
need
a
drive
up
that
that's
what
financial
institutions
it's
what
people
want.
They
want
to
drive
through
a
drive
through
and
with
the
drive
through,
we
will
be
bordering
the
very
we'll,
be
bordering
the
very
edge
or
we'll
be
within
a
foot
or
so,
but
we're
not
ten
feet
or
anything.
E
You
know
it's
it's
close
and
we
have
to
stay
within
that.
We
cannot
go
across
that
line
or
FEMA
will
have
a
problem,
and
so
that's
really
the
only
way
you
can
get
that
facility
in
there.
You
know
because
FEMA
there,
their
setback
is
harder
and
more
enforced
than
in
the
cities,
and
so,
if
we
weren't
allowed
the
setback,
then
the
only
thing
you
could
really
put
in
there
is
a
building
shape
the
size
of,
or
that
would
sim
resemble
a
mobile
home.
E
You
know
they'd
have
to
be
long
and
skinny,
and
you
know
this
building's
going
to
be
very
nice.
I
mean
we
how
this
whole
mix-up
happened
is
we
were
originally
coming
to
the
board
in
January
to
make
sure
that
we
could
build
what
we're
thinking
before
we
purchased
the
land
and
then
once
we
got
the
variance,
we
did
purchase
land.
Well
then
we
had
our
architect,
which
does
a
lot
better
job
of
designing
buildings,
and
we
do
and
then
went
over
about
a
foot
both
directions
and
made
it
look
a
lot
nicer.
F
E
F
D
E
Was
the
same
exact
setbacks,
15
feet
from
the
11th
Street
and
8
feet
from
the
alley
we
didn't
increase
or
change
that
at
all.
We,
in
fact
that
variant
still
stands,
but
we
would
rather
build
a
nicer
building
two-story
that
looks
a
lot
nicer
than
the
single-story
that
we
really
hadn't
even
designed
anything.
At
that
time
we
were
actually
just
looking
for
the
setbacks,
yeah
I,
think
I,
don't
know
if
you've
seen
the
picture
of
what
it
looks
like
yeah.
J
L
L
Am
concerned
about
the
entrance
only
aspect
of
the
West
people
use
the
path
of
least
resistance
and
on
one
hand,
I
think
this
is
much
better
for
the
corner.
It's
going
to
open
up
that
intersection
a
lot
better.
It
should
be
a
safer
intersection
people
coming
from
the
north.
If
they
don't
have
the
opportunity
to
turn
East
they'll
go
to
the
highway
get
on,
then
you
got
to
make
a
left-hand
turn
across
two
lanes
of
traffic.
So
I.
L
Think
from
that
aspect,
is
it's
probably
better
to
have
that
as
an
intern,
and
only
it's
just
a
question
always
comes
back,
is
what
do
we
do
our
housing
police
in
the
event
that
it
becomes
a
problem
with
stacking
and
people
trying
to
use
it
as
an
exit?
I,
just
don't
know
what
the
city's
policy
is
being
a
newbie.
Well,.
P
We
can,
if
that
becomes
a
issue
we
probably
would
have
to
have
the
approval
of
the
d-o-t
actually
because
it's
their
highway
that
they're
accessing,
but
what
I
would
think
the
solution
would
be
would
be
that
they
would
modify
the
entrance
to
act
like
the
entrance
on
the
north
end
of
the
Walgreens
property,
where
it's
makes
it
difficult
to
exit
in
the
in
a
certain
direction,
and
that's
certainly
always
going
to
be
an
option.
I
do
know
that
the
bank
intends
to
sign
it.
B
P
E
We
that
was
one
of
the
reasons
we
wanted.
This
lot
is
because
of
the
light
and
the
safety
of
next
entering
off
the
busy
street
and
exiting
out
onto
the
slow
street
and
we're
going
to.
We
want
all
of
our
cars
to
exit
at
the
slowest
point
of
that
whole
intersection
at
the
alley
entrance
onto
11th
Street.
We
really
I
doubt
that
many
will
ever
go
the
other
way
unless
they
live
right
back
there.
K
B
L
The
motion
with
the
following
amendment
that
the
business
also
be
responsible
for
any
appropriate
signage
in
the
event
traffic
exits,
the
property
and
moves
north
across
that
one
individuals,
property.
The
fencing.
The
signage
would
only
be
required
in
the
event
that
it
becomes
an
issue
for
the
adjoining
property
owner.
K
F
D
B
No
yeah,
yes,
maybe
have
it
on
I.
Just
have
a
comment
I.
This
is
with
regards
to
the
The
Boathouse.
Okay,
I
have
I've
met
with
both
parties
and
they
have
given
me
a
landscape
plan
and
I've
gotten
comments
from
both
sides
and
the
board
directed
me
to
make
sure
that
we
tried
to
satisfy
the
much
as
we
can.
We've
tried
to
do
that,
but
I
have
accepted.
The
landscape
plan
has
proposed
to
me
by
mr.
and
mrs.
Christensen,
and
so
it's
no
comment.
It's
just
an
FYI
yeah.
K
O
J
F
K
K
K
F
D
F
So
at
this
time,
I'd
like
a
motion
to
approve
the
agenda
of
the
August
10th
plan,
Commission
meeting
any
motion
will
do
almost
mr.
Stein
makes
a
motion.
Mr.
Dahle,
a
second
motion,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye
next
thing,
I
arm
Genda
is
the
number
two
approvals.
The
minutes
of
the
June
22nd
2017
meeting
I
need
a
motion
in
a
second
mr.
Davian
makes
motion
mr.
Stein
seconds
of
motion,
any
discussion
of
the
minutes,
all
in
favor
say
aye
aye
opposed
and
then
it's
approved,
number
3
repot
of
1
Prairie,
Hills
development.
Second
edition.
O
Okay,
so
I
have
the
property
pulled
up
here
on
the
big
screen,
the
petitioner.
This
is
the
reap
lot
of
lot,
one
Prairie
Hills
development.
Second,
addition:
the
petitioner
Scott
Munger,
the
manager
of
Midwest
business
condos
LLC,
submitted
a
replay
requesting
approval
to
adjust
the
lot
lines
of
lot,
one
of
Prairie
health
development
second
edition
and
dedicate
right
away
that
can
be
used
as
access
to
future
development
to
the
north.
O
O
It
is
compliant
with
all
of
the
non-residential
height
and
placement
regulations
of
our
three.
The
replay
will
create
one
conforming
lot
and
dedicate
sixty
six
feet
of
public
right-of-way.
The
100-year
floodplain
is
present
on
site
requiring
FEMA
guidelines
and
requirements
for
construction.
A
floodplain
development
permit
will
also
be
required
with
the
building
permit,
and
the
plat
has
been
submitted
to
Watertown
municipal
utilities
for
confirmation
on
sufficient
easements,
which
they
confirmed
word
sufficient
staff
recommends
that
the
plan
Commission
approved
the
replay
of
Prairie
Hills
2nd
edition.
So.
G
P
It
was
more
of
a
easement
each
slot
arrangement,
it
wasn't
a
dedication
of
true
right
away
and
it
did
follow
the
eastern
portion
of
this
lot
and
bound
up
to
the
north
and
I
believe.
If
you
turned
on
the
preliminary
planned
later
on
that
GIS,
it
might
show
that.
O
F
P
What
what
the
Planning
Commission
previously
had
given
on
a
non
official
request?
The
if
you
recall
there
was
a
another
proposal
that
kind
of
came
forward
from
stony
point
that
did
not
include
any
access
points
or
egress
onto
the
Prairie
Hills
development
and
what
we
did
is
we
gave
recommendation
to
that
developer
that
without
an
alternate
route
into
the
Stoney
Point
development
area,
we
wouldn't
consider
any
of
his
proposed
plats.
What
this
replay
of
this
lot
does
is.
P
F
J
O
F
O
So
what
we
have
in
front
of
us
now
is
the
plateau
valley
view
first
edition
the
petitioner
Jaime
Andrews
is
the
acting
agent
for
Jane
jail
and
sells
out
sales
LLC.
The
background
with
Valley
View
is
the
petitioner
submitted
a
plateau,
Valley
View.
First
addition
to
be
recommended
for
approval
by
the
Planning
Commission.
O
The
Plan
Commission
previously
approved
the
preliminary
plan
of
Valley
View
at
the
June
22nd
meeting
after
tabling
the
item
at
the
June
8th,
2017
Planning
Commission
meeting,
whereas
resolution
2017-19,
the
Valley
View
preliminary
plan
was
approved,
with
the
condition
that
all
the
issues
helms
and
associates
faience
are
compliant
with
the
city's
ordinances
and
post-construction
stormwater
management.
Best
management
practices
manual
is
being
followed.
The
area
to
be
plotted
has
been
previously
annexed
and
zone,
which
was
approved
by
City
Council
on
July
3rd
2017
and
was
effective
as
of
the
July
28th
2017
date.
O
Some
facts
are
the
zoning
designations
with
this
plat
are
include
r1,
which
is
single-family
residential.
There
will
be
64
Lots
within
this
first
phase
of
that
they
are
plotting
r2,
which
is
single-family
attached
residential
district.
There
will
be
three
Lots.
Our
three
multi-family
residential
district
will
create
four
Lots.
The
adjacent
zoning
designations
are
residential
as
well
being
r1
to
the
south
and
east
and
then
r2
to
the
east.
The
plat
will
create
71
total
Lots
and
contains
46,
approximately
46
acres
of
which
12
are
dedicated
right
of
a
road
right-of-way.
E
O
Just
turn
that
is
a
designated
wetland
which
they
will
have
to
work
with
the
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
in
enhancement
mitigation
and
that
will
come
with
their
swip.
The
100-year
floodplain
is
not
present
on
site.
The
plot
has
been
submitted
to
Watertown
municipal
utilities
for
confirmation
of
sufficient
easements,
which
they've
confirmed
our
sufficient.
F
O
F
G
L
I
have
a
question
on
bought
five
lot:
five
words.
Then
the
r2
area
that's
been
proposed.
Where
is
we
talked
about
proposed
access
to
that
large
area?
We
looking
at
dumping
traffic
straight
on
the
fourth?
Are
we
gonna
try
to
push
this
traffic
back
up
towards
second
Street
along
16th
Avenue?
What's
the
what's
the
intent,
I'm.
L
O
P
Grant
Avenue
is
the
primary
north-south
corridor
through
this,
so
that
will
be
our
designated
minor
collector.
So
access
on
to
block
5
will
primarily
be
from
16th
Avenue
from
the
north
or
4th
Street
from
the
one
hurt
on
long
lease.
Okay,.
F
Q
My
name
is
Jeff
Banks
I'm,
with
blue
hater
and
banks
from
here
on,
I
represented
John,
Tesh
and
I
had
sent
a
letter
last
week
to
the
members
of
the
old
Plan
Commission.
Some
of
you
may
have
that
with
you,
I
think
some
others
of
you
may
have
been
provided
with
it,
but
in
essence,
what
we're
asking
for
is
a
public
hearing
at
a
future
planned
Commission
meeting
to
discuss
mr.
tesha's
concerns
regarding
drainage,
not
only
in
phase
one,
but
also
in
any
future
phases.
Q
At
the
June
22nd
meeting,
when
the
preliminary
plan
was
approved,
when
drainage
was
discussed,
a
rate
of
flow
was
discussed.
What
volume
was
not
and
I
am
not
aware
of
the
issue
of
water
volume
running
towards
the
Big
Sioux
River,
having
been
in
any
of
those
plans,
and
that
represents
mr.
tesha's
primary
concern
and
in
since
the
June
22nd
meeting
we've
had
the
opportunity
to
have
our
engineers
examine
the
site
and
do
their
calculations
as
to
the
effects
that
the
runoff
will
have
from
the
valley
view
development
over
the
Tesh
land.
Q
We
had
what
I
would
call
productive
meeting
this
afternoon.
That
was
arranged
by
a
city
staff,
and
we
certainly
appreciate
that
and
and
the
developer
also
and
we're
at
the
point
now
where
we
still
need
more
time
to
have
further
discussions
with
the
developer
and
his
engineer
on
how
that
increased
runoff
is
going
to
be
addressed
so
that
doesn't
have
the
negative
impacts
on
the
Tesh
land
that
we
think
it
will.
If
it's
not
properly
addressed.
Like
I
said
we
had
a
productive
discussion.
F
You
for
your
comments,
a
little
history
for
the
people
that
are
or
not
we're
here
before
mr.
touches
land
is
immediately
west
of
that
this
addition
is
built
on
a
hill
and
mr.
Tesh
is
worried
about
the
runoff
going
down
onto
his
pasture
land.
There
are
several
retention
ponds
on
this
addition
that
have
been
certified
to
hold
the
water
and
release
it
at
a
rate
of
less
than
what
is
released
onto
his
land
now,
but
the
volume
may
be
more
so
it
may
release
for
longer
period
of
time.
N
Mr.
chairman,
if
I
could
yes
thank
you,
sir
I
believe
at
the
last
Planning
Commission
meeting,
where
the
preliminary
plan
was
approved,
it
was
approved
with
conditions.
Was
that
correct?
Yes,
well,
okay,
and
then
the
condition
was
specifically
and
I
want
to
make
sure
the
wording
is
correct,
so
Shane
you
may
want
to
chime
in
I.
P
Thought
you
were
gonna
continue
in
then
I
was
going
to
change
the
conditions
as
I
understand
them
was
that
the
hydraulic
analysis
and
subsequent
design
elements
were
adequately
addressed
as
far
as
size,
confirming
that
the
volume
rate
of
water
that
we
would
release
from
the
site
comports
to
our
ordinances
and
related
issues.
To
that,
and
just
for
clarity,
our
ordinances
address
the
release
rate
to
match
the
historical
pre
development
rate.
P
We
do
not
address
the
overall
volume
of
water.
That's
released
from
a
subdivision
because,
inherently
to
any
development
of
any
size
due
to
the
rough
surface,
driveway
surface
and
us
ultimate,
roads
that
are
constructed
will
result
in
more
runoff
from
the
surface
of
the
land,
just
by
virtue
of
it
being
paved
hard
surfaces
versus
grassy
softer
landscape.
P
However,
our
ordinances
are
set
up
to
accommodate
that
parameter.
In
other
words,
we
we
don't
restrict
the
increased
volume
creation
due
to
development.
What
we
do
comport
to
is
that
we
manage
the
water,
that's
subsequently
developed
off
of
here
responsibly.
So
what
does
that
mean?
That
means
again,
that
we
release
the
water
at
the
pre-development
rates
onto
adjacent
properties.
It
means
that
we've
adequately
just
designed
and
sized
storage
ponds
or
detention
ponds
that
hold
back
the
water
for
the
appropriate
period
of
time
and
release
it
at
the
prehistoric
rates.
P
N
Chairman,
if
I
could
ask
another,
thank
you,
sir,
and
this
question
would
be
directed
to
mr.
banks
I.
Obviously,
it's
unfair
for
me
to
ask
you
if
your
conception
of
what
our
ordinances
read
comports
with
what
mr.
Waterman
just
related,
but
is
it
your
understanding
that
volume
is
not
explicitly
dealt
with
in
our
ordinances,
the
water
city
of
Watertown,
ordinances,.
Q
What
I
would
say
is
I,
don't
believe
that
the
effect
of
what
both
parties
agree
is
a
significant
increase
in
water
and
could
be
more
than
two
times
the
amount
of
water.
Now,
when
you
take
probably
over
50%
of
a
lot
and
turn
it
into
driveways
and
so
on,
has
properly
been
presented
and
discussed
and
has
been
a
part
of
any
any
vote,
and
we
just
want
that
opportunity.
So.
Q
Well,
first
of
all,
the
only
information
that
has
been
presented
has
been
from
the
developer
and
his
engineer
and
the
city
engineer
as
I
understand
it.
So
what
information
would
be
available
at
a
subsequent
meeting
would
be
any
agreement
that
may
be
reached
between
the
developer
and
mr.
Tesh
as
to
how
it
responsibly
addressed
the
increase
in
runoff,
and
you
could
also
have
the
opportunity
to
hear
the
opposing
view
of
the
adverse
effects
that
the
increase
in
runoff
would
have
on.
Mr.
Q
Q
Well,
I
think
it's
premature
in
the
sense
that
if
there
is
a
change
in
the
drainage
plan,
there
might
have
to
be
a
replant.
So
why
don't
we
wait
to
the
point
where
the
developer,
after
talking
with
mr.
Tash,
can
talk
about
solutions
to
the
drainage
and
say
this
is
the
plant
that
I
want?
Maybe
they
need
bigger
retention
ponds
and
need
to
adjust
the
size
of
some
of
those
western
Lots.
N
Q
F
F
Aysen
Engineering
said
that
these
holding
ponds
would
be
adequate
to
collect
the
runoff
city.
Engineer
agreed
with
that
city,
engineer
hired
banner
associates
and
they
agreed
that
it
was
adequate.
We
tabled
the
motion.
Mr.
Tetch
came
back
two
weeks
later
and
basically
did
not
have
a
lot
else
to
add,
and
he
asked
for
more
time
and
we
at
that
time
asked
what
would
more
time
give
us
and
he
didn't
really
have
a
good
response.
F
So
at
that
time
we
approved
the
preliminary
plan
and
at
this
point
in
time
the
Planning
Commission
has
complied
with
all
the
ordinances
of
the
city
in
this
plan
and
delaying
the
project
further
I
cannot
see
through
all
of
that.
If
you
want
to
bring
engineering
study
back,
that
will
actually
have
some
substance
in
it.
Well,.
F
L
L
N
I
I
would
say,
commissioner,
that
that
is
essentially
correct.
I
think
the
way
that
the
South
Dakota
Supreme
Court
has
viewed
it
is.
There
is
some
small
amount
of
discretion
to
ascertain
whether
those
four
criteria
that
I
just
listed
off
are
met.
So
basically
the
Commission's
role
is
to
look
to
see.
Okay,
are
those
four
criteria
met
once
those
four
criteria
are
met?
It
is
a
ministerial
duty
which
is
fancy
legal
speak
for
you
pass
it
it's
shall
in
in
in
statute.
N
L
F
P
Want
to
have
a
follow
up
comment,
and
this
is
just
a
hopeful
comment
that
the
meeting
that
we
had
earlier
today,
both
parties
did
or
a
period
of
at
least
entertain.
The
idea
of
resolving
this
on
their
own
and
I
would
support
that.
That
effort
is
continued
after
this
meeting
so
I
kid
I
mean
I'm,
hoping
that
we'll
see
this
in
two
weeks
roughly
at
the
earliest
at
the
City
Council.
Let's
do
the
effort
to
have
this
resolved
privately
before
we
have
the
next
hearing,
if
possible.
G
N
And
it
this,
this
is
necessarily
a
long
journey
because
of
the
importance
of
this
subject
matter
to
our
community,
and
it
was
I
think
something
that
importance
was
acknowledged
by
those
that
participated
in
the
process.
Whether
it
was
members
of
the
public,
whether
it
was
staff,
whether
it
was
elected
officials
appointed
officials.
N
Each
played
a
role
in
helping
us
get
to
this
point
where
we
have
before
you,
proposals
to
chapter
21,
dot
80,
which
is
our
sign
code
city
of
Watertown,
as
well
as
attending
provisions
in
chapter
21
90,
which
provide
the
definitions
of
certain
terms
in
title
21,
including
the
sign
code.
Chapter
I,
provided
a
memo
that
kind
of
gives
a
good
summary,
I.
N
Hope
of
the
actions
taken
by
the
group
kind
of
points
that
motivated
a
good
amount
of
the
substance,
and
so
that
kind
of
gives
you
an
idea
of
where
we
started
from
concerns
about
portable
sign
regulation,
concerns
about
off-premise
signs,
large
off-premise
signs
and
the
US
Supreme
Court
constitutional
landscape.
Regarding
how
signs
are
regulated
as
instruments
of
the
First
Amendment
instruments
of
speech.
N
That
is
a
new
term
that
is
incorporated
into
our
prohibited
signs,
chapter
or
section
rather
moving
from
this,
and
that
that
obviously
is
on
the
far
right
there
that
icon
in
the
middle
of
the
page
moving
past
the
third
page
onto
the
fourth
page,
we
have
an
updated
graphic
at
sub.
Six
of
section
20
1-800
4,
which
purports
to
change
the
clear
view
triangle
which
at
one
time
was
well,
it's
currently
15
feet
and
is
proposed
to
be
increased
to
20
feet.
N
During
our
discussions
there
was
talk
of
moving
it
to
25
feet,
but
a
compromise
was
worked
out
between
you
know
various
interested
parties
at
the
public
meeting
that
a
20
foot
clear
view
triangle
would
be
acceptable,
at
least
to
those
gathered
there.
What
the
clear
view
triangle
means
is
dealt
with
further
down
in
ordinance.
N
This
is
just
a
graphical
representation,
but
essentially
it
prevents
signs
from
being
located
within
the
clear
view
triangles
and
the
way
that
our
ordinance
proposes
to
read
if
this
were
to
be
adopted,
would
would
specify
that
that
includes
portions
of
signs
in
the
clear
view
triangle
and
that
has
not
been
specified-
is
not
specified
in
current
ordinance.
As
for
21800
5,
we're
talking
about
the
administrative
official,
these
next
few
sections
really
are
changed
to
deal
with
redundancy
two-strike.
What
doesn't
need
to
be
there?
N
The
building
official
is
already
denoted,
as
the
administrative
official
for
all
of
title
21
so
denoting
him
here
as
such,
or
her
would
not
be
necessary.
The
administration
section
is
struck
entirely
because
it
too
is
redundant.
You
know,
in
terms
of
you,
we
have
a
severance
provision
in
our
ordinance
here
under
enforcement
that
is
implicit
and
statutory
construction,
so
it
isn't
necessary.
N
You
know
that
that
or
excuse
me
in
in
sub
one
thereof.
Twenty-One
8006
the
the
enforcement
part
of
it
again
is
replicated
earlier
on
in
title
21
Kenz,
the
administrative
official
and
as
billing
official
and
the
building
official
is
charged
with
enforcement
authority
of
of
title
21,
/,
2100,
207
I,
believe
21
8007
is
not
changed,
except
for
certain
provisions
here
on
the
next
page,
some
clarifying
language
there
at
the
top,
but
then
also
a
change
in
what
what
basically
ends
a
permit
for
a
sign.
N
Specifically,
we
have
in
ordinance
currently
that
a
hundred
and
eighty
days
after
a
business
activity
or
identified
entity
is
discontinued.
Then
the
sign
needs
to
come
down
if
it's
not
if
the
business
activity
is
not
resumed
within
30
days,
written
notice
from
the
city.
The
change
here
is
meant
to
reflect
our
existing
non-conforming
use
provisions
simply
that
a
sign
if
it's
up
for
365
days
after
the
business
activity
has
ceased,
will
stop
being
permitted.
N
Now
there
could
be
other
provisions
that
apply
specifically
the
abandoned
provision
to
basically
have
that
sign
removed
earlier,
but
we've
also
made
that
abandoned
definition.
More
reflective
of
the
fact
that
you
know
if
abandoned
means,
truly
that
the
business
is
in
an
operation
and
there's
nothing
on
the
sign.
That's
accurate!
N
It's
that
that
that's
the
intention
and
we'll
talk
about
the
abandoned
definition
further
down.
In
the
definition
section,
the
removal
of
science
provision
has
been
updated,
such
that
there
is
additional
enforcement
authority,
summary
enforcement
authority
granted
to
the
building
official.
This
summary
enforcement
authority
would
apply
to
temporary
non-portable
signs
that
are
unlawful,
meaning
the
small
signs
that
you
seen
put
up.
N
Sua
sponte,
just
you
know,
on
a
whim
in
the
right-of-way
Ken
after
this
ordinance
is
adopted
or
if
it
were
adopted
with
this
language,
would
then
have
the
authority
as
building
official,
to
pluck
those
signs
up
and
bring
them
back
to
City
Hall.
Now,
obviously,
there
is
a
concern
whenever
you're
talking
about
people's
personal
property
and
due
process,
that's
why,
generally
speaking,
you
are
not
allowed
to
summarily
enforce
provisions,
you
either
have
to
go
through
a
formal
process.
Well
or
you
actually
go
to
the
court
to
enforce.
N
In
this
circumstance,
however,
there
is
not
the
same
due
process
concern,
because
the
property
itself
is
not
destroyed.
It
is
going
to
be
brought
back
to
City,
Hall
and
Ken
will
notify
the
property
owner
as
to
the
fact
that
it
is
now
at
City
home.
They
can
come
and
pick
up
that
piece
of
property,
so
the
property
itself
is
not
destroyed.
N
N
The
section
next
twenty-one
8008
pertains
to
the
sign
code
board
of
appeals
and
after
discussions
with
staff
here
internally
I
I,
don't
have
it
so
I
have
a
number
of
provisions
struck
here
is
redundant
because
essentially
the
sign
code,
Board
of
Appeals,
the
Board
of
Adjustment,
and
in
that
capacity
the
Board
of
Adjustment
is
really
acting
as
the
Board
of
Adjustment.
There
is
little
distinction
because
it's
a
building
officials
decision
that
is
being
appealed
which
goes
to
the
Board
of
Adjustment,
/,
2100
202,
so
I
haven't
struck
on
here.
N
The
entire
section,
but
after
doing
additional
research,
I
would
propose
to
strike
even
more
of
the
section
than
depicted
here.
In
fact,
about.
The
only
thing
that
I
would
suggest
be
kept
is
brandy
if
you
could
scroll
down
a
little
bit
more
to
subpart
five.
There
is
the
section
about
applicant
the
appellant
having
to
notify
adjacent
premises
up
to
a
certain
number
of
feet,
and
that
would
appear
to
be
the
one
unique
provision
that
would
be
particularly
note.
N
N
That's
correct
so
time
frame
the
method
of
taking
the
appeal
so
providing
the
notice
of
appeal
that
would
all
stay
the
same
as
with
Board
of
Adjustment
process
or
procedure,
so
2180
10,
the
only
changed,
there's
to
the
sign
installers
license
essentially
what's
proposed.
There
is
an
exception
to
the
otherwise
broad
requirement
that
a
sign
installer
be
utilized
for
hanging
signs.
What
we're
talking
about
is
for
a
sign.
That's
a
wall
sign,
not
illuminated,
has
a
sign
area
of
32
square
feet
or
less,
and
that
has
a
flat
face.
N
So
we're
talking
a
smaller
basic
sign
does
not
need
a
sign
installer.
Quite
frankly,
there
are
probably
a
number
of
examples
in
the
community
already
of
people
putting
up
these
signs
without
a
sign
installer.
So
the
staff,
as
well
as
a
public.
You
know,
consulting
with
you
know
the
conversation
that
we
had.
N
It
appeared
to
be
sort
of
a
common
sense
consideration
there
that
we
just
exempt
those
sorts
of
signs
from
permitting
other
types
of
signs,
non
wall
signs,
you're
starting
to
deal
with
structural
concerns,
and
those
are
very
specialized
and
likely
would
need
a
sign
installer.
Given
those
concerns.
Speaking
of
structural,
we're
moving
to
2180
eleven
there,
a
lot
of
that
is
being
struck
because
much
of
it
will
be
included
by
simply
stating
what's
provided
in
the
proposed
section,
one
which
is
just
a
reference
to
those
building
codes
and
incorporating
them
for
those
purposes.
N
2180
twelve
is
unchanged,
except
for
the
sub
five
at
the
bottom.
The
effect
there
is
to
get
rid
of
the
hundred
and
eighty
day
rule
and
just
simply
focus
on
whether
the
sign
is
abandoned.
In
other
words,
a
sign
isn't
going
to
be
abandoned
if
it's
still
being
used
to
try
to
sell
rent
lease
the
property
that
is
putting
the
sign
to
a
use
ergo,
it
is
not
abandoned
ergo.
The
concerns
with
abandoned
signs
that
implicate
the
city's
concerns
for
regulation,
meaning
you
know
the
sign
could
fall
into
disrepair,
become
an
aesthetic
eyesore.
N
Those
aren't
there
if
the
sign
is
being
used
to
still
advertise
something
it
just
so
happens
that
it's
no
longer
advertising
a
business
operating
from
that
facility.
It
is
advertising
the
sale,
so
that
is
kind
of
the
rationale
for
why
that
change
is
being
made
there
2114
now
we're
getting
into
the
list
of
signs,
which
is
some
of
the
really
strong
substance
exempt
signs,
as
as
it
shows
here
immediately
below
the
the
heading
are
signs
that
are
not
required
to
have
permits,
but
still
must
conform
to
any
applicable
provisions
within
the
chapter.
N
So
we're
talking
signs
that
are
generally,
you
know
not
worthy
of
strict
scrutiny
or
relative
scrutiny
from
the
city.
Changed
here
are
the
inclusion
of
incidental
signs
that
was
put
into
sub
five,
because
the
existing
sub
five
just
wasn't
apparent
that
that
was
much
of
a
concern,
but
you
know
that
could
very
well
change
in
the
future.
I
don't
know
vending
machines.
Are
that
big
of
a
sign.
N
N
Building
markers
are
listed
as
exempt
banners,
as
defined
below
are
listed
as
exempt,
which
is
in
keeping
with
existing
ordinance,
but
we
had
to
throw
it
in
there.
We
accidentally
struck
it
in
another
place.
Real
estate
signs
are
still
in
there,
but
the
provision
was
added
there
under
sub
ten
sub
C
that
the
real
estate
signs
must
be
moved
within
seven
days
of
the
sale
of
the
property
advertised
by
said
sign.
N
So
there
was
a
complaint
that
had
arisen
about
real
estate
signs
being
allowed
to
set
for
an
inordinate
period
of
time,
and
the
thought
was
well
similar
to
contractor
signs.
You
know
if
the
the
basis
for
having
the
sign
there
is
with
regard
to
you
know,
working
on
the
property
or
selling
the
property,
and
that
need
no
longer
exists.
Then
the
reason
for
the
sign
should
and
the
sign
itself
shouldn't
exist
at
the
property,
temporary
political
signs
they're.
N
The
changes
in
sub
twelve
are
meant
to
underscore
that
this
refers
to
temporary
political
signs
as
distinguished
from
other
forms
of
political
signs
that
could
conceivably
exist.
So
basically
we're
talking
about
those
signs
that
folks
put
up
in
there
in
front
of
their
houses
in
boulevards.
The
small
signs
sub
fifteen
clarifies
that
temporary
signs
can
be
put
out,
but
we're
talking
nonprofit
institutions
not
explicitly
private
institutions,
because
it
appears
the
intent.
If
you
look
at
the
listing
of
school,
nonprofit
membership
organizations,
philanthropic
institutions
etc
was
to
make
this
about
nonprofit
institutions.
N
However,
the
listing
of
public
or
private
institutions,
as
a
part
of
that
greater
list
would
appear
to
allow
for
any
private
entity
any
business
to
put
up
any
form
of
sign
that
they
want
to
so
long
as
it
comports
with
the
subparts
below
abcdefg.
So
because
that
didn't
appear
to
be
the
intent,
we
made
sure
to
clarify
that
sub
16
clarifies
sandwich
board
signs,
you
know.
N
Now
we
don't
have
any
specific
statement
saying
you
know
it's
not
an
exempt
sign
if
it
gets
to
be
a
certain
size,
so
in
theory
somebody
could
have
an
enormous
sandwich
sign
just
setting
out
on
the
sidewalk
and
not
be
permitted.
This
would
clarify
that
it
needs
to
be
ten
square
feet
in
area
or
less
or
excuse
me
less
than
ten
square
feet
in
area.
So,
finally,
a
traditional
flag,
not
carrying
a
commercial
message,
including
a
single
corporate
flag
or
emblem.
That's
just
a
collection
of
provisions
that
were
struck
above,
is
not
being
clarified
sufficiently.
N
2180
15
deals
with
prohibited
signs.
These
are
just
outright
illegal,
and
so
these
are
signs
that
can't
be
permitted.
It
can't
be
placed
anywhere
in
the
community.
That's
signs
with
flashing
lights,
blinking
lights.
This
gets
to
the
concerns
about
certain
types
of
electronic
message.
Centers
and
the
concern
about
distracting
electronic
message.
Centers-
and
you
know
a
number
of
other
jurisdictions.
Have
these
sorts
of
regulations
and
most
sign
sign
makers
are
well
aware
of
so.
L
N
Sub-4
deals
with
the
concern
about,
quite
frankly,
the
pudding
of
banner,
an
advertisement
on
trailers
tractor
trailers
in
the
community
setting
those
out
in
in
parking
lots.
Ostensibly,
you
know
the
question
was:
is
it
daily
use?
Is
it
you
know
something
that
is
something
that's
actually
being
used
or
is
it
being
used
as
a
sign
to
skirt
under
the
rules,
and
this
change
is
meant
to
clarify
that
that
the
vehicle
needs
to
be
actually
and
actively
used
in
the
regular
course
of
business
in
order
for
it
to
not
fall
under
a
prohibited
sign
definition.
N
Sub
6
deals
with
flags
feather
type
and
traditional
displaying
an
advertising
message
except
one
traditional
flag
bearing
a
corporate
logo
or
emblem.
The
thought
there
is
advertisement
should
be
placed
on
fixed,
fixed
signs,
and
the
proliferation
of
feather
signs
in
the
community
was
viewed
as
a
concern
both
from
an
aesthetic
and
a
safety
standpoint.
N
So
sub
8
is
just
clarified
there.
We
don't
care
about
whether
it's
advertising
or
not,
if
it's
obscene
or
pornographic
it
is
not
protected
under
the
First
Amendment
and
can
be
prohibited.
Sub
13
is
what
we're
talking
about
in
terms
of
substance
to
the
clear
view
triangle,
so
we
depicted
it
up
above
in
the
graphic
here
we
describe
what
we
are
specifically
talking
about
when
we
say
you
can't
have
a
sign
in
there,
so
that
that's
what
that
description
does
there.
N
As
for
other
prohibited,
we
clarify
that
pennant
signs
actually
is
a
stringer
of
Penance,
not
a
single
pennant,
because
that's
actually
what
the
graphic
represented
above
that
we've
always
had
an
ordinance
for
whatever
reason,
we've
defined
it
as
pennant
signs
down
here
and
that's
incorrect
flags
containing
a
curse,
advertising
message
again
getting
back
to
the
sub
point
provided
above
parasitic
signs,
that's
a
new
sign
concept.
It
is
defined
down
below
you
can
sort
of
flip
through
your
pages
to
see
that
definition
and
the
final
prohibition
is
that
is,
is
an
important
one.
N
N
Given
the
setbacks,
as
was
discussed
here
at
the
at
the
Board
of
Adjustment
meeting,
but
there
is
no
I
shouldn't
say
there
is
there
is
no,
but
you
can
create
a
pretty
small
lot
to
put
a
sign
on
the
way
our
ordinance
reads
currently
and
in
fact
there
are
examples,
there's
at
least
one
example
of
a
very
small
lot
in
our
community.
That
is
a
postage
stamp
in
every
sense
of
the
word
that
has
one
sign
on
it
and
is
used
for
that
purpose.
N
So
there
was
some
discussion
about
making
a
sign
and
accessory
use
to
a
lot,
meaning
that
you
could
only
put
a
sign
on
a
lot
if
there
was
a
structure
on
that
lot
and
there
was
a
great
deal
of
concern
articulated
from
corners
of
the
public
about
how
that
would
impact.
You
know
certain
land,
that's
that's
bare
ground
leading
into
the
community
where
signage
is
already
placed
and
is
you
know,
has
a
lot
of
visibility,
so
the
compromise
that
was
worked
out
is
what's
provided
here
in
sub
18.
N
The
idea
is
that
we
have
minimum
lot
area
requirements
as
well
as
minimum
lot
width
in
ordinance,
and
so
the
sign
must
be
placed
upon
a
lot.
Not
not
that
has
this
not
that
the
the
lot
has
a
structure,
that's
not
a
requirement,
but
the
lot
merely
needs
to
meet
the
minimum
area
and
with
for
that
zoning
district
and
that
information
is
provided.
The
zoning
district
minimum
area
requirements
are
in
21,
1001,
I,
believe
or
21
1002.
So
can
this
would
still
grandfather
existing
signs?
That's
correct
that
wouldn't
change.
N
K
Question
on
this
one,
then
is
so
for
those
properties
that
may
have
been
plaited
or
zoned
at
a
time
prior
to
the
existing
lot
size
requirements
if
they
need
to
replace
their
sign
and
their
lot
no
longer
conforms.
But
you
have
an
existing
operation,
then
I
feel
that
this
this
would
adversely
affect
those
those
Lots
are
those
businesses,
I
think.
N
I
mean
that
that
certainly
is
a
possibility.
Commissioner
I
mean
there
is
still
the
the
variance
process
which
does
get
into
kind
of
looking
at
the
zoning.
Whether
or
not
it
is
conceivable
that
a
benefit
or
a
a
beneficial
use
or
a
what
is
the
the
other
term
that
I'm
thinking
of
oh
well,
the
the
term
is,
you
know
when
you're
looking
at
a
necessary
hardship,
you
look
at
reasonable
use
or
beneficial
use,
that's
the
phrase,
and
so
the
question
would
be
I
mean
obviously
a
uses
there.
N
The
building
was
there
and
and
but
the
question
would
be
looking
at
the
zoning
right
now
because
it
was
Ruiz
owned
and
it
was
rezone
for
a
reason,
and
presumably
that
use
is
still
useable
there
you
know,
and
if
it's
not,
then
it's
potentially
open
to
variance
I
guess
is
what
I'm
kind
of
saying.
So
you
know
the
way
our
framework
of
law
reads
is
if
it
was
zone
that
way
it
had
to
have
been
for
a
reason,
and
so
these
minimum
lot
requirements
you
know,
are
in
keeping
with
the
zoning.
N
There
always
is
yep
yep.
Thank
you,
sir.
The
change
to
2180
16s
minor.
We
struck
illumination
the
thought
there
being
that
you
know
that
could
be
I
mean
depending
upon
how
broadly
you
change
that
or
you
you
construe,
that
I
mean.
Is
it
a
fundamental
change
in
illumination
or
a
slight
change?
Moreover,
do
we
want
to
essentially
penalize
folks
for
upgrading
their
signs
to
some
signs
that
are
perhaps
more
energy-efficient
when
so
long
as
they
meet
the
requirement
that
they
don't
flash?
They
don't
engage
in.
N
Not
much
has
changed
thereafter
until
we
get
to
a
new
section,
21
80
22,
taking
over
a
reserved
section.
There
is
defined
the
specifics
around
the
regulation
with
electronic
message
centers
and
what
we
mean
by
these
emcs
is
simply
a
an
electronic
sign
that
has
gradual
movements
and
that's
provided
in
sub-1,
including,
but
not
limited,
to
dissolve,
fade
scrolling
or
traveling
again,
each
of
those
terms
dissolve
fate,
etc.
Those
are
defined
in
our
ordinance,
as
proposed.
N
A
regulation
of
portable
signs,
these
provisions
were
changed
to
reflect
some
discussions
had
with
someone
within
this
portable
sign
industry,
as
well
as
the
general
public.
There
are
essentially
more
regulations
placed
upon
the
siting
of
these
particular
signs.
Moving
the
setback
from
ten
to
twenty
feet
from
any
abutting
property
line
unless
the
the
abutting
property
owner
consents
to
placement
there
at
a
closer.
N
You
know
at
a
closer
site
and
electric
signs
are
obviously
going
to
need
to
comport
to
our
AMC's
AMC
regulations.
We
also
add
additional
regulations
that
portable
signs
shall
be
separated
by
not
less
than
200
feet
from
any
other
portable
sign
sort
of,
in
keeping
with
the
off-premise
sign
regulation
that
we
have,
although
that's
500
feet
as
opposed
to
200,
and
the
additional
sort
of
punishment
of
a
failure
to
obtain
portable
sign
permit
would
result
in
doubling
of
the
permit
fee.
Now
there
is
a
notable
relaxation,
as
defined
in
sub
2.
N
Here,
portable
signs
are
prohibited
from
being
located
or
excuse
me,
I
I
should
back
up
here
so
that
that
is
an
additional.
Yes,
there's
a
regulation
as
well
as
a
relaxation,
rather
as
well
as
a
regulation,
meaning
that
we
no
longer
prohibit
off-premise
portable
signs.
However,
portable
signs
cannot
be
located
within
the
right-of-way
and
within
10
feet
of
a
curb.
N
So
there
needs
to
be
the
signs
need
to
be
backed
up
off
the
curb,
but
it
is
notable
that
there
is
that
relaxation
that
now
off-premise
portable
signs
would
be
allowed
sub
3
under
regulation
of
off
premise
signs
we'll
move
to
that
real,
quick,
there's
a
strike
there.
The
old
sub
1
is
removed
because
that's
been
changed
in
sub
2
of
21
80
23.
The
section
we
just
dealt
with
sub
3
has
then
suggested
to
be
eliminated,
because
there
was
the
the
thought
that
this
is
the
one
for
all
intensive
purposes.
N
But
this
is
the
one
or
the
other
big
one,
and
the
thought
was
that
if
some
sign
manufacturer
or
some
sign
landowner
wanting
to
put
a
sign
up,
wanted
to
put
up
a
double
billboard
that
that
sort
of
sign
could
be
brought
up
as
a
variance
before
the
board,
as
opposed
to
a
conditional
use.
That
would
make
the
approval
process
much
more
difficult.
Obviously,
comment.
L
L
Council
was
dealing
with
concentration
of
billboard
signs
up
and
down
the
highways
in
the
city
of
Watertown,
and
it
doesn't
appear
that
subcommittee
has
come
forth
with
any
recommendations
on
how
to
mitigate
or
minimize
that
and
the
immediate
concern,
and
why
we've
had
a
billboard
ban
for
all
practical
purposes
for
the
last
year.
So
so,
like
my
question,
is,
was
there
discussion
regarding
why
we
aren't
coming
forth
with
any
billboard
recommendations?
N
There
was
a
great
deal
of
agonising
done
on
this
particular
issue
in
public
meetings
and
in
the
internal
meetings
we
took
a
trolley
tour
out
to
various
areas
denoted
as
being
potential
problem
areas,
given
that
the
concentration
of
off-premise
signs
what
was
determined
at
that
time
was
in
looking
at
our
ordinance.
There
would
be
a
number
of
signs
and
in
various
problem
areas
that,
by
virtue
of
the
expansion
of
highway
212,
would
no
longer
exist
under
our
current
ordinance
structure.
N
N
So
here
there's
one
thought
that
I
had
that
I
I
guess
I
would
ask
your
feedback
on.
We
have
twenty
one,
eighty
twenty
six
we're
getting
here
towards
the
end.
Finally,
this
ostensibly
provides
that
there
are
no
signs
to
be
erected
in
the
public
right-of-way,
except
these
four
types
of
signs.
N
Now,
obviously,
you
can
see
from
your
experience
driving
out
throughout
the
community
that
this
is
kind
of
problematic
I
mean
in
the
sense
that
a
lot
of
the
temporary
signs
that
you
see
out
there
political
signs
during
the
campaign
season,
our
temporary
signs
that
are
located
within
the
right-of-way
by
being
on
the
boulevard.
So
the
question
is:
is
there
more
that
needs
to
be
put
in
here,
or
do
we
essentially
not
enforce?
K
Because
I
had
I
had
written
that
exact
thing
down,
as
you
were
talking
earlier,
specifically
on
the
temporary
political
signs
and-
and
you
do,
you
do
see
them
in
the
boulevards
and
I
guess
from
my
stance
it.
You
know
it's
not
been
something
that
we've
enforced
in
the
past
as
far
as
the
removal
of
those
signs
and
because
of
the
temporary
nature
of
them,
I
wouldn't
be
opposed.
L
L
B
L
L
L
L
N
So
I
think
at
this
point
that
wouldn't
result
in
necessarily
any
change
in
text.
It's
just
emboldened
administrative
and
city
enforcement
authority.
Okay,
thank
you.
Commissioners.
Just
go
quickly
through
the
the
remainder
here,
because
most
of
it
is
clarification,
except
for
the
definitions.
Table
one
is
changed
to
reflect
that
we
have
two
new
residential
districts
and
those
provisions
there
in
that
table
are
all
the
same
between
the
two
tables.
So
it
are
between
the
two
columns
there,
where
those
two
provisions
are
added.
The
same
is
done
to
this
next
table.
N
To
the
language
changes
in
here
are
meant
to
clarify
that.
Indeed,
once
you
go
over
the
first
level,
which
you
know
force
III
is
two
hundred
two
hundred
feet
of
frontage.
The
for
Business
Park
is
five
hundred
feet
of
frontage
that
you
are
allowed
one
additional
sign.
The
way
that
it
rate
reads
currently
is
unclear,
giving
a
range
of
five
hundred
to
a
thousand
and
then
well
what
happens
if
you
have
over
a
thousand
feet
of
frontage,
do
you
get
no
signs,
or
do
you
get
five
I
mean
you
know
so
here
it's
clarified.
N
So,
moving
on
to
the
definitions
clarified
the
definition
of
abandoned
sign
as
not
including
a
blank
sign
that
otherwise
shows
no
reasonable
indication
of
a
lack
of
maintenance.
What
this
means
is
okay,
say
we
don't
have
a
for
sale
for
lease
for
rent.
The
concern
that
the
city
appears
to
have
in
regulating
these
sorts
of
abandoned
signs
is
again
if
they
are
an
eyesore
or
if
they
might
pose
a
safety
risk,
because
they
are
not
maintained.
N
If
the
sign
shows
no
reasonable
indication
of
a
lack
of
maintenance,
then
it
is
not
going
to
be
a
safety
or
an
aesthetic
concern,
at
least
that's
the
thinking.
So
that's
how
this
definition
has
changed
here.
The
emc
definition
includes
the
terms
that
were
defined
above
or
used
above
dissolve
fade
frame
frame
effect,
scroll
transition,
travel,
the
as
I
refer
to
above
with
exempt
signs.
N
We
have
these
incidental
signs,
that's
a
new
term,
a
new
category
defined
as
signs
that
are
not
intended
primarily
for
him
or
that
are
intended
primarily
for
information,
convenience
and
safety,
not
necessarily
for
advertising
off
premise.
Signs
were
added
the
additional
language
that
would
exempt
off
premise
signs
for
nonprofit
activities,
so
basically
allowing
homeowners
business
owners
to
where
the
zoning
district
otherwise
permits
it
put
up
sign
that
advertise
nonprofits
parasitic
signs
are
defined
as
prohibited
signs
above,
and
these
are
the
three
types
of
parasitic
signs.
N
N
Or
is
it
a
permanent
sign?
That's
what
I
would
put
to
you,
because
we
do
have
an
example
of
a
an
electronic
message
center
in
the
community.
An
electronic
sign
that
has
been
placed
up
on
a
portable
storage
crate
and
our
definition
of
temporary
sign
is
any
sign
use
for
varying
periods
of
time,
which
is
not
temporary,
are
not
permanently
attached
to
the
ground
or
other
permanent
structure.
N
Well,
as
the
storage
create
a
permanent
structure
and
the
the
issue
is
that
the
way
our
ordinance
currently
reads
is
that
that
kind
of
sign
would
need
to
be
put
up
on
a
monopole
in
order
for
it
to
be
permitted
in
the
city,
so
either
it's
a
temporary
sign
lawfully
there
or
it's
a
permanent
sign
that
is
prohibited.
It's.
L
F
K
L
N
L
L
B
N
M
B
Home
occupation
standard-
you
know,
we
allow,
says
no
exterior
advertising
other
than
a
small
announcement
sign,
not
more
than
four
hundred
square
feet
and
area
mounted
to
the
side
of
the
structure
shall
be
allowed.
Do
we
need
to
redefine
sign
code,
or
is
it
fine
just
being
a
subpart
under
the
home
occupation?.
K
L
F
R
R
My
concern
is
highway
212
and
what
it
looks
like
when
you
drive
into
this
town,
I
love,
Watertown
I,
grew
up
here.
I
love
this
town
and
I
wish.
Diana
Burns
was
still
here,
because
I
commented
to
her
once
that
when
you
you
cross
under
the
freeway
and
come
into
town,
there's
absolutely
nothing
about
212.
That
would
attract
anybody
to
move
to
this
town.
Nothing.
R
You
have
got
signs
that
are
twice
as
high
as
other
signs.
You've
got
signs
all
of
the
signs
we
are
going
to
be
having
to
move
I'm
guessing
almost
every
sign
on
212
from
20
to
the
freeway
are
to
19th.
Maybe,
and
if
you
look
at
the
first
people
on
the
very
west
end
of
20
or
212,
their
signs
are
nice
and
low.
The
issue
I
I
lived
in
to
town
where
they
put
a
sign
ordinance
in
where
they
restricted
the
height.
By
how
many?
R
If
there
was
one
building
on
the
lot,
it
could
be
that
high.
If
there
were
two
buildings,
it
could
be
this
high
if
it
was
a
Walmart
or
a
Target
or
one
of
those
things,
you
could
get
a
much
taller.
One
because
you
had
a
big
lot,
if
you
had
multiple
Bill
stores
within
one
building,
you
would
still
have
just
one
site
and
that
sign
would
list
each
person.
You
wouldn't
have
five
signs,
because
there
was
five
different
businesses
there.
R
Obviously
the
business
owner
screamed
and
ranted
and
raved
all
I
know
is
whenever
I
go
to
that
community
or
any
community
who's
done
that
I'm
driving
down
the
street.
Looking
for
something
I'm
not
going
I
can
look
right
there
and
I
can
see
what
I'm
looking
for
I
think
these
business
I
understand
that
there's
an
ordinance
in
effect
on
height
and
size,
but
it's
not
enforced
because
the
business
owners
have
said
you
can't
tell
me
what
to
do.
Every
sign,
I
think
is
gonna
have
to
be
move
from.
R
R
That's
the
way,
I
feel
about
that
stupid
thing.
You're
doing
on
3rd
Avenue
there
when
they
closed
the
railroad
tracks,
but
that's
not
here
there
I
think
that
people,
if
they
move
their
signs
and
they're
getting
subsidies,
they
should
shorten
their
signs
by
a
new
sign.
Do
something
else
and
we
should
get
more
consistency,
and
maybe
you
have
that
in
the
ordinance
I'm.
Sorry,
that's.
F
F
F
We
have
to
take
public
input
and
we
have
public
input.
There
are
two
large
sign
companies
in
town,
so
a
lot
of
the
public
input
was,
you
know,
don't
restrict
us
too
much.
The
billboards
in
this
on
212
will
have
be
moved.
The
billboards
on
212
are
not
in
compliance
with
our
current
sign
ordinance.
It
specifies
they
have
to
be
on
a
single
monopole,
not
for
fence
posts
or
for
whatever
so
they're
all
going
to
have
to
change
their
structures.
F
The
double
no
boards
will
not
be
allowed
and
that's
we're
taking
baby
steps,
or
you
know
four
or
six
years
ago
they
sent
two
years
coming
up
with
a
sign
code
and
we're
trying
to
strengthen
it.
I
would
like
it
see
it
stronger
than
it
is,
but
we
have
come
to
the
end
of
a
process
where
we
had
to
compromise,
and
this
is
what
we
are
proposing.
My.
R
R
We've
got
two
years
to
maybe
work
with
the
owners.
I
I
think
you
know
if
you,
if,
if
they
want,
if
you
want
more
people
to
live
here,
so
you've
got
more
people
to
come
to
your
store
and
buy
things.
Let's
make
it
more
attractive,
let's
make
it
when
people
drive
through.
They
say
you
know
what
I'm
thinking
of
moving
to
South
Dakota
anyway.
This
looks
like
a
nice
town.
R
Maybe
I
should
you
know,
look
around
here
right
now,
I'd
keep
going
if
I
wasn't
from
here,
so
that
I'm
putting
in
my
two
cents,
I'm,
probably
late,
I
I,
don't
see
all
of
the
notices
in
the
paper
I'm
not
quite
sure,
still
where
to
look
for
them.
I
did
see
this
one,
so
I
mean
I.
Had
it
ripped
out
and
tacked
up
to
my
refrigerator
the
last
three
weeks
to
come
here
so
I
appreciate
you
listening
to
me.
R
R
D
Justin
and
Ken
may
be
under
this
under
than
the
proposed
ordinance.
What
does
the
sign?
Look
like
I
mean,
let's
say:
Jimmy's
pizza
comes
to
town,
they're
gonna
open
a
business
on
to
12.
They
now
have
to
comply
with
the
new
ordinances.
212
is
all
the
you
know.
Setbacks
have
been
blown
up
by
the
expansion
years
down
the
road.
What
does
it
look
like
so.
N
So
the
hope
is
that
there
will
be
less
signs
and
that
there
will
also
be
the
you
know:
the
eyesore
signs,
if
you
will,
will
be
taken
care
of
and
I
apologize
if
I
offend
anybody
in
you
know
for
characterizing
some
signage
as
that,
but
I
won't
name
name
name
Ziff,
you
will
so
that's
the
hope
and
also
you
know,
knowing
that
the
folks
like
can
have
the
support
of
the
council
and
the
Planning
Commission
and
Board
of
Adjustment
to
kind
of
go
after
signs.
That
would
appear
to
violate
some
of
these
provisions.
N
L
N
D
D
D
D
F
N
Thing
I
might
ask
if
I
could?
Mr.
chairman
I'd
ask
a
question
of
staff?
Ken
specifically,
can
you
know
looking
at
the
signs
that
have
come
up
for
permits,
in
the
last
say
four
or
five
years
since
the
last
signed
code,
iteration
I
mean
how
would
you
say
that
the
sign
types,
the
aesthetics
are
in
your
mind,
improving?
Are
they
being
more
sturdy?
You
know
more
I,
don't
know
responsive
to
public
concerns
generally
or
have
have
we
gone
the
other
way.
B
I'm,
sorry,
no
I
think
the
ordinance
has
been
affected,
least
it's
the
further
sturdiness
and
and
and
the
peel
of
what
they
look
like
right
now.
They're.
Definitely
improving
that
way.
But
it's
you
know
our
general
size
hasn't
changed
or
the
number
and
all
that
stuff,
but
as
far
as
aesthetically
yeah
they're
all
looking
a
lot
better
than
they
had
in
the
past
and
passes
for
friends,
post
and
a
billboard.
You
know
and.
P
That
was
a
key
factor
in
the
discussion.
When
we
did
do
the
trolley
tour
I
mean
we
looked
at
what
the
old
sign
you.
You
could
clearly
see
what
the
older
generation
of
signs
look
like
and
what
the
new
generation
science
looked
like,
and
that
was
a
key
thing
that
I
personally
took
out
of
that
conversation
from
our
ride
from
I
mean
that
the
people
that
are
associated
with
signs
and
putting
up
new
signs
really
pointed
that
out
and
I.
P
S
My
name
is
Mike
Sheehan,
I'm,
gonna,
wear
two
hats:
I'm
gonna
make
it
short,
because
there's
I've
sat
through
a
lot
of
this
stuff
and
I
I'm
on
both
sides
of
the
fence.
Here,
I
spent
40
years
on
West
Watertown
in
a
retail
business
I
understand
that
this
lady's
saying
but
I
want
to
make
sure
when
we
go
into
all
this,
that
you
respect
the
businesses
that
are
on
these
sites.
Okay,
I
am
one
of
the
people
that
own
the
billboards,
there's
not
as
many
onto
12
that
we
think
about
that.
S
I
thought
was
there
till
I
drove
it
okay
when
they
widen
the
the
road,
but
if
you
were
in
downtown
Watertown
or
if
you're
in
highway
81
North,
you
want
to
acknowledge.
Have
people
acknowledge
your
business?
That's
there.
Okay
they're
the
businesses
that
are
collecting
2%
for
the
city
they're
connecting
for
5%
for
the
state.
We
have
to
look
at
all
that
because,
when
I
read
the
paper
I
know
in
the
state
right
now
we
need
sales.
Tax
city
could
use
the
extra
money.
If
we
throw
an
example
of.
S
Let's
just
say
we
take
three
of
these
signs
down
that
have
poor
signs
on
them.
Who
do
you
pick
the
these
businesses
that
have
been
on
there
for
five
or
ten
or
fifteen
years?
How
do
you
take
a
look
at
them
and
say
you're,
not
there
anymore
you're
gone
because
of
the
ordinance
or
they
have
been
there.
We're
not
building
anymore
I
haven't
built
any
of
those
structures,
probably
in
15
years
and
I'm,
proud
to
say
that
I
had
the
foresight
20
years
ago
to
look
at
that
and
I
can
tell
you.
S
S
You
know
as
a
business
district,
it's
not
a
residential
area,
but
yet
I
respect.
What
she's
saying
you
wanted
to
look
good?
Okay,
I!
Don't
have
an
answer
for
it,
but
on
the
other
hand
you
know,
do
you
tell
Makepeace
jewelry
Pro
hearing
GuestHouse
those
type
of
businesses
use
billboard
advertising
if
we
like
it
or
not,
I,
don't
think
everybody
in
this
room
understands
that
I
didn't
understand
it
either
for
a
lot
of
years.
That's
there
Stewart,
obviously
he's
coming
into
the
business.
S
You
know
there's
a
lot
of
future
Donnelly,
but
I
think
we
have
to
respect
those
businesses
and
that's
why
I
showed
up
here
today.
Yeah
I
might
lose
a
sign
or
two
that's
not
gonna
hurt
me.
My
career
is
basically
done.
Okay,
but
I'm
here
to
defend
those
people
and
we
come
up
with
some
kind
of
a
solution
for
them.
You
know,
that's
all
I
really
got
to
say
so.
I
hope
you
take
that
into
consideration.
Okay,
thank.
D
A
All
right
good
evening,
everybody,
my
name-
is
Stuart
Stein
and
I.
Also
I'm
a
lifelong
residents
of
Watertown
and
I.
Think
it's
important
to
note
that,
while,
while
we've
participated
in
countless
meetings
here
to
formulate
this
sign
code,
even
though
we're
members
of
a
sign
company
we're
also
members
of
a
community-
and
we
also
want
the
community
to
look
to
look
nice,
we
don't
want
to
see
a
bunch
of
clutter.
We
don't
want
to
see
a
bunch
of
sign
blight
as
the
term
that
was
used
throughout
these
meetings.
A
We
wanted
to
look
good
as
well,
and
we
feel
that,
as
was
mentioned,
you
can
tell
some
of
the
signs
that
have
been
put
up
several
years
ago
that
are
still
hanging
around.
Our
hope
is
that
those
signs
will
be
eliminated
too,
with
the
expansion
of
2:12,
so
that
kind
of
just
a
process
of
elimination
through
the
growth.
We
think
that
the
existing
sign
code
and
the
new
formulated
sign
code
will
make
signs
attractive
in
the
shape
and
size
and
the
placement
of
where
they're
going
to
be.
A
I
think
it's
also
important
to
note
that
you
know
it
was
mentioned
that
there's
two
large
businesses
in
town
we've
got
120
employees
at
our
particular
business
that
are
relying
on
the
livelihood
of
producing
signs
and,
while
there's
a
balance
between
making
sure
that
the
city
looks
good.
We
also
need
to
make
sure
that
we
are
looking
out
for
the
interests
of
our
employees
as
well
and
trying
to
strike
that
balance
and
the
term
compromise
was
used.
A
lot
from
multiple
people
tonight
and
III
would
say
that
that's
exactly
right.
A
We're
happy
with
where
the
sign
code
is
that,
as
of
now
John
of
course,
would
like
to
see
it
a
little
bit
further
tightened
up
and
perhaps
it'll
get
there
someday,
but
for
right
now
it's
baby
steps
and
we
from
a
sign
community
feel
good
about
where
it's
at
and
hopefully
the
others
that
participated
in
the
numerous
meetings
feel
that
same
way
too.
I
would
just
make
a
note
as
it
relates
to
you
know
billboards
as
it
stands
two
billboards.
You
know
the
comment
was
made:
well,
not
much
as
being
done
to
address
it.
A
Well,
just
through
the
last
five
years,
we've
shared
this
information
in
the
in
the
sign
meetings.
We've
we've
actually
gone
down
in
billboards
in
terms
of
our
total
portfolio
within
the
community.
We've
actually
gone
down.
The
Hobby
Lobby
expansion
is
a
great
example
of
that
we
lost
a
great
structure
and,
as
those
other
developments
west
of
Hobby
Lobby
come
into
play.
All
those
billboards
are
gonna
be
gone
too,
and
we
fully
understand
that
and
realize
that
it's
just
a
matter
of
time.
L
A
The
biggest
change-
those
is
the
lot
size
requirement
that
you
can't
just
sell
off
a
piece
of
property
to
put
up
a
billboard.
Now
it
has
to
meet
the
minimum
lot
size
or
crime
which,
which
is
a
big
change,
because
that
is
a
loophole
in
the
signed
coda
as
it
is
today.
So
with
that
being
said,
I
guess
I
would
just
ask
for
your
consideration
know
that
there
was
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
put
into
this
for
many
parties
and
we
feel
as
though
it's
it's
a
good
compromise.
M
G
M
Travels
as
a
sign
company
and
as
folks
are
talking
about
the
expansion
of
212,
our
business
owners
proactively
seeking
you
out
are
you
starting
to
kind
of
advise
and
help
with
that
process?
Is
that
something
that
needs
to
be
facilitated
and,
of
course,
I'm
talking
as
a
very
short
timer
now
with
the
Chamber
of
Commerce,
but
something
that
that
those
sign
owners?
It's
a
major
investment
for
a
lot
of
those
business
owners
and
they're
gonna
have
to
take
that
consideration.
Is
that
something
that
that
people
are
starting
to
contact
you
about
a
little.
A
A
Almost
every
business
owner
reached
out
to
us
that's
in
some
way
shape
or
form,
and
we
were
able
to
help
facilitate
the
process
of
moving
their
sign
back
and
either
keeping
their
sign
the
same.
Just
moving
it
back
out
of
the
right
way
or
redoing
their
signs
slightly,
but
adhering
to
the
new
sign
code
or
existing
same
code.
I
would.
M
Guess
that's
gonna,
be
half
of
the
challenge
is
just
getting
all
of
those
folks
captive
enough
to
understand
that
this
is
this.
Is
the
vision
and
I
think
if
you
lay
out
the
vision,
these
are
business
people
they
want
what's
best
for
this
community,
but
we
have
to
be.
You
know,
Mike's
comments.
Respectful
of
this
is
also
their
livelihood,
and
so
we
have
to.
There
is
a
very
delicate
dance
there
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
we're
supporting
them.
K
There's
a
1-1
comment
here:
I
know
this
topic
of
conversation
is
primarily
on
signs,
but
as
I'm
looking
at
this
image
up
on
the
screen
right
now,
one
of
the
other
things
that
we
have
to
consider
is
that
aesthetically,
a
lot
of
212
is
concrete
and
without
landscaping
and
greenery,
and
something
to
make
it
more
beautiful,
you're
drawn
to
just
the
signs
specifically,
and
so
you
know,
as
we
think,
about
the
greater
aesthetics
of
the
area.
Landscaping
is
just
as
important
as
developing
a
stronger
sign
code.
F
F
J
N
L
L
F
K
J
N
Thank
you
brandy,
Thank
You,
mr.
chairman,
this
ordinance
essentially
arose
out
of
a
from
not
really
request,
but
just
a
point
brought
up
by
a
business
about.
You
know
our
restrictions
when
it
comes
to
loading
docks
and
looking
at
ordinance.
Looking
to
see
why
exactly
we
have
certain
provisions
in
law
and.
N
Thirty
two,
so
it's
just
up
I'm
sorry,
we
have
the
order
a
little
bit
askew
on
the,
but
that's
alright,
so
business
and
anti
one
district
came
to
us
and
was
looking
at.
You
know
why
we
had
certain
ordinances,
the
way
that
we
did
and
that
got
us
to
thinking
internally.
You
know
why:
what
is
it
about
loading
docks
that
are
problematic
the
potential
for
noise?
The
potential
for
aesthetic
concerns
to
some
extent,
you
know
you're,
looking
into
the
inner
guts,
if
you
will
of
sometimes
industrial
other
times
distribution
operation,
they
can
be
loud.
N
They
also
can
implicate
certain
traffic
concerns
because
you
have
vehicles
pulling
you
in
pulling
out
oftentimes
long
vehicles,
large
vehicles,
and
so
there
is
the
potential
there
to
cause
issues
safety
issues
on
the
roads.
All
of
these
things
are
important
concerns,
but
we
couldn't
quite
square
them,
given
these
safety
and
aesthetic
concerns
with
sort
of
the
broad
brush
painted
in
our
current
ordinance.
So
as
pointed
out
in
the
memo
here,
what
this
proposed
ordinance
revision
does.
N
Except
in
the
i2
zones,
and
so
this
would
allow
for
i1
and
i2
zones,
the
other
provision
we
have
in
ordinances
that
they
should
be
screened
from
view
by
various
types
of
natural
screening,
as
well
as
fence
and
earthen
screening,
and
the
thought
was
that
that
not
be
ubiquitous.
Rather,
if
the
loading
facilities
are
facing
sensitive
zone
districts
like
residential,
that's,
where
concerns
about
screening
most
come
into
play
because
even
with
commercial
zone
districts,
you
still
have
the
need
for
loading
docks.
You
know
so
I
mean
commercial
district
is
facing
a
loading
dock.
N
B
B
B
In
any
place,
right
now
in
the
eye,
you're
allowed
to
have
a
loading
dock
that
faces
the
street
and
we're
just
wanted
to
change
that
and
make
it
allowable
in
the
eye.
One
also
most
of
our
I/o
on
districts
are
onto
themselves.
We're
still
gonna
require
screening
whenever
it's
adjacent
to
a
residential.
C
L
Okay,
well
just
a
quick
comment:
I
mean
basically,
most
communities
do
have
restrictions
against
burns
and
loading
docks
that
front
public
streets
primarily
from
an
aesthetic
standpoint.
That's
the
main
main
one
of
the
main
reasons
and
those
communities
that
do
allow
for
berms
and
births
loading
births
and
docks
to
be
constructed.
They
usually
will
then
require
that
you
have
been
a
deeper
frontage
so
that
you
can
mitigate
the
impact
of
those
loading,
docks
and
birds
and
births
with
a
green
space.
L
N
One
thing,
mr.
chairman:
if
I
could
one
thing
in
ordinance
that
we
already
have
is
with
regard
to
plat
approval
of
industrial
zoned
areas,
the
Commission
and
staff
are
to
consider
the
orientation
of
you
know,
truck
loading
facilities
and
I
mean
the
concerns
there
can
range
from
safety
to
aesthetics.
L
L
F
B
This
time
we
just
come
in
yep,
we
have
a
property
that
plans
on
developing
they're
actually
in
the
business
park.
They
are
not
the
business
record
and
I
one
district.
You
know
where
the
entire
areas
is
nothing
but
industrial,
there's
nothing
but
industrial
businesses,
and
now
that
I
make
them
put
a
loading
dock
onto
a
cider
rear.
B
It's
gonna
be
a
major
expansion
of
all
the
paved
and
required
paved
area
and
I'm,
not
so
sure
that
we
want
to
all
that
additional
paved
area
if
it's
not
required
regardless,
where
they
can
just
probably
put
it
in
the
front.
Only
thing
it's
gonna
be
across
the
street
is
gonna,
be
another
business
or
another
commercial
business,
or
something
like
that.
But
now
we've
limited
it
and
our
building
time
is
always
a
factor
here.
I
mean
taking
them
through.
The
process
is
four
or
five
weeks
down
the
road.
L
F
F
L
K
D
F
F
L
F
F
D
O
D
F
D
O
Let
me
get
to
it
first
here,
so
they
wanted
to
they
can't
they
approached
us.
They
want
to
plat
this
area
here
that
is
currently
owned
by
the
methodist
camp,
to
put
a
sign
and
because
of
what
we
talked
extensively
about
the
sign
code
and
plaiting
lots
that
are
non-conforming
for
the
abuses
usage
of
signage.
We
are
directing
them
to
reap
lap
the
new
life
addition,
as
it
currently
shows
here
the
boundaries
with
the
addition
of
that
corner
piece.
Just
so,
then
it
is
being
done
in
conformance
with
all
of
the
ordinance,
the
other.
O
The
other
option
that
they've
done
previously
is
they
can
describe
this
piece
legal
by
legal
description
and
then
do
a
development
lot.
Agreement
between
the
new
life
addition
tying
that
piece
to
that
plat,
which
makes
it
conforming
to
where
they
could
put
a
sign.
We
told
them,
we
would
prefer
if
they
would
plat,
but
the
development
not
agreement.
We
let
them
know
about
that,
because
it's
been
used
previously.
N
Just
to
clarify
mr.
chairman,
for
for
those
that
are
newly
serving
the
terminology,
the
administrative
plat
is
a
plat
that
is
entirely
approved
by
shane
as
a
city
engineer,
the
ordinance
for
that
is
2400
702
and
basically,
he
is
authorized
to
administrative
leap
lad
under
SDC
11
3
6,
when
there
are
only
a
few
tweaks
that
need
to
be
performed
to
what
is
already
planted.
His
the
layman
summary
and.
P
So
that's
why
we're
recommending
a
reap
lat
and
actually
tie
those
two
pieces
that
they
want
to
exchange
into
one
parcel
so
that
it's
going
to
meet
the
size
requirements
it's
going
to
meet
all
the
things
I
didn't
want
to
just
parse
a
lot,
because
what
we
they
originally
asked
us
was
just
to
plat
that
small
triangle
and
allow
them
to
build
a
sign
on
it
and
I
said
no,
that's
probably
not
what
we
want.
So
that's
why
we're
giving
them
the
direction
we
are.
O
O
No,
it's
a
rotated
for
time.
Okay,
so
the
dash
lines
there,
you
can
see
are
the
existing
lot
lines.
The
bold
continuous
lines
are
where
they're,
making
the
adjustment
and
all
of
the
proprietors
were
part
of
the
proprietors
certificate
they
all
signed
off
on
it.
It's
just
basically
cleaning
it
up,
and
we
just
wanted
to
make
you
guys
aware
of
that,
because
that's
something
also
that
falls
under
the
administrative
plat.
P
Are
recommending
one
other
thing:
there
is
a
storm
sewer
line
that
conveys
water
from
Toby
Slough
into
Lake
Camp
Eska,
and
we
are
going
to
ask
that
this
document
get
modified
to
include
an
easement
over
that
storm
sewer
so
that
the
public
maintains
the
right
to
inspect
and
access
that
storm
sewer,
so
that
Brandi
can
point
that
out
on
the
well.
You
could
see
it
on
the
drawing
Toby
Slough
go
back
to
your
aerial.
O
P
See
where
the
pipe
is
under
the
road
so
between
the
right
white,
roofed
building
and
the
brown
roof
building
great,
where
her
pointer
is,
is
where
that
storm
sewer
goes
through.
So
that's
the
only
change
to
what
what
we're
seeing
that
we
want
to
make
sure
we
accommodate,
and
then
this
will
be
administratively
approved.