![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi_webp/iF-fDFlx51I/mqdefault.webp)
►
From YouTube: BOA & Plan Commission Meetings 02 09 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
A
You
first
item
on
the
agenda:
is
the
approval
of
the
January
19
mm
seventeen
minutes
gonna
get
a
motion
in
a
second
motion
by
McGuire
second
by
Arnold,
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposed
motion
carries
second
item
on
the
agenda.
Is
the
applicant
Watertown
School
District
14
for
doing
business
as
lati
has
asked
him
right.
B
Dia
was
requesting
conditional
use
request.
Applicant,
seeks
approval
to
construct
a
ten
thousand
four
hundred
square
foot
65
by
a
hundred
and
sixty
foot
building
in
the
are
three
multifamily
residential
district
to
be
utilized
as
a
flexible
training
space
for
any
school
program
in
need
of
lab
space
pursuant
to
21
2
2,
0,
0,
3,
1
and
21
14
or
3
3,
and
can
contingent
upon
compliance
with
the
specific
rules
governing
individual
conditional
uses.
B
We're
kind
of
getting
the
cart
before
the
horse
a
little
bit
here,
but
in
the
approval
that
you
make
today
is
going
to
be
conditioned
upon
the
plan.
Commission
rezoning
this
hour
for
zone
district
into
our
three
and
then
it's
still
gonna
have
to
go
to
the
City
Council
for
them,
for
them
to
confirm
the
rezoning
to
our
three,
but
can
I.
A
A
C
A
B
B
Five
adjacent
landowners
right.
Currently,
this
parking
lot
now
existed.
You
see
it
here
today,
they're
proposing
they'll
put
it
in
this
parking
lot
and
the
building
they're
gonna
put
in
it
right
here.
This
building
actually
has
an
alternate
for
this
part
here,
but
we're
just
asking
for
the
entire
thing
to
be
done
at
this
time.
B
A
Thank
you
is
anyone
else
here
to
speak
in
the
public
hearing,
seeing
none
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
ask
for
a
motion
and
second
for
discussion
motion
by
mr.
Arnold
second
by
mr.
Hanson,
any
other
discussion
on
any
questions.
It's
just
a
conditional
use,
not
a
variance
of
any
sort.
Seeing
none
I'll
ask
for
a
vote
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
aye
hosed
motion
carries
item
3,
Larry
and
Barbara
Rayfield,
seeking
a
variance
at
the
property
at
698,
North,
Lake,
Drive.
D
Mr.
chairman,
a
point
of
clarification:
if
I
may
you
referenced
that
this
particular
proceeding
involved,
a
variance
but
I
would
acknowledge
that
this
particular
item
on
the
agenda
for
the
Board
of
Adjustment
relates
to
an
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
building
official
and
with
the
building
official
here,
perhaps
as
a
brief
preface
before
mr.
ray
Feld
can
give
his
side
of
the
story.
B
In
order
to
remove
non-compliant
on
lawful
improvements,
which
was
the
screen
porch
atop
of
retaining
wall
of
patio
deck
by
7
3
714
staff
meeting
with
grade
fields
offered
to
purchase
part
of
the
public
access
where
they
offered
to
purchase
part
1/8
of
2014.
The
City
Council
offered
to
purchase
encroached
land
was
denied
again
1/8
of
2014
notice.
In
order
to
remove
unlawful
structures,
encroachment
by
11
1
2014,
11,
2016
Otis
that
order
again
to
set
out
to
remove
the
unlawful,
actually
Cochin
by
22:13
to
2017
and
again
1216
farmable
clarification
of
notice.
B
That
order
and
the
letter
weird
my
notes
right
here-
you
can
actually
see
on
this
picture
here.
The
area
we're
talking
about
is
this
screened-in
porch
area
right
here.
The
property
line
on
this
parcel
falls
right
along
this
owner
wall
right
there.
There
was
no
permit
issued
for
that
construction
of
that
and
there
was
no
and,
of
course
it
sets
in
to
the
side
yard
setback.
They
haven't
been
this
year
to
defer
that
I
went
in
question
with
that.
So
that's
where
at
can.
E
F
C
B
G
D
G
Okay,
okay
in
1972,
dr.
Hansen,
which
owns
the
entire
area,
that's
outlined
by
the
blue,
that
included
the
rather
in
include
the
rather
long
right-of-way
in
white
up
there.
Dr.
Hanson's
request
the
city
vacated
that
original
right
away
in
exchange
for
creating
the
new
right-of-way,
which
is
lot
23
and
24,
which
is
in
the
dark
in
the
black.
Shortly
after
that,
exchange,
game,
fish
and
parks
took
control
of
most,
but
not
all
of
the
new
right
away.
G
G
That
small
parcel
outlined
in
blue
was
occupied
and
cared
for
by
the
various
owners
in
lot
22,
which
is
where
our
home
is
given
the
law
at
adverse
possession.
This
parcel
became
owned
by
the
owners
of
lot
22
once
the
20
year
requirement
was
met
and
was
no
longer
owned
by
dr.
Hanson.
So
why
are
we
here
today?
G
We
received
a
permit,
as
Ken
said,
for
our
home
in
2009
and
was
approved
for
final
inspection
by
the
city
in
2010,
four
years
after
that
approval,
we
were
served
with
the
complaint
ordering
us
to
remove
the
retaining
wall
and
the
screen
porch,
as
the
first
notice
required.
We
met
with
the
city
staff
and
believe
this
issue
could
be
easily
settled
settled
once
our
facts
were
present.
I
was
mistaken.
Over
the
past
two
and
a
half
years,
we
have
proposed
numerous
options.
G
The
City
Council
refused
to
meet
with
us
have
made
all
their
decisions
in
executive
sessions
where
we
were
really
left
in
the
dark
and
denied
due
process.
Our
most
recent
effort
last
summer
attorney
John
Wiles
on
our
behalf,
met
with
Mayor
Thorson
agreed
on
yet
another
compromise,
which
was
again
rejected
by
Council
City
Council
in
executive
session.
G
It
wasn't
until
we
proved
to
the
council
that
they
were
violating
their
own
ordinances
in
that
they
did
not
inform
us
in
the
in
the
first
two
complaints
that
there
is
in
fact
appeals
process
and
that
that
process
must
be
an
open
meeting.
Then
the
city
repositioned
their
complaint
and
designated.
You
folks
to
hear
our
appeal
now
to
the
complaint
as
I
understand
in
Ken's
letter
of
January
25th,
which
should
be
in
your
packet.
The
retaining
retaining
wall
is
not
now
an
issue.
G
G
The
screen
porch
correct,
okay,
so
the
single
question
before
this
board
does
a
temporary
screen
porch
require
a
building
permit
in
or
does
it
violate,
the
setback
requirement
in
the
International
residence
code
I
feel
like
I've
gone
to
law
school
in
the
last
few
months
here
under
Section
r105
work
exempt
from
a
permit
one-story
detached
accessory
structures
such
as
tool
and
storage
shifts,
playhouses
and
similar
uses,
provided
the
floor
area
does
not
exceed
two
hundred
square
feet.
Our
screen,
porch
is
under
200
square
feet
it.
It
is
used.
G
G
By
contrast,
there
are
car
ports
and
setback
areas
that
are
permanently
fastened
to
main
structures
and
have
footings
which
neither
do
we,
nor
to
mention
the
jungle,
gems,
tree
houses,
storage,
sheds
and
dog
kennels,
all
of
which
do
not
require
a
permit.
Our
screen,
porch
is
not
a
three-season
of
room,
as
the
city
presents
it.
It's
a
temporary
screen
porch
used
only
for
months
a
year
and
it's
no
more
intrusive
than
the
hundreds
of
docks
and
lifts
that
might
doubt
sit
inside
yards
around
the
lake
for
eight
months
out
of
the
year
during
the
winter.
G
So
they
say
it
violates
society.
Art
encroachment
is
a
war,
as
a
structure
worthy
of
a
permit
is
a
huge
stretch.
All
we
we
have
wanted
is
to
be
treated
fairly.
Ask
yourself
what
harm
is
a
temporary
screened,
porch
causing
how
is
prohibited
us
from
us
from
using
it
for
the
four
months,
possibly
violating
any
law
or
even
an
issue
of
city
governments
concerned.
G
G
Luckily,
though,
you
folks
are
essentially
the
judges,
you
don't
work
for
the
city
you're
to
be
impartial
and
they
have.
We
have
been
putting
up
with
this
for
two
and
a
half
years
denied
our
rights
denied
all
this.
We
finally
got
to
this
point
when
I
said
I
appreciate,
being
here,
I
really
do
appreciate
being
here,
given
everything
else
around
the
lake
in
the
situation,
the
screen
porch
is
I,
don't
see
how
anyone
can
define
it
as
being
an
obstruction.
We
put
it
up
in
the
summer,
like
anybody
puts
anything
else.
D
You
members
of
the
Board
of
Adjustment.
There
are
a
couple
of
items
here
at
issue
that
I
just
want
to
touch
on
briefly
mr.
Rothfeld
characterizes
decisions
or
concepts
addressed
by
the
City
Council
throughout
the
years.
Regarding
this
issue
as
being
done
behind
closed
doors
without
due
process
and
I.
D
Think
that's
a
mischaracterization,
because
really
what
executive
session
permits
is
discussion
with
Council
on
matters
that
are
pending
litigation
and
with
the
REA
phones
having
over
the
last
six
years,
seven
years
had
multiple
councils
made
multiple
requests
of
the
city
to
think
about
purchasing
land
transferring
land.
These
were
all
the
issues
that
needed
to
be
addressed
by
legal
counsel
in
anticipation
of
possible
litigation,
as
well
as
in
contract
negotiations.
So
the
City
Council
did
nothing
wrong.
What's
that
issue
here
is
an
appeals
process
which,
as
you
know,
hasn't
been
invoked
terribly
often.
D
The
reason
why
it
hasn't
been
invoked
terribly
often
is
because,
generally
speaking,
application
of
zoning
ordinance
is
a
straightforward
affair
and
it's
got
a
word
in
the
law.
It's
called
a
ministerial
Act,
a
ministerial
Act
per
South
Dakota,
codified
law,
11
4
19
is
not
something
that
is
appealed
to
the
Board
of
Adjustment.
Rather,
what
it
is
is
it
is
a
filing
in
municipal
court
of
a
violation
of
zoning
ordinance.
What
we
have
here,
however,
is
someone
contending
that
the
building
officials
decision
is
based
on
a
wrong
interpretation.
D
Is
not
a
simple
ministerial
act
of
applying
policy
and
bringing
a
case
before
the
Municipal
Court.
Instead,
he
is
asserting
that
there
are
extenuating
circumstances
involved.
Other
facts,
including
the
ownership
of
lot
23,
which
the
city
asserts
it
owns
in
fee
title
and
even
I.
Think
mr.
Rothfeld
admitted
in
a
letter
that
he
sent
to
the
city
that
the
lot
is
subject
to
the
city's
public
access
right-of-way.
D
Now,
the
reason
why
can
prefaced
his
comments
by
saying
that
we
are
focused
upon
the
the
screened-in
porch
is
because
mr.
Rothfeld,
in
order
to
make
his
argument,
is
trying
to
bring
in
a
separate
issue
regarding
the
encroachment
now,
the
reason
why
I
suggest
to
you
not
only
as
counsel
for
mr.
vehicles,
but
also
as
counsel
for
this
body,
that
that
isn't
a
concern
that
is
germane
to
this
bodies.
Jurisdiction
is
because
that
concern
rests
in
who
owns
the
land
entitled
to
the
land
and
what
the
board
of
adjustments
role
this
is
based
upon.
D
D
D
Left
with
the
building
application
permit
the
building
permit
application.
Excuse
me
that
application
does
not
depict
anywhere
in
its
15
20,
some
odd
pages,
this
screened-in
porch.
So
the
question
is,
then,
is
this
something
that
needed
to
be
permitted
and
per
ordinance?
2102,
o
6,
sub
1
I
would
argue
that
it
does
purely
because
this
is
considered
a
structural
addition
to
the
property.
It
may
be
removable,
but
it
is
still
something
that
is
attached
to
the
structure
and
can
be
permanent
if
the
homeowner
decides
that
it
will
be
kept
permanently.
D
D
So,
regardless
of
the
ownership
interest
in
lot
23,
we
have
the
issue
of
the
screened-in
porch
not
being
permitted
at
base,
so
forget
all
about
that.
Just
focus
on
the
permitting
part
of
it-
and
he
I
would
argue,
is
in
violation
there.
The
second
way
that
this
screened-in
porches
in
violation
is
Ken
touched
on
is
the
side
yard
setback
which
is
9
foot
in
an
r1
zoning
district.
D
As
this
is
now
SDC,
L
11
4-1
allows
the
city
council
to
adopt
zoning
ordinances
that
set
the
percentage
of
a
lot
that
may
be
occupied
the
size
of
the
arts,
courts
and
other
open
spaces.
So
what
we
have
in
zoning
ordinance,
saying
9
foot
setback
is
required
is
entirely
within
the
authority
of
the
city
to
promulgate
now
again
that
9
foot
setback
is
in
our
ordinance,
21
dot,
ten,
oh
one
sub
one
and
then
going
to
the
definition
of
setback
in
our
zoning
ordinance.
D
D
Indeed,
if
you
look
at
another
definition
in
chapter
21
90
that
4-yard
required
a
setback,
it
is
defined,
as
quote,
that
unoccupied
portion
of
a
side,
front
or
rear
yard
nearest
the
designated
lot
line
and
being
the
minimum
width
or
depth
required
in
the
district
in
which
it
is
located
unless
otherwise
specified
in
this
ordinance.
There
again,
the
key
phrase
being
lot
line.
I
think
this.
D
This
board
knows
that
in
circumstances
where
lot
lines
need
to
be
adjusted,
there's
a
process
for
that
there's
a
process
for
being
able
to
modify
your
setbacks
in
a
case
where
you
may
have
bought
additional
land,
and
that
is
through
either
a
platter,
E
plat
or
through
a
development
lot
agreement
and
a
development
lot.
Agreement
is
defined
again
in
chapter
21
90,
as
an
agreement
joining
one
or
more
Lots
together
as
one
parcel
for
the
purpose
of
development,
they
must
be
signed
by
the
plan
Commission
or
its
designee.
D
In
this
case,
we
do
not
have
either
of
those
two
items
that
are
lawfully
lawful.
We
allow
for
a
lot
line
to
be
changed,
so
what
we
are
left
with
is
a
nine-foot
setback
with
the
measuring
stick
being
the
lot
line.
This
porch,
the
screened-in
porch,
clearly
is
an
obstruction
in
that
side.
Yard
I
then
point
you
to
ordinance
21
period,
21.6
to1,
which
lists
the
permitted
obstructions
and
required
yards
sub.
D
A
and
sub
see
do
not
reference
any
kind
of
covered
porch
as
being
an
exception,
those
being
the
relevant
side,
yard
setback
obstructions
that
are
permitted.
Now
you
may
question
why
it
is
that
we're
bringing
this
up
as
mr.
Lai
fell
points
out.
He
can
take
it
down,
put
it
back
in
his
house
at
will.
He
mentions
that
it's
akin
to
a
dock
or
place
structure
outside
the
fundamental
difference
between
what
examples
mr.
D
ray
Feld
brought
up-
and
this
particular
circumstance
I
would
venture
is
when
we
talk
about
structural
when
you
can
have
an
additional
living
space
appended
to
your
house
and
willy-nilly,
decide
to
stick
it
on
tear
it
down
or
what
have
you?
It
effectively
negates
your
ability
to
manage
ordinances,
zoning
ordinances
under
the
law,
because,
if
you
think
about
it,
somebody
else
could
have
a
similar
modular
type
of
home
living
space,
just
slap
it
on
the
side
of
the
house
right
that
adds
to
their
square
footage,
but
they
never
came
to
you
for
it.
D
They
never
came
to
you
to
account
for
the
fact
that
it
has
impacts
upon
their
neighbors.
They
could
put
that
screened-in
porch
right
up
to
the
lot
line
right
past.
The
lot
line,
as
the
city
would
argue,
mr.
ray
fell,
did
in
this
case.
So
this
is
not
an
innocuous
thing
that
mr.
ray
Feld
is
proposing
here.
I
would
argue.
Rather,
this
is
a
very
ripe
case
that
needs
to
be
dealt
with
by
the
Board
of
Adjustment,
because
it
sets
an
important
precedent.
What
approving
mr.
bule's
is
opinion
would
do
is
really
one
thing.
D
It
would
make
this
particular
requirement
that
mr.
ray
felt
not
put
the
porch
back
up
a
ministerial
act
for
mr.
Buchholz,
which
would
mean
that
I
would
argue
that
if
mr.
ray
fell
were
to
put
the
screened-in
porch
back
up
after,
if
you
decide
that
mr.
vehicles
is
interpretation
is
correct,
that
we
would
then
be
able
to
proceed
to
Municipal
Court
with
the
zoning
ordinance
violation
directly.
So
that
is
why
I
think
again.
D
It's
important
for
this
board
to
address
this
issue
and
I
guess
I
would
end
by
simply
noting
that
ordinance
would
also
bind
mr.
ray
felt
to
a
continuing
obligation
to
keep
his
side
yard
free
of
obstructions
per
21
period
600
to,
and
so
that
is
another
basis
for
why
the
board
needs
to
act,
to
make
sure
that
that
ordinance
is
being
adhere
to
as
well.
Thank.
A
D
A
A
D
You
have
a
common
definition
of
structural
which,
from
dictionary.com
means
quote
of
or
relating
to,
structure
pertaining
or
essential
to
a
structure.
End
quote
the
reason
why
I
think
that
is
proper
definition
of
structure,
and
we
don't
define
it
precisely
in
ordinance,
but
when
we
don't
and
when
it's
something
that
is
commonly
defined,
we
go
to
a
common
definition.
D
The
reason
why
I
feel
that
that
is
the
proper
definition
actual
is
that
if
you
don't
view
that
as
the
proper
definition
where
it's
pertaining
to
relating
to
the
structure-
and
you
say
well,
it
needs
to
be
these
structure.
Well.
Is
that
a
retaining
wall-
or
you
know
something
that's
a
load-bearing
wall
is?
Is
that
something
that
is
essential
to
the
structure
that
that's
the
only
thing
that
we
can
view
as
being
the
four
walls
of.
A
D
B
B
B
E
G
G
G
I'd
like
to
clarify
you,
okay
back
I,
want
to
clarify
something
in
terms
of
the
city
and
saying
that
using
executive
session
is
appropriate
because
we
had
legal
counsel.
We
did
not
have
legal
counsel
until
we
got
to
a
point
where
we
were
totally
frustrated.
The
first
complaint
served
on
us
said:
tear
you
know,
essentially,
tear
down
the
retaining
wall,
tear
down
the
screen,
I,
don't
even
know
if
it
mentions
green
porch.
G
It
probably
did
the
real
issue
that
the
city
is
addressing
is
they
think
that
the
retaining
wall
is
built
on
city
property
and
they
don't
want
anything
built
on
city
property.
The
the
screen
porch
was
really
not
ever
an
issue.
It
wasn't
the
real
reason
for
what
they
did.
The
complaint
did
not
have
an
appeals
process
and
I
asked
them
the
then
city
attorney.
They
said
we,
you
know
I
ken
has
authority,
but
he
doesn't
have
authority
to
throw
me
in
jail,
and
that's
also
by
the
way
attached
to
the
complaint.
G
Is
your
penalty
and
it
can
be
up
to
30
days
in
jail.
I
mean
we
got
this
cold
one
day.
I
worked
with
them.
I
thought
you
know,
wants
people
understand.
We
follow
a
defense
line
that
had
been
there
for
45
years,
we
weren't
building
on
city
property
we
weren't
trying
to
take
away
city
property.
We
were
never
allowed
to
present
that
information
to
the
city.
We
did
not
have
an
attorney,
but
they
made
decisions.
During
that
time
we
have
letter
saying
the
city
decided
to
do
this.
G
That's
a
decision
and
from
what
rumors
I
heard
there
was
actually
votes
taken.
It
wasn't
unanimous,
so
we
were
there's
a
frustration
of
saying,
tear
down
your
retaining
wall
guy
and
there's
no
other
recourse,
just
and
frankly
for
that
year
and
a
half
I
getting
this
dialogue
going.
But
every
time
I'd
leave
home
for
a
few
days
and
come
back
I
had
a
concern.
My
first
thing,
I
looked
at
was
that
retaining
wall
to
see
if
the
city
had
plowed
it
under
I
mean,
but.
G
A
D
G
Up
to
up
to
January
25th
and
can
redefine
what
he
was
doing
with
the
retaining
wall,
we
were
supposed
to
tear
that
down.
That's
why
we
decided
we
needed
to
discuss
this.
We
were
not.
This
city
law
requires
the
city
to
put
an
appeals
process
in
there.
We,
when
we
pointed
that
out
then
things
as
I
explained,
then
things
change
we,
so
we
were
able
to
get
in
front
of
you.
I
disagree
with
Justin's
definition
of
structure.
It's
a
rough
similar
to
the
roof
of
the
building.
No
think
it's
a
canvas
roof!
G
It's
screens
that
we
had
Dakota
window
build.
That's
it
up,
put
a
canvas
roof
over
it
and
we
use
it
during
the
summer
to
say:
that's
a
structure,
it's
not
a
living
space.
It's
not!
You
know
when
I
look
at
what's
exempt
from
from
building
permits,
play
houses
are
mentioned
and
that
type
of
thing
it
would
really
fall
more
under
that
it's
not
attached
to
the
house.
It's
a
it's.
An
independent
structure.
I
do
have
four
thumb
screws
that
I
do
hold
the
canvas
up
on
the
house.
G
G
C
G
Lifts
which
many
are
set
inside
back
areas
and
its
purpose
of
not
blocking
a
setback
area
is,
you
know,
they're
longer
they're,
they're,
longer
they're,
more
structural
than
what
we
have
there.
That
there's
doesn't
come
apart
and
you
know
it's
stored
in
the
garage,
so
I
I
can
understand
why
this
is
here
and
why
you're
saying
it's
a
structure
and
it
violates
this,
but
I
think
we
have
to
look
at
the
fairness
of
it
and
the
standards
of
the
community
and
in
no
way
this
should
be
an
issue
before
this
board.
Okay,.
A
Well,
I
tell
you
what
we've
I
think
we've
heard
enough
on
it.
I
think
we've
got
a
pretty
good
background
on
it.
We'll
have
some
questions.
Is
anyone
else
here
to
speak
in
the
public
hearing
scene?
So
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
ask
for
a
motion
and
a
second
for
discussion.
What
the
motion
is
is
to
uphold
the
building
officials
decision
to
have
that
removed.
He's
not
here
asking
for
a
variance
to
put
the
structure.
A
E
B
E
B
E
A
permit
okay,
now
I
want
to
go,
buy
an
awning
which
people
have
around
town
I
want
to
screw
that
awning
on
the
side
of
my
house
and
when
it's
sunny
I
want
to
pull
that
awning
out.
But
then,
of
course,
the
mosquitoes
get
bad
in
the
evenings.
I
maybe
want
to
pull
a
screen
around.
That
does
that
require
building
permit,
and
is
that
us
does
that?
Does
it
require
building
permit
and
is
that
structural.
B
A
The
that's
the
footprint
of
the
structure,
so,
if,
if
we,
if
we
look
and
think
we
may
have
moved
into
an
area
where
there's
certain
types
of
I'm
gonna
say
pseudo
structures
that
may
be
able
to
be
in
the
side
yard
that
we
would
think
would
be
conventional
and
normal.
We
have
to
change
our
code
to
approve
those
to
be
put
in
that
insider.
We
have
to
modify
our
code
a
little
bit
if
those
are
to
be
allowed
in
that
setback.
B
Now
and
you
couldn't
go
like
and
buy
a
canvas,
tent
structure,
it's
taking
your
backyard,
those
are
strictly
prohibited
by
our
code.
You
were
not
allowed
the
canvas
structures.
Oh
no,
you
got
a
kid
he's,
putting
up
a
tent
and
he's
leaving
up
for
a
week.
That's
one
thing:
we're
not
going
to
bug
you
about
that.
But
if
you
put
a
structure
of
a
camera
structure,
you
know
a
4
by
10
or
10
by
20
or
whatever
those
are
primitive.
We've
shut
those
down
many
many
times
throughout
the
town,
I've
had.
B
E
E
G
D
I
D
D
D
A
F
I
A
J
A
D
E
F
F
A
E
Part
of
it
is,
we
only
have
four
people
here
tonight.
Normally
we'd
have
seven,
so
you
know
that
I
don't
know
how
the
other
people
how
the
rest
of
them
would
feel
either,
but
and
then
the
length
of
it
I
would
look
at
it.
If,
let's
say
you
came
back
with
a
variance,
may
I
think
we'd
have
to
continue
putting
it
up
for
two
weeks,
but
you're
gonna
have
a
family
reunion.
Are
you
gonna
put
it
up
the
first
of
May
and
take
it
down
the
end
of
October.
A
A
K
K
F
F
F
K
I
A
You
first
item
on
the
agenda:
is
the
approval
of
the
agenda?
Could
I
get
a
motion
in
a
second
motion
by
mr.
McGuire
second
by
mr.
Arnold,
all
in
favor,
say
aye.
Those
motion
carries
second
item.
Is
the
approval
of
the
minutes
from
the
January
5th
2017
meeting
motion
by
mr.
Arnold
second
by
mr.
Hanson,
home
favor,
say
aye
opposed
motion.
Carries
third
item?
Is
a
resolution
amending
title
21,
21
city
ordinances
in
regard
to
gambling
and
casino
establishments.
D
I'm
sorry
about
that
commissioners,
so
the
genesis
of
this
proposal
before
you
came
from
some
research
done
on
another
item
for
the
city.
There
is
some
question
as
to
the
way
that
gambling
establishments
and
liquor
licenses
intertwine
and
in
doing
some
research
on
the
issue.
I
came
to
find
case
law
from
2011
from
ass
up
from
the
South
Dakota
Supreme
Court,
which
established
that
Anisa
palate
EES
could
not
regulate
gambling
institutions.
D
The
court
in
this
case
this
2011
case
construed
a
Sioux
Falls
city,
ordinance,
zoning
ordinance
much
like
what
we
have
here
and
sided
with
the
Department
of
Revenue,
the
Department
of
Revenue
contended
that
the
ordinance
was
invalid
because
it
invaded
the
sovereign
prerogative
of
the
state.
The
state
argued
that
gambling
is
their
jurisdiction,
that
they
have
in
legal
terms,
preempted
the
city's
ability
to
regulate
in
that
area
and
the
court
agreed.
D
The
Court
did
note,
however,
that
there
are
two
places
and
I
think
I.
Note
that
in
my
memo,
two
places
where
the
city
effectively
retains
the
ability
effectively
to
help
dictate
where
these
gambling
institutions
are
located.
First,
there
is
still
the
ability
of
the
city
to
determine
locations
of
alcohol
licensees
and
that,
because
the
gambling
license
is
effectively
attached
to
the
alcohol
license,
it's
a
certification
attached
to
the
alcohol
license
that
that
allows
the
the
city
to
be
able
to
regulate
placement.
D
There
is
also
a
statute
that
the
City
Council
can
reference
whenever
there
is
an
alcohol
license
with
a
gambling
certification
before
it,
and
so
there
are
options
available
to
regulate
it.
It's
just
that
when
we
have
in
our
zoning
ordinances,
unique
regulations
that
pinpoint
gambling
institutions
and
say
either
they
are
excluded
uses
or
they
are
conditional
uses.
That
is
a
regulation
that
invades
the
province
of
the
state
according
to
the
South
Dakota
Supreme
Court,
so
that
for
that
reason,
I
suggested
that
those
references
and
our
zoning
ordinance
to
gambling
and
casino
establishments
be
struck.
So.
A
D
L
You
same
thing:
one
thing
that
I
would
venture
a
guess
and
I,
don't
know
if
just
that
agree
or
not,
I
would
say
that
it's
entirely
likely
that
you
would
figure
that
a
casino
based
on
what
state
law
is
as
far
as
we're
what
you
can
and
can't
do
in
reference
to
that
a
casino
would
be
considered
an
accessory
use
at
that
point
to
a
bar
or
tavern,
and
that's
basically
it.
That
may
be
something
you
may
want
to
list
into
your
ordinances
that
they
are
considered
as
a
accessory
use
to
those
things.
D
D
E
M
E
D
E
We
can't
do
that
because
in
Sioux
Falls
there
was
a
court
case
and
they
were
struck
down
and
they
had
to
cut
him
out.
I
said
I
believe
the
people
of
Watertown
prefer
to
have
a
program
like
that
and
I
said
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
we'll
keep
doing
it
until
somebody
tells
us,
we
can't
do
it
and
we
did,
and
we
did
it
for
years
and
probably
still
doing
that
we're
singing
Christmas
carols
and
things
and
school
programs.
So
that's
why
I
challenge
you
with
that?
E
D
That's
just
my
personal
opinion,
but
if
I'm
a
commissioner
I
on
a
personal
level
empathize
with
this
viewpoint,
you
know
and
I
can
tell
you
that
the
reason
why
the
Department
of
Revenue
I
feel
strongly
about
this.
The
reason
why
they
challenged
this.
The
reason
why
they
had
the
court
established
this
in
law
was
the
very
concern
that
you
just
touched
on.
If
localities
were
allowed
to,
determine
where
gambling
establishments
could
be
in
the
state
of
South,
Dakota
there'd
be
a
lot
of
quote/unquote
dry
communities.
D
D
B
It
was
triggered
a
little
bit
by
one
of
our
conversations
at
one
of
our
Tuesday
morning
meetings
when
we
had
a
request
in
the
Gateway
district
for
somebody
to
put
in
a
casino
license,
and
we
denied
it
to
him
and
said
well,
that's
prohibitive,
of
within
our
ordinance
and
then
yeah
part
of
that
is
when
Justin
then
did
a
little
more
research
and
said,
guess
what
we
can't
say
they
can't
have
it.
City
Council
might
be
able
to
regulate
by
adoption
of
the
liquor
license,
but
up.
A
To
this
time,
when
somebody
wants
to
up
to
this
time
when
somebody
wants
to
put
a
video
lottery
establishment-
and
it
always
has
come
to
the
Planning,
Commission
and
we've
said
yep-
it's
an
applicable
use
in
the
zoning
ordinance
and
then
it
goes
to
the
City
Council
for
the
alcohol
side.
So
we've
had
two
boards
that
had
different
sets
of
eyes
on
the
same
and.
B
A
B
D
A
A
Motion
by
mr.
McGuire
say
goodbye
mr.
Hansen
I
agree
with
Dennis.
Sometimes
I
look
and
go
I,
don't
want
to
change
all
our
ordinances
unless
we
have
to
because
it
allows
the
common
people
of
the
community
and
multiple
boards
to
have
their
eyes
on
something,
and
we
have
less
we're
less
likely
to
make
mistakes.
The
more
people
that
look
at
it,
but
in
this
case
you're
assuring
us
that
it
still
will
come
before
two
boards,
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
City
Council.
It.
A
A
If
it's
in
the
motion
that
it's,
we
that
it
is
linked
to
an
alcohol
license,
so
they
can't
fly
under
the
radar
and
then
we
unintentionally
have
one
put
where
we
don't
intend
it
to
be
so
the
motion
the
motion
would
be
to
approve
it
as
as
written
with
these
the
assualt,
the
guarantee
that
they
will
be
linked
to
an
alcohol
ice
wine
license
of
what
sort
I
have
a
motion.
Oh
my.
A
J
K
The
petitioners
submitted
an
application
and
petition
On
January
11
2017,
requesting
approval
for
annexation
and
C
3
highway
commercial
zoning.
The
adjacent
zoning
designation
is
also
C
3.
The
adjacent
public
right-of-ways
will
be
included
in
the
annexation
and
zoning
of
the
property.
It
meets
all
the
requirements
of
a
C
3,
4
C
3
minimum
lot
requirements.
Municipal
utilities
will
provide
service
to
the
annex
property,
there's
4.1
acres
involved.
K
A
F
A
See
mr.
Falk
routes
is
here
any
changes
from
what
we
talked
about
before
everything
is,
as
we
said
before,
okay,
and
what
we're
doing
right
now,
we're
not
we're
not
looking
at
any
plots
or
any
Lots
or
anything
all
we're
doing
is
we're.
We'll
have
two
votes.
First
on
the
annexation
in
the
city
limits
of
Watertown
and
second
is
a
c3
zoning
as
and
everything
around.
It
is
already
C
three
correct
little
Business
Park
on
one
side,
yep.
F
E
A
Come
on
I'll
reopen
the
public
hearing
come
on
up.
Oh
that's
for
the
preliminary
plan,
not
for
the
zoning
and
annexation.
Okay,
I'll
leave
the
public
hearing
closed.
I
have
motion
by
mr.
McGuire
did
have
a
second
sang
goodbye.
Mr.
Dahle
discussion
we
looked
at
this
couple
weeks
ago.
It
looks
like
it's
C
3,
highway,
commercial,
no
questions,
I'll
ask
for
a
vote
on
the
annexation.
All
in
favor,
say.
Aye
opposed
motion
carries
huni
a
motion
in
a
second
for
the
zoning
motion
by
mr.
Dahle
second
by
mr.
McGuire.
A
K
Okay,
so
then,
this
is
what
we
brought
to
you
guys
as
a
discussion
item
last
meeting
on
January
10.
So
the
petitioners
submitted
preliminary
plans
on
January
26,
requesting
approval
of
new
venture
a
third
edition.
This
plan
has
been
brought
before
you
previously
as
new
business
during
the
January
19th
Planning
Commission
meetings,
Scott
Calvert
of
Austin
engineering
and
Bill
Folker.
It's
made
some
changes
to
the
preliminary
plan.
They
are
proposing
approval
of
the
preliminary
plan
that
was
conceptually
brought
to
you
at
the
previous
meeting
for
discussion
and
the.
K
That's
the
drainage
will
address
that
they
brought
in
some
revised
drainage
plans
and
then
calvert
address
concerns
mentioned
by
the
board
and
took
them
to
consideration
their
recommendations.
K
K
For
a
c3
district,
the
plan
will
create
six
lots
and
lot.
Four
is
the
detention
pond
that
which
will
be
dedicated
to
the
city
proposed
60-foot
right-of-way,
in
conformance
with
the
jacent
developments
city
standards
has
been
66-foot
for
public
right
of
ways,
but
that's
that
one
of
those
things
that
we
talked
about
since
it
conforms
with
what's
existing
that
that's
something
to
keep
in
mind,
proposing
36-foot
public
streets
on
proposed
35th,
Street,
Street
southeast
and
proposed
7th
Avenue,
South
East,
and
then
proposing
a
28
foot.
Private
drive
on
lot.
Six.
K
K
K
N
I'll
I'll
clarify
a
couple
things
as
well,
so
what
I
just
want
to
briefly
point
out
is
what
subs,
what
has
changed,
since
the
previous
concept
that
you
looked
at
is
if
you
notice,
where
the
private
drive
cools
north
and
south
along
the
western
edge
of
this
plan
and
then
turns
into
seventh
avenue
south
east.
That
became
a
turn.
N
Instead
of
the
previous
version
we
brought
before
you
had
a
roadway
going
to
the
west,
and
the
developer
was
able
to
prove,
through
his
engineering
team,
that
two
things
were
were
impractical
about,
that
we
were
going
to
create
a
lot
that
originally
was
maybe
going
to
be
earmarked
for
a
potential
stormwater
pond.
They
couldn't
find
that
the
stormwater
pond
would
be
feasible
in
that
location,
and
so
we,
as
staff,
had
concern
over
forcing
them
to
have
a
non-compliant
lot
that
wouldn't
even
be
sellable,
wouldn't
fit
within
the
c3
district.
N
So
then
we
revised
our
our
plan
to
make
that
a
curved
intersection
instead
of
proposing
a
street
going
back
to
the
West
I,
just
wanted
to
make
that
clear.
Why
that
changed,
because
I
again
I
didn't
want
to
create
a
non-conforming
unsellable
lot,
so
we
just
incorporated
that
into
the
lot
one
so
that
he
didn't
lose
land
unnecessarily.
N
Well
that,
yes,
that
was
what
he
was
bringing
forward.
So
one
of
the
other
things
that
changed
is
and
his
previous
version.
They
requested
a
32
foot,
white
street
width
and
we
did
not
deny
that
at
the
time.
But
what
I
did
do
is
request
that
they
review
to
make
sure
that
the
size
of
vehicles
and
the
turning
movements
could
be
accommodated
with
that
proposal
and
what
they
found
was
that
they
needed
to
do
a
little
bit
wider,
Street
section.
So
we
have
a
proposed
street
with
just
over
37
feet
wide
on.
N
K
E
F
J
B
A
C
A
D
Mr.
Patel,
the
jurisdiction
of
this
plane
Commission,
is
to
look
at
uses
in
the
community
to
look
at
plans
to
see
if
they
comport
with
our
laws
regarding
zoning
ordinance.
The
matter
that
you're
discussing
is
a
contract
concern
and
contractual
matters
are
generally
dealt
with
in
Circuit
Court.
If
there
is
an
issue
that
you
have
about,
whether
this
is
transgressing
the
the
contract
provision
or
not,
I
would
suggest
obtaining
counsel,
and
you
know
you
know
pursuing
your
options
that
way.
D
I
A
N
Six,
okay,
so
one
other
item
that
I
want
to
point
out
on
the
resolution
that
you're
about
to
take
action
on
is
we
do
we.
We
did
request
some
additional
stormwater
calculations
and
related
items
from
the
developer
and
his
engineer-
and
we
just
got
that
this
morning,
so
we
typically
worded
the
resolution
that
the
plan,
or
that
the
resolution
allow
us
for
time
to
review
that
and
make
sure
that
that
work
is
perfected
before
platting
happens,
so
it
we
did.
N
A
K
K
F
A
N
So
the
the
preliminary
plan
for
this
development
was
approved
in
2015.
You
know
it
was
something
that
this
board
took
action
on,
sometime,
I,
think
in
May
or
June
of
2015,
and
so
this
this
is
the
ultimately
you
know
the
Platte
that's
coming
forward
out
of
the
resolution
that
was
signed.
In
fact,
the
the
resolution
that
that
is
related
to
this
plat
is
the
18th
of
June
2015.
N
So
with
that
I
guess,
I
I
do
want
to
make
reference
to
that
resolution
that
you
passed
on
June
18th
of
2015
as
it
had
several
points,
11
in
fact
that
or
tied
to
that
approval.
The
preliminary
plan-
and
there
are
a
few
items
that
have
changed
since
that
resolution-
one
is
the
developer
and
city
staff
are
working
together
to
create
a
regional
pond
that
would
take
care
of
the
water
quality
and
the
two-year
stormwater
retention
and
management,
and
so
that,
essentially,
is
not
a
part
of
this
plat
any
longer.
N
However,
it's
up
to
staff
to
make
sure
that
this
city,
stormwater
provisions
are
accounted
for
and
so
we're
working
for
a
new
location
for
the
storm
pond.
It's
not
gonna
be
contained
within
the
plotting
it
plaited
area
that
you're
looking
at
today,
but
it's
gonna,
be
a
better
end
result
for
the
city
in
the
community,
where
this
stormwater
pond
will
end
up
so
I
can
ask
Morse
or
answers
more
specific
questions.
If
you
have
you've.
A
Talked
about
that
before
we've
taught
you
and
I
have
talked
about
that
before
that.
It
wouldn't
be
nice
that
if
each
small
area
didn't
have
to
retain
their
own
water,
if
there's
more
of
a
regional
area
and
they
all
contributed
to
that
area
and
that's
what
you're
working
with
them
on
and
you're
comfortable
with
that
all
Lots
compliant
Brandie.
As
far
as
size,
size,
setback,
width,
length,
yep,.
K
Are
only
the
access
points
were
another
concern
that
were
addressed
on
the
resolution
and
we
made
sure
to
account
for
that
in
the
certificates
that
they
would
be
allowed
to
driveways
per
block
face.
But
the
block
face
to
find
us
no
less
than
300
feet
or
330
feet
just
because
in
their
preliminary
plan,
what
they
showed
that
got
approved,
that
was,
there
was
more
driveways
than
you
guys
were
willing
to,
or
the
board
at
that
time
was
willing
to
accept.
A
A
C
A
K
So
we
held
a
design
review
team
meeting
on
February
2nd
and
we
also
have.
We
also
received
a
plat
of
stony
point
third
edition
in
July
2016,
where
we
sent
the
developer
and
property
owner
a
letter
addressing
our
concerns
with
that
plat,
and
we
can
compare
the
two
later
in
the
discussion.
But
basically
our
design
review
team
takeaways
was
that
we'd
like
to
prove
that
the
easement
road
can
support
75,000
pounds
for
fire
code
and
if
they
were
to
rescind
their
current
preliminary
plan
of
stony
point
that
was
approved
with
conditions
and
then
potentially
resubmit.
N
N
Where
I'm
at
with
this
or
well
the
reason
I
brought
this
up
for
discussion
is
what
we're
receiving
from
the
developer
our
smaller
portions
of
the
preliminary
plan,
but
don't
address
all
of
the
issues
and
don't
have
full
compliance
with
the
preliminary
plan
that
was
passed
by
this
board
and
so
what
I'm,
struggling
with
and
and
trying
to
get
direction
from
so
I
give
the
developer
and
his
engineering
staff
some
type
of
feel
for
where
or
what
what
we
think
can
happen.
I'll
just
give
you,
for
instance,
then
we'll
toggle
back
and
forth.
N
Okay,
so
so
this
is
a
variation
of
the
preliminary
plan,
and
all
it
really
essentially
does
is,
wants
to
define
three
more
residential
lots
issues
with
it.
It
doesn't
designate
any
more
public
right
away
which
would
comply
with
the
preliminary
plan.
This
is
now
called
a
accessing
utility
easement
as
well
as
this
area
is
here.
N
N
N
Was
a
version
we
got
and
our
response
was
that
it,
it
still
didn't
conform
completely
with
the
preliminary
plan
and
essentially
what's
different.
Is
it's
only
a
portion
of
the
preliminary
plan
and
it
doesn't
account
for
that
second
roadway
out
that
we
had
discussed
in,
and
things
like
that
and
and
where,
where
we're
at
as
a
staff
is
we
recognize
all
the
effort
that
was
done
in
the
previous
Planning
Commission
meetings
and
all
that
that
did
direct
it
to
get
to
that
more
full-blown?
N
N
Two
is
now
an
out
lot
that
encompasses
the
whole
lower
half
of
that
and
what's
still
frustrating
for
from
me
as
a
director
of
the
staff,
and
we
seem
to
have
pitched
and
hold
the
whole
area
into
one
concept
and
my
response
to
the
developer
is
getting
more
difficult
because
we're
just
automatically
categorically
saying
no.
Oh
each
time
we
receive
something,
I
think
what
what
I
want
you
guys
to
weigh
in
on
is
ultimately
someday
and
if
you
can
go
to
the
GIS,
drawing.
N
B
N
N
Decides
to
develop
the
the
space
between
it,
and
so
what
I'm
asking
is?
What
is
the
wishes
of
the
board?
I
mean
we
had
this
previous
design
that
took
a
roadway
all
the
way
down
through
Indian
Hills.
Was
that
right
or
kerreri
hills?
Excuse
me,
Indian
Hills
of
Sioux,
City,
Iowa,
sorry,
Prairie,
Hills
development
and
I
still
could
accept
that
as
a
ultimate
plan.
But
if
that
never
happens,
we
are
basically
freezing
anything
in
everything
up
there
and
I'm
not
just
worried
about
new
lots,
which
is
what's
being
proposed
up
there.
N
We're
also
going
to
have
very
minimal
service
that
the
city
can
provide
to
the
five
lots
that
are
already
developed
up
there.
So
I'm
just
bringing
this
out
for
discussion
I
can
keep
categorically
saying
no
to
things
that
didn't
that
don't
align
with
that
previous
preliminary
plan
or
what
I'm
while
I
steered
the
conversation
to
us.
Maybe
we
need
to
abandon
the
the
other
preliminary
plan
at
some
point
actually
becomes
null
and
void
in
three
years
anyway.
N
I'm
sorry
answer
and
I
think
the
I
can
say
with
a
feral
level
of
confidence
that
the
idea
of
the
channel
is
behind
us.
I.
Don't
think
that
there's
going
to
be
a
proposal
for
another
channel
in
fact
he's
cat
what
I
think
that
he
would
be
content
to
just
do
a
very
minor
development
here,
but
with
the
preliminary
plan
that
I
have
to
consider
now,
that's
and.
L
A
The
board,
my
opinion,
is,
you
know
when
we
develop,
we
normally
develop
from
the
inside
out.
This
is
being
developed
from
the
outside
in
where
we
have
the
farthest
Lots.
First,
you
know
as
I
understand
the
way
this
has
been
developed
in
the
past.
There's
an
easement
from
an
adjacent
landowner
that
applied
to
two
Lots.
There
was
one
monster
lot
there
and
there
was
an
old
forsberg
lot.
The
forsberg
lot
have
property
on
the
end
of
the
point.
A
If
you
want
to
zoom
in,
there
was
purchased
and
some
right
away
was
plotted
on
top
of
an
easement
which
incorporated
those
Lots
and
that's
what
we've
seen
where
we've
seen
the
development
so
far,
but
you
know
it
to
me:
it's
simple:
we
don't
allow.
We
don't
allow
construction
on
gravel
roads.
We
require
a
hard
surface
road,
that's
turned
over
to
the
city
when
it's
done
and
they
got
to
figure
out
a
way
to
get
a
hard
surface
road.
A
Either
door
Avenue
gets
extended,
the
they
purchased,
the
the
easement
road
from
the
adjacent
landowner
and
and
make
it
a
hard
service
road
or
they
bring
us
a
hard
surface
Road
in
from
the
south.
But
you
know
if
we
start
letting
developers
develop.
Lots
on
gravel
roads,
we've
opened
up
a
Pandora's
box
and
it's
not
fair
to
everybody
who's
developed
in
the
past.
My
opinion
anyway.
Okay,
so
in.
N
The
meantime
one
house
has
been
built
up
there
and
we
are
providing
city
garbage
collection
and
then
fact
we're
collecting
garbage
for
this
house
down
here.
The
house
sits
on
this,
lot
will
be
collected
and
garbage
will
be
collected
on
that.
That
is
not
the
easiest
way
to
maintain
that
city
service
without
further
development.
So.
E
E
E
A
They
need
to
pursue
getting
a
hard
surface
road
in
there,
either
from
the
south,
from
the
from
the
east
or
from
the
West
one
way
or
the
other.
They
got
to
get
a
hard
surface
road
in
there
if
they
want
to
continue
to
add
more
more
lots
and
more
traffic
up
there.
If
we
allow
access
through
a
20-foot,
gravel,
easement
and
I
know,
the
adjacent
landowner
probably
isn't
very
happy
with.
What's
going
on
up
there
now
and
they'll
be
less
happy.
A
You
know
to
me
the
spirit
intent
of
that
easement
was
for
two
homes
and
that
easement
was
given
years
and
years
ago
and
now,
if
all
the
sudden,
due
to
one
loophole
over
another
we've
got
seven
homes
and
to
commercial
Lots
up
there.
It's
not
fair
to
the
adjacent
landowner
that
wasn't
what
they
what
they
bought
into
my
opinion.
E
A
F
C
N
A
N
A
It
severe
you
know
it.
This
is.
This
is
an
area
that
was
developed
from
unintentionally.
If
we
could
do
it
all
over
I
guarantee,
we
wouldn't
have
put
those
Lots
out
there
and
we
would
have
made
that
decision.
The
reason
we
did
it
was
those
lots
the
the
owner
of
those
Lots
said:
I
want
to
plat
these
and
I
can't
master
plan
or
preliminary
plan.
This
area,
cuz
I,
don't
own
it.
In
this
case
there
is
an
ownership
there.
We
don't,
he
doesn't
have
to
put
35
Lots
in
there.
A
N
A
F
A
E
K
K
It's
a
16
feet,
change
the
written
consent
percentage
to
be
55%
instead
of
a
hundred
percent
of
all
property
owners,
owning
property
immediately
adjacent
to
the
proposed
zone,
allow
sanitary
sewer
connection
and
then
to
leave
the
finishes
for
structure
aesthetics
to
the
buildings
officials,
discretion
and,
as
far
as
the
maximum
sidewall
staff
would
recommend
1214
it's
currently
10
and
then
we
agree
with
the
consent.
Percentage
change
to
55
instead
of
a
hundred
percent
and
then
stuff
feels
allowing
sanitary
sewer
could
be
difficult
to
regulate.
If
that's
allowed
in
that
district.
K
A
Let's
do
that,
what
I
do
when
I
talk
to
Brandi
on
this?
The
other
day
I
was
happened
to
be
up
in
the
north
part
of
town
and
there's
a
couple
homes
up
there
that
we've
worked
on
in
the
past
and
I
drove
by
him,
and-
and
there
was
a
couple
things
I
saw
in
there-
that
I
thought
would
be
interesting,
so
I
this
shoe
and
I
took
some
pictures
for
us.
K
A
Part
of
the
thing
I
asked
brandy
on
is
that
when
I
happen
to
be
parked
outside
a
house,
I
said
you
know
a
higher
side.
Wall
looks
aesthetically
better
if
it's
a
percentage
of
the
height
of
the
house,
meaning
if
you
had
a
one-story
Rambler
with
8-foot
sidewalls
on
the
house,
and
you
had
a
14-foot
side
wall
garage
next
to
it.
It
would
look
odd.
A
But
if
you
had
a
two-story
house
or
a
one
and
a
half
story
house
or
a
raised
ranch
where
the
rough
peak
was
somewhere
between
24
and
32
feet,
and
then
you
had
a
14-foot
sidewall
with
a
peak
that
was
at
about
two-thirds
of
the
height
of
the
house,
which
you
may
show
here.
It
didn't
look
out
of
place
as
it
could
be
in
some
in
some
areas,
but.
K
B
He
only
include
the
foundation
at
the
front.
Oh
that's!
When
you
go
into
the
garage
you
measure
from
there
to
the
peak
is
the
point
you
measure
that's
18
feet,
realizing
that
there
is
hills
until
the
back
side
of
the
house
could
be
2025
feet
depending
how
steep
the
veil
is.
So
the
only
part
you
take
when
you
adjust
for
the
18
feet
is
where
they
drive
into
the
door
and
for
the
peak
at
that
point.
So.
B
K
N
L
G
G
K
A
E
K
K
F
F
K
H
A
A
A
K
M
A
A
K
E
A
K
A
F
F
K
B
A
B
A
K
H
K
F
K
K
A
I
E
I
E
E
M
F
E
I
E
E
A
I
E
A
But
the
garage
district
is
adjacent
to
an
r1
district.
That's
why
we
have
to
be
conscious
of
how
the
design
looks
and
how
they're
gonna
asthetically
look,
there's
a
big
difference
between
doing
it
as
cheap
as
you
can,
and
and
it's
you
know,
some
guys
can
put
a
crazy
amount
of
money.
Some
some
don't!
So,
let's
keep
moving
through
the
bullet
points
of
what
you
guys
talked
about
sanitary
sewer.
What
was
your
reasoning
for
not
allowing
that
over
there
well.
A
B
B
B
A
E
E
E
N
F
N
E
A
L
Sorry
one
example
that
goes
out
there
as
there's
it's.
Basically,
you
only
get
so
many
feet
that
are
at
a
flat
height
and
then
you've
got
to
change.
Your
height
was
one
of
the
examples
I
looked
at
was
32
feet.
You
get
it.
You
can't
have
a
span
of
32
feet
without
a
change
in
height
on
sidewall,
that's
an
example,
or
else
whether
or
not
it's
changing
in
building
materials
as
well.
But
there
were
no
examples
put
together,
it
doesn't
look
like,
but
there's
it's
really
I
mean
the
books.
L
Open
I
mean
one
of
the
things
that
I
was
looking
at.
That
makes
sense.
Is
that
if,
if
you're
thinking
of
going
to
a
16
foot
sidewall
my
own
and
don't
get
me
wrong,
I,
don't
I,
don't
take
a
camp
or
up
and
down
the
interstate,
but
you
can't
drive
a
camper
on
the
interstate.
If
it's
bigger
than
13
and
a
half
feet,
and
so
I
I
mean
I,
don't
know,
I
mean
there
might
be
some
that
are
bigger
than
14
feet,
but
it's
supposed
to
be
road,
legal
at
thirteen
and
a
half.
K
And
that's
that's
what
I
could,
when
I
write
the
ordinance
amendment
or
put
the
things
that
you
guys
would
like
to
include
I
mean
we
could
come
up
with
language
for
the
sidewall
articulation
and
aesthetics,
because,
right
now,
what
we
were
thinking
is
that
the
as
far
as
the
building
aesthetics,
that
we
leave
that
up
to
the
building
officials
discretion.
But
we
would
include
some
guidelines
than
as
far
as
how
you
guys
would
like
them
to
look
aesthetically
I.
Think.
A
K
E
What
I
was
gonna
say,
I
suppose
if
there's
a
lot
of
consternation
or
really
concerned
from
staff,
16
versus
14
seems,
like
maybe
there
is
seems
like
we're
a
little
bit
in
the
opposite
side
of
the
fence
on
this.
But
then
maybe
you
can
say
that
if
they
want
16,
it
can
come
before
this
board
and
based
on
the
orc
and,
of
course,
and
it
gets
pretty
subjective,
I
suppose
on
your
part,
but
the
design
of
the
building
might
allow
whether
you
can
bump
it
to
sixteen
over
fourteen.
But
at
least
the
doors
there.
A
L
Will
tell
you
so
isn't
that
to
confuse
the
variance
process,
it
would
be
wiser
to
list
that
as
a
certain
type
of
permit,
as
a
conditional
use
permit
was
six
it
with
one
anywhere
from
one
to
seven
conditions
or
whatever
you
just
list.
What
those
conditions
are
that
you
would
like
to
see
and
that
the
board
reserves
some
discretion
if
you
want,
but
the.
C
L
F
M
That's
like
like
Luke
was
saying
and
I
know.
St.
cloud
is
one
of
the
ones
that
had
the
sidewall
articulation
and
it
was
you
know
over
32
feet
and
continuous
length.
You
know
with
no
no
jog
in
it
or
no
dormer.
Then
you
had
to
put
some
sort
of
feature
in
like
that,
so
it
gives
it
gives
them
a
guideline.
If
you
have
that
written
in
there
too,
so
that
if
they're
reading
over
the
ordinance
they
kind
of
know
what
they
need
to
be
shooting
for
before
they
even
come
before
Ken.
A
B
I'm
trying
to
throw
me
back
in
because
you
can
still
leave
it
at
the
building
officials,
discretion
and
then,
with
the
aesthetics
of
what
you're
looking
for
is.
Even
if
I
do
tell
them.
No,
then
they
still
have
the
right
to
come
and
see
you
guys
anyway
and
say
well,
hey
I
want
to
do
it
like
this
and
I
think
it's
done
that
I
have
to
put
a
2
foot
by
12
foot
sighting
on
there
with
a
little
eyebrow
to
make
it
look
good
I
don't
want.
A
H
H
B
A
E
A
E
A
I
think
we'll
probably
see
some
of
these.
You
know
I'll
be
honest.
I
I
thought
these
garage
districts
would
be
a
hot
item.
I
thought
every
developer,
who's
develop
a
new
land
would
set
aside
some
land
for
garage
districts,
and
maybe
maybe
once
we
dial
this
in
we'll
start.
Seeing
more
of
those
garage
district
shows
there's
a
lot
of
land
out
there
that
could
easily
be
modified
to
one
there's
a
need
out
there.
That's
for
sure
all
right.
Well
that
allows
for
motion
to
adjourn
post
play.