►
From YouTube: BOA & Plan Commission Meeting 05 24 2018
Description
Agenda for May 24, 2018
A
C
D
A
And
then
for
the
rest
of
the
members
of
the
board,
I
did
have
a
conversation
with
staff
about
doing
our
voting
on
the
actual
agenda
items
a
little
bit
different,
going
forward,
I'd
like
to
do
each
item
as
a
roll
call
vote
instead
of
a
consensus
vote
like
we
have
typically
done
in
the
past.
So
as
we
go
through
each
agenda
item,
once
we're
done
with
discussion,
we
have
the
motion.
I'll
turn
it
over
to
staff
who
will
take
a
roll
call
vote
of
the
board.
B
Application
was
submitted
requesting
to
construct
a
non-conforming
624
square-foot
24
by
26
unattached
garage
on
an
8000,
250
square
foot,
parcel
said,
structure
proposed
to
be
constructed,
20
feet
from
the
front
or
south
property
line
where
a
minimum
25
feet
is
required.
This
the
staff
finds
that
this
plaited
lot
meets
minimum
are
to
a
required
lot.
Width
and
exceeds
minimum
are
to
a
required
lot
area
requirements.
B
Currently,
the
parcel
consists
of
a
non
compliant
primary
structure:
a
single-family
dwelling
with
336
square
foot
attached
garage,
providing
one
enclosed
parking
space
on
this
corner
parcel
and
alley
side.
Space
is
available
for
outdoor
off
street
parking.
There
is
sufficient
buildable
area
to
construct
a
completely
compliant
garage
without
variances
ordinance
allows
up
to
one
thousand
seventy
two
and
a
half
square
feet
on
parcels
this
size.
A
E
A
A
So,
as
Jill
said,
one
of
one
of
the
requirements
that
we
have
for
Boulevard
in
infrastructure
improvements
is
sidewalk
on
both
streets.
Currently,
there's
no
sidewalk
on
the
south
side.
So
as
part
of
this
conditional
approval,
that's
one
thing
that
I
would
request
that
we
have
added
is
the
sidewalk?
Is
that
going
to
be
a
problem
for
you
to
install
as
well?
No.
E
B
G
24
is
typically
what
you're
gonna
have
to
have
for
two
cars,
though,
if
you
want
to
be
able
to
put
them
in
there
and
open
the
doors
and
everything
else.
I'm
actually
gonna
approach
the
board
later
today
and
ask
for
a
rewrite
of
the
ordinance
to
this,
because
I
need
50
foot,
narrow,
Lots
that
are
meeting
our
2a
district
and
their
corner.
G
Lots
I
mean
a
20
foot
setback
would
be
much
more
reasonable
than
25
foot
on
these
small
Lots,
so
somebody
could
actually
put
some
in
there
we're
trying
to
get
him
to
take
these
trailers
and
boats
and
everything
else
off
the
street
and
a
reasonable
application.
I
think
would
be
to
allow
a
20
foot
setback
versus
a
25.
But
again
that's
a
discussion.
I
want
to
have
a
little
later
with
yeah.
That's.
A
A
it's
funny
that
you
say
that,
because
I
have
some
supporting
documentation,
basically
I
was
I
was
thinking
the
exact
same
way,
yeah
it
to
me.
It's
just
unreasonable
that
a
25
foot
setback
on
that
south
property
line.
There
basically
takes
half
a
year
lot
away
immediately,
not
to
mention
your
your
other
setbacks.
So
you
end
up
with
20.
28
percent
of
your
lot
is
all
you
got
for
build
area
there.
H
Chairman
I
do
want
to
point
out
one
thing
too:
if
we
put
that
Sidewalk
requirement
across
the
6th
Avenue
portion
of
the
property,
there
will
not
be
adequate
space
to
park
a
car
in
front
of
that
garage
without
blocking
the
sidewalk.
So
they
may
need
that
extra
space
over
on
the
new
garage
to
adequately
park.
That's.
A
Yeah,
that's
one
of
the
things
that
I'm
looking
at
in
this
new
proposed
addition
to
is
that
the
access
that
they're
proposing
is
off
the
alleyway
versus
off
the
street,
and
that's
something
that
we
would
try
to
avoid
where
it's
on
the
street
side,
where
we're
adding
a
curb
cut
and
then
also
for
the
encroachment
on
the
sidewalk.
So
for
future
developments,
you
know
definitely
encouraging
access
from
the
alleyway
wherever
possible.
A
H
A
Yeah,
the
the
problem
would
come
into
play
with
the
existing
garage
there,
which
is
already
set
back
at
only
20
feet
and
accessed
from
the
street.
So
currently
today,
if
you're
parked
in
that
driveway
you're
probably
encroaching
into
the
public
right
away.
It's
just
not
as
apparent
when
there's
not
a
sidewalk
there,
but
this
this
will
have
a
net
benefit
on
the
lot
and
for
the
neighborhood,
because
we
go
from
one
parking
place
to
three
parking
places
on
the
property.
C
D
I
A
E
B
E
J
E
B
B
Okay,
application
was
submitted
requesting
to
construct
a
non-conforming
1,200
square
foot
30
by
40
unattached
garage
on
an
8000
250
square
foot,
parcel
set
structure
proposed
to
be
constructed,
14
feet
from
the
front
or
east
property
line,
where
a
minimum
of
25
feet
is
required
and
on
a
parcel
that
allows
for
a
maximum
1700
1070
2.5
square
foot.
Unattached
garage
staff
finds
that
this
planted
lot
meets.
Minimum
are
to
a
required
lot.
Width
and
exceeds
minimum
required
are
to
a
lot
area
requirements.
B
Currently,
the
parcel
consists
of
a
non
compliant
non
compliant
primary
structure:
single-family
dwelling
with
463
square
foot
attached
garage
and
360
square
foot,
legal
non-conforming,
carport,
providing
two
covered
enclosed
parking
spaces
on
this
corner
parcel
an
ample
open
space
available
for
outdoor
off
street
parking.
There
is
sufficient
buildable
area
to
construct
a
completely
compliant
garage
without
variances
ordinance.
Allow
us
on
parcels
this
size
up
to
one
thousand.
B
Seventy
two
point:
five
square
feet:
staff
does
not
support
a
second
access
onto
third
Street
West
and
recommends
that
any
approval
mandate,
northern
Ally
access,
and/or
southern
access
by
existing
driveway.
If
application
is
endorsed,
this
board
may
consider
requiring
requiring
fulfillment
of
any
or
all
lacking
Boulevard
infrastructure
requirements,
in
conjunction
with
any
structural
improvements
authorized
by
building
permit.
I
Variance
just
Bailey
to
comply
with
you
know
new
ordinances
with
far
as
you
know,
parking
trailers,
boats,
campers
fish
tax
things
like
that
on
city
streets,
and
that
is
the
reason
for
the
size
of
a
garage
to
be
able
to
have
three
stall
garage,
which
is
very
common.
We
come
up
to
this
size
to
suit
our
needs.
Also
matching
up
with
you
know,
existing
structure
on
the
property
lines,
and
we
acknowledge
that
the
driveway
there
would
not
be
a
parking
slab,
but
that
does
you
know
that
would
block
the
sidewalk.
I
That's
why
I
decided
to
slide
the
garage
in
ten
feet
to
the
property
line?
If
you
know
person
they
need
to
park
a
vehicle
over
the
temporary
or
something
you
wouldn't
be
blocked
in
a
driveway
proposes,
leaving
residents
parking
in
their
current
carport
driveway
area,
and
the
reason
why
we
proposing
hella
access
is
because
the
neighbors
to
the
north,
that's
where
they
park
their
vehicles
right
in
that
alley.
I
I
got
some
photos,
I
guess
I
could
pull
up
and
show
you
guys
and
then
also
to
every
time
a
person
betray
in
the
back
a
boat
or
a
fish,
shack
or
trailer
or
anything
in
Rodge.
You
have
your
headlights,
you
know
shining
directly
into
their
window.
Things
like
that
have
happened
to
be
in
the
evening
hours
and
then
just
you
know
the
awkwardness
of
backing
in
through
the
alley
and
then
to
the
garage
in
that
direction
and
then
also
to
with
the
to
get
the
depth
I
need
her
garage.
I
And
add
note
to
that
existing
garage
really
isn't
even
functional.
It's
got
an
old,
the
old
swinging
up
doors.
You
could
get
a
real
small
compact
car
and
there's
be
if
I
would
have
future
plans,
for
that
is
to
actually
make
that
garage
more
of
like
I,
guess,
we'd
call
it
like
a
Four
Seasons
room
or
storage
area
or
something
and
if
you
drive
by
and
look
it's
not
even
being
occupied
her
used
as
a
garage
right
now,
even
though
it
is
a
structure,
that's
said
it's
a
garage,
it's
more!
So
a
storage
area.
H
So
the
issues
related
to
the
driveway,
our
third
Street
West,
is
a
collector
Street
and
we
try
to
minimize
how
many
accesses
we
have
on
there
now
granted
this
portion
of
third
Street
is
a
primary
residential
neighborhood,
so
the
older
neighborhood
did
have
multiple
accesses
on
to
that
Street.
However,
it's
our
goal
to
not
include
arbitrarily
extra
driveways
unnecessarily.
In
this
case,
we
did
ask
that
they
review
reorienting
the
garage
such
that
the
alley
would
be
the
primary
access
point
rather
than
third
Street.
H
The
setback
between
the
garage
doors
in
the
back
of
the
sidewalk
is
only
going
to
be
14
feet
unless
you
have
a
very
short
car
you're
going
to
be
hanging
over
onto
that
sidewalk
in
public
way,
with
any
parking
vehicles
in
that
driveway.
So
that's
also
going
to
be
an
issue
potentially
with
the
residents
of
the
neighborhood.
If
they're
walking
on
the
sidewalk
can
complain,
then
the
police
department
may
be
dispatched
there
to
address
the
blockage
of
the
sidewalk.
So
there
are
a
couple
reasons
to
not
take
this
decision
lightly.
K
K
I
I,
don't
know
if
it
would
be
if
I
had
to
build
it
the
other
way
and
make
it
deeper
and
longer
and
come
in
from
the
alley.
But
again,
like
I,
said
there
that
we
would
opposed
to
doing
that
just
because
it
would
pretty
much
eat
up
the
whole
yard
and
again,
like
the
reason
for
the
size
of
the
garage.
Is
you
know
to
make
a
functional
usable
garage?
I
Just
as
the
previous
gentleman
said,
you
don't
see
whether
you
want
to
park
two
vehicles
wider
or
back
something
in
to
keep
it
off
the
street
to
abide
by
the
ordinances,
any
boat
or
recreational
vehicle.
You
need
a
minimum
of
you
know,
I,
just
measured
my
boat
and
my
fish
shack
this
morning,
they're
both
24
feet
from
hitch
to
bumper
and
that's
not
leaving
you
know,
walk
around
room
or
not
thinking,
that's
just
the
so
you.
D
A
D
A
So
there's
a
number
of
things
that
that
you're
asking
for
on
this
variance
request
the
setback,
the
maximum
structure
size,
the
additional
driveway
curb
cut
off
of
the
street.
So
it's
a
little
bit
of
an
apples
and
oranges
situation.
Well,
while
at
the
face
they
are
both
garage
requests,
there's
significant
differences
between
the
two
mm-hmm,
so.
I
My
question
to
the
board
of
the
Yourself
ages:
let's
say
we
consider
coming
in
the
alley
access.
So
do
we
need
to
take
some
kind
of
a
I
guess
with
whatever
action,
illegal
or
whatever,
because
the
current
residence
to
the
north,
they
don't
there's
always
cars
parked
in
that
alia
there
that
would
prohibit.
You
know
some
access
that
they
parked
right
on
the
edge
of
the
property
there,
and
it's
not
my
objective
to
change
what
they've
been
doing
or
you
know,
try
to
cause
any
problems
that
way.
I
noticed.
B
F
Let's
say
that
if
you
sat
your
new
garage
farther
back
cuz,
you
know
it
kind
of
looks
like
two
different
properties.
Really,
you
know
you
have
the
rental
house
and
stuff
and
where
they
park
in
their
carport
all
the
time,
and
then
you
have
quite
a
bit
of
space
in
between
there
like
where
they
have
their
trampoline
or
something
yeah.
E
I
F
D
G
I
I
I
I
D
I
C
Is
a
big
empty
lot,
but
it
is
in
a
residential,
neighborhood
and
I
guess
I'm
uncomfortable
with
doing
with
a
size.
Any
larger
ran
is
within
the
ordinance
as
it
is
because
it
is
a
residential
neighborhood
that
gives
me
and
I
do
happen
to
drive
on
that
road.
A
lot
I,
don't
know
why,
but
I
do
and
I
can
see
to
the
question
about
having
the
access
of
third
street
as
I
feel
uncomfortable
with
that
also
I.
F
A
F
G
K
K
K
I
A
I
D
A
L
L
Well,
from
a
resale
standpoint,
whether
it's
a
three
stock
garage
or
two
stall
garage
is
still
a
detached
garages
which
would
have
resale
value
to
the
home
well
as
either
a
rental
or
owner
occupied,
so
well,
I
empathize
with
what
you're
saying
I,
don't
think.
That's
a
valid
argument,
because
it's
still
a
detached
garage.
I
I
would
like
to
see
if
we
can't
find
a
way
to
get
a
two
stall
garage
situated
on
there,
because
I
think
it
does
that
value
to
the
property
and
the
tax
base.
A
L
Might
very
well
be
Todd
that
you
know
if
you've
got
a
double
stall
to
stall
garage
here
and
if
the
problem
right
now
is,
is
the
parking
of
your
personal
property
at
your
home,
using
that
as
storage
for
that
and
then
the
individual
still
has
the
ability
to
the
renter
can
still
Park
in
under
the
carport.
What
have
you
I
think
it
fixes
your
issue
with
the
the
ordinance
as
being
applied
to
out
here
on
your
home
property
and
or
the
other
option
is?
Is
you
get
a
two
stall
garage?
L
G
A
F
A
D
L
C
F
A
E
A
D
A
J
J
A
L
M
E
D
K
A
M
M
Okay,
so
the
petitioners
submitted
a
plat
of
Willow
Creek,
fourth
edition
that
will
include
eight
r1,
single-family
residential
lots
and
to
our
three
multifamily
residential
lots.
Currently,
the
lots
are
zoned
as
our
three
multi
residential,
but
the
petitioner
is
also
in
the
process
of
rezoning,
which
you
guys
have
seen
previously.
M
M
That
sentence
doesn't
end.
This
plot
is
memorializing
that
Park
just
that
Park
Board
decision
and
plan
Commission's
ratification
by
approving
the
preliminary
plan
included
the
park
location,
an
access
season
that
has
been
provided
throughout
lot,
a
development
agreement
for
the
plat
of
Willow
Creek
Village.
Fourth
edition
provides
improvement,
details
that
are
included
in
this
development
and
actually
about
right-of-way
was
plaited
with
Willow
Creek.
Second
Willow
Creek
Village
second
edition.
Third,
first.
M
A
M
C
M
H
I
think
the
primary
focus
of
their
park
is
I
mean
at
the
discretion
of
the
city,
because
the
city
will
ultimately
have
the
opportunity
to
enhance
it,
but
right
now,
I
think
the
premises
that
keep
it
as
natural
as
possible.
There's
a
lot
of
wildlife
and
desirable
things
that
are
going
on
out
there
now
that
we
hope
to
not
disturb
and
I
guess.
Ultimately,
that
will
be
handed
off
to
the
park
board
on
how
they
envisioned
it.
H
A
Did
have
a
couple
additional
questions
on
the
development
agreement,
so
under
the
sidewalks
section
it
it
has
a
bullet
a
says:
developer
shall
install
or
cause
to
be
installed.
Sidewalks,
but
item
B
says
developer
may
pass
the
responsibility
of
sidewalk
installation
on
so
I'm
a
little
confused
as
to
who's
actually
installing
the
sidewalk
and
when
it
would
get
installed.
M
A
A
N
J
A
M
I'm,
just
gonna
read
off
the
screen:
okay,
so
the
petitioner
is
Rex
Gerber,
who
is
the
representative
for
Eastside,
Investments,
LLC
and
the
owners
of
the
property.
The
petitioners
submitted
a
plat
to
vacate
the
former
plots
of
our
readlyn
Edition
and
our
Redlands
second
edition
and
re-establish
the
utility
easements
within
the
property.
This
plat
does
not
require
an
infrastructure
improvement
or
does
not
require
infrastructure
improvements,
but
because
the
utility
easement
is
being
located,
it
is
brought
to
Planning,
Commission
and
City
Council
for
approval.
M
M
Property
is
zoned
I,
one
which
is
light
industrial.
The
minimum
required
lot
area
is
30,000
square
feet.
This
just
such
a
specific
lot
is
two
hundred
and
thirty
three
thousand
seven
hundred
and
sixty
two
square
feet,
so
it
exceeds
that
the
minimum
required
lot.
Width
is
a
hundred
feet
and
this
frontage
has
340
5.9
feet
this
plat
vacates
and
combines
two
former
plots
of
record
and
establish
and
reestablishes
utility
easements.
M
The
plat
has
been
approved
by
monotone
municipal
utilities,
for
confirmation
of
sufficient
easements
city
staff,
supports
plan
commission
recommending
the
plat
of
east
side
addition
to
city
council,
and
so
then
here
is
the
new
plat
and
then
I
also
in
your
packets
I
did
attach
the
previous
recorded
plat.
So
you
can
see
kind
of
what
what
he's
combining.
O
M
N
M
M
D
M
D
M
Okay,
here
we
are
so
the
petitioner
is
Travis
MOG
who's,
the
owner
of
the
property
petitioner
submitted
application
and
petition
on
May
3rd
2018,
requesting
approval
for
rezoning
the
current
described
property
from
C
to
community
commercial
district
to
c3
highway
commercial
district.
The
attached
vicinity
map
shows
how
they
property
has
partial
zoning
of
two
commercial
districts
for
development
purposes.
M
This
rezone
is
to
designate
the
entirety
of
the
property
with
one
zoning
district,
which
is
proper
procedure
that
district
requirements
are
what
adhered
to
the
zoning
designations,
our
c2
community,
commercial
and
c3
highway
commercial
adjacent
properties,
zoning
districts,
our
c2
community,
commercial
to
the
north
and
east
c3.
Highway
commercial
district
to
the
west
are
three
multi-family
residential
district
to
the
south
and
east.
The
c3
minimum
lot
requirements
are
twenty
thousand
square
feet.
This
lot
has
37
thousand
four
hundred
eighty
nine
square
feet.
M
The
minimum
lot
width
is
a
hundred
feet
and
this
property
has
one
hundred
and
fifty
eight
feet.
Rezone
will
extend
and
apply
to
the
Senators
art
centerline
of
the
adjacent
public
right-of-ways,
and
this
property
is
not
within
the
floodplain
city
staff.
Supports
plan
commission
recommending
the
rezone
of
the
above
described
property
to
City
Council.
M
L
D
M
D
M
D
M
M
M
J
G
L
Well,
I
just
remember
that
up
in
this
part
of
the
world
a
few
years
ago,
we
wanted
somebody
wanted
to
put
a
bar
in
taverns
up
in
this
part
of
the
world
on
the
c3
lot
and
the
neighbourhood
was
against
it,
and
the
C
to
a
bar
Tavern
is
a
conditional
use,
but
in
the
c3
of
bar
Tavern
would
be
a
permitted
use,
and
that
would
be
that's
not
that
I
guess
bars
and
taverns.
That's
just.
M
M
So
but
I
mean
when
you're
making
your
decision
think
about
in
the
future.
If
this
wasn't
a
car
wash
and
if
you
would
be
okay
with
the
permitted
uses
in
the
C
3
district,
if
if
it
were
to
get
redeveloped
as
something
different
which
I
do
not
believe
is
the
intention
of
the
rezone.
But
it
is
good
to
think
ahead
so
permitted
uses
our
service
stations,
retail
establishments,
service
establishments,
motels
and
hotels,
motor
vehicle
sales,
office,
financial
institutions,
restaurants,
clinics,
veterinary
clinics,
automobile
parking
lot,
farm
machinery,
yeah
semi-truck
sales.
L
Think
I'm,
okay,
with
the
the
motion
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
recommend
approval
to
the
City
Council,
but
I
do
think
we
need
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
and
see
if
we
have
any
more
of
these
issues-
and
you
know
rezoning
things
up-
zoning
down
zoning,
those
types
of
things
I
think
they
get
I
think
they
can
give
what
they
want.
As
a
c2
I
think
it's
a
nodal
redevelopment
highway
commercial
development
is
to
me
is
on
a
highway.
D
A
M
M
That
would
look
as
if
it
would
be
kind
to
you
as
an
ordinance
amendment.
So
we'll
add
it
in
underneath
our
one
single-family
residential
district
and
we'll
it'll
be
20,
115
and
it'll,
be
our
1a,
which
will
have
the
same
I
mean
it'll
still
be
called
single-family
residential
district,
as
we
do
with
the
Arthus
with
r2
and
r2
a
so
then,
where
we
landed
with
the
height
and
placement
regulations.
M
So
they
weren't
blocking
sidewalks.
The
minimum
required
side
yard
would
be
6
feet
and
the
rear
yard
would
be
25
feet
and
the
overall
maximum
height
would
be
35
feet.
And
then
we
also
talked
about
incorporating
that
2
family
attached
single
to
single-family
attached
dwelling
units
and
they
would
have
a
zero
lot
line
develop.
So
again,
they
would
be
required
that
each
lot
had
five
thousand
square
feet,
which
makes
the
you
need
ten
thousand
square
feet.
M
If
you're
going
to
have
a
zero
lot
line,
development
shared
wall
duplex
again
fifty
feet
for
each
and
then
zero
and
then
the
side
yards
are
zero
to
six
foot
on
the
non-party
wall
side
and
then
four
corner
Lots.
We
increased
the
lot
area
to
six
thousand
square
feet
because
you
would
have
two
fronts
and
you
would
be
required
to
have
twenty-five
feet.
Setback.
M
Okay,
so
then
there
and
then
now
this-
the
footnotes
there
for
H
underneath
minimum
lot
area,
the
maximum
allowable
amount.
Okay,
that
needs
to
be
rephrased,
but
the
maximum
allowable
amount
of
lot
covered
shall
be
fifty
five
percent
and
I
know
I.
One
time
we
had
talked
about
distinguishing
between
structure,
cover
coverage
and
impervious
surface
coverage,
but
I
mean
when
we
really
thought
about
it
and
I,
don't
think
it's
necessary
to
be
that
strict
on
it.
M
M
Yeah
we
can
talk
about
that.
Let's
see
this.
All
of
this
language
here
is
consistent
with
what
our
one
single-family
residential
is
currently
and
then
I
I
added
as
a
permitted
use.
The
two
family
attached
dwelling
units
using
zero
lot
line
development,
but
then
all
of
so
then
this
is
where
it
references
the
summary
of
district
regulations
and
then
that
you
would
refer
back
to
that
chart
and
then
also
to
the
off
street
parking
ordinance.
M
This
shows
a
fifty-foot
lot,
which
would
meet
the
minimum
lot
width
requirement
and
then
also
a
100,
and
so
would
be
a
hundred
feet
in
length
to
make
it
five
thousand
square
feet
and
make
it
conforming
for
this
district
and
so
I
showed,
like
probably
what
most
people
would
want
for
you
know.
People
we've
talked
about
how
people
have
toys
they
need
to
store.
They
have
two
vehicles.
They
want
to
be
able
to
maneuver
them
this.
M
That
would
not
allow
for
somebody
to
drive
to
their
backyard,
which
becomes
an
issue
but
I
think
it's
still
appropriate
to
set
set
it
at
six,
but
then
I
mean
people
should
think
about
that
when
they're
building
that
they
should
leave
nine
feet,
at
least
on
one
side,
and
then
at
least
they
can
pave
all
the
way
up
to
their
lot
line.
Since
they
can
I
mean,
then
they
can
have
another
parking
area
and
then
they
would
because
they
have
to
watch
out
for
their
maximum
lot
coverage
of
55%.
M
You
would
need
to
you
know,
cut
back
on
the
amount
of
concrete
you
were.
You
know
any
impervious
surface
that
you're
having
on
your
on.
Your
lot
needs
to
be
under
fifty
five
percent,
so
this
slot
here
now
this
house.
This
is
the
footprint
within
the
buildable
area
and
that
would
be
1900
square
feet
still
that
that
would
be
the
largest
structure
that
you
could
build
on.
M
M
A
M
G
A
M
O
I,
don't
think
the
r-1
limits
coverage
doesn't
only
are
three
so
it's.
Why
would
they
okay,
zona
r1a
and
be
limited
to
55%
if
they
could
had
a
big
enough
lock
to
solve
our
one?
There
isn't
for
our
one
should
be
I.
Don't
disagree,
that's
kind
of
a
can
of
worms
I
and
some
of
these
things.
I
really
would
like
your
feedback
on
these
things
and
Brandi
and
I
talked
about
it
briefly.
But
I
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
enough
room
on
the
street
for
parking
yep.
A
O
So
we
talked
about
the
maximum
driveway
opening
making
that
more
than
12
but
less
than
24
and
thinking
about
why
that's
you
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
still
a
parking
spot
on
the
road
and
if
you
look
at
a
our
parking
lot
requirements
nine
feet
is
one
lot
width
or
one
car
width
for
a
parking
stall.
So
if
your
parking
on
your
driveway
18
feet,
you
could
get
two
cars.
O
Why
would
you
need
anything
more
than
that
you're,
not
gonna,
get
three
I
mean
you
could
widen
up
if
you
had
enough
in
your
bank
for
more
impervious
surface,
if
you
had
a
smaller
structure,
maybe
no
garage,
but
you
wanted
to
pave
more
for
a
pad
or
a
carport.
But
what
do
you
think
about
that?
Driveway
width?
Is
that
gonna
be
I.
Think.
O
L
A
O
L
D
M
L
The
only
thing
that
this
would
apply
would
be
in
our
one
areas
of
town
that
maybe
have
smaller
Lots
north
of
10th
Avenue
and
some
of
those
areas,
or
you
have
existing
r1a.
If
you
want
to
make
it
in
rona,
then
do
it
on
a
half-block
basis.
If
you
do
it,
you
know
two
neighbors
might
not
appreciate
the
middle
name
are
coming
in
and
on
a
small
lot
and
doing
something
that
doesn't,
you
know
coincide
with
what
they
already
have
so
I
would
I
would
recommend
a
half
block,
I.
A
O
I've
been
thinking
about
that
again
back
to
the
parking
on
the
street.
If
there's
no
requirement
and
brandi's
draft
to
require
a
minimum
on
ABS
on
cut
curb
length
but
I'm
thinking
that
that
would
be
important
more
so
than
with
the
driveway
width.
You
don't
want
to
put
the
driveway
right
in
the
middle
of
the
lot
and
then
you've
got
two
pieces,
neither
of
which
is
wide
enough
for
a
car
to
park.
So
if
you
had
a
requirement
to
have
a
minimum
of
20
feet,
was
that
unreasonable?
No.
D
O
Like
to
add
that,
just
so
that
people
can
park
on
the
street,
and
and
this
cul-de-sacs
bother
me
for
on
street
parking,
because
in
most
of
our
cul-de-sacs
that
we
have
it's
so
narrow,
the
entire
circle
is
a
driveway,
and
so
no
one
can
park
in
the
cul-de-sac.
But
people
park
in
the
cul-de-sac
all
the
time
and
then
it's
hard
to
get
around
and
difficult
to
maneuver
and
I.
Don't
know
if
we
want
to
if
there's
a
way
to
prevent
that.
M
A
And
I
guess:
that's
that's
why
I
was
going
with
the
maximum
lot
size,
cuz,
I!
Think
the
intention
of
this
is
great.
We
want
to
make
affordable
lots
and
I
just
don't
want
it
to
be
abused
in
any
way,
but
you're
right,
maybe
maybe
because
of
the
other
stipulations
with
percent
coverage.
We
don't
need
to
look
at
that.
It's.
D
M
L
L
O
M
L
L
D
A
M
O
Right
we'll
just
write
it
that
way:
I
did
I
agree
and
and
with
our
new
we've
just
started
to
enforce.
You
can't
store
things
on
your
driveway,
and
so
we
don't
want
this
I
mean
small
houses,
small
Lots.
It
could
get
cluttered
really
quickly.
So
I
I,
don't
think
that's
a
bad
thing
and
I
think
that
on
the
attached
category
it
should
be
nine
feet.
It's
that
bad,
because
there's
only
going
to
be
four.
O
L
L
M
O
A
O
O
A
So
if
you
went
to
the
minimum
lot
size
there
with
a
50-foot
width
and
based
upon
the
multiple
front
yard
setbacks
that
the
buildable
area
on
that
corner
lot
is
going
to
be
very
small
compared
to
the
interior
Lots.
So
that's
one
thing
that
I
think
we
should
look
at
before
we
finalize
those
numbers-
it's
it's
gonna
be
just
like,
and
we
can
look
at
this
here.
I've
got
some
visuals
to
put
up
on
the
r2a,
but
it's
going
to
be
very
similar
to
these,
because
these
are
50-foot
Lots
as
well.
M
D
L
O
D
O
A
O
A
A
O
A
L
L
If
you
recall
the
last
time
we
had
met,
we
had
talked
about
the
temporary
zoning
rules,
temporary
sign
rules
and
we've
been
having
more
and
more
meetings,
and
we
had
made
a
motion
to
continue
the
public
hearing
and
the
sighs
discussion
that
we
had
for
the
last
couple
months
to
this
date.
I
can
tell
you
is
my
understanding
that
those
temporary
sign
code
regulations
are
near
completion
and
what
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion
to
continue
this
again
to
the
June.
D
L
J
L
The
other,
quick
bit
of
information
that
I
can
relay
on
to
you
is
that
it's
my
understanding
that
the
comprehensive
Land,
Use
Plan,
that's
been
been
worked
on
for
last
several
years.
Is
that
the
completion
point
and
that
it's
a
rather
large
document
in
its
word,
we're
looking
at
how
to
disseminate
that
information?
It's
several
hundred
pages
and
trying
to
find
a
way
to
Dropbox
it
web-hosted,
so
people
could
have
access.
L
L
Been
a
process
but
I
think
I
understanding.
Mr.
Moyers
has
I
said
to
me
that
staff
and
the
hem
have
looked
at
it,
and
it's
now
ready
for
this
point
we're
looking
at,
hopefully
some
sort
of
a
joint
meeting
between
the
City
Council
on
the
Planning
Commission
in
July
and
then
a
public
hearing
process
to
start
after
that
sounds.
A
A
D
A
So
that
at
the
top
of
the
page,
I've
got
a
description
of
what
the
lot
size
here
is.
I
think
the
first
page
is
a
50
by
165
foot
lot.
So
this
is
the
exact
size
of
the
two
parcels
that
we
looked
at
earlier
with
the
Board
of
Adjustment
meeting.
They
were
both
50
by
165,
the
visual
representation.
There
is
of
the
lot
and
it
represents
the
the
side,
yard,
setbacks,
the
front
side,
front
yard
setbacks
and
the
rear
yard
setbacks.
A
So
a
there
is
side
yard
setback,
B
and
E
are
actually
front
yard
setbacks,
because
this
is
a
corner
lot.
D
would
be
the
rear
yard
setback
so
adjacent
to
the
alleyway.
The
c
section,
the
green
section
is
the
only
buildable
area
on
that
particular
lot.
So
if
you
look
at
that,
once
you
take
away
all
the
setbacks,
you've
limited
that
buildable
area
down
to
a
19
by
120
foot
area.
It's
28
percent
of
the
the
lot
is
technically
buildable.
A
A
A
Okay,
so
I
just
wanted
to
illustrate
this,
because
we
do
predominantly
see
these
variance
requests
over
the
years
on.
These
are
to
a
corner
lots
and
a
lot
of
it
is
because
of
the
double
front
yard
setback,
and
when
you
actually
look
at
this
visually,
it's
it's
pretty
telling
that
the
vast
majority
the
lot
is
unbuildable
based
upon
the
existing
setbacks.
A
So
page
two,
there
I've
got
just
another
example
of
an
r
2a.
Both
of
these
are
fairly
common
in
the
r
2a
district.
This
is
a
48
by
150
foot
lot.
So
it's
slightly
smaller
7,200
total
square
foot.
You
see
the
buildable
area
there
on
the
corner.
Lot
went
down
to
25%
as
these
Lots
get
smaller.
That
percentage
continues
to
get
smaller
as
well,
because
the
front
yard
setbacks
are
static.
A
A
So
here's
the
r1
district.
This
is
minimum
lot
size,
so
the
minimum
lot
size
for
a
corner
lot
in
our
ones
85
feet.
And
then,
if
you
take
the
minimum
square
footage
requirement
for
a
corner,
a
lot
of
10,000
you
get
an
85
by
120.
Foot
lot
leaves
35%
buildable
right
in
the
center.
If
you
go
down,
I've
got
the
interior
Lots
for
r1,
so
nine
foot
setbacks.
It's
only
nine
thousand
square
foot
minimum
requirement.
So
that's
a
75
by
120
and
that
leaves
39
percent
buildable.
So.
A
They're
fairly
close
in
our
135
percent
buildable
to
39
percent
buildable
versus
the
50
to
25
in
the
r2
a,
and
so
what
I
was
looking
at,
and
this
is
what
Ken
was
talking
about
earlier-
is
if
we
did
a
20
foot
setback
on
our
2a
for
the
front
yard,
setback
specific
to
corner
Lots.
That
would
afford
him
a
little
bit
of
flexibility
on
the
front
yard,
setbacks
on
both
sides,
and
it
would
bring
that
buildable
area
up
to
36%,
which
is
more
in
line
with
what
we
have
in
the
r-1
district.
A
G
A
G
A
A
Exactly
so
so
most
of
these
people
actually
think
that
their
front
yard
is
much
bigger
than
it
realistically
is.
When
you
look
at
the
property
line,
so
I
don't
think
that
there's
gonna
be
an
issue
with
green
space.
If
we
were
to
do
this
five
yard
difference,
but
it
would
allow
the
homeowners
a
lot
more
flexibility
on
where
they
could
put
their
structures
and.
G
G
J
A
Would
actually
be
their
primary
front
yard
so
you
could
you
could
do
this
a
couple
different
ways.
You
could
stipulate
that
the
the
lower
setback
is
only
applicable
to
the
secondary
front
yard
or
you
could
apply
it
to
both
I'm,
not
sure
that
it
makes
a
huge
difference,
but
certainly
we
could.
We
could
talk
about
it.
So.
J
A
The
reason
originally
I
started
looking
at
this,
with
just
the
secondary
setback,
so
e
being
a
reduced
setback,
but
from
a
standpoint
of
policing
this
and
how
to
write
it
into
ordinance.
I
thought
it
just
maybe
is
easier
if
we
make
them
both
reduced
and
then
we
can
do
just
just
like
we
do
on
the
side
yard
setback.
So
if
you
go
down,
there's
some
language
there,
where
it
says
where
corner
parcels
are
75
feet.
A
H
Mr.
chair
yeah,
if
Pete
could
put
my
screen
up,
I
live
in
the
r2a
and
I
like
where
you're
headed,
but
make
sure
that
you
go
far
enough
and
I'll
point
this
out.
This
is
the
house
that
I
just
have
sold
and
you
can
see
that
I
clearly
have
a
the
adequate
front
setback.
There's
no
way
that
you're
gonna
get
a
small
of
any
size
of
a
house
in
there
with
a
20
foot
setback
on
the
side
yard,
either
and.
H
Mr.
Mayer
who's
in
the
audience
lives
here
and
because
we
have
that
such
wide
wall
of
art,
we're
hemmed
in
I
mean,
and
you
look
at
any
one
of
these
houses.
The
side
yards
will
not
accommodate
even
your
20
foot,
so
we'll
make
sure
that
as
you
reevaluate,
what
you're
doing
look
at
that-
and
this
is
very
common
throughout
that
whole
neighborhood
yeah.
E
A
D
H
H
H
M
M
A
M
M
A
A
Is
it's
one
of
those
things
where
we've
seen
a
lot
of
these
come
before
us
over
the
years,
at
least
in
my
time,
I've
seen
a
lot
of
them,
and
this
seems
like
a
reasonable
compromise,
where
we
could
be
a
little
bit
more
flexible,
but
once
we
do
make
this
change
I
think
it's
something
where
we
need
to
stick
to
our
guns.
Now
and
this.
This
is
the
new
rule
of
the
land
and
we've
developed
a
policy,
that's
more
reasonable
in
their
ability
to
use
the
property
that
they
own
I
did.
J
A
Thought
about
that
so
this
is
I
mean
this
is
no
new
development
here
right,
so
they
could
potentially
add
on
a
porch
or
something.
But
if
you
got
a
porch
a
budding
out,
it's
it's
actually
fairly
common
within
our
2a
as
it
exists
today,
because
just
like
the
one
that
we
looked
at
before
it
was
9.6
feet
off
the
front
property
line
and
the
one
next
door
to
it
was
20
feet.
So
that's
just
kind
of
the
nature
of
the
area.
If
you
live
in
our
2a
there,
anything
and
everything
so.