►
From YouTube: BOA & Plan Commission Meetings 03 22 2018
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).
C
B
C
A
B
21
o
o
v
7
A
through
H
staff,
finds
that
home
occupations
is
a
listed
conditional
use
for
the
r1
single-family
residential
district
for
21
1403
5.
The
definition
of
home
occupation
is
any
occupation
which
is
clearly
secondary
to
the
main
use
of
the
premises
as
a
dwelling
and
does
not
change
the
character
thereof
or
have
any
exterior
evidence
of
such
secondary
use
other
than
a
non
illuminated
sign,
not
exceeding
400
square
inches
in
area.
This
occupation
shall
be
carried
on
or
conducted
only
by
members
of
a
family
residing
in
the
dwelling.
B
The
applicant
submitted
the
attached
the
site
plan,
which
reflects
or
does
not
reflect
the
following
requirements
of
the
ordinance
section.
21
o
o
to
be
7
A
through
H
is
specific
rules
governing
in
division
of
individual
conditional
uses,
such
as
ingress
egress
officer
parking,
loading,
screening,
buffering,
signage,
exterior
lighting
required
yards
and
open
space
and
general
compatibility
with
the
area
regarding
chapter
20,
170,
home
occupations
and
standards.
Mccall
proposes
to
utilize
approximately
252
square
feet
or
7%
of
the
3,000
996
square
foot.
Single-Family
dwelling
for
her
leather
goods
business.
B
She
has
signed
her
assurance
to
comply
with
chapter
20,
170
and
no
signage
is
proposed
at
this
time.
Regarding
chapter
20,
163
off
street
parking
and
loading
requirements
and
engineering
design
standards,
sufficient
area
exists
for
five
legal
off
street
parking
spaces
to
be
counted
as
an
illegal
off
street
parking
space.
It
must
meet
minimum
size
and
location
standards
and
allow
the
exit
of
a
vehicle
without
moving
another
vehicle.
A
minimum
of
two
off
street
parking
spaces
are
required
just
for
the
single-family
dwelling.
E
B
This
board
may
require
more
as
a
condition
of
secondary
uses,
such
as
home
occupations
regarding
chapter
20,
165,
outside
storage
and
display
requirements
for
specific
uses.
Section
21,
702
supersedes
21
6065
for
the
secondary
use.
It
states
that
no
outdoor
storage
of
equipment
or
material
used
in
the
home
occupation
shall
be
permitted
and
that
no
public
display
of
goods
shall
be
allowed
on
the
premises
except
inside
the
principal
building
regarding
chapter
20,
173,
landscape
and
lighting
standards.
B
The
minimum
number
of
trees
to
be
located
on
the
development
ladder
site
shall
be
one
tree
per
50
feet
of
frontage.
There
are
zero
trees
located
where
twelve
to
thirteen
are
required
to
be
planted
in
the
boulevard
or
25-foot
required
front
yard,
as
has
been
the
interpretation
of
the
intent
of
this
ordinance
in
the
past.
Obviously,
there
are
many
trees
in
the
background.
B
This
board
must
determine
if
satisfactory
provision
and
arrangement
has
been
made
concerning
section
21,
o
202
to
b7
A
through
H
in
the
chapters
and
titles
described.
This
parcel
lacks
minimum
required
Boulevard
infrastructure
improvements
from
which
the
property
from
which
the
property
has
never
been
granted
waivers
or
variances.
If,
generally
endorsed,
this
board
may
consider
conditions
of
approval
such
as
fulfillment
of
any
or
all
lacking,
Boulevard
requirements
or
waiver
of
Rights
same
and
nor
any
other
conditions
for
secondary
use
that
this
board
deems
necessary.
G
B
A
B
H
H
F
Guys
I
can
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
conditional
use
subject
to
the
following
conditions:
number
one:
the
conditional
use
for
the
home
occupation
is
specific
to
this
applicant.
Any
subsequent
conditional
uses
for
a
home
occupation
would
have
to
come
back
before
this
board
to
boulevard.
Trees
and
plantings
are
not
required
of
this
applicant,
since
they
are
not
the
owner
of
the
property
and
the
home
occupation
is
specific
to
this
applicant
3.
A
B
Applicant
Steve
and
Beverly
Mac,
this
is
regarding
property
address.
1950
Street
southeast
application
was
submitted,
requesting
the
ability
to
rebuild
an
existing
non-conforming
structure
and
use
a
single-family
dwelling
located
in
the
C
3
highway
commercial
district
in
the
event
of
casualty,
pursuant
to
the
terms
of
section
21,
2803,
17
and
contingent
upon
compliance
with
specific
rules
governing
individual
conditional
uses,
including,
but
not
limited
to
2100
202
to
V
7
A
through
H
and
the
purpose
purpose
of
the
C
3
zone.
B
The
applicant
application
contradicts
the
following
ordinance
regulations:
2100
406
states
that
buildings
destroyed
by
casualty
beyond
60
percent
of
value
cannot
be
revealed
for
non-conforming
use.
2100
302
prohibits
the
construction,
remodeling
and
occupancy
of
building
structures
and
lots
and
uses
that
conflict
with
or
could
more
further
conflict
with
the
regulations
of
the
zoning
district
in
which
they're
located
and
the
height
and
placement
regulations
for
non-residential
districts.
B
The
applicants
submitted
a
site
plan
and
written
request
which
reflects
or
does
not
reflect
the
following
requirements
of
the
ordinance
and
I
would
like
you
to
look
at
your
site
plans.
We
didn't
go
into
great
detail
here.
It's
section
a
review
of
section
21,
o
202
to
b7
A
through
H.
Again
our
specific
rules
governing
individual
conditional
conditional
uses
regarding
ingress,
egress
off
street
parking
loading
screening,
buffering,
signage,
exterior
lighting
required
Garen's
and
open
space
and
general
compatibility
with
the
area.
Chapter
21
63
is
off
street
parking
and
loading
requirements.
B
Chapter
21
65
is
outside
storage
and
display
requirements
for
specific
uses
in
chapter
21,
73,
landscape
and
lighting
standards.
It
may
be
considered,
and
also
titles,
5,
18,
21
and
24
in
regards
to
sidewalk
trail
pro
cutter
and
subdivision.
This
board
must
determine
if
satisfactory
provision
and
arrangement
has
been
made
concerning
2102
o2
to
be
70
through
H
and
the
chapters
and
titles
described.
B
The
drawback
of
approval
is
that
granting
use
variances
versus
rezoning
to
a
district
that
fits
the
use
of
the
property
could
allow
this
non
conforming
to
nonconformity
to
exist
and,
if
destroyed
by
casualty,
be
rebuilt
so
as
to
continue
to
exist
into
perpetuity
amongst
existing
and
future
incompatible
uses.
If
generally
endorsed,
this
board
may
consider
conditions
of
approval
such
as
fulfillment
of
any
and
all
lacking
Boulevard
requirements,
waivers
of
right
to
protest
and
also
any
other
conditions
as
board
deems
necessary.
B
B
A
A
A
B
G
A
B
Yeah
this
this
is
a
kind
of
a
not
a
mobile
home
court,
exactly
as
far
as
your
around
places,
but
they
come
and
go.
And
then
this
is
a
home
here
home
here
home
here,
and
this
is
commercial.
Is
that
right,
I
think
and
then
there's
two
homes
I
think
on.
This
is
a
parcel
home
here,
and
this
is
the
golf
course
area.
G
F
A
N
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
Tom
Lindgren
I'm,
an
attorney
with
the
Green
Rovio
Viet
law,
firm,
Beverly
and
Steve
called
me
earlier
this
week
and
told
me
that
they
were
not
going
to
be
able
to
attend
the
meeting
and
asked
if
I
would
appear
on
their
behalf
and
so
I'm
doing
that
I've
had
a
chance
to
review
the
documentation.
That's
been
provided
to
you
and
I.
You
know.
Unless
there
are
specific
questions,
I
don't
intend
to
reread
that
to
you.
But
again,
I've
listened
to
the
dialogue
and,
what's
happened
is
the
buyer.
H
N
F
N
F
N
M
M
A
F
F
F
J
I
C
Think
in
most
cases,
I
would
generally
prefer
to
do
a
rezone,
but
in
in
this
particular
case
with
the
surrounding
uses,
I'm
not
sure
it
makes
sense
at
this
time
to
move
forward
with
that.
If
we
do
do
the
conditional
use,
we
may
do
it
on
a
caveat
that
at
some
point
in
time
in
the
future,
we
might
want
to
rezone
the.
C
A
I
A
M
A
A
A
D
O
A
proposed
resolution
20
1808
amending
chapter
21800,
7,
section
7
of
the
revised
ordinances
of
the
city
of
Watertown,
adding
the
allowance,
a
temporary
boulevard
and
public
property,
signage
adjacent
to
property
and
temporary
Boulevard
and
public
property
signs
non
adjacent
to
property
through
the
sign
permit
process.
The
backroom
councilman
Adam
l'olam
proposed
a
real
estate
sign
ordinance
amendment
on
December
6
2018
per
ordinance,
1745
be
looking
at
the
betterment
of
the
citizens
of
Watertown
and
for
them
to
get
the
most
amount
of
visibility
if
they
were
trying
to
sell
their
homes.
O
The
current
proposed
ordinance
amendment
was
submitted
by
the
Northeast
Association
of
Realtors
after
their
previous
City
Council
proposal
was
denied
at
the
December
6
2017
City
Council
meeting
with
the
direction
to
come
back
with
a
compromise
to
the
signed
code
ordinance.
There
are
three
things
that
the
council
can
regulate,
that
being
the
time
manner
and
placement
of
signs.
The
City
Council
said
that
they
would
be
interested
in
looking
at
a
compromise
that
perhaps
could
be
tolerated
by
all
parties,
not
exclusive
to
just
real
estates.
O
The
proposed
amendment
does
not
include,
or
does
not
or
does
include,
auction
sales
home
sales
by
owner
real
estate,
listing
sales
and
real
estate.
Open
houses
staff
has
concerns
at
the
proposed
ordinance
amendment,
maybe
to
convoluting
and
would
substantially
increased
the
staff
effort
for
monitoring
and
enforcement
of
the
sine
code
by
the
building
services
department
staff
members
concluded
with
a
consensus
that
the
city
should
regulate
signs
all
together
from
a
content-neutral
basis
following
the
most
recent
Supreme
Court
decision,
so
which
is
where
city
staff
recommends.
H
A
A
J
Basically,
what
we've
got
as
Brandi
and
described
Supreme
Court
decisions
indicate
that
we
need
to
regulate,
sign
placement,
there's
signs
by
time,
placement
manner.
How
long
do
their
to
take
the
sign
and
where
they
located
at
and
so
I'll
just
do
this
brandy
I've
got
it
here,
so
basically
20
1808.
This
resolution
really
gets
us
to
the
doorstep.
I
think
the
folks
that
worked
on
this
did
a
great
job
of
getting
us
real
close
to
it.
J
This
is
narrow,
narrowly
tailored
towards
towards
the,
though
it's
not
narrowly
tailored
only
the
real
estate
signs.
It
is
towards
a
quote
commercial
activity,
and
so
there
are
a
couple
of
flaws
as
far
as
from
the
standpoint
of
trying
to
handle
the
town
as
a
whole
and
I
just
my
main
thoughts
on
that
or
that
there's
a
couple
of
things.
J
J
That's
letter,
it's
letter,
a
where
it
talks
about
the
section
and
I'm
sorry,
I,
don't
have
the
whole
section
on
here,
but
it
it
says
in
21800,
7c,
a
line
to
the
phrase
saying
notify
the
public
of
such
user
purpose
and
that's
indicating
that
the
sign
would
be
intended
to
notify
the
public
which,
again
anytime,
we
have
to
read
the
sign
in
order
to
determine
how
to
regulate
it.
That's
where
we
run
into
problems.
Okay,.
J
Well,
that's
the
point
is
that
the
speech
itself
can
be
limited.
So
if
it's
only
on
lots
that
have
a
commercial
use,
then
in
theory
my
understanding
of
it
is
that
you
you'd
have
an
opportunity,
if
there's
only
on
lots
to
have
a
commercial
use,
but
you've
got
a
you've
got
a
limited
to
that
standpoint.
J
Plus
you
can't
limit
what
they're
saying
on
that
sign,
and
so
that's
where
the
portion
about
the
notification,
the
other
part,
is
that
I
also
have
a
difficult
time,
knowing
that
the
Gilbert
versus
the
Gilbert
Arizona
case
was
a
kind
of
a
similar
situation
where
they
they
did
allow
for
commercial
language,
but
they
did
not
allow
for
religious
or
sort
of
really
just
sorts
of
signs
or
anything
in
terms
of
a
religious
organization
which
is
really
what
got
them
into
the
mess
that
they
were
in.
So.
H
J
J
You
you
can
restrict
the
when
to
wear
something
like
that
is
happening
on
the
property,
but
you
can't
restrict
that
they're
only
having
a
sign
put
it
this
way.
If
I'm
selling,
my
house
I,
could
have
a
sign
out
in
my
front
yard
that
says
it
I'm
pretty
awesome,
that's
basically
what
that
should
what
that
would
allow.
Is
it's
not
restricting
what
you
can
say
on
the
sign?
That's
restricting
when
you
can
say
it,
but.
E
J
Again,
it's
a
time
frame.
I
go
back
to.
If
we
had
a,
we
had
a
draft
as
we
worked
on
a
sign
code
couple
of
years
ago,
in
which,
within
that
draft,
what
we
had
in
there
was
a
discussion
about
for
temporary
signs
that
we
would
point
out
and
I
gives
us
it
in
the
presentation
to
the
council.
Was
it
instead
of
going
with
I'm
gonna
go
with
campaign
signs.
J
J
E
J
Time
you
could
have,
you
can
have
an
advertisement
for
such-and-such
real
estate
that
it
just
says
that's
the
time
that
you're
allowed
to
have
a
sign
the
time
of
year,
and
so
this,
what
they've
got
in
here
is
a
trigger
mechanism.
That
I
think
you
could
probably
still
use
I'm
more
concerned
about
the
sentence
above
it
than
I,
am
about
the
time
frame
about
the
trigger
mechanisms
they've
got
in
there.
So.
J
F
F
J
J
A
E
J
A
difficulty
and
I
think
at
this
point,
if
you
were
I,
think
you're
gonna
want
to
dive
into
that.
More
specifically,
if
you're
gonna
dive
into
the
ordinance
itself,
I
think
that
that
is.
That
is
a
difficulty
trying
to
follow
with
the
amount
of
time
trying
to
track
the
amount
of
time
that
they're
out
there.
My
own
opinion
I
think
that
it
probably
goes
along
the
lines
of
a
of
a
perhaps
a
license
process.
Instead,
where
you
wind
up
having
the
ability
to
have
anybody.
A
J
Yeah
and
you
are
going
to
I,
will
point
I
mean
you
are
going
to
have
pressure
again
with
with
other
sorts
of
science
as
well,
and
that's
I
guess
we're
in
the
end
mile.
My
my
recommendation
out
to
you
is
that,
from
from
the
standpoint
of
my
office,
I
need
to
recommend
that,
if
you're
going
to,
if
you're
going
to
handle
any
signs
in
the
boulevard,
talk
about
all
the
signs
that
you're
gonna
allow
on
the
boulevard
I
understand
that
the
the
groups
put
this
together
and
done
a
lot
of
work
on
this.
J
F
J
Guess
my
my
thoughts
on
it
are
that
I
think
that
you
could,
if
we're
starting
this
from
scratch,
we'd
probably
be
talking
about
a
handful
of
months.
I
think
that,
with
the
work
that's
gone
on
with
this
I
really
think
that
you
could
probably
within
a
meeting
in
most
to
probably
have
at
least
year.
You
could
have
information
as
far
as
in
the
boulevard
figured
out,
if
not
your
entire
temporary
signs
caught
up
it
at
that
period
of
time,
and
if
not,
then
you'd
come
back
and
act
on
this.
J
I,
do
probably
the
the
concern
I
didn't
point
out
what
I
already
said,
that
is,
it
you've
got
within
your
ordinance.
It's
not
content,
neutral
and
I
know
I've
spoken
with
mr.
hollom
as
well
about
that.
That
was
one
of
the
troubles
that
they
had
as
well
trying
to
work
with
it
is.
How
do
we
make
this
content
neutral
when
were
carved
out
specifically
within
the
temporary
science
section,
so
that
it's
gonna
take
a
little
bit
of
work,
and
if
we
get
bogged
down
on
that?
Well,
then,
let's
focus
on
this.
H
J
L
L
I
will
reference
statistics
and
and
reference
it
from
a
real
estate
point
of
view,
but
I
know
that
this
proposal
that
sits
before
he
is
not
a
real
estate
sign
ordinance
but
but
but
driven
has
a
content-neutral
piece
and
also
to
show
the
necessity
as
to
why
this
request
is
being
made
not
only
on
behalf
of
the
realtors
but
on
behalf
of
the
community
as
well.
First,
let's
take
a
look
at
a
few
of
the
driving
factors
regarding
the
renewed
interest
in
the
enforcement
of
temporary
signs
within
the
public
right
away.
L
First,
we
have
one
and
a
hundred
year
event
that
caused
a
m--
hail
damage
to
thousands
of
homes.
A
roofing
companies
riddled
the
boulevards
with
their
plastic
flimsy
signs
all
over
the
place
which
the
council
had
had
made
mention
of,
and
while
this
event
did
cause
a
large
boom
in
temporary
signage,
that
also
had
a
huge
economic
impact
on
the
community
itself.
In
sales,
tax
receipts,
as
well
as
the
BBB
tax,
secondly,
h2o
20.
The
survey
that
was
done
indicated
that
the
need
for
new
signage
ordinances
to
be
addressed.
L
However,
in
regards
to
that
that
was
mostly
driven
on
the
gateway
or
the
highway
212
piece
during
the
previous
administration.
I'd
made
that
recommendation
since
the
d-o-t
is
going
to
be
having
212
reconstruction
piece
come
up
because
I
served
on
both
the
planning
and
the
implementation
committees
for
h2o
20.
L
So
that
was
one
of
the
things
that
that
we
had
taken
in
an
effort
to
push
forward
a
new
sign
code
ordinance
as
far
as
212
is
concerned,
and
finally,
the
current
administration
has
indicated
that
their
commitment
is
to
protect
or
to
enforce
the
ordinance
as
written,
which
is
exactly
how
we
were
in
full
support
of
that
and
that's
why
we're
presenting
this
today,
here's
a
little
backstory
on
the
proposal.
I
know
Luke
talked
about
it
for
years.
L
The
signing
of
the
real
estate
signs
or
temporary
signage
in
the
public
right
away
was
a
lot
was
not
allowed
per
ordinance
but
was
never
enforced.
The
local
realtor
Association
has
been
around
for
over
40
years,
and
we've
used
that
public
right
away
are
those
boulevards
as
a
way
of
doing
our
business.
I
will
show
you
instances
today
that
without
this
amendment,
the
sign
ordinance
allowing
signs
in
the
public
right-of-way
some
homeowners
would
be
at
a
disadvantage.
The.
E
L
Voted
down
our
proposal,
our
proposed
amendment
presented
in
December
of
2017,
not
because
they
didn't
want
signage
in
the
public
right-of-way
per
se,
but
simply
because
of
the
because
the
proposed
amendment
was
in
violation
of
the
2015
Supreme
Court
case,
which
Luke
just
mentioned,
which
was
the
reverses
the
town
of
Gilbert,
because
the
signs
and
the
ordinance
itself
was
not
based
on
content.
Neutrality
in
December
that
proposed
amendment
was
written,
was
not
written
as
content
neutral.
L
So
after
they
voted
that
down,
they
asked
us
to
come
back
with
something
that
would
would
be
deemed
as
content
neutral
and
at
that
time,
former
city
attorney
Vince
Foley,
because
he
was
one
day
away
from
leaving
his
post
and
having
mr.
Robie
take
the
helm,
offers
his
assistance
in
helping
us
write.
This
signed
court
ordinance
that
would
follow
the
recommendation
of
the
council
for
that
content.
Neutrality
on
the
proposal
in
front
of
you
today
is
just
that.
L
It
was
written
in
an
effort
to
come
into
compliance
with
the
US
Supreme
Court
ruling
for
Reed
versus
the
town
of
Gilbert.
The
proposed
ordinance
that
sits
in
fornia
regulates
time
manner
and
placement
all
through
a
permitted
use
through
the
city.
So
that's
an
important
piece
on
this,
as
it
is
a
permitted
use
through
City
Hall.
It
will
not
allow
for
creepage
or
obstruction
of
Clearview
triangle,
because
the
permit
during
in
that
permit
process,
that's
written
in
front
of
you.
L
The
applicant
will
have
to
fill
out
a
site
plan
regarding
the
placement
of
said
temporary
site
the
material.
The
sign
is
also
identified
in
this
ordinance
so
that
it
has
to
be
constructed
of
a
material
that
also
would
be
addressed
in
that
proposed
ordinance.
The
real-estate
business
is
not
a
one-size-fits-all
in
each
community
has
its
own
unique
advantages
and
challenges
in
each
communities.
A
consumers
act
and
react
differently.
L
According
to
statistics
published
by
the
National
Association
of
Realtors
or
any
our
nationwide
home
buyers
state
that
the
yard
sign
account
for
8%
of
the
initial
discovery
point
for
searching
for
homes,
however
locally,
that
statistical
number
is
two
to
three
times
higher
or
upwards
of
24%.
I
can
tell
you
the
number
of
times
I've
answered.
The
phone
has
saw
a
sign
at
1700,
13th
Avenue.
What's
the
price,
that's
their
that's
their
initial
point
of
discovery,
another
just
statistics,
that's
published
by
any
other
states
that
only
1%
of
consumers
find
their
homes
via
print
ad.
L
However
locally,
the
public
opinion
will
tell
you
that
their
second
highest
district
distribution
day
is
the
Wednesday
paper,
because
that's
the
day
that
the
real
estate
locator
guide
comes
out-
and
this
is
how
our
local
consumers
search
for
properties,
local,
so
I
printed
out,
some
slides
and
I'm.
Sorry,
some
of
them
are
pixelated,
but
I
took
these
off
the
first
district
website.
L
H
L
So,
here's
that
here's
a
top
piece
this
identifies
or
or
justifies
the
rationale
behind
a
temporary
sign
for
directional
signage,
and
that's
the
second
piece
of
that
amendment.
That's
in
front
of
you,
it's
it's
written
as
a
24
hour
in
advance
or
48
hours
in
advance
and
must
be
taken
down
within
2
hours.
So
if
you
have
a
property
that
is
say,
we're
going
to
do
an
open
house
or
somebody's
going
to
have
a
little
arrow
party
or
somebody's
gonna
have
a
Tupperware
sale
or
something
like
that
and
they
had
a
metal
sign.
L
That
was
fabricated
as
a
directional
signage
took
the
permitted
to
use
and
said,
I
want
to
put
it
out
here
right
now.
Without
that
caveat,
without
this
exemption
we
would
be
required
to
ask
this
homeowner
or
this
homeowner
to
place
a
sign
on
their
private
property
as
a
directional
piece,
so
that
we
could
get
them
to
say
a
property
down
here
on
Cherry,
Drive
or
22nd.
Street
here
is
a
picture
of
from
the
gis.
This
shows
the
lot
line
here.
This
is
10th
Avenue,
so
it's
115,
10th
Avenue
here
is
the
lot
line.
L
Here's
the
Boulevard,
the
sidewalk
and
excuse
me,
here's
the
overview
from
Google
Maps
same
thing:
here's
the
sidewalk,
but
there's
a
fence
that
goes
across
this
property
and
per
the
rule
that
sign
for
sale
would
have
to
be
back
here
without
access
to
the
public
right
away,
same
thing
on
the
property
right
next
door.
There's
two
of
those
and
that's.
Why
that's
why?
L
In
crafting
this
ordinance
and
based
on
content
neutrality,
we
didn't
also
just
want
to
limit
it
to
Lake
in
pesco,
because
there
are
pieces
or
parts
of
the
community
that
based
on
the
setback,
requirements
or
the
public
right
away,
it
would
greatly
hinder
their
ability
to
do
that.
Here's
one
out
a
North,
Lake
Drive!
L
L
So
I
did
the
measurements
here
and
that's
why,
in
when
we
met
with
the
council,
the
council
said
well:
should
we
do
10
feet
back?
Should
we
do
15
feedback
I?
Couldn't
answer
that
question
because
there
is
no
unilateral
answer
for
that,
so
on
the
measurement
here
from
estimated
from
the
back
of
the
curve
to
that
property
line,
this
is
26.2
feet.
So
that's
why
we
did
not
put
a
number
of
feet
minimum
in
the
ordinance
as
proposed
in
front
of
you
today.
L
L
L
Drive
or
jonathan
drive,
if
they
didn't
know
the
community,
they
most
likely
would
not
be
able
to
find
that
same
thing
with
Palisades
I
mean
if
you're
doing
a
property
on
Palisades,
open
house
or
anything
you'd
have
to
put
it
out
here.
The
signage
out
here
to
get
direction
into
the
I
think
there's
one
yeah.
How
many
know
we're
dark
drives
us
I've
lived
here.
L
L
It
would
be
necessary
to
place
directional
signage
on
private
property,
and
this
address
this
is
addressed
in
that
proposal
in
the
permitted
use
as
well.
We
talked
about
the
South
Lake
Drive
from
cattail
crossing
much
of
North
Lake
Drive
along
Highway
20.
All
of
those
properties
could
be
adversely
affected
or
hindered
in
their
ability
to
market
their
property
for
sale.
Without
that
first
point
of
contact,
you
know
in
business
you
strive
to
find
the
most
effective
and
efficient
way
to
do
your
business
and
accomplish
your
goal,
our
goal
as
realtors.
L
It's
the
seller,
prime
clients
properties
as
quickly
as
possible,
personal
motivation.
The
sell
is
different
for
everyone,
and
some
motivating
factors
include
but
are
not
limited
to
job
transfers,
divorce,
death
or
more
traditionally,
the
step-up
buyer.
But
regardless,
when
someone
hires
a
realtor,
ultimately
they
want
their
property
sold.
The
issues
before
us
today
is
not
about
Realtors
having
to
work
harder.
It's
about
utilizing
best
practices
in
an
effort
to
meet
the
goals
established
by
our
buyers
and
sellers
and
will
homes
still
sell
absolutely.
Will
buyers
still
be
able
to
find
properties?
L
Is
directly
tied
to
safer,
neighborhoods
and
impacts,
a
sense
of
pride
for
community
there's,
also
a
sense
of
ownership
rights
to
the
sidewalks
and
boulevards
I
mean
homeowners,
typically,
don't
understand
that
they
don't
own
the
sidewalk
to
the
curb
or
the
public
right
away.
The
city
doesn't
mow
the
grass,
the
homeowner
does
city
doesn't
plow
the
snow.
L
Of
the
snow
I
mean
that's,
not
your
issue,
but
that
is
just
one
of
the
the
things
that,
when
we're
talking
about
public
right
away,
there
is
a
certain
sense
of
ownership
to
that,
because
they
do
have
to
maintain
that
as
you've
seen
through
the
slides,
I've
shared
some
property
lines,
don't
encompass
sidewalks
and
other
ones
do
so.
That's
another
challenge
and
why
we
proposed
this
amendment
to
the
sign
ordinance
the
way
that
it's
written
today
without
a
specific
number
of
feet
back
from
curb
or
roadway.
L
Please
bear
in
mind
that
when
you're
deciding
do
you
want
signage
in
the
public
Rea
in
the
public.
Right-Of-Way.
Excuse
me.
Some
of
the
ident
areas
identified
in
the
photos
will
have
no
option
but
to
utilize
that
public
right
away
and
there's
without
them
being
at
a
disadvantage.
So
imagine
in
your
business
if
you
were
forced
to
change
your
business
model
that
your
customers
have
become
accustomed
to
or
conditioned
to
how
much
hardship
would
you
endure?
L
This
isn't
again
a
realtor
hardship,
it's
a
hardship
on
residents,
a
hardship
on
Watertown
homeowners
and
a
hardship
on
clients.
That
is
why
we're
asking
for
your
support.
That's
why
we've
crafted
the
amendment
to
serve
as
a
content-neutral
ordinance
that
is
allowed
and
enforceable,
not
only
through
application,
but
permitted
use
so
long
as
it
meets
the
requirements
that
are
set
forth
in
this
proposal.
The
city
staff
at
researched,
11
other
communities
within
the
state
of
South
Dakota
that
have
ordinances
prohibiting
signage
in
the
public
right
away.
L
I
have
talked
to
10
of
those
11
communities,
I'm
going
to
address
that
in
the
City
Council
meeting
in
December,
but
the
staff
also
indicated
that
the
amendment
convoluted
the
existing
sign
ordinance
and
since
it
has
not
written
the
existing
sign
ordinance
is
not
written
as
content-neutral
on
my
response
to
that
statement
is
now.
We
have
a
baseline
for
change.
The
mayor
is
repeatedly
commented
how
we
need
to
grow
and
change
the
society,
and
we
should
only
have
rules
that
are
appropriate
for
our
community,
and
this
amendment
is.
L
I
L
L
I
I
I
L
L
L
You
look
at
the
way
that
it
is
written
on
the
upper
piece
up
there.
It
says
that
they
want
the
adjoining
landowners
permission
to
do
it
so
long
as
it
only
only
Reif.
It's
only
required
to
have
the
abutting
landowners
permission
so
long
as
it's
outside
that
10-foot
side
yard
setback.
So
if
you
got
a
50-foot
lot
and
you
put
it
in
the
middle
of
that
50-foot
line,
you
don't
have
to
talk
to
the
neighbor
left
on
the
right,
because
it's
outside
that
10-foot
buffering.
F
L
H
G
O
L
So
you're
talking
about
D,
temporary
Boulevard
and
public
property
son
is
not
adjacent
to
property.
The
permit
may
be
granted
for
a
temporary
sign
placement
now.
Demoting
are
not
adjacent
to
property,
but
it
also
goes
back
into
the
first
piece
that's
in
there,
but
it
also
serves
that
said.
Permit
shall
be
valid
for
24
hours
in
advance
of
the
event
and
two
hours
at
the
end
of
the
event,
which
again
is
addressed
in
that
permit
piece.
So.
F
L
And
that,
and
a
part
of
that
is,
is,
is
in
trying
to
maintain
that
content
neutrality
and
let
me
back
up
a
lot
of
this-
was
done
not
only
with
our
existing
sign
ordinance,
but
we
also
pulled
sign
ordinances
from
other
communities,
do
not
relegated
just
to
South
Dakota
that
were
in
that
content
neutral
space.
So
if
you
look
at
three
a
it
says,
no
sign,
including
the
support
structure,
shall
be
constructed
of
any
materials
which
is
not
metallic
metal
or
poly
metal.
This
will
has
to
withstand
the
impact,
winds
and
blowing
snow.
F
F
Well,
I
think
that's
problematic.
In
the
beginning,
I
mean
I'm
just
trying
to
apply
that
I'm
trying
to
say
if,
if,
if
the
issue
and
the
first
paragraph
that
talks
about
notifying
the
public
of
such
use
of
purpose
is
problematic
and
that's
removed,
then
we
still
have
that
preamble
is
removing.
You
still
have
what
I'm
calling
a
functional
administrative
process.
Then
the
question
regarding
political
science
garage
sales,
graduation
science,
all
those
things
would
have
to
run
through
that
process
and
I.
Think
mr.
Muller
was
correct.
That
I
think
they're
very
close
to
having
something.
F
H
F
Close
but
I
think
the
bigger
question
that
comes
back
to
me
is
is
that
we
also
have
existing
political
and
regulus
Tate
signs
are
listed
as
exempted
signs
in
the
current
non
content-neutral
temporary
and
if
I'm
going
to
be
making
a
change,
I
would
like
to
fix
that
section
as
well.
If
we
are
for
all
practical
purposes,
this
is
a
real
estate
sign
issue.
F
That's
causing
what's
going
on
here,
so
I'm
thinking,
I
would
just
as
soon
fix
that
whole
section
together
and
if
we
can
do
it
in
a
meeting
or
two
I
think
it
would
behoove
us
moving
forward.
I
know
you're
not
looking
for
a
motion
yet
but
I'm
letting
you
know
that,
regardless
of
whatever
emotion
is
gonna
be
made.
I'm
gonna
make
a
substitute
motion
to
postpone
the
decision
on
this
tonight.
Well,.
L
L
F
Hollom
I
think
you're
really
close
and
I'm.
Just
gonna
reiterate
what
I
said
previously
that
I
think
when
a
piece
of
public
policy
comes
to
the
Planning
Commission
I
need
a
little
bit
more
than
two
and
a
half
days
to
digest
what
the
implications
of
that
policy
is
and
what
the
ramification
of
that
policy
I
think
it's
a
lot
bigger
than
a
page
and
a
half
of
some
of
some
regulatory
regulations.
That's
going
to
say
the
list
is
gonna
fix
it
and
I.
F
Think
realistically,
under
statute,
the
Planning
Commission
is
charged
with
developing
that
policy
and
making
the
recommendation
to
the
City
Council
and
because
of
that
I
think
we're
close
I.
Think
it's
I
think
it's
I
think
it's
a
discussion
that
can
be
held
amongst
the
Planning
Commission
in
an
open
setting
where
we
invite
you
and
your
group
to
come
in.
We
might
want
to
talk
about,
and
politics
and
politicians.
E
F
Might
want
to
come
in.
We
want
to
want
to
talk
to
other
groups
that
have
temporary
signs,
even
the
individuals,
at
least
temporary
signs
and
I
think
if
we
can
come
up
with
something
that
is
basically
content
neutral
and
then
we
have
the
question
then
well
as
a
content-neutral
for
the
boulevard
and
if
it's
content
neutral
for
the
individual
private
property,
maybe
we
keep
one.
M
M
As
far
as
what
has
this
done
to
affect
real
estate
sales,
I
heard
information
on
percentages
of
people
here
who
do
look
for
homes
by
by
the
newspaper
or
by
the
signage
or
whatever,
but
I
would
be
interested
in
knowing
has
there
been
a
significant
reduction
in
home
sales
since
those
signs
removed
off
the
public
right-of-way
compared
to
the
same
time
period
when
the
signs
were
allowed
in
the
public
right-of-way?
If
there
hasn't
been
a
significant
reduction
in
sales,
why
would
you
move
to
the
backs
of
public
right
away.
M
I
think
you
would
go
to
the
same
place
that
provided
the
percentages
of
the
people
who
use
the
newspaper
or
listen
to
radio
ads
or
look
at
a
sign
on
the
road
I
mean
someone
is
gathering
this
data,
so
I
would
think
someone
has
data
on
sales
over
certain
time
periods
before
the
signs
were
moved
off.
The
public
right.
H
F
And
I
think
it's
I
think
that's
good
question.
It
asked,
however,
I
think
it's
much
bigger
than
real
estate
signs
and,
as
mr.
hollom
said,
and
about
six
weeks,
we're
gonna
start
seeing
a
lot
of
political
signs
being
put
up
and
in
about
another
seven,
six
to
seven
weeks,
we'll
be
seeing
garage,
sale
signs
all
over
the
place
and
they're
all
they're
all
but
we'll
be
in
the
public
right
away.
So
I
think
the
bigger
the
bigger
question
is.
Is
we
need
to
figure
out?
How
do
we
address
the
whole
issue
of
science.
G
E
M
Back
and
forth,
thank
you
it's
true.
It
is
a
total
sign
ordinance,
but
I
think
we
just
kind
of
all
acknowledged
that
the
basic
part
of
it
is
the
real
estate
sign
part
I
mean
that's
the
overwhelming
driving
force
to
this,
and
nothing
is
going
to
be
settled.
I,
don't
think
until
you
figure
out,
do
the
Realtors
really
need
signs
in
the
public
right
away?
That's
that's
the
bottom
line
in
my
mind,
right
now
the
signs
aren't
in
the
public
right
away.
Everyone
knows
the
rule.
Simple
is
always
better
the
simpler.
M
D
Everything
and
putting
this
back
on
the
realtors.
Ultimately,
the
people
that
these
realtors
represent
are
our
friends
and
our
neighbors
and
the
folks
that
we
go
to
church
with
and
they're
trying
to
do
their
best
work
and
what
they're
hired
to
do
so
I
think
it's
unfair
to
just
categorize
it
and
I.
Think
you're.
Right,
though
you
know
it's
a
bigger
thing
than
just
bell:
realtors
I
think
we
need
to
be
very
careful
about
painting
that
with
a
broad
brush
and.
C
With
that,
that's
one
of
my
concerns-
and
we
talked
a
little
bit
about
it
earlier
in
regards
to
some
of
the
language
here
around
in
auction
sales,
home
sales
and
and
the
argument
can
be
made
that
those
are
in
relation
to
a
time
right,
but
but,
but
is
that
also
in
a
way
de-facto
regulating
the
content
if
you're?
If
your
time
fences
are
based
on
that
type
of
economic
transaction
short.
F
Answer
is
yeah
I
think
we
could.
We
can
do
that
based
upon
my
research
and
you
can
set
up
because
again
you're
not
regulating
what
the
sign
says.
The
ordinance
isn't
saying
you
have
to
know
what
the
regulation
is.
The
ordinance
is
setting
up
a
fashion
that,
during
certain
times
of
the
year,
certain
events
that
are
going
on.
F
You
bet
your
time
and
then,
if
the
placement
and
the
manner
is
the
type
of
the
sign,
how
long
it's
going
to
be
there
as
if
that's
what
we're
regulating,
but
when
we
say
I
can
have
a
political
sign
or
I
can
have
a
church
sign
or
a
real
estate
sign
and
I'm
being
specific
to
that.
That's
where
I
think
it's
problematic
and
so
I
think.
Realistically,
the
five
of
us
are
having
a
hard
time
wrapping
our
heads
around
this
I
know
that
they've
done
a
lot
of
work,
I.
F
Think
personally,
we
don't
drop
the
ball
here
and
I.
Think
if
we
give
ourselves
saying
that
we
will
get
together
sometime
in
the
next
two
to
three
weeks
to
talk
about
this,
come
up
with
a
recommendation
and
at
that
time
have
the
conversation
of
whether
or
not
it's
in
or
out
and
in
the
boulevard
and
then,
if
it
is
in
around,
where
do
we
go
from
there?
F
A
First
off
anybody
else
want
to
speak
in
the
public
hearing.
In
that
case,
I'll
close,
the
public
hearing
and
I'm
not
going
to
ask
for
a
motion.
I'm
gonna
ask
for
a
discussion.
We
have
two
questions
a
do.
We
want
signs
in
the
boulevard,
yes
or
no.
If
no,
then
this
pretty
much
goes
away.
If,
yes,
we
want
signs
in
the
boulevard,
then
we
have
to
address
this,
and
if
you
want
to
delay
that
and
address
it
at
some
wage
or
a
point
in
time,
that's
fine,
but
I.
A
F
F
Second
point
is
that
by
and
large
personally
I'm,
not
favor
of
signs
in
the
in
the
boulevard.
However,
there
may
be
circumstances
when
it
would
be
appropriate
and
if
there
was
a
way
to
flush
that
discussion
out
to
say
when
would
it
be
appropriate?
If
we
can't
come
up
with
a
time,
then
it
would
be
appropriate,
then
the
answer
would
be
no
but
I.
Think
again,
I
think
that's
really
somebody
would
to
come
in
and
give
us
some
ideas
of
when
it
would
be
appropriate
under
what
circumstances.
F
A
Currently,
the
ordinance
says
no
signs
in
the
boulevard
and
I
haven't
seen
any
verbage.
That
would
change
my
mind.
I'm
still
no
signs
in
Boulevard
at
all.
But
if
you
want
to
continue
this
session
at
some
later
date-
and
you
know
kick
the
can
down
the
road
for
all.
That's
that's
fine.
If
you
want
to
wait
for
more
people
in
the
board,
but.
I
A
I
C
F
A
F
I
F
Public
would
be
the
public
would
be
invited,
but
I
would
like
to
have
at
least
some
of
those
people
here.
So
we
can.
You
know
mr.
hollom
is
saying
that
the
council
wasn't
necessarily
against
the
boulevard.
I,
don't
know
that
to
be
true
or
not,
but
if
there
are
several
council
members
that
want
to
show
up
and
give
us
some
direction
that
helps
us
out
as
well,
because
I
don't
want
to
be
the
dog
chasing
its
tail
on
this.
Just.
A
F
F
O
In
the
meantime,
then,
we
will
work
to
coordinate
with
you
guys
to
put
together
a
special
plan,
Commission
meeting.
Where
then
we'll
discuss
this
and
we'll
invite
all
the
parties
that
you've
mentioned,
and
then
hopefully
you
guys
have
direction
then
to
bring
it
back
up
with
April
19th
Planning
Commission
meeting.
They
will
put
it
back
on
the
agenda.
A
A
O
The
discussion
of
this
topic
comes
from
and
the
topic
is
a
potential
ordinance
amendment
adding
a
zoning
district
which
would
tentatively
be
our
r1a
to
facilitate
affordable
housing,
and
this
topic
comes
from
the
mayor's,
affordable
housing
committee
and
the
desire
to
create
a
zoning
district
that
allows
for
smaller
minimum
lot
sizes
and
setbacks
to
facilitate
a
more
affordable
housing
market
within
watertown.
Initial
discussion
of
such
a
zoning
designation
included
these
requirements.
O
Only
allowing
a
certain
percentage
of
lot
coverage
to
be
impervious
surfaces
only
allowing
driveways
to
be
a
certain
width
where
it
meets
the
public
right-of-way
to
allow
for
on
street
parking
with
such
narrow
lot
widths
and
open
to
allowing
shared
walls
between
shared
lot
lines.
As
long
as
each
home
has
sufficient
lot
width,
so
this
is
just
starting
the
discussion
I'm
with
you
guys
to
see
or
to
get
your
thoughts
and
and
just
to
try
to
create
more
affordable
housing
by
having
smaller
lop
sizes
and
with
some
requirements.
Ok,.
I
I
A
Earlier
the
city
tried
to
have
a
smaller
lot
area.
I
think
was
in
the
ends
edition
or
whatever
the
Edition.
They
call
it
up,
north
of
14th
and
east
of
81,
smaller
Lots,
to
build
more
affordable
housing
and
little
narrower
streets,
and
that
was
a
good
idea,
but
it
didn't
really
pan
out
the
houses
up
there
or
them
basically
the
same
price
as
all
the
other
houses
in
town.
A
Making
a
smaller
a
lot
to
have
a
affordable
housing
is
a
good
idea,
but
I
think.
If
we're
going
to
do
this,
we
have
to
regulate
it
so
tightly
that
you
have
to
build.
Are
cheaper
house
on
that
one?
Well,
that's
limiting
the
square
footage
of
the
house
or
whatever
we
do,
because
if
we
just
do
it
this
way,
they're
gonna
put
a
you
know:
3,500
square
foot
house
on
a
five.
You
know
that
was
the
square
foot
lot
and.
O
F
Recommendation
is
to
separate
that
out
from
a
print
from
impervious
surface
as
being
one
standard,
but
also
a
maximum
size
of
these
structures.
So
if
you're
saying
that
60%
of
it
has
to
be
not
impervious
whatever,
that
number
is
because
when
you
talk
about
lock
coverage,
we
look
at
lock
coverage
kind
of
goofy
here
in
Watertown.
By
your
way,
your
ordinance
is
set
up.
Lock
coverage
is
basically
supposed
to
be
structural
coverage.
We
use
lock,
covers
to
take
into
account
impervious
for
the
purposes
of
trying
to
calculate
an
engineering
slide
rule
for
a
drainage.
F
So
if
you're
going
to
talk
about
a
5,000
foot,
lot,
I
would
like
see
5000
foot
a
lot
that
says
these
is
the
maximum
amount
of
structural
that
you
can
have
on
it
and
then
combine
that
as
a
part
of
the
total
impervious
I
also
agree
with
Chairman's.
Don't
burger
that
I
think
it
has
to
be
written
in
there
that
there
are
no
variances.
We
won't
approve
any
Platts
that
wouldn't
have
to
need
a
variance
at
some
point
in
time.
F
A
Oh
okay,
I'll
throw
this
out
there.
I
was
talking
with
Mary
estate.
We
have
an
AR
to
a
single-family
housing
unit
that
has
a
6,000
square
foot
lot
and
there
are
50
foot
wide
and
Yatta
Yatta
the
same
same
basically
thing
with
2,000
square
foot,
larger
and
there's
nothing
wrong
with
putting
in
a
single-family
house
in
an
art
to
a
district.
So
if
we've
already
got
that,
what
do
we
need
in
an
entirely
new
zoning
district
for
and
mayor,
do
you
have
a
comment
on
that.
K
I
did
think
about
just
right
now
that
our
to
a
zone
has
a
caveat
that
says
no
new
r2a
zones.
So
why?
Wouldn't
we
just
take
that
away
a
lot
more?
What
I
envision
for
this
is
that
you
have
a
maximum
coverage
of
lot,
which
will
control
the
size
of
the
building,
and
the
r2a
does
not
have
that.
Currently.
K
K
K
To
visit
you
can't
park
on
the
street
because
it's
all
driveway
and
not
for
the
zone,
this
zone
should
have
narrow,
driveways
small
homes
and
yards
with
grass
and
I'm
not
concrete.
So
we
can
do
all
that
with
specifications
and
we
talked
to
Brandi
and
I
talked
about
getting
some
illustrations
of
what
60%
lot
coverage
would
look
like
or
40%.
K
K
Nobody
wants
it,
they
won't
use
it,
but
that
tools
there.
If
someone
wants
to
use
it
and
I
have
talked
to
a
few
people
that
owned
land
and
asked
them
if
they
would
even
consider
using
it,
and
the
answer
was
yes,
so
maybe
not
for
a
whole
neighborhood,
but
for
a
block.
So
you
have
a
solid
block
where
you
have
these
smaller
homes
and
then,
as
the
neighborhood
grows
around
it
yet
deeper
into
it.
The
home
size
is
change
and
you're
right
John
about
Northridge
neighborhood.
We
don't
want
to
repeat.
E
K
F
K
And
and
I
don't
know
we
didn't
get
into
spot
zoning
issues.
If
that's
a
concern,
if
you
want
to
have
at
least
a
certain
number,
you
don't
want
to
have
one
of
these
Lots
in
a
string
of
r1
watts
or
because
that
can
be
part
of
the
conversation
to.
If
you
think
it
matters,
and
maybe
it
doesn't
matter,
maybe
you
can
sprinkle
it
around.
Would.
F
F
K
Well,
and
if
it
met
the
area
requirements,
then
you
you
probably
could
the
name
r1
a
is
just
random.
You
can
call
it
whatever
you
want.
I
I
just
picked
that
but
I
don't
think
it's
important.
The
idea,
though,
of
it
only
being
single
family
lots,
I'm,
not
sure,
that's
how
it
should
be.
It
might
be,
and
this
is
semantics,
but.
H
K
You
had
two
homes
sharing
a
wall
on
a
lot
line,
a
duplex
in
other
words,
but
we
call
them
condos,
because
they're
separately
in
separate
land
would
that
be
okay
and
I
think
maybe
that
would
be
okay.
That
would
not
be
okay
in
an
r1
zone.
So
that's
more
of
an
r2
type
of
a
use
and
I'm
open
for
a
discussion
on
that
or
whether
or
not
that's
something
that
would
be
desirable,
because
I
could
see
people
not
minding
having
a
shared
wall.
It's
you
know
two
Lots,
though,.
H
K
C
O
O
H
A
A
A
K
H
A
K
G
H
A
A
G
It
hot
here
assume
a
50-foot
lot:
you're
22
feet
to
do
a
put
a
car
in
parallel
parking
on
the
street
six
foot
side
guard
for
the
driveway.
It's.
What
six
to
28
is
still.
Is
you
a
20
or
22
foot
I
mean
you
could
dictate
it
down
to
a
20
foot
driveway
and
you
could
still
get
two
cars.
You
know
they're
easily
side
by
side
and
you're,
not
gonna
gain
more
than
one
parking
spot.
K
K
H
H
I
F
K
F
A
C
I
think
this
is
good.
We've
been
talking
about
this
for
four
years.
I
think
we
have
a
definite
need
for
this
so
and
I
appreciate
the
comments
on
the
r2a
as
well.
I
live
in
our
to
a
and,
and
a
lot
of
that
section
of
town
is,
is
older
and
we
already
have
a
non-compliant
issue
there.
So
we
don't
want
to
exacerbate.
F
O
O
And
I
can
also
in
an
email
tomorrow.
I
was
just
waiting
on
Park
and
recs
agenda.
So
then
you
I
can
send
that
with
it
and
then
there
will
discuss
at
large
Park
dedication
and
where
both
boards
want
to
how
they
want
to
move
forward
with
it
and
then
also
specifically
River
Ridge
and
their
part
concepts
and
the
land
value,
and
all
that
all
the
good
stuff.
Ok.