►
From YouTube: BOA & Plan Commission Meeting 8 22 2019
Description
Agenda for August 22, 2019
C
B
C
D
A
E
C
B
B
Other
than
anon
anon
illuminated
sign
not
exceeding
400
square
inches
in
area.
This
occupation
shall
be
carried
on
or
conducted
only
by
the
members
of
a
family
residing
in
the
dwelling.
The
applicant
submitted
written
Qwest
site
plan
and
floor
plan
which
reflect
compliance
or
non-compliance
with
the
following
terms
of
the
ordinance
section:
21
o
202
to
b7
A.
B
Through
H
specific
rules
governing
individual
conditional
uses
is
this
is
a
board
review
of
ingress
and
egress
off
street
parking
and
loading
screening
and
buffering
signage,
exterior
lighting
required
yards
and
open
space
and
general
compatibility
with
the
neighborhood
chapter,
20
170,
home
occupations
and
standards
Smith
proposes
to
utilize
approximately
395
square
feet
or
16
percent
of
the
2574
square
foot
single-family
dwelling
for
the
repair
business.
He
has
signed
his
assurance
to
comply
with
chapter
20,
170,
the
home
occupations
and
standards,
and
the
proposed
signage
meets
ordinance
regulations.
B
Chapter
21
63
is
off
street
parking
and
loading
requirements
and
engineering
design
standards.
This
property
has
no
front
street
access.
There
is
a
three-car
unattached
garage
at
the
rear
of
the
property,
where
there's
approximately
18
feet
of
driveway
apron
off
the
alley.
Right-Of-Way
and
a
minimum
of
2
off
street
parking
spaces
are
required
just
for
the
single-family
dwelling
use.
So
this
board
may
require
more
as
a
condition
of
secondary
use.
B
Approval
such
as
home
occupation,
chapter
21,
65,
outside
storage
and
display
requirements
for
specific
uses,
21700
2,
which
is
again
home
occupations
and
standards,
supersedes
chapter
21
65,
and
they
will
be
compliant
with
that.
So
this
board
must
be
must
determine
if
the
request
shows
satisfactory
provision
and
arrangement
concerning
all
of
the
chapters
and
titles
and
sections
just
discussed,
and
if
endorsed
this
board,
may
consider
imposing
any
conditions
of
approval
deemed
necessary
or
appropriate
for
this
secondary
use,
such
as
fulfillment
of
any
and
all
lacking,
Boulevard
infrastructure
requirements
or
additional
officer
ii,
parking
spaces,
etc.
A
B
There
are
actually
three:
we
have
a
three-car
Garage
in
the
back
or
alley
side,
and
there
there
are
three
parking
spaces
available,
whether
it's
inside
or
out.
You
can't
count
the
one
if
you
have
to
move
a
car
to
get
another
out.
So
three
is
three
basically
are
available
in
back.
They
didn't
give
me
the
dimension,
so
it
may
not
meet
the
exact
eighteen
and
a
half
to
twenty
feet,
but
it
appears
to
be
about
18
feet
of
Carling.
A
F
B
A
G
A
G
Mr.
city
attorney,
regarding
most
recent
state
law,
nine
19-20
that
was
done
in
last
legislative
session.
It
states
there
that
municipalities,
shan't
pass
an
ordinance,
restricts,
prohibits
or
imposes
any
licensure.
However,
it
doesn't
apply
to
the
zoning
regulations
as
long
as
the
zoning
codes
doesn't
prohibit
that
specific
use.
So
that's
a
little
bit
confusing.
H
G
Regulations
or
fire
codes
as
long
as
the
ordinance
regulation
code
does
not
used
to
circumvent
a
prohibition
under
this
section.
So
how
much
latitude
do
we
really
have
as
a
Planning
and
Zoning
Board,
by
attaching
conditions
approving
or
denying
a
permit
that
by
the
general
application
of
the
ordinance
appears
to
circumvent
the
prohibition
of
the
rule
as
laid
out
well.
H
I
would
say
if
you
were
going
to
deny
the
permit,
it
would
have
to
be
based
on
on
factors
other
than
the
simple
factors
relating
to
firearms.
Okay,
so
if
it
was
deny,
it
was
a
manufacturer
of
some
sort
in
you'd
have
to
deny,
based
on
the
manufacturing
process
generally,
not
necessarily
the
fact
that
were
manufacturing
guns.
G
C
B
I
B
K
K
Would
also
know
just
for
the
record
in
regards
to
the
parking
10th
Avenue
Northeast
has
prohibited
parking
all
along
that
route.
I
believe
the
whole
length
of
it
I
just
confirmed
on
Google
Earth
Street
view
that
the
it
is
restricted
in
front
of
this
property,
no
parking
allowed
on
the
street
from
that
parking.
F
A
A
G
F
B
The
owner
applicant
is
David
and
Katherine
Englert,
the
property
address
is
700
South,
Lake
Drive
and
the
application
was
submitted,
requesting
to
enlarge
a
legal
non-conforming.
Four
hundred
and
eighty
four
square
foot
unattached
garage
by
constructing
a
non-conforming
176
square
foot.
Addition
onto
the
west
side
set
addition
proposed
to
be
constructed,
8.4
feet
from
the
rear,
south
property
line,
where
a
minimum
20
feet
is
required,
creating
a
660
square
foot,
non-conforming
building,
which
would
occupy
34%
of
the
required
rear
yard,
where
a
maximum
30
percent
coverage
is
allowed
just
for
reference.
B
The
existing
non-conforming
484
square
foot
unattached
garage
currently
encroaches
into
the
required
yard,
approximately
nine
feet
from
the
South
property
line
where
a
minimum
20
feet
is
required
and
it
occupies
24
percent
of
the
required
rear
yard
where
a
maximum
30
percent
coverage
is
allowed.
The
application
was
denied
based
on
the
following
ordinance
regulations.
21
Oh
302
prohibits
the
creation,
alteration
or
enlargement
of
non-conforming
structures
so
as
to
conflict
or
further
conflict
with
ordinance
regulations.
B
It's
the
proposed
176
square
foot
non-conforming
addition
would
extend
the
length
of
the
encroaching
building
from
22
to
30
feet
along
the
56
foot,
rear
property
line
with
an
eight-point
four
foot
to
10
foot,
step
back
where
a
20
foot
setback
is
required
and
thus
occupying
again,
approximately
34%
of
the
required
rear
yard
where
30%
coverage
is
allowed.
The
addition
is
proposed
to
be
a
separate
room
from
the
existing
garage,
the
applicant
plans
to
preserve
the
existing
walls
of
the
original
constructor,
adding
a
doorway
between
and
re-roofing
the
entire
enlarged
660
square
foot
non-conforming
garage.
B
There
will
be
no
dwelling
at
anytime.
The
applicant
understands
this.
This
parcel
lacks
standard,
Boulevard
and
infrastructure
requirements.
Approximately
72%
of
the
boulevard
frontage
is
paved
and
installing
an
apron
driveway
for
this
addition
would
essentially
eliminate
any
compliant
grass
Boulevard
area.
This
board
has
the
authority
to
require
full
fulfillment
fulfillment
of
any
and
all
boulevard
infrastructure
requirements,
in
conjunction
with
any
structural
improvements
authorized
by
building
permit.
J
G
B
A
M
A
Was
the
the
way
the
way
it?
What
we're
doing
here
is
the
large
garage
door
to
the
right
is
effectively
the
existing
garage
and
they're
gonna
add
on
or
what
they
had
on
the
smaller
door
to
the
I.
Guess
our
left
and
is
did.
Did
the
applicant
say
if
I
miss
that
that
they're
gonna
re
basically
re
side,
the
entire
structure
or
they're
just
gonna
add
on
that
the.
B
B
F
B
F
B
B
G
I
B
I
F
A
N
Padma
hold
the
purpose
is
to
have
a
place
to
put
one
mores
and
gleek
stuff
and
to
gain
another
parking
place
which
is
off
of
the
road
to
get
the
cars
off
of
the
road
to
go
by
the
point
down
to
the
Country
Club.
That
you'll
see
a
lot
of
people
parking
on
the
outside
the
south
side
of
the
road
and
there
most
of
the
time
they're
over
the
white
line.
N
It's
very
tight
in
that
area
and
if
you
get
any
visiting
people,
it's
very
difficult,
and
this
the
design
was
just
thinking
that
the
least
infringement
that
would
take
place
and
it
would
comply
with
all
the
other
graduates
as
many
garages
that
are
built
the
same
way.
The
old
gangster
house
is
an
example
that
was
a
newer
house,
but
they
have
a
smaller
place
for
wild
golf
carts
in
that
case.
But
it's
not
a
it's
just
a
write.
N
N
You
couldn't
get
a
car
in
there,
but
off
the
other
driveway,
but
we're
not
planning
to
use
a
car.
It
could
be,
but
it's
just
I
think
that
the
fact
of
you
wanting
to
have
an
additional
parking
place
back
there
might
offset
trying
to
do
it
and
then
that
would
pretty
well
fill
up
the
back
yard
between
the
house
and
garage
Pat.
G
N
N
I
N
F
N
C
B
A
B
B
K
Yeah,
it
appears
there's
a
vault
for
the
sanitary
sewer
on
or
near
that
edge
line
within
the
within
the
pavement
of
the
roadway.
I
would
note,
though,
and
probably
what
staff
is
recognizing
here
just
based
on
the
imagery
is:
there
seems
to
be
some
telemetry
or
some
radio
telemetry
instrumentation
close
right
on
that
lot
line
between
this
property,
the
property
of
the
West.
K
K
Commissioner
Stein
I
would
say
that
it
would
depend
on
the
the
amount
of
area
that
that
instrumentation
takes
up
and
whether
it
would
be
directly
impacted
by
the
installation
of
a
construction
of
a
garage
expansion.
There's
a
possibility.
It
may
not
be
impacted
at
all,
but
it
is
definitely
something
worth
noting
that
we
would
not
want
it
to
impact
that
instrumentation.
It
wouldn't
impact.
K
F
K
M
N
G
G
I
K
We
would
look
at
the
we
have.
A
couple
criteria
would
determine
whether
we
allow
the
widening
of
a
driveway
one
is
the
driveway
with
maximum
allowed
throughout
the
city
for
residential
driveways,
which
is
36
feet.
This
obviously
I,
don't
believe
would
be
exceeding
that
the
other
one
would
be
the
the
green
space
requirement,
whether
we'd
be
minimizing
that
to
a
point
and
did
nonconformity
and.
K
G
F
The
one
about
the
Hindon
wrecker,
one
that
I
noticed
when
I
was
out
walking
the
other
day,
is
that
there
overhang
they
didn't
put
on
rain
gutters
and
it
just
about
dumps
right
onto
the
neighbor's
garage.
It's
that
close
and
that's
how
I
was
asking
about
the
overhang
on
this
one
too.
But
at
least
this
one
is
going
to
be
like
at
least
five
feet
if,
with
a
five
foot
overhang,
so
it
won't.
Dump
on
to
the
neighbors
building
was.
A
A
K
My
biggest
concern
would
be
is,
if
there's
any
physical
improvements,
it
would
be
impacted,
I,
don't
believe,
based
on
the
imagery
that
that
would
be
the
case.
I
think
that
this
is
gonna
be
built
outside
the
footprint
of
that
existing
telemetry
those
physical
improvements,
so,
in
that
case,
I
I'm,
confident
that
everything
would
function
normally
is
just
whether
it
would
be
physically
disturbed
by
the
construction,
and
the
footprint
of
the
existing
infrastructure
would
be
impacted
by
the
construction
of
the
expansion
in
the
garage.
I,
don't
believe
that's
the
case
and
looking
at
this
alright.
F
C
C
C
K
K
You
know
with
that
being
said,
going
back
to
the
parking
discussion
I,
you
know
really
the
dilemma
we're
all
facing
here,
whether
it's
an
expansion
of
a
parking
stall
or
expansion
of
the
garage
is
the
fact
that
we're
dealing
with
the
lake
and
lake
properties
and
the
fact
that
we
don't
have
a
lake
zoning
district.
Yet
at
this
point,
just
given
the
nature
of
what's
out
here,
I
guess
me
personally
is
the
city
engineer.
I
would
not
object
to
permitting
a
widened
stall
there.
Just
given
the
nature
of
this.
K
It's
hard
pressed
for
me
to
deny
that
when
almost
virtually
every
property
along
here
exceeds
that
36
foot
width
I
know
that's
not
the
by-the-book
answer
by
any
means,
but
we
are
dealing
with
the
lake
situation,
and
so
in
that
regard,
I
is
the
city
engineer.
I
would
not
be
opposed
to
the
widening
of
that
driveway
for
the
construction
of
the
garage.
F
A
All
right,
I
guess
one
one
thing
I
see
with
this
particular
property:
it
is
different
than
you
mentioned,
the
hinder
actors
so
forth
with
respect
to
it.
It
does
seem
like
there
is
a
viable
alternative
for
the
addition
to
the
North
East,
again,
perhaps
not
ideal
but
again,
and
the
reference
was
made
about
taking
away
some
of
the
yard
or
the
or
the
greenery.
If
the
garage
is
added
on
to
the
again
we're
talking
about
the
left
here,
you're
taking
everything
away,
then
there
then
there's
there's.
E
F
G
Use
me
you're
gonna,
we're
gonna
have
this
request
many
times
over
over
the
years.
If
we
don't
come
up
with
some
sort
of
a
solution
from
a
regulatory
standpoint,
if
I
was
sitting
on
the
board
for
the
next
ten
years,
what
we've
seen
three
I've
been
on
the
board
for
almost
two,
and
I
think,
there's
been
four
of
these
types
of
requests:
we've
granted
each
one
of
them.
G
I
think
it
just
bears
the
the
necessity
to
take
a
look
at
our
lake
park,
zoning
to
figure
out
if
there's
a
way
they
can
better
address
how
we
handle
the
parking,
because
we
understand
that
our
parking
is
on
the
on
the
road
side
rear
side
which
is
different
than
a
front
yard
requirement
in
normal
urban
setting
of
the
Watertown.
I.
G
Can
see,
I
can
see
six
more
requests
than
the
next
two
years
if
somebody
comes
up
and
they
want
to
do
this,
and
so,
if
we
inclined
to
pass
them
in
in
the
past,
I'm
inclined
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
it.
But
again,
with
the
caveat
that
we
need
to
come
up
with
a
better
fix
and
doing
this
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
I
With
that
being
said,
Todd,
that's
exactly
why
I
think
it
needs
to
be
stopped
at
this
point.
Instead
of
okaying
everyone,
we
will
stop
having
them
come
when
there
is
alternative,
there's
alternative
plan
here
that
could
be
built
off
their
own
property
instead
of
it's
a
safety
issue.
It's
a
snow
removal
issue.
I
If
they
really
want
to
park
there
for
the
temporary
company
that
comes
on
a
weekend,
let
them
Park
on
the
lawn
I
mean
it's
probably
not
going
to
hurt
with
a
car
sitting
on
that
grass,
for
you
know
an
hour
to
whatever
five
I,
just
think
that
that
when,
when
we
have
the
they
have
the
land
to
be
able
to
do
it,
we
need
to
be.
You
know,
tough
enough
to
say
I'm,
sorry,
but
we
cannot,
because
we
are
just
defacing.
I
In
my
opinion,
we
are
just
continuing
to
just
clutter
that
whole
area
out
there,
because
we
we
feel
their
pain.
We
all
want
three
styles
of
garage,
I
totally
get
it,
but
we
aren't
doing
ourself
any
favors
by
okaying
all
of
these
garages
when
there
is
an
alternative
solution
on
their
own
property,
as
opposed
to
be
imposing
on
the
next
neighbor.
That's
where
I
think
the
buck
needs
to
stop
I
agree.
I
L
L
B
L
A
L
L
G
I
A
L
D
My
name
is
Brent
Morman
code
enforcement
officer
for
the
city
of
Watertown
and
I
also
do
the
sign
permitting
handled
tsiyon
applications
and
permits
and
requests
for
constructing
signs
in
water
tone.
Applicant
Lonny
Davis
for
EZ
store.
Permit
number
15
97
seeks
approval
to
convert
a
current
legal
on-premise
advertising
sign
to
an
off
premise:
advertising
sign
the
sign
is
located
in
the
I
1
light
industrial
district
visit.
The
existing
sign
does
meet
all
the
requirements
of
city
ordinance.
D
J
E
J
E
L
F
H
G
I,
don't
think
so,
because
I
think
the
Supreme
Court
decision
in
that
did
not
get
into
the
basis.
Specifically
of
that
I
mean
we
can,
if
something
is
advertising
something
off
base,
we're
not
controlling
the
content.
We're
just
saying
we're
it's
something:
that's
being
advertised
somewhere
else
and.
E
F
J
Well,
the
sign
in
highway
20
is
not
really
an
easy
store
sign
per
se.
It's
a
I
believe
David
to
clarify
this
possibly,
but
it's
kind
of
taken
like
Montgomery
furniture.
If
it's
got
a
sign
there,
but
if
he
don't
own
that
sign
and
then
he
can
advertise
and
he
can
actually
advertise
from
avril
furniture,
because
it's
a
billboard
sign
advertising
for
somebody
else
and.
M
D
M
Straight
I
agree
with
what
Ken
said:
I
mean
there.
This
is
not
a
request
for
variance.
This
is
not
a
request
for
a
conditional
use.
Permit
we're
here
simply
because
there's
an
ordinance
that
says
to
grant
the
off-premises
permit
takes
it
out
of
the
hands
of
the
Zoning
officer,
so
we're
here
just
saying:
grant
the
permit
it's
totally
a
conforming
sign
he's
met
every
part
of
this,
the
city
ordinance.
That
says
it
can
be
an
off
premises
sign.
So
there
really
shouldn't
be
an
issue,
and
this.
P
G
Mr.
straight
so
any
other
industrial
property
zoned
in
the
city,
if
I
wanted
to
advertise
Tarek's,
but
then
I
also
wanted
to
put
another
billboard
that
advertised
Todd's
barber
shop,
that
would
be
and
they
came
to
us.
We
would
be
expected
to
do
the
same
thing
that
were
maybe
wouldn't
be
doing
for
Lonnie.
Then.
M
G
G
J
That's
not
promising.
He
has
enough
frontage
and
enough
space
to
assemble
signs.
The
signs
are
greater
than
50
foot
apart.
We
stepwise
it
up.
Off-Premise
sign
can't
be
bigger
than
280
square
feet,
but
we
don't
have
a
minimum
size
on
it,
so
it's
less
than
that.
It
meets
that
requirement.
So
it's
more
than
500
feet
from
any
other
jason
off-premise
Tiny's.
That's
what
saluted.
J
G
G
H
G
G
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
it
in
my
head
conceptually
that
right
now
the
allows
the
Board
of
Adjustment
to
determine
that
any
individual
site
commercially
or
residentially
somewhere
you're
allowed
to
have
off-premise
signs.
We
could
we
can
choose
whether
or
not
to
get
one
or
the
other
or
both
that
that's
that's
what
the
rule
allows.
You.
J
G
I
think
that's
that's
my
that's
my
point
and
how
do
you
I've,
driven
by
this
one
out,
first
object
to
that
sign
in
that
location,
but
I
could
see
going
up
and
down
kemp
dad
you're
gonna
start
putting
every
500
feet
or
every
you
know.
Feed
we'd
have
multi
messaging
boards
messaging
all
kinds
of
different
things:
you've.
M
Got
an
extensive
number
of
ordinances
to
make
sure
that
your
concerns
are
don't
happen,
but
we've
met
every
every
inch
of
the
ordinance
okay,
and
this
is
not
where
there's
a
standard.
Do
you
want
to
grant
a
variance?
This
is
not
a
standard
where
you
want
to
grant
the
conditional
use.
There
is
no
legal
standard
to
deny
this.
P
Just
a
few
comments:
I'll
try
to
keep
it
fairly
brief
on
the
intent
of
the
sine
code
was
to
prevent
on
premise
signs
from
advertising
off
premise:
businesses.
That's
why
there's
two
separate
distinctions
in
the
sign
code:
multiple
representatives
from
the
sign
industry,
including
myself,
some
of
you,
the
mayor,
others,
arrived
at
the
current
sign
code
after
hours
and
hours
meetings
upon
meetings
over
the
last
several
years.
P
One
of
the
components
of
not
allowing
on-premise
signs
to
advertise
off-premise
businesses
is
to
avoid
visual
sign
clutter,
as
mr.
Caze
mentioned,
which
is
consistent
with
the
sign
code
guidelines
of
other
cities,
Watertown
considered
when
updating
its
sign
code,
it
would
be
difficult
to
deny
a
variance
to
any
of
those
other
35
to
40
businesses
if
they
wanted
an
exception
made
to
their
sign
as
well.
So
if
this
board
believes
that
we
should
in
fact
allow
easy
store
exception
and
other
businesses
want
to
be
able
to
convert
their
sign
to
promote
off-premise
advertising.
P
It
would
be
very
difficult
to
deny
those
requests
as
well.
So
if,
if
you
feel
as
though
this
is
something
worth
considering,
I
would
just
urge
you
to
take
a
step
back
and
refer
this
back
to
the
sign
code
panel,
the
sign
code
committee
and
allow
a
greater
discussion
to
be
had
otherwise.
I
fear
that
this
may
be
creating
a
precedent
that
you're
going
to
have
multiple
businesses,
including
our
own.
Coming
back
and
asking
for
this
same
exact
request.
L
J
J
M
I
D
G
J
I
C
I
G
I
C
G
All
right
that
was
the
direction
so,
for
instance,
then
so,
let's,
let's
use
Mike
Lawrence
and
his
business.
So
he's
got
a
sign
that
advertise
his
real
estate
business
on
that
property.
If
he
could,
if
he
found
50
feet
from
his
front
door
and
that
sign
that
he
could
place
a
pull
sign
and
there
wasn't
another
off-premise
sign
within
500
feet,
he
could
place
a
sign
there
on
his
property
and
because
he's
fat
least
fifty
feet
away
from
his
on-premise
sign
and
he's
farther
than
500
feet
from
another
I'd.
I
D
P
P
C
C
M
F
J
L
G
And
I
guess
I
understand
that
and
this
this
is
a
specific.
It's
a
unique
situation.
You've
got
a
large
lot
which,
with
multiple
faces,
which
allows
for
multiple
signs
to
be
located
on
there,
and
so
it
might
not
open
the
floodgates
so
to
speak,
but
you
know
it's
it
is.
It
is
concerning
for
me
at
this
point:
I'm
still
I'm
still
trying
to
understand
the
whole,
the
sign
Code
Board
of
Appeals,
which
is
technically
the
Board
of
Adjustment,
so
this
is
being
taken
as
an
appeal
from
the
staff.
J
H
H
L
C
D
G
L
C
G
And
conditional
use
is
a
simple
majority
of
the
board,
but
where
that's
my
that's,
where
I'm
struggling
with
what
are
we
acting
on
I
mean
statutorily,
that's
a
variance
if
this
isn't
a
variance.
What
is
that
it's
not
a
conditional
use,
so
I
mean
there
are
stipulations.
That's
where
I'm
confusing?
What
we
three
to
vote
motion.
L
A
O
A
A
C
A
O
So
just
for
clarification,
we
will
not
be
taking
action
on
this
item,
so
we're
just
going
to
have
discussion
beans
that
I
did
send
the
email
out
about
the
boundary
changes
and
kind
of
explained
there
that
when
this
was
brought
to
Council,
they
had
questions
about
how
we
landed
at
the
boundary
that
we
did
present
to
them
and
what
we
did
there
is.
We
went
with
the
previously
established.
O
The
previously
established
historic
preservation
district-
and
you
know,
then
we
talked
about
how
we
have
the
urban
renewal
district,
which
is
already
established
along
with
that
historic
preservation.
So
we
looked
at
the
boundaries
a
little
further
and
then
the
map
that
was
a
part
of
your
packet
showed
the
comparisons
and
let
me
pull
that
up.
O
A
G
O
O
F
F
O
So
that
is
where,
if
we
agree
on
a
boundary,
then
I
will
send
out
letters
per
ordinance
to
the
affected
landowners
and
then
I
will
notify
them.
That
we'll
be
having
a
public
hearing.
Where
we'll
take
action
on
this
proposed
overlay
district
for
the
downtown,
and
then
that
would
be
presumably
on
the
September
5th
Planning
Commission
meeting
and
then
so
we
will
send
letters
to
all
the
affected
property
owners.
There
will
be
226.
I
Quite
a
ways
to
the
east
and
to
the
west
yep:
well,
that's
so
much
a
little
bit,
but
more
so
to
the
east
and
the
west.
What
was
your
thinking
there?
Just
I
mean
because
of
City
Council's
suggestion,
or
did
you
take
a
different
look
at
it
and
decide
that
maybe
we
didn't
need
to
go
down
camp
have
a
new
further.
I
O
O
Now
Kemp
would
be
the
main,
the
main
downtown
street,
so
extending
it
to
two
third
and
fourth,
and
also
just
in
develop
projects
that
we've
talked
about
for
the
future,
to
encompass
those
areas
where
we
would
want
this
to
apply
to,
for
you
know-
and
this
only
applies
to
new
construction
or
substantial
improvements,
so
it
really
it
does
nothing
to
them
today.
But
what
do
we
want
to
see
in
the
future
for
our
downtown
area?
O
P
I
Really
not
okay.
Let's
just
try
to
look
here.
It's
something
that
maybe
it
would
be
mistake:
First
Avenue,
southeast
and
the
black
of
3rd
Street
and
South
East.
Okay,
that
corner
I'm,
not
sure.
If
that's
a
house
or
what
sits
there
are
you
is
there?
Can
they
come
up
individually
and
say
you
know
it's
really
not
a
it's
going
to
be
a
business,
but
it
are.
O
G
Get
some
where
I'm
at
with
it
I
like
I,
like
the
compromise
between
the
historic
and
the
urban
renewal.
I
would
also
suggest
extending
the
boundary
all
the
way
on
the
south
side
of
1st
Avenue,
1st
Avenue,
north
west
or
1st
Street
to
encompass
the
Jensen
building,
because
that's
going
to
be
a
redevelopment
project
at
some
point
in
time
down
the
road
I
mean
it's
just
a
big
empty
building.
You
talking
about.
L
G
O
G
G
Issue
but
okay,
so
of
the
two-day,
but
we
would
we
wouldn't.
We
would
argue
that
you
know
that's
they
look
nice.
The
buildings
look
good,
it's
an
incentive
to
do
something,
and
on
the
south
side,
some
of
those
things
on
the
South
corner
southwest
of
the
guest
house
that
that
redevelopment
that's
happened
there
and
there
will
be
redevelopment
that
happens
on
the
south
side
of
First
Avenue
at
least
going
down
to
the
cement
business
on
the
corner
of
3rd
I
could
see
you
see
that
that's
probably
gonna
happen
and
I
get.
G
My
other
concern
is,
you
know,
I,
think
it's
great
we're
notifying
everybody,
the
properties,
because
my
biggest
concern
has
always
been.
You
know,
adding
a
new
addition
to
residential
redevelopment
of
those
areas
and
having
a
certain
standard
for
that,
and
then
you
get
back
to
the
issue.
Other
variants
are
having
to
rezone.
So
if
people
come
back
and
say
they
don't
object
to
this,
then
I'm
fine.
If
that
we
see
objections
of
residential
use
who
use
property-
and
this
see
one.
L
The
only
things
I
saw
was
that,
basically,
what
he's
talking
about
the
Jenson
building
and
then
the
block
where
first
district
is
because
I
mean
I
like
the
in
the
northeast
corner
of
that
block,
I
mean
it's
a
nice
building,
but
that's
exactly
what
we're
trying
to
avoid
with
the
zero
or
the
setback
rule.
You
know
having
the
parking
lot
out
in
front,
because
that
creates
a
pedestrian
safety
issue
and
the
other
thought
I
had
too
was
over
east
of
County
Fair.
I
know:
Bonnie
might
not
be
happy
about
this,
but
why?
F
L
F
L
I
L
O
I
G
G
G
So
that's
gonna
be
an
entryway
into
the
northern
part
of
central
of
the
commercial
district,
so
I
I
don't
have
a
problem
taking,
except
for
like
the
public
park
and
the
fire
department,
some
of
those
public
grounds
doing
everything
along
First
Avenue,
just
to
be
consistent,
I
wouldn't
go
any
further
north
than
where
she's
got
it
right
now,
because
that
gets
into
industrial
property
and
I.
Think
it's.
F
C
C
G
Well,
we
just
stuck
a
lot
of
money
into
the
fire
department.
I,
don't
think
anything's
gonna
happen
there
the
whole
the
whole
shed
that
we've
got
down
at
the
transportation
thing
was.
It
was
an
issue
years
ago.
I,
you
know
again,
you
can
either
say.
Are
we
gonna
hold
city
government
to
the
same
standard
as
everybody
else?
Yes,.
E
E
E
O
O
A
concern
is
that
it
is
a
minor
collector
where
we
have
maximum
setbacks,
so
you
can't
have
parking
in
the
front
and
you
know
right
now:
we
have
the
parking
on
the
street,
which
is
not
typical
for
a
collector.
So
is
that
something
that?
Because
you
know,
our
aesthetics
are
to
bring
people
in
it
to
be
walkable
and
but.
G
G
G
O
Think
that
if
we
would
add
that
to
the
c1
district
to
say
no
metal
buildings,
that's
gonna
take
care
of
our
main
concern,
but
as
far
as
having
it
be,
the
you
know
like
having
the
transparency
clause
having
those
types
of
things.
That's
what,
in
the
parking
setbacks
anything
like
that
I
feel
like
that
is
downtown
in
nature.
And
that's
you
know.
We
only
want
that
in
the
heart.
We
don't
necessarily
need
to
extend
that.
O
G
H
O
G
If
you're,
if
we
do
maybe
a
roll
call,
if
you're
doing
226
properties,
make
it
bigger,
aDNA,
now
you're
doing
245
and
everybody
gets
notice,
and
if
somebody
comes
back
and
they
say
it's
a
real
hell,
no
for
them,
then
that
gives
us
a
little
bit
better.
Otherwise,
you
know,
what's
the
difference,
I'm
looking
at
one
side
of
the
street
versus
the
other.
L
I
L
G
I
I
G
K
Chairman,
if
I
could
just
point
out
one
factor
that
was
brought
up
at
the
council
meeting
in
relation
to
the
streets
dividing
this
boundary-
and
maybe
since
first
is
collector-
it's
okay
to
use
that
as
a
dividing
boundary.
But
the
concept
that
was
brought
to
our
attention
by
the
council
was:
does
it
make
sense
to
apply
it
on
one
side
of
Street
and
not
the
other
so
and
I
realize
Brandis
draft
here
definitely
does
that
along
first
Street,
but
otherwise
throughout
the
district.
K
She
tried
to
make
this
boundary
run
through
the
alleyways
and
things
of
that
nature,
so
that
we
didn't
have
contrasting
regulations
on
one
side
of
the
street
versus
the
other.
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
a
point
of
record.
As
far
as
the
discussion
of
the
council
level
and
like
I
said
I
may
be
because
first
is
a
collector.
That
is
a
good
defining
boundary
that
we
are
okay
having
it
on
one
side
of
the
street,
not
the
other.
G
I'm
gonna
make
it
I'm
gonna,
make
a
motion
just
to
include
north
and
south
side
of
First
Avenue
for
the
purposes
at
least
to
notify
everybody
that
owns
property,
that's
in
the
neighborhood,
and
then
we
get
their
comments
and
from
there
we
go.
We
go
with
that.
I,
don't
want
to
extend
it
more
further
north
in
that
line
of
the
guest
house
that
you've
got
already
identified.
Second,.
A
L
G
I
think
what
it
is
is
I
would
rather
see
if
we
were
looking
at
opening
cracking
the
book
again
is
getting
in
specifically
getting
rid
of
the
sign
code,
Board
of
appeal
references
to
the
Board
of
adjustments,
standardizing
the
administration.
If,
if
it
was
going
to
be
that
yes,
you
as
the
Board
of
Adjustment,
can
issue
a
on
and
off
premise
under
what
conditions.
That's
what
I'm
saying
that's,
what
needs
to
be
changed,
I
think
read
everything
else
that
we've
spent
years
is
probably
standard
and
what
mr.
Stein.
G
Iterations
of
this
I
think
it's
more
of
an
administrative
section
thing
that
we
need
to
fix
and
how
to
deal
with
a
request
that
Lonnie
brought
to
us
tonight.
Under
what
circumstances
is
it
okay
to
say
yes,
and
what
is
circumstances?
Is
it
okay
to
say
no
in
boxing
ourselves
into
that
discussion?
So
we
don't
get
into
this
willy-nilly,
it's
great
for
Lonnie,
but
it's
not
great
for
somebody
else.
Moving
forward,
I
think
that's
that's
the
change
that
I
would
recommend.
Well.
L
O
H
G
H
Discussion
is
that
some
reason
our
forefathers
decided
to
put
that
language
in
there,
but
it's
still,
even
if
it
changes
from
on
sale
or
on
premise,
two
off
premise
still
has
to
meet
the
requirements
of
an
off
premise
sign,
and
so
maybe
we
should
just
strike
that
whole
that
whole
reference
and
just
require
them
to
apply,
as
they
would
for
an
off
premise.
Sign
that.
H
G
J
Every
4
foot
by
10
foot
digital
sign
down
there
can
apply
and
become
off
on
premise,
I
mean
the
500
foot
is
getting
help
and
the
50
foot
regulation
between
is
going
to
help.
But
if
you
say
an
off
premise,
sign
has
to
be
I.
Think
our
maximum
size
is
288
square
feet.
If
you
say
the
minimum
size
is
200
square
feet.
You're
gonna
eliminate
every
one
of
these
little
single
businesses
that
now
has
a
digital
sign
freak
I'm
going
to
make
the
application
trade.
C
G
Maybe
it's
probably
staff
coming
in
and
giving
us
what
it
is
that
you
guys
think
it
says
and
what
we
can
and
can't
do
and
then,
whether
or
not
we're
warm
to
that
and
then,
if
we
need
to
how
do
we
fix
it.
So
we
can
allow
us
to
do
because
maybe
it
makes
sense
in
that
situation
but
restrict
it
in
other
places
and
have
that
discussion.
G
O
K
Sorry
I
was
just
gonna
announce
to
the
planet,
commissioners,
the
change
or
slight
restructuring
that
the
City
Council
recently
approved,
along
with
the
mayor
and
the
formation
of
a
public
works
department
that
doesn't
necessarily
directly
affect
any
of
the
planning
or
building
functions
of
the
city.
But
the
planning
and
building
functions
are
now
part
of
a
unified
Public,
Works
Department,
which
includes
six
divisions.
K
G
K
G
G
E
O
And
this
will
be
brief,
because
we
did
touch
on
this
at
our
staff
meeting,
trying
to
clarify
exactly
our
intentions
with
this
RG
sidewall
articulation.
Now
we
amended
this
in
2017
and
it
actually
hasn't
came
up.
Yet
until
now
we
do
have
a
builder
that
is
working
in
this
district
and
trying
to
figure
out
what
exactly
he
needs
to
do
to
comply.
It's
not
that
he's
one
wanting
to
ask
for
a
variance
or
anything
but
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
with
you
guys
that
it
was
our
intention
that
it
would
just
be
the
sidewall
articulated.
O
So
if
it
so
since
we
allowed
them
to
go
up
to
16
feet
in
height,
usually
it's
12
feet,
so,
yes,
the
sidewall
height,
and
so
then,
with
that
we
said
that
if
you're
going
higher
than
12
feet
and
the
length
of
the
wall
is
longer
than
20
feet,
you
have
to
do
some
sort
of
articulation,
and
that
would
be
you
know
butting
that
out
2
feet
by
6
feet.
So
we-
and
that
was
just
so-
we
were
eliminating
like
big
boxy
looking
garages
in
nice,
residential
neighborhoods
and
then
with
the
definition.
O
O
O
J
O
O
Okay,
sorry
so
this
note
here
it's
a
sidewall
greater
than
12
feet.
So,
but
if
it's
under
12
feet
it
doesn't
apply.
So
then
this
one
here
shows
how
you
would
articulate
and
our
minimum
so
that
this
would
be
a
run
of
20
feet
in
length.
Then
they
would
have
to
cut
out
two
feet
and
at
least
run
it
by
six
feet.
More.