►
From YouTube: BOA & Plan Commission Meetings 05 09 2019
Description
City of Watertown, SD Board of Adjustment and Plan Commission meeting
A
A
A
A
C
B
Owner
applicant
is
Michelle
Meyer,
the
property
address
is
2
3
4,
6,
13th,
Avenue
Southwest.
The
conditional
use
request
is
the
applicant
seeks
approval
to
operate
a
home-based
business,
a
beauty
salon
in
her
single-family
dwelling
located
in
the
r4
manufactured
home,
residential
district
for
22:03
1
contingent
upon
compliance
with
chapter
21,
21,
70,
home
occupations
and
standards
and
2100
202
to
b7
A
through
H,
which
is
specific
rules
governing
individual
conditional
uses.
B
Whatever
applies
there
chapter
twenty,
twenty-one
seventy
home
occupations
and
standards
Myer
proposes
to
utilize
approximately
two
hundred
and
thirty-eight
square
feet
or
twelve
percent
of
the
two
thousand
forty
square
foot,
single-family
dwelling
for
her
beauty,
salon
business
and
she
has
signed
her
assurance
to
comply
with
chapter
twenty
one.
Seventy
no
specific
signage
is
proposed
at
this
time.
This
board
must
determine
if
the
request
shows
satisfactory
provision
and
arrangement
concerning
chapter
twenty
one:
seventy
home
occupations
and
standards
and
the
specific
rules
governing
individual
conditional
uses.
D
A
D
A
D
E
A
D
E
D
F
B
B
The
applicant
seeks
approval
for
this
parcel
located
in
the
C
3
highway
commercial
district
to
be
eligible
for
alcoholic
beverage
license
licenses
which
may
include
video
lottery
in
order
to
sell,
serve
and
allow
alcoholic
beverages
to
be
consumed
on
this
premises,
contingent
upon
compliance
with
2.0,
102
location
and
21
or
202
to
b7
A
through
H,
which
again
is
specific
rules
governing
individual
conditional
uses
and
any
other
ordinance
regulations
that
may
apply.
Staff
finds
that
bar
or
tavern
is
a
listed
conditional
use
for
the
C
3
highway
commercial
district
for
21
2803.
B
The
definition
of
bar
tavern
is
any
establishment,
including
restaurants
and
gambling
establishments
license
to
sell
alcoholic
beverages
for
consumption
upon
the
premises
where
sold
or
provided
the
term
bar
or
tavern
shall
also
include
establishments
licensed
to
sell
alcoholic
beverages
for
consumption
off
the
premises
were
sold.
This
site
has
not
been
used
for
alcoholic
beverage
sales
for
a
period
of
over
one
year.
That's
why
this
is
coming
back
to
you
for
ordinance.
Any
such
conditional
use
upon
its
cessation
or
but
abandonment
for
a
period
of
one
year
will
be
deemed
to
have
been
terminated.
B
The
applicant
submitted
site
plan
which
reflects
or
does
not
reflect
the
following
requirements
of
the
ordinance
again
21:02
a
to
b7
A
through
H
these
specific
rules
governing
individual
conditional
uses.
This
includes
the
review
of
ingress
and
egress
of
the
property
off
street
parking
and
loading
screening,
buffing,
buffering
signage,
exterior
lighting
required
yards
and
open
space
and
general
compatibility.
The
location
per
2.0
102,
the
C
3
zone,
is
exempt
from
this
limitation.
B
So
we
don't
need
to
consider
that
chapter
21,
63
off
street
parking
and
loading
acquirements
and
engineering
design
standards
information
was
not
provided
to
determine
that
existing
off
street
parking
spaces
meet
all
of
the
standards.
First
side.
Excuse
me
size,
width
and
setbacks,
but
this
has
been
an
existing
location
for
such
uses.
For
many
many
years,
ordinance
requires
46
parking
spaces
for
gross
floor
area
and
91
proceedings
shown
on
the
floor
plan,
chapter
21,
73,
landscape
and
lighting
standards.
B
According
to
the
submitted
site
plan,
this
property
lacks
interior
and
Boulevard
right-of-way
landscaping
requirements,
screening
toward
residential
properties
and
screen
dumpsters.
This
board
must
determine
if
satisfactory
provision
and
arrangement
has
been
made
concerning
the
above
chapters
and
sections
I
just
described
and
if
generally
endorsed
the
board
may
consider
conditions
of
approval
such
as
fulfillment
of
any
and
all
lacking,
Boulevard
infrastructure,
parking
or
other
requirements,
as
well
as
limiting
the
scope
of
approval,
for
example,
building
only
and/or
any
other
conditions.
The
board
deems
appropriate.
A
A
F
A
C
B
E
Looking
at
the
property-
and
as
you
mentioned,
it's
missing
some
of
its
of
our
ordinances
requirement
for
landscaping,
but
this
property's
been
in
existence
for
so
long
and
it
uses
all
of
its
parking
or
all
of
its
property
for
parking,
and
you
know
in
the
past
longer
could
get
pretty
full
and
you
could
need
all
of
it.
So
I
feel
that
if
we
require
to
put
in
landscaping
and
take
away
parking,
I,
don't
know
if
that's
the
the
best
direction
of
this
board.
I
just
know.
A
I
did
did
question
at
one
point
in
the
future,
potentially
looking
at
that.
So
if
we
do
have
some
outside
infrastructure
development,
we
have
that
kind
of
sidewalk
area
there
or
what
would
traditionally,
we
looked
at
as
a
sidewalk-
that's
not
very
functional
because
it
doesn't
tie
into
anything
that
could
potentially
be
used
for
actual
Boulevard
green
space
and
immediately
adjacent
to
that
is
a
nine
non-driving
Lane
section
of
highway
20.
G
A
G
H
C
J
J
A
B
B
And/Or
Planned
Unit
development
within
the
city
and
when
such
PUD
does
not
include
proposed
or
existing
land
uses,
whose
proximity
to
the
proposed
location
of
the
specific
use
office
building
would,
in
the
opinion
of
the
Board
of
Adjustment,
render
granting
the
conditional
use
contrary
to
establish
zoning
and
land
use
principles
and
has
a
lot
frontage
width
of
not
less
than
75
feet.
If
approved
a
compliant
5,400
square
foot,
commercial
building
designed
with
a
single
public
entrance,
is
proposed
to
be
constructed
within
which
to
operate.
B
This
use
the
applicant
submitted
site
plan
which
reflects
or
does
not
reflect
the
following
requirements
of
the
ordinance.
These
specific
rules
governing
individual
can
do
conditional
uses
again.
This
includes
the
review
of
ingress
and
egress
off
street
parking
loading
screening,
buffering,
signage,
exterior
lighting
required
yards
and
open
space
and
general
compatibility
with
the
area.
All
conditional
uses
are
contingent
upon
compliance
with
2102
o2
to
be
783
through
H
and,
furthermore,
this
board
must
find
that
the
proposal
complies
with
chapter
21
74,
which
is
the
limitations
on
specific
use
office.
Building.
A
G
A
A
K
A
K
L
L
We
took
a
little
care
on
the
site
plan
and
the
setup
of
this
to
have
the
parking
in
the
front
and
the
parking
of
the
rear
and
to
actually
move
the
movement
of
the
vehicles
away
from
the
residential
properties
that
are
east
of
this
you'll
see
on
the
west
side
of
the
building.
There
is
a
way
to
drive
to
the
back
part
of
the
lot
for
more
of
a
staff
parking
situation
we
and
that
just
we
just
felt
that
fit
on
a
lot
better
and
I
do
think
this
is
a
compatible
use
for
that
lot.
L
F
E
G
Well,
under
the
conditional
use
of
a
specific
use
office
building
again,
they
throw
all
the
parking
to
the
front.
Typically,
the
brewer
of
the
building
is
adjacent
to
the
residential
properties,
so
they're
trying
to
isolate
it
by
putting
the
building
there
to
block
it,
and
but
in
this
particular
case
that
actually
does
put
more
of
the
parking
away
from
the
residential,
then
turns
the
other
one.
So
yeah.
A
F
K
F
L
K
L
L
K
A
L
All
right
all
right
and
I
there.
This
there's
actually
easements
kind
of
all
over
this
yeah.
But
you
know:
there's
a
15-foot
easement
on
the
east,
which
we're
staying
out
of
there's,
actually
a
sewer
line
in
there
and
a
storm
sewer
line
in
there
and
all
the
rest
of
the
utilities,
but
we're
staying
away
from
that.
So
I
there's
no
structure
except
for
maybe
the
dumpster
structure
and
we
again
tried
to
keep
that
away
from
the
residential
as
well.
A
L
J
B
G
L
I
L
L
A
N
Good
afternoon,
I'm,
Lisa,
turbek
and
I
do
live
in
the
village
of
Northridge,
so
I'm
here
representing
the
village
of
Northridge
as
the
president
of
that
Association,
and
also
because
I
do
live
directly
to
the
east
and
at
this
point,
based
on
what
Andy's
doing
I
have
no
issues
with
what
he's
trying
to
put
in
looking
at
all
the
options
that
could
have
been
in
there
to
me.
That's
the
least,
objection
of
the
whole.
N
So
at
this
point,
I'm
in
favorite
now
I
do
have
some
concerns
with
the
fencing
only
because
making
it
appropriate
as
we're
looking
out
our
back
deck.
You
know,
I,
don't
necessarily
want
a
PVC
pipe
running
on
the
back
there,
but
a
wooden
fence
would
be
certainly
nice,
I
I.
Guess.
If
I
had
my
druthers,
that's
what
I
would
say,
but
it's
not
my
property
I.
I
G
N
G
I
A
However,
you
do
that
with
the
trees,
you're
gonna
end
up
with
some
light
pollution
that
way,
it'd
be
better
to
have
a
solid
fence
either
on
one
side
or
the
other
from
Andy's
perspective.
I
think
he
could
place
the
fence
on
either
side
of
the
trees.
It's
not
going
to
make
much
of
a
difference,
so
it'd
be
aesthetics
for
the
neighborhood.
N
The
trees
are
actually,
if
it's
my
understanding,
because
he
maintains
that
they're
on
his
property,
so
it
could
be
either
side
according
to
what
he's
doing
now,
I
thought
when
I
read
this.
As
far
as
the
light
is
concerned,
there
is
some
buffering,
so
all
the
light
would
go
down,
so
we
don't
have
to
necessarily
worry
about
the
lighting
coming
into
and
windows
and
so
on.
Is
that
correct,
yeah.
A
F
N
O
O
It's
going
to
obstruct
all
the
view
that
we
have
out
there
for
the
looking
in
the
country,
not
that
that
matters,
if
you
don't
live
there,
but
it's
important
to
the
people
that
live
in
the
condo
and
what
we
see
and
I
the
trees
that
are
there
if
a
fence
is
going
in
I'd,
rather
keep
the
trees
that
we
least
see
the
trees.
If
this
gets
approved,
I
I,
don't
we
don't
know
what
the
building
is
on
the
outside
of
the
building
we
didn't
hear
about?
What
is
it
going
to
be
brick?
A
F
A
And
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
is
to
make
sure
that
that
development
is
is
being
mindful
of
both
parties
interests
here,
and
so
the
the
screening
questions
and
the
defense
seen
how
the
how
the
aesthetics
of
those
trees
might
look
or
are
definitely
concerns
that
we're.
Looking
at
from
your
standpoint
of
view,
I
think
I
think.
Ultimately,
the
you
know
the
fencing
and
the
screening
that
we
put
up
is
going
to
help
with
some
of
that
issue
with
the
the
traffic
that
you
were.
O
A
M
Something
that
might
give
you
some
assurance
to
is
that,
with
this,
being
zoned
are
three
which
is
multi-family
residential.
There
could
be,
it
could
be
an
apartment
building,
which
then
would
have
lesser
setbacks,
at
least
with
this
use.
You're
getting
20
feet
of
setback
for
the
side
yard,
opposed
to
ten
of
what
that
would.
O
K
B
O
O
O
Yeah,
how
come
so
many
windows
I
mean
that
sounds
like
maybe
stupid
thing,
but
if
you're
living
right
there
I
mean
my
bedroom
is
right.
We
got
a
bay
window
and
we'll
be
looking
right
into
that
building,
because
your
offense
is
going
to
be
in
front
of
the
parking
lots,
not
the
building.
My
understanding
is
yeah.
A
O
I
I
But
it's
gonna
get
developed,
I
mean
it
has
to
get
developed
and
that's
what's
going
to
happen
so
I
mean
the
lesser
of
the
two
evils.
I
mean.
If
you
you
know,
if
you
have
to
give
up
your
privacy
I
think
you'll
be
happier
that
it's
8
to
5
as
opposed
to
you
know,
24/7.
Oh
you
know
if
it's
apartments
so
I
mean
I
know
that
that's
not
any
easier
to
swallow.
I
Maybe,
but
if
it's
apartments
and
that
can
go
in
there
like
if
Brandi
said
they
would
be
closer
and
you'd
have
more
traffic
and
you
would
be
looking
into
other
people's
bedrooms
at
least
here
you're
not
going
to
be
looking
into
bedrooms,
you're
going
to
be
looking
into
office
area.
If
that
helps,
but
you
know
and
you'll
have
the
trees
and
the
and
the
fence,
screening,
so
it'll
it'll
be
an
adjustment
for
you
to
get
used
to,
but
you'll
still
get
the
trees.
And
you
know
the
view
changes
a
little.
A
E
Well,
I
know
if
Todd
caves
was
here,
he'd
say
what
he
always
says
on
conditional
uses,
which
is
a
conditional
use,
is
something
that
generally
fits
the
the
zoning
and
it's
just
our
consideration
should
be
looking
on.
What
does
it
need
to
do
to
maintain
aesthetics
with
the
the
neighborhood
so
with
that
I
think
the
putting
the
fence
in
and
putting
it
inside
of
the
trees
are
on
the
west
side
of
the
trees,
as
per
the
neighborhoods
request.
P
A
Q
E
I'd
also
like
to
point
out
that
you
know,
as
far
as
their
request
for
a
variance
in
the
backyard
parking
behind
the
building
parking
I
think
that
that
works.
Just
fine
in
this
area,
since
behind
there
isn't
developed-
and
it's
not
I-
mean
it's
a
flood
way.
So
I
also
just
want
to
mention
that
I
feel
like
parking
back.
There
is
appropriate
where
it
may
normally
not
be
in
the
specific
use
office
building
scenario.
J
J
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
if
we're
the
resolution
includes
whatever
needs
to
so
we
don't
have
to
have
another
hearing
on
that
particular
issue.
I
will
add
that
I'm
a
little
hesitant
to
dictate
the
physical
location
of
the
fence.
That's
it's!
This
guy's
property
I
mean
he's
required
to
have
a
screening.
You
know,
if
he's
willing
to
work
with
the
neighbors,
then
good
on
him.
J
B
J
A
A
E
B
A
C
A
C
M
C
M
A
M
Gonna
make
a
couple
amendments
to
it
per
usual,
so
I'm
going
to
add
resolution
number
20
1903
as
an
amendment.
That
was
what
we
had
previously
acted
on
for
the
text.
If
we
just
made
a
couple
clerical
changes,
but
we
figured
since
we
have
this
meeting,
we'll
just
bring
it
and
and
to
be
reproved
and
then,
as
newb
is
actually
old
business.
We
will
discuss
feather
signs,
reason
or
other
signs
within
the
i1
and
i2
district.
Just
as
discussion
and.
A
A
J
A
M
Good,
so
I'll
pull
this
up
here,
what
and
just
to
point
out
the
change
from
the
previous
resolution.
So
basically
we
had
language
in
there
that
called
the
City
Council,
the
City
Commission.
So
there
was
two
places
where
that
was
changed,
so
we
updated
it
to
say
the
city
of
water,
okay,
there's
a
changed
when
the
printed
one
here
so
where
it
says
this
city
of
water
tone
Commission.
That
now
says
City
Council,
so
the
one
that.
R
K
R
K
J
M
You
Blake,
so
I'll
pull
this
up
here.
This,
as
you
guys
remember,
was
brought
to
you
conceptually
and
so
now
we
are
presenting
you
the
preliminary
plan
which
does
meet
all
of
our
subdivision
requirements.
It's
creating
three
industrial
Lots
will
have
two
public
streets
that
will
have
a
turnaround.
A
full
hammerhead
turn
around
easement
to
facilitate
you
know,
beans
at
a
dead
ends,
so
we
have
28th
Street,
southeast
and
17th
Avenue
southeast.
We
are
including
sidewalk
on
the
North,
the
north
and
the
east
side,
those
streets
for
pedestrian
connectivity.
M
M
Q
As
a
point
of
clarity,
they
will
be
provided
water
through
the
public
water
system,
through
municipal
utilities,
having
private
service
lines
similar
to
the
sanitary
sewer.
They
are
going
to
have
private
service
lines,
but
they
are
going
to
be
individual
grinder
pump,
forced
service
lines
that
need
to
be
lifted
to
the
public
gravity
system.
The
city
will
not
be
taking
those
private
lifts
for
service
lines
over
for
public
ownership
or
maintenance.
They
will
remain
private
to
these
individual
lot.
Owners.
A
Does
a
street
plan
that
has
the
sidewalk
on
it,
so
you
didn't
make
mention
of
the
sidewalk
adjacent
to
15th
Avenue,
going
in
on
that
lot.
So
I
see
that
along
the
north
and
the
east
side
of
the
new
road,
the
existing
lot
does
have
sidewalk
along
what
is
that
29th
Street
there
along
the
east
side
of
the
property
line,
but
I
do
know
that
that
does
not
continue
all
the
way
to
the
corner
to
ultimately
tie-in
to
sidewalk
going
north.
A
A
It's
basically
there's
this
north-south
stretch
of
road
here
that
we
have
the
sidewalk
put
in
on
and
then,
if
you
go
a
little
bit
farther
to
the
north,
Walmart
development
does
have
sidewalk
as
well,
but
there
is
a
kind
of
a
gap
in
between
there
without
it.
However,
if
we're
looking
at
development
of
this,
this
property
I
think
we
should
continue
that
sidewalk
to
the
corner
in
anticipation
of
having
sidewalk
along
29th
at
some
point
in
the
future.
A
Q
I
Okay,
I'm
still
hung
up
on
the
sewer
and
water.
You
guys
left
me
back
there.
My
concerned.
We're
gonna,
sell
these
Lots
off
right,
there's
a
Watertown
development.
Whoever
takes
them
over
okay.
Is
that
something
that
okay,
I'm
I'm
wanting
to
put
my
business
back
there,
but
I
want
no
part
of
having
to
maintain
my
own
lift
station.
Is
that
going
to
become
a
negotiation
tool
from
a
potential
buyer
someday?
Or
is
this
just
gonna
be?
I
M
Q
Mr.
chairman,
so
in
contemplating
the
sewer
service,
it
is,
albeit
not
ideal
to
have
a
force
service
main
or
service
line.
You
do,
however,
see
them,
particularly
in
industrial
areas.
Sometimes
in
commercial
areas.
We've
got
one
in
the
basement
of
this
facility,
actually
in
City
Hall,
and
it
really
comes
down
to.
If,
if
the
physical
grades
out
there
don't
accommodate
the
extension
of
the
gravity
sewer
main
on
the
street,
because
what
happens
is,
is
that
sewer
main
is
extended.
Q
It
has
to
continue
at
a
certain
grade
or
slope
in
order
for
the
sanitary
sewer
to
function
and
as
it
continues
at
that
grade,
depending
on
the
topography.
Above
that
sewer
main
you
lose
cover
on
that
pipe,
and
that's
exactly
what's
happening
here
is
where
adequate
cover
couldn't
be
couldn't
be
kept
as
we
extended
the
sewer
main
southward
through
the
twenty
ninth
streets
right
away.
Q
But
with
all
that
being
said,
we
did
talk
in
depth
with
the
Watertown
Development
Company
on
the
realities
of
this
situation
and
the
Watertown
development
company
director
was
comfortable
with
the
idea
of
selling
these
Lots
as
being
proposed
here
and
I.
Don't
you
know,
I
can't
speak
for
him
and
I
see.
Okay,
we
do
have
representatives
here
that
I
believe
that
they've
even
spoken
with
potential
buyers
who
did
not
have
issue
with
this
type
of
configuration
again.
I
want
to
speak
out
of
turn,
but
I
believe
that
was
the
information
was
related
to
me.
Q
So
we
wouldn't,
of
course
on
on
their
behalf.
I,
don't
think
they'd
want
to
move
forward
if
they
weren't
comfortable
with
that
idea
of
having
these
lift
stations
in
these
buildings
on
these
three
Lots.
But
that
is
definitely
something
we
discussed
in
depth
and
they
were
comfortable
and
moving
forward
in
that
manner,
are.
Q
M
C
Q
As
you
continue
to
the
south,
the
there
are
opportunities
to
build
new
infrastructure
and
feed
the
southerly
Lots.
As
you
go
south
along
29th
and
then
west
along
that
same
route.
Where
that
curve
is,
it
will
take
new
infrastructure
to
be
built
in
a
new
city,
public
lift
station
to
be
constructed
as
well,
and
we're
in
some
preliminary
design
layout
phases
of
that
infrastructure
that
the
same
consultants
been
infrastructure.
Design
group
has
been
working
on,
so
we
hope
to
accommodate
future
subdivisions
and
those
Lots
with
gravity-fed
sewer
service
by
installing
that
public
infrastructure,
yeah.
A
P
As
a
point
of
clarification,
Commissioner,
let's
key
said
septic
or
drain
field,
it's
not
a
drain
field
that
it
will
have
to
be
connected
to
the
city,
sewer
that
that
whoever
ends
up
with
that
property
will
be
responsible
to
maintain
that
it's
not
it's,
not
a
septic.
It's
it
will
be
a
private
lift
station
to
the
city
line.
Q
H
Q
I
Concern
and
I
guess
I
just
did
because
of
my
occupation,
I
just
it
needs
to
be
disclosed
and
it
needs
to
be
right
up
front
because
you
know
we
you
get
into
that
sale
and
then
all
of
a
sudden,
all
its
going
to
become
a
negotiation
point
and
the
other
thing
would
be
is
to
I
mean
I
think
that
they
have
to
have
some
idea
if
they
have
trouble
with
it.
What
it
costs
to
maintain
that
I
mean.
Is
it
every
10
years
you're
replacing
that
you
know?
Is
it
every
I,
just
I'm?
I
Just
because
you
know
you
just
don't
want
those
surprises.
Do
those
things
those
problems
last
five
years,
do
they
last
10
years?
Do
the
last
a
hundred
years,
I
don't
know
I,
don't
know
how
much
work
they
are,
but
I
just
think
it's
only
fair
to
that
prospective
buyer
that
they
understand
what
they're
taking
on
there
mm-hmm.
F
K
K
E
Q
Yeah,
it's
great
question,
commissioner.
We,
when
looking
at
the
concept
plan,
we
looked
at
the
right
away
configuration
for
these
Lots
and
then
the
lock
configuration
as
well.
It
corresponds
with
that
and
the
way
this
layout
worked.
What
we
did
not
want
to
happen
is
for
the
right
away
to
dead-end
on
private
property.
So
when
we
have
those
configurations,
it
is
typical
or
common
to
see
in
lieu
of
public
right
away
in
a
cul-de-sac
bulb
be
installed.
One
of
the
options
we
can
exercise
according
to
our
regulations
is
a
hammerhead
or
other.
Q
You
know
appropriately
shaped
configuration
of
an
access
easement,
and
so
this
particular
hammer
has
what
was
decided
upon
amongst
the
discussions
with
the
staff
and
the
design
review
team
meeting
between
the
fire
department,
engineering
staff
and
Street
superintendent,
and
these
hammerheads
do
require
minimum
minimal
dimensions
and
width
and
depth.
So
you
have
adequate
area
to
maneuver
a
street
snowplow,
for
example,
a
garbage
truck
or
a
fire
truck
and
with
it
being
covered
in
an
access
easement
again,
that
is
one
appropriate
way
to
make
sure
all
of
our
bases
are
covered.
E
One
of
the
concerns
I
have
about
it
being
an
easement,
though,
is
that
then
it
puts
it
on
lot
1
to
maintain
it,
and
then
they
can
turn
into
like
a
a
mall
parking
lot
situation
where
people
use
it
as
public
right
away.
But
it's
not
owned
by
the
city
and
potholes
can
form,
and
you
know
it
doesn't
necessarily
get
taken
care
of
if
it's
not
owned
by
the
city.
Q
Yeah-
and
that
is
a
good
point
and
a
great
concern
to
have-
and
you
know
perhaps
the
other-
the
other
side
of
the
coin
of
that
discussion
is
if
we
were
to
do
a
full-blown
Cola
sac
bulb.
You
know
that
could
be
looked
at
as
a
little
bit
of
an
egregious
amount
of
roadway,
curb
and
gutter
right
away
for
the
city
to
take
over
and
maintain
in
lieu
of
something
a
little
more
small,
ISA,
smaller
sized
and
still
adequate
to
function
solely
for
the
purposes
of
turning
around
that
equipment.
I
Q
So
really
what
will
happen
and
what's
likely,
what
we've
seen
in
some
of
the
renditions
for
the
site
plan
for
a
lot?
One
is
that
28th
Street
will
be
extended
as
a
private
Drive.
Once
you
hit
the
property
line
a
lot
one,
so
the
pavement
would
likely
continue.
No
we'll
look,
probably
a
lot
like
28th,
Street
and
really
it'll
have
those
stub
outs
for
that
additional
width
for
a
turn
around
effect
you
know,
but
but
you're
all
right.
Q
It
will
be
private
property
and
privately
maintained,
and
if
you
know
personally
or
professionally
from
an
engineering
standpoint,
is
there
concern
for
the
snowplow
or
the
the
garbage
truck
or
fire
truck
on
occasion,
occasional
use
of
that
as
a
turnaround?
Is
there
it
as
big
of
a
concern
for
bottles
and
things
like
that,
as
opposed
to
a
lot
of
public
use?
I
would
say
no.
The
concern
is
a
lot
less
now.
If
it
were
a
lot
of
public
use,
that
concern
would
be
a
lot
higher.
Q
E
K
M
A
M
Right
and
we
had
discussed
that
previously
when
we
we're
at
the
concept
plan
phase
and
then
as
staff
and
everything,
and
so
what
we
will
include
on
the
plat
is
a
2
1
e
foot
access,
isn't
it
yeah
and
that
will
be
yep,
so
you
chilly
utility,
easement
I,
don't
know
if
this
might
so
it's
going
to
run
on
the
north
and
the
west
edge
of
LA
3,
just
in
case
access
ever
does
need
to
be
provided
for
this
area,
although
we
do
still
have
access
to
29th.
If
that,
if
that
needs
to
take
place,.
A
A
P
K
E
A
M
P
M
A
M
Okay,
so
to
kick
off
this
discussion,
we
were
looking
at
the
ordinance
and
as
far
as
how
we
regulate
decks
and
that
they
are
usually
regulated
as
part
of
the
primary
structure.
And
so,
but
we
felt
that
at
the
lake
and
the
seasonal
aspect
of
it
that
people
do
put
out
decks
and
docks
and
place
them
on
permanent
structures
like
a
footing
or
concrete
or
something
where
it's
just
to
stabilize
it.
M
F
M
A
M
So
I
mean
and
that's
something
to
that.
Basically
with
this
discussion,
if
you
guys
are
in
favor
of
it,
we
can
add,
do
an
ordinance
amendment
and
bring
that
to
you
because
you'd
have
to
approve
it
at
that
time.
But
if
there's
any
opposition
to
it,
that's
why
we
just
kind
of
want
to
bring
here
bring
it
here
to
discuss.
A
I
To
change
yeah
yeah,
you
mentioned
uncovered
they'll
right,
so
no
pergolas
over
the
top
or
I
mean
we're
gonna
run
into
that
issue
that
you
know,
I
put
a
slab
up
now:
I
want
pergola
or
even
a
deck.
For
that
matter,
so
I
mean
do
we
have
to
clarify
that
it
can
be
in
the
front
but
no
covering
or
for
you
know
or
we're
gonna
start
obstructing
views
right.
I
S
We
went
around
Sara,
Karen
mayor
we
went
around
and
around
talking
about,
when
does
it
become
need
a
permit
something
with
a
roof
as
a
structure,
if
it
has
supports,
and
so
it
would
require
permit
and
view
is
a
big
concern
also
with
a
deck
at
the
waterfront.
Whether
or
not
it
is
requiring
a
railing
is
an
issue.
S
You
know
the
slope
is
going
down
toward
the
water
and
you
could
have
an
at-grade
surface
which
extends
out
and
then,
as
you
know,
say
32
inches
above
the
shoreline
and
that
wouldn't
require
a
rail,
but
you
would
think
any
reasonable
person
would
want
to
put
one
there
for
safety
reasons.
Anything
less
than
36
inches
wouldn't
require
a
rail.
Is
it
36,
32.
S
30
inches,
okay,
even
so
30
is
pretty
substantial,
and
if
so,
if
you
put
29
inches
of
height
there,
a
rail
isn't
required
and
everything's
good.
But
someone
might
want
to
put
a
rail
there.
Then
the
rails,
extending
maybe
four
feet
above
the
surface
and
now
you're,
maybe
getting
into
the
point
where
you're
blocking
your
neighbors
for
you,
whereas
just
a
an
at-grade
deck
wouldn't
so
we
thought
the
Planning
Commission
should
weigh
in
on
what
the
requirements
would
be.
S
It
isn't
as
simple
as
it
might
seem
at
first
blush
and
people
are
building
these
all
over
the
lake
without
even
asking
if
they
need
a
permit,
and
so
when
someone
comes
in
and
wants
to
comply
with
all
the
regulations
and
technically
has
to
be
told
nope.
You
have
to
be
30
feet
back
from
the
ordinary
high
water
mark
and
ten
feet
off
of
the
property
line
and
all
these
requirements
when
nobody's
adhering
to
that.
Maybe
it's
okay,
that
they
don't
have
to
here
too.
It
is
that
all
right
is
it
a
problem.
S
We
want
to
just
iron
that
out
so
that
when
people
are
trying
to
be
law-abiding
they're
able
to
do
what's
reasonable,
we
don't
want
to
have
unreasonable
requirements
and
the
lake
is
unique.
So
this
is
why
this
is
coming
to
you
just
for
a
discussion
and
and
thinking
that
you
would
ask
the
staff
to
do
some
research
and
come
up
with
some
guidance,
and
it
does
mushroom
the
more
that
you
talk
about
it
and
think
about
it
into
something
more
complex.
J
Has
there
been
any
research
or
is
there
any
any
sort
of
template
that
we
can
use
in
terms
of
this
line
of
sight,
aesthetics,
question
or
issue?
Is
there
like
what
I
think
of
it
I?
Think
of
like
our
shooting
lanes,
when
I'm
walking
and
pheasant
hunting
I
mean?
Is
there
some
way
to
is
way
to
regulate
it?
That
way,
as
opposed
to
a
strict
set
back
from
the
high-water
mark?
Yes,.
S
F
S
A
H
H
We
want
to
the
Hidden
Valley
Association
and
we
have
it's
written
up
about
the
view
and
everything
you
know
where,
where
you
can
sit
back
and
like
we're
not
allowed
any
solid
fences,
but
you
see
the
chain-link
fences
and
then
people
put
like
vines
and
stuff
on
it.
You
know,
but
but
I
mean
still,
it's
really
written
up
pretty
nice.
The
way
it
talks
about
the
view
like
the
way
Bonnie.
A
Mean
we've
been
in
a
number
of
these
situations
throughout
the
years
where
we've
had
developments
that
are
gonna,
you
know
infringe
a
little
bit
on
their
at
their
neighbors
view,
and
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
a
lot
oftentimes,
it's
less
of
an
infringement
that
then
somebody
could
do
without
any
kind
of
permit.
You
know
that
they're
completely
allowed
to
do
that.
Seven-Foot
privacy
fence
would
be
a
major
detriment
to
your
neighbors
view.
Right,
I,
just
don't
I,
don't
necessarily
want
to
look
at
this
individually.
I
want
to
look
at
it
more
holistically.
F
J
There
any
reason
to
have
it
I
mean:
is
it
possible
or
and
I,
don't
just
for
argument's
sake?
What
if
there
was
a
zero
lot
line
or
something
for
the
high-water
mark
zero
setback
I
mean
what
why
obviously
I
understand
in
residential
settings.
Why
there's
a
30-foot
setback
because
you
don't
want
to
build
a
deck
on
your
neighbors
per
lot
line,
but
when
you're
building
it
on
the
lake
I
mean?
What's
why
don't
we
just
go
to
zero.
A
J
I
mean
in
deck
deck
specifically,
but
I
mean
houses,
I
can
understand
would
be
a
little
bit
more
obstructive
than
the
deck
structures.
Possibly.
But
the
same
thing
applies:
I
mean
it's
there's.
No,
it's
a
public
space
and
you're,
not
there's
no
real
infringement,
that's
it!
This
is
I'm
sort
of
playing
the
devil's
advocate
at
this
point.
I
don't
know
if
that's
necessarily
the
best
idea,
but
of.
J
F
J
H
S
H
F
H
J
But
the
purpose
I
mean,
what's
the
purpose
generally
of
a
setback
right,
it's
its
protect,
neighbors
to
protect
neighbors
or
to
give
access
for
emergency
services,
or
something
like
that
right
setbacks
between
houses
with
that
issue
isn't
present.
Currently
at
the
lake
I
mean
we're
talking
water,
frontage,
I,
don't
know,
I
mean
I'm,
not
necessarily
opposed
to
just
doing
a
zero
or
a
five
or
something
like
that.
Something
real
minimal
from
high-water
mark
for.
A
Boathouse
yeah,
I
think
I
mean
you
start
talking
other
structures.
I
think
we
can
quickly
get
off
of
a
tasket,
and
here
definitely
we
need
to
do
that
as
far
as
that
lake
district
goes
have
those
detailed
conversations
of
what
should
that
setback
be
and
what
kind
of
structures
should
be
within
it.
From
my
perspective,
on
a
standpoint
of
decks
and
walkways
specifically
I
see
no
issue
with
it,
I
mean
they're,
they're
minimally,
invasive
from
a
view,
standpoint
typically,
and
you
need
to
be
able
to
access
the
lake
and
frankly,
they're
everywhere.
A
I'd,
rather
have
a
little
bit
more
control
and
visibility
over
it
from
a
city
staff
perspective,
be
able
to
approve
these
things
than
just
have
everybody
doing
it,
and
if
it,
if
it
comes
to
that
where
we
have
to
write
some
sort
of
exemption
into
the
current
code
and
then
later
clean
it
up
with
a
lake
district,
I
mean
that's,
it's
not
going
to
be
the
only
thing
that
we
have
to
clean
up.
When
we
do
the
lake
district
right.
K
A
F
J
S
J
M
It
warrants
a
greater
discussion
with
stakeholders
and
getting
more
opinions
on
if
we
want
to
be
more
specific
on
what
we
see
downtown,
but
as
far
as
just
having
something
in
the
ordinance
to
comply
with.
What
we
would
like
to
see
for
aesthetics
thought.
This
was
it
that
it
covered
the
minimum,
the
minimum
requirements
that
we
want
to
want
to
explore.
M
So
as
far
as
the
percentage
allowances
and
then
also
I'll
note
that
the
metal
percentage
now
in
the
gateway
overlay
district,
we
allow
for
20%
of
the
building
to
be
metal
for
accent
and
then
for
the
downtown
I
said
15
and
a
good
example
is.
This
is
exactly
15
percent
of
metal
accent,
the
building
that
ml
portraits
is
in,
and
so
that's
that'll
be
up
to
you
guys
to
determine
if
aesthetically
like
that
or
you
think
it's
too
much
or
if
we
shouldn't
minimize
that
so.
M
Yep,
so
these
we
don't
really
have
to
look
at
the
pictures
first,
but
so
this
is
66
percent
transparent.
So
there
that's.
This
is
the
two
feet
and
then
this
is
eight
feet.
So
there's
that
six
feet
there.
That
would
be.
You
know
it's
it's
for
the
average
person,
your
sight,
your
sight
line,
so
that
is
just
above
the
mark
of
sixty
percent.
That
I
had
noted
on
the
proposed
ordinance
and
then
these
two
buildings
are
both
58
percent.
That's
on
maple
there,
the
gas
is
43
percent.
M
K
M
M
So
those
are
a
little
bit
higher
and
it's
all
about
visually.
What
you
would
like
to
see
downtown
and
then
the
chamber
is
36%
and
that's
again:
I
mean
there's
a
bunch
of
windows
there,
but
they're
just
higher
up
and
then
that's
the
middle
accent
so
and
that's
just
one
part
of
the
overlay
district
as
a
whole.
So
yeah.
A
Examples
can
include
you
know:
City
Hall,
for
instance,
as
part
of
the
proposed
overlay
district,
along
with
some
of
the
examples
that
you
provided,
the
m/l
portraits
one
that
you
had
up
here
on
the
one
primary
facing
Street,
which
would
be
Broadway.
They
have
you
know
good
windows,
but
if
you
look
at
the
south
side
of
that
building
facing
account
it's
all
brick,
entirely,
brick,
okay,
so
trying
to
apply
a
transparency
standard
across
the
entire
overlay
district.
M
Well,
and
that's
too,
we
could
reduce
the
requirement,
but
you
know
like
aesthetically:
do
you
like
the
complete
brick
wall
you
know
like
if
it
is
downtown
I,
do
feel
like
having
the
windows
and
being
able
to
see
what
is
going
on,
and
but
so
we
could
just
minimize
the
the
percentage
requirement,
but
at
least
that
there's
a
minimum.
So
you
would.
A
I
I
A
The
other
aspect
to
this
because
look
right
across
the
street
from
them
is
the
bar
district,
so
you
have
some
bars
that
are
in
these
historic
areas
of
town
and
you
don't
necessarily
want
that
same
standard
of
clear
windows
facing
into
their
operation
right,
and
in
that
case
you
know
it
communities,
kind
of
encouraged.
This
dimmed
out
windows
or
even
the
office
office,
type
use
of
City
Hall.
For
instance,
we
have
dimmed
windows
facing
the
street.
A
E
A
I
would
say,
though,
that
we,
what
do
want
to
preserve
the
existing
storefront
style
style
buildings
that
are
down
there,
so
the
ones
that
you
showed
in
your
slide
deck
here
that
have
all
glass
fronts
or
mostly
glass
fronts.
We
want
to
preserve
that
kind
of
aesthetic,
but
trying
to
retro
actively
impose
it.
If
somebody
does
come
back
to
redevelop
an
area
that
doesn't
already
have
it,
I
think
we'd
be
hard-pressed
to
justify
or.
A
And
again,
if
we're
solely
looking
at
retail,
but
we
haven't
actively
been
looking
necessarily
at
retail
development
downtown
we've
we've
had
a
couple
of
success
stories
of
relocating
businesses,
downtown
that
have
been
more
professional
service
type
operations
and
and
their
you
know,
take
it
or
leave
it.
As
far
as
the
the
windows
go
I.
J
Think
there's
a
human
behavioral
component
here,
there's
something
that
has
to
do
with
the
windows,
the
transparency,
the
aesthetic
look
of
it,
and
so
I'd
want
to
push
back
a
little
bit
on
that
that
I'm
hesitant
to
give
up
on
that
whole
hog.
I
understand
that
there's
other
types
of
development.
We
want
to
encourage
any
sort
of
real
development.
J
We
can
get
downtown,
but
I
think
if
we,
if
we
allow
redevelopment
or
or
new
development
to
occur,
where
you
just
end
up
with
a
flat
side,
there's
something
psychologically
and
behaviorally
where
it
it,
it
actually
diminishes
the
pedestrian-friendly
nature
of
it.
It
becomes
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
exactly
how
to
articulate
it,
but
that
would
be
that's
my
hesitancy
that
there's
something
inviting
and
open
about
this
sort
of
a
structure,
regardless
of
what
your
business
is.
I
think.
A
Absolutely
and
that's
why
I
say
you
know
we
definitely
don't
want
to
lose
any
of
the
stuff,
that's
down
there,
but
looking
at
the
overlay
district
on
the
area
that
it
covers,
there's
a
lot
of
structures
in
there
that
you
don't
want
to
necessarily
shoehorn
into
anytime.
They
want
to
redevelop-
or
you
know,
remodel
it-
that
they'd
have
to
meet
these
new
much
higher
standards.
Do.
J
J
M
Q
It
I
don't
know,
what's
your
other
versions
as
like
brandy,
but
mr.
chairman,
in
regards
to
that
I
do
I,
do
think
it
might
be
difficult
to
define
the
boundary
and
not
end
up
with
at
least
a
building
that
we're
going
to
be
concerned
about
some
brandy
and
I
talked
about
as
far
as
implementation
in
this
district,
the
effective
date
of
it,
how
it's
going
to
rector
actively
be
applied,
if
at
all,
how
it
would
likely.
Just
you
know,
from
the
adoption
date
forward
for
any
new
development
or
redevelopment
would
apply,
make
sense
yeah.
Q
These
are
kind
of
the
interesting
dynamics
to
talk
about,
particularly
with
this
transparency-
and
you
know,
an
aesthetics
ordinance
in
general,
really
when
you're
dealing
with
all
the
current
infrastructure,
that's
out
there
right
now
and
I'm,
not
to
speak
out
of
term
brandy.
Maybe
you
did
have
a
well-defined
boundary
that
there
were
a
lot
less
concerns,
but
I'm
guessing
there
still
may
be
at
least
a
building
in
there.
That
is,
gonna
fall
under
some
level
of
concern,
no
matter
how
we
design
the
boundary
for
this
district
I.
I
Think
the
building
that
was
put
up
the
garage
that
helped
me
who
put
the
garage
up
downtown,
who
put
the
yes
who
put
the
fake
front
in
there
I
think
that's
adorable,
I,
think
that
was
a
you
know
it
like
you
said
it
still
makes
you
feel
like
you're
want
to
walk
down
the
street
so
going
back
to
my
holds
and
and
and
that
storefront
it's
no
different
than
that.
Like
said
the
gal,
who
does
the
massage?
I
She
has
nothing
to
display
in
her
window,
but
yet
she
has
a
nice
frontage
that
isn't
a
repulsive
I
mean
whether
you,
you
put
you
know
some
fake
ants
out
there
or
whatever
it
may
be,
I!
Think
having
that
that
feel
that
there's
space
behind
that
window,
you
know
what
I
mean
that
I
don't
care.
If
it's
three
feet
at
least
you
have
a
glass
that
you're,
you
know
they
can
display
what
you
know
whatever
they
would
like.
J
On
your
examples,
I'm
not
necessarily
committed
to
60
I,
mean
I,
think
some
of
those
ones
where
you're
at
40,
45
%
I,
think
we're
still
accomplishing
the
same.
Hopefully
the
same,
aesthetic
goal,
or
at
least
mostly
the
same
aesthetic
goal,
and
maybe
it's
not
quite
as
onerous
on
the
other
kind
of
non-conforming
businesses.
That
would
be
in
that
district.
M
H
M
Be
the
half
of
alley
type
deal
yeah
I
mean
because
if
that's
our
core
and
that's
what
we
really
want
to
be
the
walkable
area,
because
we
have
a
pretty
large
downtown
compared
to
other
communities.
So
if
we
would
focus
focus
in
on
these
areas
that
we
want
to
be
the
core-
maybe
maybe
that's
where
we
start.
A
That
takes
out
City
Hall
Wells
Fargo
takes
out
the
bars,
although
some
of
those
bars
are
in
historic
buildings
there
along
Broadway,
the
holds
building
I
mean
I,
really
like
the
concept
on
that
retail
district.
You
know
basically
going
down
Kemp
Street
there
and
on
Broadway
and
and
to
some
extent
done
on
maple,
but
that's
about
where
it
stops
going.
East.
A
I
Why
I
think
I
just
think
that
would
be
a
shame
to
allow
those
buildings
that
are
across
from
and
they've
done,
a
nice
job
with
the
stucco
across
in
the
courthouse.
You
know
that
have
been
okay,
so
you
know
I'm
now
going
to
own
it
I'm
just
gonna,
stuck
with
the
rest
of
it.
Shut-Eye
I
think
that
our
treasure
is
already
there
and
we're
willing
to
give
up.
Our
treasure,
I
mean
I.
Think
we
should
leave
the
size
of
it
as
it
is.
I
I
would
have
to
think
that
anybody
who
owns
property
down
in
downtown
would
agree
that
you
know
it's.
It's
a
there's.
I
think
that
the
gentleman
who
was
here,
who
did
the
analysis
on
her
honor
downtown,
was
you
know,
complimenting
the
fact
that
we
had
such
a
nice
downtown
and
for
us
to
give
it
up
just
because
we
don't
I'm.
I
A
I
F
I
Q
And
mr.
chairman
two
points
to
just
to
ponder
here,
as
we
shrink
the
footprint
of
this
district
to
minimize
the
impact
of
transparency,
we're
obviously
shrinking
the
impact
of
the
esthetics
criteria
that
we
otherwise
would
maybe
want
to
see
in
a
larger
footprint,
so
just
for
discussion
purposes.
Keeping
that
in
mind.
As
far
as
the
transparency
concern
goes,
you
know,
that's
something
brandy
and
I
could
explore
too
and
look
into
it's.
You
know
in
dealing
with
the
zoning
ordinances.
Q
It's
it's
never
ideal
to
have
exceptions
and
caveats
to
the
rules,
but
but
that
does
happen
and
if
you
do
it
right,
where
it
makes
sense,
maybe
that's
something
we
can
accomplish
here
too
we're
in
existing
non-conformities
through
a
reconstruction
effort
or
remodel
efforts.
However,
we
want
to
phrase
that
or
define
that,
maybe
they
are
exempt
from
the
transparency
rule
if
they
didn't
meet
it
at
the
time
of
the
adoption
of
this
ordinance.
Q
So
there
are
ways
around
that
that
we
could
explore
try
to
maybe
find
some
language
that
would
help
help
with
that
concern,
because
what
I'm,
if
I'm
hearing
it
correctly,
the
concern
is
for
the
buildings
within
this
footprint
that
did
not
meet
that
criteria.
If
they
were
to
come
in
for
a
remodel,
we
don't
want
to
necessarily
have
to
have
them
make
them
meet
the
transparency
requirement.
Yeah.
Q
New
construction
I
think
we're
all
on
the
same
playing
field
that
yes,
it
would
be
nice
to
this
incorporated
on
any
new
construction.
So
maybe
there
are
some
caveats
there
that
we
can
put
into
some
language,
so
it
would
work
to
address
that
concern
just
brainstorming,
some
ideas
here,
since
this
is
just
a
discussion
topic
here
for
yeah.
A
I
know
I,
think
I.
Think
that's
a
that's
a
fair
third
point
there
that
we
could
work
around
that
that
concern,
and
that
is
my
primary
concern-
is
for
those
existing
structures.
If
it's,
if
it's
you
know
a
completely
new
building
going
up
yeah,
definitely
we
want
to
hold
it
to
the
aesthetic
standards
that
we're
looking
at
for
the
district
and
I.
Don't
necessarily
want
to
limit
down
the
size
or
scope
of
this.
Just
when
I
was
looking
through
some
examples
of
buildings.
As
some
of
the
concerns
that
I
came
across.
P
I
guess
my
question
is
then:
so,
let's
pick
on
the
harbour
bar
or
brewskis
location,
that's
now
gone
that
wouldn't
have
met
the
initially
I
mean
the
windows
might
have
met
the
60%,
but
they'd
been
blocked
off
for
50
years
or
however
long.
So
what
is
reconstruction
for
that
specific
piece
of
property?
M
M
Into
a
some
language
that
we
could
add
about
that
transparency
or
any
aesthetic
for
that
matter,
I
suppose
that's
something
that
we
could
look
at
a
little
further
to.
But
we
could
say
that
you
know
buildings
that
exist
prior
to
the
adoption
of
this
ordinance
are
compliant,
but
then
again,
that's
pretty
loose,
we'll
have
to
think
about
better,
better
wording
there
and
then
that
anything.
After
this
it
would
be
substantial
improvement
or
new
construction
that
it
would
adhere
to
disorganized.
A
We
might
have
some
sort
of
triggering
on
what
substantial
improvement
is
to
where
you
want
to
bring
it
into
compliance
with
that
kind
of
aesthetic
design.
Standpoint
I
mean
the
same
applies
not
just
to
transparency
but
to
the
building
materials
used
right.
So
if
they
were
redoing
something
on
the
facade
of
the
building
at
what
point
do
they
bring
it
into
compliance?
Really.
M
Though
we
probably
would
just
want
this
to
be
new
construction,
because
otherwise,
if
we're
saying
that,
if
you're
substantially
improving
your
building,
then
you
have
to
bring
it
into
compliance
with
this.
Where
then
it
might,
it
might
deter
them
from
improving
their
property,
and
if
it's
you
know,
if
it's
existing
and
they're
looking
at
remodeling
or
anything,
it
would
most
likely
be
an
improvement.
But.
J
We
absolutely
want
to
control
facade
improvements
and
stuff
like
that
right,
I
mean
we,
so
is
that
something
that
we
could
do
separately
just
as
any
time
there's
any
improvement
to
the
exterior
the
building
it
must
comply
with.
You
know
just
so
we're
not
having
to
bring
the
entirety
of
the
exterior
in
compliance
when
there's
an
interior
improvement.
Great.
M
Know
and
I
I
mean
we.
What
we
can
do
I
mean
if
you
guys
digest
this,
give
me
any
feedback,
we'll
talk
about
it
even
more,
but
yeah
I
mean
any
comments.
If
you
like
Blake
I
know,
you
mentioned
that
you
had
quite
a
few.
If
you
have
more
I
mean
that
that
feedback
is
definitely
that'll,
be
helpful
in
getting
this
going
and
like
I
said
I,
just
you
know
we
can.
A
A
Specifically,
the
non-residential
use
off
street
parking
requirements
in
the
rear,
because
many
of
these
properties
don't
have
even
the
potential
for
that
the
building
either
takes
up
the
entire
lot
or
you
know
it's
just
not
feasible.
Some
cases
like
the
high-rise,
do
have
a
parking
lot
adjacent
to
their
facility,
but
don't
even
come
close
to
the
one
per
dwelling
unit
requirement
of
the
the
overlay
district.
A
So
from
a
standpoint
of
somebody
that
used
to
live
downtown
above
one
of
these
buildings
and
I,
like
that,
you
know
that
environment
of
the
the
mixed
use
and
the
walkability
and
all
that
I'm
less
concerned
about
off
street
parking
being
supplied
on
lot,
because
we
have
a
number
of
city-owned
public
parking
facilities
downtown
to
support
those
residential
uses.
I,
don't
know
what
everybody
else's
feelings
on
that
are,
but
I
highlighted.
J
J
K
J
Yeah
because
I
again
I
don't
want
to
pick
on
the
dance
studio
or
the
gymnastic
studio.
But
again
when
you
have
that
sort
of
staggered
offset
it,
it
actually
I
think
it's
negative
on
pedestrian
safety
and
it's
negative
on
aesthetics
by
itself
in
itself,
so
I
know
there's
one
things:
I
really
did
like
the
first
thing
you
showed
us,
but
I
didn't
see
that
anywhere
in
here.
What
are
your
thoughts
on
that
yeah.
M
J
And
I
think
even
more
so,
if
you
end
up
with
new
construction,
where
you
got
a
parking
lot
in
the
front
that
actually
creates
a
pedestrian
hazard,
I
mean
it's
less
less
than
a
sense
of
enclosure
when
you've
got
cars,
pulling
right
out
onto
camp
or
maple
or
wherever.
That
is,
if
somebody
were
to
do
a
frontage
parking
lot.
A
So
there's
a
note
about
off
street
parking
being
in
the
rear
of
the
facility
in
here.
That's
addressing
some
of
that
commercial
type
use,
but
there
again
I
had
some
notes
of
concerns
of
existing
parking
lots
that
we
have
City
Hall
again
being
one
of
them.
That
has
a
parking
lot
right
off
of
the
primary
street,
so
Wells
Fargo.
Another
good
example
of
that,
but
we'll
just
probably
have
to
look
at
some
of
those
outliers.
K
J
J
M
F
F
M
So,
to
encourage
the
use
of
high-quality,
compatible
materials
to
upgrade
the
visual
qualities
of
downtown
Watertown,
while
maintaining
the
character
of
the
historic
architecture
and
aesthetics
through
the
following
design.
Guidelines
retain
existing
facades
in
downtown
district,
maintain
and
restore
existing
facades,
trim,
cornices
or
replaced
with
similar
replications
encouraged
materials,
and
you
know
I,
don't
maybe
so.
Okay,
encourage
materials,
decorative
masonry,
granite,
brick,
prohibited
materials
metal
unless
used
as
an
accent
not
to
exceed
15%
of
any
wall,
fought
fake
brick,
products,
use
of
lap
or
shingle
siding
stucco
or
synthetic
stuccos
below
12
feet
level
wood.
K
M
A
We
just
might
need
to
be
a
little
bit
more
clear
yeah.
We
don't
want
a
sheet
of
plywood
up
there,
but
if
they
get
wood
trimming
out
their
windows
or
doorways
or
it's
part
of
a
decorative,
you
know
architectural
aspect
of
the
building.
I,
don't
think
we
want
to
say
that
you
can't
have
any
wood
exposed.
There's
plenty
of
good
use
cases
for
for
wood
right.
A
M
J
M
A
J
A
J
I
mean
even
if
you
think
of
it
like
I,
know,
benchmark,
doesn't
really
need
products
locally.
Here
they
do
really
cool
stuff
to
make.
It
look
like
stone,
because
I
think
that
that
Methodist
churches
sign
is
actually
foam.
So
if
you
drive
by
that
Methodist
Church
sign
I'm,
pretty
sure
that's
foam
I
know
that
first.
I
A
nice
I,
the
stucco
I
I,
don't
necessarily
have
a
problem
with
stucco
going
all
the
way
down.
A
stucco
was
a
product
they
used
back.
I
mean
you
have
a
lot
of
stucco
homes
from
the
1900s.
So
I,
don't
we,
you
have
stucco,
you
know
twelve
feet
level
right,
I,
don't
know
what
the
rest
of
you
feel,
but
I
mean.
Is
that
too
offensive?
Is
that
I
mean
I?
Know
Duggan's
has
the
stucco
done.
You
know
he
redid
that
and
it
looks
nice.
M
To
a
certain
extent,
I
think
that,
just
because
of
the
nature,
you
know
it's
a
lot
of
brick,
stone
and
limestone.
You
know
that's
what
that's
what
I
gathered
anyway
of
what
and
it
really
goes
down
to
what
what
do
we
want
it
to
look
like
if
stucco,
if
we're?
Okay
with
that,
we
don't
have
to
prohibit
it
to
twelve
feet
down.
We
can
that's
fine
with
me.
Well,
I
mean
I,
don't
I
mean.
I
A
M
A
M
A
Back
in
the
70s,
you
add
some
more
chin,
see
I,
guess
looking
fabric
products
and
you'd
see
it
in
a
lot
of
residential
homes.
From
that
time,
you
probably
deal
with
some
of
that
in
the
real
estate
industry,
but
I
mean
modern.
Modern
technology
for
those
products
is,
is
great.
You
wouldn't
know
after
they're
put
on
the
side
that
they're
not
genuine
mm-hmm.
F
A
J
A
I
A
M
F
I
J
And
I
would
just
I
would
just
encourage
you
to
look
at
places
in
recent
in
recent
memory.
For
my
own
personal
experience,
this
place
is
like
easily
Minnesota
I,
don't
know
what
they
do,
but
they
you
know
they
do
like
a
it's.
A
theme
right
I
mean
all
the
buildings
have
a
thematic
color
scale.
Everything
seems
like
it
matches.
Maybe
they
all
got
together
and
just
agreed
to
do
that.
K
K
M
Definitely
helpful
because
if
there's
just
there's
places
that
you
guys
remember
and
know
that
you
liked
how
they're
downtown
felt
then
yeah
that's
that'd,
be
great.
I
can
look
at
that
and
see
if
we
can
add
anything
or
if
we,
if
I,
can
get
anything
from
their
ordinances.
What
they
have
so
yeah
downtown.
A
J
Know
if
there's
something
that
we
could
historically
draw
up
on,
that
Watertown
has
been
known
for,
or
the
railways
or
something
like
that
that
we
could
sort
of
try
to
encourage.
Maybe
a
theme
and
I
don't
know
what
I
mean.
Obviously,
there's
a
lot
of
different
things
to
unpack
with
that,
and
that's
maybe
a
much
longer
discussion
for
a
different
night,
probably
but
I.
Think.
J
M
J
M
As
far
as
if
we
do
go
towards
a
streetscape,
that
can
be
something
that
we
can
work
on
with
the
theme
and
then
hopefully
that's
portrayed
through
the
buildings
as
well.
But
you
know
like
just
even
the
public
whatever
we
want
to
go
with
as
a
theme
that
I
mean
that
will
be
a
huge
renovation
there.
So
at.
M
A
M
M
G
G
Q
M
Think
that
if
we
I
think
that
we
shouldn't
just
exclude
it
to
the
industrial
zones,
I
think
that
we
should
make
it
the
non
residential
zones
so
commercial
too,
and
if,
if
we
you
know
before
we
prohibited
them,
obviously
it
was
in
agreeance
that
we
didn't
like
them.
So
if
we
want
to
control
them
and
where
they're
placed-
and
we
know
where
they're
going
and
everything,
then
we
could
do
it
by
permit
and
then
so
what?
What's
on
the
books
right
now?
M
As
far
as
the
inflatable
signs-
and
we
could
do
something
similar
to
this
language-
that
they
do
not
interfere
with
utility
lines,
antennas
or
towers,
no
cabling,
tie
downs
or
tether
lines
are
located
on
or
across
public
property.
They
are
not
located
in
any
airport
approach
zone
and
inflatable
signs
made
may
be
displayed
on
a
lot
for
forty
five
days
per
calendar
year.
A
Just
thinking,
if
there's
a
similar
framework
that
we
leverage
the
activities
that
we
did
around
temporary
signs,
these,
these
being,
you
know
fairly
temporary
signs
in
nature.
Some
of
the
same,
you
know
kind
of
setback,
limitations
I'd
be
looking
at
for
them
as
far
as
outside
of
the
public
right
away
outside
of
the
Clearview
triangle,
I,
don't
know.
G
M
H
G
H
A
R
R
Alright,
well,
in
this
case,
we're
actually
we're
picking
on
businesses
more
so
so
the
Supreme
Court
has
held
that
that's
a
lower
threshold.
We
can
be
more
more
picky
under
commercial
messages.
So
if
we
wanted
to
just
regulate
feather
flags
that
display
a
commercial
message,
I
believe
that
we
could,
under
the
current
paradigm,
but
that'd,
be
my
discussion.
That
I
would
entertain
as
well
I.
A
I
It
that
makes
the
paper
or,
however,
you
do
that
I
mean
I,
don't
know.
Sometimes
they
report
something
that
we
did.
It
might
be
nice
to
have
that
in
there
that
you
know
right
that
if
you're
not
gonna
allow
it
in
residential
that
we
that
that
might
be,
you
know,
might
be
a
little
article
that
might
be
worth
of
blurb
I.
Think.