►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 10 10 2019
Description
October 10th, 2019 Plan Commission Agenda
A
Potentially
now
the
thought
behind
why
the
eyes
owns
are
more
restrictive
than
commercial
is
because
you
don't
need
to
be
drawing
business
in,
and
you
don't
have
like
the
commercial
esque
activity
where
fireworks
sales
are
more
commercial
in
nature,
but
we
have
to
have
them.
Zoned
I
want
just
because
of
their
for
safety
purposes,
and
you
know
size
requirements
and
everything
like
that.
So
what
we
thought
is
that
we
would
potentially
put
a
footnote
in
the
eye
district
and
then
down
here.
B
Or
would
it
be
smaller
just
to
say
any
commercial
use
allowed
in
a
c3
zone
gets
it.
Why
are
we
just
singling
how
fireworks
and
because
we
allow
hotels
and
other
things
in
the
eyes?
Oh,
that
a
commercial
based
that
you
would
fight
it
the
c3
right.
Maybe
we
better
writing
rules
for
a
single
specific
use.
C
B
I,
don't
know,
I,
don't
know
off
the
top
my
hand,
how
many
commercial,
what
I
would
call
c3
type
uses
are
in
the
i1,
but
there
are
quite
a
few
I
think,
right
and
and
in
the
i2
we
don't
really
encourage
much
c3
commercial
type
uses
in
the
I
I.
Don't
think
do
we
on
so
and
if
we
thought
at
some
point
in
time,
I
can
remember.
It
was
a
long
time
ago
when
we
came
up
with
it.
B
A
A
B
A
And-
and
it
should
be
but
see,
I
guess
just
when
this
I
guess
that
was
the
intent.
I
guess,
that's
just
like
I
said
was
mentioned
that
that
was
the
intent
of
it.
But
do
we
you
know
if
there
are
too
frontages,
do
we
even
can
we
can
we
say
you
know,
do
you
want
to
put
it
at
eight
hundred
or
a
thousand,
but
at
least
put
a
cap?
You
know,
instead
of
because
there
will
be
an
eyes,
an
eye
lot
wit.
A
B
Think
again,
we've
been
having
this
conversation,
we're
saying
and
we
still
are
regulating
an
on
and
off
premise
science,
and
so,
if
we
say
in
the
industrial
zone,
I've
got
now
800
sign,
800,
foot
of
signage
and
I
can
start
coming,
and
we-
and
we
see-
and
we
go
away
from
the
message
of
the
sign-
is
to
the
square
footage
we
can
start
seeing.
You
know
300
foot
billboards
going
on
the
side
of
a
building,
in
addition
to
what
they're
on-premise
sign
is
because
we're
not
regulating
message.
B
A
C
A
Yes,
so
I
think
I'm
I'm
fine,
with
leaving
the
chart
as
is
and
like
we
did
just
amend
the
sign
code.
So
you
know
we
had.
We
did
get
community
input
on
this
and
and
everything.
So
if
we
can,
you
know
there
was
thought
that
went
into
it.
So
if
we
can
try
to
leave
it
as
is
as
much
as
possible
but
then
still
be
workable,
just.
C
A
D
B
D
A
A
D
B
I
I
think
what
they're
saying
in
my
recollection
again,
this
is
many
many
years
since
this
was
originally
put
together.
Is
that
you
get
sixteen
I,
don't
care,
how
many
frontages
you
have
mm-hmm
its
total
I
mean
I
could
have
four
frontages
I
could
have
everything
you
know
through
a
lot
and
on
a
corner
or
whatever
and
I
have
four
frontages
I
own
a
residential
zone
I
only
get
16
square
foot
regardless
and
same
thing
in
the
industrial
zone,
regardless.
A
Mm-Hmm
well,
I
didn't
know
we
we
still
like,
even
with
like
residential
zones,
there's
still
like
for
temporary
signs.
You
can't
have
additional
for
frontages
and
everything
so
for
each
front.
You
get
an
additional
sign
and
then
you
know
we
have
the
stipulations
of
60
days
within
an
election
and
all
that
to
worry,
then
you
can
have
up
to
six.
Okay.
B
B
B
A
A
C
Would
make
sense
I
wasn't
around,
for
you
know
the
original
discussion
on
this
Tod.
If
you
could
just
enlighten
me
a
little
bit
more
again
on
the
limitation
for
the
industrial
Lots,
because
industrial
lots
are
also
the
biggest
Lots
that
we
have
in
the
community,
the
largest
setback
Lots
that
we
have
in
the
community.
B
I
think
the
recollection
from
the
conversation
ten
plus
years
ago
was
was
just
that
that
there
really
isn't
a
need
for
more
signage,
the
more
signs
that
you
have
in
an
area
there's
opportunities
for
clutter.
You
know
the
business
parks
that
we
have
that
are
owned
by
the
city
and
the
development
company
have
covenants
on
them
already
the
amount
of
signage
that
they
had.
I
think
that
was
part
of
possum
the
direction
that
came
into
it.
It.
C
B
Think
in
the
end,
we
need
to
be
migrating
more
to
time
place
manner,
which
then
just
gives
us
the
maximum
number
signs.
The
max
amount
of
square
footage,
how
you
use
it,
whether
it's
frontage
or
on
a
wall,
that's
up
to
you
I
think,
that's
where
we
need
to
be
going
and-
and
if,
if
we
do
this
correctly,
this
chart
basically
goes
away.
Yeah.
A
I
think
frontage,
wise
I,
think
I
think
first
signage.
You
know
because
you
want
the
frontage
for
signage.
So
if
you,
if
you
have
a
really
why,
if
you
say
you'd
have
a
really
long
lot
and
then
you
could
really
clutter
your
front
with
your
signage.
You
know
like
if,
because
it'd
still
be
meeting
the
minimum
area
requirement,
but
then
it
could
just
be.
You
know,
minimal
a
hundred
foot
which
is
still
large,
but
then
they're
just
saying
you
know,
if
you
have
more
frontage,
then
you
get
additional
signage.
Well,.
C
B
A
Here
you
know
like
we
do.
Have
you
know
one
point
so
for
the
eye,
one
for
the
maximum
area
of
your
sign
freestanding
sign.
Then
you
go
one
point
three
three
square
feet
for
each
two:
linear
feet
of
frontage
or
200
square
feet.
Whichever
is
less
so
then
that
way,
then
we
do
regulate
it
on
the
linear
footage.
A
C
A
Because
they're,
you
know
usually
I
one
is
less
restrictive,
except
in
the
signage.
So
then,
if
there's
a
commercial
used,
property,
zoned
I
won
and
that's
in
their
commercial
in
nature
like
that
and
and
would
like
to
be
able
to
draw
in
business
with
more
signs
or
whatnot.
Then
I
think
it's
a
good
option
for
them
to
go
about
their
business.
A
So
then,
the
other
discussion
item
I
have
is
the
the
rear
transitional
yards
in
the
Gateway
overlay
district
discussion,
and
so
let
me
get
to
that
ordinance,
and
this
also
relates
to
a
project
that
made
us
look
a
little
deeper
into
the
ordinance
and
it
kind
of
stems
back
to
with
us
just
passing
the
downtown
overlay
district
as
well.
You
know
like
going
through
that.
You
know
we
put
something
on
the
books
and
we
hope
that
it
works
well
for
95%
of
the
properties.
A
But
then,
once
you
really
start
looking
at
a
project
and
seeing
how
it
fits
that's
when
amendments
come
around
and
so
and
that's
a
nice
thing,
if
you
guys
are
on
board
with
with
an
amendment
or
whatever,
but
we
can
discuss
it
and
see
where
everyone's
out
once
I
get
there.
Okay,
so
in
the
gateway
overlay
district,
like
the
downtown
overlay
district,
it's
a
higher
aesthetic.
So
we
want
it
to
be.
You
know
we
want
everything
to
be
consistent
and
for
it
to
look.
A
You
know:
aesthetically,
pleasing
as
the
Gateway
to
our
community
and
a
new
commercial
district.
Where
you
know,
new
new
projects
will
be
happening
so,
but
looking
at
this,
then
we
have
this
transitional
yard
section,
and
so
basically
you
know
you
have
your
type
of
use
and
then
your
adjacent
district
and
then
that
depicts
what
your
width
is,
your
setbacks
off
of
the
rear
and
side
yards
so
and
that's
all
that's
green
space,
but
you
within
that
green
space.
You
can
also
have
a
detention
pond.
A
You
can
put
your
your
detention
facility
or
your
stormwater
facility
in
that
area.
So
it's
not
like
it
has
to
be
completely
useless
space,
but
it
does
have
to
be
green
and
that
the
intent
from
my
understanding
is
that
that's
just
you
know,
break
up
the
pavement
and
then
to
you
know,
have
just
those
distinguishing
areas
between
properties.
And
then
you
have
your
areas
where
you
can
have.
You
know
landscaping,
just
the
green
grass
trees.
Anything
like
that.
A
There
are
higher
standard,
it's
really
on
skipping
as
well
and
where
the
trees
are
placed
in
the
islands
and
whatnot.
But
the
thing
that
I
that
struck
me
is
a
little
odd.
Was
that
so
you'll
see
here
on
one
that
it
says
within
any
gateway
overlay
district
transitional
yards
will
be
required
within
side
and
rear
yard
setbacks
on
Lots
or
parcels
with
commercial
or
industrial
uses.
A
So
I
get
the
side,
but
the
rear
is
what
I
question,
because
so,
basically
a
property
owner
is
losing
30
feet
of
you
know
30
by
whatever,
for
what
the
square
footage
would
be
of
the
property
that
they
can
use
and
build
on,
and
if
it's
appropriate
that
we
have
a
transitional
yard
in
the
rear
when
that's
usually
not
seen.
But.
B
Between
uses
is
a
buffer
between
districts.
It's
allows
for
allows
for
water
to
run
off
parking
lots
to
be
filtered
as
it
gets,
especially
in
this
area
where
we
know
all
the
water
is
gonna
get
down
to
Willow,
Creek,
eventually,
and
so
I
remember
when
this
was
put
together,
whether
or
not
it
the
width
needs
to
be
10
feet
or
20
feet.
B
I
won't
comment
on
that
because
of
the
practical
application,
but
my
recollection
when
the
rules
were
put
together,
we
did
not
want
to
see
a
standard
cc3
highway,
212
district,
where
we
could
have
pavement
on
top
of
pavement
on
top
of
pavement
or
like
on
highway,
20
or
212.
We
wanted
to
have
an
area
where
there
was
going
to
be
something
distinguishable
about
this
district,
and
that's
why
we
laid
the
overlay
on
top
of
it.
B
We
wanted
more
grass,
we
wanted
more
trees,
we
wanted
more
separation,
and
so,
from
my
perspective,
I
think
there
needs
to
be
a
rear
transition
yard.
It
was
the
reason
that
was
now
that
we're
actually
trying
to
put
rubber
to
the
road
and
we're
starting
to
see
development
out
there.
Everybody
knew
going
in
from
planning
and
layout
and
design
and
how
it's
being
marketed,
what
what
the
rules
are
and
so
I'm
comfortable
with
having
a
transitional
yard
in
the
rear
I.
Just
it
maybe
doesn't
need
to
be
ten
feet.
Maybe
it's
five
feet.
A
So
that's
where
you
usually
see
like
in
the
commercial
zones
you
just
have
to
have
five
foot
setback
from
the
property
line
for
the
parking,
and
but
that's
what's
nice
for
developers.
You
know
is
that
then
it's
not
the
setbacks
for
the
buildable
area
are
not
wasted
or
not
the
not
usable
space
that
they
can
still
utilize
it
for
their
parking
and
then-
and
so
that's
really
where,
like
requiring
ten
feet
around
the
side
of
the
rear.
You
know
both
sides
in
the
rear.
A
It
really
does
cut
a
lot
off
of
the
property
and
I
get
if
you
can
strategically
use
that
area
for
your
detention
pond.
But
in
this
situation,
what
we're
gonna
run
into
in
this
overlay
district
is
because
it's
you
know
it's
it's
all
new
development,
so
they're
doing
regional
ponds,
so
they
won't
have,
which
is
also
nice,
that
they
won't
have
individual
stormwater
fees.
B
But
it's
not
really
about
regional
pontius
about
the
aesthetic
look.
It
wasn't
someone
out,
stormwater
drainage.
It
was
about
stormwater
being
cleaner,
getting
to
places.
But
it's
about
the
look.
It's
the
aesthetic
of
the
Gateway,
it's
not
about
whether
or
not
I've
got
a
place
to
personally
store
water.
C
Yeah
I'm
with
you
on
the
aesthetic
thing
and
I
might
I
might
be
willing
to
go
lower
on
that.
If
you
can
try
to
get
more
trees
in
there
somehow
and
you
know,
build
up
that
kind
of
aesthetic
barrier
between
the
districts
that
way
versus
just
having
you
know,
grass,
the
trees
might
actually
be
more
appealing
long-term
and
maybe
there's
a
way
that
we
could
incorporate
that
into
that.
If
you
get
a
solid
buffer
row
of
trees
that
it's
maybe.
C
A
But
then
you
know
just
and
I'm
I'm,
looking
at
it
and
I
get
the
aesthetics
for
sure
in
it
and
I,
but
I
just
want
to
see
it
from
the
development
standpoint
where,
where
we
hear
the
complaints
is
so
then
you
have
you
have
twenty
feet
of
grass
and
then
from
each
property.
You
know
and
like
between
parking
lots.
B
You
know,
I
think
sometimes
know
this
a
guide,
we're
looking
for
a
general
aesthetic,
each
individual
developers
going
to
come
in
with
a
design
and
if
they
can
show
something
in
the
design
that
still
meets
the
intent
of
the
district.
That
gives
you
something
easy
I,
don't
want
to
say
that
you
start
varying
and
seeing
things.
But
then
you
know,
as
of
right
now,
I
have
nothing
to
react
to
I
know
in
my
mind
what
there's
a
grass
strip
around
that's
gonna,
be
adequate
to
buffer
between
the
uses.
B
I
can
visually
that,
but
if
somebody
can
come
in
with
a
design,
that's
gonna
be
something
a
little
bit
different
than
that.
Maybe
that,
but
would
like
to
reduce
that
ten
feet
to
a
five
feet
and
I'm
gonna
do
something
to
offset
that.
Maybe
that
would
suffice
too,
but
again,
you
know.
I
know
the
intent
of
the
policy
was
to
have
a
separation,
a
green
area,
more
aesthetically,
pleasing
than
the
standard
c3
zoning
district.
How.
C
A
You
know
there
hasn't
been
too
much
development
out
there,
yet
I,
imagine
that
it
will
be
taking
off,
but
just
with
inquiries
and
everything
but
and
to
full
disclosure.
There
will
be
a
public
notice
in
the
paper
and
I,
don't
know
as
far
as
what
for
upcoming
requests,
that
you'll
see
that
you
will
be
approached
with
this
situation.
So
I
wanted
to
have
an
open
discussion
on
your
actual
thoughts
and
the
intent
so
that
you
could
try
to.
You
know
like
you
know,
so
that
we
would
know
what
what
we
want
anyway
and
then.
A
B
C
You
know
probably
went
into
this
thinking
that
a
lot
of
them
are
gonna,
take
advantage
of
the
storm
water
in
that
area
and
if
they're,
if
they're
not
they're,
doing
a
different
solution,
then
yeah
we
can
look
at
other
scenarios.
You
don't
have
a
big
swale
in
there
where
they,
you
know,
the
storm
water
is
going
to
some
level
level
land
and
plant
some
trees
on
there.
I
don't
think
we
go
far
enough
and
requiring
trees
in
our
developments.
C
A
B
Of
the
lake
competi
master
plan,
we
have
to
dovetail
that
into
the
other
glanders
plan
that
we're
doing
in
there
are
some
inconsistencies
between
the
two
documents.
Okay,
I
think
we're
gonna
be
needed
to
review
that
as
a
Planning
Commission
between
what
was
presented
and
what
also
has
been
worked
on
for
the
last
several
years.
A
Recommendations
right
so,
but
then
what
we
adopt
in
our
land
plan
will
still
be
what
we
use
went
in
making
decisions.
But
as
far
as
the
resorts
go
that
you
know-
and
I
did
have
that
on
here
as
discussion,
because
we
are
getting
close,
I
just
didn't-
have
all
the
in
internal
discussions
that
I
wanted
to
before
I
Britain
before
I.
Have
it
polished
enough
to
bring
to
you
guys?
A
B
A
Yeah,
so
anybody
that
was
a
part
of
that
all
of
those
meetings
at
7:00
a.m.
for
the
resorts
it
did
not,
you
know,
get
swept
under
the
rug.
We
will
be
using
that
information
and
then
bringing
that
forward.
Finally,
but
you
know
we
kind
of
were
waiting
for
the
lakum
pesky
master
plan,
not
knowing
what
recommendations
would
be
provided
with
that.
A
B
We
had
actually
Luke
and
I
were
just
talking
about
this.
The
other
day
we
have
been
in
general
agreement.
What
the
land-use
plan
is
in
this
last
map,
making
thing
I
think
policy
wise.
We
went
through
it
from
the
Planning
Commission,
so
we
know
what
we
have
if
you've
seen
the
lake
camp
Eska
master
plan.
There
are
a
lot
of
commonalities
between
because
they
took
a
lot
of
the
information
that
Luke
had
been
working
on
and
we
improved.
There
are
some
things
that
are
some
substantive
differences
between
the
two
and
I
think.
B
B
Yesterday
in
Aberdeen,
and
he
said
that
they
are
working
through
the
last
changes
and
once
that
it'll
have
to
come
to
us
as
the
planning,
Commission
and
then
staff
and
and
mr.
Mohn
are
gonna,
have
to
figure
out.
This
is
where's.
Where
does
it
differ
and
then
bring
that
back
to
us
and
then
we're
gonna
have
to
provide
direction
on
that
final
or
and.
B
A
B
C
B
Every
well
and
I
think
if,
if
we
get
the
master
plan
from
the
lake
Pesce
from
the
from
the
consultant
and
Luke
in
our
office
with
the
planning
district
I'm
trying
to
stay
out
of
that,
just
because
of
my
position
here
on
the
board
is
that
local
doesn't
work
with
city
staff
to
come
back
and
say:
okay.
This
is
what
they
said.
This
is
what
we've
already
talked
about
and
said.
What's
different,
we
need
to
come
back
and
say
which
path
are
you
picking,
Planning
Commission
yeah.
A
Yeah
so
like
same
with
like
before
the
next
construction
construction
season,
this
spring
I
definitely
would
like
to
get
the
the
lake
commercial
district
approved
and
in
the
books
and
then
look
into
resorts
and
that's
the
main
thing
of
how
to
regulate
existing
residential
properties
and
potentially
adding
commercial
which
lots
lots
to
go
in
into
there
and
then
also
a
mixed
use
district.
You.
B
Know-
and
the
one
thing
happened
since
we're
talking
about
wish
lists.
I-
would
really
think
that
maybe
in
December
ish
time
or
shortly
after
the
first
year,
I
think
it
would
be
nice
just
to
have
the
Planning
Commission
have
a
separate
planning
meeting
amongst
ourselves.
So
we
can
sit
down
with
staff
staff
could
give
us
a
direction
of
things
that
they
think
is
important.
B
C
A
A
B
D
B
A
B
B
In
effect
and
the
City
Council
as
well
I
mean
I
think
we
would
like
to
hear
where
the
City
Council
is
looking
at.
You
know
from
some
of
the
things
that's
and
the
council
members
and
the
mayor
from
a
direction
where
they
think
well,
why
does
this
happen,
or
why
doesn't
this
happen
or
what
you
know?
What
maybe
we
do
something
for
this
that
or
the
other
thing
definitely.
A
And
it
could
even
be
in
that
I
think
that
would
be
really
good
to
have,
because
it
could
spark
things
that
you
know
just
somebody
might
question
like
why.
Why
that's
something
we
don't
have
in
the
books
or
whatever,
and
we
I
mean
the
list,
could
get
really
long
I
mean
we
could
have
job
security.
What
and.