►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting - 02-20-2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
C
A
D
A
B
Right,
thank
you.
First
I,
don't
would
like
to
invite
anybody
that
would
like
to
speak
in
the
public
comment
section
of
the
meeting
later
on
for
an
item.
That's
not
on
the
agenda
to
please
advise
Brandi,
we'll
get
you
on
next
thing
is
to
approve
the
agenda,
meet
a
motion
to
approve
the
agenda
so
moved.
D
B
A
A
Okay,
so
item
number
four
on
the
agenda
is
Commission
consideration
of
resolution
number
20,
2003,
initiating
annexation
of
attractive
land
contiguous
to
the
city
of
Watertown,
to
be
known
as
the
lakes
of
Willow
Creek.
First
edition
and
resolution
20
2004
establishing
the
zoning
designation
of
c3
highway
commercial
district.
A
So
if
you
guys
remember
this
property,
this
is
being
developed
by
J&J
land
sales,
who
are
the
owners
and
they
brought
a
preliminary
plan
forward
in
September
of
2019.
We've
been
working
with
them
the
year
that,
following
year
two,
so
it
went
back
all
the
way
to
September
of
2018.
So
what
you
see
here
with
this
little
portion?
And
if
let
me
pull
up
the
exhibit.
A
Okay,
so
you'll
notice
that
the
rest
of
the
property
that's
shown
in
the
vicinity
map
and
that
will
be
the
lakes
of
Willow
Creek
first
edition
is
already
an
extends
owned
into
the
city
and
it
has
a
different
zoning
designation
designation,
which
is
why
we're
doing
a
rezone
as
well.
So
the
only
small
portion
that
we
are
annexing
and
zoning
in
this
action
is
this
hatched
area
here.
A
Otherwise
the
rest
was
brought
in
when
it
was
this
from
south
east
side
addition,
some
other
information,
the
adjacent
property
zoning
designations
to
the
north,
there's
I
won
and
then
petitioned
to
be
rezone
to
c3
highway
commercial
to
the
south
is
a1.
Agricultural
district
east
is
I,
I
won
right
now,
but
it's
also
petitioned
to
be
rezone
to
c3
in
the
next
action
and
to
the
west
is
in
the
county
stone
park.
Dedication
is
not
required,
since
the
proposed
designation
is
commercial.
A
A
Actually
it's
so
right
now
and
that
gets
into
the
rezone,
which
is
the
next
item
on
the
agenda.
So
right
now,
it's
annexed
zoned
as
I
won
light
industrial
I
to
have
the
Industrial
and
BP
business
park.
So
all
three
of
those
zoning
designations
exist
there
today,
but
then
the
rezone
will
change
that
all
to
see
three.
So
what
he's
proposing
here
is
that
it
will
be
all
contiguous.
All
the
property
will
just
be
see
three
highway
commercial,
but.
D
A
E
B
F
A
Yep
so
and
when
it
all
happens,
it's
just
a
matter
of
really
a
Ghent
izing
it
in
whatever
order,
but
they
will
become
effective
on
the
same
date.
It's
just
a
matter
of
us
taking
action,
so
I
mean
if
say
that
the
rezone
didn't
happen,
then
I
mean
City.
Council,
probably
would
look
at
it
differently
if
the
rezone
I
mean
and
to.
But
this
is
what
our
preliminary
plan
showed,
that
we
approved.
B
A
Thank
you
mark
so
now.
This
is
the
reason
that
I
was
referencing.
This
is
Commission
consideration
of
resolution
number
20
2006
amending
the
district
zoning
map
of
the
city
of
Watertown
for
property
generally
located
in
the
north
to
the
north
of
Willow
Creek
Drive,
to
be
known
as
the
lakes
of
Willow
Creek
first
edition
from
I
1
light
industrial
district
I
to
having
industrial
district
in
BP,
Business
Park
District
to
c3
Highway
mercial
district.
F
A
A
F
A
You
know
I
wasn't
around
when
the
gateway
overlay
district
foundry
was
established,
but
I
think
that
it
was
mainly
for
that
new
development
and
just
as
adjacent
to
Willow
Creek
I
mean
once
really
it
gets
into
kind
of
the
question
of.
Do
we
extend
it
to
all
c3
districts,
then
you
know
I
think
that
the
district
doesn't.
F
A
F
You're
going
to
see
buildings
taller
than
10
or
15
feet
to
the
north
so
and
the
type
of
the
way
the
topography
is
I
mean
you'll,
see
building.
So
the
question
is
again:
it's
not
necessarily
for
this
meeting,
but
is
something
we
might
want
to
consider.
The
Gateway
is
the
gateway,
and
if
you
can
see
north
and
south
driving
on
the
road,
we
might
work,
that's
an
option.
F
A
D
A
D
A
D
D
So
that's
issue
isn't
before
us,
but
just
to
keep
in
mind
on
the
front
of
our
thoughts
that
as
we
go
forward
and
there's
discussion
about
annexing
additional
commercial
land,
I
think
we
need
to
have
that
discussion
about
whether
or
not
it
makes
any
sense
to
have
more
when
there
appears
to
be
already
adequate
vacant
commercial
land,
but
I
anticipate
supporting
this.
So
I
think.
F
My
personal
druthers
is
that
if
somebody
want
to
annex
land
into
the
city
of
Watertown
and
pay
taxes
in
the
city
of
Watertown
and
expand
the
tax
base,
that's
better
for
everybody
and
I
also
believe
that
the
more
people
that
want
to
promote
residential,
commercial
or
industrial
development
and
the
purely
capitalistic
society
will
allow
us
more
competition
and
theoretically,
would
drive
down
the
cost
of
development
Lots.
That's
where
I'm
at
with
it,
but
I
do
think
it
is
something
and.
D
I
understand
that
portion.
My
only
fear
is
that
developer
built
the
road
city
takes
it
over.
There
isn't
adequate
businesses
or
sales
tax
revenue
or
other
tax
revenue
purposes
to
to
support
that
infrastructure.
So
then,
we've
got
one
or
two
businesses
out
there
or
one
or
two
buildings
out
there.
You've
got
a
tremendous
infrastructure
at
the
expense
of
the
taxpayers,
then
bare,
and
you
don't
ever
you're,
always
a
revenue
neutral
and
guess
is
my
fear,
so
I
just
I,
don't
think
it's
happening.
B
A
A
There
would
be
no
commercial
aspect
to
it,
so
it
would
be
like
our
interstate
sign.
If
we
were
to
redo
that
right
now,
we
can
only
gosh.
What
is
the
restriction?
It's
a
very
small
square
footage
allowance
and
it
would
look
tiny
back
there.
You
wouldn't
be
able
to
even
see
what
it's
said.
Probably
would.
F
A
A
So
it's
identifying
logos
which
do
not
advertise
the
product
or
service
on
municipal
owned
water
storage
reservoirs
when
directed
by
the
City
Council.
So
the
language
that
I
was
thinking
would
be
a
city
identifying
signage
which
do
not
advertise
the
product
or
service
or
on
municipal
I,
owned
property
municipal
property,
whatever,
when
directed
by
the
City
Council
I,
wish
that
I
could
think
of
so
it
was
falling
under
a
free-standing
sign
right
now,
and
the
I
can't
believe
that
I
can't
actually
think
of
it
right
off.
The
top
of
my
head.
A
A
F
I
mean
it's:
it's
I
I
think
no
restrictions
is
a
can
of
worms
that
you
don't
want
to
go
down
and
open,
but
I
think
something
that's
owned
by
the
city
on
city
property
and
have
some
requirements.
That
still
has
to
mean
you
know
clear,
working,
clear
view
triangles
and
maybe
some
top
end
as
far
as
the
certain
square
footage.
It's
probably
not
crazy,
no
crazy
thing
to
do.
Yeah.
A
I
think
that
I
could
actually
this
one
doesn't
really
work
either,
but
so
restrictions
on
signs
located
in
the
public,
right-of-way
I
could
also
have
restrictions
on
I'll
just
I'll
work
with
it.
But
if
you
guys
think
that
it's
appropriate
in
in
general,
but
to
have
some
parameters
with
it,
obviously
that
we
wouldn't
be
the
the
Clearview
triangle
would
still
be
in
play.
Maybe
we
could
have
a
maximum
size
just
so
it's
you
doesn't
get
ridiculous,
but
yeah.
A
C
Our
ordinance
currently
states
that
to
pass
a
variance
or
a
conditional
use
requires
a
two-thirds
vote
of
the
members
of
the
board,
which
is
five
out
of
seven
on
all
they're
into
conditional
use.
Actions
in
2015,
the
state
legislature
amended
the
statute,
a
state
as
it
pertains
to
conditional
uses.
That
arguably
could
require
us
to
change
that
standard
to
a
certain
percentage
of
those
present
and
voting.
Now,
the
jury's
still
out
as
to
whether
or
not
our
ability
to
be
quote
unquote.
C
Stricter
than
state
law
exists
in
this
situation,
but
nonetheless
it
might
be
something
we
want
to
consider
anyway,
just
to
avoid
the
potential
fight
down
the
road.
So,
essentially,
the
question
is
whether
we
want
to
a
amend
it
for
conditional
uses
only
to
change
the
standard
to
present
and
voting
for
conditional
uses
only
as
state
law
was
changed
to
or
if
we
want
to
mess
with
the
variance
approval
process
as
well.
Well,.
F
I
think
and
I'm
not
going
to
get
into
an
argument.
I
think
statute
is
specific.
That
appeals
and
variances
in
the
next
section
will
still
still
it's
mandated
at
a
two-thirds
and
and
when
you
take
a
look
at
the
conditional
use
section
here,
it
allows
us
to
either
be
present
in
voting,
and
we
could
also
change
that
to
a
simple
majority.
If
we
so
chose.
F
An
advocate
of
the
two-thirds
rule
at
this
point
in
time
for
the
conditional
use
but
I
I
think
it
should
be
of
those
present
and
voting.
I.
Think
our
bylaws
are
also
stipulate
that
we
have
to
have
5-4
quorum
to
act
as
the
Board
of
Adjustment,
so
2/3
are
still
gonna.
Be
four
votes
two
to
initiate
a
the
conditional
use
permit
just
my
thoughts,
I.
D
Want
to
echo
Todd's
thoughts,
I
agree
with
two
thirds
of
the
present
voting.
I
can
think
of
two
instances.
I
think
it
was
two
instances
in
the
last
year
or
two
that
we've
had
this
as
issue
has
come
up.
What
the
situation
that
can
happen
is
that,
if
there's
only
five
of
us
here,
it
has
to
be
a
unanimous
vote
to
pass
a
conditional
use,
and
that
seems
a
bit
odd.
D
B
C
It
pertains
of
conditional
uses.
It
gives
us
the
ability
to
set
our
own
percentage.
So
you
could.
You
could
actually
have
a
hundred
percent
of
those
present
loading
if
you
like,
but
that
wouldn't
make
any
sense
either
kind
of
defeat
the
purpose,
and
so
so.
Yes,
two-thirds
of
those
present
and
voting
would
be
consistent
with
state
law
for
conditional
uses
variances.
Then
the
question
would
become
whether
you
want
to
leave
that
as
two
thirds
of
the
members
of
the
board
to
be
five.
Oh,
my.
F
D
C
A
A
Then
I'll
touch
on
some
of
those
things
as
well,
and
that
had
to
do
with
property
being
shown
in
that
boundary.
That's
not
annex
within
city
limits
and
then
also
for
number
two
for
the
purpose
to
permit
development
of
service,
retail
centers,
complimentary
to
Lake,
Recreation
and
living
adjacent
to
lakum,
pesco
or
Lake
Pelican,
as
shown
in
the
comprehensive
Land
Use
Plan,
which
is
also
something
right
now
in
the
comp
plan.
A
The
conditional
uses
would
be
a
car
wash
automatic
or
semi-automatic
motels
and
hotels,
automobile
parking,
lot,
storage
units,
office,
building
bar
tavern
and
transit
station,
and
then
the
area
and
bulk
requirements
are
found
in
2110.
And
so
then
you
would
reference
a
different
part
in
the
ordinance,
but
you'll
see
that
the
CL
district
is
consistent,
mainly
consistent
or
derived
off
of
the
c2
district,
which
is
the
local
commercial
district.
A
The
only
thing
that
we
made
different
was
that
we
just
made
it
30-foot
for
the
front
yard,
setback,
side,
yard
setback
and
rear
yard
setback
and
the
reason
for
keeping
it
30
and
30
instead
of
40
and
30
like
it
is
in
the
c2,
is
because
at
the
lake
it's
confusing,
because
the
lakeside
is
the
front
yard
and
the
public
right-of-way
and
where
the
street
is,
is
the
rear
yard.
So
that
would
have
caused
confusion
wherever
wherever
these
potential
districts
would
go.
A
So
we
just
kept
it
consistent
and
then
maximum
height
is
consistent
as
well
as
60-foot
as
the
rest
of
the
commercial
districts
or
actually
just
non-residential
and
and
then
for
the
non
residential
accessory
structures
for
the
CL
district,
then
maximum
height,
consistent,
30,
30
1030,
so
that's
completely
consistent
with
C,
2
and
so
accessory
structures
would
be
if
somebody
would
have
like
a
story.
Chatter,
a
small
garage.
A
A
It's
a
decorative
block,
metal,
siding,
flap,
see
metal
panels
or
sheet
or
corrugated
panels
are
allowed,
if
used
as
accents,
to
include
not
more
than
20%
of
said
wall,
so
those
are
for
the
walls
that
are
only
facing
a
single-family
residential
district
and
that's
just
to
to
preserve
the
integrity
of
what
the
residential
districts
look
like
today,
and
so
that
they're
not
looking
at
something
honest
ethically,
please,
pleasing
and
the
exterior
of
buildings
shall
have
the
varied
and
interesting
detail.
Large
unadorned
walls
shall
be
prohibited.
A
Fifty
foot
or
more
all
large
walls
facing
a
public,
right-of-way
or
residential.
His
own
property
must
be
relieved
by
architectural
detailing
such
as
change
of
materials,
change
in
color,
offsets
or
other
significant
visual
relief
provided
in
a
manner
or
at
intervals,
in
keeping
with
the
size
of
mass
and
scale
of
the
wall,
and
so
that
kind
of
is
tweaked,
but
it
came
from
the
RG
residential
garage
district
and
then
for
the
outside
storage
displayed
in
screening,
and
this
goes
for
the
entire
district.
A
Storage
of
excess
inventory
shall
be
screened
by
means
of
an
opaque
fence,
plant
materials,
wall
or
earth
berms
and
where
groupings
of
conifers
and
just
just
a
Jewess
shade
trees
are
utilized
for
screening
in
order
to
provide
year-round
screening,
a
minimum
50%
of
the
trees,
she'll
be
coniferous
and
then
the
transitional
yards
portion
we
have
I
haven't
added
this.
This
is
new,
but
it
was
something
that
we
discussed,
that
we
wanted
to
take
from
the
gateway,
overlay,
district
and
so
properties.
A
A
I
wanted
to
also
follow
section
lines
or
880
lines,
just
anything
anything
that
was
easily
legal
like
easier
to
legally
describe
or
to
see
so
that
we
weren't
just
having
the
the
radius
around
the
lake
I
mean
that
would
get
kind
of
arbitrary
when
you're
trying
to
decide
if
a
property
can
be
with
it
is
within
the
boundary
or
not,
and
then
you'll
notice
up
here.
The
reason
why
I
didn't
why
I
didn't
I
just
kept
this
parallel
parallel
with
the
public
right-of-way,
because
all
of
this
area
to
the
north
is
wetlands
and
flood
way.
A
So
it's
it's
undeveloped,
a
bowl
and
then,
but
this
portion
would
be
that's
north
of
highway
20.
So
and
then,
obviously
here
there's
a
little
portion
that
of
the
quarter
mile
that
reached
on
the
other
side
of
212.
Well,
212
is
kind
of
a
I
mean
it
blocks
it
doesn't
make.
It
doesn't
make
for
easy,
easy
accessibility
to
the
lake,
which
is
what
these
businesses
should
be
for
and
then
same
here
with
this
little
portion.
A
F
I
think
in
maybe
it's
in
the
purpose
statement.
I
think
you
do
somewhat
address
it.
Brandy,
the
more
I
think
about
it
to
establish
appropriate
locations
within
the
CL
commercial
boundary
map.
So
we're
not
saying
that
we
are
zoning
that
property
today
CL
we're
just
saying
that
that
is
an
area
that
CL
zoning
may
be
appropriate.
Is
that
that's
what
you're,
that's
probably
so
from?
If
that's,
how
we're
viewing
it
then
I'm?
Okay,
with
that,
okay.
F
A
F
Because
our
zoning
maps
not
going
to
show
this
as
an
overlay
district
on
topic
or
anything
like
that,
it's
just
gonna,
say
any
area
any
lands
within
this
area.
Somebody
wants
to
come
in
and
they
and
ask
for
a
CL
designation.
That's
gonna,
be
that's
gonna,
be
step
one
if
it
doesn't
land
in
the
blue
area.
We
can't,
as
a
Planning
Commission,
recommend
approval
great.
A
A
I
think
that
I'll
just
include
the
entire
lake
I
mean
obviously
it
for
them
to
annex
and
zone.
It
would
have
to
be
contiguous
to
city
limits
and
there's
so
much
I
mean
you
can
see
here.
This
yellow
hatching
is
city
limits,
so
you
can
see.
I
mean
a
large
majority
of
the
linear
feet
of
pelicans.
Shore
is
not
annex
it's
still
within
the
Lake
Park
District
in
the
county,
but
I'll
I'll
just
include
it
just
to
have
it
and
then
see
where
development
takes
us.
B
A
A
Oh
and
that's
where
my
thought
was
going
was
because
so
once
you
get
out
past
the
quarter-mile,
you
can
transition
into
other
other
commercial
zoning,
designation
or
or
there
are
just
other
zoning
districts,
but
the
I
only
went
the
quarter-mile
because
of
proximity
to
the
lake
and
within
walking
distance
and
for
people
to
utilize
so
say,
for
instance,
a
hot
topic.
Lately
it's
been
a
campground,
so
we
don't
want
it
to
be
too
far
out
where
then
people
are
saying
well,
why
would
you
want
a
campground
way
out
there?
A
A
D
B
F
F
So
if
I
decide
to
buy
a
hundred
fifty
foot
of
frontage
on
the
lake
or
some
one
area
in
that
blue
and
I
want
to
open
up
one
of
these
commercial
uses.
I'm
gonna
have
to
come
back
before
the
Planning
Commission
request.
We
at
the
Planning
Commission
you're
gonna
have
to
make
a
a
recommendation
to
the
City
Council.
The
City
Council
is
then
gonna
have
to
rezone
the
property,
and
so
you
know
we're
talking
a
60-day
process.
A
And
so,
when
this
CL
district,
if
it
gets
approved,
this
doesn't
change
any
of
the
existing
zoning
out
at
the
lake
today.
So
the
single-family
residential
properties
are
not
going
to
be
now
in
this
CL,
it's
more
so
for
going
forward.
Now,
we've
talked
to
in
the
past
about
the
commercial
properties
out
there.
If
we
would
do
a
mass
rezone
and
have
them
all
be
late
commercial
because
they,
you
know,
there's
C
2
and
there
C
3
and
the
only
reason
that
they
were
zone.
A
That
is
because
we
didn't
have
the
CL
district
in
the
toolbox,
so
if
it
would
be
into
the
CL
district,
is
to
protect
the
existing
resident,
the
residences
as
well,
and
then,
but
it's
also
to
allow
for
commercial
activity
to
happen,
but
then
you're
not
you're
getting
rid
of
the
the
uses
that
are
typical
on
the
highway,
like
your
truck
stops
or
your
service
stations,
or
things
like
that.
That
would
that
concerns
people
that
have
residents
out
there.
F
To
the
existing
C
2
and
C
3
zoning
designation,
this
is
not
something
I
use
that
I
would
probably
say
that
needs
to
be
a
City
centric
decision
process.
That
would
be
if
the
landowner
wants
it,
because
that
was
a
CL
from
a
C
3
wouldn't
be
considered
a
down
zone,
and
that's
probably
you
know
if
the
drakes
wanted
to
resort
to
a
CL,
that's
really
on
them.
F
A
Well
and
to
the
you
know,
council
has
already
approved
the
reasons
that
have
taken
place
because
they
were
appropriate
so
to
leave
them
as
they
are
today
that
that
should
be
fine
and
then
but
going
forward.
This
was
just
good
to
get
in
place
because
then
the
property
owners
there's
some
protections
for
them.
So
it's
going
it's
just
going
forward
because
we
always
every
time
we
had
a
request
for
a
rezoning
to
Lake.
It
was.
We
were
asking
well
there's
a
lake
commercial
district
coming,
but
it's
not
here
today
and.
F
D
E
E
Is
there
any
reason
that
we
shouldn't
reduce
that
for
again
for
and
then
in
just
so
we
don't
have
a
skyscraper
standard
on
the
on
the
beach
and
then,
if
it
is
a
hotel
or
something
that
does
need
a
height,
you
know
extension,
then
we
could
do
it
at
that
time
when
they
come
to
apply,
is
60
to
higher.
Is
that
is
that
just
not
something
to
be
concerned
about.
F
E
Again,
if
they're
coming
as
a
hotel
as
a
conditional
use,
then
they
could
also
ask
for
the
height
extension
if,
if
need
be,
otherwise
the
other
the
permitted
uses
they
wouldn't
be
coming
in
on
any
of
those
I
can't.
Imagine
too
many
retail
stores
are
going
to
go
at
60
feet
or
anything
else
that
they
would
be
coming
for.
You
know
so.
A
Today,
for
the
like
residential
districts
for
our
one
there's
a
35
foot
max
for
the
height
for
our
it's
35
as
well,
and
then
for
our
three.
We
do
allow
up
to
55
feet
for
dwellings
over
12
units,
but
I,
see
where
you're
coming
from
Rhonda,
because
it
is
it'll,
be
adjacent
to
single-family
homes.
So
do
we
want
to,
instead
of
keeping
it
consistent
with
strictly
commercial
which
this
is?
But
we
are
also
trying
to
if.
F
The
purpose
of
the
ordinance
is
to
allow
for
commercial
development
up
there
and
said
that
that's
can
be
competitive
with
other
commercial
sites
in
the
city.
I
think
the
commercial
standard
is
what
you're
trying
to
dictate.
If
you're
trying
to
mix
a
mixed
commercial
residential
aspect
of
it,
then
Rhonda's,
probably
more
correct.
So
I
guess
that's
the
question:
are
we
trying
to
say
well
if
we're
okay
in
this
blue
area,
for
new
and
redevelopment
issues
to
have
commercial
uses,
we
are
you
going
to
hamstring
the
commercial
development.
F
F
F
E
Mm-Hmm,
so
if
okay,
so
the
retail
establishment
is
allowed
here,
so
I'm
gonna
put
a
retail
store,
I'm
going
to
take
confess,
collage
and
then
I'm
gonna
put
apartments
about
that,
because
I
never
thought
about
that
and
now
I
need
that
60
feet.
I
mean.
Is
anybody
gonna
scream
at
me?
Is
anybody
gonna
say
I
wish?
We
would
have
thought
of
that,
because
I
am
now
on
frontage
I'm,
just
throwing
it
out
there
guys.
That's
all
mm-hmm.
F
F
F
Because,
right
now
the
side
yard
is
ten.
Thirty,
thirty,
so
we're
already
30
and
I've
got
a
60
foot.
Building
and
I
can
automatically
I
can
have
35
feet
today
with
any
residential
structure.
So,
if
I'm
at
25
feet
of
extra,
we
just
need
to
figure
out
what
that
function
is
to
separate
more
more
separation,
distance,
great.
A
E
A
F
E
C
F
If,
as
a
group,
we're
not
comfortable
with
a
five-story
building
at
the
link-
and
we
just
have
a
saying-
then
leave
it
at
two
and
a
half
or
three
stories
at
35
feet
and
then
not,
but
then
you
I
think
you
need
a
caveat.
Then
in
your
in
your
area,
what
he
calls
district
regulations
that
hasn't
there's
a
star
that
says
any
conditional
use
as
it
you
know,
can
have
a
height
requirement
set
by
the
Board
of
Adjustment,
and
then
that
can
come
in
and
we
can.
E
A
E
F
Kind
of
what
I
was
talking
about
initially
I
was
thinking.
Is
you
come
if
there
is
a
if
there's
a
basis
for
two
for
every
foot
or
whatever
preset
back
that's
going
to
restrict
the
number
of
people
doing?
You
know
because
you're
you're
having
to
buy
more
frontage
to
make
that
work
or
or
if
we
just
say
you
know
we'll,
go
40
feet
for
a
commercial
use
and
then,
if
you
want
to
be
taller
than
that,
you
can
coming
in
for
a
conditional
use
hearing
or
something
for
hire.
Yeah.
E
E
A
E
A
Or
if
we
just
if
we
change
the
maximum
mean
height
to
35
feet
and
then
said,
the
required
side
yard
will
increase
to
ten
feet
or
not
ten
feet,
it'll
be
something
bigger.
When
the
building
is
three
stories
and
hype
or
more
so,
would
it,
but
is
it
the
side,
air
that
we're
worried
about
I
mean
cuz,
it's
already
thirty
feet.
Well,.
F
Give
your
neighbor
and
the
neighbor,
and
so
maybe
I
think
it
is.
Maybe
you
just
keep
it
consistent
at
35
feet,
which
is
what
the
the
neighborhood
is
out
there
already.
If
I
want
to
be
taller
than
35
feet,
you
make
any
any
structure
exceeding
35
feet
will
require
a
condition
use
permit
to
be
had
so
that
way.
The
neighbors
are
invited,
there's
a
public
hearing
process
and
then
we
still,
then
the
board
can
vote
on
it
and
it's.
E
A
F
A
E
F
Or
yeah
well,
yeah
and
statutorily
we
have
to
every
Board
of
Adjustment.
Action
has
to
be
published,
has
to
be
published
any
a
notice
anyway,
and
you
know
we're
gonna
be
bound
by
that
two-thirds
rule.
Whether
it's
that's
the
question,
though,
if
you,
if
it's
that
would
be
an
appeal,
so
it
would
have
to
be
five
votes.
E
A
F
A
B
F
E
A
Do
you
guys
have
any
other
questions
with
it
and
I
don't
know
with
with
Lake
residents,
if
they're
I
mean
open
to
suggestions
or
comments,
or
do
you
guys
want
to
wait?
I
mean
that's
your
call.
If
you
want
to
wait
to
the
public
hearing
otherwise
to
anybody
like
feel
free
to
send
me
an
email
for
people
that
aren't
just
here,
but
if
anybody's
listening,
then,
if
you
have
any
comments
or
suggestions,
then
please
give
me
that
feedback,
because
we
want
this
to
be
a
workable
district
for
everybody.
I
think.