►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting - 09-10-2020
Description
Plan Commission Meeting - 09-10-2020
A
B
C
A
A
All
right
moving
on
to
item
three
on
the
agenda
is
invitation
for
public
comment
participants.
If
there's
somebody
that
would
like
to
speak
to
the
board
on
an
item-
that's
not
on
the
agenda
tonight.
We'll
have
a
few
minutes
for
that
towards
the
end
of
the
meeting
after
the
regular
agenda
items
are
done,
I
believe,
there's
a
sign
up
sheet
in
the
room,
otherwise
hold
on
the
line
after
the
regular
agenda.
A
D
A
B
And
then
that
I
am
actually
so
there's
a
change
to
those
and
I
was
trying
to
weigh
out
if
but
the
the
agenda
itself
is
fine,
but
the
change
on
the
minutes.
I've
already
updated
them
on
the
website,
but
it
just
was
under
the
commission
consideration
for
the
the
rezoning
of
actually
the
property
that
we're
looking
at
today.
That's
on
the
agenda.
B
B
B
Here
you'll
see:
okay,
that's
weird,
we'll
make
sure
that
it's
switched,
but
it
should
have
been
switched
already
on
the
website.
I'm
not
sure
why
it's
not,
but
anyways
there
was
no.
So
there
was
a
motion
made,
but
then
the
applicant
withdrew.
So
then
there
was
no.
There
wasn't
a
the
motion
didn't
carry
so
we
just
need
to
omit
motion
carried.
B
Yes,
thank
you
blake.
So
this
is
commission
consideration
of
resolution
number
2020-45
amending
the
zoning
map
of
the
city
of
watertown
for
a
portion
of
property
located
at
714th
avenue,
southeast
from
I-1
light
industrial
district
to
c3,
highway
commercial
district-
and
this
is
the
this-
is
the
application
that
we
had
last
meeting
that
was
withdrawn
because
during
discussion
then
it
was
requested
or
it
was.
The
board
felt
that
including
the
entire
property
that
the
applicant
owns
should
be
included
in
the
rezone
request.
B
And
so
then
this
is
going
from
i1
to
c3,
it's
approximately
2.33
acres
and
then
after.
If
the
zoning
is
approved,
then
and
obviously
that'll
be
heard
by
council
twice
and
then
we
would
work
with
the
applicant
on
these.
The
public
infrastructure
improvements
to
the
street
and
then
getting
the
property
planted,
and
then
he
would
come
back
for
a
subsequent
conditional
use
from
the
board
of
adjustment.
A
B
B
A
D
Owner
of
the
property,
what
I'm
looking
to
do
is
I
basically
the
same
thing.
The
other
gentleman
was
here
for
a
little
bit
ago.
I'm
looking
to
build.
It's
not
going
to
be
a
campground.
So
to
say
it's
not
going
to
be
a
weekend
deal
there's
just
like
him.
There's
going
to
be
minimums
as
far
as
time,
what
I'm
going
to
be
aiming
for
is
the
snowbirds
and
the
construction
workers.
B
D
D
A
A
Looking
at
the
extents
of
the
industrial
zoning
that
we've
got
there,
we
do
have
a
significant
amount
of
commercial
type
uses
that
exist
within
i1
zoning,
the
motel
immediately
to
the
to
the
west
of
there
we
have
auto
repair.
We
have
office
building
where
the
social
security
administration
is
based
off
of
the
cenex
station
it
from
a
from
a
staff
perspective.
A
B
A
F
I'm
probably
the
one
that
started
the
question
and
comments
on
spot
zoning.
We
also
have
a
section
in
the
development
considerations
for
the
entire
sal
212
redevelopment
area.
There
is
five
bullet
points,
one
of
those
specifically
states
that
we
are
to
protect
existing
industrial
uses
from
encroachment
of
incompatible
uses,
and
I
think
this
is
a
great
time
to
have
the
conversation.
F
Whether
or
not
you
know
the
intended
use
of
a
campground
while,
if
that's
the
appropriate
encroachment
upon
other
industrial
use
is
the
right
commercial
use,
but
we
again
we're
not
zoning
it
specifically
for
a
campground
resorting
it
for
any
of
those
uses
and
granted
you
know,
campground
is
probably
the
most
applicable
use
to
be
done
there
because
of
the
flood
zone.
Requirements
are
going
to
be
coming
upon
it.
F
I
wouldn't
I,
wouldn't
you,
know,
categorize
a
i1
to
a
c3
as
a
down
zone,
so
I
don't
think
that
would
be,
and
even
if
even
if
the
you
know,
neighborhood
didn't
want
to
see
that
and
we
as
the
city
think
that's
the
most
the
better
long
development
pattern
as
a
c3.
We
could
initiate
that
process
and
I
would
not
consider
a
i1
to
a
c3
to
be
a
down
zone.
D
E
D
D
A
Now
if
the
applicant
does
want
to
proceed
with
a
campground,
of
course,
he
will
have
to
come
back
with
a
conditional
use
request
through
the
board
of
adjustment,
in
which
case
there
there
may
be
additional
conditions
placed
on
the
applicant
before
he
could
proceed
and
it
would
have
to
be
approved
or
denied.
At
that
point
in
time.
E
D
B
The
the
sequence
you
know
what
looking
at
the
conditional
use
for
the
campground
in
the
board
of
adjustment
meeting
there
it's
twofold
a
little
bit,
because
we're
gonna
do
the
rezone
after
the
conditional
use.
But
this
was
a
bigger
picture
of
like
the
spot
zone
itself
and
would
that
you
know
because
right
now
he
can't
he
can't
even
ask
the
conditional
use.
So
for
the
first
question
needs
to
be:
is
the
zoning
appropriate?
B
A
B
F
I'm
going
to
start
my
part
of
the
discussion
by
just
stating
that
I
am
not
supportive
of
the
spot
zone,
I'm
not
necessarily
unsupportive
of
the
commercial
designation.
I
just
of
horror
spot
zoning
and
I
think
if
we
have
the
opportunity
to
to
take
more
property
along
on
the
north
side
of
that
road
and
bring
it
into
a
commercial
district,
I
think
we
would
would
be
the
wiser
in
doing
that.
D
B
D
D
F
I
don't
view
the
size
of
the
lot
of
of
being
a
spot
zone.
I
look
at
what's
the
surrounding
land
uses
so
it'd
be
like
plopping,
a
commercial
use
in
the
middle
of
a
residential
zone,
an
industrial
use
in
the
middle
of
a
commercial
zone
and
and
by
and
large,
when
I
think,
of
highway
commercial
zoning.
While
watertown
is
a
little
bit
unique
in
its
situation,
I
think
there
needs
to
be
something
some
sort
of
relationship
to
proximity
to
a
highway.
F
I
think
the
biggest
problem
here
is
that,
and
it's
not
really
a
problem.
I
think
there's
a
solution.
I
just
don't
think
taking
a
we.
We
have
no
other
situations
like
this
in
the
city.
If
you
take
a
look
at
the
zoning
map,
where
you
have
a
where
you
have
a
you
know,
a
two
acre
ladder,
one
acre
even
a
fifty
thousand
square
foot
lot:
that's
zoned
highway
commercial,
surrounded
by
industrial
uses.
F
I
think
it's
inconsistent
with
the
the
policy
and
the
specific
policy
in
the
land
use
plan
and
I
think
if
we
were
to
again
take
the
broader
approach
and
look
at
taking
in
more
land
for
c3
zoning
to
be
more
consistent
with
our
mixed-use
development
concept
in
the
land
use
plan.
I
think
that's
the
more
solid
approach,
that's
just
where
I'm
at
with.
F
B
A
B
D
F
B
A
B
A
B
A
F
And
the
board,
could
the
board
could
initiate
that
action?
Brandy
and
save
the
applicant
await
time
if
he
is
refused
at
the
city,
council
and
so,
mr
chair,
I
would
like
to
make
an
ancillary
motion
just
to
stand
alone
that,
in
the
event
that
the
rezoning
does
not
come
to
fruition
at
the
city
council,
that
staff
be
instructed
to
investigate
an
opportunity
to
rezone
more
property
in
that
vicinity
to
c3.
D
A
B
A
B
D
A
B
B
B
All
of
these
lots
would
be
conforming
to
the
district
and
then
probably
most
likely
would
be
subdivided
further
and
it
is
conforming
to
the
adjacent
zoning
designations.
There
is
a
mix
of
i1
and
c3
in
this
area,
so
it
is
consistent
there
with
the
land
use
and
let
me
think,
if
there's
any
other
important
information
to
share
up
front
before
we
open
it
up.
B
A
A
B
B
Yes,
and
so
that
is
per
the
engineering
design
standards
and
they
have
submitted
construction
plans
that
are
conforming
to
that.
So
and
if
you
have
noticed
as
well,
they
have
started
the
construction
of
10th
avenue,
which
is
fine,
it's
their
property.
The
only
thing
that
they
risk
is
then,
if
it's
not
built
to
city
standards
that
it
could
potentially
not
be
approved
or
accepted
so,
but
we
have
been
working
with
them
and
then
so.
This
is
all
just
part.
B
Obviously,
10th
avenue
is
a
good
connection
between
26th
and
23rd
street
and
so
and
it
and
it
makes
sense
with
our
major
street
plan,
and
so
now
it's
just
a
matter
of
you
know
is
the
c3
zoning
appropriate
and
the
lot
layout
and
whatnot.
So
that
is
what
we're
they're
proposing
with
this
preliminary
plan
and
then
the
annexation
zoning
also
you'll,
recall,
came
came
through
this
board
on
the
august
20th
meeting
and
then
had
it
had
its
first
rating
at
city
council
on
tuesday
this
this
tuesday,
the
eighth
yeah.
A
B
Yes,
I
believe
that
they
will.
The
tree
planty
will
come
in
when
they
ask
for
a
building
permit
or
when
they're
they
have
to
plat
and
then
they'll
get
their
they'll,
give
their
commercial
building
permit
application.
And
then
that's
when
we
would
review
that
the
interior
tree
requirement
was
being
met.
A
B
A
A
B
I
think
that's
so
the
way
that
the
water
removed,
but
they
they
would
most
likely
pipe
that
if
that
were
the
case,
because
it
is
within
the
drainage
easement,
there
would
have
to
be
a
drain
adjustment,
otherwise
they
can't
and
when
we
would
look
at
it
more
in
depth
too,
with
construction
plans
and
site
plans.
But
we
would
make
sure
that
the
that
that
water,
that
any
of
their
drainage
or
runoff
was
being
accommodated
on
their
site
and
not
being
pushed
off
onto
the
neighbor.
A
A
C
Typically,
the
historic
flows
for
drainage
cannot
be
increased,
so
we
will
be
looking
at
that
within,
hopefully
we'll
see
a
comprehensive
drainage
plan
for
the
entire
site
that
will
take
into
account
the
impervious
surface
in
that.
But
yes,
I
agree
it
will
typically
be
piped
and
there
is
that
that
requirement
of
not
being
able
to
increase
those
historic
flows.
A
A
A
B
Yes,
so
this
is
commission
consideration
of
resolution
number
2020-37,
a
zoning
text,
amendment
to
chapter
2406,
subdivision
procedure
of
the
revised
ordinances
of
the
city
of
watertown,
and
then
there
is
just
a
slight
amendment
to
this
resolution
again
with
stacy's
review.
She
did
catch
a
good
part
here
and
I,
but
I
think
first
I'll
give
you
an
overview.
We've
discussed.
B
We've
discussed
this
amendment
for
a
long
time
now
kind
of
in
sections.
This
was
something
that
was
initiated
by
the
development
task
force
that
chris
shulkin
with
the
watertown
development
company
had
organized
and
there
you
know
that's
a
group
of
just
you
have
developers,
there's
city
staff,
there's
councilman,
and
then
you
know
just
interested
parties
that
have
put
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
into
looking
at
ways
to
make
development
more
efficient
in
a
way
that
works
for
not
only
developers
but
for
the
city
as
well.
B
And
so
this,
I
believe,
is
a
strong,
a
benefit
to
our
development
process
and
has
been
looked
at
diligently
with
that
group
and
then
also
just
with
city
staff,
making
sure
that
we're
not
missing
anything,
because
that's
also
important
to
make
sure
that
we're
still
getting
everything
that
we
need.
That
is
required
for
state
and
federal
mandates
and
then
also
just
following
our
post-construction
stormwater
manuals
and
our
erosion
sediment
controls
engineering
design
standards.
All
of
that,
so
it's
all
related
to
each
other.
B
So
the
biggest
in
a
nutshell,
the
biggest
part
or
the
biggest
amendment
to
this
ordinance-
is
that
now
the
the
plan
commission,
instead
of
seeing
the
preliminary
plan,
will
bring
the
concept
plan
and
the
the
thought
behind.
That
is
that
it's
less
of
the
technical
engineering
stuff
that
is
covered,
especially
now
that
we
have
engineering
design
standards
and
it
gets
you
it
lets.
You
guys
get
eyes
on
it
sooner
in
the
process.
B
So
if
there
are
large
things
that
need
to
be
changed,
you
can
give
comment
on
the
layouts
and
then
and
then
they're
not
so
far
into
it,
where
it's
already
technical,
like
the
technical
engineering,
is
already
done,
and
it
feels
like
it's
pretty
set
in
stone.
So
this
is
a
little
more
interactive
for
the
planned
commission
to
be
able
to
look
at
the
things
that
are
necessary,
but
in
a
little
more
of
a
a
broader
scope
where
it's
not
getting
into
the
technical
parts.
Where
that's?
Why
that's?
B
B
B
What
it
had
in
there
right
now
is
for
informational
purposes,
which
is
what
it
used
to
be.
Basically
it
just
didn't
get
changed.
So
we
used
to
say
that
that
for
the
concept
plan
and
then
the
preliminary
plan
came
for
for
approval.
So
then
now
the
concept
plan
will
come
to
you
guys
for
approval
and
then
once
that
that's
done,
then
the
rest
will
be
handled
administratively.
B
And
then
you
know
if
there's
rezones,
that
have
to
be
done
because
of
a
concept
plan
that
will
still
come
forward.
Everything
all
the
planning,
the
development
agreements.
They'll
all
still
come
forward,
but
it
just,
I
think,
is
a
better
place
for
playing
commission
input
where
you're
not
you're,
not
feeling
like
you're
painted
into
a
corner
when,
when
somebody
presents
a
preliminary
plan
with
all
the
everything
kind
of
already
designed.
So
with
that
I'll
open
it
up
for
questions.
A
F
F
Mr
chair,
this
is
case.
I
was
fortunate
enough
to
sit
in
on
the
steering
committee
representing
the
planning
commission,
and
I
thought
there
was
a
lot
of
hard
work
that
went
into
this.
I
think
staff
should
be
congratulated
for
for
their
work,
brandi
and
heath
helped
the
group
out
a
lot.
I
think
it's
the
step
in
the
right
direction.
F
D
A
Brandi,
you
have
one
question
clarifying
question.
I
guess
section
1n
where
we
added
the
line
about
need
for
variances
shall
be
identified
when
it
says
that
it
doesn't
really
get
into
the
specifics
of
who
bears
the
onus
to
identify
and
present
those
needs
for
the
variants,
and
I'm
just
wondering
from
a
functional
standpoint,
how
that's
going
to
be
managed.
B
Yeah-
and
that
is
a
one-
something
that
we
thought
would
protect
or
just
be
up
front
more.
So
if
somebody
already
knew-
and
you
know-
maybe
they
won't
know
until
it
gets
down
to
the
plat
and
the
rezone
or
you
know-
and
the
in
the
building
the
specific
building
project
or
whatnot,
so
it
might
not
be
able
to
be
identified
but
say
that
they
were,
you
know
asking
say
that
they
didn't
want
to
detain,
and
then
they
would
just.
They
would
say
that
that's
what
they
were
asking
as
a
variance.
B
A
And
I
guess
that
kind
of
triggers
my
follow-up
question,
then
in
section
240605,
the
first
240605,
because
it
appears
we
have
a
duplicate
section
in
there
now
so
we'll
need
to
fix
that.
But
effective
period
of
the
concept
plan
talks
about
major
changes
to
the
major
street
patterns,
drainage
ways
etc
would
require
a
reapproval
of
the
concept
plan.
A
A
B
Right,
so
actually
it
should
already
be
if
it's
already,
that
should
just
be
in
the
concept
plan
and
then
really
there
shouldn't
as
long
they
should
meet
all
the
requirements,
otherwise
it
can't
be
administratively
approved,
so
they
would
have
to
make
sure
that
everything
was
good
at
that
point,
so
yeah.
I
actually-
and
you
know
I
added
that
just
through
just
some
discussion,
but
I
think
that
that
makes
more
sense
to
strike
that
out
of
the
prelim.
A
F
B
A
F
F
Yeah
and
then
the
other
thing
is
if
we
say
that
they've
identified
the
variance,
and
then
it
comes
back
to
some
subsequent
board
of
adjustment
action,
two
or
three
years
down
the
road.
Where
nobody's
even
aware
of
what
happened
in
the
concept
plan,
it
almost
paints
the
you
into
the
corner
of
approving
of
variance
that
maybe
isn't
justified
or
warranted
by
the
ordinance.
E
Part
of
this
is
for
variances
to
the
zoning
ordinance
requirements
for
minimum
lot
size,
and
that
sort
of
thing
I
mean
you,
don't
just
think
of
variances
in
terms
of
building
setback
and
all
that
there's
our
language
in
the
title,
24
on
variances
has
been
weak
and
variances
have
been
not
disclosed,
and
I
don't
think
need
is
the
correct
word.
I
think,
request
for
variances
or
and
proposed
variances
disclosed
is
really
what
you're
getting
at.
F
But
again,
this
is
todd
again,
I'm
just.
I
understand
that
a
variance
can
be
from
a
subdivision
rule,
but
the
implication
that,
if
I'm
coming
in
for
a
plot
and
the
lot
doesn't
meet
minimum
lot,
width
or
minimum
watt
area,
that
would
be
a
variance
that
would
have
to
come
to
the
board
of
adjustment.
Correct.
E
F
But
if
you
want
to
come
and
get
a
building
from
it
on
a
lot
that
doesn't
have
minimum
lot
width
or
minimum
lot
area,
the
the
zoning
officer
can't
issue
a
building
from
it
on
a
lot.
That's
then
they
would
come
to
the
zoning
ordinance.
That
would
come
to
the
board
of
adjustment
and
ask
for
variance
from
those
requirements.
Correct.
C
B
E
They
they
proposed
on
the
preliminary
plan
sidewalks
only
on
one
side,
not
on
both
sides
of
the
street
and
the
you
know.
That's
not
a
a
building
permit
issue
that
that's
different
and
I
actually.
I
think
that
the
whole
idea
is
to
hear
up
front
this.
Does
this
developer
wants
to
put
roads
in
without
curb
and
gutter?
That's
the
intention
you're
finding
out
about
it.
At
the
concept
plan
level
they
aren't
doing
engineering
drawings
yet,
but
the
whole
concept
of
it
before
they've
spent
a
lot
of
money.
They're
telling
you
up
front.
E
B
B
Yes,
then,
it's
a
modification
of
relief
from
provisions
of
this
ordinance
as
applied
to
a
specific
piece
of
property,
but
not
limited
limited
to
a
private
investor,
owned
utility,
cooperatively,
owned
utility
or
a
public
or
municipal
utility.
So
I
mean
the
variance,
though
that
is
like
that
is
what
we're
at
like.
That's
what
we
want
to
know.
F
I
know,
but
when
you
say
variance
and
again
it
gets
back
to
this
point
of
plant,
you
know
planting
a
property
that
doesn't
mean
minimum
with
the
lot
area,
because
in
the
end,
what
you're
doing
is,
as
the
mayor
says,
is
you're
you're,
inviting
somebody
to
come
in
on
a
subsequent
building
permit
later
to
get
a
building
permit.
And
I
don't
know
how
you
as
a
zoning
official
can
issue
it.
So
if
we're
saying
that
we
want
to
have
variances
on
the
front,
end
know
what
they
are.
F
I
don't
think
it's
about
variants
that
need
to
be
that
are
going
to
be
end
up
tied
to
your
building
code
or
the
building
requirements
through
21.
right,
so
whether
whether
whether
you
want
to
say
variance
but
write,
variance
to
what
section
of
the
ordinance
that
you're
talking
about.
So
this
is
a
specific
to
24
or
you
know.
B
B
F
E
I'm
not
planning
to
put
sidewalks
here
and
another
one
that
has
that
came
up
in
stony
point
is
the
lack
of
curb
and
gutter,
so
you're
going
to
have
ditches
instead,
and
I
think
that
that
deserves
to
be
disclosed
right
up
front
because
ditches
create
a
whole
new
set
of
issues
that
you
need
to
talk
about,
and
maybe
it's
okay,
and
maybe
it
isn't.
But
you
want
to
know
that
before
it's
approved.
Oh
no,
I
wasn't
planning
to
put
curb
and
gutter
on
this,
and
I
you
know
at
what
point.
Do
you
tell
that?
B
F
Then,
let's
then,
I
think,
all
I
think
we're
all
on
the
same
page
of
music,
we're
talking
about
development
standards,
I.e
those
infrastructure,
things
that
are
necessary.
We're
not
talking
specifically
lot
area,
a
lot
width.
So
if
we're
going
to
say
need
for
variances,
let's
be
specific
to
what
those
variance
requests
are
going
to
be,
as
opposed
to
using
a
carte
blanche,
term
of
variance.
A
C
I
do
I
do
see
the
point
that
mr
case
is
bringing
up
and
I'll
just
throw
something
out
for
the
board
to
consider.
We
could
have
something
instead
of
using
the
the
word
variances,
because
that
is
strictly
defined
in
one
section
of
the
ordinance
we
could
have
something
about
disclosure
of
proposed
variance
or
proposal
disclosure
of
proposed
deviations
from
subdivision
regulations
and
engineering
design
standards.
C
A
A
B
D
I
I
agree
with
you
bruce
this
is
this
is
ford
it's
pretty
important
and
I
don't
I
don't.
I
don't
think
that
we
should
rush
it.
I
I
have
a
couple
housekeeping
things
that
I'll
I'll
bring
up
at
the
end,
but
I
I'm
wondering
how
how
many
times
will
the
plan
commission
have
oversight
and
review
with
this
new
proposal?.
F
I
I
agree
with
diana.
I
mean
I
think,
that
that
the
intent
is
to
have
the
planning
commission
again
agree
to
the
concept,
because
then,
realistically,
everybody
that
develops
the
city
are
supposed
to
follow
our
design
standards
that
are
in
place
right
now
and
they
should
follow
the
subdivision
regulations.
So
everything
is
really
a
perfunctory
practice.
F
So-
and
I
think
I
think
sometimes
in
the
past,
even
since
I've
been
on
the
planning
commission,
sometimes
I
think
we
are
delving
into
the
minutia
of
design
standards
that
we
didn't
have
before.
But
now
we
do,
and
so
therefore
it
allows
development
to
happen
in
a
more
expeditious
manner
that
still
the
rules
as
we
have
written.
E
I
I
do
think
there
is
a
need
to
use
the
word.
Variance
though-
and
I
just
did
a
quick
check-
will
you
use
variance
the
term
in
the
same
way
in
title
five
having
to
do
with
grading
and
excavation
having
to
do
with
flood
plain
and
then
in
title
17
having
to
do
with
sewer?
We
give
variances
allowing
people
to
discharge
surface
water
and
groundwater
into
the
sanitary
sewer
system,
and
then
we
use
it
in
title
21
and
we
have
it
already
in
title
24,
but
it
doesn't
it's
it's
useless.
E
I
think
it
does
have
a
good
purpose
for
title.
24
requirements
and
design
standards
are
design
standards,
but
what
we
talk
about
in
title
24
there
should
be
a
variance
procedure.
If
you
don't
want
to
adhere
to
the
requirements
of
title
24
that
particular
subdivision
ordinance,
you
should
have
to
disclose
that
at
the
concept
plan
level-
and
if
you
change
your
mind
later
and
want
to
different
variants,
you
should
have
to
come
back
to
the
plan
commission
and
request
it.
E
B
Oh
my
gosh,
until
all
phases
of
the
subdivision
are
complete
and
then
that
the
city
engineer
may
request
an
updated
concept
plan.
But
then
we
say:
okay
well
I'll,
just
read
it
an
updated
concept
plan
for
review
and
approval
when
minor
changes
to
the
plans
are
proposed,
and
then
it
explains
what
the
minor
changes
are
and
then
the
major
changes.
It
explains
that
and
major
changes
do
have
to
come
back,
no
matter
what
the
city
engineer
doesn't
get
to
decide.
D
D
B
A
B
C
B
So
the
chain,
so
the
changes
that
we
have
made
on
this
resolution
are
to
240603n
that
will
now
say:
disclosure
of
proposed
variances
and
then
2406.05.
We
will
add
dis
disclosure
of
proposed
variances
and
then
we
will
strike
under
240605
one
g.
We
will
strike
and
then
the
other
that
other
minor
change
about
the
in
to
strike
the
informational
purposes
under
240604
will
strike
the
informational
purposes
and
add
or
change
that
to
for
approval.
A
B
D
B
B
We
had
public
works
director
or
their
designee
in
other
sections,
so
maybe
just
for
consistency
that
we
we
do
that,
because
community
development
is
under
public
works
so
and
then
so
stacy
would
would
probably
be
the
designee,
but
then
it
just
kind
of
it
allows
so
then,
if
too,
if
you
have
staff
change
or
anything,
then
you're,
not
just
saying
it's
specifically
like
titles.
Even
you
know
that
if
it's
changing,
then
your
ordinance
has
to
be
changed
so
maybe
to
instead
of
the
office
we'll
just
say
to
the.
B
D
B
No,
not
an
ordinance,
but
I
mean
we
could,
but
just
I
mean
a
designee
in
general.
You
know
just
it
it's
allowing
that
person
to
appoint
who
their
designee
is,
but
then
at
least
we
are
identifying
the
one
person
the
public
works
director,
so
you
can
find
one
person,
and
then
you
know
it
obviously
like
how
it
work
in
our
office.
B
B
So
because,
like
stacey,
I
think
would
be
like
the
designee,
but
instead
of
having
to
make
that
explicit,
because
if
stacy
wants
me
to
be
the
designee,
then
it's
kind
of
just
it
just
gives
you
one
person
and
then,
however,
it
works
out
throughout
the
division.
Then
it's
just
a
little
more
broad
for
ordinance.
Instead,
it.
B
D
D
A
B
F
I
think
getting
lost
semantics.
If
you,
if
you
designate
the
public
works
director
or
their
designee,
it
means
it
has
to
go
to
whoever
that
person
is
or
their
choice
and
if
they
choose
wrong
and
and
and
the
mayor
and
the
council
decides
or
the
new
upcoming
city
administrator
are
going
to
have
oversight
over
that
individual.
And
so
you
trust
that
you
hire
people
to
make
the
property.
So
I
hate
to
hamstring
individual
decisions
when
we
are
supposed
to
be
interesting
and
paying
people
decent
dollars
for
doing
that.
F
F
I'll,
just
just
a
comment
generally,
that
is
language,
that's
used
generally
in
other
sections.
I
can't
pinpoint
anything
at
the
moment,
but
I
know
just
there's
something
regarding
the
fire
department,
I
believe
it
says
fire
chief
or
designee,
and
so
just
off
top
of
my
head.
I
know
we
use
that
type
of
language
in
other
areas.
So
it's
consistent
with
that.
E
D
E
It
gets
lost
often,
and
then
we
have
houses
that
are
built
below
the
groundwater
table
and
we
have
a
bunch
of
groundwater
that
gets
pumped
to
the
surface
where
it
annoys
people
by
creating
slime
in
the
gutter
and
a
constant
wetness
in
the
ditches
and
it's
ground
water.
It
should
stay
in
the
ground
and
we
should
be
building
lowest
floors,
two
feet
above
it
and
we
want
to
get
that
out
there
early
on.
E
B
B
That
yeah,
so
it's
in
the
final
street
grading
plan,
that's
actually
really
random,
where
it's
stuck
minimum
ground
elevations
shall
be
shown
for
buildings.
The
lowest
recommended
floor.
Elevation
shall
be
two
feet
above
normal
groundwater
elevation
test
holes
should
determine
groundwater
elevation
where
applicable,
yeah
I
mean
I
think
that
that
would
be
a
fine
standard
to
move
into
the
prelim
plan
phase
because
I
mean
they're
designing.
So
if
they
don't
know
where
the
groundwater
is,
I
mean
they
should.
They
should
know
that
before
they
get
into
the
construction
plan,
phase.
E
B
B
B
E
B
E
E
E
B
B
E
B
And
then
I
think
that
I
think
that
adding
in
about
the
groundwater
groundwater
comment
that
it
should
be
the
lowest
finished
floor
for
buildings
shall
be
two
feet
above
the
ground
water
elevation,
so
kind
of
taking
that
that
language
out
of
the
construction
plan
phase
that
was-
or
that
was
there
and
then
well-
and
actually
it's
still
it's
still
there.
Okay,
I'm
gonna
I'll,
say
that
maybe
let's
table
this
and
we'll
get
this
cleaned
up
and
then.
A
B
B
A
I'll
request
that
we
make
a
motion
to
table
this
from
the
board
too,
but
brandi.
If
you
could,
I
know
you're
taking
notes
there.
I've
got
some
stuff
written
down,
but
you
you've
collated
that
to
send
that
out
to
everybody
here.
If
there's
any
additional
comments,
then
to
make
sure
that
we
get
those
into
staff
prior
to
our
next
review
of
this.
B
Well,
this
was
a
public
hearing
today,
two
three
four
five:
six:
seven,
eight
nine
ten.
So
I
could
still
send
a
public
notice
out
again
for
the
24th
meeting,
but
I
would
like
to
and
what
I'll
do
I
will?
I
will
expedite
getting
these
changes
fixed
and
making
sure
that
we
have
everything
figured
out
as
far
as
the
drainage
goes
in
the
floodplain
and
then
I'll
send
it
out.
So
you
guys
can
be
assured
as
well.
B
It
would
be
on
the
agenda
too,
so
you
would
have
that
week
prior,
but
I
think
that
I
just
think
it
would
be
good.
I
wanna,
I
really
do
wanna
push
to
try
to
get
this
in
place
just
because
when
people
are
looking
forward
in
designing
and
for
next
year,
I
think
it'll
be
important.
So
we're
not
like
in
this
weird
limbo
of.
B
B
So
then,
instead
of
saying
that
apartments
are
okay,
when
the
intent
is
for
a
caretaker's
residence,
it
opens
it
up
for
somebody
else
in
the
future
to
come
and
then
potentially
build
apartments
and
then
are
apartments
appropriate
or
as
a
caretaker's
residence
appropriate.
So
this
is
just
adding
it
to
the
ordinance.
So
it's
an
option.
D
B
A
A
B
F
I
think
I
think
I
think,
from
the
very
beginning,
at
least
at
least
going
back
to
1982.
I
can
think
I
think
it's
appropriate
that
we,
I
think
the
idea
was,
you
know,
apartments
stand-alone
apartments
is
fine.
I
think
we
were
where
we
were
struggling
at.
The
last
meeting
was
having
an
apartment
inside
of
another
building.
A
I
concept
me
personally:
I
I'm
a
strong
supporter
of
mixed
use
in
general,
and
so
personally
I
have
no
opposition
to
an
apartment
building
in
conjunction
with
another
commercial
operation,
from
a
design.
A
community
urban
development
standpoint
across
the
nation
mixed
uses
is
seeing
a
resurgence
because
it
increases
the
versatility
of
your
developments
and
it
fosters
a
greater
sense
of
community.
A
B
A
A
B
Sounds
good
and
I
was
actually
thinking
that
we
went
to
went
this
long,
so
they're
kind
of
the
first
one
I
okay.
So
the
first
discussion
item
I
put
on
here
discussion
of
unattached
garages,
maximum
sidewall
height
restriction
of
10
foot,
2
inches
and
a
maximum
height
of
18
foot
to
the
peak.
My
thought
here-
and
this
is
something
that
we've
talked
about
with
board
of
adjustment
before,
if
there's
something
that's
continuously
being
brought
forward
as
a
variance.
B
Is
it
time
to
look
at
just
changing
it,
and
so
what
I
would
propose
is
that
we
would
say
that
the
sidewall
height
is
the
max
is
12
foot
into,
because
I
mean
people
just
what
they're
trying
to
do
is
store
their
equipment
or
their.
You
know
their
recreational
vehicles
in
their
detached
garages
and
if
they're,
not
you
know
a
thing
like
the
things
they're
just
getting
like
are
just
bigger,
so
they
need
a
little
more
height
to
to
be
able
to
utilize
the
detached
garage.
B
D
B
D
B
D
B
F
B
F
B
F
F
Sense
to
do
that,
but
what
we
should
have
done,
then,
is
just
have
a
performance
standard,
and
if
you
meet
the
performance
standards
it
becomes
a
conditional
use
or
a
special
permitted
use,
and
you
just
allow
it.
You
know,
I
think
I
think
we're
trying
we're
thinking
too
narrowly.
But
what,
if
I
have?
What?
If
I
have
a
one
and
a
half
acre
lot
and
I've
got,
you
know
100
foot
side
yards
and
I
decided
I
want
to
put
a
16
foot
sidewall
on
my
unattached
garage.
F
F
B
A
I
see
merit
in
either
case
I
mean
I've
had
I've
had
issues
in
the
past,
with
with
treatment
of
a
detached
garage,
different
from
a
height
restriction
from
an
attached
garage
in
the
primary
structure.
When
you're
meeting
like
setbacks,
it
seems
a
little
counterintuitive
and
particularly
when
there's
different
conditions
by
lot
now.
I
I'm
not
sure
that
you
can
truly
make
the
case
in
that
example
that
that
todd
you
provided
of
a
significantly
larger
setback
of
saying
that
it's
a
you
know,
there's
some
variance
requirement
there,
whereas
a
conditional
use.
F
And
that's
where
I
was
trying
to
go
with
it.
My
point
was
being
that,
if
we're,
if
we
are
comfortable
for
everything
at
12,
feet
and
18,
and
and
and
as
long
as
adequate
side
yards
are
met
and
what
have
you
and
if
we're
all
comfortable
with
that
being
our
new
permitted
use
standard,
you
know
within
six
weeks,
you're
going
to
have
one
that's
bigger
than
that,
and
the
question
is
is:
do
we
want
to
handle
things
through
variances
which
which
we
should
be
handling?
C
B
F
C
F
A
C
Be
a
bit
of
a
stretch
to
jump
to
more
of
a
form
base
when
the
rest
of
our
code
is
not
set
up.
That
way,
I
do
understand
the
merit
in
what
mr
case
is
saying:
there's
definitely
merit
there.
However,
I
think
the
way
our
zoning
ordinance
is
set
up
now,
I
think,
to
make
that
change
into
more
of
a
form
base
with
performance
standards.
I
think
that
we
would
want
to
take
a
look
at
other
sections
as
well.
F
B
C
A
B
But
it
really
is,
I
mean
I
don't
know
how
exactly
it
is.
Just
one
portion
I
mean
I'll,
highlight
it
here,
so
it's
literally
just
saying
that
instead,
so
right
now,
we
say
an
unattached
garage
she'll
be
limited
to
a
maximum
sidewall
height
of
10
feet,
2
inches
a
maximum
height
of
18
feet.
So
it's
basically
just
saying:
are
you
like?
Are
you
comfortable
with
doing
a
12
foot
and
22
and
then
that's
the
only
amendment
that
it
would
be
made
of
going
with
the
form
base?
At
this
point
I
mean
that
would.
D
Could
you
do
something
like
maximum
sidewall
height
would
be
one
foot
per
one
foot
of
side,
yard
setback
or
something
where
so
highway?
If
you
were
15
feet
off
your
property
line,
then
you
could
go.
You
know
one
foot
might
not
be
the
right
number,
but
if
you
were
15
feet
off
the
setback,
then
you
could
go
15
feet
high.
A
B
Yeah-
and
I
mean
if
you
guys
want
to
go
that
way-
I
just
thought
that
this
would
just
be
a
simple
fix
to
what
a
lot
of
variances
that
we've
been
getting,
and
then
I
mean
a
mac.
So
if,
if
two,
if
they're
right
now,
a
primary
structure
can
be
35
feet
in
height
and
it's
9
foot
off
the
side
yard
and
then
a
detached
garage,
though,
can
only
be
18
feet
in
height
and
it's
also
9
foot
off
the
side
yard.
So
it's
like
at
that
point.
A
A
B
This
is
something
that
we've
also
been
seeing
a
lot
of
variances
for,
and
so
we're
going
to
staff
is
going
to
do
a
little
more
research
and
then
bring
you
guys
something
I
just
wanted
to
throw
some
idea
or
kind
of
where
we're
going
to
go
or
hopefully
go
with
it.
So
the
right
of
way
at
the
lake
is
it's
kind
of
it's
inconsistent.
I
mean
you
can
go
like
I
said
earlier.
B
You
can
go
from
50
to
100,
and
so
then
we're
going
to
look
at
the
the
boulevard
length
or
the
distance
in
the
right
of
way
to
existing
structures
and
then
try
to
come
up
with
an
average
and
then
maybe
what
we
do
is
we'll
say.
You
know
that
the
setback
from
the
property
line
is,
for
example,
10
feet
and
then
we'll
make
sure
we'll
have
catch-alls
in
there
too
to
make
sure
that
sufficient
parking
so
that
there
is
actually
actually
like
20
to
25
feet
for
parking
can
be
reserved.
B
B
Yes,
yep
and
then
two
that
we
can
say
for
the
for
the
required
parking
that
that
can
be
a
com.
The
you'll
meet
the
requirement
right
now
you
have
to
have
a
driveway
that
can
accommodate
for
two
vehicles
for
a
single
family
home
and
you
can't
use
the
garage
space.
So
then
this
maybe
we
could
allow
that
properties
adjacent
to
the
lake
or
whatever.
However,
we
want
it,
but
that
their
garage
stalls
could
accommodate
for
their
required
parking.
B
So
then
we
weren't
making
them
require
the
right-of-way
for
their
for
their
parking.
But
it's
been
it's
been
said.
Everyone
knows
it
that
the
lake
is
a
different
animal.
Let's
said
almost
every
application
that
we
get
so
just
trying
to
find-
and
this
will
go
into
it
too,
when
we're
working
on
the
lake
residential
district.
D
B
B
F
B
A
A
B
Right,
yeah
and
then
because
you
get,
I
mean,
there's
no
consistency.
I
mean
it's
all
over
the
board,
so
then
to
try
to
create
some
sort
of
consistency
too.
So
then,
when
you
guys
are
asked
when
people
come
forward
with
the
variance
you
have
that
that
base
that
makes
sense
to
everybody
and
trying
to
create,
you
know,
get
that
from
what's
existing
and
then
try
to
create
consistency
going
forward.
A
And-
and
we
should
make
this-
you
know
at
least
as
much
data
driven
as
possible,
so
I
I
know
it
would
be
work
on
the
staff
side
to
to
get
the
figures
to
come
up
with
those
averages,
but
the
more
work
that
can
be
put
into
gathering
the
data
and
make
this
a
a
more
factual
basis
of
decision.
The
better.
B
F
I
think
we
need
to
focus
on
those
areas
where
we've
been
seeing
the
the
larger
number
of
requests.
It's
not.
It
wouldn't
be
a
hard
thing
to
just
create
a
gis
model,
and-
and
you
could
do
you
don't
want
to
get
in
the
weeds,
but
some
python
scripts.
You
could.
You
could
do
a
quick
analysis
and
we
can
figure
out.
You
know
what
the
running
averages
in
those
different
areas
are.