►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting - 07-09-2020
Description
Plan Commission Meeting - 07-09-2020
B
C
C
B
Yeah,
oh,
let's
key
present
brink
here,
Ford
here
and
argit's
Johnson
and
kool
hain
or
absent
and
I'll,
just
reiterate
for
the
public
record
that
mark
Stein
has
resigned
and
we
thank
him
for
his
service
and
we'll
miss
him
and
his
input,
but
bill
spire
is
his
replacement.
So
this
is
his
first
meeting
here
with
us
and
we're
glad
to
have
you.
A
B
C
B
C
B
C
B
C
C
B
E
C
B
All
right,
Thank,
You
Blake,
so
this
is
Commission
consideration
of
resolution
number
2020,
28,
amending
the
zoning
map
of
the
city
of
Watertown
for
a
portion
of
Stony
Point
from
r1
single-family,
residential
district
c2,
local,
commercial
district
and
a1
agricultural
district,
2,
CL,
commercial,
Lake,
commercial
district.
And,
if
you
recall
the
CL
Lake
commercial
district
is
the
newest
zoning
district
that
we
have
created
in
2019.
So
this
is
the
first
property
looking
to
utilize
this.
This
zoning,
something
to
keep
in
mind
with
the
CL
district
is
when
we
did
create
it.
B
So
we
did
look
at
the
design
criteria
or
the
design
requirements
of
structures
when
adjacent
to
r1,
like
we
referenced
with
the
last
application
in
the
part
of
adjustment
to
ensure
that
it
is
not
negatively
impacting
the
existing
neighborhoods
as
well
as
looked
at
greater
setbacks,
so
that
if
there
were
commercial
uses
adjacent
to
residential
uses
that
it
would,
it
would
be
more
protected,
and
that
was
a
big
part
of
the
creation
of
the
CL
district.
So
what
we're
looking
at
here
today
is.
B
C
B
Not
this
entire
area
here
that
that
is
highlighted,
but
this
is
area
that
they
are
proposing.
You'll
see
that
there's
the
c2
local
commercial
up
here
in
the
northeast
corner,
r1,
single-family,
residential
and
then
the
egg
down
south
and
what
they're
looking
to
do
is
rezone
that
area
to
CL
Lake
commercial.
The
area
is
approximately.
B
Whatever
26
acres
the
thing
to
keep
in
mind,
also
and
I
believe
I
saw
that
Mike
had
passed
out
an
exhibit
of
the
buildable
area
for
the
CL
district.
We
do
have
a
stipulation
on
there
that
you
can
only
do
50%
of
the
lot
area
has
to
remain
pervious
surface,
so
it
actually
cuts
down
on
half
of
the
buildable
space
which
I'm
sure
if
they,
if
they
speak
on
behalf
of
this,
that
they
would,
they
would
be
able
to
touch
on
that
further
Brandi.
A
It
might
help
just
as
a
refresher
Brandi
if
we
could
actually
look
at
that
CL
district
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
read
through
the
entirety
of
it,
but
we
did
go
through
an
extensive
amount
of
work.
This
this
board
and
public
hearings
to
identify
what
a
district
in
this
type
of
area
would
look
like
and
landed
on.
This
disapproved
CL
district.
B
B
B
Campground
storage,
job's
apartments,
recreational
facility,
which
would
be
like
an
indoor
gym
and
then
the
conditional
uses
would
be
a
carwash
motels
and
hotels,
automobile
parking,
lot,
storage
units,
office,
building
bar
tavern
and
a
transit
station,
and
then
you'll
see
here
we
have
the
design
standards
and
then
that's
where
the
impervious
area
shall
not
exceed
50%
of
the
total
lot
area
comes
into
effect.
You
know.
A
Made
reference
to
this
in
our
previous
discussion
there,
but
you
know
part
of
that
in
the
entire
intention
of
the
ordinance.
There
is
to
keep
a
lot
of
the
aesthetic
that
we
have
in
the
natural
environment
of
lakum
Pesce
and
in
a
residential
neighborhood,
so
that
we
have
uses
that
are
complementary
to
the
type
of
amenity
that
we
would
expect
to
have
at
the
lake.
A
B
Okay,
so
this
is
the
future
land.
You
stand
the
the
future
land
use
map,
mixed-use
land,
mixed
land
use,
so
you'll
see
here.
The
point
is
what
is
labeled
as
regional,
commercial,
high-density,
residential
mixed
use
and
then
again
here
as
the
specifically
in
deist.
They
do
have
it
as
mixed-use
and
commercial
residential
in
this
in
this
map
as
well.
So
what
you
will
notice,
though,
is
that
they
do
they
are
extending
further
to
the
south.
B
Then
what
these
maps
are
showing
and
then
the
lake
Camp
Asaka
master
plan
also
showed
the
area
as
mixed-use
the
thing
about
extending
it
farther
to
the
south.
It
is
still
appropriate
because
of
the
setbacks
and
the
buffers
that
we're
creating.
Also,
if
they're
using
this
all
for
their
for
the
zoning
designation
of
CL
they'll
have
to
they
can
only
use
50%
of
the
land,
so
the
wetlands
there
if
they
would
rezone
it,
they
would
also
not
give
them
the
authority
to
fill
in
any
wetlands.
A
A
B
Okay,
so
I
do
I,
did
compile
the
list
and
then
the
messages
as
well
and
so
I
guess
for
there
was
21
and
now
largely
these
were
in
support
because
of
the
message
that
was
conveyed
about.
If
anybody
was
interested
and
or
wanted
to
support
the
project
that
they
would
email,
and
so
there
was
21
for
and
then
two
that
actually
did
email
against
and
then,
as
far
as
the
messages
go,
I
don't
what's.
G
B
H
C
B
So
one
of
the
developers
on
the
project,
Mike
Lawrence,
had
made
a
Facebook
post
and
just
let
people
know
that
if
they
were
in
support
of
the
project
that
they
could
email
me
and
then
compile
this
the
their
comments.
If
they
were
not
able
to
make
the
meeting
now,
everybody
that's
here
and
if
they
are
it
for
or
against,
will
still
get
an
opportunity
to
speak.
F
In
mr.
chairman,
for
another
point
of
clarity,
this
isn't
simply
a
violation
of
parole
comments
for
this
project,
because
that's
what
staff
was
looking
to
collect
by
any
means,
we
would
also
document
any
concerns
or
negative
comments
to
the
project.
Just
like
we
would
any
proponents
to
the
project
and
Randy
speak
to
that
as
far
as
any
any
opposition
you
received
in
our
office
to
the
project,
please,
so
that's
on
the
record
as
well.
Yes,.
B
B
F
Just
wanted
that
to
be
known
for
the
record
that
it
that
standard
protocol
any
times
staff
receives
comments,
it's
appropriate
to
document
them
keep
track
of
them.
Share
them
for
the
record,
particularly
when
they're
in
this
amount
of
a
volume
of
of
comments
that
we
receive
pro
or
con,
and
that's
the
intent
of
the
staff
report.
B
Yeah
and
it's
not
the
typical
art,
it's
not
typical
that
well
in
the
city
does
not
reach
out,
and
you
know
ask
to
necessarily
receive
this.
It
was
because
of
the
developer,
putting
the
information
out
there
and
then
people
are
reaching
out,
but
it's
not
our
standard
to
to
you
know
ask
for
I,
don't
want
to
say
that
we
always
want
to
take
input.
If
you
can't
be
here
at
the
meeting,
but
it's
not.
It
was
not
initiated
by
the
city.
B
B
A
A
It's
a
little
abnormal
to
get
this.
You
know,
volume
of
a
response
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
capturing
everybody's
comments
for
the
record.
As
you
know,
they
do
have
a
right
to
be
heard
in
the
public
here
well.
Well,
we
keep
that
up
on
the
screen,
though
I
think
we
can
open
it
for
for
public
comment
from
those
that
are
in
the
room.
C
I
E
E
The
Isaac
Walton
League,
the
competitor
Water
Project,
Brad
Johnson,
so
many
people
have
worked
and
done
their
due
diligence
for
the
citizens
of
Watertown
this
project.
In
the
first
year
of
the
project
the
DNR
came
out
and
had
thirteen
of
pages
of
infractions
on
this
board.
Only
maybe
one
or
two
people
have
come
out.
Talk
to
me.
Arsene
my
property.
E
E
On
Lake
campus,
but
when
a
developer
comes
in
and
they
sell
you,
the
big
sky
too,
many
are
not
doing
their
due
diligence
by
actually
looking
to
see
what
has
happened.
That
is
not
Stony,
Point
I'm.
Sorry,
we
keep
talking
about.
We've
got
to
save
this
piece
of
property
downtown
or
we
have
to
save
this
for
a
park.
We
have
to
do
that.
Well,
Stony
Point,
as
we
know
it
or
as
the
residents
and
even
as
a
family
of
the
Williams,
is
not
this
piece
of
property.
E
Thank
you
for
listening
to
me.
I
hope
you
consider
the
Watertown
Lake
residence
on
the
4th
of
July
I
sat
on
my
deck.
There
were
so
many
people
on
Lake
Camp
Asaka
that
I
witnessed
two
near
accidents.
I
had
people
on
Lake,
Camp
Eska,
who
come
to
my
business
and
tell
me
they
quick.
They
brought
their
boats
in.
They
brought
their
kids
in
because
of
all
this
stuff
going
on
on
Lake
Camp
Eska.
G
The
project
itself,
I,
think
probably
should
be
divided
in
at
least
in
my
view,
and
a
couple
of
different
fashions.
The
one
that
I'm
here
tonight
to
talk
about
is
the
wetlands
that
this
covers.
I
live
right
across
from
the
wetlands
and
I
was
at
this
board
meeting
three
years
ago.
I
think
and
I
was
at
the
time
they
would
think
of
putting
apartments
across
from
us,
and
then
we
were
assured
that
wasn't
going
to
happen.
Then
there
was
going
to
be
some
mitigation
with
that
with
some
other
thing.
G
I,
don't
know
if
that
happened
or
not,
but
my
only
concern
for
being
here
tonight.
My
one
concern
is
that
I
don't
see
why
it
needs
to
be
commercial
and
if
it,
if
you
so
desire
that
be
commercial,
we
need
some
protection
for
all
that
wetland
that
that
can
be
torn
out
of
there
or
covered
up
already.
There's
a
lot
of
that
wetland
been
filled
in
on
the
east
side
and
I.
G
We
were
told
at
another
meeting
that
there
would
be
no
fill
in
of
the
wetland,
but
I
don't
know
if
there's
30
feet,
50
feet,
70,
feet
or
whatever,
but
it's
already
been
filled
in
and
of
anything
that
I
have
seen
bad
about
a
project
in
messing
with
us
wetland.
Also
a
notice,
the
former
channel
that
was
there,
was
going
to
be
used.
Now
we
see
it
looks
like
a
road
going
over
to
the
island
that
belongs
to
the
Hidden
Valley
Association
I
have
not
seen
a
redoing
of
this
plan.
G
B
G
And
if
that's
camera,
why
would
you
want
to
make
a
commercial?
Why
not
leave
the
way
it
is,
and
we
don't
want
anything
build
on
it
plus
when
I
was
here
early
on,
there
was
a
talk
about
taking
pump
s
can
drive
and
putting
a
bridge
across
from
a
basket
drive
over
to
this
development.
Then
we
were
told
that
will
never
happen.
It's
far
too
expensive
and
would
serve
no
purpose.
G
I
for
one
and
I
represent
a
few
of
the
people
because
they
couldn't
come
tonight
are
asking
you
that,
if
that
is
in
some
of
your
mind,
that
should
be
commercial,
that
we
have
a
covenant
or
a
letter
from
the
car
or
from
someone
saying
that
those
wetlands
will
never
be
disturbed.
They
are
there
for
a
reason
and
we
want
them
to
stay
that
way.
G
A
I
Thank
you
so
much.
My
name
is
Christine
Erickson
and
I
apologize
for
not
being
in
being
able
to
attend
in
person.
If
you
hear
some
loud
wolves
in
the
background,
I'm
at
a
hot
ten-year-old,
a
baseball
game
right
now,
so
it's
a
little
excited
so
anyways
with
that,
like
I
said,
my
name
is
Christian.
Eriksen
I
have
been
a
proud
homeowner
on
Lake
Camp
Eska
for
15
years
my
husband
and
I
actually
chose
to
buy
a
home
in
Watertown
prior
to
us,
buying
our
first
home
in
Sioux
Falls.
I
We
do
reside
in
Sioux
Falls,
but
against
our
parents
wishes.
We
chose
to
first
invest
in
lakefront
property.
This
was
the
best
decision
for
our
family.
We
are
at
ten-thirty,
South,
Lake,
Drive
Watertown
is
a
second
home
for
us.
We
absolutely
adore
the
city.
We
visit
the
zoo.
We
visit
the
grocery
store.
The
movie
store,
many
restaurants,
you
name
it
and
we
really
take
pride
in
thinking
that
Watertown
is
also
our
city.
I.
Do
want
to
thank
you
all
for
your
time
and
energy.
I
Looking
at
this,
I
do
and
have
served
on
the
Sioux
Falls
City
Council
for
the
last
six
years,
so
I
know
the
challenge
and
the
difficult
decisions
that
you
do
have
to
make
and
that
are
balancing
the
needs
of
neighbors
and
the
whole
entire
city
as
well
as
commercial
development.
You
know
it's
really
excited
to
hear
the
abnormal
response
to
the
emails
that
were
we're
done.
I
That's
amazing,
when,
when
people
band
together
and
are
able
to
share
their
vision
and
share
what
they
would
like
to
see,
it's
an
absolute
game
changer
and
you
know
with
kovat
and
the
economic
impact
in
our
community
right
now.
A
project
of
this
magnitude
does
not
present
itself.
Very
often
I've
had
a
chance
to
review
some
of
the
documents.
I
did
myself
proactively
reached
out
to
the
developer.
Mike
I
did
not
know
Mike
prior
to
a
10-minute
conversation
today
and
I
said
we
would
love
to
have
infill
development
like
this
in
Sioux,
Falls
and
well.
I
Oftentimes
I
feel
like
I.
Probably
don't
have
much
of
a
voice
in
Watertown
because
I
don't
live
there,
I
don't
get
to
vote,
but
in
fact
I
do
live
there.
I
pay,
property
taxes
and
the
best
taxes,
I
would
say,
are
taxes
that
are
paid
by
somebody
else,
and
this
development
will
be
a
lot
of
that
too,
with
offering
so
many
different
amenities
to
get
people
to
see
what
Watertown
has
to
offer
this
type
of
development,
really
both
the
city
of
Watertown
as
a
whole,
and
so,
as
you
make
this
difficult
decision.
I
Obviously,
based
on
my
my
brief
comments,
you'll
see
that
I
am
in
strong
support
of
this
I
know.
There
are
some
concerns
with
previous
comments
with
the
wetlands
and
there
are
extremely
strict
guidelines
of
what
can
and
can't
be
done
with
wetlands,
and
the
federal
government
does
hold
that
very
high,
as
well
as
the
state
in
ensuring
that
that
those
lands
are
either
moved
to
a
different
area
or
replaced
I.
Don't
want
to
act
like
I
know
what
I'm
talking
about
with
that,
but
I
know
the
guidelines
are
very,
very
strict
with
that,
so
I.
I
Thank
you
for
your
time.
I
did
send
an
email
as
well.
I
did
have
an
opportunity
to
talk
to
several
of
our
friends
that
maybe
refer
to
ourselves
as
weekend
warriors
when,
in
fact,
probably
were
much
more
than
weekend
warriors
so
again.
I
hope
you
really
do
put
this
in
consideration
for
the
whole
city
of
soup
are
the
whole
city
of
Watertown
and
really
the
impact
that
it
can
have
for
your
amazing
city.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank
you.
J
Hi
there
I'm
Bryan
brand
right,
I
I,
also
live
at
Lake,
Camp,
Eska
I
think
it's
the
most
unused
asset
that
were
so
blessed
to
have
it
in
our
back
yard
that
the
comment
I
heard
earlier
about
how
busy
the
lake
was.
The
lake
was
busy
this
this
whole
summer.
The
lake
has
been
busier
than
previous
years.
I've
not
heard
one
one
negative
comment
from
anyone
that
lived
at
the
lake.
J
We've
got
somebody
here
that
wants
to
spend
an
atrocious
amount
of
money,
doing
something
on
the
Stoney
project
there
at
one
point
fifty
years
ago,
that
was
the
biggest
thing
going,
and
everybody
has
great
stories
to
tell
about
it,
and
now
we
can
replace
that
with
something
bigger
and
better
I.
Think
it's
a
no-brainer
every
time
I'm
on
a
project
I
want
to
leave
it
better
than
what
it
was
before
I
feel.
Like
our
committee
tonight,
it
has
a
bit
of
a
responsibility
to
do
the
same
thing.
J
C
K
I'm
the
little
island
right,
there's
Brandis,
pointing
out
I,
want
to
specifically
address
the
rezoning
of
out
lot
a
and
lot
one
of
Prairie
health.
Second
edition
I.
Think
Brandis
helped
me
identify
those
correctly,
as
those
are
the
properties
that
in
the
rezoning
proposal
that
are
above
my
property,
as
you
can
see,
these
two
properties
surround
my
house
on
three
sides.
K
I
do
not
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
impose
and
surround
an
existing
residential
property
with
a
commercial
zone
on
three
sides
prior
to
purchasing
my
home
12
months
ago,
I
reviewed
the
zoning
of
the
properties
in
the
area.
I
found
all
the
properties
to
be
residentially
zoned
and,
in
the
case
of
out
lot
a
to
be
agricultural
zone.
I
think
everyone
is
where
all
that
is
predominantly
the
wetland.
K
If,
when
I
had
reviewed,
the
zoning
of
adjacent
properties
and
I
had
seen
that
the
property
I
was
looking
at
purchasing
was
surrounded
on
three
sides
by
a
commercial
zone.
I
know
I
would
have
given.
Given
me
considerable
pause
to
move
forward
with
the
purchase,
my
concern
going
forward
is
that
the
rezoning
of
out
lot
a
and
lot
one
have
the
potential
to
cause
the
next
buyer
to
be
concerned
about
buying
a
property
that
is
commercially
zoned
on
three
sides.
It
had.
K
This
has
a
strong
potential
to
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
value
of
my
property
over
time.
The
rezoning
of
these
two
Lots
is
not
essential
for
the
greater
development
of
Stony
Point.
The
development
can
and
likely
would
go
forward
if
these
two
Lots
are
not
rezone.
I
said
the
last
at
the
last
meeting,
when
new
commercial
development
occurs
adjacent
to
existing
residential
developments,
there's
often
conflict
of
interests.
This
is
such
a
case,
and
the
impact
on
existing
properties
now
and
in
the
future
should
be
strongly
considered.
K
I
oppose
the
rezoning
about
lot
a
and
lot
one
because
of
the
potential
negative
impact
on
the
future
value
of
my
property,
and
because
this
rezoning
is
not
a
cent
so
for
the
further
the
development
of
stony
point
I
asked
the
Commission
to
consider
these
impacts
on
surrounding
properties.
As
you
make
your
recommendation
and
energy
to
exclude
these
two
properties
from
the
rezoning
in
closing
on
another
note
related
to
this
development,
I
would
like
to
thank
the
city
staff
and
mr.
Drake
for
their
efforts
to
reengineer
the
road
to
address
my
earlier
concerns.
Thank
you.
D
Mr.
de
Bourgh
and
the
road
will
also
affect
us
as
well.
I
also
looked
at
the
Stony
Point
Facebook
page
today,
and
it
says
your
support
is
important,
as
only
the
neighbors
show
up.
Yes,
we
do
not
want
an
amusement
park
in
our
backyard.
That's
why
we're
here
this
project
will
compromise
and
diminish
our
quality
of
life
when
we
bought
this
place
eight
years
ago.
This
was
again
just
like
mr.
de
Bourgh
said
not
zoned
for
commercial
use.
D
We
have
a
peaceful
quiet
subdivision
with
excellent
neighbors
and
very
little
traffic.
This
road
and
development
will
increase
the
traffic
behind
our
house,
which
is
not
meant
as
the
public
road.
Of
course,
we
deal
with
the
4th
of
July
traffic,
which
we
did
this
last
week
if
inti
crowd
Run,
which
is
cool
cooking
on
competi,
competi,
etc.
We
should
not
deal
with
this
every
spring
summer
and
fall
year
round.
Cuz.
We
live
here,
year-round,
there's
plenty
of
access
to
the
lake
as
it
stands.
D
If
you
were
out
in
the
water
this
fourth
of
July,
you
found
that
everybody
was
on
the
lake.
I
didn't
hear
anybody
that
said:
I
couldn't
get
on
the
lake
there's
many
public
accesses
to
eat
on
the
lake
I
believe
mr.
K
said
the
residential
is
already
established.
Why
are
we
doing
this?
He
said
that
in
the
last
session.
D
This
road
is
directly
behind
our
house.
Headlights
will
come
in
to
our
property
every
night.
Please
do
not
allow
this
rezoning
to
pass.
This
should
remain
residential.
This
is
how
it
was
presented
to
us
when
we
bought
and
built
our
house.
There
are
many
other
areas
for
the
development
of
the.
This
is
not
one
of
them.
D
B
Just
just
so,
everyone
knows
too
that
this
will
be
heard.
If
it's
not
approved
or
not
recommended
to
be
approved,
it
still
can
go
forward
to
City
Council.
They
would
need
a
superseding
vote,
but
there
will
be
a
first
reading
and
a
second
reading.
The
second
reading
is
where
the
public
hearing
will
take
place
at
City,
Council.
D
K
C
C
This
is
something
the
community
has
expressed
desire
for
Lake
Camp
Pesce
is
a
Watertown
asset
and
and
not,
in
my
opinion,
just
an
asset
of
those
people
that
own
the
property
around
it
and
not
too
many
opportunities
like
this
come
along
at
stake
and
a
lot
of
diligence.
A
lot
of
vision
on
the
behalf
of
a
couple
developers
and
they've
been
they've,
been
very
patient,
worked
hard,
my
understanding
to
address
Dee
and
our
concerns
and
everything
else
so
and
there's
just
not
very
many
places
on
the
lake
that
are
left
to
do
something
like
this.
C
K
Good
evening,
Chris
Shelton,
when
I
first
moved
here,
I
met
Mike
and
Bob,
and
they
were
talking
about
the
potential
of
doing
some
like
development
and
I
offered
up
some
of
the
challenges
and
different
things.
We
went
through
in
a
prior
place
where
I
was
doing
economic
development,
which
was
Devils
Lake,
North
Dakota
a
lot
of
the
same
conversations.
K
A
lot
of
the
same
issues
are
presented
today,
much
like
they
were
then
and
I
had
sent
him
to
a
couple
websites
and
different
things
that
you
know,
that
was
a
lake
town,
predominantly
tourism
driven
and
as
a
general
consensus,
I
think.
Even
now,
somebody
brought
up
Kovac
but
I
think
also
even
now,
tourism
as
we're
finding
out,
is
probably
even
more
economic
development
than
we
thought
in
the
past
as
it
affects
the
BBB
tax.
It
affects
other
people
coming
to
spend
their
time
and
money
in
Watertown.
K
So
just
as
a
general
thought,
you
know
they
did
do
commercial
development
on
Devil's
Lake,
and
you
know
a
lot
of
the
same
issues
concerns
valid
from
everybody,
but
I.
Think
if
you
were
to
ask
them
now,
if
they
wouldn't
have
built
the
hotel
and
different
amenities
on
the
lake,
I
think
they
would
have
call
it
a
big
mistake,
because
that
is
a
big
tourism
draw
for
them,
and
you
don't
know
what
you
don't
know,
but
at
the
time
you
know
this.
K
This
sounds
a
lot
like
that,
but
I
think
when
you
look
at
these
from
a
high
level
community
growth,
you
can't
have
or
want
increase
tax
base
and
increase
sales
tax,
but
have
everything
stay
the
same
so
from
that
perspective,
I
think
the
project
could
lend
a
lot
of
tools
to
what
we've
been
talking
about
and
I've
only
been
here,
two
and
a
half
years.
So
I'm
sure
this
conversation
has
been
a
long
one,
but
as
we
talk
about
increasing
these
things,
I
believe
this
from
a
general
standpoint
would
do
that.
Thank
you.
J
I
robbed
Peterson,
chairman
of
the
h2o
tool,
water,
town,
2020
vision,
team
process,
which
probably
needs
a
new
name
now
because
we're
in
2020,
but
just
as
a
reminder
for
the
for
the
board.
A
lot
of
people
got
involved
with
that
that
movement
and
worked
very
hard
on
it,
and
one
of
the
only
things
that
we
never
got
accomplished
was
putting
in
a
marina
at
the
lake,
because
that
was
one
of
the
things
that
the
consultants
said.
J
So
as
a
general
statement,
h2o
is
excited
about
the
project
because
of
the
possibilities
of
having
the
marina
built,
having
amenities
built
where
the
the
the
lake
becomes
a
destination
becomes
an
attraction
for
everybody
to
use
as
I
understand
it.
Wetlands
and
everything
have
to
be
left
alone
as
a
green
space
anyway.
So
I
don't
think
that's
really
going
to
be
part
of
the
discussion
and
if
you
look
at
the
build-out
area,
I
think
there's
pretty
good
setback
from
yeah
all
the
orange
zone.
J
There's
pretty
good
setback
from
most
areas,
I'm
more
interested
in
talking
about
the
fact
that,
like
Chris
talked
about,
if
you
don't
find
ways
to
increase
your
sales
tax
revenue,
don't
find
ways
to
bring
more
people
to
town,
don't
find
ways
to
continue
to
have
big
build-up
projects
like
this.
Then
you
get
stagnant.
You
don't
go
anywhere.
You
know
you're
growing
or
dying
so
from
the
visioning
standpoint,
we're
behind
this
project
and
we
think
it's
a
good
thing
for
Watertown
for
the
lake
and
for
the
community
as
a
whole.
I.
M
Just
gotta
catch
my
bearings
Mike
Lawrence
I
work
with
Bob
Drake
on
this
project.
It's
project
I
got
involved,
Bob's
been
working
on
at
six
going
on
seven
years,
I
got
involved
after
a
residential
plan
that
was
developed
for
this
land
was
failed.
It
was
fought
by
many
of
the
people
that
were
speaking
here
tonight.
He
came
in
here
and
tried
to
do
a
residential
r1
development.
It
failed,
they
brought
attorneys.
They
took
him
through
the
rigmarole
he
came
into
Harry's
and
that's
how
I
met
him.
M
He
was
sitting
at
the
front
table
and
he
said
I've
given
up
and
I
said
he
can't
give
up,
and
so
I
got
on
board
and
we've
been
working
for
years.
On
this
we've
been
working
with
the
GF
MP
we've
been
working
with
the
Corps
we've
been
working
with
the
lake
Association
we've
been
working
with
some
of
the
neighbors
that
are
in
favor.
We,
we
have
not
contacted
missus
what
miss
Williams,
because
that
we're
probably
never
going
to
win
that
fight.
We're
never
going
to
win
that
battle.
M
You
know
the
problems
that
she
discussed
with
all
of
the
problems
that
were
there.
That
was
a
it
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
That
was
a
different
developer
that
that
got
hit
with
those
it
was
not
mr.
Drake.
He
purchased
the
land
after
that,
so
that
was
that
was
not
on
him.
We've
worked
with
the
G
F
and
P
to
try
to
give
them
try
to
get
them
to
give
an
easement
on
those
wetlands
not
to
use
them
Russell.
He
said
you
can
use
my
name.
You
can
have
anyone
call
me.
M
Those
wetlands
will
not
be
touched.
They're
his
baby,
there's
a
baby
of
the
lake.
The
the
core
of
the
DNR
would
all
have
to
sign
off
on
this.
He
says
he
did.
They
do
have
no
interest
in
having
an
easement
over
him
and
I
asked
him
for
a
letter,
and
he
said
they're
their
company
is
more,
their
business
is
more
of
retroactive.
They
only
sent
out
letters
when
things
go
wrong,
so
we've
went
through
all
the
things
you
know
it's.
It
is
partially
on
the
compassed
Kumasi
plan.
M
It
is
on
the
comprehensive
land
use
the
reason
that
we
included
the
the
reads
and
and
AG
and
to
be
fair.
We
do
plan
on
designating
or
giving
that
road
back
to
the
city
that
that
surrounds
one
side
of
mr.
de
Bourgh's
home
mr.
de
Bourgh
wasn't
happy
with
the
road
being
curved.
Mr.
Drake
went
out
and
bought
more
land
he
paid
for
more
engineering.
We
straighten
the
road
we
submitted
it
before
this.
You
asked
for
our
trust
in
that
it's
already
been.
It's
already
been
given.
It's
already
been
done.
M
It's
sitting
on
engineering
desk
mr.
Drake
because
of
the
size
of
this
he
wants
to
dig
in
and
put
in
a
public
private
marina
that
would
cost
upwards
of
two
million
dollars.
That's
why
you
need
the
density,
that's
why
you
need
the
land.
We
can
only
put
on
that
land,
what
the
traffic
counts,
and
it
will
will
let
us
that
comes
during
the
prelim
plan
phase.
We
still
have
to
engineer
this
project.
We
still
have
to
make
sure
that
it
fits
the
you,
the
the
amount
of
traffic.
M
That's
in
that
area
that
this
is
just
the
first
step.
You
know
you
and
and
honestly
we're
finding
out
on
the
other
other
part,
it's
hard
to
make
these
work
I
mean,
especially
with
the
CL
district.
We
did
wait
for
that
it.
There
is
c2
zoning
on
this.
We
could
have
went
for
c2
zoning,
it's
c2
between
an
r3,
so
step
zoning
would
work.
You
have
to
understand
that
hidden
valleys
in
our
three.
We
could
build
condos
on
Hidden
Valley
if
we
would
have
bought
the
end
to
Lots
that
that's
zoned
correctly.
M
The
zoning
that
we're
asking
for
here
tonight
is
not
a
truce
for
the
for
the
area.
It's
step,
zoned.
The
other
thing
is,
you
guys
came
up
with
the
CL
district.
You
put
the
stipulations
in
it
to
be
next
up
somebody's
house,
as
you
here
are
here
tonight.
We
have
one
property
owner.
If
you
it.
Can
you
put
my
map
up?
M
Please
we
have
one
property
owner,
that's
here
and
one
that's
not,
and
we
and
we've
talked
numerous
times
with
the
other
one
that
it
touches
other
than
that
we're
gonna
find
a
property,
that's
surrounded
by
a
road
with
a
60-foot
right
away,
plus
the
setbacks
that
you
guys
have
put
in
place.
I
I
think
that,
as
as
other
people
said,
this
is
a
large
project
that
will
affect
a
lot
of
people.
There's
a
lot
of
people
that
want
to
be
here,
there's
a
lot
of
people
that
want
to
use
it.
M
M
As
far
as
having
commercial
property
value
go
down
a
Bonnie,
you
know
as
much
as
I
do
the
land
between
the
the
houses
that
appraised
between
the
golf
courses
and
the
proper
some
of
the
smallest
houses
I'm,
the
smallest
Lots
that
sell
for
the
most
amount
of
money.
I
mean.
That's.
That's,
that's
not
that's
true,
but
that's
where
people
want
to
be.
People
want
to
be
on
South,
Lake
Drive,
a
large
majority.
They
want
to
be
around
what's
going
on
so
I
I
I
hope
that
we
can
look
at
this
as
something
that
mr.
M
Drake's
taking
a
huge
huge
gamble
on.
We
don't
know
if
it's
work,
it's
not
guaranteed
that
he
spends
millions
and
millions
and
millions
of
dollars,
and
this
works
he's
already
into
this
thing.
He
bought
that
land
for
1.4
million
dollars.
Your
CL
district
cuts
that
in
half
of
usable
land
you
take
that
1.4
million
dollars
and
you
cut
off
$700,000
worth
of
land
that
he
can't
use
immediately.
M
It
meets
the
criteria
of
the
new
CL
district.
The
GF
MP
is
on
board.
It
increases
property
values,
increase
sales,
tax
increase
public
access.
You
know
when
I
hear
people
say.
There's
too
many
people
on
the
lake
I
lived
on
the
lake
I
have
a
hundred
and
fifty
five
feet
of
frontage.
That's
all
I'm
guaranteed
the
frontage
I
live
on
a
public
park
that
other
people
are
here
for
and
if
we
want
to
improve
this
lake
and
clean
it
out,
we
need
the
support
of
the
community.
M
We
need
that
vote
so
and
then
maybe
sometime
we'll
stop
hearing
how
underutilized
this
asset
is.
We
do
plan
on
doing
a
marketing
campaign
that
would
include
the
zoo,
the
readlyn
Art
Center,
all
of
those
things
to
try
to
get
people
to
purchase
our
condos
and
come
to
our
community
and
that
we're
going
to
fund
that
you
know
and
there's
a
way
to
grow
this
community
and
I
think
this
is
an
extremely
rare
and
important
point
and
project
to
have
somebody
like
Bob
step
up
and
and
go
through
six.
M
D
M
Called
actually
the
old
Stella
main
channel
the
current,
the
the
previous
owners,
the
Williams
had
a
channel
that
went
back
there
and
did
just
exactly
what
we
did,
but
it
was
smaller
granted,
but
they
had
a
channel.
They
had
fishing
houses,
they
sold
fish
out
of
there.
They
rented
canoes
out
of
there.
Many
of
the
things
that
we
plan
on
doing
this
isn't
something
that's
we're
not
even
reinventing
the
wheel
here.
This
happened
here.
M
Mr.
Drake
is
also
has
got
approved
in
the
competitive
master
plan.
They
called
for
rock
docks
to
improve
fisheries.
I,
don't
know
if
you
guys
remember
the
the
the
docks
that
they
want
rocks
out
into
the
lake
and
then
so.
The
the
GF
MP
and
the
court
know
that
Corps
has
approved
Rock
docks
and
the
GF
MP
is
actually
came
out
and
said
that
they'll
build
docks
on
there
for
fishing.
These
are
things
that
mr.
Drake
doesn't
have
to
do,
but
it
does
meet
the
needs
of
the
compassed
come
aster
plan
as
well.
M
K
A
K
M
K
M
Thank
you
said
he's
done.
Mr.
drake
has
done,
went
above
and
beyond
to
try
to
solve
the
solutions
to
try
to
fix
the
mistakes
of
the
past.
He's
worked
with
the
city,
the
Lake
Association
every
entity
that
we
can
possibly
do
we've
crossed
all
these
eyes
are
crossed.
All
the
t's
dotted
all
the
eyes.
We've
came
up
here
and
not
asked
for
special
favors.
We
are
just
trying
to
move
a
project
forward
on
this
land
that
has
been
already
tried
for
an
r1.
M
M
When
you
design
the
CL
district,
you
put
a
50%,
lock
coverage
in
there.
If
you
want
to
have
more
density,
you
have
to
buy
more
land,
we
purchased
the
wetlands
and
parcels
form
mr.
Dennis
Arnold,
and
we
don't
plan
on
developing
him.
We
can't
develop
them,
but
that's
part
of
the
CL
district
that
you
guys
just
came
up
with
and
that's
that's
the
solution
to
our
problem.
M
M
A
B
N
Don't
I
don't
mean
to
discount
what
my
other
board
members
are
saying,
but
we
are
getting
to
a
minutiae
of
a
conditional
use
or
our
other
permitted
use
to
me.
The
issue
is
whether
or
not
the
comprehensive
land
use
plan,
the
major
the
master
plan
of
the
lake
and
and
and
the
is
an
appropriate
place
for
this
commercial
lake
district.
N
Mister.
We
had
this
conversation
when
we
talked
about
the
campground
that
was
properties
on
the
other
side
of
the
lake.
We
were
getting
into
the
minutiae
of
what
could
possibly
be,
but
there
is
a
whole
litany
of
uses
that
are
listed
in
the
CL
and
mr.
Drake
theoretically
could
walk
off
the
door
tonight
and
sell
the
property
to
somebody
else.
N
Do
any
one
of
those
other
uses
that
are
listed
so
I
I
caution
us
to
get
into
you
know
understanding
or
trying
to
look
at
the
design
of
something
that
we
haven't
even
seen
yet
before
us.
The
question
is
more
or
less
whether
or
not
this
specific
piece
of
dirt
is
the
appropriate
place
to
have
the
commercial
Lake
District
tag
attached
to
it.
I.
E
E
I
agree:
it's
what's
going
to
be
designated
CL,
all
of
it
part
of
it.
What's
gonna
be
parceled
off
and
left
something
else.
The
wetlands
are
an
issue
as
a
board
of
adjustment
and
as
a
planned
Commission.
We
have
often
stated
that
someone
who
buys
a
piece
of
property
looks
around
and
sees
what
the
zoning
is
and
that's
something
that
we
take
into
consideration
when
we
make
these
decisions
and
I
would
agree.
M
E
Only
stating
that
as
Todd
was
pointing
out,
these
are
the
points
of
discussion
that
I
I
agree
we
should
be
having,
rather
than
you
know,
maybe
define
that
the
the
minutiae.
These
are
the
things
that
we
really
need
to
talk
about.
What's
what
really
is
appropriate
CL?
How
do
we
look
upon
the
statements
the
board
has
put
forward
in
the
past
as
to
people
purchasing
property,
how
they
can
rely
on?
What's
surrounding
them
the
wetlands?
These
are
all
the
things
that
we
need
to
try
to
figure
out
here.
Yep.
M
And
as
a
developer,
we
also
look
at
master
plans
and
we
look
at
comprehensive
land
use
plans
and
we
look
at
things
like
that
that
try
to
drive
our
decisions
on
what
which
should
go.
There
I
mean
we
pay
for
these
studies.
There's
$90,000
late
compassed,
a
master
plan
study
that
was
paid
for
by
taxpayers
that
that
pegs
us
for
mixed-use
and.
E
M
M
E
N
So
you
almost
have
to
take
you
color
out
the
area
that
could
potentially
be
developed
and
then
the
other
part
isn't
so
I
mean
our
ordinance
is
going
to
dictate
what
happens
to
this
property,
whether
you
know,
if
it's
don't
AG,
we
know
it's
not
I
mean
if
it's
zoned
CL
and
they
plan
on
developing
any
of
that
part
they're
going
to
have
to
have
50%
of
the
land
set
aside
for
not
improve
non
pervious
services.
That.
A
Was
one
of
the
benefits
that
we
had
when
we
talked
about
the
CL
district
and
putting
that
50%
impervious
in
there
was
because
it
would
necessitate
them
to
have
a
larger
plot
of
land
and
to
maintain
more
of
the
natural
environment
within
that
land
much
much
more
than
we
have
required
anywhere
else
in
the
community.
If.
N
We
can
all
remember
when
we
were
having
those
conversations
only
several
months
ago
was
that,
like
I
said
we
need
to
we,
we
weren't
looking
at
wanting
to
do
little
spot
zoning
of
the
CL
district
around
the
lake.
We
were
trying
to
look
at
finding
areas
that
would
comport
with
the
land
use
plans
that
have
been
developed
by
the
Planning
Commission
in
the
City
Council
and
made
available
to
the
public
for
many
many
years
and
at
the
same
point
in
time.
Trying
to
you
know
if
we're
going.
If,
if
not
here,
then
we're.
M
Mikelaurence
again,
I
just
talked
to
somebody
and
he
kind
of
gave
me
a
compromise
that
might
work.
We
rezone
everything
else,
that's
not
wetlands
and
but
you
let
us
use
the
wetland
area
as
our
lot
coverage.
Wetlands
stay
the
same
stay
the
same
zone,
but
we
are
able
to
use
the
square
footage
of
wetlands
as
in
our
calculation,
for
our
lot
coverage.
M
M
M
A
C
N
Is
tied
again,
I
don't
want
to
be
creating
a
zoning
district
where
were
you're
gonna
have
to
come
in
and
ask
a
variance
that
that
just
seems
asinine
to
me
and
and
to
me
again.
If
the
proposal
is
to
use
X
amount
of
acres
for
whatever
type
of
commercial,
residential
mixed-use
development
on
the
CL
district
and
be
happy,
we
can't
use
those
those
wetland
areas
any
way
they
need
them
for
the
match.
K
M
I
guess
I
guess
at
some
point
you
do
have
to
trust
the
core.
The
DNR,
the
the
I
mean.
If
this
was
all.
If
these
wetlands
were
just
lands,
we
could.
We
could
still
ask
for
the
entire
parcel
to
be
rezone,
because
we
would
need
it
for
the
50%,
luckily
they're
not
and
they
can
meet
they're
controlled
by
multiple
entities,
including
the
city.
If
and
if
the
city
would
request
an
easement
to
them
on
these
wetlands,
we
would
provide
them
with
the
one.
N
K
B
No
that
because
that's
just
a
preliminary
plan
and
then
the
property
is
already
plaited
but
I
can
show
you
guys,
because,
with
the
motion
that
was
made
upon,
the
approval
of
the
prelim
plan
by
the
Planning
Commission
was
that
we
work
with
the
developers
and
then
also
with
Casey
de
Boer
as
the
adjacent
landowner
on
realigning
the
street.
So
I'll
just
show
you
that
what
they've
done
here
it
used
to
curve
when
we
you
guys,
saw
at
last
it
curved
over
to
the
west,
which
impacted
mr.
de
Bourgh's
property
and
then
now
they've
straightened
it.
K
You
and
I
guess
the
the
point
of
my
question
is:
is
we
we
approved
a
preliminary
plan
for
a
road
up
there?
Next
will
come
the
plat
of
that
and
I
guess.
The
question
is,
is
what
do
we
want
built
next
to
that
road?
We
have
there's
a
lot
of
egg
in
parcel.
Do
we
want
any
of
the
egg
uses?
You
can
look
at
those
on
in
our
ordinance
book,
21
point
12
and
then
we
have
r1
and
majority
of
parcel
1
and
we
have
C
2.
K
The
question
to
me
is:
do
we?
What
do
we
want
to
keep
it
as
is,
or
would
we
rather
have
the
CL
uses
and-
and
you
know,
I-
think
we've
established
as
a
community
through
our
comprehensive
Land
Use
Plan,
that
we
thought
that
this
portion
of
the
lake
north
of
parcel
2,
according
to
our
maps
that
are
in
our
packet,
was
anticipated
and
planned
and
approved
to
be
mixed-use
or
commercial
lake
type
stuff,
so
I
think
that's
really
where
we
should
be
trying
to
focus
on.
Is
that
really
now
that
it's
in
front
of
us?
B
Would
think
since
we
just
recently,
we
just
updated
the
comp
plan
in
2019
and
then,
if
you
remember
why
why
the
the
push
to
create
the
CL
district
came
about
was
because
we
had
the
rezoning
happening
on
the
north
side
of
the
lake,
and
that
was
highway.
Commercial,
that's
appropriate
because
it
is
adjacent
to
highway
20,
but
also
in
the
lake
imposed
a
master
plan.
There
was
an
earth.
The
community
wanted
commercial
development
and
a
marina
was
a
marina
restaurants.
B
J
When
we
did
this
plan
originally
the
reason
we
curved
that
road
was
so
that
Dennis
Arnold
could
have
a
lot
next
to
his
pond
out
there,
and
when
KC
came
to
change
that
to
straighten
that
road,
we
ended
up
purchasing
Dennis's
ground.
In
order
to
to
do
that,
we
also
needed
the
wetlands
for
green
space
to
match
that
50
percent
that
you're
talking
about
it
did
create
a
little
space
on
the
left
side
of
the
river,
and
all
of
that
has
to
go
through
a
preliminary
plan
or
something
in
the
future.
J
J
G
J
A
K
D
A
K
It's
it's
sixty
six
feet
wide,
which
is
exactly
what
the
right
away
with
is,
and
typically
when
we
rezone,
we
go
to
the
center
of
right
away,
so
I
feel
that
just
rezoning,
just
right
away
isn't
appropriate
and
by
not
rezoning
it.
It
keeps
a
lot
one
of
the
old
division,
Prairie
Hills
development
second
edition
that
will
no
longer
be
adjacent
to
commercial
one.
Less
side
of
divorce
property
will
be
adjacent
to
commercial
and
all
of
the
properties
south
of
Prairie
Hills
Avenue
will
no
longer
be
adjacent
to
commercial.
F
M
C
H
A
C
N
Is
case
I
want
to
disagree,
I
think
I
think
everything's
in
place.
We
know
with
the
the
commercial
Lake
requirement
for
the
50/50
and
these
lands
would
be
used
in
those
5050
calculations
and
would
remain
are
going
to
need
to
be
remained
from
the
impervious
requirements.
So
I
don't
know
why
we
would
need
to
do
that.
Yeah.
A
And
I
guess
just
to
take
that
a
little
bit
further
I
think
it
actually
protects
this
land
additionally
from
a
long-term
development
standpoint
by
including
it
into
CL,
because
once
once
we've
built
on
the
other
area
within
that
CL
zone,
you
have
to
continue
to
maintain
that
50%
coverage
right.
So
the
long
term.
Inclusion
of
this
property
within
the
CL
calculation
for
50%
is
a
long-term
reservation
of
the
natural
order
of
this.
This
wetland.
C
K
O
Would
just
like
to
point
out
that
open
water
and
wetlands
are
normally
not
considered,
pervious
and
I?
Think
that's
something
that
we
haven't
directly
addressed
in
our
ordinances.
But
I
looked
up
the
TR
55,
which
is
a
drainage
manual,
and
it
showed
that
wetlands
and
open
water
are
considered
impervious
and
if,
if
that's,
what
we're
talking
about
the
50%
as
50%
has
to
be
pervious.
D
O
So
if
and-
and
he
said,
his
intention
was
to
completely
pave
the
dry
land-
and
you
know-
or
mostly
mostly
because
consider
that
the
impervious
and
the
wetland
would
be
the
pervious
percentage
to
make
up
the
balance.
They
need
that
to
make
up
the
balance.
But
I
don't
know
if
they
understand
that
the
water
is
counting
against
you.
If
that's
your
intention
and
so
you're
going
down
the
wrong
road.
If
that's
what
you're
thinking
that
that
doesn't
benefit
you
that
hurts
your
calculation,
because
it's
already
impervious.
O
That's
not,
we
don't
address
that,
but
that's
just
a
I
mean
I've
done
modeling
of
water
courses
and
when
you
encounter
open
water
or
wetland
it
is
considered
impervious.
It
is
not
considered
pervious,
it
doesn't
soak
in
and
go
away.
It
immediately
raises
the
water
level
when
water
falls
on
water,
so
open
water
is
not
pervious.
Open
water
is
impervious.
So
just
make
sure
you
know
that
because
our
definition
doesn't
say
open
space,
it
says
impervious.
M
M
F
Think
that
the
discussion
evolves
into
the
intent
behind
the
term
impervious
in
our
CL
district,
because,
right
now
it
says
impervious
areas
shall
not
exceed
50%
of
the
total
lot
area.
I
would
beg
the
question,
and
this
is
something
we
could
consider
a
zoning
amendment
to
is
the
intent
that
that
land
be
impervious
or
is
it
the
intent
of
that
land
be
open
space
or
a
green
space
or
undeveloped
or
another
term?
F
That
doesn't
mean
that
technical
intent
that
the
mayor
has
described
because
water
is
not
would
not
be
considered
open
space
green
space,
it
is
impervious,
you
cannot.
Water
will
not
infiltrate
water
just
like
water
will
not
infiltrate
pavement
and
solely
from
a
technicality
from
a
hydraulic
analysis.
That
is
true
now,
whether
that's
the
intent
of
the
language
in
this
section
of
the
ordinance
I
think
is
the
bigger
question
we
need
to
ask
and.
N
Sorry
you
go
ahead
Todd
this
is
case
and
I.
Believe
Commissioner
Dahle
will
probably
also
heckle
this
being
that
he
was
there
at
all.
The
meetings
that
I
was
at
I
thought
in
our
discussion
and
I
think
also
Commissioner
Ford
would
would
attest
that
we
were
talking
about
not
having
things
being
developed
on
that
we
would
have.
N
That
is
more
of
an
open
space
separation,
green
space,
I,
don't
think
we
were
getting
into
the
technical
engineering
jargon
of
hydrology
and
hydraulics
and
all
those
types
of
things
I
think
we
were
just
thinking
from
the
perspective
that
we
weren't
going
to
see
anything
developed
there.
We
wanted
it
to
be
open
and
whether
that
be
water
or
grass
or
dirt
I
can
tell
you,
as
a
practitioner
of
Planning
and
Zoning
for
more
than
30
years,
that
most
counties
if
I
have
a
lot.
N
It's
a
5
acre
lot
and
there's
3
acres
of
water
on
it.
I
still
have
a
5
acre
lot
for
the
purposes
of
meeting
a
lot
area
requirements.
So
I
will
disagree
a
little
bit
with
with
my
counterpart
on
the
board.
I
can
tell
you
I
think
the
intent
is
to
keep
it
as
an
open
space.
If
we
want
to
amend
it
later,
I
think
we
can
amend
it
later.
I,
don't
think
it
really
has
to
stop
progress
on
the
vote
tonight.
Yeah.
C
A
Would
agree
Todd
with
the
the
intent
of
what
we
had
talked
about?
There
was
really
in
around
you
know:
preserving
a
natural
environment,
particularly
at
the
lake,
and
you
know
some
of
the
discussions
at
that
time
included.
Talk
of
you
know
wetlands
around
the
lake
and
preservation
of
these
natural
environments,
so
I
agree
I,
don't
I,
don't
believe
that
was
the
intent
of
the
language
when
the
plans
drafted.
F
When
it
comes
to
the
administration
of
that
component
of
the
ordinance
at
the
time
of
the
preliminary
plan
for
the
rest
of
this
property,
that
is
an
amendment
we
would
want
to
bring
forward
so
that
we
can
then
administer
that
regulation
according
to
the
board's
intent.
Because,
as
it
reads,
right
now,
I
could
not.
Administrative
ly
approve
this
calculation
of
50%
rule
in
the
way
that
the
developers
wanting
to
because
of
the
technicality
of
that
term
impervious
and.
B
Any
of
our
discussion
that
we
did
have
with
the
CL
district
as
far
as
the
subcommittee
and
then
at
Planning
Commission.
When
we
discussed
it,
it
was
not
the
technical
that
I
mean
that
would
have
been
good
to
know.
I
didn't
know
that.
That's
what
it
meant
and
I
think
that
the
group
the
subcommittee
did
say
they
were
thinking,
reserving
open
space,
not
paving.
So
if
that's
something
we
can
and
I
believe
that's
where
we're
all
at
and
we
can
bring
an
amendment
forward
with
the
actual
intent.
A
A
B
C
B
A
B
A
N
B
C
A
A
B
B
Okay,
so
we
talked
about
this
at
the
June
4th
meeting
about
as
far
as
our
certified
mailing
or
our
notice
to
adjacent
landowners,
and
that
was
new
business.
So
we
just
wanted
to
create
consistency
between
when
we
were
sending
out
notice
to
the
adjacent
landowners
for
the
Board
of
Adjustment
items,
which
are
the
variances
and
the
conditional
uses,
and
then
for
the
plan
commission
items
which
would
be
the
annexation,
zoning
and
rezone,
which
in
ordinance
is
just
considered
amendment.
B
It's
an
amendment
to
the
zoning
ordinance.
So
what
we
decided
on
there
and
this
this
resolution
is
just
memorializing-
that
to
create
the
consistency
and
so
it'll,
be
notice
shall
be
given
to
all
landowners
within
250
feet,
including
the
width
of
the
public
right-of-way
from
the
legally
described
property
requesting
a
consistent.
C
A
B
Sorry
about
that,
so
this
is
where,
and
now
this
is
the
same
language
for
all
three
items
conditional
uses,
variances
and
amendments.
So
there
we
would
send
notice
by
first-class
mail
to
the
landowners
within
250
feet
of
the
property
that
is
legally
described.
That
is
being
petitioned
to
change
and
I
know
that
we
did
it
discuss
about
having
the
language
in
there
of
adjacent,
so
sending
notice
to
the
adjacent
properties
or
properties
within
250
feet,
which
ever
created
a
greater
a
greater
number
of
notice.
B
No,
it
would
just
be
the
legally
described,
not
the
parent
parcel,
just
the
legally
described
portion
of
the
property,
and
that's
where
the
confusion
would
was
coming
from
is
that
if
we
were
interpreting
that
it
should
be
taken
from
and
for
example,
just
because
we're
familiar
with
competi
dunes,
we'll
go
over
there.
So
Paul
Carlson
owns
all
of
lot
a,
but
he
was
he's
rezoning
to
seat
to
r3.
B
Just
in
that
corner,
where
the
250
feet
comes
from
the
state
statute
that
they
would
be
the
they
would
be
able
to
appeal
a
decision
assuming
that
that's
because
they
feel
aggrieved
by
the
distance.
How
close
it
is
to
their
property.
So
now
by
saying
the
legally
described
portion,
this
will
be
replanted
before
any
building
permit
would
go
on
there.
But
as
far
as
notice
for
these
hearings,
it'll
come
from
just
the
legally
described
portion
that
is
changing
and
then
the
landowners
within
250
feet
of
that
parcel.
So.
A
B
F
A
And
I
guess
the
the
concern
would
be
if
you
get
a
very
large
plot
of
land,
so
look
at
the
mall
property,
for
instance,
and
if
a
single
store
location
within
it
wanted
to
apply
for
a
conditional
use
for
a
bar
or
tavern,
you
know,
250
feet
could
potentially
not
include
neighboring
properties
that
are
adjacent.
If
you
have
a
particularly
large
lot
of
land.
N
Well,
I,
don't
I,
think
we're
I
think
we're
messing
up.
What
aggrieved
is
I
mean
the
aggrieved.
It's
only
dealing,
the
only
aggrieved
status
happens
with
zoning
and
and
zoning
is
if
40%
of
those
adjoining
property
owners
or
whatever
within
250
feet,
feel
aggrieved.
They
can
appeal
it
to
the
City
Council
and
then
on
a
supermajority
vote.
It
has
to
be
you
know,
or
it
can
be
overturned
when
it
comes
to.
N
Yes,
as
the
aggrieved
status
goes
straight
to
Circuit,
Court
and
so
I
think
the
question
just
becomes,
you
know
we
is
it
a
J
I
think
adjacent
is
is,
is
probably
appropriate
on
conditional
uses
and
variances.
Just
from
the
perspective
that
you
want
to
know,
what's
going
on
next
to
you,
because
you
see
it
in
large
lots
out
in
the
country,
especially
Iona
I
own,
a
quarter
section
I
put
something
on
the
inside
of
the
interior.
N
B
H
K
C
F
Yeah
and
I
think
that
Brandy's
point
on
why
she
was
giving
this
another
look,
and
she
had
talked
me
about
this
as
well.
I
think
it
all
depends
on
where
we're
going
from.
If
we're
going
from
a
small
area
within
a
parcel
like
the
the
mall
property
she
has
outlined
there
on
the
screen,
if
you're
gonna
take
it
from
that
red
square,
because
that's
where
the
bar
and
tavern
is
rather
than
from
the
blue
line,
then
I
agree.
B
N
But
95%
of
your
properties
are
not
going
to
be
a
large
property
where
I've
got
sweet
type
developments
they're
going
to
be
individual
properties
that
there's
gonna
be
a
single
use
on
that
property
I
mean
that
the
mall
or
strip
mall
is
really
those
are
going
to
be
the
incidental
oddball
situations.
What
you're
gonna
have
to
end
up
sending
more
notices
than
you
would
under
normal
circumstances,
I.
B
Right
I
as
staff
sending
out
the
notices,
though
it's
still
that
leaves
it
basically
where
we're
at
today,
because
that
gets
down
to
where.
Where
are
we
drawing
the
line
where,
if
it's
the
legally
described
portion,
it
doesn't
matter
than
if
it's
within
a
huge?
If
it's
within
a
quarter
section
or
not,
but
it's
that's
the
main
premise
then,
as
are
we
taking
it
from
a
parent
parcel
or
the
entire
lot
or
just
the
portion
that
is
being
changed.
H
Seems
like
in
whatever
situation
arises,
whether
it's
adjacent
or
250
feet,
or
if
it's
a
parcel
within
a
larger.
It's
a
newly
described
section
within
a
large
parcel.
If
you
just
err
on
the
side
of
sending
out
the
most
notice,
you'll
have
your
answer
every
time
you
don't
take
250
feet
from
the
largest
piece
of
prop
from
the
from
the
prop
for
the
piece
that
provides
the
most
notice.
B
N
Get
back
to
the
conditional
users,
invariances,
listen,
I,
mean
I,
think
we're
making
a
mountain
out
of
a
molehill.
You've
got
you've
got
95%
of
the
parcels
in
the
community,
has
a
single
use
on
them
right,
and
so
it's
real
easy
I
take
everybody
that
touches
my
parcel
and
everybody
within
250
feet.
You
show
that
on
the
June
4th
meeting
is
all
I
gotta.
Do
it
automatically
selects
I've
got
a
use.
I've
got
at
the
garnet
thing
over
there
by
the
Dairy
Queen
on
on
camp
you've
got
a
an
alcohol
establishment
inside
of
a.
N
Laundromat,
so
you
take
that
little
section
there.
The
thing
is
you're,
probably
if
you
went
250
feet
from
that
you're
going
to
get
everything.
The
problem
that
you're
gonna
run
into
is
places
such
as
the
mall
and
a
few
other.
Maybe
it's
the
school
or
something
like
that,
but
I
think
I.
Think
by
and
large
it's
adjacent
landowners
are
the
ones
that
are
probably
the
most
ones
that
you
should
be
most
concerned
about.
N
C
B
And
I
feel,
like
that's
arbitrary,
so
I'm
like
showing
this
as
just
a
random
example.
If
it
would
be
so,
the
only
thing
that's
changing
would
be,
and
I
guess
just
to
say
that
people
would
get
noticed
say
that
parcel
is
changing,
so
it
would
be.
So
are
we
taking
it
from
the
legally
described
parcel
like
I,
like
we
had
discussed,
or
are
we
taking
it
from
the
parent
parcel?
Because
then
we're
then
we're
notifying
all
these
people
that
are
like
a
half
a
mile
away.
F
B
B
N
B
You
can't
have
split
zoning
on
a
lot,
so
if
they're
rezoning
a
property,
they
are
not
going
they're
not
going
to
plat
it
until
they
know
if
it's
rezone,
so
it
would
be
from
the
legally
described
portion
because
why,
like
it,
doesn't
affect
if
we're
saying
that
people
not
even
aggrieved
but
people
within
250
feet
would
feel
affected,
or
that
would
want
to
know
what
was
happening.
So
these
people,
it's
it's
a
half
mile
away.
We.
H
Got
we
got
to
remember,
though,
that
this
all
this
stuff
where
this
has
to
do
with
giving
notice?
So
everything
is
in
the
newspaper
anyway,
so
I
don't
know
why
we
would
try
to
restrict
what
we're
sending
out
notice
for
when,
what's
the
issue
of
just
sending
it
out
to
a
broader
audience,
that's
what
I
guess
we
should
err
on
the
side
of
notice.
We
never
get
in
trouble
for
providing
too
much
notice.
I'll
just
say
that
and.
F
Yeah
I
think
the
struggle
came
in
with
with
this
example
the
first
example
the
compasscare
dunes
and
different
staff
interpretations
of
who
those
mailings
go
out
to
because
we
did
have
a
parcel
that
had
a
proposed
conditional
use
on
it
and
correct
me.
If
I'm
wrong
is
that
planted
yet
brandy
or
and
all
that's.
F
F
So,
in
that
case,
I
guess
a
lot
wasn't
planted
yet,
but
for
the
sake
of
discussion,
let's
say
that
southeast
corner
was
planted
where
the
proposed
storage
units
are
going.
The
discussion
was:
does
the
notice
go
out
from
that
parcel
boundary
or
from
the
whole
parent
parcel
that
that
the
same
gentleman
happened
to
own
and
I?
Think
that's
what
Brandis
wanting
to
get
clarity
on
the
board's
intent
in
that
scenario,
what
you
know
staff
could
use
some
direction
there
on
how
we'd
want
to
proceed
in
those
scenarios.
F
N
Just
gonna
this,
the
last
comma
I'm
gonna,
make
regarding
this
and
situation.
If
the
whole
parcel
was
zoned
agricultural
and
all
of
a
sudden,
they
want
to
take
the
little
corner
where
we're
gonna
put
the
storage
units
and
you're
gonna
resume
that
to
our
three
for
the
purposes
of
storage
units.
I
think
everybody
that
touches
that
property
on
the
south
side
of
12th
Avenue
should
again
should
get
a
notice.
Even
though
they're
further
than
250
feet
away,
they.
N
B
B
I
specifically
put
in
here
because
of
our
last
discussion
at
June
on
June
4th
that
I
went
that
it
didn't
go
back
and
listen
to
and
we
we
talked
about
competitive
dunes
and
this
situation,
and
so
I
did
put
in
here
that
it
would
be
including
okay,
so
notice
shall
be
given
to
the
landowners
within
250
feet,
including
including
the
width
of
the
public
right
away
from
the
legally
described
property
requesting
a
conditional
use.
So
that
would
be
what
was
on
the
application.
But.
D
B
C
A
A
A
N
M
B
F
C
N
Do
want
to
make
a
little
comment.
I,
you
know,
I
understand
the
reasoning
for
certified
letters
and
I.
Wasn't
there
at
the
fourth
you
and
fourth
meeting
I
apologize,
but
I
didn't
watch
it.
You
know
part
of
the
reasoning
behind
the
certified
letter
process
has
always
been
especially
in
Board
of
Adjustment
actions.
If
we're
requiring
it
to
be
mailed.
How
do
you
have
proof
that
the
mailing
was
done
when
you
get
to
post
and-
and
basically
that's
happened
to
me
before
in
the
past?
N
I,
don't
think
you
need
to
have
them
certified,
there's
an
extra
cost,
it's
kind
of
nice
to
have
it.
But
if
you
I've
also
been
involved
in
court
cases-
and
it's
been-
it's
been
upheld
that
as
long
Britany
is
when
you
send
out
those
notices
that
you
create
an
affidavit
that
you
sign,
that
the
notices
were
sent
out
on
this
day
and
you
know
that's
punishable
under
perjury.
So
I
think
that
would
suffice.
C
B
I
I
wanted
the
ordinance
amendment
to
make
it
more
clean
and
consistent
where,
if
it's
I
mean
and
I,
don't
know
what
that
will
look
like
it'll,
just
be
one
page
to
say
when
it
was
sent
out,
but
there's
actually
really
never
proof,
then
that
they
did
receive
it.
I
just
don't
want
to
create
more
work
or
confusion.
B
N
It's
good,
I
think
the
more
the
more
the
notice
is,
the
better
I
think
you
know
again
in
Madison
you,
the
only
real
requirement
in
statutory
is
that
it
needs
to
be
a
public
notice
published
in
a
newspaper
10
days
before
we're
going
more
over
and
above
and
if
you're
and
if
we
put
the
sign
in
on
the
conditional
uses.
That's
that's
also
good
knowledge
requirement
and
as
long
as
you
are
doing
due
diligence
and
you're
attesting
that
I
sent.
A
H
N
Because
when
you
make
a
requirement
that
male
has
to
go
out
and
and
Matt
will
tell
you
the
first
question,
they're
gonna
nail
you
on
is
this
is
gonna
be,
did
you
follow
your
process?
Oh
yeah,
I
mailed
it
and
somebody
says
well,
I
didn't
get
my
letter.
Well,
that's
fine!
As
long
as
we
have
some
sort
of
a
statement
saying
that
we
did
what
we
said,
we
were
going
to
do
whether
the
mail
got
there
or
not.
It's
really
not
on
us.
C
A
N
That
something
more
beyond
this,
we
say
at
this
point:
I
don't
mean
to
talk
over
you.
The
requirement
is
24
by
18,
which
is
statutorily
required.
We
can
do
that
and
then
can't.
We
allow
staff
the
discretion
to
determine
what
the
color
the
sign
should
be,
how
how
it
gets
implemented,
how
it
gets
placed
on
the
property
I
mean.
N
N
A
N
B
B
D
A
A
C
Bill
sparker,
so
my
only
concern
would
be
is,
if
you
leave
it
up
to
the
discretion
of
the
applicant
for
the
conditional
use,
how
that
sign
is
gonna,
be
placed
where
it's
gonna
be
facing.
The
visibility
of
it,
and
so
forth
is
also
going
to
be
subject
to
their.
You
know
their
discretion
and
I'd
rather
see
it
where
the
city
was
the
one
that
was
providing
and
also
placing,
and
then
that
cost
would
be.
You
know
upon
the
applicant
for
the
conditional
use.
F
The
sandwich
type
sign
boards
made
by
communities
to
where
there
aren't
any
posts
needed.
There's
lots
of
ways
to
get
creative
with
that
with
that
sign
and
how
its
placed
and
by
whom
it's
placed
but
I
agree
with
the
concept
of
somebody
knowing
we're
supposed
to
go.
Placing
the
sign
I
completely
agree
with
that
I
would
just
express
concern
over
like
we
talked
about
the
last
meeting.
Trying
to
streamline
the
process
and
keep
it
efficient
for
staff
processing
purposes
could.
N
N
Think
again,
I
think
MIT.
Mr.
Chawla
thought
the
question
on
this.
We're
getting
you
know,
question
is:
do
we
want
to
I
guess
the
amendments
would
be
that
number
three
under
conditional
uses
number
five
under
variance
and
under
procedure.
It
would
say
adjacent
and
within
two
hundred
fifty
feet
and
that
a
sign
provided
by
the
city
must
be
posted
by
the
applicant.
B
A
N
A
N
A
A
B
A
C
A
B
Thank
You
Blake,
so
this
is
Commission
consideration
of
resolution.
Number
20
20-30
is
owning
text
amendment
to
chapter
21,
10,
summary
of
district
regulations
of
the
revised
ordinances
of
the
city
of
Watertown.
So
this
is
another
ordinance
amendment,
as
chairman
Dali
had
explained
or
said
stated,
and
this
goes
back
to
a
discussion
we
had
last
year
and
because
obviously
I
did
not
recall
it
from
memory.
I
did
listen
back
to
here
where
we
had
landed
and
then
so.
This
is
just
memorializing
it
to
get
it
in
the
books.
B
So
we
had
talked
about
properties
adjacent
to
Lake,
Camp,
ESCO
or
Lake
Pelican,
right
now
and
and
specifically
pertaining
to
docks
and
decks.
Now
we
might
end
up
striking
a
portion
about
the
docks,
but
we'll
get
we'll
get
into
that,
but
basically
there's
a
so
at
the
lakes.
The
front
yard
is
a
30-foot
setback,
so
the
front
yard
is
the
lake
side.
Typically
front
yards
are
adjacent
to
the
street,
but
at
the
lake
it
is
backwards.
B
So
right
now
it's
there's
a
30-foot
front
yard
setback
from
the
ordinary
high
water
mark
of
the
lakes
and
then,
where
your
structures,
which
typically
decks,
are
treated,
they
have
the
same
setbacks
as
the
primary
structure.
So
they
would
have
to
comply
with
the
30-foot
setback
unless
it
was
a
patio
where
there
wasn't
any
height
to
it,
where
it
was
just
on
the
ground,
then
that
could
be
within
the
setback,
but
so
what
this
ordinance
is
proposing,
and
so
it's
stating
decks.
So
this
is
where
it
states
decks.
B
She'll,
observe
the
same
setbacks
as
primary
structures,
see
the
table.
Decks
adjacent
to
Lake,
Camp,
Eska
and
Lake
Pelican
may
observe
a
zero
foot
front
yard
setback
in
which
decking
flourish
shall
not
rise
above
the
establish
grade
at
the
30
foot
front
yard
setback
boundary
only
to
allow
for
guardrails
limited
to
necessary
installation
pursuant
to
international
code
and
that's
very
wordy,
but
it
was
actually
kind
of
hard
to
try
to
put
words
together
to
hopefully
accomplish
we
want
so
this
more.
B
So
if
you
think
about
properties
at
the
lake
where
they
sloped
down
and
as
long
as
that
deck
was
not
rising
above
the
grade,
the
established
grade
where
the
house
wouldn't
be
able
to
pass
so
if
there's
the
house
is
setback
30
feet,
the
deck
would
not
be
able
to
be
taller
within
that
setback,
then
what
it
would
be
allowed
to
be
if
it
was
attached
to
the
house.
So
when
you're
going.
So
if
you
are
losing
grade
and
you're
sloping
down
as
long
as
you're
not
going,
you
can
extend
it
from
that
elevation.
B
C
O
All
right,
I
drew
this
up
for
my
own
understanding
and
what
we're
talking
about
on
Lake,
Camp,
Eska
and
Lake
Pelican.
The
ordinary
high
water
mark
is
the
property
boundary
and
the
setback
is
30
feet
from
that.
So,
if
you
can
picture
the
lake
is
over
here
and
here's
the
ordinary
high
water
level
of
the
lake
30
feet
back
from
that.
C
B
O
So
anyway,
30
feet
back
from
the
ordinary
high
water
mark
is
the
setback,
and
so
where
that
setback
lands,
when
it
intersects
with
the
ground,
is
the
elevation
at
the
ordinary,
high
water
or
at
the
setback
line.
So
if
you
have
a
house
with
a
deck
sticking
out
from
it
beyond
the
setback,
you
could
potentially
block
someone's
view
and
we
don't
want
to
block
someone's
view
right
now.
You
cannot
build
like
that.
That's
why
I
said
no.
O
It
you're
building
into
the
setback,
and
so
the
proposed
ordinance
change
would
allow
decks
to
be
built
at
the
lake
into
the
setback,
if
they're
at
that
ordinary
high
water
level
or
lower
than
so.
In
this
second
illustration,
it's
the
same
house
position
and
the
same
deck
elevation,
but
that
has
to
stop
at
the
setback
line.
O
D
D
O
Now
you
you
couldn't
build
a
deck
like
just
forget:
the
house
is
there,
you
can't
have
a
deck
on,
and
people
do
so
many
people
do
I.
Do
it's
I
mean
all
my
neighbors?
Do
it's
at
the
ground
level?
It's
like
a
patio
and
it's
not
blocking
anybody's
view,
but
you
can
imagine
a
situation
where
it
might,
and
this
came
up
in
a
staff
meeting
where
we
measured
back
and
the
person
wasn't
actually
requesting
to
go
beyond
the
setback
line.
O
K
This
is
a
good
ordinance
and
I
really
think.
We
should
include
an
illustration
like
that
in
the
ordinance,
if
possible,
just
because
it
is
a
lot
easier
to
see
then
read
it
on
something
like
this
like
when
you
fill
the
picture.
I
can
see
the
difference
between
the
no
and
the
yes,
but
reading
it
it's
hard
to
visualize
that.
So
thank
you
for
providing
that
picture.
Well,.
O
I
had
to
drive
myself
to
understand
what
the
word
said
and
and
you're
right.
If
I
have
to
draw
it
to
understand
it,
how
do
we
expect
a
citizen
to
understand
it?
We
want
it
to
be
clear
and
the
whole
point
is
to
protect
views,
while
still
allowing
some
use
down
by
the
lake
that-
and
normally
this
only
applies
at
the
lake.
You
can't
build
in
the
setback,
otherwise,
so
only
Dex.
D
B
B
So
the
other
part
it
was
Docs
adjacent
to
Lake,
Camp,
Eska
or
Lake
Pelican
have
a
zero
foot
step
back.
The
only
reason
that
was
included
is
because,
when
a
dock
is
resting
on
a
permanent
foundation,
then
it's
considered
a
structure.
So
if
it's
within
that
setback,
even
though
they
are
temporary
and
they
are
removed,
you
would
imagine
just
cleaning
that
up.
So
there
was
no
question
now.
They
also
extend
usually
beyond
the
property
boundary
which
is
kind
of
out
of
our
jurisdiction,
but
at
least
at
least
then
we're
not
we're
not.
A
E
Can
you
hear
me
I'm
in
sir
okay?
Thank
you
if
we
could
just
go
back
to
the
the
decks
for
a
moment?
Is
there
anything
in
the
ordinance
that
will
prevent
someone
if
we're
worried
if
we're
trying
to
preserve
the
sight
lines
for
adjacent
properties
and
neighbors
that
will
prevent
someone
from
building
something
on
top
of
that
deck,
for
instance
an
arbor
or
put
up
a
big
sunshade
on
poles?
E
B
And
that
was
a
big.
We
wanted
to
make
sure
to
consider
that
and
to
not
allow
that,
and
so
that's
why
we
said
only
to
allow
for
guardrails
limited
to
necessary
installation
pursuant
to
international
code.
So
only
if
a
guardrail
was
necessary
for
safety
purposes
by
the
code
is
the
only
thing
that
would
have
any
height
difference.
E
E
A
F
Yeah,
it's
good
question
to
that
point:
I'm
wondering
if
that
language
reads
clearly
I
was
struggling.
Interpreting
it
and
tell
brandy.
Tell
us
discussion
just
happened
where
it
says:
30
foot,
front
yard
setback
boundary
only
to
allow
for
guardrails
limited
to
the
necessary
installation
pursuant
to
the
international
code.
Should
we
expand
on
that
that
only
to
allow
for
something
to
do
with
additional
height
obstruction
or
guardrails
I?
Think.
B
B
O
O
F
A
I've
got
a
I've,
got
a
further
question
and
I
guess
kind
of
looking
at
the
the
drawing
that
you
had
up
there.
Madam
mayor,
where
you
do
have
a
substantial
decrease
in
elevation
down
to
the
the
lake,
what
if
a
person
could
have
a
deck
that
was
had
a
pergola
attached,
but
the
top
of
the
pergola
was
still
below
the
elevation
at
the
30
foot
mark.
O
Only
decking
floor
yeah,
so
if
30
feet
back
from
your
front
yard,
setback
is
15
feet
in
the
air
and
you're
only
building
your
your
deck
back
from
the
water
15
feet
back.
You
know
right
in
the
middle,
it's
very
possible
if
you
had
a
steep
Bank
that
you
could
have
something
higher
than
a
rail.
But
the
key
point
is
that
it
does
not
extend
above
the
established
grade
at
the
30
foot
front
yard,
setback
line,
yeah.
A
If
that's
the
intention,
where
we
just
don't
want
anything
to
extend
past
that
30
foot
mark
I,
think
we
do
need
to
change
the
wording
a
little
bit,
because
we
do
certainly
have
some
of
those
situations
on
the
Lots
that
have
extensive
terracing
requirements
where
they
certainly
have
more
than
just
a
handrail
extending
up.
But
they
don't
pass
the.
A
D
O
Those
things
are
illegal
right
now
they
they
built
most
likely
without
a
permit.
Just
thinking,
I
didn't
need
one,
and
we
don't
want
to
make
everything
legal
necessarily
if
it
requires
a
building
permit.
The
answer
is
most
likely
going
to
be.
No
decks
are
different
and
I
mean,
if
someone's
going
to
claim
that
their
elaborate
gate
and
arch
is
part
of
their
deck.
I
mean
I,
don't
know,
we
don't
want
everybody
to
be
illegal
with
them.
The
minor
things
that
aren't
intrusive,
I.
N
Think
this
is
a
good
I
think
this
is
good.
I.
Think
I
agree
with
the
accept,
as
opposed
to
only
I.
Think
the
putting
in
the
drawing
is
gonna
be,
will
help,
explain
everything
and,
and
you
you
run
with
it
until
somebody
tries
to
do
something
that
you're
not
comfortable
with,
and
then
we
change
it
them.
F
B
C
C
B
B
C
B
B
B
It
does
not
meet
the
county's
minimum
lot
size
requirement
to
get
a
building
permit.
So
that
is
why
we
are.
They
are
proposing
to
annex
--an
zone
into
the
city,
and
then
they
would
combine
it.
They
would
read
plat
their
lot
and
create
one
lot
and
be
able
to
achieve
a
building.
Permit
simple,
as
I
thought
that
was
gonna
be
mark.
B
Meyer,
with
municipal
utilities
have
brought
up
the
the
sewer
water,
their
consent
decree
between
Watertown
municipal
utilities
and
sewer
water
systems,
and
we
had
city
staff
had
reviewed
the
consent
decree
and
thought
that
by
combining
them
into
one
lot,
this
lot
has
already
served
by
utilities
and
there
is
also
a
fee
that
goes
along
with
it.
So
and
Mark
can
kind
of
explain
that
a
little
deeper
but
they're
concerned
about
the
fee
water
tell
municipal
utilities
is
when
I
talk
to
the
applicant.
B
D
B
B
N
H
Agree
with
you,
I,
don't
I
think
that
you
know
I.
Having
heard
what
Jack's
interpretation
of
what
the
consent
decrees
purpose
was
I,
don't
and
discussing
this
internally
was
our
understanding
and
our
position
that
this
was
not.
This
was
an
obvious
situation
where
the
fee
would
be
old
and
that
we
would
invite
them
to
challenge
that
interpretation.
N
And
maybe
I
could
also
bring
something
to
the
table.
I
used
to
be
the
zoning
officer
for
the
county
many
moons
ago,
and
there
are
several
other
garages
built
on
on
lots
that
are
in
the
county
as
opposed
to
the
Lots
in
city
and
the
reason
for
that
was
back
in
the
day
those
planted
Lots.
They
came
in
and
got
it.
They
came
in
to
get
a
permit.
N
N
Basically,
the
city,
the
county,
is
saying:
we
need
to
talk
to
the
city
first,
on
this
joint
jurisdiction
issue,
and
if,
if
the
city
does
not
want
to
annex
it
would
come
back
before
the
joint
jurisdiction
board
and
then
it
would
they
would
they
could
process
it
that
way
and
and
then
attach
a
condition
to
the
variance
but
I'm,
not
exactly
certain.
That
makes
no
sense.
F
A
L
We
would
be
fine
with
the
annexation
if
the
owner
of
the
land
is
willing
to
pay
the
$8,900
fee
to
sue
rural
water.
It's
not
that
we're
against
annexation.
It's
just.
How
would
the
utilities
recoup
the
eighty
nine
hundred
dollar
fee?
If,
because
it's
just
gonna,
be
a
shop?
There's
no
water
use
back
there
or
anything.
That
was
our
concern,
so
we
would
be.
The
utilities
would
be
against
it,
the
annexation
of
it
without
the
owner
being
willing
to
pay
the
$8,900.
L
N
D
N
Lots
those
those
structures
on
those
County
Lots
have
been
given
variances
to
have
those
things
be
located
there
up
until
the
point
in
time
that
the
city
requests
that
they
be
annexed
into
the
city
and
the
only
reason
that
they're
being
treated
differently
than
mr.
borkus
was
that
they
were.
Those
requests
were
processed
prior
to
joint
jurisdictional
zoning.
Now
mr.
borkus,
if
he
chooses
not
to
pay
the
fee,
which
in
many
ways
to
me,
seems
more
like
an
exaction
than
anything.
N
And
if
we
decide
not
to
approve
the
the
annexation
and
zoning
we
can,
theoretically,
he
could
come
back
to
the
joint
zoning
board
and
ask
to
do
it
in
the
joint
jurisdiction
area.
But
a
variance
would
have
to
be
granted
and
I.
Think
that's
where
mr.
Muller
was
saying
it
would
be
cleaner
if
we
could
just
get
him
into
the
city,
because
he's
already
in
the
city
already.
K
B
L
L
What
I
think
he
was
telling
me
is
that
the
process
is
to
bring
it
to
the
city
first,
and
if
the
city
denies
it,
he
couldn't
guarantee
that
the
county
would
give
a
variance,
but
based
on
other
situations,
he
believed
that
it
would
be
favorable
that
the
county
would
give
a
variance
if
the
city
didn't
annex
it
that
the
garage
could
still
happen.
Wait.
B
Which
was
news
to
me
just
before
this
meeting
but
I?
Don't
really,
though,
from
an
annexing
standpoint
that
does
not
meet
the
city
or
the
county
building
permit
requirements.
So
when
it's
adjacent
to
city
limits,
it
really
should
be
annexed
and
then
it
would
meet
our
requirements
now,
as
far
as
if
sewer
water
would
would
charge
utilities,
then
you
would
turn
and
charge
the
applicant
which
we
made
him
aware
of
and
he
wants
up,
but.
N
You
can't
you
can't
hold
the
fee
to
the
annexation,
that's
an
exaction
and
I.
Don't
we
don't
need
to
get
into
what
an
exaction
is
or
is
not,
but
I
mean
he
doesn't
need
the
city
water
he's
already
getting
city
water
right
now,
and
so,
when
you
bite
by
holding
him
hostage
to
paying
a
fee
that
he
doesn't
need
for
service
that
he's
already
receiving
in
order
to
get
an
annexation
and
a
zoning
requirement,
it's
an
exaction
is.
L
B
L
Right,
well,
not
only
that
but
I
believe
that
the
owner
isn't
probably
wanting
water
in
there,
but
this
isn't
based
on
whether
they
want
water
or
not
it's
based
on
when
we
take
their
territory,
so
even
if
they
never
want
water
back
there.
The
way
we
understand
this
agreement
is
that
once
we
take
their
territory
by
becoming
City
Limits,
that's
what
triggers
the
$8,900,
not
if
they
ever
want
water
or
not.
C
I
F
B
C
C
C
H
You
I
was
just
gonna,
I
guess
make
a
couple
comments,
so
it
seems
like
there's,
there's
two
issues
here,
and
this
is
the
first
time
we've
had
two
rubbers
met
the
road
on
this
agreement
and
it
seems
that
there's
clearly
a
disagreement
amongst
legal
interpretations
and
so
I
think
the
first
step
would
be
to
perhaps
for
me
and
the
utilities
attorney
mr.
Foley
and
the
attorneys
that
were
involved
in
this
mr..
H
He
bought
of
Aberdeen
to
converse
on
this,
because
the
first
question
is
whether
or
not
this
fee
is
owed
and
if
we
don't
believe
the
fee
is
owed,
we
should
stand
by
that
interpretation
and
move
forward
as
if
the
fee
is
not
owed
and
lets
you
roll
water
challenge
us
on
that
interpretation,
and
the
second
question
is:
if
it
is
owed,
then
the
question
is:
who
pays
these
fees
and
I
think
that
that's
a
larger
question
that
probably
needs
to
be
discussed,
because
this
is
a
recent
development.
This
was
two
or
three
years
ago.
H
This
consent
agreement
was
entered
into,
and
so
obviously,
by
entering
into
the
city
properties.
The
city
benefits
as
well
as
utilities
Department
of
the
city
benefits
by
getting
increased
customers
on
properties
that
are
actually
they
are
actually
building
a
structure
on
and
so
I
think.
That's
the
second
point,
but
regardless
of
the
outcome
of
those
two
discussions
here,
if
you
recommend
the
annexation,
we
can
have
those
discussions
in
the
interim
between
this
active
and
the
council's
the
council.
Taking
this
up.
L
This
is
mark
Meyer
again.
I
would
just
like
to
reiterate
that,
as
it
stands
right
now,
the
utilities
would
be
opposed
to
the
annexation
based
on
what
the
utilities
attorney.
His
opinion
is
how
he
a
vote
is
up
to
you
guys,
but
the
utilities
would
be
opposed
to
it,
as
so,
just
want
to
make
sure
no
that.
F
And
that's
point:
if
I
could
further
that
discussion
a
little
bit
to
Matt's
point
as
staff
knowing
the
opposition
from
utilities,
if
the
board
were
to
pass
us
tonight,
I
like
Matt's
idea
of
getting
with
them
before
the
the
final
decision
goes
to
the
council
for
approval
and
we
could
have
hopefully
have
these
questions
ironed
out
or
be
on
the
same
page
with
the
interpretation
of
that
of
that
ruling.
I
I
think
what
Matt
proposed
seems
ideal.
If
the
board
were
to
approve
this
I
think
that's
how
we
would
move
forward
to
staff
or
is.
N
C
K
Think
I
would
disagree
and
I
think
we
could
go
ahead
and
annex
it,
because
I
think
that's
the
right
thing
for
the
property
and
we
shouldn't
look
at.
You
know
the
price
tag
that
someone's
gonna.
Have
it
a
lot.
That's
too
small
to
be
zone
to
be
built
upon
in
the
counties
when
they
went
to
the
county
yeah
when
they
asked
the
Luke
molar
the
county
zoning
officer
for
a
building
permit.
He
directed
them
to
us
for
annexation.
K
A
It
does
give
me
a
little
bit
of
pause
as
someone
that
has
served
on
that
joint
jurisdiction
board
where
we're
looking
at
something
like
this,
where
it's
just
an
accessory
structure
and
not
a
principal
principal
development
that
it's
not
unreasonable,
that
we
wouldn't
approve
something
like
that
through
the
joint
jurisdiction.
So
I
think
it
could
go
either
way.