►
From YouTube: Plan Commission - 03-04-2021
Description
Plan Commission - 03-04-2021
A
D
C
A
B
A
A
A
C
E
A
A
E
A
B
A
A
C
Thank
you
blake,
so
this
is
commission
consideration
of
resolution
number
2020-4
2021-14
as
dahle
stated
amending
the
zoning
map
of
the
city
of
watertown
for
a
portion
of
river
ridge
estates
edition
from
a1
agricultural
district,
r1,
single-family,
residential
district,
so
for
proximity
here
I'll
pull
up
the
vicinity
map
river
ridge
estates
on
the
northwest
side
of
town.
Just
oh,
you
want
me
to
share
my
screen.
F
C
Sorry
about
that,
okay,
so
river
ridge
estates,
up
in
the
northwest
side
of
town,
just
north
of
14th
and
then
west
of
second
street
northwest
they're
proposing
to
rezone,
like
they
typically
do
when
they're
biting
off
another
chunk
of
their
subdivision,
and
so
this
portion
was
already
annexed
and
zoned
brought
in
as
a
agricultural
district
and
then
now
they're
rezoning
to
r1.
This
is
consistent
with
the
preliminary
plan
that
was
approved
for
this
subdivision,
and
then
you
guys
would
be
seeing
a
plat
and
development
agreement
coming
forward
as
well.
C
But
I
know
there's
always
a
lot
of
discussion.
We've
talked
a
lot
about
this
subdivision
with
the
park,
dedication
that
was
taken
care
of
with
river
ridge
7th
edition.
So
you
can
see
lot
21
here
that
that
is
the
park
that
is
dedicated
and
I
believe
that
park
and
rec
has
some
plans
to
get
some
development
happening
with
that
park.
So
that'll
be
a
nice
addition
to
that
subdivision.
A
C
A
C
So
they
will
actually
just
be
doing
riley
drive
and
then
this
portion,
the
reason
they're
rezoning.
All
of
it
right
now
is
because
the
detention
pond
area
is
up
here
where
you
can
see
my
cursor,
so
they
will
they'll
be
plotting
this
as
an
outlet
just
so
they
have
so
the
plat.
So
the
lots
are
contiguous
for
the
plot.
So
then
they
will
come
in
later
and
then
re-subdivide
further
when
they
extend
cheyenne
lane
up
along
with
2nd
street
and
then
install
24th
ave.
A
G
C
C
E
B
C
And
so
it
was
actually
just
dedicated
last
year,
so
the
park
and
rec
department
has,
you
know
their
their
plans,
their
long-term
plans
where
so
they
did.
They
have
put
it's
basically
being
developed
in
an
expedited
expedited
fashion,
so
that
because
this
area
has
not
had
a
park
for
many
years
and
then
since
the
developer
did
dedicate
the
land
we
do
want
to
utilize
a
portion
of
it
at
least.
H
C
B
C
A
A
C
A
E
C
C
C
B
H
C
J
B
B
A
B
E
B
C
C
All
right,
thank
you
blake.
So
this
is
a
zoning
text,
amendment
to
chapter
21,
12,
a1,
agricultural
district
of
the
revised
ordinances
of
the
city
of
watertown,
adding
bar
or
tavern
as
a
conditional
use.
So
it's
pretty
straightforward
there.
You
know
when
we
look
at
these
different
districts.
Sometimes
there
is
a
missing
use
and
if
it
especially,
if
we're
adding
it
as
a
conditional
use,
it's
not
detrimental
because
the
board
is
still
reviewing
any
application.
That
would
be
utilizing
that
now
for
full
transparency.
C
The
reason
this
was
brought
to
our
attention
is
looking
at
the
new
airport
terminal
and
their
desire
to
have
a
restaurant
that
could
serve
alcohol
in
there
was
their
desire
reason.
We
considered
rezoning
the
airport,
that's
a
larger
task
because
of
potential
faa
guidelines,
so
we
we
thought
this
route
would
not
be
detrimental
for
the
community
as
a
whole.
A
F
I
I
understand
that,
as
a
board
of
adjustment,
we
would
have
the
ability
to
hear
a
bar
tavern
request
in
the
egg
zone,
but
realistically,
if
they
meet
all
the
requirements
of
a
liquor,
license
it's
a
general
and
it's
a
listed
use.
It's
generally
compatible.
I
don't
know
what
the
basis
for
denial
would
be
my
recommendation.
B
H
One
thing
that
just
chairman,
if
I,
if
I
may
this
is
stacy-
I
was
just
thinking
about
this,
and
we
do
have
a
bit
of
a
dilemma
here
with
trying
to
rezone.
The
airport.
I
understand
would
be
very,
very
difficult
with
all
of
the
faa
rules
and
things,
and
we
certainly
would
like
to
have
the
opportunity
to
have
a
bar
restaurant.
H
That
is
something
that
I
believe
that
the
airport
would
like
to
they'd
like
to
move
forward
with,
and
the
city
would
like
to
move
forward
with
so
hence
I
also
understand
the
dilemma
with
having
the
egg
kind
of
as
a
holding
zone,
if
you
will
for
undeveloped
properties.
So
I'm
wondering
if
it
would
be
something
that
we
would
want
to
write
a
list
of
conditions
for.
A
Yeah,
I
think,
like
mr
case
had
mentioned,
that
you
know
attaching
some
additional
conditions
on
where
we
think
this
is
appropriate.
Besides
just
allowing
it
as
a
conditional
use
within
the
zoning
district,
I
don't.
I
don't
think
it's
unreasonable
to
to
think
that
we
want
to
narrow
this
down
a
little
bit
and
not
not
keep
it
so
wide
open.
C
So
just
some
thoughts
there
too.
So
this
came.
We
did.
We
did
meet
about
this
and
try
to
come
up
with
options
on
the
best
route
to
go.
I
guess
they're
typically
so
just
conditions
for
if
it's
in
the
a1
district
I
mean,
because
even
if
it
is
in
the
a1
district,
you
still
would
I
don't
you
would
review
a
through,
but
you
so
are
you
guys
talking?
You
would
want
conditions
just
for
the
bar
tavern
in
the
agricultural
district.
A
F
Would
basically
be
just
a
performance
standard
that
if
somebody
was
to
come
in
and
ask
for
a
bar
tavern
in
the
a1,
we
have
a
list
of
four
things
that
you
have
to
tap
into
or
hit
in
order
to
for
the
board
to
approve
it.
Because
again,
I
I'm
of
a
firm
belief
that
if
I
come
in
and
I
meet
the
licensing
requirements,
you
know
for
the
city
to
get
a
malt
beverage
or
a
liquor
license
and
the
property
is
adequately
zoned
and
the
use
is
listed.
F
At
this
second,
I'm
speaking,
please,
and
so
in
my
perspective-
is
that
I
think
you
can
put
together
a
list
of
the
four
things
that
we
would
want
to
see:
eddie
bar
and
tavern
to
be
located
on
agriculturally
zoned
property,
of
which
I
would
suggest
that
that
would
have
to
be
owned.
Our
owned
property
would
have
to
be
a
public
property
that
would
be
the
most
principled
one
and
then,
if
there's
other
things,
people
would
want
to
throw
at
it.
That'd
be
okay,
too.
J
J
Here
pub
works
director.
That's
great
great
point,
commissioner.
Hayes
I'm
wondering
just
looking
at
the
conditional
uses
just
food
for
thought,
you're
throwing
out
ideas.
We
do
have
the
airports
and
airstrips
listed
as
a
conditional
use.
That's
obviously
the
function
that's
going
out
at
this
particular
location
where
we're
where
we
have
a
known
upcoming
use
related
to
bar
taverns.
J
I
wonder
if
simply
amending
this
airports
and
airstrips
conditional
use
to
include
a
bar
tavern
is
that
you
folks
in
the
zoning
world
that
know
more
about
that
than
I
do,
and
maybe
matt's
opinion
is,
is
something
like
that
feasible
to
accomplish
what
we're
desiring
here?
What
what
I
was
going
to
add.
C
I'm
I
was
going
to
add
something
there
as
far
as
the
and,
if
we
yeah
okay,
perfect
the
hand
tool
we're
good
if
we
are
going
to
okay.
So
if
somebody
is
going
to
get
a
conditional
use
in
the
a1
zone,
they
have
to
have
35
acres
and
they
would
have
to
be
able
to
plat
that
if
they
wanted
to
build
a
structure
to
utilize
the
bar
tavern
conditional
use.
So
that
does
limit
properties
to
a
certain
extent
as
well.
A
F
Thank
you.
I
was
just
thinking
following
up
on
what
heath
was
throwing
at
it
I
mean.
Theoretically,
you
could
consider
a
bar
tavern
as
an
accessory
used
to
the
airport
as
a
possibility,
because
the
airport
is
a
principal
use.
That's
going
on
and
there's
I
mean,
there's
baggage
handling,
there's
car
rentals,
there's
all
kinds
of
things
that
are
happening
and
associated
associated
with
a
with
an
airport
of
which
restaurant
and
or
bar
tavern
would
could
also
be
included
as
part
of
that,
and
so
theoretically,
in
that
ag
zone.
A
Yeah,
I
thought
about
that
too.
Todd
in
relation
to
you
know
allowing
it
as
long
as
it
was
a
secondary
use
or
an
accessory
used
to
a
principal
approved
conditional
use.
But
I'm
not
sure
we
want
to
say
that
you
know
across
the
board
to
all
the
conditional
uses
that
we
have
within
that
district
either.
F
Agricultural
uses
are
just
that
they
are.
They
are
a
district
where
there's
little
of
anything
going
on
other
than
an
incidental
home
or
farm
or
crop
ground.
Those
types
of
things-
and
you
take
a
look
at
what
we're
doing
here
right
now,
it's
in
the
existing
zone,
it's
what's
what's
what's
the
basis
for
it.
B
J
D
D
H
Mr
chair,
this
is
stacy,
if
I
me,
if
I
may,
I'm
just
looking
up
here
in
the
ordinance-
and
this
may
help
the
the
commission
a
little
bit,
I'm
looking
at
the
definition
of
use
which
does
include
accessory
and
principle
and
or
primary
use.
So
if
I'm
looking
at
the
accessories
section
of
the
use,
it
says
a
subordinate
use
which
is
clearly
and
customarily
incidental
to
the
principal
use
of
a
building
or
premise
and
which
is
located
on
the
same
lot
as
the
principal
building
or
use.
H
B
H
F
I'm
in
the
I'm
in
agreement
with
staff
and
stacy
there
that
there's
been
very
few
airports.
I've
walked
into
that.
Doesn't
that
you
can't
get
a
cocktail
in
and
I'm
pretty
sure
that
when
stapleton
was
put
in
place
that
they
didn't
have
to
get
a
permit
for
a
bar
restaurant
or
any
of
those
types
of
things.
So
to
me
I
think
it's
ancillary
to
the
principal
use
and-
and
I
don't
know
if
you
technically
need
to
list
it
as
a
as
its
own
use
by
right.
J
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
maybe
just
pose
a
question
to
matt
here
from
a
licensing
standpoint.
Matt,
do
you
see
any
conflict
with
us
securing
a
license
or
a
vendor
securing
a
license?
Under
these
circumstances,
I
I
like
the
direction
we're
going
is
keeping
it
simple.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
run
any
roadblocks
later
on
when
it
comes
to
licensing.
D
C
J
I
that
was
in
the
back
of
my
mind
too
stace
or
brandy.
Excuse
me,
and
I
don't
know
if
it
specifically
says
that
somewhere
in
the
zoning
ordinance,
but
that's
why
I
asked
that
question.
In
the
back
of
my
mind,
I
thought
too
that
it
was
somehow
tied
to
this
conditional
use
of
bar
tavern,
specifically
throughout
the
zoning
ordinance.
But
maybe
that's
not
the
case.
H
So
this
is
stacy
again.
If
I,
if
I
may,
I
think
it
would
be
appropriate
to
go
forth
with
the
conditional
use
either
amending
the
one
for
the
airport
that
we
already
have
on
file
or
simply
getting
one.
If
we,
presumably,
we
do
have
one
on
file,
but
if
we
wouldn't,
we
would
get
that
corrected
for
the
airport,
but
also
adding
in
with
as
a
as
an
ancillary
use
or
accessory
use.
So
that
would
provide
an
opportunity
for
public
comment.
C
C
F
I
I
still
think
that,
if,
if
we're
all
in
general
agreement
that
a
bar
tavern
is
normally
accessory
to
the
principal
structure
of
an
airport-
and
there
are,
there
is
nothing
in
the
ordinance
that
defines
it
ties
the
conditional
use
permit
or
a
bar
tavern
to
requiring
a
zoning
board
action.
If
I
was
to
come
in
as
the
applicant
company
x,
that
comes
to
the
city
to
get
a
bar
tavern
license
to
sell
my
wares
inside
the
airport,
which
is
owned
by
the
city
of
watertown,
and
this
zoning
staff
approves
that
permit.
F
D
D
A
F
Maybe
it's
maybe
it's
not
just
bar
tavern
as
its
whole
use.
Maybe
it's
a
bar
tavern
associated
with
an
airport,
then
you're
very
specific
to
what
you're
asking
us
to
do
and
that
and
that
that
takes
it.
I
guess
you
know
you
could
be
like.
Like
I
said
you
see
the
bar
tavern
with
an
airport,
a
zoo,
a
public
park,
those
types
of
things
where
you,
where
you
want
to
allow
this
on
public
property.
G
H
A
D
Yeah
we've
as
far
as
special
event,
temporary
licenses,
we've
recently
basically
divorced
the
zoning
aspect
of
them.
So
any
special
event
license
just
goes
directly
to
the
city
council
and
they
can
be
approved
anywhere
in
the
city
and
it's
you
know
their
temporary
nature
and
it's
you
know.
The
city
council
is
supposed
to
contemplate
the
location
as
well
and
they're
in
their
decision
making.
A
G
Well,
since
we're
opening
cans
of
worms,
how
about
if
we
throw
this
on
at
matt,
let's
just
say
that
company
xyz
does
want
to
you
know,
comes
with
a
liquor
and
it's
only
spelled
out
that
a
city
entity
can
do
it.
Do
we
have?
What
shall
I
say
you
know
it's
not
fair.
In
all
fairness,
would
there
be
any
type
of
repercussion
with
that
saying
you
know?
Well,
that's
that's
illegal!
You
discrimination!
There's
the
word
I'm
looking
for,
so
I'm
just
throwing
that
out.
There
matt.
D
J
A
I
I
think
at
this
time
you
know,
given
some
of
these
open
questions,
that
we've
got
and
questions
about
other
areas
within
the
ordinance.
I
think
it
would
be
pertinent
to
take
a
little
additional
time
see
if
there's
you
know
more
cleanup
that
we
need
to
do
before
we
take.
You
know,
maybe
a
hasty
action
here.
I
don't
think
there's
a
pressing
need
to
do
this
at
this
meeting
today,
so
miss
ford.
Did
you
have
something
to
add.
E
I
was,
I
was
going
to
agree
with
you
on
that
that
I
think
the
prudent
thing
to
do
since
that's
not
an
immediate
need
would
be
to
just
give
the
staff
a
little
more
time
to
flesh
all
these
things
out
and
and
figure
out.
You
know
what
what
the
process
needs
to
be,
so
we
can
go
forward
in
an
appropriate
manner.
B
C
And
we,
so
you
guys
didn't,
don't
feel
like
we
are
just
throwing
something
at
you.
We
did
research
the
ordinance
and
thought
that
this
was
a
route
to
go,
but
just
bringing
your
guys's
concerns,
obviously
we'll
look
into
those
further
and
then
and
yeah.
Maybe
we
can
find
a
way
to
limit
it
with
a
for
governmental
entities.
C
If
you
guys
are
worried
about
this
opening
allowing
bar
and
taverns
in
the
a1
district,
I
I
do
personally
feel
that
there
are
enough
restrictions
within
the
ordinance
that
would
would
not
allow
that
anyway,
because
property
would
have
to
be
preliminary
planned.
We
would
look
at
the
comp
plan.
Things
of
that
nature,
so.
F
I
agree
with
brandy
that
I
think
there
are
other
protections.
My
point
is
is
that
why
are
we
why?
Why
would
we
create
work
if
we
don't
have
to
and
if
we,
and,
if
we're
really
serious
about
allowing
the
zoo
or
the
golf
courses
or
the
airport
or
places
like
that
to
have
bars
and
taverns,
let's
just
just
allow
it
and
we
don't
need
to
make
work
for
either
the
staff
or
the
board
to
address.
B
D
Yes,
currently,
there
is
language
in
the
alcoholic
beverage
licensing
ordinance
that
does
not
allow
for
licenses
in
the
residential
zones
or
the
egg
zone.
So,
regardless
of
how
we
decide
to
proceed
here,
unless
we
do
a
wholesale
rezone
of
the
airport,
we
would
have
to
just
strike
that
reference
in
the
alcoholic
beverage
license
ordinance.
E
D
Well,
I
mean
even
this
yeah
I
mean
it
should
all
it
should
all
happen
concurrently.
You
know
it
doesn't
whether
there's
a
little
overlap
or
not.
You
know
that'll
that'll
be
happening
now
that
we've
identified
that
whether
one
came
a
few
a
few
weeks
before
the
other
is
not
a
huge
issue,
but
yeah
it'll
be
happening
concurrently.
C
And
that
title
does
not
have
is
not
heard
by
the
plan
commission,
so
we
still
could
bring
the
plan.
Commission
would
have
to
almost
act
on
I
mean
or
the
for
the
alcohol
side
of
it
comes
first
and
striking
that
language
from
council
and
then,
if
planned,
commission
feels
comfortable
making
the
recommendation,
but
still
you're,
not
taking
action.
You
are
recommending
so
then
that
council
would
most
likely
not
approve
that
until
they
came
at
the
same
time,.
A
F
D
D
Are
we
saying
that
we,
the
belief,
is
that
maybe
an
airport,
just
by
its
nature,
we're
just
going
to
acknowledge
without
saying
anywhere
that
alcoholic
beverages
are
allowed
there
or
we're
saying
we're
going
to
define
airport
and
include
kind
of
list,
the
plethora
of
uses
that
can
occur
there
and
and
go
that
route,
because
I
think
it
looks
like
right
now,
the
airport,
the
use
airport
isn't
strictly
defined
just
taking
that
face
value
for
what?
What
we
all
think
it
means
is.
That
was
that
what
we're
thinking
about
doing.
F
I
I
think
that
might
be
the
easiest
thing
to
just
define,
redefine
what
an
airport
is
and
then
within
the
airport
you
can
list
accessory
uses
and
then,
if
we
don't
have
an
accessory
used,
that's
listed
in
there,
then
they
can
always
come
to
the
board
and
ask
for
that.
You
know
discretion
at
that
point
time
to
determine
whether
or
not
the
accessory
use
is
applicable
to
an
airport
by
there.
Then
then,
we're
not
going
wide
open
that
you
can
have
bars
and
taverns
and
exos.
D
Is
obviously
you
know
and
I'll,
just
chime
in
real
quick?
I
mean
we
did.
You
know
we
did
think
through.
Some
of
these
scenarios,
like
brandy,
said,
and
I
think
that
there
was
you
know-
maybe
a
thought
that
the
you
know
it's
possible
sometime
down
the
road.
The
event
like
a
business
like
a
country,
road
barn
will
wanted
to
somebody
want
to
annex
land,
be
egg
egg
zoned
and
have
something
like
that
out
in
egg
land
have
a
bar
or
tap
or
restaurant
or
whatever.
F
B
A
C
All
right,
thank
you,
blake.
This
is
a
zoning
text,
amendment
to
chapter
21,
1002,
residential
height
and
placement
regulation
for
accessory
structures
of
the
revised
ordinances
of
the
city
of
watertown.
So,
like
we've
discussed
previously
as
a
board
about
we,
our
desire
to
increase
the
maximum
sidewall
height.
Currently
in
ordinance,
it
is
10
foot
2
inches,
and
we
would
like
to
see
that
at
12
feet
we
do.
We
have
seen
a
handful
of
variances
that
we
have
allowed
the
12
foot.
C
You
know
we
do
want
people
to
be
able
to
store
their
items
without
it
being
you
know,
with
with
it
still
fitting,
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
then
the
overall
height.
We
are
also
increasing
to
be
20
feet.
It
was.
It
is
currently
18
feet
that
what
then
these
these
numbers
were
derived
from
looking
at
what
other
communities
within
the
state
do
and
how
they
regulate,
and
a
lot
of
them
do
not
regulate
by
sidewall
height
at
all.
C
But
we
did
want
to
still
make
sure
that
we
were
that
people
could
get
pretty
creative.
If
they
could
have
a
detached
structure
at
20
feet,
they
could
have
a
they
could
have
their
pitch
reduced
so
or
is
that
the
right
word
so
they're
rafters,
but
yeah?
They
could
be
flat
almost
and
then
they
could
have
large
sidewalls.
C
You
know
that
include
the
rafters
and
and
whatnot,
and
even
maybe,
if
they,
if
they
are
being
creative
too,
if
they're
doing
a
situation
where
they're
having
like
larger
rafters,
where
they
can
have
a
larger
door
or
something
some
people
do
creative
things.
There
but
still
20
feet
does
seem
reasonable,
because
you
and
the
setbacks
are
still
9
feet.
C
A
C
But
when
you
see
where
it
talks
about
adding
some
things
about
the
allowable
number
of
attached
garages,
that's
going
to
be
a
larger
discussion
and
we'll
we
will
bring
that
up
as
new
business,
and
I
emailed
you
guys
the
amended
resolution,
and
so
that
resolution
only
includes
this
portion
here.
The
structure
is
greater
than
200
square
feet,
that
the
maximum
height
can
be
20
feet
and
then
that
the
sidewall
height
is
12
feet
from
10
foot
two.
A
B
C
A
So
their
principal
structure
can
be.
You
know
that
high
in
the
air
right
next
to
the
property
line
at
the
same
distance,
but
the
accessory
structure
cannot-
and
I
don't
see,
a
significant
difference
from
a
structure
standpoint
itself,
where
I
think
we
need
to
put
more
concern
is
not
necessarily
on
the
height
but
on
the
lot
coverage
and
and
different
things
that
we
can
regulate.
You
know
some
of
that
feeling
of
you
know
too
much
growth
on
a
property
right.
B
A
E
D
E
H
E
So
I
my
proposal
would
be.
I
don't
know
that
we
really
need
this
statement
in
here
matt.
That
was
my
other
question.
Could
we
just
strike
that
or
conform
to
the
design
of
the
house,
or
perhaps
heath
could
answer
that
or
stacy?
If
that's
unnecessary,
we
could
strike
that
and
eliminate
that
possibility
of
conflict.
D
H
This
is
stacy.
I
think
it
would
be
okay
to
strike,
because
if
somebody
did
have
a
very
steeped
pitch
to
their
house
and
wanted
their
garage
to
conform
to
that,
I
don't
think
that
we're
talking
about
a
lot
of
homes,
but
I
think
that
the
variance
would
be
an
appropriate
route
if
we
did
run
into
that
situation
to
for
aesthetically
and
considered
on
a
case-by-case
basis
within
the
board
of
adjustment.
So
I'd
be
comfortable
striking.
It.
C
I
I
might
add
to
that.
I
I
like
that
idea
and
then
also
by
allowing
the
additional
two
feet
in
the
sidewall
and
then
the
maximum
overall
height.
It
should
take
care
of
a
lot
of
issues
like
that.
You
would
have
to
even
have
that
language,
so
I
think
the
addition
giving
the
increase
for
the
heights.
I
think
that
gives
the
flexibility
that
we
need
or
that
applicants
might
need,
but
I
do,
I
think,
that's
nice
to
eliminate
any
just
discretionary
language.
E
Oh,
I
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
I
think
it's
important
when
we
get
a
chance
to
look
at
these
ordinances,
as
we
did
this
the
last
issue
with
the
airport
and
now
this
that
we
try
to
make
things
as
easy
for
the
public
to
understand.
So
there
are
less
questions
and
we
don't
create
questions
that
it's
very
straightforward.
E
D
I
think
brandi
advertises
pretty
broadly
just
referencing
this
section
and
the
statute
does
allow
for
approval
with
or
without
amendment.
So
if
this,
if
the
recommendation
from
the
board
coming
out
here,
is
to
approve
this
with
the
addition
of
striking
out
that
language
there's
no
reason,
we
would
have
to
bring
this
back.
G
I
think
we're
borderline
cluttering
them
and
I've
heard
such
on
the
street.
So
I
I
just
will
you
know
I
for
the
record?
I
would
be
hoping
that
this
can
satisfy
most
people's
desire,
because
any
variances
that
would
come
before
the
board.
If
I
were
on
the
board,
I
would
be
denying
under
no
circumstance
would
I
allow
it
to
go
higher.
A
And,
as
I
mentioned
earlier
too,
I
think
there's
some
additional
areas
of
the
code
that
we
need
to
look
at
in
regards
to
you
know,
lot
coverage
and
different
factors.
You
know
it's
more
than
just
height
that
we
need
to
be
concerned
with
and
when
you're
talking,
clutter
and
and
crowding
out
in
our
residential
zones.
I
think
lot
coverage
is
a
key
aspect
to
that.
G
F
F
A
F
B
C
All
right,
thank
you,
blake,
so
this
is
for
the
approval
of
the
platinum,
dakota,
commons,
8th
edition
and
if,
as
you
guys
are
familiar,
we
have
been.
We've
had
quite
a
few
applications
for
dakota
commons
come
through
in
the
recent
past,
and
so
first
the
we
saw
the
annexation
and
zoning,
and
this
this
property
is
zoned
as
pud
planned
unit
development.
C
So
the
plan
commission
and
city
council
reviewed
those
applications
approved
the
pud
zoning,
and
then
we
brought
forth
the
concept
plan
of
dakota
commons
and
that
was
approved
phases,
one
and
two
were
approved,
and
then
now
we
are
at
the
platting
portion
and
then
so
with
the
new
subdivision
process
as
well.
The
the
preliminary
plan
and
construction
plans
are
reviewed
administratively
for
the
phases
now
we're
in
phase
one
of
the
concept
plan,
which
had
the
plan
commission
approval,
and
so
what
you
see
today
then,
are.
C
C
They
asked
that
the
green
space,
that
is
the
the
common
area
for
the
development,
have
a
blanket
easement
over
the
entirety
so
that
it's
also
meeting
the
that
it's
for
the
public's
benefit,
and
so
then
that
satisfied
the
park.
Dedication
for
this
phase
of
the
of
the
planning
for
dakota,
commons,
eighth
and
then
we
also
dakota
commons,
will
also
maintain
the
this
area
in
perpetuity
as
well.
C
We
also
with
this
plat
have
a
development
agreement
for
any
infrastructure
improvements
that
need
to
be
installed,
as
well
as
a
bmp
maintenance
agreement
and
then
that
the
bmp
maintenance
agreement
is
just
for
for
the
pond.
They
will
have
some
detention
requirements
to
install
that
that
they'll
meet
by
installing
some
ponds
and
berms
and
whatnot
and
all
of
those
plans.
The
preliminary
plan
construction
plans,
those
have
been
approved
and
meet
the
intent
of
the
ordinance
as
far
as
I'm
gonna.
C
C
They
did
have
another
lot
down
here.
They
did.
They
did
eliminate
that
because
the
right-of-way,
where
the
where
it's
improved,
where
the
streets
already
improved
it
did
not
extend
to
the
boundary
of
this
lot.
That
was
here
so
otherwise
we
can
extend
this
right-of-way.
They
can
include
that
lot
and
we
can
go
that
way.
It
would
just
take
a
couple
amendments
to
your
act
to
your
recommendation
and
we
would
get
all
of
those
plans
finalized
before
going
forward
to
council.
C
J
Mr
chairman,
yes,
sir
heath
van
impe,
here
sorry,
I'm
remote
on
my
phone,
so
I
don't
have
video,
but
just
to
capsulate
brandy
shared
a
lot
of
good
information
there.
I
think
the
main
premise
that
we
wanted
to
drill
down
to
in
that
last
part
of
her
discussion
was
the
necessity
to
see
that
street
extended
to
the
full
extent
of
lot
29.
I
believe
it
is.
E
J
And
one
way
to
simply
do
that
would
be
to
make
sure
that
the
development
agreement
covers
the
necessity
to
extend
that
road
to
the
full
extent
of
lot.
29,
like
brandy,
indicated
that
may
open
up
a
possibility,
then
for
the
developer,
to
include
one
more
additional
lot
on
the
east
side
of
that
street,
which
is
something
they
very
well
might
want
to
exercise.
And
I'm
in
the
plat
to
include.
B
I
Yeah
we
didn't
know
about
this
until
I
just
sat
down
at
the
meeting,
so
this
is
this
is
fairly
fresh.
I
honestly
don't
care
I'm
a
little
worn
out
from
the
process.
With
this
particular
phase,
we've
been
trying
to
just
get
these
lots
planted
for
a
long
time.
You
have
some
great
staff.
They've
been
great
to
work
with
this
process
has
seemed
incredibly
lengthy
to
get
something
planted.
I
That's
been
built
four
years
ago
now,
partly
that's
on
us,
but
you
know
I
mean
this
plat
in
its
format
was
submitted,
I
think
over
a
month
ago,
because
we
were
trying
to
be
on
the
plan
commission
two
weeks
ago
and
some
things
weren't
submitted
in
time
had
to
be,
but
the
plat
hasn't
changed
since
you
know
four
weeks
ago,
and
so
I
whatever's
easiest.
If,
if
we
eliminate
the
lot,
no,
you
know
I
have
people
wanting
to
build
on
these
lots
wanting
to
close,
not
that
lot
in
particular.
H
H
In
order
to
do
that,
the
second
thing
would
be
to
add
it
to
the
development
agreement
which,
just
as
a
reminder
that
would
be
two
years
from
the
date
that
is
approved
until
the
developer
would
be
responsible
for
putting
in
that
street.
So
from
a
timing
perspective
about
you
know
just
offering
that
up.
If
that
meets
your
general
time
frame,
we
could
certainly
address
it.
That
way.
I
My
main
concern
would
just
be
if
modifying
the
developer
agreement
at
this
point
delays
the
process
by
two
weeks.
I
do
not
want
to
do
that,
so
if
it's
possible
to
amend
that
and
keep
it
moving
forward
to
council
in
two
weeks.
That
would
be
great.
You
know,
like
I
say,
we'll
be
installing
the
road
you
know
and
much
more.
You
know
we're
not
going
to
install
50
feet
of
street,
but
we'll
install
the
road
and
the
next
cul-de-sac
to
the
south.
H
I
think
we
would
just
be
then
it'd
be
a
quick
redraw
of
the
plat
and
we
would
get
that
on
for
the
city
council,
if
the
planning,
commission
and
everyone
is
in
agreement
and
then
with
the
development
agreement,
I
do
think
that
can
be
modified,
but
we
will
probably
need
to
get
a
revised
cost
estimate.
Is
that
correct?
From
from
your
engineer,
yep.
C
H
The
other,
the
other
thing
that
came
to
mind-
and
I
apologize
for
for
speaking
so
much,
but
I
did
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
requirement
for
a
temporary
turnaround
at
the
the
end
of
that
sub
street,
just
in
the
event
of
a
fire
truck
needing
it
or
garbage
collection
or
something.
So
we
can
work
work
on
that
more.
But
I
wanted
to
to
bring
that
up
as
well.
I
G
The
same
corner
style
so
along
where
you
don't
want
to
bring
the
street
in
she
couldn't
do
her
yard
that
that
so
I'm
just
throwing
that's
the
only
problem
I
have
with
it
not
coming
in
is
that
she
can't
or
that
person
can't
finish
that
lot,
and
so
you
have
your
whole
house
done.
You
want
to
get
your
final
grade
in
and
then
three
years,
two
years
it
it's
going
to
get
ripped
up.
You
know
so
that
that's
the
only
red
flag.
G
I
see
I
I'm
with
you
either
way,
but
I
just
so
that
purchaser
would
know
that
that
street's
not
going
in
is
more
important.
My
buyer
didn't
know
that
street
wasn't
going
in.
So
when
the
house
was
done
she's,
you
know
they
wanted
to
do
the
yard,
and
so
they
had
to
come
back
and
finish
the
street.
So
that's
you
know.
I
think
it
should
come
in
because
I
think
you
could
get
it
sold,
but
in
the
same
breath,
just
so
they're
aware
of
what
they're
up
against
see
what
I'm
saying.
I
I
think
brandy
for
simplicity.
Maybe
we
just
eliminate
lot
29
and
then
we'll
just
add
that
into
the
ninth,
because
you
know
like
I
say:
if,
if
we
do
construct,
we
I
mean
we'd,
probably
not
list
a
lot
that
doesn't
have
the
street
completed
in
front
of
it,
for
the
reasons
that
you're,
even
if
it
was
a
platted
lot,
we
wouldn't
really
want
it
listed.
B
I
G
G
G
From
the
plot
see
it,
I
hate
to
see
him
do
that
because
that'll
be
the
last
somebody's
gonna
want
by
it's
a
corner
lot,
so
I
hate
to
see
you
take
it
out
of
the
plan,
but
I'm
just
throwing
out
you.
You
know
if,
if
I
wanted
that
lot
and
I
want
my
house
facing
the
other
way,
I
can't
go
to
a
street.
So
I
don't
know
I'm
just
I
don't
know
how
to
can
you
put
half
the
street
in
no.
I
You
know
I
you
know
the
market
better
than
I
do,
but
you
know
my
assessment
would
be
it's
typically
hardest
to
sell
the
furthest
out
lot.
People
don't
like
buying
on
the
very
edge
just
because
they
know
there's
activity
going
to
be
right
next
to
them,
and
so
I'm
I'm
comfortable.
Dropping
that
a
lot
like
I
say
I
think,
we'll
get
it.
You
know
we'd
likely
have
it
relisted.
Hopefully
you
know
by
the
end
of
fall
with
the
approval
of
the
next
phase,
for
the
ninth
edition
so
but.
J
I
I
appreciate
that
heath.
I
think
I
was
following
that.
I
just
think
it's
a
little
simpler
at
this
point
and
I
think
hopefully
we
could
get
through
the
approval
process
on
the
next
phase
and
perhaps
have
the
ninth
edition
plot.
You
know
approved
later
this
summer,
maybe
even
by
july,
or
something
like
that,
because
we've
gotten
through
a
lot
of
the
heavy
lifting
phases
which
have
been
you
know
the
the
harder
part
with
this.
And
so
you
know
the
next
phase
of
this
should
be
a
little
a
little
smoother
sailing,
hopefully
to
get
through.
A
A
A
C
H
C
H
C
C
B
E
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
More
holistically,
I
guess
so.
The
issue
is
with
the
attac
well
for
one
attached.
Garages
are
listed
under
the
residential
accessory
structures
where
an
attached
garage
is
obviously
a
part
of
the
primary
structure.
So
we
would
like
to
try
to.
We
want
to
eliminate
that
language
from
this
section,
but
without
just
leaving
it
wide
open,
then
for
regulating
attached
garages
at
all.
We
will
have
to
add
it
into
another
section.
So
it'll
be
an
ordinance
amendment
that'll
be
coming
forward
in
the
future.
It
just
wasn't
good
it.
H
That's
just
fine
brandi.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
introduction
here,
we'll
I'll
give
it
a
try.
I'm
sorry,
you
guys
have
to
listen
to
my
froggy
voice
here,
I'm
recovering
a
little
bit
from
from
a
bit
of
a
cold.
So
anyway,
I
think
if
you,
if
you
envision
a
a
residential
house
in
a
residential
district,
say
a
single
family,
should
we
instead
of
having
a
number
of
attached
garages
and
regulating
that
under
the
accessory
use
portion
of
the
code?
H
Really,
if
you
have
an
attached
garage,
it
is
part
of
your
primary
use.
So,
having
said
that,
we
would
switch
some
of
some
of
the
language
and
take
it
from
21.1002
back
to
21.1001,
where
we're
actually
talking
about
primary
uses,
primary
setbacks.
That
type
of
thing.
So
that's
one
of
the
things.
The
second
thing
is
in
back
to
envisioning
your
home.
H
Should
we
have
something
that
says
50
of
the
area
within
that
structure
in
a
residential
district
should
be
used
as
living
space.
Residential
living
space
doesn't
have
to
be,
50
could
be,
25
could
be
30,
it
could
be
a
whole
range
of
things.
Having
said
that,
I
think
there
are
a
couple
things
aesthetically
that
that
come
up,
I
guess
in
terms
of,
if
we're
having
a
lot
of
garage
space,
we
can
start
to
get
in
more
of
a
heavy
commercial
or
an
industrial
feel.
H
If
you
will,
you
know
if
you're
having
you
know,
we
do
have
a
regulation
that
you
have
like
the
three
garage
doors
only
facing
the
street,
but
you
know
so.
Basically
you
could
have
predominantly
today
you
could
have
you
know
you
could
have
10
living
area
and
you
could
have
90
percent
garage
in
your
primary
structure.
H
Is
that
appropriate?
Is
that
something
you
know
just
wanted
to
bring
that
up
for
for
conversation
purposes?
The
other
thing
that
we'd
probably
want
to
take
a
look
at
two
is
driveways.
It's
came
up.
Okay,
you
get
the
one
attached
garage.
That
kind
of
thing
do
we
was
that
in
there,
so
somebody
didn't
have
another
attached
garage
and
so,
if
you're
envisioning
again
your
single
family
residential
home,
that
you
would
have
another
driveway,
because
it's
a
large
lot
that
would
come
in
and
have
another
garage
door
facing
the
streets.
H
So
you
would
have
a
garage
off
the
street
on
one
side
of
your
structure,
another
driveway
and
a
garage
on
the
other
side
of
your
structure,
being
your
primary
residence.
So
there's
a
number
of
things
that
have
came
up
recently
and
a
lot
of
communities
out
there
and
we're
still
putting
together
some
research.
So
we
appreciate
your
patience
with
this.
A
lot
of
communities
are
considering
attached
garages.
Part
of
your
primary
use.
H
Many
communities
are
looking
at
the
percentage
of
livable
space.
Another
example
I
could
give
is
say
somebody
wants
to
purchase
a
lot
and
they
want
to
put
up
a
garage
first.
Well,
we
don't
allow
that
because
it
it's
a
residential
district,
first
and
foremost,
and
a
garage
is
an
accessory
use,
but
there
is
somewhat
of
a.
I
don't
want
to
call
it
a
loophole,
but
it's
the
way
that
the
ordinance
is
written.
H
Somebody
could
essentially
build
their
garage
and
have
600
square
foot
of
an
apartment
in
there
does
that
meet
the
intent
of
the
district.
So,
just
something
to
think
about
with
other
ordinances
that
you
know,
I've
worked
with
and
seen
out
there
and
I'd
be
happy
to
get
your
your
input
on
that
and
your
comments,
is
it
appropriate?
H
Would
it
look
different
for
different
districts?
Would
it
look
different?
You
know
once
hopefully
we'll
we'll
see
that
the
residential
lake
district
coming
in?
Would
it
look
different
there
than
it
presumably
would
in
an
irwin
district
right
in
the
the
heart
of
town,
that
type
of
thing,
so
just
some
things
to
to
think
about
also
getting
away
from
having
the
one
attached
garage
and
then
also
the
one
detached
garage
in
the
one
shed.
That
does
tend
to
give
us
some
headaches.
H
Well,
what's
really
a
detached
garage
and
what's
really
or
an
unattached
garage
and
what's
really
a
shed,
because
if
you
look
at
the
definitions,
it
can
be
pretty
close,
and
so
that
does
tend
to
cause
us
some
headaches
from
an
administrative
standpoint
and
back
to
to
rhonda's
point,
and
I
think
that
commissioner
dolly's
point.
Basically,
I
think
you
know
we're
wanting
to
look
at
this
from
an
all-encompassing
standpoint
and
a
comprehensive
standpoint.
H
So
we're
really
looking
at
the
placement
of
these
buildings
and,
what's
appropriate
and
are
are
we
considering
cluttered
development?
I
mean:
are
we
allowing
cluttered
development?
Are
we
getting
the
type
of
development
that
is
residential
in
nature,
so
these
are
kind
of
some
of
the
questions
that
we
wanted
to
pose
to
to
the
board
for
for
consideration
and
just
some
general
discussion
at
this
point
in
time.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I'm
in
agreement
too,
I
do
think
the
the
ordinance
is
is
confusing
too
many
cross
references
you're
trying
to
find
a
treasure
map,
sometimes
unless
you're
a
policy
woman,
you
know
where
to
be
looking
if
you're
in
a
public
and
you're
trying
to
figure
out
what
I
can
and
can't
do
it's
a
little
bit
confusing.
So
I
and
that's
that's
just
my
indictment
of
the
entire
ordinance,
not
just
accessory
buildings.
F
I
think
that
you
know
we
do
need
to
talk
about
the
ideas
of
you
know.
If
I'm
in
a
residential
zone-
and
I
have
an
accessory
garage,
I
think
an
accessory-
an
attached
garage
excuse
me,
the
attached
garage
to
the
home,
I
think,
is
really
part
of
the
principle
structure,
but
in
order,
if
we're
going
to
do
that,
I
am
a
firm
believer
that
we
need
to
set
some
sort
of
percentage
of
living
space
versus
the
garage
storage
aspect
of
what
a
garage
is.
F
If
we're
talking
about
limiting
the
number
of
accessory,
detached
accessory
structures
sheds
garages.
Whatever
have
you,
you
know,
we
either
it's
done
by
a
number.
It's
done
by
a
lot
coverage
and
I
think
that's
something
that
needs
to
be
explored
as
well.
The
idea
of
being
able
to
live
in
an
accessory
structure,
especially
a
detached
shed
or
a
garage,
I
think,
is
I'm
adamantly
against
that.
That's
just
my
own
personal
preference,
but
I
think
it's
a
discussion
that
we
need
to
be
having.
F
I
know
other
communities
talk
about
mother-in-law,
houses
and,
and
things
like
that,
but
conventionally
within
the
city
of
watertown,
we
don't
have
many
instances
of
two
homes
or
a
home
and
a
half
on
on
individual
loss,
because
we
get
into
all
the
issues
of
density
and
you
know
and
runoff
and
those
types
of
things.
So
I
I
think
the
idea
of
accessory
structures
detached
attached
is
a
conversation
that
we
need
to
have
appropriate
setbacks,
and
I
said
I
think
it's
a
good
thing
and
it's
probably
something
that
almost
needs
to
be
done.
F
Maybe
with
a
study
committee.
It's
it's
it's
something.
That's
I
think
large
enough
that
you
know
we
could
spend
hours
in
a
planning
commission
setting
talking
about
it.
If
it
was
interesting,
people
want
to
go
forward
and
have
discussions.
I
think
it's
coming
back,
it's
bringing
back
visuals
because
I
think
that's
what
a
lot
of
it
is
is
that
we
can
talk
about
what
the
verbiage
and
words
look
are
to
be.
But
if
you
can
show
me
a
picture
yeah,
I'm
okay
with
that.
A
Yeah
certainly-
and
it's
not
going
to
be
one
of
those
things
where
you
can
say
you
know
this
is
a
one
size
fits
all
right.
I
mean
we've
had
many
discussions
over
the
years
on
the
on
the
difference
between
you
know
a
brand
new
r1
lot
that
meets
the
requirements
versus
a
lot.
That
was,
you
know,
100
years
old,
in
the
r2a
district,
on
the
corner
of
a
lot
and
and
by
ordinance
we
maybe
have
a
20
buildable
area
right.
So.
A
C
So
bringing
up
pictures!
This
is
something
that
I'm,
if
you
guys,
can
see
that
I'm
sharing
it
on
teams.
When
you
look
at
this
floor
plan
and
right
now
with
ordnance,
it
says
one
attached
garage
well,
technically,
there
are
two
attached
garages
now
aesthetically.
This
is
going
to
you
know,
okay,
so
the
street
is
up
here,
and
so
these
two
garage
doors
are
facing
a
side
yard.
This
garage
door
will
be
facing
the
street,
but
aesthetically
you
know
from
the
outside.
C
You
would
not
know
necessarily
if
this
whole
thing
wasn't
a
garage,
so
we
want
to
come
up
with
just
better
guidelines.
I
guess
where
things
work,
creative
floor
plans
could
be
done
and
then
also
still
meeting
the
intent
of
our
ordinance.
So
that's
where
going
by
more
of
a
percentage
would
be
helpful
and
then
just
eliminating
the
hard
numbers
of
one
attached,
one
unattached
one
shed
or,
and
actually
I
think
they
call
it
interchangeably,
detached
or
unattached.
So
just
cleaning
that
up
all
together.
A
C
Yeah,
so
that's
just
where,
obviously,
that
quick
fix
in
that
ordinance
amendment
didn't
work,
it's
a
larger
discussion,
and
so,
if
just
to
make
you
guys
aware
of
it
and
if
that's
something
that
the
plan
commission
would
encourage
the
initiation
of
for
staff
to
explore.
Looking
at
bringing
an
amendment
of
such
forward.
A
H
This
I'm
sorry
this
is
stacey
this.
This
would
be
something
that
would
be
a
bit
different.
We
would
want
to
look
at
it
more
in
terms
of
a
design
perspective
and
what
you
know
what
the
example
brandi
had
up
there
and
I
talked
about
driveways
earlier.
This
is
a
good
aesthetic
where
you
know
really
you'd
have
with
the
one
garage
door
facing
the
street
you're
on
the
same
driveway
aesthetically.
H
I
don't
necessarily
think
that
you
would
see
the
impacts
with
this
particular
design,
so
really
trying
to
further
dive
into
that
a
little
a
little
bit
more,
but
then
also
the
substantial
change
would
be
in
trying
to
create
a
percentage
based
on
the
scale
of
living
area
versus
garage
area.
That
type
of
thing,
so
that's
definitely
something
to
consider
and
we'd,
certainly
be
happy
to
do
the
research
on
that
and
bring
forth
some
ideas
and
maybe
a
comparison
chart
and
things
if
the
board
is
interested
in.
B
Okay,
there's
a
lot
of
moving
parts
and
what
we're
talking
about
right
here,
because
I
am
in
my
head-
I'm
looking
at.
I
know
exactly
where
you're
talking
about
with
the
big
garages
and
the
small
apartments,
but
remember
for
them
to
be
able
to
build
that
big
garage.
They
had
to
have
that
apartment
and
wasn't
it
200
square
feet
or
larger.
B
160
so
right
now
the
ones
that
we're
talking
about
do
meet
everything
and
then,
when
you
get
like
them
side,
garages
that
not
facing
the
street
like
this
is
the
first
thing.
You're
gonna
see
is
my
garage
door,
it's
okay
to
have
them
circular
driveways
and
make
it
look
nice
that
it's
not
like.
Don't
you
know
anyways
and
then
it's
only
certain
lots
that
can
get
that
detached
garage.
Where
you
have
your
attached
to
style,
then
you
have
with
the
corner
lot
with
the
access
yeah.
H
Yeah
and
definitely
that
it-
those
are
very,
very
good
points
for
for
for
us
to
consider
a
staff
and
and
also
for
the
commission,
to
to
consider
as
well-
and
there
is
certainly
you
know
we
would
have
to
if
we
were
to
go
down
this
road,
we
would
want
to
look
at
how
we
would
consider
the
structures
out
there
that
did
not
meet
that.
So
you
know-
and
I
would
like
to
to
be
rather
flexible
in
that
approach,
because
they
certainly
built
to
the
standards
of
the
time
and
yeah.
B
You
know,
let's,
okay,
by
the
lake
on
the
south
lake
drive
between
the
prop
and
the
golf
course,
and
then
you
have
those
really
nice
big
garages
across
the
road
so
that
they
could
have
their
storage
and
stuff,
because
their
lake
lot
wasn't
big
enough.
So
they
have
a
lot
across
the
street.
Those
look
like
garages
and
you
can
see
exactly
where
the
home
is
in
the
garage
part
of
it.
C
H
All
right,
thank
you,
brandi,
I'm
wondering
I
think
I
can
yeah
I
could
or
I
could.
I
could
probably
go
over
there
if
you
wanted
to
pull
up
the.
I
have
a
short
power
point.
I
guess
to
start
it's
very
short,
and
I
would
like
to
thank
the
mayor
if
you
want
to
go
on
there,
the
end
drive
into
planning
and
then
into
community
development
stacy
for
the
lack
of
a
better
place
to
store
that.
H
C
H
H
Just
wanted
to
to
start
out,
I
guess
by
just
taking
a
look
at
2020
in
review,
and
I
want
to
keep
this
short.
I
want
to
give
credit
to
mayor
karen.
I
did
borrow
a
number
of
slides
from
her
this
some
of
the
slides
are
part
of
the
mayor's
state
of
the
city
address
that
she
presented
recently
to
the
city
council.
H
Oh
okay,
all
right
the
joy
of
like
using
someone
else's
powerpoint,
but
so
basically
with
this,
I
just
wanted
to
put
this
up
here.
You
know:
there's
been
a
lot
of
community
highlights.
There's
been
a
lot
of
things
that
that
have
that
have
gone
on,
I'm
not
going
to
read
all
of
these,
but
I
think
you
know
watertown
winning
the
strongest
towns
contest.
That's
that's
a
great
testament
to
what
you
know.
Everyone
on
this,
this
board
is,
is
doing
and
then
also
the
large
community
of
the
year
as
well.
H
So
these
are
major
accomplishments
for
watertown,
but
also
in
terms
of
being
a
board
member
and
being
part
of
this.
So
I
really
want
to
to
thank
you
for
all
of
your
involvement
in
these
things,
because
these
are
pretty
substantial
accomplishments,
so
just
to
highlight
it
again,
there's
a
few
more
here
that
you
may
or
may
not
have
been
involved
with,
but
good
for
the
community.
H
H
So
back
into
community
development
at
a
like
a
narrower
focus
here,
our
building
permit
data
looks
really
strong
for
2020..
As
you
can
see,
there
was
this
32
percent
growth
from
2019
to
2020.
We
did
have
a
bit
of
a
down
year
in
2017,
but,
as
you
can
see,
it's
been,
you
know
really
pretty
pretty
stable
since
2014
with
the
exclusion.
Here
we
did
a
record
here.
It
was
102
million
dollars
worth
of
valuation
and
permitting
so
that's.
H
H
H
B
H
B
F
D
H
Okay,
so
I
wanted
to
take
a
little
closer
look
at
the
plan.
Commission
case
load
because
this
does
you
know
it
all
relates
to
the
end
result
of
building
permits
and
valuations
and
things
being
built
in
the
community,
and
it
all
ties
into
the
accomplishments
overall
of
what
this
board
is
is
working
on
and
it
this
does
show
that
the
caseload
has
been
particularly
strong
and
increasing.
H
We
did
look
quickly
at
ordinance
amendments
as
well,
and
it
shows
that
we're
averaging
around
12
13
a
year
for
the
last
two
years
and
that
has
substantially
increased
from
back
in
2018.
So
so,
taking
a
look
at
that,
I
wanted
to
to
point
these
numbers
out.
I
apologize.
I
don't
have
the
board
of
adjustment
numbers
at
my
fingertips,
but
I
wanted
to
kind
of
provide
this
because,
as
we
get
into
the
goals,
you'll
notice
that
it's
a
pretty
lofty
set
of
goals.
H
If
you
will
so,
I
think
here
a
couple
figures
from
the
engineering
division.
If
you're
interested
here
permits
were
were
up
as
well
in
terms
of
grading,
sidewalk
repairs
and
then
street
cut
and
utilities
were
up
as
well
at
49
million
and
43
projects
that
were
managed.
So
that's
also
pretty
pretty
substantial.
H
H
You
know
more
regular
information
like
this
and
more
polished
information,
because
I
think
it's
important
for
the
plan
commission
to
you
know
it
seems
like
we're
really
busy
everybody's
really
busy
the
case
loads
heavy,
but
I
think
it's
nice
to
actually
see
the
data
and
some
comparisons.
So
with
that
we
can
go
on
to
the
goals
and
we
wanted
to
talk
about
these
and
make
sure
I
guess
that
we
are
on
the
same
page
with
the
plan
commission
and
we
actually
had
so
many
goals
that
we
broke
them
into
a
couple
years.
H
So
we're
looking
more
at
a
two-year
plan
versus
just
a
one-year
plan,
but
these
are
all
up
for
discussion
tonight.
Some
of
them
we've
talked
about
before,
but
I
wanted
to
just
kind
of.
I
guess
I
don't
really
probably
need
to
go
through
every
single
one
of
these.
Unless
there
are
questions
about
them,
the
first
couple
you
can
see
we
we've
been
talking
about
the
asses
accessory
height,
lock
coverage,
the
number
versus
the
square
footage
or
a
percentage.
H
F
F
There's
dated
language
in
there,
I
think,
making
things
making
the
process
easy
for
the
public,
easy
for
staff
and
easy
for
the
policy
makers
is
really
incumbent
upon
all
of
us
to
do,
and
so
that
would
be
one
that
I
would
add
to
that
list
of
goals
of
2021
but
another
one
way
of
handling
it.
I
think
all
these
things
are
important.
F
I've
got
personal
preferences
of
what
I
think
should
be
done
here,
but
I
think
maybe,
if
we
could
do
some
sort
of
a
poll,
we
should
give
you
some
direction
and
then
then
come
back
with
a
with
of
what
the
results
are,
as
opposed
to
spending
a
half
an
hour
or
45
minutes
going
through
each
one
of
these
types
of
things
and
and
fleshing
it
out.
Just
one
idea
of
you
know:
making
the
process
a
little
more
efficient.
H
I
don't
know
exactly
might
might
be
like
a
survey
monkey
or
something
like
that
and
then
also
kind
of
having
a
collaborative
sort
of
like
staff
write-up
if
you
will,
and
and
kind
of
reconciling
the
two
and
coming
to
a
more
firm
conclusion
on
the
the
priorities
and
being
able
to
move
things
around
and
also
thank
you
very
much
for
your
comments
about
the
the
general
review
of
the
administrative
sections,
because
they
definitely
should
be
added
to
to
the
list.
So
thank
you.
A
The
other
thing
that
might
help
too,
with
the
prioritization
is,
is
putting
it
all
into
like
an
impact
effort
matrix.
You
know,
like
four
block
of
impact
versus
the
effort
that
goes
into
each
of
these.
I
know
a
lot
of
them
are
going
to
be
about
the
same
amount
of
effort,
they're,
all
pretty
substantial.
H
You
know
that
that
definitely
like
we
just
did
kind
of
a
first
blush
if
you
will
at
that
by
marking
the
things
that
we
think
that
are
going
to
be
rather
complex,
but
again
that
that's
a
good
suggestion
to
map
that
a
little
bit
closer
for
for
the
next
meeting.
And
you
know
as
as
staff
we
we
want
to
be
able
to
work
on
these,
these
long-term
goals
and
kind
of
knock
off.
H
If
you
will
some
of
the
more
short-term
things
that
the
low-hanging
fruits,
if
you
will
and
move
those
forward
as
quickly
as
as
possible
and
as
efficiently
as
possible.
Also
considering
the
you
know
what
we
we
just
looked
at
back
in
the
the
numbers,
because
I
was
thinking
to
myself-
gosh
we're
really
busy
here.
H
You
know,
I
wonder
how
this
is
comparing,
so
I'm
looking
back
to
to
see
that
the
number
of
permits
and
and
the
number
of
projects
and
things
that
has
impacted
the
the
staff's
ability
and
available
time
to
to
work
on
these
big
overarching
things.
So
I
you
know,
I
definitely
want
to
not
over
promise
anything
either,
although
know
that
we'll
be
working
diligently.
A
Yeah,
I
appreciate
you
sharing
to
the
the
presentation.
Stacy
realized
that
the
staff
does
an
immense
amount
of
work
behind
the
scenes
and
every
one
of
these
actions
that
the
the
board
sees
and
the
team
does
a
great
job
of
supporting
it's.
It's
really
refreshing
to
see.
You
know
how
much
work
is
is
accomplished
over
the
year,
sometimes
it
all
kind
of
blurs
together,
but
I
I
agree
with
the
the
list
of
goals
that
you
got
here
as
well.
A
H
A
E
H
I'm
actually
glad
that
you
asked
that
question
because
I
believe
I
can
share
at
this
point
in
time
that
we
do.
We
have
been
looking
for
a
building
official
to
help
us
out
on
the
permitting
side.
As
you
can
see,
it's
a
pretty
substantial
increase
in
high
valuation,
but
I'm
happy
to
report
that
we
have
interviewed
made
a
selection
and
it's
a
conditional
offer
and
we'll
be
announcing
more
very
soon.
So
it
sounds
to
me
like
it's
in
progress,
but
again
it's
preliminary.
H
So
with
that
position
we
would
be
considered
fully
staffed
and
the
engineering
division.
Also
it's
been
quite
quite
some
time.
I
understand.
Maybe
brandi
can
share
how
long
it's
actually
been,
but
it's
it's
been
quite
some
time
so
so
we're
we're
excited
to
move
forward,
and
hopefully
everything
works
out
there.
So
the
engineering
department-
also,
I
understand
now
with
a
couple
of
recent
hires-
is
fully
staffed
as
well.
H
A
A
H
So
yeah,
if,
if
there
aren't
any
further
questions
or
if
anybody
wants
to
to
dive
in
at
all
into
to
these,
we
will
go
ahead
and
add
on
a
general
review
of
the
administrative
sections
to
make
sure
that
we
have
the
most
up-to-date
language
in
2021.
We'll
work
on
something
like
a
survey.
Monkey
poll
get
that
sent
out
to
the
plan
commissioners
and
also
put
together
more
information
on
an
impact
effort
matrix
or
something
along
that
line
as
well.
A
F
Yeah,
I
agree
blake,
I
think
you
know,
I
think
what
we
would.
My
recommendation
would
be
is
have
we
as
we
sort
through
this
and
as
the
priorities
are
aligned
and
we
decide
how
to
move
forward.
I
I
think
it's
really
taking
on
that.
One
large
project
and
that's
gonna
be
working
on
continuously
and
then
try
to
do
the
low
hanging
fruit
and
you
know,
knock
off
two
or
three
or
four
throughout
the
year,
but
realizing
that
you
know
there's
there's
four
or
five
really
big
things
out
there.
F
H
I
agree:
that's
a
great
way
to
look
at
it
because
I
wanted
to
be
all
inclusive
when
doing
this
list,
I
think
the
staff
felt
that
we
should
be
all
inclusive.
Some
of
these,
like
I
said
it's
very
much
in
draft
form,
they
can
be
rearranged.
They
can
be
added
to.
They
can
be
deleted.
That
type
of
thing-
and
I
understand
it's
very
lofty-
and
but
I
want
to
keep
these
out
there
on
our
on
our
radar
so
should
time
and
availability
of
plan
commission
members
should
we
have
that
opportunity.
H
Absolutely
yeah:
it's
it's
been
a
little
interesting
to
look
at
data.
You
know
having
been
here
less
than
a
year
and
stuff
and
also
looking
at
data.
You
know
with
the
impacts
of
covet
and
things,
so
I'm
quite
quite
thankful
and
astonished
honestly
by
by
the
the
strength,
so
many
factors
and
we're
also,
as
you
know,
we're
looking
forward
to
another
busy
year
with
a
number
of
projects
that
we've
already
seen
this
year
and
their
recent
tif
projects
and
things
so
so
we're
hopeful
for
another
busy.