►
From YouTube: City Council Meeting 12-19-22
Description
City Council Meeting 12-19-22City Council Meeting 12-19-22
A
B
Heavenly
Father,
we
we
thank
you.
We
thank
you
for
this
new
day
this
day
to
to
live
and
breathe
and
live
this
life
you've
blessed
us
with,
and
so
tonight,
Lord
We,
Gather
here
and
I.
Just
thank
you
for
the
freedoms
that
you've
given
us
to
to
be
able
to
voice
our
our
thoughts
and
our
opinions
where
we
live
and
to
be
governed
in
a
way
where
it's
Community
oriented
Lord.
And
so
we
just
thank
you
for
this.
B
For
this
council
tonight,
here
I
pray,
wisdom
over
us
and
our
as
we
work
through
these
these
decisions.
We
just
pray.
We
ask
for
wisdom
to
give
us
direction
and
what's
best
for
for
the
people
and
for
the
city
and
also
thank
you
Lord
for
the
the
First
Responders,
the
city,
the
working
out
snow
removal
to
protecting
our
neighborhoods
to
to
all
that
above
Lord.
D
A
A
We
have
a
quorum
first
I
had
the
agenda.
Is
approval
of
the
consent
agenda
I'd
be
open
for
a
motion
on
a
second
for
that
Mueller
and
second
by
Shetty.
Any
discussion
all
in
favor,
I,
I,
post
same
sign
motion
carried
this
a
time
for
public
comment
for
anyone
in
the
audience
that
would
like
to
make
comments
on
something
that
is
not
on
the
agenda.
This
is
your
opportunity.
Anyone
out
there
that
would
like
to
come
forward
and
speak
if
not
we'll
move
forward.
A
Okay,
I'd
like
to
prove
the
regular
agenda,
but
I
want
to
make
a
few
revisions
here.
Let
me
just
ask
first
of
all
my
show
of
hands.
We
have
four
different
zoning
issues
for
our
first
reading
tonight
on
the
agenda
just
by
a
show
of
hands.
How
many
of
you
here
for
or
for
one
at
least
one
of
those
looks
like
looks
like
fertile
everybody,
that's
here
from
the
public.
A
Okay,
that
being
the
case
to
expedite
things
a
little
bit
and
not
keep
you
folks
for
the
entire
meeting,
I'd
like
to
propose
that
we
move
if
I
get
my
thoughts
in
order
here.
If
we
move
item
H
up
to
d,
as
in
dog
item
J
up
to
E
item
K
up
to
F
and
item
I
up
to
G
now,
I
also
have
one
of
the
questions.
Do
you
get
that
yeah?
Okay?
One
other
question
now
is:
is
Troy
Heap
here
he
was
from
from
William
Neal.
A
A
First,
item
on
the
agenda
was
a
presentation
acceptance
of
2021
audit
from
William,
Neal
and
Company.
We
able
to
sit
on
that
item
for
the
time
being
and
see
if
anyone
from
that
firm
does
show
up
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
approval
of
a
ground
lease
agreement
with
Brady
fast,
a
Watertown
Regional
Airport
in
the
amount
of
seven
thousand
one
hundred
and
twenty
nine
dollars
and
eight
cents
annually.
At
this
point
would
city
manager
Mac
like?
Would
you
like
to
speak
to
that
or
direct
it
to
where
it
needs
to
go.
F
F
It
is
to
Mr
Brady
fast,
one
of
our
eggspree
operators
out
there
at
the
facility
he's
been
at
that
same
location
for
quite
some
time
his
lease
did
expire.
So
this
is
a
renewal
and
it
was
also
under
a
different
name
or
a
trust
of
sorts
so
that
the
less
the
information
has
been
cleaned
up
in
that
manner
the
amount
of
the
lease
is
in
line
with
the
the
common
rates
that
are
paid
for
a
similar
leases
at
the
airport.
F
The
structure
of
this
lease
was
also
modified
a
little
bit
if
I
remember
right
that,
so
that
it
is
more
in
line
with
the
current
rates
and
and
how
we
assess
the
payments
in
the
charges
for
the
ground
leases
at
the
airport.
The
prior
one
was
a
little
bit
unique,
had
some
anomalies
to
it,
and
we
just
made
it
similar
to
how
we
apply
these
and
all
the
others
with
that.
I'll
stand
by
for
questions
along
with
the
airport
manager,
Rob
Cyrus,
is
also
in
the
crowd
tonight.
Okay,.
A
A
G
You
mayor
Director,
Van
and
I:
would
this
formally
being
underneath
a
a
different
name
or
trust
I
guess
I
Scott
Donna
Thompson?
Is
it
cleared
through
them?
I,
don't
know
how
this
works.
If
it's
we're
just
changing
the
name
on
it
essentially
and
renewing
it,
but
were
they
informed
that
that
was
happening?
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
not
going
to
be
complications
in
the
future.
C
D
F
It
either
way,
yes,
so
that
there
is
a
little
bit
of
difference
in
the
lease
is
one
that
this
is
a
a
renewal
under
the
new
name.
So
exactly
you're
correct
there
that
in
that
assumption,
that
that's
why
this
is
on
the
regular
agenda.
The
one
on
the
consent
agenda
is
a
renewal
to
this
parties
of
the
same
name,
no
changes
and
that
renewal
is
allowed
for
in
that
contract
as
well.
So
it's
pretty
routine
renewal
for
the
one.
That's
on
the
consent
agenda.
All.
A
Right.
Thank
you.
Any
further
discussion
I'll
just
make
a
comment
that
this
does
come
before
us
as
a
recommendation
for
approval
by
the
airport
board,
who
acted
on
this
I
believe
a
month
ago.
Is
that
right,
Rob?
Yes,
it's
been
a
month
ago,
throw
that
out
there
for
consideration,
see
no
further
discussion.
Look
for
account
to
council
action.
All
in
favor,
aye
aye
oppose
same
sign.
E
A
There
is
a
required
public
hearing
for
this,
so
at
this
point,
I'll
open
the
public
hearing.
Anyone
here
would
like
to
speak
in
favor
of
or
opposed
to
this,
seeing
no
when
I
close
the
public
hearing
look
for
a
motion,
a
second
for
discussion,
tougher
Bueller,
any
discussion
now
to
look
for
Council
action.
All
in
favor,
aye
aye
oppose
same
sign.
A
When
we
have
our
next
council
meeting
on
January
3rd,
that
will
be
the
official
public
hearing
for
these
items,
and
at
that
point,
then
we
will
take
action
on
the
the
agenda
items.
So
this
this
first
one
has
to
do
with
establishing
a
zoning
designation
of
R3.
It's
a
first
reading
and
it's
property
known
as
PJ
PJ
and
I
first
edition,
with
that
I'll
turn
over
to
man-to-mac
for
City
Manager
for
explanation.
E
Thank
you,
I
actually
am
going
to
have
our
our
Public's
work.
Public
Works
director
give
the
explanation,
but
I
did
want
to
comment
that
the
Planning
Commission
has
recommended
approval
to
the
city
council
on
a
seven
to
zero
vote
at
their
December.
8Th
meeting
and
Heath
can
give
the
background
on
this.
F
F
That
rezone,
of
course,
goes
through
two
readings.
Hence
this
being
the
first
with
the
second
reading
will
be
the
the
petition
and
resolution
for
the
annexation
to
go
along
with
this.
This
is
property
currently
located
outside
the
city
limits.
It
is
on
the
South
Southeast,
the
early
side
of
the
lake
off
golf
course
Road
and
42nd
Street
Northwest.
F
A
H
G
F
Yes,
the
that's
a
good
point,
councilman
that
staff
had
brought
to
light
as
well
and
took
into
consideration
with
the
adjoining
property
owner
and
joining
property
Express
no
interest
in
being
annexed
at
this
time.
That
was
also
a
point
of
concern,
or
at
least
a
point
to
note
that
that
was
expressed
at
the
planet
commission
meeting
as
well,
that
by
carrying
out
this
annexation
and
Zoning
again,
this
is
the
first
reading
for
just
the
zoning
component
here
tonight.
G
F
I
guess
it's
unconventional
from
standard
City
Planning
standpoint,
but
it
does
happen
on
occasion.
Is
it
a
huge
detriment
in
this
case,
not
necessarily
really
what
it
does
is.
It
creates
disjointed
Utility
Services,
disjointed
expectations
from
those
landowners
as
land
changes
hands
over
the
years.
F
I
J
F
I
A
I
would
just
make
the
comment:
I
I
believe
at
that
meeting,
I
I
watched
I
was
not
there
in
person.
I
believe
a
couple
of
joining
landowners
did
express
some
concern
about
potential
increased
water
runoff
from
that
property,
with
the
plans
that
are
in
place
with
this,
so
I'll
just
make
that
comment.
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
speak
to
that
Heath
or
Randy
either
one
want
to
speak
to
that.
It's
a
concern.
F
F
Those
regulations
are
triggered
by
a
certain
amount
of
development.
That's
required
to
trigger
them
so
again
without
having
those
specific
plans
in
front
of
us
I,
don't
know
whether
they
would
trigger
the
requirements
or
not,
but
we
would
definitely
follow
the
requirements
as
their
meant
to
be
held
accountable
to
the
landowner.
A
Okay,
thank
you
any
further
discussion,
the
part
of
the
council
and
again
this
is
the
first
reading.
Only
so
no
action
will
be
taken
tonight.
So
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
item,
which
was
previously
item
J
and
your
agenda
packet.
That
is
also
a
first
reading
concerning
zoning
map,
the
area
of
Midwest
Evangelical
Outlet,
which
is
in
the
on
the
northwest
part
of
town
around
Highway
20
Bend
changes.
F
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
I,
do
have
a
map
shared
to
teams
here.
If
that
could
be
pulled
up.
This
is
another
application
for
strictly
a
rezone
here,
no
annexation
required,
but
is
the
first
reading.
This
did
come
from
the
Planning
Commission,
with
unanimous
support
to
convert
this
blue
outlined
property
from
i1.
You
can
see
the
purple
shading
of
i1
to
C3.
You
can
see.
Some
of
the
properties
to
the
northwest
of
here
are
currently
Zone
C3.
F
This
is
an
appropriate
land
area
to
be
utilizing
the
C3
zoning
District
as
far
as
staff
and
the
Planning
Commission
are
concerned,
and
then
the
corresponding
land
use
on
here,
I,
don't
recall
and
I
have
to
refer
to
Brandy.
If
that
one
also
needs
a
conditional
use
similar
to
the
storage
units
we
just
talked
about
so
this
would.
The
applicant
here
has
been
made
aware
that
they
would
have
to
apply
for
conditional
use
to
the
board
of
adjustment
upon
the
pending
approval
of
the
zoning.
Okay.
A
I
F
G
F
I
would
have
to
defer
to
our
community
development
manager,
Brandi
Anton,
on
that.
What
I
would
say
as
far
as
the
spot
zoning
is
concerned,
is
that
this
land
area,
of
course
does
meet
the
minimum
land
area
requirements
to
be
designated
as
a
C3
zoning
District.
So
it
does
meet
the
ordinance
as
proposed,
but
whether
the
the
parcel
in
between
which
is
currently
used
as
a
a
church
I,
don't
know
whether
that
what
what
information
we
shared
regarding
that
Brandy.
K
Yes,
thank
you
Heath
and
councilman
Paulson.
We
did
not
bring
them
into
discussion.
It's
always
at
the
time
of
that
they're
needing
a
building
permit
or
whatnot
that
we
would
look
at
rezoning
them
because,
as
Heath
stated,
they
are
as
Standalone
properties,
they're
in
conformance
and
actually
rezoning
to
the
C3
Highway
commercial
District
brings
it
into
better
conformance
with
their
comprehensive
land
use
plan,
and
it's
it
would
as
well
with
the
property
to
the
north
with
it
being
a
church.
B
K
So
we
actually
had
an
ordinance
Amendment
just
a
couple
years
back
that
churches
are
allowed
in
multiple
zoning
designations
and
that's
with
the
relupa
ACT,
which
I
probably
could
not
recite
that
acronym
right
now,
but
basically
for
institution
institutional
uses
that
they're
getting
the
same
rights
as
other
like
commercial
businesses.
More
so
all
together.
So
it
would
fit
into
I
believe,
like
C3
C1
in
the
residential
districts,
it's
by
conditional
use,
but
yeah
there's
quite
a
few
districts
that
it
is
available
in
just
being
a
permitted
use.
All.
K
A
Know
any
further
questions
or
comments
from
the
part
of
the
council
again.
This
is
only
a
first
reading,
no
action
to
be
taken
tonight.
We
will
act
on
this,
then
at
our
next
meeting
on
the
third
moving
on
next
item
is
a
previously
item
K
in
your
agenda
packet.
This
again
is
a
first
reading
of
a
zoning
change
from
R1
to
R3
for
lot
a
Sutter's,
Plateau
fifth
edition
with
that
I'll
again,
I'll
turn
to
manager,
Mac
or
Public
Works,
director
of
an
eye.
A
F
F
A
A
Seeing
none
again,
first
reading,
only
no
action
be
taken,
so
we'll
move
on
apparently
you're
all
here
for
the
same
same
item
folks.
So
let's
let's
get
to
it,
then
let's
go
to
as
previously
item
I
in
our
Council
packet
and
that
has
to
do
with
the
change
in
potential
change
in
zoning
in
East
Woods
Edition
from
R2
to
R3,
again,
first
reading
so
again,
I'll
turn
to
Public
Works,
director
of
an
eye.
F
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
I
again
will
share
my
screen
and
to
pull
up
the
zoning
map.
This
parcel
2
is
adjacent
to
14th,
Avenue
North,
except
it's
on
the
east
side
of
Highway
81
a
lot
further
east
east
of
19th
Street
and
the
property
in
question
is
outlined
in
blue
here,
there's
turquoise
color.
It
is
currently
zoned
R2
and
the
buyers
of
this
property
are
pursuing
a
rezone
to
the
R3
zoning
district
for
a
higher
density
residential
use.
You'll
notice
on
the
zoning
map
that
the
adjacent
property
to
the
east
is
R3.
F
There
is
some
R2
south
of
that
and
then
it
transitions
into
R1,
a
single
family,
residential
district
for
a
good
majority
of
what
you
see
on
the
map
here
with
some
other
R2
areas,
mixed
in
as
well
as
well
as
our
three
off
the
southwest
corner
of
my
map.
With
that
this
one
did
not
come
to
the
council
with
a
recommendation
for
approval,
but
rather
on
a
split
vote
was
denied
that
recommendation.
A
Thank
you.
I
would
like
to
follow
up
what
you
just
said:
Public
Works
Director,
Van,
I
I'm,
going
to
turn
to
our
acting
city
manager,
Lisa
carrico,
for
an
explanation,
because
this
is
coming
to
us
with
a
recommendation
to
not
approve
what.
Procedurally,
how
do
we
go
about
dealing
with
this?
If
we,
if
we
do,
if
we
do
look
to
overturn
that
public,
that
the
Planning
Commission
action,
can
you
explain
that
to
us
a
little
bit.
L
Yes,
thank
you,
chairman
City
attorney,
so
under
the
ordinance
for
Watertown
and
with
the
state
statutes
in
order
to
what
I'm
going
to
call
override
non-
or
you
know
a
decision
by
the
Planning
Commission,
not
to
recommend
the
adoption
of
this.
It
would
require
a
two-thirds
vote
of
the
entire
Council.
So
that
would
mean
that
you
would
need
at
least
five
votes
to
overturn
the
decision
of
the
Planning
Commission.
So
that's
both
in
accordance
with
our
ordinance
and
with
the
state
statutes.
A
Okay,
thank
you
again,
first
reading,
not
a
public
hearing,
but
we
did
offer
to
let
people
speak.
That
would
like
to
address
this
just
a
couple
of
comments.
So
please
keep
your
comments
relatively
brief
and,
if
you're
repeating
something
that
somebody
else
already
said,
I'd
ask
that
we
were
refrain
to
that
as
much
as
possible.
A
I
do
appreciate
that
the
the
way
that
you
conducted
the
comments
at
the
Planning
Commission
meeting
here
recently
so
I
would
ask
so
you
could
conduct
yourselves
the
same
manner
with
one
minor
exception
if
you're
really
excited
and
agree
with
somebody's
comments.
Try
to
refrain
from
Applause
I
I
would
ask
that
of
you
tonight.
So
if
someone
is
here
that
would
like
to
speak
either
in
favor
of
or
against
this.
Now
is
your
opportunity
to
do
so.
A
F
E
Just
procedurally
because
this
is
not
a
public
hearing,
if,
if
you
would
like
your
comments
to
be
part
of
the
public
record,
you
would
need
to
come
to
the
January
3rd
meeting
and
share
the
same
comments.
I'm
assuming
they'd,
be
the
same
comments
at
that
meeting,
so
they're
part
of
the
formal
record
and
part
of
the
formal
consideration
that
the
council
will
make
at
that
time.
Thank.
A
H
A
H
H
As
the
notes
show,
this
land
has
been
zoned,
R2,
single-family
residential
for
over
seven
years
now,
since
September
of
2015.
That's
when
the
council
annexed
the
land
and
apply
the
R2
zoning
designation
for
whatever
reason
the
land,
which
has
changed
ownership,
hands
multiple
times
in
seven
plus
years.
It's
never
been
developed
and
that's
really
why
I
think
we're
here
tonight.
It's
not
a
question
that
it's
zoned
incorrectly,
but
it
hasn't
been
developed
as
R2.
H
H
As
you
can
see,
there's
a
lot
of
us
were
unified
and
we
want
to
see
this
land
developed
as
R2.
Now
the
Planning
Commission
has
heard
this
question
twice
on
zoning
R3
two
times,
they've
heard
the
question
two
times.
They've
said
no
I,
don't
think
that's
a
coincidence.
The
Planning
Commission
sees
it
just
like
our
neighborhood.
Does
our
three
high
density
development
at
this
location
is
simply
not
a
good
fit.
H
Now
you
can
say
that's
an
opinion
of
mine
that
it's
not
a
good
fit,
and
maybe
it
is,
but
the
most
glaring
reason
why
this
is
not
a
good
fit.
Is
that
the
main
Ingress
in
egress
from
this
land
will
be
14th.
Avenue
Northeast
I
invite
you
all
to
take
a
drive
out
there
in
the
next
two
weeks
before
the
second
reading
and
look
at
that
road.
It's
a
half
Road
wide
enough
for
two
vehicles
to
go
head
to
head
and
that's
it.
H
H
As
one
city
council,
member
Mr,
Danforth
and
I
think
I've
talked
to
Mike,
probably
more
than
I've
talked
to
my
wife
in
the
last
two
weeks.
As
we've
talked
about
this
Mike
told
me
that
R1
and
R3
zoning
are
very
different,
especially
when
you
take
into
account
the
buffer
that
would
the
buffer
there,
between
R1
and
R3,
would
be
a
narrow
strip
of
City
zoned
AG
land.
That's
not
a
buffer
dirt
with
grass
that
high
that's,
not
a
buffer.
H
We
believe,
if
you
put
high
density
housing
into
a
residential
neighborhood,
it
should
be
one
of
the
first
things
to
be
built,
not
the
last
that
way.
Neighbors
who
choose
to
build
or
buy
around
high
density
housing
know
exactly
what
they're
getting
and
what
their
neighborhood
is
going
to.
Look
like
now
I
want
to
stress
that
we
are
not
all
of
us
here
tonight.
We
are
not
anti-development,
we
want
to
see
Watertown,
grow
and
Thrive.
That's
why
we
bought
or
built
the
homes
in
that
part
of
Watertown
that
we
did.
H
We
just
want
this
land
developed
in
a
responsible
way
that
respects
the
neighborhood
that
already
exists
there.
The
council
in
2015
said
R2
is
how
the
land
should
be
zoned,
that's
how
it
is
still
zoned
today
and
we
believe
that's
how
it
should
remain
going
forward.
Now.
The
Planning
Commission
has
smart
people
on
it.
They
work
hard,
they
study
these
decisions
carefully
and
they
make
decisions
that
they
believe
are
in
the
best
interest
of
the
city.
H
Twice.
This
question
has
been
before
them
twice.
They
have
said
no
one
of
those
times.
It
was
a
unanimous.
No,
we
as
a
neighborhood
hope
you
respect
the
planning
commission's
opinion
and
feel
the
same
way
thanks
for
your
time
and
myself,
and
my
neighbors
will
see
you
again
on
January
3rd
to
speak
on
the
record
Amanda.
Thank
you.
J
J
I
think
it
was
stated
in
that
meeting,
maybe
perhaps
by
accident
that
R3
required
the
certain
amount
of
density
that
they
had
planned
for
with
the
Retention
Ponds
and
that
that
R2
did
not
and
I
think
that's
does
require.
Obviously
I
think
everything
we
do
requires
a
drainage
plan.
So
could
you
clarify
that,
yes,.
K
K
When
you
are
pla,
when
you're
planning
over
five
Lots,
then
you
you
are
required
to
have
the
compensatory
storage
available
for
the
amount
of
impervious
surfaces
that
you
are
creating.
So
yes,
R2
still
would
need
detention
and,
if
you
recall
previously
well
in
this,
it
was
the
concept
plan
that
came
forward
to
plan
commission,
and
so
they
did
show
the
detention
areas
on
that
development
plan
as
well.
So
thank.
C
J
J
I'm
sorry
I
thought
the
next
thing
I
want
to
discuss
is
you
know,
I
think
it
at
that
meeting.
It
sounded
as
though
the
master
plan,
our
comprehensive
land
use
plan
is
Gospel
and-
and
that
is
absolutely,
in
my
opinion,
not
true.
Those
are
things
that
we
do.
We
spend
a
great
deal
of
time
on
there's
a
lot
of
effort
that
goes
into
those,
but
those
change
all
the
time
and
I
would
ask
probably
how
many
Maps
do
we
have
of
the
comprehensive
land
use
plan?
It's
not
gospel.
J
We
don't
have
to
do
exact,
especially
this
Council.
We
don't
have
to
agree
to
do
everything.
That's
on
the
comprehensive
land
use
plan
we
can
and
have
in
the
past
gone
outside
that
so
I
mean
it
was
a
great
it's
great.
It's
just
more
suggestions,
I
think
as
we
move
forward.
So
we
have
a
better
way
to
plan.
K
Right
and
and
just
to
expand
on
that
and
I
did
look
through
State
Statute,
because
every
municipality
is
required
to
have
a
comprehensive
land
use
plan
and
it
is
like
the
guidance
for
the
city,
but
there
are
so
many
various
maps
on
there
that
and
then
even
just
the
the
narratives
of
different
of
just
planning.
It
just
gives
you
a
baseline,
I
guess
and
there
are,
but
it's
not
just
using
one
map
because
there's
multiple
maps
for
the
future
land
use
or
just
specific
areas
in
town.
K
J
K
I
I
G
K
In
2019,
the
concept
plan
for
Eastwood's
19th,
with
it
being
zoned
R2,
came
forward
and
was
approved
by
plan
commission.
The
Platt
came
to
plan,
commission
was
and
was
approved,
but
then
I
believe
because
of
how
the
bids
came
back
on
the
development
itself,
that
it
did
not
go
forward.
The
plot
was
not
recorded
and
the
development
agreement
was
not
entered
into,
so
it
was
just
a
change
in
development
plans
at
that
time
and.
G
G
Okay,
well,
my
I
guess
my
point
in
asking
that
is:
there's
been
several
developers
on
this
piece
of
land
that
have
held
it
tried
to
do
different
things
and
the
last
R2
plan
that
was
brought
forth.
The
only
way
that
was
made
feasible
was
to
use
land
that
was
not
theirs
for
detention,
and
so
that
does
worry
me
as
we
continue
to
push
this
around
and
it
changes
hands
and
people
keep
spending
money.
G
If
someone
comes
with
a
plan
that
no
one
likes,
it's
a
a
public
outcry
and
we're
not
getting
Redevelopment
in
the
areas
we
need
Redevelopment
in.
We
need
housing
in
this
home
and
that's
one
thing:
I'm,
leaning
on
and
I'm,
not
like
I
said
I'm
I'm,
taking
notes,
I'm
I'm,
taking
all
the
feedback
I
can
get,
because
this
is
obviously
a
big
decision.
G
D
A
D
Got
a
long
list
here.
First
of
all,
I
know
a
number
of
you
that
I've
had
conversations
with
and
I
do
want
to
apologize
for
some
misinformation.
That
I
gave
you,
and
that
was
the
fact
it
was
my
understanding
that
if
it
was
denied
at
the
planned
commission
that
that
was
done
at
that
point,
it
would
not
come
here
and
I
I
in
the
years
that
I've
been
on
plan
commissioner
or
the
the
council
I
do
not
recall
ever
having
a
rejected
request,
come
to
the
council,
but
obviously,
and
apparently
that
was
wrong
information.
D
So
I
do
apologize.
It
doesn't
change
anything
from
the
standpoint
of
the
process.
It
just
changes,
expectation
and
so
I
do
apologize
for
that,
but
I
have
in
almost
every
case
of
of
a
rezoning
request
that
and
I'm
going
to
use
this
only
because
it
goes
from
r1r23
I'm
going
to
say
when
we
rezoned
downward.
You
know
from
R1
to
2
to
3.
when
we
start
getting
into
R3
in
an
area
that
is
reasonably
developed
or
established.
It's
almost
always
problematic
and
I'll
be
honest.
D
Term
I
want
to
use
here
just
a
second
here,
the
the
conditions
under
which
things
can
be
built
within
a
given
area.
They
change
when
significantly
when
you
get
to
R3
and
I,
do
have
a
question
before
I
go
on
it's
my
understanding
that
when
we,
when
we
approve
zoning,
whether
that's
an
initial
request
or
a
a
rezoning
request,
We
cannot
put
conditions
on
that
rezoning
specifically.
F
D
That
fact
makes
it
very
troubling
for
me
personally
to
to
just
flippantly
or
blanketly
just
approve
a
an
R3
zoning
request
near
adjacent
to
R1
zoning
and
because
what
can
occur
there,
we
don't
know
what
it's
going
to
occur
there
and
number
one,
first
and
foremost,
whoever
owns
this
land.
However,
prospectively
owns
this
land.
They
have
a
right
to
come
to
us
and
ask
that
is
their
right.
Just
like
it's
your
right
to
be
here
tonight,
and
we
need
to
take
that
consideration
very
seriously,
but
I
do
believe.
D
We
need
to
be
respectful
to
the
efforts
that
were
made,
the
designations
that
were
made,
the
commitments
that
were
made
by
people
that
have
properties
that
are
adjacent
or
close
proximity
to
this.
We
have
an
obligation
as
a
city
to
help
protect
that,
and
that's
been
my
position
every
time
when
it
comes
to
rezoning
requests
when
it
goes
down.
D
That's
one
of
the
first
things
I
look
at
if
there
was
all
kinds
of
bear
land
around
this
thing,
I'd,
probably
look
at
and
say:
let's
go
R3,
it's
a
good
spot
for
it,
but
that's
not
our
case
today,
vast
majority,
very
little
land
around
you,
that's
annexed
into
the
city
well,
is
remains
to
be
built
upon
unless
you
go
much
farther
east
or
to
the
road
across
the
road
to
the
north,
which
no
one
knows
when
that
would
ever
come
into
the
city.
So
I
have
an
obligation
to
everybody.
D
That's
previously
invested
in
their
properties
to
make
sure
that
what
they
expected
is
what
they
get
and
that's
my
position
and
I
personally
do
not
I
agree
wholeheartedly
with
the
planned
commission's
rejection
of
this
change,
and
that
will
be
my
position
the
next
time
around
on
this
when
we
vote
on
it.
So.
J
Mueller,
thank
you.
Glenn
just
I
want
to
make
a
couple
of
comments
and
I
have
one
other
question.
You
know
there
was
some
comment
made
at
the
Planning
Commission
meeting
about
the
street.
Perhaps
developing
a
road
out
there.
We've
got
the
half
Street
it's
a
major
collector,
but
it
certainly
isn't
set
up
as
a
major
collector
today
and
I
just
want
to
Clark
make
it
clear
that
I
don't
know
of
any
intention
of
expanding
that
road
at
the
city's
expense
and
I'll
direct
that
to
our
Public
Works
director
Von
I.
F
Know,
there's
currently
not
a
plan
in
place
that
is
not
in
our
five-year
CIP
to
widen.
14Th
Avenue
I
would
note,
though,
from
a
traffic
management
standpoint.
I
haven't
looked
the
exact
numbers
up,
how
it
is
it
how
it
we
do
acknowledge
this
half
Street
section
it's
about
24
feet
wide,
so
two
12-foot
Lanes.
F
As
a
civil
engineer,
as
the
city
engineer,
wearing
that
hat,
wouldn't
have
any
huge
concerns
with
that
being
a
bottleneck
or
issue
like
that,
the
intersection
itself
would
need
some
work
with
designated
turn
Lanes
to
help
increase
the
capacity
of
the
intersection
with
19th
Street,
but
the
through
traffic.
The
traffic
flow
on
14th
should
be
adequately
served
for
quite
some
time.
Yet
with
two
a
two-lane
Street
configuration
I
can
look
up
that
traffic
data
for
you
for
the
next
meeting.
J
J
If
we
do
add
more
R3
R2
in
an
adjacent
property
on
14th
I
think
that
would
could
actually
be
an
issue
for
us
as
far
as
that
street
density
for
traffic,
but
you
know
to
me
I'm
just
going
to
say
to
me:
this
is
a
no-brainer
I
mean
all
the
years
I
spend
on
Planning
Commission
when
you
have
the
public
outcry
like
this,
we
got.
This
is
a
small
town.
We
got
to
look
at
what
folks
are
thinking.
J
You
know
what
people
think
about
this,
what
they
want,
and
they
don't
want,
and
it's
very
simple
they
bought
in
an
area
that
was
planted
a
certain
way.
This
thing's
been
brought
up
twice
denied
twice,
and
here
we
are
back
with
it
again
and
I
hope
we
don't
have
to
see
it
again.
If
we
do
deny
this,
but
you
know,
I
think
this
in
itself,
The
Neighbors
in
in
this
community
that
really
do
not
want
this
development.
I
think
that
it
it
would
behoove
us
to
allow
this
to
happen.
B
Councilor
Shetty,
thank
you.
Deputy
mayor,
I
I
appreciate
this
process.
Even
tonight,
A
Planning,
Commission
I
was
at
the
Planning
Commission
meeting
and
just
just
being
able
to
see
the
the
pros
and
cons
from
both
perspectives.
So
even
tonight
it's
helping
me
work
through
which
decision
to
go
when
I
look
back
at
the
cax
division
it's
called,
and
that
was
at
at
the
lake
Pelican.
There
was
a
similar
scenario.
B
If
you
go
30
40,
50
years
down
the
road
and
something's
just
not
working,
we
at
some
point,
we
do
gotta
gotta,
look
things
over
and
and
see
what
may
work
best
so
I'm.
Looking
at
this
one
with
some
with
a
similar
lens
of
previously
you
know
is
this:
is
this
plan
working
is
the
master
plan
from
when
this
was
first
designed
up?
Obviously,
it
is
it's
almost
all
full
of
properties
and
single
resident
homes,
but,
but
also
on
that
point,
I'm
also
trying
to
look
at
it
from
both
ways.
B
I'm
trying
to
to
make
sure
I
really
can
get
a
good
perspective,
both
sides
of
it
not
and
which
I'm
sure
we
all
are
here.
One
thing
was
mentioned
was
from
C2
I
believe
it
was
to
R
to
R2
I,
believe,
and
is
it
fair
to
say
from
2005
to
2015
it
was
Zone
C2
with.
Could
someone
answer
that
question
for
a
moment.
F
I
believe
the
C2
designation
was
on
their
concept
Plan
before
it
was
formerly
annexed
and
zoned.
Is
that
correct,
Brandy
and
now
c2's
designation
then
subsequently
fell
off
upon
annexation
and
zoning
and
they
reduced
that
to
a
lesser
intensity,
zoning
to
and
settled
on
the
R2
District
that
it
is
today.
Okay,.
B
Because
I
was
just
yeah
curious:
if
there
was
property
owners
that
purchased
knowing
it
was
C2
and
then
knowing
that
there
would
be
traffic
of
a
C2,
it
could
be.
Who
knows,
convenience
store
or
whatever
it
could
be.
There
could
be
lots
of
traffic
regardless
if
it's
an
R3
or
a
C2.
So
I
was
just
curious
if
some
Property
Owners
purchased,
knowing
that
there
could
be
traffic
on
that
street.
B
So
again,
just
trying
to
look
at
it
from
from
the
traffic
perspective
and
and
some
other
scenario,
there
is
R3
right
next
to
it,
and
so
you
can
see
there,
you
could
see
it
from
both
ways.
We
can
see
R3
right
next
to
it.
That's
that
work.
Now
they
didn't
go
real
high
with
the
properties
so
again,
I'm
just
trying
to
keep
an
open,
an
open,
open,
View
on
this
thing
in
the
next
couple
weeks
before
next
week
or
I
mean
the
two
weeks
from
now.
B
L
Yes,
thank
you
councilman
billhauer,
just
as
a
point
of
clarification,
and
actually
it
was
something
councilman
Danforth
had
mentioned,
which
is
the
right
to
ask.
There
has
been
I've
got
new
inquiries
from
the
public
on
this.
Just
as
to
why
we're
here
again,
why
is
this
keep
coming
up,
and
you
know
just
as
a
point
of
clarification.
Obviously
it's
within
the
council's
purview
to
take
previous
decisions
into
consideration.
L
You
know
why
do
we
need
to
change
it,
or
should
we
change
it,
but
under
our
ordinance
the
applicant
is
allowed
to
reapply
every
six
months
and
obviously
that's
you
know,
obviously
not
with
this
specific
project,
but
in
general
you
want
to
have
the
city
to
be
able
to
adapt
to
changes
in
the
environment.
So
just
so
I
wanted
to
put
that
as
a
point
of
clarification
that
an
applicant
can
apply
and
reapply
every
six
months
if
they
like
so.
F
According
to
the
plans
they
had
at
that
time,
back
in
2019.,
So
detention
was
attainable
on
their
site,
but
they
did
need
to
grade
onto
our
property
to
accommodate
their
plans
that
they
had
last
point
I
was
going
to
make
is
I,
believe
the
the
applicants
representatives
are
online
and
I
know
we're
not
in
a
formal
public
hearing
this
evening,
but
Mr
chairman.
If
you
did
want
to
entertain
additional
comment
from
them,
they
are
online
and
I
believe
a
bill
available
for
that.
Thank.
D
D
So
as
that's
just
important,
because
somebody
goes
to
look,
you
up
they're
going
to
have
to
go
to
the
radio
station.
So
my
concern
isn't
the
road.
My
concern
isn't
the
water,
the
road
can
be
fixed
with
a
commitment
by
the
city
and
some
dollars
the
water
is,
is
part
of
Whatever
Gets
developed
on
there
is
going
to
be
managed
in
a
manner.
That's
required,
though,
to
me
those
are
not
issues.
D
D
They
could
decide
tomorrow
to
maximize
the
height
of
these
buildings,
and
we
can't
do
a
darn
thing
about
that,
because
we
approve
the
zoning
and
they
are
working
within
the
realm
of
what
the
ordinances
say
they
can
and
they
could
build
a
55-foot
high
building
back
there,
one
big
building
if
they
wanted
to
that's
55
feet
high.
That
would
be
absolutely
inappropriate
because
part
of
the
condition
that
we
should
be
considering
rezoning
is
not
just.
A
A
G
You
Deputy
Mayor
I,
do
want
to
point
out
something
that
I
I
disagree
with
on
the
Planning
Commission
I,
don't
like
how
the
decision
was
made
to
fail.
This
I
watched
it
live,
I
re-watched,
it
and
I've
also
talked
to
several
members,
and
there
was
one
member
on
there
that
made
it
fail
on
purpose
and
he
changed
his
vote
based
on
one
member's
vote.
G
I
don't
agree
with
how
that's
says
how
that
went
down
and
the
only
reason
I'm
bringing
it
up
is
because
it's
continually
continually
been
said
on
how
this
failed
at
the
the
commission
and
I
I.
Just
don't
agree
with
that
it
was,
it
was
sent
to
us
destined
to
fail,
and
it
is
what
it
is
at
this
point.
But
I
I
really
disagree
with
how
the
plan
commission
sent
this
to
us.
G
But
then
a
clarification
too,
on
development
is
a
developer.
Just
has
to
get
their
costs
back.
So
they
have
to
the
infrastructure
that
they
put
in,
they
need
to
get
out,
and
that's
why
my
comments
weren't,
saying
that
it
could
never
be
developed
as
something
else
just
that
R1
is
very
unlikely
on
someone
unless
someone
buys
it
for
their
own
house
and
puts
one
house
on
there,
but
R2
is
almost.
It
was
almost
unfeasible
two
years
ago
or
three
years
ago.
G
It
definitely
is
today.
I
can
tell
you
that,
based
on
development
costs
and
that's
why
it's
coming
forward
as
an
R3.
Just
it
density
matters
to
them
too,
as
a
developer.
Otherwise
they
can't
recover
their
costs
and
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
develop
it.
So
if
we
say
node
R3
I,
it
will
not
be
developed.
J
Oh
thanks,
Glenn
just
another
comment
and
I
just
want
to
reiterate
something
that
councilman
Danforth
had
mentioned
earlier
and
that's
the
fact
that
most
of
these
landowners
here
are
adjacent
to
this
property
and
they're
going
from
an
R1.
They
want
to
transition
directly
to
an
R3
and
that's
planning
101..
J
You
try
to
transition
with
an
R2
if,
if
you
can
to
an
R3
and
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear,
but
I
think
everybody
most
of
these
folks
purchased
their
property
with
the
idea
that
it
would
be
zoned
a
certain
way
that
different
types
of
properties
could
be
developed
a
certain
way.
You
know
and
just
to
remind
this
Council
that
the
cax
Edition
we
turned
this
that
down
for
just
about
the
same
reason:
the
at
Lake
Pelican.
J
You
know
because
it
was
adjacent
to
R1
I,
think
that
was
probably
the
main
reason
that
we
did
that
and
so
I
I
think
that's
that's
appropriate
here
and
and
to
councilman
Paulson's
point
I
I
agree
100!
I
I
development's
a
good
thing,
but
we
have
to
look
at
this
and
say:
is
this
the
appropriate
location
for
it,
and
there
are
places
that
in
this
around
this
community,
that
could
be
appropriate
for
this.
A
I
The
question
I
got
is,
and
it
could
happen
that
all
developers
are
going
to
back
out
of
this
deal
and
is
everybody
going
to
be
happy?
Looking
at
an
undeveloped
plot,
everybody
wants
to
see
the
big
pile
of
dirt
because
I
know
that
was
brought
to
the
city's
attention
last
year
and
it
could
very
well
happen.
F
F
A
Well,
in
the
interest
of
time,
I
I'm,
sorry,
we
can't
get
these
people
up
the
parliaments
to
speak,
that
we
can
hear
them.
They
will
have
an
opportunity
in
two
weeks
when
we
open
it
up
for
a
formal
public
hearing
at
that
time.
So
I
would
ask
everyone
at
that
time
to
please.
You
know
again
appear
before
us,
make
your
comments
known.
We,
as
accounts
are
going
to
cut
off
the
conversation
tonight
and
again
take
it
up
on
the
third
I
think
at
this
point.
A
Unless
you
want
us,
you're
invited
to
stick
around
for
the
rest
of
the
meeting
you're
more
than
welcome
to
I
guarantee,
it
won't
be
as
exciting
as
the
Vikings
were
on
Saturday,
but
you're
welcome
to
stay,
but
if
not
we're
gonna,
take
a
brief
break
and
I
think
we
have
some
technical
issues
with
our
with
gov
TV
as
well.
So
you're
welcome
to
stay
or
welcome
to
go.
We'll.
Take
a
brief
break
and
reconvene
in
about
five
minutes.