►
From YouTube: BOA & Plan Commission Meetings 06 09 2016
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
A
D
A
A
You
the
first
item
on
the
agenda,
is
the
approval
of
the
May
5th
2016
minutes.
Could
I
get
a
motion
in
a
second
I'll?
Make
a
motion
motion
by
mr.
McGuire
sang
by
mr.
Dahle,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
opposed
motion
carries
second
item
on
the
agenda.
Is
the
applicant
Marlin
West
of
Midland
Builders
permit
number
one
six
seven?
Seventy
one
is
seeking
a
conditional
use
to
allow
a
three
three
family
unit
located
at
612
East
Kempton,
an
AR
to
a
single-family
residential
district.
C
Three
and
four
family
dwellings
is
a
listed
conditional
use
of
the
r2,
a
single-family
attached
residential
district
421,
1804
and
21
1603
to
contingent
on
compliance
with
minimum
lot
area
dwelling
units
and
other
ordinance
regulations
listed
below
this
request
can
flix
with
twenty
one
one:
zero
zero
one
and
twenty
one
zero
three
zero.
Two
on
the
lot
size,
no
building
structure,
yeah!
Well!
So
thank
you
basically
again.
This
is
a
lot
in
our
two
district
and
this
is
an
older
home
and
it's
been.
It's
been
three
apartments
for
a
while
and
now.
C
Basically,
you
just
found
out
that
that
was
not
a
conditionally
has
not
been
granted
to
conditionally
used
to
be
that
in
his
own.
So
he's
here
asking
to
make
it
think
he's
got
enough
parking
to
meet
all
the
requirements
for
the
one
four
bedroom
parking
requirement.
It
does
not
meet
the
minimum
dwelling
unit
requirements
of
2,200
square
feet
per
dwelling
unit
in
our
two
district.
But
if
this
is
in
the
earth
free
district,
it
would
easily
it's.
A
C
A
A
The
zoning
does
anyone
here
to
speak
on
behalf
or
against
the
conditional
use,
if
not
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
ask
for
a
motion
in
a
second
for
discussion
motion
by
mr.
Arnold
second
by
mr.
Dahle.
Any
other
discussion
on
anybody
have
any
questions
for
him.
Seeing
none
ask
for
a
vote
all
in
favor,
say
aye
opposed
motion
carries
anything
in
old
business
Ken.
You.
A
B
A
D
D
F
A
Motion
by
mr.
McGuire
say
goodbye
mr.
Hanson,
home
favor,
say
aye
opposed
motion
carries
second
item
on
the
agenda.
Is
the
approval
of
the
minutes
from
the
April
21st
and
the
May
5th
2016
meetings
get
a
get
a
motion
motion
by
mr.
Stein
say
goodbye
mr.
McGuire,
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposed
motion
carries
third
item
on
the
agenda:
the
northerly
18-feet
of
South
Lake
Drive
lot,
six
through
27
in
the
arens
Park
addition
of
vacation
I.
D
Will
take
it
from
here
if
that's
okay,
the
action
in
front
of
you
right
now
is
a
be
a
recommendation
of
approval
of
a
vacationer
right
away.
It's
described
on
the
petition
as
a
northerly
18
feet
of
South
Lake
Drive
adjacent
to
watch
six
through
27
a
block
to
Aaron's
Park
addition.
There
are
15
property
owners
who
have
signed
this
I.
Will
spare
you
reading
all
of
them
and
say
that
we've
got
15
signatures
on
this
representative
is
here.
If
there
are
questions
where
this
comes
from,
is
I
I'll?
Give
you
an
idea.
D
You
know
our
Salt
Lake
Drive
is,
but
this
is
across
from
the
Prairie
winds,
Golf
Course
on
South
Lake,
Drive,
south
side
of
the
lake,
and
it
is
a
stretch
of
approximately
a
thousand
feet
of
South
Lake
Drive,
which
was
initially
planted
around
110
years
ago
there.
He,
the
petitioner,
was
advised
by
a
Planning
Commission
that
the
board
would
not
consider
vacating
a
portion
of
South
Lake
Drive
unless
all
the
adjacent
landowners
signed.
In
this
case.
It's
a
stretch
that
you
see
on
the
map.
D
This
is
a
representation
only
and
I'll
get
into
why
that
is
in
just
a
moment.
South
Lake
Drive
is
a
collector
Street
in
this
stretch,
right
away,
west
of
this
stretch
is
70
feet
wide
east
of
this
property
of
varies
between
50
and
88
feet
in
this
particular
location.
Currently
it
is
88
feet
in
width.
To
give
you
an
idea.
Collectors
were
we're.
Typically
asking
for
70
feet
is
what
we
have
been
lately
on
those.
D
If
this
were
a
newly
planted
lot,
we
have
had
some
updated
information
on
where
utilities
are
and
with
reference
to
actual
property
lines
I'll
get
into
that
in
a
second.
But
again,
as
I
said,
vacating
18
feet
would
leave
70
feet,
oh
right
away
after
this
after
this
went
out
a
little
bit.
More
information
was
gathered
here
and
has
has
come
to
light
and.
D
Aware
that
they
were
notified
to
gather
these
signatures,
those
property
owners
gathered
their
signatures,
but
somewhere
between
5
and
10
structures
on
properties
are
located
within
the
right
away,
as
it
sits
today.
The
reason
I
say
somewhere
between
5
and
10
is
because
we're
now
able
to
find
where
the
survey
is
at
this
point,
and
so
what
we
do
know
is
there
is
a
property.
D
That's
been
surveyed
there
and
that's
that's
where
we're
at
right
now,
so
without
knowing
exactly
where
the
right-of-way
is,
we
would
run
the
risk
of
potentially
vacating
property
that
would
put
it.
They
would
actually
put
the
road
itself
into
private
property,
which
is
a
bad
idea,
obviously
so
I
just
kind
of
want
to
go
through
the
just
the
potential
actions
that
you
could
have
and
you
vacate
it
as
requested,
but
it
runs
the
risk
I
just
noted,
plus
utilities
could
be
there
without
easement
I
reserved
the
entire
areas,
an
easement.
D
However,
if
you
do
that,
then
there's
no
building
in
that
area
and
those
structures
that
are
they're
illegal
anyway,
you
could
vacate
different
direct
dimensions
for
different
Lots,
which
is
probably
a
good
idea.
But
at
this
point
we
don't
know
exactly
what
those
dimensions
would
be
you'd
vacate
right
away
for
some,
but
all
not
all
Lots,
which
would
be
a
good
idea,
except
that
in
the
end,
a
lot
of
these
are
going
to
need
to
be
vacated
at
some
point
and
eighty-eight.
D
Feder
right
away
is
more
than
we
would
typically
have
anyway
could
deny
it,
but
then
we
still
have
to
handle.
What
do
we
do
about
the
existing
structures
recommendation,
at
least
at
a
staff
city
engineer
and
myself
is
I-
probably
want
to
table
this
action.
Give
us
give
us
a
couple
of
weeks
to
come
back,
try
and
find
out
get
a
better
feel
for
where
exactly
property
lines
are
and
figure
out
how
much
we
would
need
to
vacate
and
come
back
and
discuss
this
in
two
weeks.
D
A
D
Would
actually
be
probably
opposite
of
that
we'd
still
have
it
would
it
would
be
an
inconsistent
right
away?
Probably
it's
difficult
to
tell
that's
kind
of
where
we
need
to
get
into.
We
could
either
do
a
case
where
we
have
a
consistent
right
away
with,
but
we
reserve
more
or
less
easement
or
we
do
smaller
portion
of
a
vacation
on
one
end
in
a
larger
portion
on
the
other
end,
and
that's
really
what
we
need
to
hammer
out
exactly
how
we
do
that
and.
G
G
All
the
way
along
that
and
then,
of
course,
the
utilities
are
built,
a
certain
distance
off
of
the
existing
roadway
so
to
define
a
consistent,
V
distance
debate
along
that
side
is
difficult
because
there's
nothing
accurate
to
measure
from
at
this
point,
so
we're
trying
to
get
a
feel
for
what
we
should
appropriately
vacate
relative
to
the
existing
utilities,
but
and
find
a
way
to
adequately
describe.
That.
Is
that
fair
to
say.
C
D
D
A
A
D
All
right,
as
you
stated
next
item,
is
the
plot
of
the
Watertown
community
center
edition
and
property,
primarily
owned
by
the
city
of
Watertown,
with
some
right
away,
adjacent
properties.
The
plat
here
where
this
is
at
this
is
the
future
community
center
north
of
14th
Avenue
between
11th
and
19th
Street.
D
D
21
acres
does
that
retain
21,
22
acres
and
then
there's
a
drainage
out
a
lot
in
the
middle
here
where
you
can
see
the
trees
on
this
aerial
image
in
a
little
bit
more
area
right
away
on.
This
are
66
feet
wide
on
what
would
be
15th
Street
heading
to
the
north
and
18th
Avenue
on
the
north
edge
of
the
property
so
again,
15
to
66
feet,
wide
eighteen
to
sixty
six
feet
wide
and
then
the
additional
appropriate
forty
feet,
accounting
for
a
total
of
80
foot
right
away
here
on
14th
Avenue.
D
That's
what
is
plotted
the
reason
that
the
adjacent
property
owners
are
also
signed
on.
This
is
because
they're
small
portions
are
also
involved
in
this
plot
is
because
there
are
small
portions
that
are
involved
added
on
to
that
right
away,
to
make
it
a
total
of
66
feet
on
both
the
east
and
north
sides.
A
A
A
A
A
G
D
H
D
That
we're
talking
about
and
I'm
using
a
pointer,
that's
difficult
to
see,
but
the
area
we're
talking
about
rezoning
is
a
city-owned
property
in
this
area
around
here
and
up
to
the
railroad
and
then
back
up
here
to
have
that
zoned
agricultural,
as
is
the
rest
of
the
parks
you
can
see
to
the
north
you've,
got
the
zoo
the
parks
going
up
this
way.
You've
also
got
some
of
the
open
space
down
here,
also
zoned
agricultural,
more
or
less
to
be
consistent.
D
The
primary
reason
that
we're
talking
about
doing
this
is
because
the
area
that
is
actually
used
for
the
park
is
currently
zoned
PUD
and
for
those
of
you
on
the
board
that
have
gone
through
a
Planned
Unit
development
process.
You're
aware
that
every
time
there
is
a
change
to
the
Planned
Unit
development
that
needs
to
go
all
the
way
back
through
you
and
then
back
through
the
council,
whether
if
it's
a
change
just
to
add
a
structure
or
change
grading,
any
of
that
is
supposed
to
go
all
the
way
through.
D
The
point
is
rezoning
it
to
an
agricultural
zoning
designation.
Would
one
be
consistent
with
the
rest
of
parks
are
zoned
into?
It
would
allow
it
to
just
get
a
building
permit
if
they
want
to
put
up
a
picnic,
shack
or
something,
and
so
that's
where
this
came
in
and
you
can
see
on
the
map.
I
can
get
into
more
detail
where
this
is,
but
you
can
see
some
of
its
zoned
r2
or
sorry
r2,
a
some
of
its
own
industrial,
but
the
bulk
of
it
is
on
PUD.
A
F
Did
or
more
of
a
comment,
I
guess:
I,
really
like
all
the
development
and
improvements
that
are
taking
place
in
Lyons,
Park
and
the
rest
of
the
community
does
too,
because
that
place
is
packed
with
kids
and
families
all
the
time,
but
there's
no
pedestrian
route
of
traffic
to
get
into
Lions
park.
The
bike
trail
is
on
the
west
side
of
the
bridge
and
they
have
to
cross
the
bridge
on
the
road
or
coming
from
the
east
side.
There's
no
sidewalk
all
the
way
down
so
they're
going
to
be
in
the
road
there
too.
F
G
G
We're
in
fact,
we've
reached
out
to
try
to
get
some
big
grant
funding
for
the
study
that
has
to
come
first,
but
we'll
address
that
sidewalk
accessibility
issue
during
that
project
and
probably
extend
that
an
appropriate
distance
and
either
side
of
the
river
as
well.
So
it
is
something
that
we've
recognized
and
we'll
take
care
of
when
we
do
that
project.
A
Thank
you
any
other
questions
with
that.
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
ask
for
motion
in
a
second
motion
by
mr.
Stein
second
by
mr.
McGuire
or
any
other
discussion.
All
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposed
motion
carries
item
number
six
is
the
listing
of
the
commercial
residential
uses
in
a
commercial
and
a
conditional
uses
in
the
i1
and
i2
zones
in
ordinance
a
minute
amendment.
D
Sure
this
next
item
and
I've
only
got
one
slide
here.
Next
item
is
the
zoning
ordinance
amendment
initiated
by
this
board
at
the
previous
meeting
would
be
about
a
month
ago
now,
during
the
May
5th
Planning
Commission
meeting
staff
notified
the
board
that
at
least
one
fitness
facility
is
located
and
I
ones
on
property,
and
that
there
was
inclination
of
a
gymnastics
facility
which
was
previously
in
an
I
1
property.
D
Looking
at
an
eye
to
zone
property,
fitness
or
similar
recreational
uses
are
not
listed
as
allowed
in
the
industrial
district,
and
that's
where
the
initiation
started.
Now
the
proposal
defined
is
a
commercial
recreational
use
which
is
very
similar
to
a
recreational
use
definition.
Only
it
ads
in
the
commercial
portion.
I
will
happily
read
it
to
you
if
you
would
like,
but
it
was
provided
in
the
pack
and
has
been
online
for
a
week.
The
other
primary
component
to
that
is
to
list
commercial
recreational
uses
as
an
allowable
conditional
use
in
the
i1
and
i2
districts.
D
That
obviously,
is
not
specifically
spelled
out
today,
but
it
is.
It
is
the
proposal
in
here
from
standpoint
of
putting
this
report
together.
The
idea
was
give
you,
you
know,
pros
and
cons
towards
it
towards
the
approval
of
it
or
denial,
reasons
that
would
support.
It
would
be
that
we're
aware
of
at
least
two
facilities
which
have
operated
in
the
i1
district
in
the
past,
without
compliant
or
conflict
with
adjacent
land
uses.
D
A
denial
of
the
amendment
would
likely
would
would
likely
have
us
needing
to
look
at
ordering
those
places
out
of
the
i1
district
if
they
are
there
and
it
would
allow
opportunity
for
infill
business
with
previously
constructed
contractor
shops
and
storage
buildings.
These
buildings,
with
steel,
siding
high
walls,
reasons
to
deny
the
amendment
would
be,
allowing
recreational
uses
could
be
in
harmonious,
would
be
in
harmonious
with
heavy
and
light
industrial
uses,
which
is
listed
as
one
of
the
purposes
of
the
industrial
district
light
industrial
shipping
receiving
and
shiftwork
the
traffic
patterns
in
parking
could
conflict.
A
D
The
example
there
is
where
we
used
to
have
the
prohibition
on
liquor
sales
within
a
certain
distance
of
daycare
centers.
The
similar
conflict
potentially
could
exist
here
and
then
also.
The
amendment
is
not
supported
by
work.
Town,
Fire,
Rescue
and
I
know
that
chip
is
here
to
address
any
questions
as
well,
but
I
included
some
notes.
He
had
stated
to
me
if
a
malfunction
occurs
at
a
manufacturing
facility
being
lawfully
operated
in
an
industrial
district.
The
potential
for
large
fires,
explosions
and
chemical
release
that
threatens
Public
Safety
is
larger.
D
D
Allowing
recreational
activity
in
these
areas
could
affect
the
efficiency
of
emergency
response.
The
responders
would
have
more
people
to
evacuate
which
takes
time
and
resources.
These
were.
Resources
should
be
used
to
mitigate
an
immediate
threat
and
be
a
chemical
or
fire
exposure,
and
then
also
the
note
was
also
added
from
Fire
Rescue
that
fire
rescue
also
recommends
removal
of
daycares
unless
their
accessory
to
an
industrial,
business,
restaurants
and
hotels
from
industrial
districts,
removing
commercial
uses
from
industrial
districts.
A
So
taking
a
step
back,
we've
got
what
what
tends
to
be
in
recent
years,
some
types
of
gems
and
some
gymnastics
facilities
that
tend
to
gravitate
into
that
industrial
zone
due
to
the
type
and
size
of
buildings
that
work
for
them,
and
it's
convenient
moving
backwards.
A
couple
of
weeks
ago,
they
talked
to
us
and
there
was
a
building
that
they
left
from
an
industrial
zone
that
they're
moving
into
another
one
in
an
industrial
zone
without
well.
What
we'll
do
is
we
just
need
a
wordsmith,
our
ordinance,
a
little
bit
to
make
them
compliant.
A
D
A
It
it
was
an
IAD
vaguely
remember
years
ago,
and
we
what
we
did
is
we
got
rid
of
that
zone
and
I.
Remember
when
we
did
first
District
said
it's
going
to
come
back
and
haunt
you,
you
might
not
want
to
get
rid
of
that
zone
at
that
time
and
we
did,
and
now
here
we
sit
coming
back
going.
Are
we
better
off
to
modify
our
existing
zone,
which
the
danger
of
that
is?
A
Is
you
could
open
up
a
Pandora's
box
and
have
something
you
didn't
want
at
a
later
date,
or
do
we
come
out
and
redo
the
ordinance
adding
a
zone
on
the
flip
side
of
that
you've
got
some
safety
issues.
That
chip
has
some
concerns.
With
that
you
know
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
the
community
is
trying
to
find
a
place,
for
you
know
we're
trying
to
do
a
quick
fix
for
something
that.
F
A
Needed
that's
there,
but
we
also
don't
want
to
do
the
wrong
thing
from
a
safety
standpoint.
We
don't
want
to
do
the
wrong
thing
from
a
future
standpoint.
We
we
modified
the
ordinance
to
find
out.
We've
opened
up
a
Pandora's
box,
and
now
we
get
too
much
of
the
wrong
stuff
in
the
wrong
place,
but
that's
kind
of
where
we're
at
correct.
That's.
D
H
D
That
would
be
a
different
ordinance.
Amendment
I'd
have
to
think
of
pros
and
cons
on
that,
but
I
mean
in
the
end.
The
pros
would
be
that
you
could
at
least
you'd
at
least
tie
that
down
to
specific
areas,
whereas
if
it's
a
list
of
conditional
use
in
both
i1
i2
all
no
holds
barred
in
the
rest
of
districts
right.
I
Chip
remarked
on
fire-prevention,
sir,
the
zoning
is
it's
a
tool
for
safety,
also
and
and
like
took
my
thunder
by
reading
my
letter,
but
that's
alright.
You
know
as
West
Texas
that
explosion
and
the
zoning
was
found
to
be
one
of
the
faults
of
why
there
was
so
many
injuries,
and
we
I
think
we
have
all
the
commercial
areas
do
have
are
allowed
do
to
have
these
gyms
in
there
and
there's
plenty
of
you
know
I
have
to
think
about.
I
You
know
it's
not
easy
by
no
means
being
the
guy
sitting
in
the
spot
saying
these
people
have
had
these
little
gyms
in
these
contractor
shops.
You
know
to
leave
well
contractor
shops,
aren't
built
for
an
assembly
use
they're
built
for
contractors,
and
then
they
modify
these
to
fit
whatever
needs
they
want,
and
it's
it's
never
been
permissible
and
we
have
to
be
the
ones
to
enforce
that,
but
also
this
the
different
zoning
is,
you
know
I
that
just
opens
up
another
worm.
I
I
You
know,
and
so
I'm
asking
the
board
to
enforce
the
zoning
that
you
know.
We
use
this
as
a
tool
when
we
responding
to
an
to
an
area.
We
know
it's
industrial,
we're
not
expecting
to
pull
up
and
it
happened
to
be
during
a
recreational
group
meeting
time
and
there's
50
more
cars
and
you
know
or
15
more
cars
and
a
bunch
of
kids.
You
know,
though,
just
dropped
off.
You
know
we
have
to
deal
with
that.
I
First,
we
really
need
to
be
dealing
with
the
emergency
right
away
because
in
these
industrial
areas,
the
faster
that
we
can
mitigate
the
what's
what's
what's
happening,
the
less
right
it
is
to
the
general
public
as
a
whole.
But
if
we
have
to
take
our
resources
for
evacuation,
then
we
have
that's
time
and
times
critical
for
us,
so
I
don't
believe
this
spot
zoning.
I
So
if
the
commercial,
you
know
I've
had
some
arguments,
they
talked
about
commercial
zones,
they
don't
like
them
because
they
have
sight
tall
sidewalls
to
what
we
just
talked
about
this
at
this
board.
You
know
a
few
weeks
ago
and
residential
garage
is
how
we
can
make
those
sidewalls
more
appearing
appealing
to
the
eye.
Well,
I
agree.
We
can
do
this
too
also
in
commercial
areas
too.
So
any
questions,
just
let
me
know.
A
D
D
I
Yes,
there's:
this
is
a
heavy
industrial
plating,
the
platy
manufacturing
place.
They
have
lots
of
chemicals
that
they
use
in
their
process
and
yeah.
These
places
are.
These
are
finally
when
they're
everything's
working
well,
but
if
there
is
an
accident
or
a
malfunction
in
the
processing
part,
there
can
be
catastrophic
things
happen
and
we
can
google
that
industrial
accidents
and
they're
all
over
the
country.
A
A
H
A
I
F
I
D
I
It
and
just
just
one
more
thing
and
I'll
be
done.
I
know
it's
difficult
for
the
board,
because
I
know
these
kids
need
a
place
to
go
and
it's
difficult
to
be
the
ones
that
say
you
know
what
no
you
can't
be
there,
but
it's
also
difficult
to
be
the
ones
to
you
know.
If
an
accident
does
happen,
then
that
we
let
it
happen,
you
know
what
these
kids
were
in
this
area
and
the
accident
happened.
I
We
were
the
ones
that
said
well,
it's
okay,
we'll
spot
zone
and
we'll
do
this
we'll
make
it
good
on
paper.
But
you
know
we
have
to
protect
the
public
as
our
responsibility
because
they
don't
they're
not
aware
of
what's
going
on
in
these
other
buildings,
they're
just
looking
for
a
place
to
go,
and
we
have
to
be
the
ones
responsible
on
you
know
to
think
about
this
and
you
know
protect
them
as
a
whole.
That's
all
I
got.
D
What
winds
up
happening
and
I'm,
probably
the
last
person
that
should
be
answering
this,
but
what
winds
up
happening
is
that
the
structures
are
built.
There
is
no
occupancy
permit
system.
So
once
the
structures
are
built
they
go
in
unless
they
need
a
permit
for
modifications
on
it.
Am
I
right
there,
ken
and
chip
yep.
C
I
And
that's
what
its
difficulties
contractor
shops
because
they
they
come
in
and
they
build
the
shop.
This
is
contractor
shop.
Well,
we've
issued
the
building
permit,
we
walked,
do
our
walkthrough
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
we're
assuming
they're
all
contractors
and
we'll.
Then
we
become
aware,
through
things
like
this,
that
well
there's
a
gym
in
there,
but.
J
I
J
A
J
A
You
know
everybody
tries
to
accommodate
everyone
what's
good
for
one.
You
know
I
mean
in
this
case
the
Dakota
Gold
is
in
an
I
zone
and
the
neighbor
wants
to
buy
the
building
and
they
bought
the
building
and
now
300
gymnasts
don't
have
a
place
to
go.
Somebody
else
comes
up
and
goes
hey,
I
get
a
building
that
will
work
for
you
and
they
try
to
make
it
work
and
to
find
out
that
it's
not
compliant
in
that
zone.
A
So
now
it's
we
were
taxed
with
making
the
hard
decisions
as
what's
the
right
and
wrong
thing.
What
we
have
in
front
of
us
now
is
what
we
asked
to
have
in
front
of
us
now
was
an
amendment
to
our
ordinance
that
would
allow
commercial
our.
Let
me
see
how
that's
read:
recreation
facility
in
the
i2
zone.
So
that's
what
that's!
What
they've
done?
A
They've
modified
the
ordinance
for
us
and
added
item
number
five
commercial
recreational
facilities
as
a
conditional
use
in
the
IT
in
the
I
zone
and
will
be
taxed
on
voting
on
what
we
ask
them
to
do
for
us
with
different
information.
You
know
more
I'm,
not
gonna,
say
different
information,
but
more
information
than
we
had
before
you
know,
and
it
is
a
tough
one,
one
from
a
safety
standpoint
and
chip.
You
said:
there's
a
metal
plating
facility
across
the
street.
Yes,.
F
It
was
the
safety
is
definitely
a
top
priority
for
concern
here,
and
you
know
initially
I
thought
about
this
being
a
conditional
use
and
it
happened
to
come
back
before
the
board,
so
we
could
at
least
take
a
look
at
the
neighbors
and
what
was
around
them
before
we
approved
in
a
use,
but
the
flip
side
of
that
is
once
we
approve
the
conditional
use.
The
neighbors
could
change
and
the
degree
of
danger
could
change
being
in
the
back
of
that
area.
H
D
Not
as
a
part
of
this
action,
I
think
what
was
going
on
there
and
if
you
could
straighten
me
out,
but
his
the
point
that
was
made
was
that
was
it
in
future
actions.
It
would
be
suggested
that
that
we
remove
from
the
industrial
districts.
Currently
it's
listed
that
you
could
have
daycares
restaurants
in
hotels
and
the
suggestion
from
Fire
Rescue
is
that
we
take
those
out
as
well.
The
only
thing
about
daycares
and
daycares
chip
and
I
had
this
conversation.
D
A
I
And
that's
right
and
you
know
we
didn't
address
that
at
that
time.
When
we're
back
at
the
same
game,
you
know
we're
now
we're
are
we
gonna
allow
this
again?
We
you
know
that
came
up
today,
I
wouldn't
allow
that
you
know
I,
just
you
know,
did
we
keep
repeating
what
we're
doing
or
do
we
fix
it
now
and
think
of
the
safety
aspect
of
it?
I
A
H
H
Building:
okay,
now
like
Watertown
box
as
an
example,
I,
don't
know
today
if
they
do
but
the
a
few
years
ago,
they
put
an
addition
on
there
and
did
recreation
in
that
building
for
all
the
employees
to
use
and
take
advantage
of
which
they
did
I,
suppose
the
noon,
hours
and
various
things,
but
then,
of
course,
after
hours
they
come
and
use
it
for
the
same
purpose.
I
know
in
Sioux,
Falls
I
can
I
can
think
two
examples
that
are
pretty
close
to
home
of
big
companies
that
are
doing
the
same
thing.
H
I
Yeah,
you
know
that
that,
like
the
gym
you're
talking
about
or
the
daycare
that,
if
a
business,
why
that's
an
accessory
use
if
an
industry
wanted
to
have
a
small
area
where
they
could
have
a
few
kids,
that
you
know
they
want
to
provide
daycare.
Or
we
all
know
that
you
know
working
out
and
things
are
good
for
your
your
employees
to
more
productivity.
So
then
they
have
their
little
workout
area
and
that's
provided
that's
just
an
accessory
used
to
there.
But.
A
A
Still
think
they
shouldn't
be
they're,
very
daring
along
if
it's
gonna
blow
up,
you
know,
but
you
know
I
mean
you
look
and
go
it's
kind
of
six.
You
know
we
do.
We
want
a
recreational
facility
in
there.
What's
the
difference,
if
I
have
a
recreational
facility
or
if
I
have
a
workout
gym
for
1,500
employees,
they're
years
they're
still
in
a
line
of
fire,
that's
kind
of
the
same
thing:
I'm,
not
against
I.
Looking
I'd,
you
know
what
what
can
we
do
to
make
every
industrial
exposure
as
safe
as
possible?
A
I,
don't
I,
wouldn't
want
to
be
across
the
street
from
somebody
that
I'm
worried
about
a
fire
and
we
should
be
more
proactive
on
those
places
to
make
sure
they
don't
get
on
fire
and
they're
up
to
code.
So
we
don't
put
other
people
and
you
know
if
somebody
wants
to
put
a
gym
or
a
daycare
in
his
business.
We
should
be
able
to
say
that
sounds
like
a
good
idea
and
everybody's
safe,
but
but.
I
But
you
have
to
use
the
argument
also
that
these
companies
that
have
these
employees
that
work
there
they
are
familiar.
What,
with
you
know
the
threats
and
they're
familiar
with
their
surroundings?
What's
going
on?
They
know
other
place
by
the
back
of
their
hand
compared
to
an
independent
building
that
somebody
uses
people
come
in
and
drop
their
kids
off
and
or
go
there
to
work
out.
They
don't
know
this
wrong.
Is
they
don't
know?
What's
in
these
other
structures?
You
know
it's
being
familiar
with
your
surroundings,
so
you
have
to
use
that
argument.
Where's.
B
B
I'm
talking
about
after
you
know,
when
they're
in
the
business
you
know
like
Minnesota
Robert
when
they
were
in
business,
OSHA
was
out
there
all
the
time,
and
if
there
was
a
daycare
and
there
there
would
have
to
be
some
requirements.
That
OSHA
would
basically
require
for
a
daycare
to
be
running
there.
F
H
Well,
I
agree
totally
with
what
you're
saying
and
the
difficulty
and
the
safety
issue.
The
only
thing
if
we
vote
for
this
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
tell
I
mean
I
would
not
be
a
favor
of
telling
any
of
these
manufacturing
places
that
no
longer
can
you
have
an
area
in
that
building
where
your
employees
can
come
and
work
out
and
and
what
are
you
going
to
say,
relax
right.
B
H
C
J
I
D
D
A
E
A
We
all
said
you
know
what
we
think.
We
could
probably
help
you
out
with
that
we're
gonna
there's
a
wordsmith
something
into
our
zoning
ordinance,
and
here
we
are,
and
but,
as
things
more
enlightening
comes
in
and
you
look
in
hindsight,
we
told
them
yeah
well,
that'd
be
a
great
spot
for
you.
All
we
got
to
do
is
just
add
commercial
recreational
facilities
in
our
I
to
zone
all
right,
yeah
I
to
zone,
and
we
can,
but
it's
a
conditional
use.
A
A
H
A
Back
full
circle:
there's
a
were
a
small
community,
there's
limited
ability
or
opportunities
for
people.
We
try
to
make
as
much
work
as
best
we
can,
and
so
here
we
sit
and
we're.
We
got
safety
on
one
hand
and
and
the
opportunity
for
the
kids
on
the
other
hand,
and
we
don't
want
to
make
a
wrong
decision
like
chip,
says
and
find
out.
150
kids
got
hurt
and
as
our
fall.
J
D
D
Actually
I
was
gonna.
Do
a
recap
here:
okay,
so
here
here's
where
you
said
you've
got
a
you
get
a
zoning
amendment
initiated
by
this
board,
in
which
the
request,
the
the
amendment
is
to
add
commercial
recreation,
commercial,
recreational
uses
in
the
I
1
and
I
2
district.
If
you
say
yes,
you
will
forward
that
on
to
the
City
Council,
who
will
hold
two
readings
and
then
that
ordinance
would
then
become
effective
and
then
one
you
know
it
would
become
effective
two
weeks
after
the
second
publication.
D
A
D
You
say
no
and
I
just
want
to
finish
these
two
points.
If
you
say
no,
there
are
two
ways
you
could
go
with
a
null.
You
could
say
no
to
this,
which
would
stop
it
in
its
tracks
from
your
standpoint.
It
would
stop
it
and,
and
then
you
could
say
we're
not
interested
in
looking
at
a
we're,
not
interested
in
initiating
a
new
zoning
district.
That's
one
option
or
two
as
a
part
of
that
you
could
say
no,
but
we're
interested
in
in
looking
at
a
new
zoning
district.
D
A
Than
likely,
if
we
were
to
say
no
and
say
we're
gonna,
we
like
to
explore
a
new
zoning
district
that
zoning
district
is
going
to
be
required
to
be
a
certain
distance
from
most
I
to
i1
heavy
industrial
anyway.
So
that's
still
gonna
say
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
allow
them
in
or
near
these
types
of
places.
It.
A
You're,
better
off
to
use
a
conditional
use,
but,
like
Blake,
said
the
problem,
the
conditional
use
is
we
looking
there?
Hey
everything
works,
good
you've
got
nothing
dangerous
around
you
and
then
you
give
them
the
condition
you
stand.
Then
a
dangerous
place
moves
in
next
to
you,
you
can't
you
could
revoke
the
conditional
use,
but
that
would
not
be.
D
A
A
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
since
I,
don't
see
anyone
else
on
this
because
well
we'll
do
is
well
well.
What
we're
gonna
vote
on
is
our
own
request
to
add
commercial
recreational
facility
into
the
I
1
and
the
I
2
zone
will
need
a
motion
in
a
second
for
further
discussion
to
take.
The
vote
can
I
get
a
motion
in
a
second.
A
A
What
do
we
do
with
this
building
and
with
these
kids
I
know,
they've
been
working
in
that
building
and
they've
been
working
out
in
that
building,
and
they
were
happy
that
they
had
a
place
to
go,
and
now
we
look
in
trying
to
trying
to
take
a
look
at
the
bigger
picture
saying
well,
if
we
do
this
to
make
a
quick
band-aid
fix
on
something,
we
might
accidentally
cause
greater
problems
later,
but
it
still
puts
us
back
to
square
one.
Oh
I,.
C
F
C
You
have
to
vacate
move,
there's
no
options
for
them,
there's
no
place
for
them
to
come
back
and
I
feel
to
in
that
situation,
because
it's
not
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
If
you
have
the
conditional
use
tener,
then
they
at
least
have
an
opportunity
to
come
back
present
their
case
see
what
this
runs
as
an
overturn
our
decision.
We.
A
A
E
A
You
know,
and
and
I
have
a
question
for
you
to
chip
that
you
know
I
go
back
to
when
we
were
working
with
fireworks
in
the
city
limits,
and
you
know
people
are
telling
it,
but
I
mean
people
are
telling
us
hey.
Oh,
don't
worry,
we
can
fight
this
fire.
This
is
not
going
to
get
too
bad.
You
know
there's
different
levels
of
explosives
when,
when
we
have
these
industrial
facilities
that
are
there,
you
know
I
find
it
hard
to
believe
that
the
building
could
have
damage
to
it.
I
I
didn't
force
everyone's
I,
you
know,
I
can
and
and
that's
that's
what
we
go
by
and
they
have
they
have
chapters
in
the
code
book.
For
you
know,
businesses
that
are
already
existed
in
that
space.
You
know,
I,
don't
walk
into
a
new
building,
an
old
building
and
with
the
new
coat
says
this
you
know
I.
You
know
the
the
code
refers
to
existing,
say
industry,
no,
existing
factory
and
I.
Go
by
that
chapters,
fire
codes
or
what's
what's
recommend
or
what
has
to
be
done
and
you
know
letting
them
be
in
there.
I
You
know
that's
you're,
giving
them
permission.
You
know,
but
you
know
we
don't
know
what
an
accents
going
to
happen.
It
could
have
happened.
You
know
what
tomorrow
night,
you
know
by
us
as
a
board,
you
know:
I,
aren't
we
were
responsible
by
okay
in
a
conditional
use,
I
think
you're
you're,
better
off
shot,
shooting
this
down,
because
your
year-old
cane
them
to
be
there.
Even
though
we've
had
this
discussion
about
you
know,
what's
what's
safe
and.
A
We
have
we
haven't.
We
have
an
okayed
and
they're
there
to
be
clear,
there's
no
commercial
recreational
facilities
in
our
city
limits
that
have
a
conditional
used
to
be
an
industrial
zone.
No
one
has
come
before
us
and
asked
for
this.
Nor
have
we
given
anyone
permission
to
be
in
an
industrial
zone.
What
we're
doing
now
is
saying:
should
we
put
this
in
our
code,
so
we
can
look
at
these
chicken
or
the
egg.
Chris
is
saying:
hey,
don't
put
it
in
there.
I
I
Different
business
wants
to
move
in
and
all
sudden
the
person
with
conditional
use
is
there
and
this
other
business
bought
this
other
building
and
it's
you
know,
they're
doing
rendering,
rendering
they're
doing
animal
rendering
it's
it's
okay
in
that
zone,
but
it
stinks
terrible
and
now
the
place
that
you're
working
out
and
stinks
like
you
know,
a
rendering
process.
They
have
no
right
to
complain
to
the
whoever,
because
of
you
know
they
have
a
conditioner
used
to
be
in
there
am
I.
Not
right.
Am
I
right
on
that?
Luke.
D
I
I
The
only
reason
you
want
to
make
a
different
zone
is
to
do
a
cookie-cutter,
and
you
know
I'd
be
sitting
up
here
again
saying
you
know
this
is
close
to
the
eye
zone
or
this
is
in
the
eye
zone,
but
we
want
a
cookie
cutter,
a
lot
of
the
same
discussion
for
the
rest
of
my
career.
You
know
we
have
commercial
areas,
business
parks
for
recreation
and
that's
where
they
should
stay
as
far
as
Public
Safety
I.
H
Think
when
it
comes
to
safety,
I've
heard
ship
and
the
fire
department
come
before
this
board
many
times
over
the
last
few
years
and
I
feel
like
they've,
always
done
everything
they
can
bent
over
backwards
to
work
with
the
community
and
work
with
people
and
not
take
a
hard-line
stance
if
they
don't
need
to.
But
today
I
see
you
were
taking
a
pretty
strong
stance
against
this
and
there's
a
good
reason
for
it.
I
don't
see
you
always
doing
that.
H
You'll
state
your
opinion,
but
there's
some
flexibility
in
there,
but
and
that's
why
you
know
I
really
believe
we
need
to
listen
to
him
and
what
he's
saying
today
in
it,
it
might
not
be
the
most
popular
decision
in
the
community.
I,
don't
know
how
it's
gonna
be
perceived,
but
I,
but
I
do
think
it's
a
right
decision.
A
G
I'm,
just
gonna
make
a
simple
comment:
we've
we
have
talked
all
the
ins
and
outs
we
have
identified
where
this
type
of
operation
is
allowed
within
the
city
and
I
think
that
we
know
where
for
sure
is
allowed
today.
So
the
question
is:
do
you
need
to
allow
any
additional
areas
to
be
considered
and
I?
My
gut
instinct
is
that
we
probably
have
it
adequately
covered,
but
that's
for
you
guys
to
decide
if
you
want
to
entertain
anything
else,.
H
H
A
Sure
I'm
sure
it's
more
sidewalls
just
existing
facilities
that
would
fit
what
their
needs
were
today.
You
know
it
was
an
issue
where
there
was
250
300
girls
and
boys
that
use
this
facility
that
in
fairly
short
order,
was
sold
and
the
new
owner
of
the
building
needed
to
be
in
that
building
with
his
own
fibreglass
business,
and
so
it
kind
of
moved
pretty
fast
they're.
You
know
trying
to
find
a
place
as
fast
as
they
can
that
was
available
and
open,
and
in
a
community
like
ours,
there
wasn't
a
lot
of
places.
A
D
D
I'm
to
be
fair,
they
were
previously
in
an
industrial
district,
although
not
this
one
you
drive
through
and
you
do
see
other
Fitness
sorts
of
facilities
in
industrial
district
side.
That's
a
valid
question
to
think
about
wanting
to
do
it.
I
guess
I
can
understand
someone
looking
at
it.
That
way.
That's
all.
A
I
think
it'll
put
us
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
I
think
we're
gonna
need
to
work
with
first
district,
pretty
close
to
find
out
what
other
communities
are
doing.
You
know
I
mean
to
kind
of
educate
us
a
little
bit
about.
Maybe
we
can
make
it
work.
You
know
maybe
there's
some
things
that
we
need
to
add
just
a
little
more
background
on
it.
Before
we
jump
into
something
we
thought
we
had
a
quick
fix,
but
it
doesn't
look
like
it's
quick
fix
any
other.
Any
other
discussion.
E
A
Do
that
it
would
be
not
only
this
one
to
vacate,
but
a
lot
of
them
to
vacate,
and
it
could
open
up
a
Pandora's
box
of
a
lot
of
things
that
are
in
a
lot
of
zones
that
are
not
conditional
uses
from
bars
and
half-hour
bars
aren't
zoned
attic.
You
know,
I
mean
they
could
could
cause
us
to
clean
up
a
lot
of
stuff,
but
no
I
don't
think
it
means
that
they're
on
the
street
today
are
they
can
no
as
an
easy
one,
any
other
discussion
almost
for
a
vote.
A
D
One
item
I'll
call
it
new
business,
just
I've
been
doing
it
since
I've
been
sitting
in
this
chair.
The
for
what
it's
worth
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
know
to
the
couple
of
Planning
Commission
members
that
are
on
the
joint
jurisdiction,
Planning
Commission.
There
are
two
items
that
will
be
brought
before
that
joint
jurisdiction
board
for
the
June
20th
meeting
at
7:30
p.m.
again.
Those
will
be
the
first
two
items
will
address
and
then
move
on,
excuse,
Monday,
June
20th
is
that
is
a
twentieth
of
Monday.