►
From YouTube: Plan Commission - 07-22-2021
Description
Plan Commission - 07-22-2021
A
B
A
Thank
you.
Third
item
on
the
agenda
is
invitation
for
public
comment,
participant
submittal.
If
there's
anything
not
on
the
agenda
that
someone
from
the
public
would
wish
to
talk
about.
There
will
be
time
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
and
please
just
let
city
staff
know
what
it
is.
You'd
like
to
talk
about.
A
A
I
have
a
motion
and
a
second:
is
there
any
further
discussion
hearing,
none
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye,
all
opposed
same
sign.
Motion
carries
sixth
item
on
the
agenda.
Is
our
regular
agenda?
Six.
A
is
commission
consideration
of
resolution,
number
2021-32
amending
the
zoning
brandy
I'll.
Let
you
take
that
over
and
explain
to
us
where
that
is.
D
B
Sorry
about
that,
so
let
me
get
this
pulled
up,
so
the
property
that
we're
looking
at
today
actually
for
both
action
items
is
at
621st
street
southwest,
and
this
is
property
that
watertown
development
company
owns
and
then
they
sublease
it
to
various
businesses.
And
so
what
we're?
Looking
at
you
can
see
here.
B
B
B
You
can't
have
split
zoning
so
now
that
they're
looking
at
getting
a
building
permit
and
maybe
in
an
addition,
that's
when
we
this
was
caught
and
we're
just
bringing
it
into
the
one
uniform
district,
so
going
from
i2
to
i1
I-2
is
heavy.
Industrial
and
I-1
is
light.
Industrial,
so
I-1
is
actually
more
restrictive
and
you
can't
have
as
many
I
would
say,
threatening
uses,
which
is
why
we
obviously
have
the
the
various
districts.
B
I2
requires
a
larger
lot
area
which
this
property
does
meet
in,
including
you
know
the
entire,
the
two
parcels
and
then
the
vacated
alley
there.
So
they
would
be
able
to
meet
that,
but
then
it
also
requires
greater
setbacks,
which
could
be
restrictive
for
additions
and
whatnot,
and
especially
because
of
the
adjacent
zoning
designations.
B
You
see,
we
have
a
c3
to
the
west,
highway
commercial
and
then
otherwise
has
i1
surrounding
it
on
the
west
and
south
and
then
i2
on
the
north
and
east,
which
a
lot
of
those
businesses
that
are
in
there
today
are
also
they
would
be
permitted
in
the
i1.
So
those
could
also
be
rezoned,
and
it's
actually
a
phase-out
that
we
like
to
see
with
this
being
in
the
middle
of
town.
B
And
then,
if
you
go
further
to
the
north,
there's
r3,
which
is
multi-family
residential,
so
going
from
i2
to
i1,
is
really
a
benefit
and
it's
it
meets
the
intent
of
the
comprehensive
land
use
plan
and
is
the
same
as
the
adjacent
zoning
districts
too,
and
even
going
from
i2
to
i1.
That's
completely
a
normal
transition.
E
A
D
There
you,
the
business,
that's
operating
there,
it's
leased
to
oh
michelle,
kakachik,
watertown
development
company.
It
is
leased
to
nt
sales
and
leasing
and
they
do
business
as
cuda
cleaning
systems
and
what
they
do
is
they
make
parts
washers
and
they
actually
manufacture
those
on-site.
So
it's
a
it's
a
new
business
that
just
came
to
watertown
last
year
and
it
is
growing
so.
C
E
E
It
would
be
more
of
just
the
potential
impact
from
a
setback
perspective
yeah.
But
theoretically,
if
we
were
to
talk
to
them
to
migrate
to
an
i1,
would
we
could
probably
do
that
and
then
somehow
put
some
sort
of
a
development
agreement
that
would
protect
their
because
they
would
be
down
zoning
for
them
specifically.
D
E
Be
some
agreements
that
we
can,
you
know,
maybe
cut
some
deals.
I
think
we
would
be
in
our
best
interest
to
change
the
uses,
use
districts
of
that
and,
at
the
same
point
in
time,
relinquish
some
of
the
side,
yard,
front,
yard,
rear
yard,
lot
area
requirements
if
we
could
make
a
way
to
you
know,
have
a
legal
opinion
on
how
to
do
that.
I
would
encourage.
I
mean
this
is
obviously
was
the
old
me
processing
processing
plants
many
many
years
ago,
and
that's
why
it's
zoned
i2
and
if
we
can
transition
to
an
i1.
F
F
Mr
chair,
if
I,
if
I
may
just
add
something
here,
so
we
did
look
at
this
more
comprehensively
from
a
staff
standpoint
as
as
you
both
have
suggested,
and
we
do
agree
with
that
from
a
land
use
perspective,
and
I
one
may
make
more
sense
there,
but
in
it
would
take
some
time
to
potentially
work
with
those
landowners,
and
we
certainly
could
make
that
a
a
goal.
To
do.
F
D
B
And
and
that's
something
too,
that
there's
a
lot
of
properties
that
we
that
to
make
them
match
up
with
the
comprehensive
land
use
plan
would
need
a
rezone,
but
it's
usually
on
the
on
the
heels
of
them
wanting
to
do
something
with
the
property
and
it's
not
working.
So
then
it's
a
we
just
deal
with
it
at
that
time.
E
B
It
is
quite
time
restrictive
and
it
I
mean
reaching
out
to
them
and
then
having
to
present
them
with
the
benefits,
and
you
know,
and
sometimes
you
get
pushed
back
and
it
falls
through
anyway,
if
it
can
work
out
like
like
you've
mentioned
now,
we
have
brought
a
couple
of
those.
It
is
it's
I
mean
in
this
there's
not
that
many
property
owners,
but
it
also
just
because
of
the
time
frame
and
and
not,
and
and
these
guys
wanting
to
develop.
E
A
I
I'm
personally
okay,
with
with
doing
it
kind
of
one
by
one
as
they
come
forward
with
a
building
a
permit.
I
think
when
they
come
forward
with
a
building
permit
and
realize
that
their
option
to
you
know
continue
doing
what
they
are
doing,
because
most
of
those
are,
I
think,
all
those
are
would
qualify
as
permitted
uses
in
the
I-1
so
to
continue
doing
what
they
are
doing,
but
with
less
setbacks.
I
think
at
that
time
they
will
would
petition
to
do
it.
A
A
I
know
we
tried
to
do
a
planned
commission
recommendation
to
rezone
along
81
between
12th
and
14th
about
seven
years
ago,
and
we
kind
of
thought
that
that
would
be
a
slam
dunk
to
commercial
and
that
got
a
lot
more
pushback
than
we
thought
there
would,
and
you
know
it
was
one
of
those
things
where
maybe
just
let
it
happen,
one
at
a
time
would
be
the
most
conducive
way
to
do
it.
There's
only
looks
like
four
properties
left.
E
B
Yeah
and
in
that
forward,
thinking-
and
if
you
know
if
we
could
like
solve
the
issues
before
they
happen-
that's
where
it
always
is
a
case-by-case
scenario
of
when
they
come
in
and
then
we
would
look
at
it
and
we
would
encourage
like
we
did
with
these
guys.
You
know:
do
the
rezone
instead
of
asking
for
the
variance
and
then
you're
you're
conforming
and
it's
meeting
the
intent
of
what
they're
wanting
to
do
and
what
works
well
for
the
city
and
meeting
our
comp
plan
too.
B
So,
and
it's
always
at
the
time
when
it's
the
discussion
is
easier
when
they're
approaching
us
with
wanting
to
do
something
rather
than
you
know,
because
it's
existing
like
this
today
and
that's
fine,
because
everything
that's
allowed
in
the
i1
is
allowed
in
the
i2,
and
so
it
just
makes
it
a
better
discussion.
I
guess
of
trying
to
better
their
property
when,
as
they're
trying
to
better
theirs
as
well.
So
that's
that
usually
works
best.
G
D
E
A
F
C
A
B
Yes,
thank
you
jeff.
So
this
is
the
replat
of
the
two
combining
the
two
parcels
and
then
the
vacated
right-of-way
that
wdc
is
the
owner
of
all
or
is
the
proprietor
of,
and
so
things
it's
pretty
straightforward.
Things
just
to
note
is
you'll
see
here
that
the
10-foot
wide
utility
easement
granted
by
the
platte
of
watertown
development
company
edition
released
by
this
plot,
so
that
actually
wdc
acquired
the
south
32
feet
of
lot.
B
Seven
well-
and
I
actually
probably
own
that
too,
but
so
then
now
that
is
being
added
to
this
to
this
lot
that
32
feet.
So
you
can
see
here
the
old
lot
line
used
to
run
where
I'm
running
my
pointer
and
then
an
ordinance
requirement
is
that
you
have
five
foot
side:
yard
setbacks
on
abutting
the
lot
line.
So
that's
why
it's
a
ten
foot
easement
that's
being
vacated,
but
then
it
is
also
being
relocated
to
that
north
property
line
which
is
and
they're.
B
I
think
there
was
one
like
one
line
that
was
relocated
already
and
that
was
like
vast
or
yeah.
Okay
yeah,
so
either
vaster
centurylink,
but
they
worked
with
them
already
on
relocating
that.
But
then
there
is
still
the
easement
will
still
be
provided
if
utilities
are
needed
to
be
ran
through
there.
So
otherwise
you
know
it's
it's
meeting
the
minimum
lot
size
requirements
for
the
i1
zone,
it
actually
it
meets
it
for
the
i2
as
well,
and
i2
requires
220
000
square
feet
and
i1
requires
30
000.
B
A
B
A
A
A
All
right,
I
have
a
motion
in
a
second
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye,
all
opposed
same
sign.
Motion
carried
all
right.
Seventh
item
on
the
agenda
is
open.
Public
comment
got
some
city
staff
shaking
their
head
that
we
didn't
get
any
so
moving
on
to
item
eight
is
new
business.
Do
you
have
any
new
business
for
us.
A
F
So
we
have
a
draft
put
together.
We've
been
working
with
todd
closely
and
with
first
district,
and
they
have
graciously
prepared
some
maps
that
are
showing
some
setbacks
from
some
protected
uses.
The
protected
uses
range
a
bit
with
distances
and
things,
but
the
protected
uses
would
include
schools
which
is
written
into
the
state
administrative
rules,
and
that
would
be
a
thousand
foot
setback
from
a
dispensary,
and
then
there
are
also
a
number
of
other
uses
that
we're
considering
in
the
draft.
F
F
Again,
it's
all
very
high
level,
very,
very
draft
form.
Anything
can
be
changed
at
this
point
in
time
again
for
some
of
the
other
uses,
the
cultivation
facility
and
the
processing
or
manufacturing
facility.
Those
are
the
heavier
uses
where
you
would
see
potential
impacts
to
residential,
mostly
in
the
way
of
odor.
I
understand
so
there
are
some
setback
requirements
from
residences
and
things
of
that
nature,
testing
facilities.
F
They
have
a
smaller
setback,
but
those
all
of
those
three
uses
they
would
be
potentially
allowable
by
a
special
permitted
use
for
so
long
as
they
meet
the
setback
requirements
of
the
protected
uses,
and
that
would
be
the
i1
or
the
i2
district.
So
all
in
draft
form.
At
this
point
we
do
have
a
tentative
time
frame
for
this
we'd
like
to
finish
this
draft
up
and
get
final
committee
approval
by
august
5th.
If
we
can
do
that,
then
we
would
like
to
have
a
new
business
item.
F
E
Unintended
we'll
have
to
get
in
the
weeds,
basically
on
the
joint
side
of
the
joint
jurisdictional
side
of
the
ordinance.
I
know
mr
luke
muller
is
currently
working
on
drafting
a
proposed
regulation
that
would
restrict
no
medical,
cannabis
facilities,
dispensaries
cultivation,
manufacturing,
testing
in
the
joint
jurisdictional
area,
the
county,
as
well
as
the
city,
are
mandated
by
im26
that
they
each
have
to
have
at
least
one
dispensary
location
in
each
jurisdiction,
and
so
the
county
will
probably
relegate
dispensaries
somewhere
in
one
of
the
other
commercial
districts.
E
E
Going
to
be
inside
yes,
the
the
administrative
rules
at
the
state
say
that
it
has
to
be
within
cultivated
building
and
it
has
to
have
security
and
fencing
and
and
what
we're
doing,
and
what
stacy
would
probably
tell
you
as
well
is.
We
are
looking
at
relying
solely
on
the
state
security,
some
of
their
citing
requirements
that
they're
doing
in
the
administrative
rules
they're
going
through
this
process,
we
as
a
at
a
later
date.
If
we
wanted
to
be
more
restrictive,
we
could
always
come
in,
but
we're
just
rather
than
having
that
discussion.
E
E
No,
no,
I
I
know
it's
more
likely.
The
testing
facilities
are
going
to
be
private,
run
facilities
me
and
my
buddies,
and
we
get
a
couple
of
you
know
chemical
engineers
and
we
hire
them
and
we
may
have
a
location
where
it's
marijuana
is
brought
to
that
facility
and
tested,
or
we
maybe
have
portable
facilities
to
go
to
those
those
growing
centers
and
test.
D
E
C
From
a
practical
standpoint,
do
we
anticipate
that
we
will
actually
see
anything
other
than
dispensaries
here,
or
I
can
foresee
like,
given
that
the
potentials
with
interstate
travel
that
maybe
that
everything
has
to
be
kind
of
done
locally
or
as
opposed
to
sort
of
like
all
the
production
happens
in
colorado
or
california?
And
it
gets
shipped
in
here
on
bundles
and
all
the
testing
has
occurred
in
nebraska
or
I.
E
So
it's
and
that's
one
thing
that
stacy
talked
about
when
we
were
having
our
meetings
is
that
you
know,
while
while
watertown
is
a
manufacturing
community,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
opportunities
for
people
to
exercise
different
types
of
manufacturing,
whether
it's
widgets
or
weed,
and
it's
and
it's
legal
in
the
state
of
south
dakota,
that's
something
that
we
were
being
very
conscious
about
in
making
sure
that
there
were
areas
now
the
development
corporation
might
want
to
put
in
restrictive
covenants.
That
would
restrict
that
type
of
activity
on
their
lands.
E
F
Certainly,
the
intent
of
the
staff
draft
at
this
point,
and
and
that's
all
it
is-
is
a
staff
draft.
The
committee
is
working
on
reviewing
it
and
potentially
having
some
more
comments.
Like
I
said
so,
the
intent,
though,
of
getting
this
put
together,
was
to
balance
some
some
additional
protections
for
the
community
with
the
ability
and
and
provide
the
opportunity
for
some
of
these
businesses
to
indeed
locate
within
the
community
in
in
a
place
that
we
feel
is
reasonable.
E
Know
we
thought
we
talked
about
that
at
the
committee
level
we
threw
out
some
footages
that
we
thought
well,
that
sounds
okay
and
and
then,
when
we
ran
the
the
analysis
in-house
it
actually,
I
think
pretty
much
reflected
what
everybody
was
thinking
when
we
add
those
footages
and
those
separation
distances
that
it
will
allow
for
opportunities,
primarily
along
212..
There's
several
blocks
in
the
uptown
area.
B
E
So
yeah,
that's
when
we
were
talking
about
too,
I
mean
the
state.
Only
the
only
state
through
im26
has
basically
dictated
all
time
place
and
manner
or
zoning
activities
to
local
units
of
government.
But
there
is
a
thousand
foot
setback.
That's
that's
been
put
in
the
administrative
rule,
so
the
other
things
that
we
could.
We
could
put
setbacks
from
car
dealerships
or
bars
or
whatever,
if
we
wanted
to.
F
Yeah,
so
just
for
instance,
if
you
remember,
like
our
lupa
conversation
about
allowing
churches
in
areas
with
like
uses,
that
could
be
like
a
social
club.
If
we're
allowing
a
social
club
as
a
permitted
use,
then
we
would
indeed
allow
a
church
as
a
permitted
use.
What
we
tried
to
do
is
form
some
parallels
between
schools
and
other
protected
uses
for
from
a
reasonable
standpoint,
including
well,
if
you
know
the
predominant
reason
for
schools,
I
believe,
is
the
children.
Well,
what
about
a
daycare
facility?