►
From YouTube: BOA & Plan Commission Meeting 02 21 2017
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).
A
C
C
D
D
What's
personal
property
is
something
that
can
be
essentially
taken
with
you
now.
This
is
very
101,
but
it's
things
that
are
not
of
a
building
or
structure
but
are
rather
like
a
car,
a
boat
boat
lifts.
Would
you
say
things
that
aren't
permanently
attached?
That's
correct,
okay!
That
is
exactly
correct.
In
fact,
that's
why
they
call
to
use
the
word
attachments
in
a
lot
of
real
estate
contracts
to
describe
what's
going
with
the
land.
B
C
F
B
F
F
B
A
E
B
A
F
Seven,
so
you
know
that
I
don't
know
how
the
other
people
how
the
rest
of
them
would
feel
either
but
well,
and
then
the
length
of
it
I
would
look
at
it.
If,
let's
say
you
came
back
with
a
variance,
maybe
I
think
we'd
have
to
continue
putting
it
up
for
two
weeks:
cuz
you're
gonna
have
a
family
reunion.
Are
you
gonna
put
it
up
the
first
of
May
and
take
it
down
the
end
of
October.
B
B
G
G
A
A
G
A
B
You
first
item
on
the
agenda:
is
the
approval
of
the
agenda?
Could
I
get
a
motion
in
a
second
motion
by
mr.
McGuire
second
by
mr.
Arnold,
all
in
favor,
say
aye.
Those
motion
carries
second
item.
Is
the
approval
of
the
minutes
from
the
January
5th
2017
meeting
motion
by
mr.
Arnold
second
by
mr.
Hanson,
home
favor,
say
aye
opposed
motion.
Carries
third
item?
Is
a
resolution
amending
title
20
wine,
21
city
ordinances
in
regard
to
gambling
and
casino
establishments.
D
I'm
sorry
about
that
commissioners,
so
the
genesis
of
this
proposal
before
you
came
from
some
research
done
on
another
item
for
the
city.
There
is
some
question
as
to
the
way
that
gambling
establishments
and
liquor
licenses
intertwine
and
in
doing
some
research
on
the
issue.
I
came
to
find
case
law
from
2011
from
ass
up
from
the
South
Dakota
Supreme
Court,
which
established
that
you
Nissa
palate
EES
could
not
regulate
gambling
institutions.
D
The
court
in
this
case
this
2011
case
construed
a
Sioux
Falls
city,
ordinance,
zoning
ordinance
much
like
what
we
have
here
and
sided
with
the
Department
of
Revenue,
the
Department
of
Revenue
contended
that
the
ordinance
was
invalid
because
it
invaded
the
sovereign
prerogative
of
the
state.
The
state
argued
that
gambling
is
their
jurisdiction,
that
they
have
in
legal
terms,
preempted
the
city's
ability
to
regulate
in
that
area
and
the
court
agreed.
D
The
Court
did
note,
however,
that
there
are
two
places
and
I
think
I
note
that
in
my
memo,
two
places
where
the
city
effectively
retains
the
ability
effectively
to
help
dictate
where
these
gambling
institutions
are
located.
First,
there
is
still
the
ability
of
the
city
to
determine
locations
of
alcohol
licensees
and
that,
because
the
gambling
license
is
effectively
attached
to
the
alcohol
license,
it's
a
certification
attached
to
the
alcohol
license
that
that
allows
the
the
city
to
be
able
to
regulate
placement.
D
There
is
also
a
statute
that
the
City
Council
can
reference
whenever
there
is
an
alcohol
license
with
a
gambling
certification
before
it,
and
so
there
are
options
available
to
regulate
it.
It's
just
that
when
we
have
in
our
zoning
ordinances,
unique
regulations
that
pinpoint
gambling
institutions
and
say
either
they
are
excluded
uses
or
they
are
conditional
uses.
That
is
a
regulation
that
invades
the
province
of
the
state
according
to
the
South
Dakota
Supreme
Court,
so
that
for
that
reason,
I
suggested
that
those
references
and
our
zoning
ordinance
to
gambling
and
casino
establishments
be
struck.
So.
B
D
E
You
same
thing:
one
thing
that
I
would
venture
a
guess
and
I,
don't
know
if
Justin
that
agree
or
not
I
would
say
that
it's
entirely
likely
that
you
would
figure
that
a
casino
based
on
what
state
law
is
as
far
as
we're
what
you
can
and
can
do
in
reference
to
that
a
casino
would
be
considered
an
accessory
use
at
that
point
to
a
bar
or
tavern,
and
that's
basically
it.
That
may
be
something
you
may
want
to
list
into
your
ordinances
that
they
are
considered
as
a
accessory
use
to
those
things.
E
D
F
D
F
C
F
D
F
We
can't
do
that
because
in
Sioux
Falls
there
was
a
court
case
and
they
were
struck
down
and
they
had
to
cut
him
out.
I
said
I
believe
the
people
of
Watertown
prefer
to
have
a
program
like
that
and
I
said
as
far
as
I'm
concerned.
We'll
keep
doing
it
until
somebody
tells
us,
we
can't
do
it
and
we
did,
and
we
did
it
for
years
and
probably
still
doing
that
we're
singing
Christmas
carols
and
things
and
school
programs.
So
that's
why
I
challenge
you
with
that?
F
D
That's
just
my
personal
opinion,
but
if
I'm
a
commissioner
I
on
a
personal
level
empathize
with
this,
you
know
and
I
can
tell
you
that
the
reason
why
the
Department
of
Revenue
I
feel
strongly
about
this.
The
reason
why
they
challenged
this.
The
reason
why
they
had
the
court
established
this
in
law
was
the
very
concern
that
you
just
touched
on.
If
localities
were
allowed
to
determine
where
gambling
establishments
could
be
in
the
state
of
South
Dakota,
there
would
be
a
lot
of
quote/unquote
dry
communities.
D
D
C
It
was
triggered
a
little
bit
by
one
of
our
conversations
at
one
of
our
Tuesday
morning
meetings
when
we
had
a
request
in
the
Gateway
District
for
somebody
to
put
in
a
casino
license,
and
we
denied
it
to
him
and
said
well,
that's
prohibitive
of
within
our
ordinance
and
then
yeah
part
of
that
is
when
Justin
did
a
little
more
research
and
said,
guess
what
we
can't
say
they
can't
have
it.
City
Council
might
be
able
to
regulate
by
adoption
of
the
liquor
license,
but
up.
B
To
this
time,
when
somebody
wants
to
up
to
this
time
when
somebody
wants
to
put
a
video
lottery
establishment-
and
it
always
has
come
to
the
Plan,
Commission
and
we've
said
yep-
it's
an
applicable
use
in
the
zoning
ordinance
and
then
it
goes
to
the
City
Council
for
the
alcohol
side.
So
we've
had
two
boards
that
had
different
sets
of
eyes
on
the
same
and.
C
B
C
F
D
B
B
Motion
by
mr.
McGuire
say
goodbye
mr.
Hansen
I
agree
with
Dennis.
Sometimes
I
look
and
go
I,
don't
want
to
change
all
our
ordinances
unless
we
have
to
because
it
allows
the
common
people
of
the
community
and
multiple
boards
to
have
their
eyes
on
something,
and
we
have
less
we're
less
likely
to
make
mistakes.
The
more
people
that
look
at
it,
but
in
this
case
you're
assuring
us
that
it
still
will
come
before
two
boards,
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
City
Council,
will.
D
B
D
B
If
it's
in
the
motion
that
it's,
we
that
it
is
linked
to
an
alcohol
license,
so
they
can't
fly
under
the
radar
and
then
we
unintentionally
have
one
put
where
we
don't
intend
it
to
be
so
the
motion
the
motion
would
be
to
approve
it
as
as
written
with
these
the
assualt
the
guarantee
that
they
will
be
linked
to
an
alcohol
nice
bill
wine
license
of
what
sort
I
have
a
motion
motion
by
mr.
Arnold
saying
by
mr.
Hanson,
any
other
discussion
all
in
favor,
say
aye
for
the
record.
Mr.
Dahle
is
here.
B
G
The
petitioners
submitted
an
application
and
petition
On
January
11
2017,
requesting
approval
for
annexation
and
C
3
highway
commercial
zoning.
The
adjacent
zoning
designation
is
also
C
3.
The
adjacent
public
right-of-ways
will
be
included
in
the
annexation
and
zoning
of
the
property.
It
meets
all
the
requirements
of
a
C
3,
4
C
3
minimum
lot
requirements.
Municipal
utilities
will
provide
service
to
the
annex
property,
there's
4.1
acres
involved.
G
B
G
E
B
Mr.
Falk
routes
is
here
any
changes
from
what
we
talked
about
before
everything
is,
as
we
said
before,
okay,
and
what
we're
doing
right
now,
we're
not
we're
not
looking
at
any
plots
or
any
Lots
or
anything
all
we're
doing
is
we're
we'll
have
two
votes.
First
on
the
annexation
in
the
city
limits
of
Watertown
and
second
is
a
c3
zoning,
as
in
everything
around.
It
is
already
see
three
correct
little
business
Park
on
one
side,
yep.
E
B
B
Come
on
I'll
reopen
the
public
hearing
come
on
up.
Oh
that's
for
the
preliminary
plan,
not
for
the
zoning
and
annexation.
Okay,
I'll
leave
the
public
hearing
closed.
They
have
motion
by
mr.
McGuire
did
have
a
second
sang
goodbye.
Mr.
Dahle
discussion
we
looked
at
this
couple
weeks
ago.
It
looks
like
it's
C
3,
highway,
commercial,
no
questions,
I'll
ask
for
a
vote
on
the
annexation.
All
in
favor,
say
aye
opposed
motion
carries
need
a
motion
in
a
second
for
the
zoning
motion
by
mr.
Dahle
second
by
mr.
McGuire.
B
G
G
Addition,
this
plan
has
been
brought
before
you
previously
as
new
business
during
the
January
19th
Planning
Commission
meetings,
Scott
Calvert
of
Austin
engineering
and
Bill
Folker.
It's
made
some
changes
to
the
preliminary
plan.
They
are
proposing
approval
of
the
preliminary
plan
that
was
conceptually
brought
to
you
at
the
previous
meeting
for
discussion
and
the.
G
G
G
It
meets
the
lot
areas
meets
the
our
regulations
for
a
c3
district.
The
plan
will
create
six
lots
and
lots,
or
is
the
detention
pond
that
which
will
be
dedicated
to
the
city
proposed
60-foot
right
away,
in
conformance
with
the
jacent
developments.
City
standards
has
been
66-foot
for
public
right
of
ways,
but
that's
that
one
of
those
things
that
we
talked
about
since
it
conforms
with
what's
existing
that
that's
something
to
keep
in
mind,
proposing
36-foot
public
streets
on
proposed
35th,
straight
Street
southeast
and
proposed
7th
Avenue
southeast
and
then
proposing
a
28
foot.
G
G
H
Subsistence,
the
previous
concept
that
you
looked
at
is
if
you
notice,
where
the
private
drive
goes
north
and
south
along
the
western
edge
of
this
plan
and
then
turns
into
seventh
Avenue
South
East.
That
became
a
turn
instead
of
the
previous
version
we
brought
before
you
had
a
roadway
going
to
the
west,
and
the
developer
was
able
to
prove,
through
his
engineering
team,
that
two
things
were
were
impractical
about,
that
we
were
going
to
create
a
lot
that
originally
was
maybe
going
to
be
earmarked
for
a
potential
stormwater
pond.
H
They
couldn't
find
that
the
stormwater
pond
would
be
feasible
in
that
location,
and
so
we,
as
staff,
had
concern
over
forcing
them
to
have
a
non-compliant
lot
that
wouldn't
even
be
sellable,
wouldn't
fit
within
the
c3
district.
So
then
we
revised
our
our
plan
to
make
that
a
curved
intersection
instead
of
proposing
a
street
going
back
to
the
west
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
clear.
Why
that
changed,
because
I
again
I
didn't
want
to
create
a
non-conforming
unsellable
lot.
So
we
just
incorporated
that
into
a
lot
one
so
that
he
didn't
lose
land
unnecessarily.
H
Well
that,
yes,
that
was
what
he
was
bringing
forward.
So
one
of
the
other
things
that
changed
is
and
his
previous
version.
They
requested
a
32
foot
wide
street
width
and
we
did
not
deny
that
at
the
time.
But
what
I
did
do
is
request
that
they
review
to
make
sure
that
the
size
of
vehicles
and
the
turning
movements
could
be
accommodated
with
that
proposal
and
what
found
was
that
they
needed
to
do
a
little
bit
wider,
Street
section.
So
we
have
a
proposed
street
with
of
just
over
37
feet
wide
on.
H
G
C
C
B
E
B
D
Mr.
Patel,
the
jurisdiction
of
this
plan
Commission,
is
to
look
at
uses
in
the
community
to
look
at
plans
to
see
if
they
comport
with
our
laws
regarding
zoning
ordinance.
The
matter
that
you're
discussing
is
a
contract
concern
and
contractual
matters
are
generally
dealt
with
in
Circuit
Court.
If
there
is
an
issue
that
you
have
about,
whether
this
is
transgressing
the
the
contract
provision
or
not,
I
would
suggest
obtaining
counsel,
and
you
know
you
know
pursuing
your
options
that
way.
D
I
B
Sir,
thank
you
is
anyone
else
here
to
speak
in
the
public
hearing,
seeing
none
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
ask
for
a
motion
in
a
second
for
discussion
motion
by
mr.
McGuire
second
by
mr.
Arnold,
any
other
discussions
other
than
we
just
want
to
make
it
clear
that
we
didn't
waive
the
sidewalks
in
lot.
Six.
Okay,.
H
So
one
other
item
that
I
want
to
point
out
on
the
resolution
that
you're
about
to
take
action
on
is
we
do.
We
did
request
some
additional
stormwater
calculations
and
related
items
from
the
developer
and
his
engineer-
and
we
just
got
that
this
morning,
so
we
we
specifically
worded
the
resolution
that
the
plan,
or
that
the
resolution
allow
us
for
time
to
review
that
and
make
sure
that
that
work
is
perfected
before
platting
happens,
so
it
we
did
so.
H
B
G
B
H
So
the
the
preliminary
plan
for
this
development
was
approved
in
2015.
You
know
it
was
something
that
this
board
took
action
on,
sometime,
I,
think
in
May
or
June
of
2015,
and
so
this
this
is
the
ultimately
you
know
the
Platte
that's
coming
forward
out
of
the
resolution
that
was
signed.
In
fact,
the
the
resolution
that
that
is
related
to
this
plat
is
the
18th
of
June
2015.
H
H
One
is
the
developer
and
city
staff
are
working
together
to
create
a
regional
pond
that
will
take
care
of
the
water
quality
and
the
two-year
stormwater
retention
and
management,
and
so
that,
essentially,
is
not
a
part
of
this
plat
any
longer.
However,
it's
up
to
staff
to
make
sure
that
this
city,
stormwater
provisions
are
accounted
for
and
so
we're
working
for
a
new
location
for
the
storm.
H
B
Talked
about
that
before
we've
taught
you
and
I
have
talked
about
that
before
that,
wouldn't
be
nice,
that
if
each
small
area
didn't
have
to
retain
their
own
water,
if
there's
more
of
a
regional
area
and
they
all
contributed
to
that
area
and
that's
what
you're
working
with
them
on
and
you're
comfortable
with
that
all
Lots
compliant
Brandi.
As
far
as
size,
size,
setback,
width,
length,
yep,.
G
H
B
I
B
G
So
we
held
a
design
review
team
meeting
on
February
2nd
and
we
also
have.
We
also
received
a
plat
of
stony
point
position
in
July
2016,
where
we
sent
the
developer
and
property
owner
a
letter
addressing
our
concerns
with
that
plat,
and
we
can
compare
the
two
later
in
the
discussion.
But
basically
our
design
review
team
takeaways
was
that
we'd
like
to
prove
that
the
easement
road
can
support
75,000
pounds
for
fire
code
and
if
they
were
to
rescind
their
current
preliminary
plan
of
stony
point
that
was
approved
with
conditions
and
then
potentially
resubmit.
H
H
Where
I'm
at
with
this
or
what
the
reason
I
brought
this
up
for
discussion,
is
what
we're
receiving
from
the
developer
our
smaller
portions
of
the
preliminary
plan,
but
don't
address
all
of
the
issues
and
don't
have
full
compliance
with
the
preliminary
plan
that
was
passed
by
this
board
and
so
what
I'm,
struggling
with
and
and
trying
to
get
direction
from
so
I
give
the
developer
and
his
engineering
staff
some
type
of
feel
for
where
or
what
what
we
think
can
happen.
I'll
just
give
you,
for
instance,
then
we'll
toggle
back
and
forth.
A
H
Okay,
so
so
this
is
a
variation
of
the
preliminary
plan,
and
all
it
really
essentially
does
is
wants
to
define
three
more
residential
Lots
issues
with
it.
It
doesn't
designate
any
more
public
right
away
which
would
comply
with
the
preliminary
plan.
This
is
now
called
a
accessing
utility
easement
as
well
as
this
area
is
here.
H
H
All
you
know
complete
development
of
the
whole
area,
and
now
what
the
developers
indicating
to
us
is
that
he
no
longer
wishes
to
develop
the
whole
entirety
of
the
area.
He
just
wants
to
get
a
few
more
Lots
on
the
top.
This,
in
our
current
version
that
we
have
to
consider
this
look
block.
2
is
now
an
out
lot
that
encompasses
the
whole
lower
half
of
that
and
what's
still
frustrating
for
from
me
as
the
director
of
the
staff,
and
we
seem
to
have
pitched
in
and
hold
the
whole
area
into.