►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 12-10-2020
Description
Plan Commission Meeting 12-10-2020
A
B
C
D
A
E
D
A
A
B
A
C
C
just
look
ahead
as
I'm
in
your
own
time
and
if
you
know
dates
that
you
will
not
be
here,
you
can
let
us
know,
otherwise
it
works
out
great.
The
way
that
you
guys
are
making
us
aware
of
the
dates
that
you
will
not
be
here
and
we
appreciate
the
attendance
that
is
always
at
these
meetings
and
especially
as
a
volunteer
board.
We
really
appreciate
appreciate
you
guys
so.
F
B
C
A
C
Yes,
thanks
jeff,
so
the
owner
of
this
property
is
robert
l
endress,
and
he
has
submitted
the
plot
of
lot
three
block
two
of
ender's
third
edition.
This
area
contains
6.74
acres
in
which
1.78
acres
will
be
dedicated
as
public
right-of-way,
because
that
includes
10th
avenue
southeast
between
23rd
street
and
26th
street.
So
it
makes
that
connection.
C
They
do
include
a
detention
pond
that
will
remain
in
private
ownership
and
maintenance,
which
is
why
we
have
a
bmp
maintenance
agreement
attached
as
well,
because
that's
how
we
handle
the
perpetual
maintenance
of
these
detention
ponds
in
commercial
and
industrial
areas,
so
that
the
city
has
the
right
to
make
sure
that
they're
maintained
properly
and
then
also
call
that
they
are.
If
there's
any
maintenance
activities
that
need
to
be
that
need
to
be
done,
the
city
has
the
right
to
call
that
to
order
that
that
be
completed.
A
A
B
A
C
A
C
B
C
B
C
Thank
you
jeff,
so
this
one
I'm
actually
going
to
turn
over
to
matt.
It
was
at
his
request
that
we
added
to
the
agenda.
We've
talked
we've
touched
on
this
topic
before
and
then
he's
also
invited
some
of
the
members
of
the
animal
control
board
to
be
a
part
of
the
discussion
and
figure
out
how
we
want
to
handle
the
definition
of
kennels
and
how
we
regulate
them
in
the
zoning
district
and
then
also
in
the
animal
control
language
and
the
ordinance
as
well.
D
D
D
D
Outcome
of
that
definition,
so
there's
a
couple
other
tangential
issues
here.
The
other
one
is
there's
a
there's,
an
ordinance
in
the
animal
control
title
regarding
how
close
kennels
can
be
to
a
neighbor
and
that's
something
that
should
be
discussed
as
well.
But
I
think
the
first.
The
first
point
we're
hoping
to
get.
Maybe
some
consensus
on
is
whether
or
not
we
believe
as
a
city.
D
There
would
also
be
another
a
separate
ordinance
that
would
explicitly
state
our
limit,
because
the
way
this
is
written,
I
think
the
animal
control
board
and
they're
there
to
speak
on
their
own
behalf,
but
we've
kind
of
come
to
the
conclusion
we
feel
like
it
seems
like
a
back
door
way
to
look
at
the
number
of
dogs
or
pets
that
somebody
can
have
so
with
that
I'll
I'll
kind
of
open
it
up
to.
If
clever
wants
to
jump
in,
I
would
ask
dr
dr
reeve,
maybe
to
chime
in
as
well.
G
Yeah,
thank
you,
matt
and
thank
you
to
the
board
as
the
animal
control
board,
we
kind
of
came
to
the
consensus
that
we
really
don't
necessarily
want
to
limit
the
number
of
pets
that
somebody
can
own
in
the
city
of
watertown.
I
think
we
feel
that
there's
other
ordinances
through
nuisance
of
barking
or
sanitation
or
if
they're
licensed
up
to
date
on
the
rabies,
vaccines
that
that
can
be
controlled.
G
The
other
thing
is,
I
don't
know
how
big
a
problem.
It
really
is
talking
to
the
animal
control
officer.
He
says
he
gets
maybe
eight
to
ten
calls
a
year
on
somebody
that
maybe
they
feel
has
too
many
pets
and
a
lot
of
times.
That's
a
disgruntled
neighbor
that
maybe
isn't
a
pet
owner
and
such,
and
from
my
own
personal
I
mean
I
don't
have
too
many
clients
that
would
meet
that.
G
If
you
did
throw
cats
in
there,
I
guess
they
would
but
most
of
people
their
cats
are
kept
indoors
and
don't
go
out
at
at
all
on
that.
So
I
don't
think
it's
a
large
problem
and
as
a
board,
I
guess
we
were
not
recommending
that
we
put
a
limit
on
how
many
pets
are
are
are
regulated
within
the
city
of
watertown.
G
So
we're
looking
for
the
definition
of
kennel
to
to
be
a
commercial
endeavor
and
that's
the
way
most
of
the
cities
in
water
are
in
south
dakota
are
doing
in
sioux
falls
brookings,
aberdeen,
rapid
city.
I
think
they
all
in
their
definition.
It's
a
it's
for
money
or
profit
or
or
a
commercial
endeavor
when
their
definition
of
kennel
is
and
that's
kind
of
what
we're
looking
for
here.
F
Mr
chair,
yes,
todd,
okay,
well
I'll
bring
I'll,
bring
a
perspective
of
of
history.
To
this.
I
don't
think
it
was
necessarily
a
backdoor
way
of
limiting
the
number
of
animals.
I
think
it
was
very
overt
when
these
policies
were
written,
many
of
them
in
the
early
70s
and
looked
at
in
comprehensive
reviews
of
the
ordinances
in
the
80s
and
in
the
90s.
F
The
language
that
is
is
in
the
city
of
watertown
is
consistent
with
a
vast
majority
of
most
municipalities,
not
only
in
the
state
of
south
dakota,
but
you'll
see
it
in
other
states
as
well,
and
the
question
is
why.
Why
is
that?
Well,
because
pets
are
property
and
property
falls
under
general
police
powers
of
of
the
state
which
are
then
granted
to
the
localities,
and
the
zoning
is
a
police
power.
F
We
use
zoning
to
regulate
all
kinds
of
things
that
happen
in
our
life.
How
much
stuff
we
have
how
much
stuff
we
have
is
based
on
how
much
land
you
have
to
put
buildings
on
in
your
and
how
many
garages
or
sheds
that
you
can
have
on
your
property
to
control
the
amount
of
stuff
you
have
and
pets
are,
are
the
same
thing
as
people's
stuff.
F
You
know
the
the
number
of
dogs
or
cats
in
a
certain
place
I
can
attest
historically
in
in
my
career,
I
have
been
in
places
where
there's
been
22
dogs
or
97
cats,
and
two
feet
of
excrement
in
the
basement
of
the
house,
causing
health
issues
not
only
for
the
people
that
live
there,
but
for
the
neighbors
that
are
next
to
them.
So
I
think,
I
think
realistically
there
should
be
some
number,
whether
it's
three
or
four
or
seven.
F
I
think
that's
up
for
up
for
debate,
but
just
to
say
we're
gonna
go
sky
is
the
limit.
I
don't
think
most
people
would
be
okay
with
that,
especially
if
they
are
creating
outdoor
runs
that
were
within
50
feet
of
a
house,
and
I've
got
six
dogs
and-
and
if
we
look
at
you
know
american
kennel
club
standards,
those
those
things
should
be
at
least
six
foot
by
ten
foot
for
each
dog.
F
You're
talking,
you
know
possibly-
and
it
might
not
happen
very
often,
but
in
some
places
where
you
have
established
neighborhoods
and-
and
you
have
that
I'm
not
a
dog
hater,
I'm
not
a
cat
hater.
I'm
just
saying
there
is
a
reason
for
using
zoning
to
restrict
or
regulate
or
manage
the
number
of
animals.
It's
it's
animal
safety,
it's
nuisance
and
it's
also
the
neighborhood
that's
in
place
and
allowing
individuals
to
dictate.
F
G
One
of
the
things
that
I
think
we
I
mean
that
50-foot
rule's
been
in
for
quite
a
while,
and
there
isn't
a
lot
in
watertown
that
you
could.
You
know
that
you
could
do
that
on
and
the
way
the
the
definition
is
written.
You
could
basically
say
a
house
is
a
kennel.
Then
if
you
had
four
pets
in
there
I
mean
you
can't
get
50
feet
away
and
maybe
the
dog
isn't
causing
a
problem
or
anything,
but
as
it's
written
now
it
creates
a
problem.
G
G
I
think
one
of
the
first
places
we'd
like
to
start
is
to
get
the
definition
squared
away
as
to
what
what
a
kennel
is
because
is.
It
is
a
kennel,
a
structure
that
has
a
number
of
bit
runs
in
it
or
kennels.
Inside
I
mean.
Is
it
a
building
that
has
kennels
in
it
that
they're
used
for
breeding
for
boarding
for,
for
whatever?
Is
it
a
dog
house
that
has
one?
Is
it
a
run
out?
G
There
we've
had
I've
had
people
that
have
come
up
to
city
hall,
I
mean
kennel
is
used
as
a
general
term
for
a
lot
of
different
things.
I've
had
some
people
come
up
to
get
a
information
on
putting
a
fence
around
their
yard.
They're
asked
if
they
had
a
dog
and
they
said
yeah
and
she
was
told.
Well,
you
know
you
can't
have
a
kennel,
that's
within
50
feet
of
your
neighbor's
house.
G
I
don't
know
if
they're
referring
to
the
just
the
fact
you're
having
a
fence
and
a
dog
that
that
was
a
kennel
and
such
on
there
too.
So
I
think
to
begin
with
where
the
fact
that
there's
two
definitions
of
kennel
and
then
what
a
kennel
is
and
from
from
the
animal
control
board
we'd
like
to
have
that
kind
of
designated
as
a
commercial
venture
and
then
the
50-foot
rule
would
come
in
at
some
other
point.
That's
it's
always
been
a
that.
A
G
I
think
I
mean
the
definitions
are
pretty
close
together
right
now,
but
I
think
you
put
in
there
that
it's,
for
I
mean
that
that
there's
money
exchanged
that
it's
a
commercial
endeavor
is
the
thing
for
a
kennel,
then
limiting
the
number
of
dogs
or
cats
or
pets
could
be
done
at
in
another
ordinance.
I
would
say
on
there,
but
I
think
you
should.
G
B
F
Go
I'm
not
arguing
that
point.
I
I
don't
think
I
think,
if
we're
going
to
have
a
commercial
kennel,
have
a
commercial
kennel
section
if
you're
going
to
have
you
know
the
raising
of
an
owning
of
your
own
personal
property,
pet,
on
a
piece
of
property,
and
I
think
the
discussion
needs
to
be
had
from
a
community
perspective
is,
do
we
want
to
be
regulating?
The
number
of
you
know.
C
A
C
B
H
So
that
goes
speaks
to
the
point
of
clarifying
some
of
these
things
and
we
have
not.
I've
been
on
the
ammo
control
board
since
mayor
barger,
mayor
barger
is
the
one
who
appointed
me.
So
I've
seen
a
lot
of
evolution
of
our
animal
control
ordinances
and
this
one
has
come
occasionally
forward
in
terms
of
a
number
of
pets.
H
Previous
city
councils
have
not
supported
it.
I
just
want
you
to
know
that
I
don't.
I
can't
speak
for
my
cohorts,
but
previous
city
councils
have
been
loathed
to
actually
limit
the
number
of
pets
people
could
have
in
looking
at
kennel
definitions.
For
me
personally,
I
do
believe
that
commercial,
kennel,
private
kennel
and
things
like
that
are
necessary.
We
also
need
to
separate
out
under
which
ordinance
does
this
fall?
Are
all
the
kennel
ordinances
going
to
be
under
zoning,
or
are
there
going
to
be
kennel
ordinances
that
come
to
play
in
the
animal
control
ordinances?
H
H
I
look
at
the
commercial
kennel
as
what
it
is
in
the
zoning
ordinance
minus
the
word
owned.
I
think
what
you
see
in
normal
ordinances
as
far
as
kennels
go,
it's
being
groomed
conditioned
bred.
Whatever
you
want
to
say,
the
word
owned
is
not
there
and
the
part.
That's
key
is
that
they're
offered
for
compensation.
H
The
thing
that
I
think
that
people
in
town
get
confused
about
in
terms
of
a
kennel
is
primarily
what
people
call
kennels
are
what
I
would
call
a
run.
An
exercise
run
it's
what
is
included
the
floor
surface,
plus
a
cage
around
it
where
the
animal
can
get
some
exercise.
That
is
exclusive
of
it's,
not
part
of
the
sleeping
area
or
the
quote
dog
house.
H
H
I'm
just
throwing
out
some
facts
now
and
we
do
have
the
tools.
The
reason
why
we
don't
hear
a
lot
about
problems
with
dog
kennels
and
things
like
that
is
because
it
is
rare,
and
we
only
hear
about
them
when
there's
a
complaint.
The
50-foot
rule
is
a
very
valid
issue
for
us
in
ward
c,
where
I
am,
I
don't
think,
there's
any
lots
that
could
comply
with
50
feet,
even
if
they
only
owned
one
dog
and
wanted
a
kennel
run.
H
They
would
not
be
able
to
comply
the
way
it's
written
right
now,
so
to
have
the
ordinance
in
two
different
places:
zoning
and
animal
control
that
creates
its
own
confusion,
and
the
second
thing
is
yes.
I
agree
that
there
needs
to
be
a
conversation
in
both
cases
about
how
many
dogs
do
we
want
people
to
have
and
do
we
want
to
limit
it.
H
I
lean
towards
allowing
the
ordinances
to
take
care
of
the
problems,
but
I
understand
where
todd's
coming
from
in
terms
of
you
know
having
some
sense
of
reasonableness,
but
I
think
people
can
be
reasonable.
I
mean,
if
you
have
a
neighbor
like
you
were
talking
about
that,
had
99
dogs
or
whatever
that's
way
beyond
reasonable
and
and
even
as
animal
control
board
as
the
police
department
any
of
those
kind
of
things.
H
H
Nobody
would
even
known
that
I
had
that
many
dogs
unless
they
actually
sat
outside
and
counted
them,
we've
had
situations
where
somebody
has
had
one
dog
and
it
barks
its
full
head
off
all
day,
long
and
all
night
long,
and
so
that's
a
problem
right
there
with
one
dog.
So
you
can't
say
that
the
number
of
dogs
is
automatically
going
to
equate
to
a
problem
so
that
that
was
the
kind
of
comments
I
have
right.
F
Again,
I'm
not
looking
for
an
argument
here.
I
just
think
that
what
we
need
to
do
is
I
would
recommend
moving
forward,
that
you
have
representation
from
the
animal
control
board
and
representation
from
the
planning
commission
to
sit
down
and
talk.
This
issue
through.
I
think
anything
that
has
to
do
with
the
structure
or
use
of
land
should
not
be
with
the
animal
control
board.
It's
a
zoning
function,
so
it
should
be
part
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
I
think
that's
pretty
clear
with
what's
going
on,
especially
the
setbacks
and
those
types
of
things.
F
C
I
was
thinking
too,
just
as
the
zoning
ordinance
is
laid
out
today.
If
we
do,
if
we
leave
kennel
and
then
make
it
the
definition
to
be
commercial
kennel,
and
then
they
will
still
be
regulated
as
a
conditional
use
in
the
a1
zone.
I
don't
think
that
in
the
zoning
ordinance
we
would
want
that
dog
run
kennel
the
50-foot
spacing
between
a
house
because,
as
beth
had
said,
and
in
a
lot
of
situations,
not
only
just
in
within
her
ward,
but
I
mean
your
set.
Your
rear
yard
setback
is
25
feet.
C
C
They'll
have
25
again,
but
there's
just
no
way
really
that
you
can
ever
accomplish
50.,
and
I
think
that
that
would
we
want
to
direct
that
back
to
the
definition
of
a
commercial
kennel
to
say
that
that
business
can't
be
within
50
feet
of
a
house,
even
though
it
would
be
in
the
a1
zone
or
district.
So
it
would
be
unlikely,
and
I
think
that
we
should
look
at.
You
know
a
lot
of
the
time.
The
kennels,
the
outdoor
kennels
are
attached
to
storage
sheds,
and
so
just
looking
at
it.
C
That
way
that
maybe
it's
just
adhering
it's
an
incidental
use
to
a
accessory
structure
within
the
district
and
allowing
it
that
way,
and
then
the
number
of
pets
that
should,
if
it
it.
I
don't
personally
think
that
it
should
be
regulated.
But
if
it
were,
it
should
be
definitely
in
the
animal
control
section
of
the.
H
So
but
I
agree
with
todd
too
that
this
isn't
going
to
be
solved
right
now.
The
idea
was
to
bring
this
forward,
get
everybody
thinking
about
it
and
then
have
a
stepping
point
for
us
to
move
forward
with
this,
and
I
think
we've
already
started
that
conversation.
We
have
some
help
with
you
know
some
definitions,
brandi's
on
the
right
track.
With
way
my
thought
process
was
going,
and
so
I
see
liam's
had
his
hand
up
forever.
So
I'm
going
to
shut
up
for
a
minute.
E
I
just
want
to.
I
want
to
have
some
sort
of
an
executive,
summary
or
plan
as
we
before
we
break
tonight,
I'm
just
I'm
looking
at
the
statute,
if
we
just
simply
put
the
word
commercial
in
front
of
kennel
in
in
title
21,
where
it
appears
in
the
two
places
right,
it
appears
in
the
conditional
use
in
egg
one
or
in
the
egg
district,
and
then
in
the
definition
I
mean.
D
E
D
I
agree
with
that
that
that
was
the
proposal
we
had
come
up
with
was
to
scratch.
The
word,
oh,
to
put
the
word
commercial
in
front
of
the
definition
of
kennel
in
the
zoning
ordinance,
but
the
problem
with
that
is,
if
you
know
if
todd
and
others
on
the
animal
control
board,
believes
that
non-commercial
still
needs
to
be
regulated
by
striking
the
word
own,
that
effectively
unregulates
them,
and
so
it
gives
this
board
the
power.
D
That's
why
it's
kind
of
an
odd
situation,
because
the
animal
control
board
doesn't
believe
there
should
be
a
heart
number,
but
they
don't
have
the
power
to
recommend
amending
the
zoning
ordinance.
Only
you
guys
have
that
power,
and
so
that's
kind
of
where
we're
at
so.
I
think
we
can
all
agree
that
there
should
be
a
stronger
definition
of
commercial
and
that
commercial,
at
least
at
this
point,
should
remain
a
conditional
use
in
the
egg
zone.
D
But
I
guess
the
open
question
as
a
community
decision
that
needs
to
be
made
is
whether
or
not
there
needs
to
be
a
limit
on
the
number
of
pets,
dogs
or
cats
that
individuals
can
own
non-commercially
and
if
so,
if
and
if
you
know,
if
the
answer
is
yes
to
that
question,
then
then
there
perhaps
need
to
be
another
definition
in
the
zoning
ordinance
as
to
where,
where
folks
could
live
with
more
dogs.
You
know
essentially.
D
Well,
technically,
according
to
our
current
ordinance,
you
could
read
that
as
anybody
with
more
than
three
or
more
dogs
that
lives
anywhere,
but
the
egg
zone
without
a
conditional
use
without
a
conditional
use
in
the
egg
zone
is
already
in
violation
of
our
ordinance.
So
there's
no
grandfathering
in
existing
violators.
F
I
would
recommend
again
mr
chair,
I
will
make
a
motion
and
to
have
three
individuals
appointed
from
each
individual
board
to
sit
down
and
talk
this
through,
and
everybody
can
have
a
little
bit
of
time
to
digest
and
have
the
ability
to
express
their
point
of
view
and
whether
we're
talking
about
a
zoning
issue
or
animal
or
ownership
issue.
I
think
there's
a
wide
variety
of
things
and
I
think,
there's
multiple
paths
that
be
calmed
down.
Again.
F
It's
not
a
simple
fix,
because
you
know
we're
talking
about
structures
that
are
going
to
be
constructed
and
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
setbacks
from
different
buildings.
And,
if
we're
going
to
talk
about
allowing
10
or
12
or
15
dogs
to
be
located
on
property
right,
we
need
to
be
thinking
about
the
health
and
welfare
of
those
dogs
and
how
they're
being
housed
on
that
property
and
if
that
housing
has
to
happen
to
occur
outside
what
are
the
potential
impacts
for
nuisances
and
those
types
of
things
on
adjoining
properties.
F
A
E
D
D
F
D
Well,
I
guess
given
todd's
motion,
I
it
actually
would
have
to
be
that
a
different
day.
It
could
be
the
same
day
as
the
meeting,
but
it
wouldn't
have
to
be
now
if
it's
not
going
to
be
the
same
day
as
the
animal
control
boards
meeting,
because
won't
involve
the
entire
board.
Those
be
two
members
of
the
board.
B
B
A
Sorry
is,
is
there
any
further
discussion
on
that?
I
mean,
I
think
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
get
a
group
together
and
try
to
hash
this
out.
I
mean
right
now.
We
don't
know
the
time
or
place,
but
we
can.
We
can
email
back
and
forth,
and
staff
can
help
us
with
that
and
we
can
find
something
that
works
with
our
schedules
and
and
with
the
animal
board
schedules
we
can.