►
From YouTube: Plan Commission - 05-06-2021
Description
Plan Commission - 05-06-2021
D
D
E
A
All
right,
thank
you
item
three
on
the
agenda
is
invitation
for
public
comment:
participants
middle-
if
there's
anything
not
on
the
agenda
that
someone
from
the
public
would
like
to
talk
about.
There
will
be
time
later
in
the
meeting
for
that,
and
just
please
let
someone
on
the
city
staff
know
that
you
have
an
item
to
talk
about
item
four
on
the
agenda
is
the
approval
of
the
agenda.
We
are
going
to
make
a
couple
of
changes,
we're
going
to
rearrange
the
order
of
of
the
regular
agenda
item;
6.
A
A
I
have
a
motion
and
a
second
any
further
discussion.
Hearing.
None
all
in
favor,
say
aye
all
opposed
same
sign.
Motion
carries
all
right
item.
Six
is
the
regular
agenda.
The
new
6a
is
commission
consideration
of
resolution
2021-20
approving
the
replat
of
lot,
one
watertown
railroad
second
edition
brandi.
Could
you
take
over
please.
B
B
The
city
is,
does
retain
this
detention
pond,
but
then
this
property
now
is
owned
by
wolford
properties,
and
so
what
they're
wanting
to
do
is
replat
it
into
the
five
lots
and
just
subdivide
it
that
way.
This
again
could
be
administratively
platted,
but
we
do
have
a
caveat
in
the
ordinance
that
you
cannot
do
two
minor
plots
or
replats
within
three
years.
B
So
you
know
some
of
them
are
smaller
and
that
will
just
limit
what
they
can
actually,
how
many
like
units
they
could
have.
If
they
did
apartments
or
whatnot.
This
lot,
5a
will
will
be
difficult.
I
mean
it
really
doesn't
have
a
buildable
area.
I
would
imagine
that
that
would
end
up
being
a
parking
lot
or
some
something
similar,
because
this
is
a
there's,
a
very
large
storm,
sewer
pipe
that
runs
underneath
within
this
easement
here.
A
A
Second,
we
have
a
motion.
A
second.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
hearing,
none
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye,
all
opposed
same
sign
motion
carries
next
item
on
the
agenda.
Is
6b
commission
consideration
of
resolution
2021-19
an
amendment
to
chapter
2406
of
the
ordinance
brandi?
Could
you
take
it
away?
Please.
B
Yes,
thank
you
jeff,
so
this,
if
you
guys
remember,
we
just
recently
also
updated
our
subdivision
procedure
ordinance.
That
was
a
large
undertaking
that
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
and
that
was
that
became
effective
on
january
1st
of
this
year
and
just
with
a
new
ordinance,
you
know
ordinances
all
together.
They
are
a
living
breathing
document,
so
we
did
notice
something
that
was
omitted
by
by
mistake
and
that
we
that
it
is
an
important
it's
an
important
requirement
that
we
want
to
include
within
that
this
portion
of
the
ordinance.
B
So
we
added
it
back
so
it
this
language.
Here,
approximate
groundwater
and
lowest
finished
floor.
Elevation
shall
be
shown
for
buildings.
The
lowest
recommended
floor.
Elevation
shall
be
two
feet
above
the
normal
groundwater
elevation
test
holes
shall
determine
groundwater
elevation
where
applicable.
B
So
this
is,
when
they'd
be
getting
into
a
little
more
of
the
technical
detail.
They
they
should
know
this
information
anyway,
when
they're
designing-
and
this
is
an
important
aspect
for
you-
know
a
buyer.
Beware
of
just
making
sure
that
we
know
where
the
water
table
is
so
that
your
somebody
isn't
having
a
sump
pump
running
24,
7
or
drainage
issues
like
that.
B
You
can
see
here
that
what
we
did
is
we
used
to
have
a
list,
a
large
list
of
requirements,
but
then
we
just
referenced
it
back
the
requirements
back
to
the
actual
post-construction
stormwater
bmp
manual,
so
that
we
had
consistency
there
because
they
have
to
design
to
the
manual
and
and
then
meet
those
requirements
as
well.
So
we
just
instead
of
recreating
it.
We
just
wanted
consistency,
and
so
it
does
actually
in
that
list
it
does
talk
about
showing
that
lowest
finished
floor
on
there.
This
one
is
just
where
we're
just
adding
to
it.
Basically,.
C
B
No,
this
would
be
subdivision
exempt.
So
there's
a
portion
in
chapter
24
that
it
allows
there
are
certain
require,
there's
certain
allowances
that
you
do
not
that
you
can
be
subdivision
exempt.
You
don't
have
to
go
through
the
process
of
a
concept
plan,
prelim
plan.
All
of
that
and
that's
if
there
are
not
any
public
improvements
or
right-of-way
dedication
and
there's
a
whole
list
there
of
all
the
things
you
know:
you're,
not
landlocking
a
parcel
by
doing
a
plat
you're,
not
plotting
more
than
five
lots.
C
C
I
mean
I'm
just
you
know.
If
somebody
wanted
to
go
to
the
southwest
power
water,
we
had
a
flood
and
we
decided
that
we
were
going
to.
You
know,
take
out
four
or
five
city
blocks
and
we're
going
to
redo
something
with
that
and
come
up
with
a
new
conceptual
design
construction
plan.
The
the
the
groundwater
table
would
be
a
requirement.
Yes,
new
construction.
B
F
B
Free
and
that
is
where
year
to
year,
it
could
change,
but
it's
just
to
have
the
best
available
information
while
they're
designing
and
when
I
say
you
know
like
when
what
todd
had
brought
up
like
this,
you
could
have
to
go
through
the
whole
subdivision
process.
Even
if
it's
an
existing
it's
it's
a
redevelopment
of
a
piece
of
property.
F
B
We
we
actually
that's
something
that
we
we're
looking
at
potentially
adding
into
our
title
five
for
building
requirements,
but
this
would
just
be
for
the
subdivision,
the
you
know
the
plans
themselves,
the
preliminary
plan
and
then
so
that's
where
it
is
difficult,
because
really
you
would
want
before
you
would
like,
when
somebody
would
buy
an
individual
lot.
They
should
really
do
another
test
hole
to
know
exactly
where
the
groundwater
is,
but
this
at
least
gives
them
a
good
starting
point.
C
G
I
I
feel
as
though
it
would
be
a
lot
up
to
the
engineer
of
record
when
they
were
designing
that
to
get
a
good
estimate,
something
that
they
feel
very
comfortable
with.
It
wouldn't
necessarily
be
on
a
per
lot
basis,
but
it
would
have
to
be
enough
where
they
would
feel
comfortable,
providing
that
data
and
stamping
those
plans.
G
If
there
are
concerns
that
that
are
identified,
there
absolutely
need
to
be
a
test
hold
dug
at
every
single
location
prior
to
a
building
permit,
and
we
may
look
at
amending
chapter
five,
which
is
the
building
chapter
a
little
bit
later
as
well.
But
this
would
be
just
getting
that
that
data
and
assuming
that
it's,
that
there
were
enough
test
holes
drilled
to
be
reasonably
accurate
and
then,
hopefully,
with
getting
this
information.
C
If
I
have
water
table
elevation
currently
at
you
know
two
and
a
half
or
three
feet
below
the
earth
surface,
and
I
decide
that
I
want
to
have
more
opportunities
to
have
flexibility
in
my
design.
I
would
have
the
ability
to
bring
fill
in
to
raise
above
that,
groundwater
elevation,
and
then
that
would
help
you
when
you're
in
your
grading
plan,
reviews
and
things
like
that,.
G
B
B
So
it's
just
it's
it's
important
and
very
helpful,
and
so
we
definitely
want
to
see
that
added
back
in
and
then
same
with
that
I
didn't
finish
there,
but
the
construction
plan
portion
two
we're
adding
it
back
in
there
where
the
lowest
recommended
floor.
Elevation
should
be
two
feet
above
the
normal
ground,
water
elevation.
So
just
adding
it
in
a
couple
places
throughout
this
chapter.
A
F
B
So
we
would
look
back
at
your
specific,
your
individual
lot.
We
would
look
at
that
against
the
preliminary
plan
and
if
you
were
wanting
to
do
something
that
was
lower
than
what
was
recommended
because
we
they
show
all
of
the
you
know
a
footprint
of
the
house
and
then
the
lowest
finished
floor
elevation.
And
so,
if
you
wanted
to
do
a
basement,
we
would
say
we
need
to
see
a
test
hole
and
then
confirm
at
that
time.
If
you
were
able
to
and
then
also
like
stacy
had
alluded
to
that.
C
C
F
B
And
that
is
where
that
will
be.
If
we
come
forward
with
title
five,
it's
just
we
have
to
kind
of.
We
have
to
think
about
that
a
little
bit
more.
So
that
might
be
something
that
would
come
forward
and
that
would
actually
just
go
to
city
council.
I
could
see
us
bringing
it,
though,
for
informational
purposes,
because
it
is
it
it's
title
v,
so
it
wouldn't
technically
be
something
that
the
plan
commission
oversees,
but
it
is
very
directly
related
to
things
that
we
look
at.
A
A
So
when
someone
buys
a
property,
they
know
that
their
lowest
floor
is
already
1760.
They
don't
have
to
do
the
the
the
boring
themselves,
that's
already
determined
by
the
developer.
Once
once
the
homeowner
buys
it
they're
ready
to
go
they're
ready
to
build
they're
ready
to
get
the
building
permit
from
city
staff,
so
this
isn't
putting
a
burden
on
on
the
homeowner
at
all.
It's
just
it's
just
just.
F
A
A
B
E
A
B
Thank
you
jeff.
So
this
is
a
kennel
ordinance
amendment,
and
so
it
is
basically
all
we're
doing
in
title,
21
and
I'll
turn.
Matt
has
been
working
on
this
one,
so
I
will
let
him
explain,
I'm
just
giving
a
brief
over
overview.
As
far
as
what
we're
looking
at
for
the
resolution
and
the
amendments
to
title
21,
we
would
look
at
amending
the
a1
district,
the
c3
district,
the
i1
light
industrial
district
and
the
definitions
in
regards
to
kennels.
So
with
that,
I
will
turn
it
over
to
matt
roby
city.
H
Attorney,
thank
you
brandy
I.
So
there
was
a
subcommittee
that
was
formed
between
members
of
the
plan
commission,
as
well
as
members
of
the
animal
control
board
and
I'll
just
rehash.
Try
to
react
real,
quick
here.
You
know
the
animal
control
board
had
reviewing
ordinances
and
discovered
that
you
know
there
was
this
language
in
the
planning
ordinances,
the
zoning
ordinances
regarding
the
number
of
animals
and
long
story
short.
H
The
interpretation
of
the
current
language
of
the
ordinance
is
that
you
can't
you
can't
own
for
personal
use
more
than
two
dogs,
unless
you
have
a
conditional
use
and
live
in
an
egg
zone
and
so
the
animal
control
board.
I
thought
that
you
know
that
that
deserved
some
attention
and
possibly
some
fixing,
and
so
we
put
together
the
subcommittee
because
the
current
regulation
resided
in
the
zoning
ordinance
and
what
you
have
in
front
of
you
is
kind
of
the
result
of
the
culmination
of
that
subcommittee's
work.
H
There
will
be
some
changes
made
to
the
animal
control
ordinance
at
the
same
time,
but
essentially
what
it
would
do.
It
would
remove
that
regulation
on
the
number
of
dogs
from
the
for
personal
use.
From
the
zoning
ordinance,
there
would
still
be
a
commercial
kennel
land
use
that
is
now
that
is
defined
under
the
zoning
ordinance
and
would
be
available
as
a
conditional
use
in
the
ag,
c3
and
i1
zones,
and
then
the
corresponding
ordinance
changes
would
would
have
been
approved
by
the
animal
control
board
and
what
they
landed
on.
H
There
was
a
cap
on
the
number
of
dogs
at
five,
no
more
than
five
for
personal
use
in
the
city,
and
that
would
reside
in
the
animal
control
ordinance
and
there
would
be
no
no
mechanism
for
appeal
from
that.
It
would
just
be
that
would
be
the
cap,
and
I
know
that
we've
been
through
this
couple
times
before
so
probably
already
talked
too
long.
You
probably
already
know
all
about
this,
so
that's
it.
A
Thank
you
for
the
recap,
and
yes,
we
have
talked
about
this
in
previous
meetings
under
discussion,
so
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
there's
a
public
hearing
on
this
item.
If
there's
anyone
in
the
public
to
speak
in
favor
against
this
item,
please
do
so
or
if
there's
any
other
comments
from
board
members,
I'm
going
to
make
a
comment.
C
I
was
fortunate
enough
to
be
included
in
the
the
discussion
and
it
was
very
good
give
and
take
on
all
sides
of
the
issues.
I
think
the
animal
control
board
had
brought
some
good
things
to
light.
We
had
a
conflict
in
our
ordinances
between
animal
control
and
the
zoning
regulations.
I
think
you
know
we.
We
talked
a
little
bit
about
you
know:
where
should
the
number
of
dogs
be
at
and
I
think
the
animal
control
board
being
the
the
appropriate
mechanism
because
they
look
at
the
animal
safety
and
healthy
health
welfare?
C
Those
types
of
things
made
the
determination
to
go
to
five
from
from
a
zoning
perspective.
The
con
the
city
has
always
looked
at.
You
know
not
not
having
too
many
dogs
on
a
person's
property
and
not
operating
up
a
commercial
kennel
within
the
residential
zones.
There
is
something,
though,
that
we
did
talk
about.
C
It
is
not
included
in
this
draft
and
I
will
be
making
an
amendment
when
we
get
to
the
discussion
phase,
but
currently
dog
houses
and
and
I'm
going
to
take
dog
houses
and
kennels,
and
I
I
don't
want
to
equivocate
the
two
but
a
kennel.
We're
looking
at
commercial,
commercial,
zoning
of
commercial
kennels
being
someplace,
where
I'm
harboring
boarding
raising
and
then
using
it
for
monetary.
You
know
compensation
currently
in
the
existing
animal
control
board
regulations.
C
But
what
happens
now
with
what's
going
on
here?
Theoretically,
I
can
own
up
to
five
dogs
and
other
sections
of
our
existing
ordinance
allows
accessory
structures,
less
than
120
square
foot,
200
square
feet
to
be
four
feet
off
a
person's
property
line,
and
because
you
know
five
dogs
in
a
kennel,
not
a
kennel,
but
a
dog
house.
You
know
four
feet
off
the
property
line
with
a
seven
foot
setback.
That
means
now
they're
11
feet
away
from
your
bedroom
window
when,
before
the
rule
was
50
feet
away.
C
So
I
am
looking
that
I
think
a
reasonable
compromise
in
this
situation
would
be
that
we
treat
all
dog
houses
with
or
without
a
kennel
to
be
to
meet
the
minimum
setback
as
required
of
the
principal
structure
on
the
lot.
So
if
I
have
a
seven
foot
side,
yard
setback
and
it's
or
seven
foot
rear
yard,
the
dog
house,
whether
it's
under
200
square
feet
or
over
200
square
feet
with
or
without
a
run,
would
need
to
be
set
back
from
that.
So,
theoretically
I'm
getting
an
extra
three
feet.
C
I
mean
I
like
dogs,
it's
not
that
I
don't
like
dogs,
but
I
just
know
if
I
have
five
dogs
living
in
a
kennel.
You
know
if
it's
in,
if
it's
a
garage,
is
seven
feet
away
at
least
there's
insulation
in
that
garage
and
there's
insulation
in
my
house.
So
you
can
you
it's
somewhat
muffled
five
dogs
and
you
know
we
don't
get
into
the
whole
idea
of
how
big
that
dog
kennel
should
be.
But
you
know
there
are
american
kennel
standards
of
how
dog
holdings
how
much
they
should
be.
C
But
theoretically
I
could
take
a
200
square
foot
shed
that
I
buy
at
menards.
I
could
pack
five
dogs
into
it
and
I
could
pop
that
four
feet
off
the
proper
lane.
That's
what
your
ordinance
would
do
with
these
amendments
and
that-
and
you
say
todd-
that's
crazy,
but
you
know
what
somebody
will
do
it
and
then-
and
somebody
is
going
to
get
mad
and
and
there
will
be
arguments
and
so
50
feet
I
think,
is
too
far.
I
think
a
reasonable
setback
would
be
whatever
we're
requiring
for
a
principal
use.
C
H
C
A
A
B
Okay
did
okay,
thank
you
jeff.
So
this
is
an
amendment
to
chapter
2190
of
the
revised
ordinances,
and
this
would
be
amending
the
definition
for
bar
tavern.
So
this
is
a
two-fold
ordinance
amendment
as
well.
We
need
to
make
amendments
to
title
21,
which
the
only
thing
here
that
we
need
to
is
the
definition
and
then
also
to
title
two
again
that
doesn't
come
to
plan
commission
for
recommendation.
It
just
goes
to
city
council,
but
I'll
explain
you
know
because
they
are
they're
related.
B
So
what
we
would
be
doing
is
changing
the
definition
of
bar
tavern,
to
just
say
any
establishment,
including
restaurants
and
gambling
establishments,
licensed
to
sell
alcoholic
beverages
for
consumption
upon
the
premise
where
sold
or
provided
what
it
used
to
says,
and
what
we're
looking
at
amending
on
striking
this
language
is.
The
term
bar
tavern
should
also
include
establishments
licensed
to
sell
alcoholic
beverages
for
consumption
off
the
premise
we're
sold,
and
so
today
we
even
if
somebody
is
wanting
to
just
sell
off
sale,
they
still
come
to
the
board
of
adjustment
for
a
conditional
use.
B
That
makes
it
I
mean
it
just
it
doesn't
meet
the
intent
of
what
we're
actually
trying
to
look
at
as
a
board,
so
we
would
be
looking
at
a
an
actual
bar
tavern
so
to
define
it
for
what
it
is
and
then
in
title
ii
it
would
still
be
because
that's
a
state
license
that
it's
an
on
off
sale
license.
That
would
have
to
be
issued
by
city
council,
but
then
we
would
add
language
into
title,
2
and
I'll
pull
that
up
to
give
reference
there.
If
you
give
me
one
moment.
B
What
not
and
then
that
and
then
what
we
want
to
add
is
that
they,
they
would
also
be
required
to
get
a
zoning
verification
letter
from
the
community
development
division
so
that
we
are
able
to
check
each
application
who
for
an
on
off
sale
that
they
are
not
needing
a
conditional
use.
So
the
only
thing
that
would
be
needing
a
conditional
use
would
be
an
actual
bar
or
tavern.
C
So
basically,
what
we're
saying
in
for
simple
minds
like
mine
is
that
any
property
in
a
commercial,
industrial
or
agricultural
zone,
if
they
have
a
wreath,
any
sort
of
retail
nature,
could
get
a
off
sale
license
to
sell
alcohol,
and
if
I
want
to
sell
on
sale,
I
have
to
come
to
the
board
and
get
a
conditional
use
permit.
Yes,
that's
that's!
That's
really
it
in
a
nutshell.
H
C
C
And
there's
still
nothing
saying
that
the
council
would
let
shopko
not
miss.
Our
shock
was
a
bad
example
target.
If
they,
you
know,
if
they
wanted
to
sell
on
sale,
they'd
still
have
to
come
in.
There's
nothing
beholding
them,
even
if
even
if
they
meet
the
setback
requirements
within
the
ordinance,
the
council
is
still
within
their
druthers
to
decide
whether
or
not
to
approve
it
or
not.
H
D
I
am
here
thanks
for
your
tabling,
that
was
an
excellent
use,
parliamentary
style
for
exactly
what
it's
for
pleasant
to
see
in
action,
but
I
appreciate
it
guys
so
realistically,
this
was
just
something
that
growing
up
in
watertown.
It's
always
been
kind
of
a
question
mark.
I
guess
a
lot
of
folks
actually
have
just
thought
for
years
and
years
that
this
was
a
law
that
we,
you
couldn't
sell
alcohol
in
a
gas
station
or
wherever
and
it's
not-
you
just
needed
a
permit,
basically
or
conditional
use.
D
D
So
it's
just
a
clarification
more
than
anything
like
brandy
said,
and
the
hope
is
that
this
clarifies
it
a
little
bit.
It
differentiates
between
the
two
for
folks
at
home.
You
know
you
have
that
peace
of
mind
still
that,
even
with
the
on
sale
off
sale,
you
do
have
the
language
that
keeps
it
away
from
inappropriate
areas.
It
is
still
reviewed
so
you're
not
losing
that
policing
aspect
of
it.
There's
still
checks
and
balance
to
it,
but
it
just
treats
the
product
as
just
that.
C
C
H
C
I
know
I'm
just
trying
to
make
the
example
that
the
difference
the
way
the
process
works
today
is
that
and
I'm
not
trying
to
be
approved.
I'm
just
trying
for
the
public's
understanding
is
that
if
I
have
a
c3
property
or
c1
property
or
c2
property,
and
I
want
to
sell,
offset
offsell
alcohol
today,
I'd
have
to
come
to
the
board
all
the
joining
property
owners,
or
even
sometimes
we
take
a
look
at
going
beyond
that.
C
If
there's
you
know
daycares
or
whatever,
within
100
feet,
whatever
get
an
actual
notice
or
a
letter,
in
addition
to
the
paper
which
everybody
doesn't
read
and
and
moving
with
this
change,
it
wouldn't.
The
only
thing
that
would
happen
is
there'd,
be
a
newspaper
publication
and
the
adjoining
landowners
would
not
be
notified
until
after
the
fact,
if
they
didn't
read
the
paper
correct
and.
B
C
H
D
I
guess
the
last
thing
I
would
kind
of
say
with
this
is
just
and
at
points
100
percent
well
received
and
understood.
You
know
why
we
voice
that
in
the
scenario,
even
though
you're
getting
that
on
sale
off
sale,
if
they're
not
doing
on
sale,
this
is
no
different
than
going
out
to
buy
a
pack
of
cigarettes.
It's
no
different
than
getting
milk
at
the
grocery
store,
you're
not
going
to
drink
it
there.
D
Good
luck
with
that
business
model
of
just
doing
that,
so
I
don't
know
that.
We'll
see
that
so
much,
I
think
it
just
allows
that
if
your
normal
citizen
is
at
the
grocery
store,
you
know
they
can
get
their
groceries
and
pick
up
a
case
of
beer
or
whatever
or
if
you're
going
out
to
the
lake.
You
can
stop
at
the
gas
station
fuel
up
your
boat
pick
up
your
bait
and
also
grab
whatever
beer
you're
going
to
get
on
the
way.
Instead
of
making
it
two
stops
and
inconveniencing
our
citizens,
I'm.
C
Trying
to
be
arguing
or
a
nervous
nelly
on
this,
but
I
do
also
know
that
you
know
you
go
to.
Sioux
falls.
There's
stories
in
the
newspaper
all
the
time
when
you're
downtown
sioux
falls
right
up.
You
know
you
know
not
in
the
mckenna
park
area,
but
you
up
by
the
cathedral
the
area
there.
There
are
gas
stations
that
sell
alcohol
out
of
there
and
they
do
have
problems
there.
There
have
been
issues
with
vagrancy
and
those
types
of
things
yeah.
I
might
not
buy
it
there,
but
I
could
buy
it
there.
C
I
could
walk
a
block
away
or
I
can
drink.
I
can
drink
it
technically,
you're
not
supposed
to
be
drinking
it
while
you're
walking
down
the
street,
but
things
like
that
can
happen
and
do
happen,
and
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
a
real
world
picture
of
potential
things
that
could
come
into
play
again.
I'm
I'm
going
to
vote
for
this
in
favor,
but
I
just
want
to
have
full
disclosure.
A
E
A
F
Sorry,
I
agree
100
with
todd.
As
far
as
the
setbacks,
I
think
that's
a
great
catch.
My
only
problem
is
the
number
of
dogs
we
have.
You
know
people
in
the
country
that
are
living
with
windmills
and
hog
confinement
and
cattle
confinement,
and
we
expect
our
citizens
of
watertown
to
put
up
with
five
and
not
all
dogs,
bark,
but
dogs,
bark,
that's
what
they
do
and
they
can
also
get
to
be
pretty
vicious.
Looking
intimidating,
when
you
know
you
come
out
in
your
backyard,
you
got
five
dogs
charge
your
fence.
F
Five
dogs,
in
my
opinion,
in
the
city
limits,
is
just
a
lot
to
expect
and
there's
great
owners
and
then
there's
not
so
great
owners.
It's
a
fine
line
to
me
to
be
able
to
ensure
that
I
have
quiet
enjoyment
of
my
property
when
I
step
out
on
my
patio
or
my
children
go
out
in
the
backyard,
and
you
know
the
fence
is
three
feet
from
five
dogs
jumping
over
and
and
taking
my
child
down.
So
that
is
my
concern.
F
E
E
F
E
F
F
And
I'm
not
saying
they're
all
that
way
I
mean.
I
just
think
that
it's
it.
I
think
we
owe
it
to
our
citizens
that
you
know
I'm
gonna
go
buy
this
house
and
not
knowing
that
there's
five
dogs
next
door,
I
close
on
the
house
and
move
in
and
they
open
the
door
and
five
dogs
come
and
stare
at
me
and
yip
at
me,
the
entire
time,
I'm
in
my
backyard,
what
it
what
replicants
I'd
have
nothing
I
I
am
now
stuck
with
a
house
with
five
dogs
next
door
to
me
other.
C
Than
other
than,
if
they
are
creating
a
nuisance
issue
by
by
by
odor
by
the
kids,
not
picking
up
after
the
dogs
or
by
noise,
which
I
can't
remember
if
we
do
have
a,
we
do-
have
a
noise
ordinance
that
and-
and
I
think,
what
you're
the
arguments
that
you're
making
I
was.
I
was
a
canary
in
the
coal
mine
at
the
same
time,
throughout
the
discussion,
because
again
it's
not
just
the
one
neighbor.
Theoretically,
where
I
live
there
were.
There
are
four
you
know
two
in
the
backyard.
C
E
C
F
And
what
about
what
about
the
potential
like,
like
todd
mentioned,
the
the
got
five
dogs
over
here?
I
got
five
dogs
there
and
five
dogs
there
and
they
all
decide
that
they
don't
like
each
other
and
my
child's
out
in
the
yard,
with
a
hot
dog
in
his
hand-
and
you
know
sorry
holy
cow
do,
are
we,
I
think
in
a
way
we're
setting
ourselves
up?
For
you
know
a
catastrophe.
E
F
H
C
H
H
H
Typically,
the
people
that
are
better
dog
owners
are
the
ones
that
are
interested
in
having
more
dogs,
and
so
dr
reeb,
who
sees
dogs
on
a
daily
basis,
and
he
sees
poor
dog
owners
and
and
not
poor
dog
owners,
people
that
have
lots
of
dogs
or
people
that
are
super
into
dogs
and
take
really
good
care
of
their
dogs
and
train
their
dogs,
and
hardly
anybody
knows
they
have
five
dogs.
It's
the
people
that
have
one
or
two
dogs,
and
this
happened
upon
a
dog
that
ended
up,
causing
the
most
problems
in
their
estimation.
H
So
the
idea
here
was
to
set
a
number,
because
currently
it's
this
back
door
rule
that
you
have
to
have
a
conditional
use
and
live
in
an
egg
zone.
If
you
want
to
have
three
dogs,
and
so
so
to
set
a
hard
number,
we
talked
about
four
five
and
six
and
three.
There
was
no
actually
three
wasn't
seriously
considered
because
the
members
of
the
board
were
pretty
adamant
that
that
more
than
three
should
be
allowed.
C
A
You
know,
I
think
I
think
the
good
point
is
made
there,
that
we
don't
currently
have
an
ordinance.
You
know,
because,
right
now
it
has
to
be
in
the
egg
zone
on
the
kennel,
and
I
think
this
at
least
gets
the
ordinance
on
the
book
and
if
five
happens
to
be
the
wrong
number,
then
we're
back
here,
making
just
a
small
change
and
we're
changing
five
to
three.
You
know
if
it.
A
C
Two
things,
mr
chair,
two
things
section
14-6
of
the
brookings
code
says
that
a
kennel
is
no
more
than
four
animal
units.
Just
for
the
record
number
two,
we
aren't
making
the
determination
on
how
many
dogs
are
allowed.
That's
a
separate
ordinance
done
by
the
building
by
the
animal
control
board.
If
we
want
to
stipulate
how
many
dogs-
and
we
want
to
be
inconsistent
similar
the
way
it
is
right
now,
we
would
have
to
change.
C
C
So
I,
where
I'm
at
with
it,
is
that
I
acquiesce
and
I'm
fine
with
giving
the
five
dogs
a
run
at
it
and
if
and
if
the
world
goes
to
hell
in
a
hand
basket
we'll
it'll.
As
you
said,
it'll
come
back
to
us
and
then
we
would
maybe
have
to
look
at
something.
The
only
thing
that
I'm
most
concerned
about
is
having
a
separation
distance
for
dog
houses
from
people's
houses.
That's
not
50
feet,
but
a
reasonable
number
I.e.
The
setback.
B
H
B
I
just
wanted
to
add
as
well
as
far
as
if
we
would
ever
look
at
adding
regulating
the
number
of
pets
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
I
think
that
would
be
very
inappropriate
because
it's
land
use
and
so
then,
as
todd
had
stated,
then
he
what
he's
looking
and
would
like
to
add
to
this
ordinance
amendment
for
title
21
would
be
looking
at
the
dog
house,
not
as
an
accessory
structure,
but
as
a
stand-alone
dog
house
that
we
would
most
likely
maybe
need
to
define
it's
pretty
straightforward,
but
where
we
would
place.
G
It's
just.
We
would
regulate
that
as
we
would
regulate
anything
else
and
that's
typically,
a
four
foot
setback
versus
what
a
nine
foot
setback
on
the
side
yard
and
a
25
foot
setback
in
the
rear
yard.
I'm
not
sure
that
captures
what
mr
case
was
presenting,
though
I
think
he's
wanting
to
see
these
have
a
greater
setback
and
be
treated
like
a
primary
structure
for
setback
purposes.
C
B
So
when
we
took
a
stat
when
I'm
knowing
your
thoughts,
todd
looking
at
the
ordinance,
I
think
the
most
appropriate
place
to
put
that
would
be
in
the
supplemental
provisions
for
allowable
miscellaneous
accessories
structures
and
similar
to
when
we
talk
about
decks,
and
let
me
just
pull
this
up
just
I
wanted
to
give
you
guys
an
idea
of
where
it
was
so.
If
we
added
something
as
simple
as
dog
houses,
she'll
observe
the
same
setbacks
as
primary
structures
c
table
21.
F
C
B
B
C
B
E
B
E
G
There
are
a
lot
of
people
that
have
like
the
doggy
doors
and
then
the
dog
runs
wherever
in
the
fenced
backyard
or
have
the
dog
out
on
a
tie
out.
So
I'm
not
I'm
not
sure
I
mean
that
could
be
helping
a
portion
of
the
problem,
but
there
also
could
be
other
problems,
and
I
don't
think
that
we're
in
a
position
to
regulate
like
doggie
doors
or
tie
outs
or
things
of
that
nature.
So
I
just
wanted
to
bring
that
up.
C
I
don't
care,
that's
primarily
house
over
there
for
an
hour
during
the
day
or
24
hours
a
day.
I'm
saying
you
have
a
structure
you
require
building
permits
for
structures
in
this
community,
we're
defining
what
that
structure.
Is
it's
a
dog
house
with
or
without
a
run,
there's
a
perimeter
around
that
dog
house
from
there.
I
need
to
get
a
building
permit
if
it's
bigger
than
200
square
feet.
C
H
G
That's
exactly
what
I
was
thinking
about
it.
So
then,
if
it
goes
in
at
this
particular
time,
so
then
it's
from
this
point
forward,
then
we
would
have
this
regulation
and
it
would
be
essentially
hard
to
really
track
because
some
of
these
folks
are
not
knowing
that
they
would
need
to
get
a
permit
or
sometimes
they
wouldn't
need
to
get
a
permit,
and
I
think
it
could
be
confusing.
G
C
We
also
have
an
existing
section
of
code.
That's
in
the
animal
control
board
that
says
all
kennels
have
to
be
50
feet,
I'm
going
to
tell
you
nearly
every
kennel
in
the
town
under
the
current
rule
is
non-conforming,
and
we've
lived
that
way
for
at
least
the
30
years
that
I've
been
doing
this
job
in
the
area.
So
I
don't
think
the
non-conformity
aspect
is
a
reason
to
deny
something.
B
G
G
B
G
B
B
F
Carry
on
with
what
todd
is
saying
if
we
make
that
the
ordinance
and
we
do
or
do
not
go
and
enforce
it,
at
least,
if
I'm
having
trouble
with
my
neighbor's
five
dogs-
and
I
come
down
here-
and
I
say:
okay
he's
got
his
kennel
right
on
the
property
line.
I
have
grounds
now
to
have
code
enforcer,
go
down
and
say
you
need
to
move
your
kennel,
because
you
know
for
quiet
enjoyment
of
ronda.
F
H
Yeah
just
to
clarify
so
that's
the
issue.
If
it's
been
there
for
20
years
and
we
pass
it
it's
grandfathered
in
if
it's
a
structure,
it's
grandfather,
and
so
that's
that's
what
that's
the
non-conforming
issue.
That's
creating
but
again
to
todd's
point
he's
correct.
There's
a
lot
of
places
in
town.
There
isn't
50
feet
between
houses
and
that
do
indeed
have
a
dog
kennel
on
one
or
the
other
of
the
houses
and,
in
theory,
are
violating
that
that
provision
so
there's.
So
it
is
what
it
is.
B
H
H
Like
that's
so,
we
had
that
issue
up
in
washington
drive
where
we
had
a
an
accessory
shed
and
another
accessory
shed
that
had
a
kennel
on
it
and
we
decided
that
because
it's
a
kennel,
even
though
it's
like
the
size
of
a
shed,
it's
okay,
because
it
doesn't
because
we
don't
regulate
kennels.
Currently,
that
was
my
understanding
of
the
ordinance.
B
But-
and
that
was
be,
I
think
because
he
did
not
have
an
accessory
structure,
so
he
could
have
two
accessories
in
that
in
that
one
section
of
the
ordnance
here
that
you
can
have
one
accessory
structure
under
200
square
feet
and
one
over
detached
garage
depending
on
the
size
of
the
of
the
lot.
But
no,
I
that
wasn't
my
interpretation.
I
guess.
G
I'm
I'm
not
sure
if
we've
ever
really
done
permits
for
dog
houses.
To
be
honest,
I
have
not
heard
of
that
technically,
probably
according
to
the
very
strictest
interpretation
of
this
ordinance,
I
would
say
it
is
required
now
that
I
look
at
it,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
we
have
really
ever
issued
those.
They
have
been
more
of
a
miscellaneous
accessory
type
use.
B
Already
I
mean
they
should
have
gotten
a
permit,
so
then
at
least
it
gives
the
the
neighbor
some
protection
there.
The
this
is
what
this
and
that's
why
we
were
thinking
of
adding
it
into
this
section
of
the
ordinance.
If
we
are,
if
we
were
going
to
this
would
be
the
place
to
add
it,
because
it
talks
about
a
permanent
sports.
A
recreational
structure
facility
and
greenhouses.
F
Well,
I
guess
it
at
least
safe.
It
safeguards.
You
know,
future
trouble
if
you
know,
like
you
said,
there's
probably
people
out
there
right
now
with
six
or
seven
dogs
that
we
don't
know
about,
and
no
one's
complained
you
know,
but
I
guess
I
just
hate
to
see
us
not
be
proactive
instead
of
reactive.
So
that's
it's.
B
And
it's
really
the
matter
of
if
you
think
that
it
should
have
a
dog
house,
because
most
likely
they're
going
to
be
under
200
square
feet,
it
would
be
if
you
think
that
it
should
have
greater
setbacks
than
what
are
already
on
the
books
is
four
feet
off
the
side,
four
feet
off
the
rear
and
then
but
what
we
would
be
changing
it
to
would
be
the
same
as
the
primary
would
actually
be.
I
honestly
think,
if
anything,
we
should
say
that
it
should.
C
F
G
C
C
G
G
If
they're
under
200
square
feet,
yes,
if
they're
over
200
square
feet,
then
that's
where
we
get
the
nine
foot
off
the
side
and
then
on
foot
off
the
rear.
And
if
I'm
understanding
everything
correctly,
then
the
amendment
that
mr
kays
is
intending
to
bring
forward
would
be
treating
any
dog
house
as
a
an
accessory
structure
over
200
feet
for
setback
purposes.
C
A
C
C
C
24
hours,
I
don't
care,
and
that
includes
any
kennel
run
with
it.
So
I
would
recommend
that
I
know
there's
somebody
that
can
make
really
neat
pictures.
They
have
the
ability
to
do
that,
draw
a
doghouse
with
a
run,
and
that
is
what
we
mean
by
a
dog
enclosure
and
that
dog
enclosure
needs
to
abide
by
the
setback.
Requirements
of
any
accessory
structure
over
200
square
feet.
Is
that
correct,
stacy.
G
B
B
F
C
G
B
So
it'll
just
be
consolidating
a
and
b
today,
just
because
they
are
related
anyway.
We
wouldn't
have
to
do
that,
but
we
will
at
we'll
make
sure
that
we
add
that
language
of
the
dog
houses,
dog
houses
shall
observe
the
same
setbacks
as
accessory
structures.
Greater
than
200
square
feet
see
table
211002,
and
then
we
will
come
up
with
the
definition
of
dog
house.
C
B
B
A
C
A
A
H
But
essentially
what
you
know
this
ordinance
will
do
is
is
kind
of
give
us
a
short-term
fix
that
will
allow
us
buy
us
a
little
bit
of
time
to
come
up
with
our
community
plan,
for
how
we're
going
to
tackle
medical
marijuana
more
or
less
just
says
any
any
application
we
get
for
a
permit
or
license
before
the
state
promulgates
their
rules,
which
is
the
end
of
october.
They
have
until
the
end
of
october,
to
do
so
will
be
denied
it
won't
be
pending.
H
C
You
know
the
state,
not
the
state,
but
the
the
drafters
of
that
I
am
26
did
give
local
units
of
government
the
ability
to
regulate
the
time,
place
and
manner
of
those
operations.
With
the
exception
of
dispensaries
and
a
dispensary,
every
community
in
every
county
is
going
to
have
to
allow
at
least
one
dispensary
within
their
corporate
boundaries.
C
C
I
think
this
was
presented
to
the
south
dakota
public
assurance
alliance.
Jack
zac
peterson
were
the
were
the
with
the
once-overs
once
sam
drabilicock
and
I
took
a
stab
at
this,
and
I
I
think
it
they
it's
a
very
simple
ordinance
and
again,
as
matt
says,
it
buys
us
some
time.
I
don't
know
how
much
time,
but
it's
something
that
we
need
to
wrap
our
heads
around.
I
know
that
myself
and
several
other
planners
and
attorneys
across
the
state
are
currently
drafting
licensing
and
zoning
ordinances.
C
I
just
also
want
to
make
sure
everybody
understands,
so
this
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
supreme
court
case.
That's
going
on
right
now
or
recreational
marijuana.
If
that
was
decision,
was
to
drop
in
a
in
a
certain
way
in
the
next
three
weeks
to
six
months.
We
are
nowhere
ready
for
that
as
well.
So
I
think
this
is
a
good
primer
for
how
we
might
want
to
be
looking
at
that
larger
issue
as
well.
If
it's
something
that
the
city
wants
to
regulate.
H
So
the
tentative
plan
for
this-
I
guess
we're
going
back
and
forth
on
some
emails
today
and
you
know
we're
bumping
up
against
notice,
deadlines
and
that
sort
of
thing
so
there's
basically
two
options.
The
way
I
have
done
the
math
is
either
one.
We
hold
a
joint
meeting
of
the
city
council
on
the
plan
commission
on
june
7th.
H
Basically,
you
folks
would
show
up
at
the
city
council
for
a
portion,
maybe
at
the
front
end
of
the
meeting
call
a
meeting,
a
joint
meeting
and,
and
at
that
time
you
guys
could
approve
this
ordinance
and
the
council
would
have
their
first
reading.
The
other
option
would
be
for
the
council
just
to
have
their
first
reading
on
june
7th
and
then
on
june.
10Th
at
your
meeting,
you
could
have
your
your
buddy
at
the
apple
approve
it
at
that
meeting.
So
it's
kind
of
it's
a
little
bit
out
of
order.
H
The
way
we
usually
do
things,
but
it's
it's:
okay,
and
so
essentially,
council.
First
reading
plan,
commission
approval
council,
second
reading
june
21st
and
then
there's
an
emergency
clause.
So
it
goes
into
effect
immediately
upon
publication.
So
it'll
go
into
effect
in
june
26th,
just
in
the
nick
of
time,
but
that's
the
tentative
plan
and
then
again
I
think
there's
just
a
larger
discussion
to
be
had
about
what
and
that's
gonna
involve
the
planning
side,
as
well
as
the
general
licensing
side.
The
council
plan
commission
staff.
H
You
know
we'll
see
how
that
kind
of
all
transpires.
It's
kind
of
one
of
those
things
where
the
we
want
to
have
as
much
input
as
possible,
but
on
the
flip
side,
is
obviously
the
more
more
input
and
more
enhanced
in
the
kitchen,
the
harder
it
is
to
be
it's
going
to
get
something
done
in
time.
You
know,
so
I
think,
there's
going
to
be
a
I'm
sure,
there'll
be
a
template.
That'll
come
out,
that'll
bring
us
pretty
far
down
the
road
as
far
as
what
we
want
to
do,
especially
from
a
zoning
perspective.
C
C
E
C
E
E
C
We've
a
group
of
us
have
been
working
on
that
template
we've
been
looking
at
springs,
has
been
a
pretty
good
model
and
we've
also
taken
some
approaches
of
treating
it,
something
like
an
adult
use
where
we
have
that
sort
of
a
zoning
and
and
or
licensing
mechanism.
Some
communities
yanking,
for
example,
aren't
treating
it
as
a
zoning
mechanism,
they're
going
to
be
doing
it
solely
from
a
licensed
perspective,
with
some
pseudo-new
zoning
things
intermittent.
I'm
I'm
more
of
a
purist.
C
I'd
like
to
either
see
a
separate
zoning
order,
separate
or
licensing
component,
or
something
combined
within
that
to
make
that
happen.
But
it's
it's
it's
it's
it's
a
heavy
lift
for
us,
because,
even
though
we
know
it
passed
last
november,
I
think
we
were
hoping
that
there
would
be
some
guidance
provided
from
from
the
state
and
that
never
came
to
fruition
in
the
legislature.
H
C
H
The
one
intriguing
question
that's
been
brought
up
a
few
times
and
I'm
not
sure
if
our
city
would
be
interested
or
if
any
cities
will
but
whether
or
not
a
city
can
be
the
monopoly
dispensary
operator,
and
so
so
far
the
legal
opinions
seem
to
say.
No,
you
know
us
as
a
home
rule
charter
community,
you
know,
do
we
have
more
wiggle
room
there?
I
don't
know,
but
that's
one
been
one
of
the
intriguing
discussions
that
I've
been
a
part
of.
H
Well,
it's
brookings
yeah
yeah,
exactly
so,
brookings
owns
the
liquor
license
and
brookings
is
the
operator
of
the
off
sale,
liquor
store
and
then
they
lease
out
the
on
sale
rights
to
the
bars
and
restaurants.
So
currently
the
legislation
doesn't
explicitly
allow
for
that.
It
just
a
lot.
It
clearly
contemplates
a
private
operator
applying
for
those
state
licenses,
but
it
doesn't
say
we
can
either.
C
Thing
is
that
yvonne
taylor
with
the
municipal
league
has
got
a
lot
of
good
people
in
the
room,
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
attorneys
that
are
that
are
viewing
it,
and
it's
pretty
it's
pretty
funny.
I
mean
you
see
that
many
attorneys
room
and
they're
not
arguing
with
each
other.
So
you
know
it's
kind
of
kind
of
an
entertaining
deal
for
a
planner
to
watch.
C
A
Todd
all
right,
well,
we'll
look
forward
to
seeing
this
as
an
ordinance
in
front
of
us.
Then
I
think
I
think
the
going
out
of
order
and
letting
us
having
the
council
do
the
first
reading
and
then
bringing
it
to
us
at
our
normal
planning
date
probably
makes
the
most
sense
I
think
took
for
us
and
then
we'll
go
about
it
that
way
and
get
it
on
the
books
before
july.
First.
E
H
But
if
you
know,
if
the
supreme
court
comes
back
in
the
next
few
weeks
and
decides
that
it
can
go
forward,
I
would
suspect
that
the
legislature
may
just
at
that
time
call
a
special
session
and
just
repeal
all
of
im26,
because
mma
allows
for
medicinal,
and
I
think,
there's
actually
lengthier
timelines
in
amendment
a
to
actually
put
rules
in
place,
and
so
it
may
actually
bias
time
on
medicinal
as
well
if
it
goes
into
effect.
But
any
again
I
haven't
looked
at
it
closely
lately
so.