►
From YouTube: Plan Commisson 1-21-2021
Description
Plan Commisson 1-21-2021
A
B
B
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
Third
item
on
the
agenda
is
invitation
for
public
comment.
Participation
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
and
please
just
let
city
staff
know
that
you
would
like
to
talk
about
something
and
then
moving
on
item
four
is
approval
of
the
agenda.
Could
I
get
a
motion?
A
second.
A
D
A
A
E
A
A
A
F
G
A
C
The
street
widths
so
also
going
back
to
the
zoning
they
do
have.
It
is
primarily
single
family
residential
within
that,
but
they
do
have
lesser
setbacks,
making
their
subdivision
unique.
That
does
not
follow
the
conventional
zoning
district,
so
that
is
why
they
go
with
the
pud
and
then
also
with
the
unique
trail
system,
or
I
guess,
sidewalk
system
throughout
the
rear
yards.
C
Well,
and
I
guess
we
don't,
if
you
guys,
have
questions
on
those
details,
but
that
is
that
also
is
included
with
the
pud
zoning
that
was
already
approved
to
continue.
It
does
differ
somewhat
from
our
engineering
design
standards,
but
that
was
all
looked
at
at
the
time
when
we
looked
at
the
zoning
for
what
made
it
unique.
C
C
So
again,
to
reiterate
you
guys
will
now
be
the
plan.
Commission
will
be
approving
the
concept
plan
and
seeing
it
from
a
little
broader
perspective
before
they
get
into
the
technical
engineering
details
and
then
and
to
offer
any
any
concerns,
questions
that
you
have
at
a
a
beginning
phase
and
then
also
it
is
heard
by
the
design
review
team
before
it
comes
forth
to
plan
commission
and
the
design
review
team
did
feel
like
it
was
appropriate
and
tentatively
approved
it
to
go
on
to
plan
commission
and
then,
after
planned
commission
approval
of
the
concept
plan.
C
D
Just
a
quick
review
on
brandy,
so
thank
you
for
the
explanation
of
the
new
process.
I'm
just
curious
again.
If
the
planning
commission
agrees
to
the
concept
and
and
then
as
far
as
the
lot
layout
and
lot
uses,
is
there,
is
there
room
for
negotiation
at
the
staffs
to
change?
Some
of
that
or
are
we
are
we
buying
into
the
concept?
C
Yep,
that's
correct,
so
there
are
within
that
ordinance.
There
are
specifics
to
if
it
is
a
minor
or
a
major
change,
and
when
that
is
triggered,
when
a
change
is
significant
enough
to
be
triggered
to
come
back
in
and
update
the
concept
plan,
which
then
would
come
back
to
the
plan
commission
before
staff
would
administer
administratively
approve
anything
in
the
preliminary
plan.
D
C
D
A
A
C
H
And
I
brandi-
I
think
I
mentioned
last
time
when
we
glanced
at
this
at
the
last
meeting
about
the
cul-de-sac
issue
that
we
typically
try
to
shy
away
from.
But
it
was
kind
of
mentioned
that,
because
it
was
a
pdu
that
we've
and
that's
their
style,
that
we
have
looked
the
other
way.
On
that
I
mean
because
we
go
round
around
with
the
call
the
sac
issue
right,
right,
cleaning.
C
And
then,
to
remedy
some
of
that
situation,
then
they
have
provided
areas
where
snow
storage
can
be
utilized.
They'll
have
snow
storage
built
into
the
subdivision,
so
you're
not
having
to
haul
it
when
you're
having
to
clean
out
the
cul-de-sacs.
It
just
takes
it's
just
more
maintenance
of
having
to
haul
it,
so
they
will
be
providing
snow
storage
spaces
throughout,
but
also
to
the
cul-de-sacs
yeah.
H
C
Ask,
though,
going
forward
that,
when
any
of
the
lots
that
are
being
platted
abut
the
green
space,
that
there
would
be
a
public
access
easement
over
the
entirety
of
it,
so
that
it
could
be
public,
the
public
could
access
it,
because
otherwise,
if
it
would
be
a
private
park
which,
for
the
most
part
it
will
still
will
be,
but
just
so
they're
meeting
the
purpose
of
having
it
be
accessible
to
all
of
the
public
and
not
just
that
neighborhood.
So
there
will
be.
It
will
in
essence
be
accessible
by
the
public.
C
A
C
And
then
I
will
touch
back
on
todd's
question
there
about
at
what
point
would
the
plan
commission
see
the
concept
plan
again
or
just
you
know?
What's
the
the
shelf
life
for
it?
So
you
can
see
here
that
the
approved
concept
plan
shall
remain
effective
until
all
phases
of
the
subdivision
are
complete.
The
community
development
division
may
request
an
updated
concept
plan
for
administrative
review
and
approval
when
minor
changes
to
the
plan
are
proposed,
and
then
we
have
those
minor
changes
laid
out
included,
but
not
limited
to
a
change
in
the
local
street
pattern.
A
Thank
you
for
that
yeah.
I
think
that
does
help
us,
since
we
are,
we
are
new
to
this
new
ordinance,
so
just
reiterating
what
those
are
I
do
remember
when
we
kind
of
made
that
ordinance,
but
having
that
in
front
of
us
again
is
very
helpful
and
so
the
the
phases
those
will
come
in
the
preliminary
plan
phase,
though
so
this
is
just
the
whole
concept
of
the
whole
area
and
then
the
next
step,
the
preliminary
phase,
their
preliminary
plan
they'll,
show
their
actual
phases.
C
Well,
and
so
actually,
the
concept
plan
does
show
the
phases
for
the
entire
development,
and
that
is
shown
on
page
two
and
and
then
so.
The
preliminary
plan
then
just
gets
it.
It
breaks
it
down
into
the
phases
so
that
they're
not
having
to
do
all
the
technical
analysis
for
the
entire
area,
because,
frankly,
what
if
it
never
happens,
just
and
then
regulations
change
everything.
So
it's
it's
more
workable
for
the
developers
that
then
they
break
it
into
their
phases.
C
H
C
It
will
out
it'll,
be
at
the
same
time,
it'll
be
included
with
each
development
agreement
when
a
lot
is
adjacent
to
that
green
area.
So
then
it'll
be
required
like,
and
I
think
this
next
phase
you
can
see
the
trail
actually
already
extends
so
that
won't
be
included,
but
they
would
have
to.
I
don't
know
if
they're
plotting
this
one,
but
so
anytime
that
it
abuts
a
lot
that's
being
planted.
We
would
make
sure
that
those
portions
were
being
completed
for
the
green
space
dedication
and
the
sidewalk.
I
I
There's
no
continuity
in
that
sidewalk
system,
whereas
when
we
create
a
phase,
we
will
install
all
of
the
trail
system,
that's
contiguous
to
that
phase.
So
you
get
even
for
the
first
home
that
gets
built
in
that
area.
You
get
immediate
access
to
the
rest
of
the
trail
system
right
away
and
then,
through
the
the
park
board
discussions.
You
know
they
wanted
to
add
some
some
new
requirements,
and
we
certainly
understand
that
we're
seeing
some
similar
things
in
brookings
the
maintenance
agreement
for
maintaining
and
mowing
the
common
space.
I
That's
a
benefit,
so
the
city's
not
responsible
for
that
and
then
also
the
snow
removal.
So
there's
year-round
access
on
those
things.
So
certainly
appreciate
your
time.
Welcome
any
questions
you
may
have
we're
excited
to
be
going
on
some
new
lots
and,
and
hopefully
work
with
you
on
those
as
well
in
the
future,
so
I'll
stand
for
any
questions.
Thank
you.
B
J
Mr
chairman,
I
have
a
question
about
this.
Is
mayor
sarah,
karen,
the
the
road
connection
that
yellow
line
there
that
goes
through
to
the
lakes
of
willow
creek
over
the
cross?
It
crosses.
I
think
it's
the
own
drainage
property
that
the
city
purchased
for
that
drain
way.
That
goes
through
there,
who
who
is
supposed
to
pay
for
the
extension
or
the
connection
of
the
dakota
commons
road
to
the
willow
creek,
I'm
assuming
that's
where
the
lakes
of
willow
creek
road
comes
out.
J
J
So
that's
one
question
and
then
I
have
another
question
about:
the
drainage
is
being
concentrated
and
outleted
from
two
ponds
across
just
flat
land,
which
is
not
a
drainage
course,
and
it
will
probably
create
by
erosion
a
drainage
course
across
again.
That's
city-owned
land
that
was
purchased
for
drainage
purposes,
but
the
ponds
are
down
farther
to
the
south
and
the
water
is
going
to
just
be
concentrated
in
those
ponds
and
come
out
of
a
pipe
onto
flat
ground
that
isn't
a
drainage
course
and
it
will
probably
erode
and
are
there
any
mechanisms
in
place.
C
And
mayor
to
your
to
your
question
with
the
connection
to
dakota
commons
from
the
lakes
of
willow
creek,
I
know
we
discussed
that
in
the
design
review
team
meeting
and
I
believe
we
landed
that
the
lakes
of
willow
creek
actually
were
showing
the
connection.
And
so,
if
it
did
happen
and
it
kind
of
was
the
same
situation
where
they
do
have
to
cross
through
city
land
to
from
to
get
to
willow
creek
to
get
to
their
subdivision
and
that
that
they
would
be
paying
for
that.
C
J
J
J
K
J
F
Yeah,
mr
chairman,
yes,
go
ahead:
heath
bonnie
here.
I
know
that
calendar
young
is
in
the
room,
he's
representative
from
austin
engineering
who
did
the
engineering
for
the
plans?
I
don't
know
if
jeff's
jeff
is
there
as
well
the
engineer
that
put
the
plans
together,
but
it
might
be
insightful
for
someone
from
austin
to
speak
to
the
questions
at
hand
and
then
also,
I
believe,
justin's
online
with
us
as
well.
Who
did
some
of
the
review
for
the
preliminary
drainage
plan,
information.
E
I
guess
we
as
far
as
the
drainage,
there
is
kind
of
a
swale
that
all
the
water
follows
down
to
city
property.
You
know,
I
think
the
mayor
is
correct.
As
you
know,
once
it
gets
onto
city
property
there
isn't
you
know
a
dedicated
drainage
path.
You
know
it's
more
of
a
sheep
flow
to
those
ponds,
so
that's
certainly
something
we
can
look
at
when
we
get
farther
into
the
preliminary
plan
design
phase
on
how
to
direct
that
water
efficiently
to
those
ponds.
J
J
Currently,
unless
you
some
further
grading,
was
done,
it's
just
sheeting
over
land
and
piling
up
next
to
the
back
doors
of
those
businesses
on
willow,
creek
drive,
and
I
I
think
there
once
that
subdivision
is
fully
built.
There
might
be
some
higher
ground
which
would
pull
it
away,
but
right
now
there's
nothing
there
and
I
don't
know
what
phase
that
comes
in,
but
we
we've
had
issues
already
with
people
concerned
about
the
insurance
agency
they're
having
to
sandbag.
J
Okay
and
then
one
other
thing
that
came
up
during
the
drt
meeting
was
pushing
having
a
an
easement
on
those
cul-de-sacs
to
push
the
snow,
and
brandy
you
mentioned
something
about
that.
I
couldn't
didn't
catch.
What
you
said
are
they
gonna
have
some
easements
so
that
the
street
department
can
just
push
the
snow
straight
out
off
the
end
of
the
cul-de-sac
onto
the
greenways
or
or
did
they
just
have
to
haul
it
away?.
E
E
J
I
B
B
C
B
A
C
This
is
yep.
Thank
you.
This
is
within
the
willow,
creek
drainage,
tributary
area
area,
where
there
is
a
pro-rata
share
and
a
cost
recovery
associated
with
each
lot
or
just
the
area
that
is
being
planted,
that
they
in
dakota
commons
each
addition
that
they've
done
they've
paid
that,
and
so
then
they
do.
They
are
responsible
for
the
two-year
water
quality
detention,
but
they
and
then
just
as
long
as
the
hundred
year
flows
can
be
safely
conveyed
to
the
natural
drainage
course.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you.
That's
that's
kind
of
what
I
thought
and
that
kind
of
leads
me
into
my
next
statement
of.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
we
have
the
water
quality
and
then
also
to
the
mayor's
point,
make
sure
that
the
the
drainage
coming
out,
which
is
planned
to
come
out
does
have
a
path
to
get
to
those
ponds.
You
know,
so
I
think
those
were
some
very
good
points
that
that
the
mayor
brought
up
and
things
that
we
definitely
need
to
consider
on
this
board.
C
J
G
F
Yeah,
I
will
the
best
of
my
ability
here
help
address
that
rob.
Baines
street
superintendent
is
not
online
with
us
today,
but
is
one
of
the
divisions
of
public
works?
He
was
involved
in
the
drt
review
of
this
preliminary
plan
or
concept
plan.
Excuse
me
to
diana's
point.
I
would
say
it
is
circumstantial
if
it
is
an
event,
that's
large
enough,
a
snowy
event.
That's
large
enough
for
the
plows
to
go
out.
F
I
think
there
was
some
discussion
about
whether
we
wanted
our
payloaders
going
between
two
houses
on
a
narrower
strip
of
land
that
could
end
up.
You
know
getting
rutted
and
tracks
and
mud
and
all
the
things
that
that
would
bring
now
granted
these
other
snow
storage
sites
could
bring
that
as
well,
but
they
are
a
little
bit
more
removed
than.
F
Adjacent
to
somebody's
well-manicured
lawn
and
would
might
maybe
be
a
little
less
impactful
to
the
neighboring
residents.
If
we
use
these
isolated
snow
storage
areas
rather
than
a
pathway
between
two
houses.
I
know
there
was
some
concerns
from
the
street
superintendent
on
operating
machinery
between
two
residents.
G
F
Yeah
and-
and
I
again,
I
can
only
explain
that,
to
the
extent
that
I
have
as
far
as
the
frequency
goes,
I
think
it
is
subjective
to
the
snow
event
that
occurs.
I
don't
want
to
mislead
anybody
and
say
that
100
percent
of
the
time
on
every
snow
event
we
we
haul
out
of
the
cul-de-sacs,
because
I
just
don't
know
the
answer
to
that.
But
you
are
right.
There
is
a.
D
I
can
make
it.
I
can
make
a
presumption
that,
based
upon
the
value
of
the
development
as
proposed
and
what's
happening
out
there
and
the
assessed
valuation
for
that
geographic
area,
that
there's
a
higher
tax
base
at
full,
build
out
paying
for
similar
services
throughout
the
municipality
which,
in
which,
in
of
itself,
would
ameliorate
some
of
those
concerns
of
not
paying
their
fair.
D
G
F
I
think
if
I
could
just
piggyback
on
commissioner
kaye's
comments
from
an
operations
management
standpoint,
you
know
we
really
would
be
diving
deep
into
the
details
of
you
know
what
additional
costs
on
a
per
cul-de-sac
basis,
that
that
impacts
our
removal
budget,
but
some
comparatives
that
I'll
throw
out
that
we
simply
just
don't
dive
into,
and
maybe
we
should
be,
but
maybe
we
don't
care
to
our
street
widths.
For
example,
you
know
these
are
narrower
streets
than
our
standard
street
would
be
in
the
long
term.
F
On
some
of
the
street
maintenance,
because
street
widths
being
narrower,
so
I
think
it's
inherent
that
you're
going
to
have
some
of
those
microcosms
of
high
and
low
costs.
Comparisons
from
one
subdivision
to
the
next,
and
whether
this
cul-de-sac
is
an
issue
that
the
community
you
know
feels
is
one
that's
important
enough
to
dive
deeper
into.
We
can
certainly
do
that.
G
I
think
it
is
certainly
fair
to
say
that,
and
I
can
see
that
that
is
an
important
point-
the
com,
the
comparison-
and
I
guess
that
maybe
is
something
to
be
determined
down
the
road.
Do
we
really
want
to
know
what
the
additional
cost
is
we
don't
have
I
mean
the
facts
could
be
determined.
Should
someone
decide
it's
important
enough
to
look
into
that?
G
I
can't
say
if
I
can't,
I
don't
have
the
knowledge
to
say
it
is
important
enough,
but
if
we're
going
to
continue
building
more
and
more
cul-de-sacs
down
the
road
and
we
have
a
limited
number
of
street
operators
and
equipment,
it
might
be
something
that
would
be
important
to
know
down
the
road.
Should
these
kind
of
developments
become
more
commonplace
in
the
city.
H
B
K
J
J
10
foot
boulevard,
grassy
boulevard,
but
maybe
you
know
a
larger
area
or
two
where
the
snow
could
be
just
pushed
off
the
road
not
driving
between
the
houses
or
anything
like
that,
but
just
push
it
off,
have
a
curb,
cut
and
push
it
off
between
in
an
easement
area
where
they
wouldn't
actually
build
in
their
front
yard
or
off
to
the
side
that
that
could
be
easily
done
it.
It
wouldn't
detract
from
anything
other
than
someone
would
have
a
big
pile
of
snow
rather
than
an
evenly
distributed
windrow
in
the
boulevard.
J
A
C
F
I
think
the
other
option
could
be
mr
chair,
you
know
if
there
were
stipulations
you
wanted
to
require
them
to
incorporate
into
the
concept
plan
and
make
them
conditions
of
the
approval
I'd.
Let
the
attorney
speak
to
that
as
well,
but
I
think
that
could
be
an
option
too.
If
there's
enough
here
that
you
wanted
verification,
the
changes
were
made
to
your
satisfaction,
I
think
brandy's
plan
would
probably
make
more
sense
where
you
postpone
action
on
this
and
see
a
revised
plan
or
a
modification
brought
back
to
you.
C
C
With
these
businesses
having
drainage
issues
and
just
looking
at
the
contours,
I
mean
it-
the
drainage,
that's
coming
from
dakota
commons
isn't
neces,
I
feel
like.
Maybe
isn't
the
only
thing
impacting
it
could
be
this
area
because
it
is
higher
and
it
is
flowing
down
within
this
area.
It
seems
just
from
the
contours
that
and
and
what
austin
showed
on
their
plans
as
far
as
how
the
water
is
is
draining
from
the
dakota
commons.
J
It's
going
into
that
undeveloped
land-
and
I
know
I
dealt
with
this
years
ago
with
mark
younker
and
he
thought
the
problem
once
the
both
of
the
subdivisions
built
out
and
graded
accord
in
accordance
with
their
grading
plans
that
would
resolve
itself,
but
until
that
prairie's
edge,
those
lots
get
raised
to
divert
the
water
from
coming
on
down
that
way.
The
water
will
continue
going
that
way
unless
a
new
channel
or
a
berm
is
created
to
direct
the
water,
where
you
want
it
to
go.
F
C
They
did
not
have
to
install
those
before
so
then.
Now
with
this
next
subdivision,
it
will
be
installed
so
that
will
capture
the
water.
I
mean
the
two-year
storm
for
the
10
lots
that
they're
looking
at
developing
this
spring.
So
it
might
not
add
to
the
problem,
but
the
problem
already
exists.
So
if
there's
some
solution
like
that
until
they
get
to
that
portion
and
then
they
also
they're
going
to
build
a
larger
detention
pond
when
they
just
when
they
phase
all
that
in.
J
J
Meanwhile,
there's
a
problem
developing
and-
and
the
problem
was
I
I-
I
think
the
problem
could
be
traced
back
to
dakota
commons,
the
problem
that
was
occurring
on
the
businesses
by
willow,
creek
drive,
and
I
mean
we
get
lots
of
calls
in
winters.
When
we
have
a
lot
of
snow,
we
get
calls
from
the
dakota
commons
folks
think
worried
about
flooding.
They
feel
like
there's
a
drainage
course
that's
blocked,
but
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
there
is
no
drainage
course.
J
J
But
if
it's
just
lines
on
paper,
the
water
is
going
to
flow
in
the
path
of
least
resistance.
Well,
so
that
might
be
something
to
do
is
to
have
for
the
plant
commission
to
require
that
a
drink.
You
know
a
positive
drainage
path,
be
established,
that's
satisfactory
and
directs
the
flows
away
from
other
buildings.
K
The
other
thing,
mr
chair,
if
I
could
add,
we
could
take
a
look
at
that
too,
with
some
sort
of
a
general
condition
if
the
board
was
comfortable
with
that,
we
could
also
take
a
look
at
when
those
improvements
would
need
to
be
made.
If
that
would
need
to
be
made
in
phase
one
phase,
two
that
type
of
thing,
and
then
that
could
be
part
of
the
development
agreement
later
on.
So
we
could
look
at
the
time
frame
of
actually
constructing
those
improvements
or
creating
that
channel.
A
Yeah,
that
is
a
good
possibility,
and
thank
you
for
that,
and
I
wonder
if,
if
the
prairies
edge
development
had
a
time
frame
and
when
it
was
supposed
to
have
hits
grading
done,
you
know
it's
if
I
just
I'm
just
wondering
out
loud,
because
if
they
had
a
development
agreement,
that
said
they
were
going
to
build
up
those
lots.
If
there
was
a
time
frame
at
all
that,
if
that
might
be
something
we
could
look
at
too.
C
A
D
E
And
I
think
we
are
looking
at
doing
some
some
grading
within
that
ditch
that
that
comes
out
of
dakota
commons.
So
if
it's
simple
enough
to
where
we
just
have
to
build
up,
you
know
the
west
side
of
it
where
we're
not
letting
the
water
escape
onto
the
adjacent
development
and
we're
forcing
it
you
know
into
that
natural
drainage
way,
then
you
know
that's
that's
something
we
can
look
at
when
we
get
into
the
you
know,
preliminary
plan
and
the
final
design
for
for
this
next
phase.
A
I
I
feel
a
little
bit
like
we're
getting
penalized
a
bit
by
being
the
first
one
through
the
wall
and
your
new
process,
and
I
understand
that's
you
know,
because
you
know
one
feedback
I
would
just
give.
Is
you
know
we
as
a
developer
at
this
point,
would
have
probably
hoped
that
these
types
of
questions
would
have
arose
out
of
your
drt
meeting
or
other
meetings.
Prior
to
this,
you
know:
I'd
worked
pretty
hard
to
check
with
brandy
before
we
were
here
to
make
sure
we'd
had
an
opportunity
to
address
any
questions.
I
It's
always
you
know.
Time
is
valuable
in
development
and
you
know
getting
tabled,
or
things
like
that
can
really
slow
things
down
and
cause
a
hiccup,
certainly
understand
and
recognize
the
questions
and
concerns
and
and
want
to
make
sure
they're
all
addressed
in
a
proper
way.
You
know
specific
to
the
drainage.
You
know.
I
I
think
we
would
be
fine,
as
colin
mentioned,
to
enhance
the
drainage
way.
I
think
brandy
is
correct.
In
my
you
know,
understanding
of
the
topography
that,
as
that
water
exits
to
the
south,
the
topography
does
lead
it
more
to
the
south
and
east,
and
so
I
believe,
the
drainage
path
is
there
and
is
probably
not
the
major
cause,
but
I
think
we
would
be
fine
to
enhancing
that
drainage.
Ditch
it's
just
in
order
to
do
that.
I
You
know
dakota
commons
is
probably
one
of
the
first
things
that
happened
in
this
area,
and
so
you
know
to
say
that
dakota
commons
was
the
cause
of
problems
downstream,
which
were
built
after
dakota
commons
was
built.
I
would
say
you
know
I
would
you
know,
there's
a
there's,
a
downstream
responsibility
to
ensure
that
your
buildings
are
built
to
correct
elevation
based
on
what's
coming
down
and
at
you,
but
I
think,
there's
a
workable
solution
in
there.
We
would
certainly
be
willing
to
do
something.
You
know
to
enhance
that.
I
You
know
and
whether
that's
at
this
concept
level
or
whether
that's
you
know
in
the
preliminary
plan
phase,
I'm
not
the
one
to
answer
that
question,
but
I
would
just
ask
whatever
your
action
is
that
you
keep
us
moving
forward
if
possible,
because
we're
not
actually
constructing
anything
new
with
what
we're
requesting
tonight.
You
know
we're.
Actually
we've
been
doing
about
six
months
worth
of
work,
to
try
and
annex
and
zone
and
approve
10
lots
that
were
built.
I
However,
you
want
to
do
it,
but
I'm
not
sure
what
cul-de-sacs
are
used
to
in
in
watertown,
but
in
brookings
they
we
don't
haul
it
out.
We
just
push
it.
I
mean
it's
just
if
you
live
on
a
cul-de-sac
and
there's
20
feet
between
your
two
driveways,
you
get
some
in
the
snow
and
you
get
some
of
the
snow
and
it
just
works
just
fine,
it's
not
a
major
expense.
It's
you
know,
to
my
knowledge,
nobody
seems
to
mind
it's
just
part
of
being
on
a
cul-de-sac.
I
I
If
there's
a
wide
space
in
the
you
know
they
they
actually
use.
Typically,
I
want
to
say
they
use
payloaders
or
with
a
blade
on
them
and
they'll
they'll
kind
of
plow
the
cul-de-sac,
and
then
they
just
push
it
into
areas
where
there's
a
wider
opening
between
two
driveways,
but
they
don't
push
it
like
all
the
way
back.
I
I
I
I
We
do
in
brookings,
we
have
not
experienced
that
same.
You
know
desire
in
watertown,
it's
it's
an
interesting
case
study
and
certainly
like
I
say
you
know,
we
we're
looking
at
some
differences
as
we
move
further
south
in
the
development,
but
we
are
somewhat
you
know
tied
in
our
current
exact
phase
to
completing
at
least
a
section.
You
know
with
the
current
concept
and.
H
H
So
what
I'm
so
I'm
I'm
like
you
said
I
I
hear
what
you
want
us
to
do
tonight.
So
if
you
took
those
three
cul-de-sacs,
the
the
one
obviously
has
already
developed,
but
if
you
brought
those
three
into
a
you
know
a
connecting
street
y
situation,
so
the
top
one
comes
down
and
intersects
all
those
you
actually
would
probably
get
more
lots
in
there
and
still
have
nice
open
areas
to
the
back.
Lots.
H
I
Sure,
certainly
I
mean,
like
I
said,
given
the
sales
history,
I
mean
it.
Certainly
I
mean
it's
a
you,
bring
up
a
good
point
that
we
really
you
know
on
a
per
acre
basis.
We
yield
less
lots
than
a
typical
development.
I
mean
this
is.
This
is
not
realistically
how
you
develop
to
maximize
profit
and
it's
one
of
the
things
that
we
always
feel
like
we're
creating
you
know
value
and
neighborhood
long
term
for
people
that
live
in
these
areas.
We're
not
trying
to
maximize
our
profit
here.
I
If
we
were
trying
to
maximize
our
profit,
we'd
have
grids
and
lots
as
small
as
possible
because
it's
the
most
efficient
in
terms
of
your
street
cost
in
terms
of
lots
of
different
things.
But
you
know
we
feel,
there's
a
neighborhood
value
that
that
this
type
of
design
can
bring,
but
certainly
open
to
looking
at
differences
as
we
move
further
south
in
the
development.
I
H
I
C
And
yeah
then,
and
jacob
has
been
great
to
work
with,
and
he
is
actually
looking
because
hearing
the
concerns
about
the
cul-de-sac.
He
is
looking
for
alternative
routes
and
just
I
mean
potentially
changing
it
quite
a
bit,
but
still
with
this
concept
plan
in
front
of
us,
you
know
the
drt
still
did
feel
like
it
was
an
appropriate
layout,
but
he
is
as
as
he
works
towards.
The
future
is
looking
at
potentially
implementing
some
of
those
changes
that
he
hears
the
concerns
of
so.
D
That
has
been
the
city
of
wiretown's
brand
for
for
many
many
years,
and
so
I
think
in
the
end,
you
know
the
developers
using
a
tool
through
the
planned
unit
development
that
I
don't
know
if
we
would
support
this
in
normal
r1,
r2
and
r3
zones.
But
when
we
have
a
large
geographic
area,
a
developer
who's
willing
to
you
know,
risk
profit
and
has
stated
that
they're
not
out
to
make
profit
as
much
and
it's
just
it's
purely
borne
out
by
the
design.
A
K
A
H
A
I
have
a
motion
in
a
second
further.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
on
that?
I
would
like
to
say
I
do
I
mean
phase
one
is
built,
I
mean
it's.
It's
there,
we've
that
road
has
been
in
place
like
you
said,
for
probably
at
least
five
years.
I
know
it
was.
It
was
built
back
when
I
was
still
working
for
the
city
so
phase
one.
That's
just
a
matter
of
drawing
lot
lines
on
on
the
paper
phase.
A
C
A
B
A
A
E
C
D
A
C
A
C
Yes,
and
so,
there's
actually
going
to
be
an
additional
discussion
item
too,
but
we'll
start
and
that
will
be
to
deal
with
parking
aisle
widths.
And
so,
if
you
give
me
a
second
here,
I'm
going
to
pull
this
chart
that
stacy
has
provided,
which
will
be
helpful
to
lead
the
discussion.
To
give
you
guys
a
background
on
what
other
communities
do
so
maximum
building
height
for
commercial
districts.
B
C
E
Yes,
as
a
brief
background,
I
was
contacted
by
somebody
from
crestone
builders
and
they
inquired
about
two
different
parts
of
our
ordinance
and
then
just
I
just
suggested
that
we
put
it
out
of
discussion.
I
don't
have
any
sort
of
particular
opinions
on
it,
but
I
thought
we'd
talk
about
it
and
I
had
a
little
bit
of
back
and
forth
with
blake
commissioner
blake
and
then
blake
dolly
and
then
also
brandy
and
I
think
miss
vanguard
as
well
was
involved
in
some
of
these
discussions
on
these
two.
A
C
C
Yep,
okay
and
so
then
you
can
see
here
what
other
communities
are
doing:
rapid
city,
none
in
the
central
business
district
and
then
45
to
120.
So
I
mean
that
would
be
the
central
business
district
would
be
rc1
zone
and
then
45
feet
to
120
feet
based
on
zone
50,
foot
in
yankton
for
commercial
75
foot
for
local
businesses
in
pier
aberdeen
ranges
from
no
limit
to
45
feet
per
zone
per
million,
none
in
the
central
business
district
and
then
45
to
55
per
zone
spear
fish
60.
K
Reiterating
things
just
add
just
a
little
bit
to
this
conversation,
so
we
did
this
bit
of
research
just
to
kind
of
see
what
other
communities
were
doing.
I
think
that
at
one
point
in
time
this
was
based
off
of
what
could
be
served
for
fire
protection
and
I
believe
hopefully,
chip
is
still
online
with
us,
but
I
understand
that
there
isn't
much
of
a
concern
on
increasing
this
height
from
a
fire
perspective
within
our
community,
so
that
was
one
of
the
things.
K
B
K
Seated,
you
know
I
I
don't
necessarily
think
so.
In
terms
of
being
in
a
downtown
district,
I
mean
you
could
look
at
certain
instances
where
you
know
a
neighboring
property
could
be
a
single
story
and
it
could
be
overshadowed-
and
you
know,
with
the
shadowing-
and
you
know,
signage
and
visibility
and
things
of
that
nature,
but
on
a
whole,
what
we've
seen
with
their
research
is.
The
central
business
districts
do
tend
to
allow
taller
structures
and
they're
kind
of
a
variety,
but
particularly
in
those
districts.
D
And
also
I
mean
it
wouldn't
have
to
be
the
entire
central
business
district,
where
the
central
business,
central
business
district,
you
know
butts
up
to
other
residential
zones
and
those
types
of
things
you
could.
You
could
reduce
size.
You
know
we've
all
been
to
big
cities.
Not
everything
is
you
know
six.
You
know
six
12
15
18
stories
tall
on
every
city
block
and
you
know
in
most
communities
so
and
then
the
other
thing
too,
is
depending
on
how
it
fits
into
some
of
those
historic
register
buildings.
K
Yes,
there's
definitely
some
parameters
within
the
historic
district
in
terms
of
how
tall
a
building
can
be
in
relation
to
to
some
of
the
other
buildings
in
the
district.
So
we
would
want
to
keep
that
someone
in
mind,
as
well
as
what
you
had
brought
up.
Commissioner
k
is
on
what
areas
may
be
appropriate
to
see
taller
buildings
just
based
on
their
geographical
location,.
H
C
Mm-Hmm,
which
yeah
in
a
situation
like
that
I
mean
a
lot
of
the
times
the
buildings
that
we've
seen
unless
we
are
restricting
them
by
that
height.
You
know.
Our
three
stories,
I
believe,
is
parkside
place.
Gonna
be
four
stories,
I
think
so
so
then
there
I
mean,
but
technically
they
could
go
five
if
that,
if
with
within
the
60,
I
believe
so
I
mean
it
could
just
be
a
variance
type
situation
too,
and
just
you
know,
I
don't
really
know
liam.
E
E
So
maybe
he's
got
some,
I
don't
and
again
I
guess
my
personal
thoughts
are
on
it
is.
I
would
say
that
maybe
we
should
decide
by
district
or
even
within
a
district
like,
for
instance,
downtown
it
doesn't.
I
don't
see,
there's
any
real
problem
with
having
a
70
foot
tall
building.
I
think
one
of
the
bigger
buildings
downtown
is
probably,
if
you
go
count
it
at
six
or
seven
stories
which
tells
me
it's
probably
what
would
that
be?
60
some
feet,
70
feet.
E
A
And
and
we
do
have
different
heights
based
on
different
zones,
you
know
our
all
of
our
c
and
I
zones
are
60,
but
then,
when
you
get
into
residential
our
r3,
for
example,
our
height
is
based
on
the
number
of
dwelling
units
or
if
it's
9,
to
12,
it's
55,
if
it's
3
to
8
it's
35
and
then
even
smaller
for
single
family
dwellings.
But
so
we
do
do
have
a
a
gradient
there
based
on
the
use.
We
just
have
a
lot
of
it.
C
C
E
Yeah,
I
just
don't
see
the
purpose
of
limiting
what
somebody
can
do
if
they're
willing
to
design
something
and
spend
the
money
to
build
it.
Condensing
is
always
better.
It
saves
on
the
infrastructure
cost
for
the
city,
it's
less
to
maintain
more
density,
more
tax
dollars
being
spent
in
one
area
limiting
it
doesn't
do
anybody
any
good
because
it'll
shy
people
away.
E
E
E
C
B
B
You
know
they
have
a
lot
of
wood
frames,
construction
right
now
and
I
would
probably
am
leaning
toward
towards
limiting
the
wood
construction
height,
but
as
far
as
other
types
of
construction,
no
because
there
would
be
added
protective
features,
stand
pipes
and
sprinkler
systems,
and
things
like
that
would
take
care
of
it.
It
just
we're
kind
of
cautious
right
now
on
wood
construction,
height
and
I'm
doing
research
on
that
right
now.
So.
E
K
D
C
Yeah
good
point
todd
and
actually
so
in
our
downtown.
Our
really
district
still
does
about
the
residential
houses.
But
I
was
wondering
if
maybe
that
would
be
the
compromise
that
instead
of
the
downtown
overlay
district,
go
conforming
to
the
underlying
zoning
district,
which
is
the
c1
that
if
we
could
come
up
with
just
like
an
80
foot
or
100
foot,
whatever
maximum
building
height
for
just
that
district.
But
then
we
still
run
into
a
budding
the
r2.
And
that
is
just
the
the
nature
of
I
mean
really
any
downtown.
A
E
E
Yeah,
I
I
guess
my
only
the
last
part
in
common
I
have
is
that
maybe
we
just
sort
of
go
through
each
commercial
district
and
say
whether
or
not
we
like
it
at
60.,
I
mean
a
blanket
60
seems
odd
to
me,
and
I
can
see
that
there's.
You
know
it
makes
more
sense
downtown
than
it
does.
Maybe
you
know
in
north
81
or
something
like
that.
D
D
D
D
D
B
D
A
Yeah,
I
would
agree
with
you
especially
I
mean
I
don't
want
to
raise
the
height
of
downtown
to
80
feet
to
find
out
that
our
aviation
only
allows
for
65.
I
mean,
then
we're
going
through
a
lot
of
work
for
for
no
gain,
but
you
know
this.
This
definitely
sounds
like
something
that
most
people
would
at
least
entertain
looking
into,
and
you
know
we
could
see
what
shakes
out
from
it.
K
F
F
Is
downtown
area
is
likely
far
enough
out
that
any
plane
of
concern
or
influence
on
the
airport
management
is
it's
probably
going
to
be
a
pretty
substantial
height
before
it
has
an
adverse
impact?
The
crane
operations
are
unique
and
the
type
of
the
form
that
that
requires
is
unique
as
well
because
of
the
temporary
operations
of
a
crane
and
how
they
can
pop
up.
F
You
know
pretty
much
anywhere
in
a
community
any
given
time
as
opposed
to
a
fixed
structure,
so
the
regulations
tend
to
be
there's
a
different
path
for
each
type
of
item.
I
guess
I
would
say,
as
far
as
the
restrictions
go
and
what
those
restrictions
would
be,
but
my
understanding
we
were
talking
about
the
crane
issues
recently
is
that
permanent
structure
heights
this
far
out
from
the
airport
would
be
pretty
substantial
before
they
got
into
a
level
of
concern,
but
definitely
something
we
would
confirm.
E
C
Yes,
so
then
this
will
be
looking
at
the,
and
this
was
also
liam
had
asked
to
add
it
to
the
agenda.
I
think
with
talking
with
joe
as
well,
so
this
is
looking
at
parking
lots
and
the
aisle
width
that
we
have
in
our
engineering
design,
design
standards.
We
say
that
the
io
width
has
to
be
26
feet
when
in
other
communities
they
have
24,
and
so
obviously
it
just.
It
requires
more
area
for
parking
with
having
that
additional
two
feet
for
the
aisle
width.
E
Again,
this
rose
rose
just
sort
of
out
of
an
informal
conversation
about
this
kind
of
stuff.
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
particular
project
that
it
impacts
or
not
my
my
only
thoughts
generally,
I
don't
have
any
particular
feeling
of
it
one
way
or
the
other.
My
first
thought
is
that
this
is
above
my
pay
grade.
This
is
probably
an
engineering
question
which
thank
you
for
your
input.
E
My
second
thought
is
that,
given
my
general
philosophy
about
all
this
stuff,
I
like
to
see
smaller
parking
lots.
Generally,
I
think
parking
is,
is
important.
I
understand
it's
important
and
I
don't
want
to
you
know,
get
everybody
get
the
pitch
parks
out,
but
I
don't
think
it's
as
important
as
people
think
it
is
particularly
like
in
our
downtown
zone.
I'm
less
inclined
to
you
know,
make
sure
that
there's
all
these
parking
mandates
and
things
like
that
inside
you
know
I'm
I
I'm
okay
with
it
being
more
compact,
yeah
heath.
E
E
I
C
C
K
K
K
I
did
just
recently
see
that
rapid
city
has
the
26
foot
and
then
I
believe
gillette
had
that
as
well
and
one
other
thing
that
we'd
want
to
just
make
sure
on
the
the
fire
to
to
make
sure
that
if
we
did
see
a
reduction
that
that
would
be
would
be
okay,
I
I
believe
it
will.
But
I
would
like
to
defer
that
over
to
chip.
C
And
kind
of
to
piggyback,
too
off
of
what
stacy
had
said.
That's
what
leads
us
into
the
larger
discussion
of
that
we
want
to
look
at
the
parking
requirements.
I
think
that
we've
discussed
that
with
plan
commission
we've
definitely
been
discussing
it
internally
and
where
you
know,
if
we
say
that
the
the
minimum
is
24
but
then
for
a
particular
business
like
menards,
for
example,
then
if
they
think
that
it
is
more
conducive
for
the
type
of
people
that
are
utilizing
their
business,
that
26
just
makes
it
easier
to
maneuver.
B
H
So
couldn't
couldn't
we
do
something
where
we
leave
it
at
26
for
the
parking
you
know
per
se,
the
menards
and
the
other
general
yeah,
and
if
this
is
private
parking,
you
know.
Unless
you
know,
I
assume
the
building
is
that's
for
the
tenants
or
the
the
people
using
the
building.
We
could,
you
know
quote
unquote,
call
that
private
use
and
we
just
do
an
ordinance
that
way
that
if
it's
private,
if
it's
apartments
that
are
private,
it
could
be
24.
But
if
it's
public
but
menards.
H
H
E
H
B
This
this
chip
with
the
fire
department
for
the
fire
side
of
the
house.
We
would
review
each
one
as
it
comes.
You
know.
If
a
fire
lanes
needed
on
a
certain
building,
then
you
know
we
could
work
with
the
developers
on
that.
If
we
just
made
it
so,
the
fire
department
approves
it
and
we
have
a
check
sheet
or
checks
and
balances
on.
You
know
as
it's
laying
out
and
work
with
the
developer
to
make
it.
You
know
for
small
parking
for
smaller.
I
B
C
Yeah-
and
I
think
especially
and
but
it'll
be
interesting,
you
know
we
can.
We
can
go
back
and
do
more.
Research
and
stacey
already
knew
some
off
the
top
of
her
head
there,
but
and
but
if
24
is
sufficient,
you
know
if,
if
that's
the
minimum,
but
it's
still
sufficient,
then
it
almost
seems
like
we
draw
the
line
there
and
then
independently,
because
you
know
the
more
parking
lots.
We
have
the
more
impervious
surface,
we
have
the
more
detention
ponds
we
need
and
the
more
maintenance
it
is
for
for
businesses
as
well.
K
Yes,
definitely
we
want
to
take
a
look
at
the
parking
requirements,
because
certainly
it
has
been
a
trend
in
planning
nationwide
that
we
oftentimes
require
too
much
parking
and
then
it
leads
to
a
lot
of
adverse
effects.
So
we
want
to
be
able
to
look
at
that.
Look
at
some
new
national
standards
that
have
came
out
and
try
to
streamline
that
as
well.
F
I
wanted
to
point
out
as
well,
given
that
these
standards
are
part
of
the
engineering
design
standards.
There
is
a
variance
option
in
the
design
standard.
So
with
this
particular
project
at
hand,
I'm
not
I'm
not
familiar
with
exactly
which
crest
home
project
it
might
be
we're
dealing
with,
but
the
variance
process
is
simply
that
the
applicant
present
the
variance
request
to
the
city
engineer
for
review
and
approval,
and
I
think
in
listening
this
discussion
that
that
might
simply
be
the
solution
here
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
F
You
know,
there'd
be
some
discretion
as
a
city
engineer
to
determine
if
a
24-foot
drive-by
will
be
more
appropriate
as
opposed
to
the
the
heavier
public
use
like
one
of
the
commissioners
is
indicating
or
a
use
that
doesn't
make
sense
to
narrow
it
up
and
and
keep
that
20
26
foot
dry,
vial
standard
in
place
for
those
types
of
applications
just
wanted
to
throw
that
out
there
that
that
option
is
available.
There
is
a
variance
section
chapter
1.8
of
the
engineering
design
standards.
I.
F
That,
while
I
agree
minimizing
the
footprint
of
these
areas
is
ideal,
we
have
also
all
been
in
a
parking
lot
where
we've
had
to
do
a
two
or
three
point
turn
to
get
into
or
out
of
a
stall
and
nobody
likes
that
either.
So
I
think
that's
where
there's
a
fine
line
between
too
much
and
not
enough
and
finding
that
balance,
I
think,
is
what
is
critical.
C
I
think
a
lot
of
the
times
like
with
these
projects
that
do
have
the
private
garages,
if
they're
either
underground
or
main
level
parking,
but
they're,
enclosed,
you're,
not
dealing
with
snow
and
then
people
and
two
like
people
not
knowing
where
to
park
and
whatnot
and-
and
that
I
think,
is
the
main
issue.
When
you
know
no,
you
can't
see
the
lines
so
until
it
gets
cleaned
off
so.
But
that
is
a
good
point
too
that
basically,
if
there
would
be
a
situation
that
it
could
be
varianced
through
the
city
engineer,
so.
A
I
mean
we're
not
on
this
board
as
engineers
so
to
to
to
say
what
the
engineering
standard
should
be.
I
don't
know
if
that
should
fall
on
our
plate.
I
do
think
heath
and
his
office
and
staff
are
the
the
right
people
for
that.
So
what
they
deem
safe
and
necessary,
I
feel
is,
is
the
appropriate
route
that
we
should
take.
C
Right
and
if
the
engineering
design
standards
were
amended,
they
would
be
approved
by
council
and
that
would
most
likely
be
coming.
That
would
come
through
heath.
If
that
were
the
case,
it's
just.
It
was
just
a
point
of
discussion
just
just
because
you
guys
deal
a
lot
with
the
land
use
and
the
planning
portion
of
it.
K
And
then
the
overall
parking
ordinance
in
terms
of
where
we
get
into
more
of
the
particulars
on
the
amount
of
parking
that
would
that's
housed
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
As
you
guys
know,
and
so
that
would
be
perhaps
an
amendment
when,
when
that
is
that
research
is
done,
that
we
could
move
forward
with
with
the
planned
commission.
F
No
commissioner
cohan,
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
have
this
discussion
with
with
this
board
because
of
the
overlap
that
stacy
just
pointed
out
that
I
was
going
to
bring
up.
I
mean
this
board
does
determine
parking
lot
requirements
based
on
the
number
of
stalls
based
on
the
zoning
and
use
of
the
land,
so
the
technicalities
of
how
those
lots
are
laid
out
and
how
the
parking
stalls
are
configured.
F
C
C
K
Yeah,
so
thanks
diana
for
for
bringing
this
up,
what
we
would
like
to
do
is
to
form
a
a
list
of
goals.
If
you
will
for
amendments
and
then
look
at
our
staff
resources
that
we
have
available,
knowing
that
we're
still
looking
for
a
position
within
our
office,
so
we
want
to
be
sensitive
to
keeping
up
with
the
current
customer
demands,
as
well
as
looking
at
prioritizing
some
of
the
ordinance
amendments
that
you'd
all
like
to
see,
and
we
have
a
goal
to
to
bring
forward
a
list.
K
Make
sure
that
our
priorities
are
your
priorities.
If
you
will
and
kind
of
prioritize
that
list
and
set
some
goals
so
having
having
said
that,
we've
had
some
internal
staff
discussions
and
would
possibly
start
with
just
some
mapping
and
trying
to
figure
out
what
some
of
those
distances
are
at
the
lake
and
what
may
seem
appropriate.
K
C
And
and
that's
what
you
guys
have
seen
that
before,
where
we
talk
about,
you
know
including
some
of
the
low-hanging
fruit
and
then
we
obviously
have
the
larger
projects
and
then
but
as
stacy
said,
just
to
make
sure
that
we're
all
on
the
same
page
and
if
there's
something
that
is
missing,
that
it's.
You
know
that
that
we're
missing
we
do
have
a
collective
list.
So
hopefully
we
do
touch
on
everything,
and
then
we
can
just
see
how
to
proceed.
G
K
F
F
Another
thing
stacy
and
I
have
been
working
on-
is
exploring
other
resources
her
and
I
need
to
make
time
to
get
together
to
explore
them
further,
but
there
are
other
options
out
there
with
consultants
and
things
of
that
nature
that
could
potentially
help
us
out
and
things
that
we
continue
to
look
at
and
analyze
here.
So
all
that
being
said,
commissioner
ford,
I
just
want
to
be
sensitive
to
your
request
and
and
let
you
know
and
assure
you
that
it's
not
forgotten
and
something
we'll
continue
to
strive
to
get
to.