►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting - 04-08-2021
Description
Plan Commission Meeting - 04-08-2021
A
A
B
A
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Third
item
on
the
agenda
is
imitation
for
public
comment
submittal.
So
if
there's
anything
not
on
the
agenda
that
someone
from
the
public
would
wish
to
talk
about
at
the
there
is,
there
will
be
time
at
the
end
of
the
meeting.
Please
just
let
someone
on
the
city
staff
know
that
you
have
an
item.
A
C
E
B
A
B
A
C
B
D
B
C
B
A
B
All
right
sounds
good.
Thank
you
brink.
So
this
is
the
annexation
and
zoning
of
valley
view
third
edition
and
as
always
with
annexations
and
zonings.
Obviously
we
will
take
two
actions
on
these
separate
items
as
they
are
separate
resolutions,
but
we'll
discuss
them
together
and
open
the
public
hearing
the
one
time
just
because
they
are
completely
related.
B
So,
like
I
said,
the
third
phase
of
the
valley
view
subdivision
the
residential
subdivision
there,
north
of
14th,
ave
and
west
of
second
street,
and
they
are
proposing.
This
is
56.3
acres,
that
they
will
be
annexing
and
then,
as
far
as
zoning,
they
will
do
a
mixture
of
our
one
single
family,
residential
r2,
single
family
attached,
residential
and
our
r3
multi-family
residential
district,
and
some
things
to
note.
B
So
they
do
have
an
effective
preliminary
plan
that
is
effective
until
2023,
and
this
you
can
see
here
is
the
approved
prelim
plan.
So
everything
for
the
most
part
is
conforming
to
the
layout
that
was
approved
you
it's
everything
to
the
north
of
18th
avenue,
and
then
there
are
portions
to
the
west
of
grant
drive,
and
so,
but
the
things
that
I
wanted
to
bring
to
your
attention
of
what
differs
from
what
was
shown
in
the
approved
preliminary
plan.
B
We've
done
this
in
the
past,
with
this
southern
portion
that
you
can
see
that
was
brought
in
as
r2
and
it
does
provide
nice
transitional
zoning,
and
so
what
they're
wanting
to
do
is
just
expand
that
footprint
to
this
entire
block.
There
is
a
street
here
or
an
app.
I
mean
a
street,
but
it's
18th
avenue
that
does
separate
the
different
zoning.
So
if
this,
if
any
lot
was
sold,
that
was
not
shown
to
a
butt
r2.
B
There
is
separation
there
with
the
street,
so
it
does
create
a
nice,
a
nice
separation
point
and
then
down
in
this
area
also
is
r2.
The
only
lot
that
really
will
abut
the
r2
zoning
designation,
if
approved
from
what
was
shown
as
r1,
is
this
slot
here,
and
I
was
in
contact
with
that
property
owner
just
to
make
sure
that
if
they
had
any
concerns
or
whatnot
and
they
were
okay
with
seeing
the
r2
zoning
go
in
there,
we'll
look
at
other
drainage
aspects
when
we're
looking
at
their
construction
plans.
B
As
far
as
what
what
the
concerns
were
for
that
landowner
other
than
that
park,
dedication
has
already
been
designated
with
the
land
along
14th
avenue
there
that
was
planted
during
the
first
edition.
So
there
is
there's
no
park
dedication
to
to
comply
with
with
this
phase,
and
I
think
that
covers
it
so
I'll
open
it
up
for
oh
I'll.
Just
note
too.
B
This
will
come
forward
more
so
with
the
plat
and
development
agreement,
but
also
it
does
abut
second
straight
solar
is
that
that
cost
recovery
but,
like
I
said,
that'll,
be
more
of
a
a
plat,
a
plat
topic.
So
I
just
saw
that
note
real,
quick
and
jumped
there,
but
yeah
all
we're
doing
right
now
is
annexing
and
zoning.
Oh
one
more
point
two
is
on
this
map
that
was
sent
out
to
the
adjacent
land
owners
within
250
feet.
B
A
A
Thank
you,
and
I
you
know,
I
know
that
it's
a
slight
change
of
from
r1
to
r2,
but
I
always
like
to
see
the
change
before
houses
are
developed.
I
think
that's
the
appropriate
time
to
do
that.
You
know
I
mean
right
now.
There
aren't
anything
adjacent
to
it
because
it
hasn't
been
built
out
yet.
So
I
think
I
think
that
was
good
foresight
by
the
developer,
working
with
city
staff
on
identifying
those
needs
ahead
of
time.
A
G
I
would
just
like
to
make
a
comment.
I
think
I
made
it
before
when
it
became
before
us.
Is
I'm
very
frustrated
to
see
that
these
two
developments
have
no
park?
I
do
not.
I
I
guess
it's.
It's
extremely
frustrating
to
me.
How
many
lots
are
there
there
between
that
one
and
river
ridge,
and
there
is
not
one
park
in
that
whole
northwest
development.
B
Yes
and
to
so
there
is
a
land
dedicated
for
the
valley,
view
edition
that
could
be
developed
as
park,
and
I
did
reach
out
to
terry
kelly
with
park
and
rec
and
the
director
of
park
and
rec,
and
he
he
said
that
right
now,
they're
not
planning
on
any
playground
equipment
in
in
the
valley
view
edition,
but
they
are
this
year
working
to
develop
the
river
ridge
park
that
was
dedicated
last
year.
Yeah.
B
B
I
mean
there's
always
some
like
you
could
bring
in
some
fill.
If
you
did
want
a
level
area
and
not
being
not
really
analyzing
the
topography
I
mean,
but
there
they
could
bring
fill
in,
it's
not
a
floodway
or
anything
if
they
did
want
to
have
some
playground
equipment.
If
that
would
be
desirable,
which
I
think
it
would
be.
The
only
thing,
too,
is
that
you
know
in
this
area
the
the
jefferson
school
is
nearby.
G
But
my
point
is:
our
forefathers
saw
the
value
in
a
park
in
every
development
that
went
in
prior
and
now,
all
of
a
sudden
we're
finding
that
the
lot
is
more
more
important
of
a
sale
of
forty
thousand
dollar
lot
than
it
is
to
the
future
of
the
kids
that
play
in
that
neighborhood,
and
I
don't
know
why
it
would
be
so
difficult
to
take
one
or
two
of
those
lots
and
designate
it
as
a
park.
Is
my
point
yeah?
That's.
I
just
want
to
voice
that
to
go
on
record
stating
that
point.
B
G
C
C
H
Mr
chairman,
yes,
if
I
could
just
for
for
clarity's
sake,
I
sense
what
I'm
hearing
from
a
couple
of
planning
commissioners
is
that
there's
a
little
bit
of
buyer's
remorse,
maybe
on
some
of
the
park
land
that
we
ended
up
with
through
the
through
the
park
board
actions
and
the
planning
commission
actions.
But
I
just
wanted
to
make
clear
for
the
record
that
the
the
subdivision
as
a
whole
does
indeed
meet
the
parkland
dedication
at
this
point.
Is
that
correct
brandy?
B
I
wanted
to
just
make
one
more
comment
with
that
park
as
well.
When
we
looked
at
this
as
the
preliminary
plan,
the
we
they
did
show
a
rendering
of
like
a
trail
head
for
the
bike
trail
and
maybe
like
some
parking
areas.
That
is
something
that
the
parks
board
could
look
into.
Maybe
implementing
I
do
I
mean
it
is
a
nice
open
native
area
where
you
know
people
could
utilize
it.
I
get
it
it's
just
not
as
accessible
or,
I
guess,
enhancing
for
or
enriching
for,
like
children
to
go
play
so
like.
B
D
B
F
Yeah,
that's
a
good
idea.
Thank
you
guys
for
stating
that,
on
the
record,
it's
certainly
something
that
we
can
reach
back
out
and
coordinate
that
with
park
staff
and,
potentially
even
then
parks
board
to
see
what
could
what
the
area
could
be
and
how
it
could
be
beneficial
for,
for
this
particular
neighborhood.
A
A
B
E
A
B
A
C
B
K
B
A
B
The
reason
it's
before
you
again
today
is
because
there
was
an
error
in
the
legal
description
very
minor.
It
was
it
referenced
section
27
instead
of
section
29,
but
that
needs
to
be
reapproved
so
that
that
is
correct
and
then
also
just
to
point
out
that
the
eligible
project
costs
were
also
updated,
as
some
of
the
real
costs
have
actually
accrued
that
or
that
they've
experienced
some
of
that
the
real
cost
already
and
that
they
were
higher
than
the
estimate.
B
A
B
J
J
So
those
are
some
of
the
reasons
that
we're
asking
for
the
extra.
The
other
thing
was
just
a
kind
of
a
kind
of
a
fat
finger
hit
the
wrong
button
kind
of
typo.
So
we
figured
if
we
were
coming
up
here-
and
you
know
this
is
a
self-funded
tif
too,
as
well
so
bob's
funding
the
tif.
So
it's
not
coming
out
of
the
city's
coffers.
So
those
are
just
kind
of
the
reasons
that
we
came
up
today.
H
A
B
J
C
A
B
J
J
I
J
J
I
B
J
J
A
I
A
He
just
takes
a
few
days
after
they
pick
him
up
at
home,
but
they
just
have
noticed,
he's
just
kind
of
sleepy
and
tired
hearing,
none
I'll
close
the
public
hearing.
My
thoughts
on
this
item
are,
you
know
it
was
approved
by
us
once,
and
this
is
a
clerical
mistake
and
an
adjustment
of
the
finances
and
really
when
it
comes
to
the
actual
finances.
A
I
I
think
that's
ultimately
up
to
the
city
council,
which
all
of
our
decisions
on
the
planning
commission
are
up
to
the
city
council
on
whether
or
not
the
what
dollar
amount
they
want.
So
I
my
opinion.
I
think
that
this
is
relatively
the
same
tif
that
we've
already
approved,
and
that's
that's
just
my
overall
thoughts.
I
don't
know
if
anyone
has
any
other
thoughts,
they'd
like
to
share.
K
Mr
chair,
yes,
yes,
I
just,
I
thought
I'd
have
one
piece
that
to
note.
I
know
I
randy
to
answer
the
question
earlier
about
kind
of
where
we
are
in
relation
to
the
total
cap
for
tax
increment
districts
in
the
city,
but
I
would
just
note
on
on
this
tiff
in
particular,
even
though
there
was
an
increase
in
the
the
ask
as
far
as
the
increment
payout
goes,
it's
still
below
quite
a
bit
below
the
anticipated
increment
that
will
be
generated
over
the
20-year
life
of
the
tif.
K
A
C
J
M
A
B
All
right,
thank
you
brink,
and
so
this
is
the
ordinance
amendment
addressing
city
identification
and
welcome
signs
the
number
dimensions
and
locations
of
individual
signs
in
maximum
total
sign
area
by
zoning
district.
So
if
you
guys
remember
last
year,
specifically
march
19th,
this
ordinance
amendment
was
brought
before
you
and
it
was
approved
six
to
one
at
that
time
and
we
had
prior
discussion
at
different
points
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
handle
this
sort
of
amendment.
B
So
this
as
it
states
is
for
strictly
city
signage,
it
would
just
be
for
your
gateway
signage,
the
welcome
to
watertown
type
of
situation
where
it
would
not
have
a
commercial
message.
It
would
be
just
the
welcoming
aspect
so
same
thing:
it
didn't
change.
I
just
thought
that
since
there
was
the
year
time
lapse,
obviously
with
it
being
mid-march
there
that
priorities
changed.
So
this
just
kind
of
fell
by
the
wayside,
and
so
now
we
would
like
to
bring
it
back.
B
Like
I
talked
about,
we
were
working
with
a
donor
and
some
of
the
h2o
2020
subcommittee
members
on
updating
the
welcome
to
watertown
sign
out
at
the
interstate,
but
also
would
consider
other
locations
such
as
out
at
the
lake
or
just
other
gateways
north
on
highway,
81
or
south
on
highway
81
for
future
projects.
Potentially,
if
that
was
something
that
we
wanted
to
look
into,
so
how
we
found
it
most
appropriate
was
b
is
treating
it
kind
of
as
its
own,
because
it
is
the
municipality
and
there
would
not
be
a
commercial
message
conveyed.
A
I
you
know
it's
one
thing
worth:
you
know
we're
it's
a
sign
that
we
only
allow
on
city
property
and
done
by
the
city.
So
you
know
I
I
had
less
concerns
than
at
that
time
too
about
you,
know
it
going
in
a
bad
place
or
a
place
that
people
wouldn't
want
it,
and
so
I
appreciate
you
putting
it
into
ordinance
and-
and
you
know
making
it
something-
that's
could
be
official
so.
D
A
C
This
is
ford.
Could
I
ask,
could
I
ask
a
couple
questions
go
for
it
thanks.
I
really
appreciate
the
staff
putting
these
comments
in
here
where
mr
case
gave
his
explanations
as
to
why
he
voted
no
and
you
you
explained
that
first
one
a
little
bit
a
large
sign
being
installed
within
our
one
single
family,
residential
districts.
C
B
At
this
time
it
doesn't
appear
that
there
is
city
property,
so
that
would
have
to
most
likely
be
pushed
out
further
to
the
north
and
then
potentially,
once
you
get
further
up
to
this
intersection
of
26th
and
4th.
That
would
trend
to
be
commercial,
and
this
would
be
a
commercial
node.
So
no
there
shouldn't
there's
no
location
today,
where
a
sign
would
go
near
a
residential
neighborhood
on
that
north
side
of
81.
A
No,
there
isn't
any
city
owned
right
now,
but
I
know
that
was
what
was
discussed.
Then
is
you
know
if
if
the
city
happened
to
get
parkland
or
something
that
was,
you
know,
that
would
be
residentially
zoned
beans
that
surround
other
houses,
that
that's
where
we
could
potentially
put
a
sign
and
it
would
be
on
city
property
and
around
a
residential,
so
that
was
that
was
what
the
discussion
was
at
that
time.
B
C
A
And
I
think
the
idea
behind
that
is
that
you
know
some
of
these
city
lots
they,
we
might
not
know
the
size
of
them.
You
know
if
a
developer
comes
in
and
wants
to
develop,
we
have
minimum
lot
sizes,
but
if
the
city
is
going
to
own
property,
such
as
for
a
drainage
area
or
you
know,
there's
going
to
be
a
detention
pond,
we
might
not
have
a
minimum
lot
size
and-
and
I
think
that's
probably
part
of
why
we
didn't
we-
we
did
that.
A
H
Chairman
yeah,
if
I
could
expand
on
that,
I
think
that
you're
exactly
right,
the
the
varying
shapes
and
realities
of
the
property
configurations
that
the
city
may
end
up
with
either
what
we
currently
own
or
what
we
may
end
up
owning
in
the
future,
could
could
vary
drastically.
So
it
might
be
considered.
H
H
I
would
also
say
just
as
far
as
the
in
relation
to
the
discussion
of
where
these
might
go.
You
know
I
would
agree
as
you
go
north
on
81..
That's
a
prime
location.
I
think
that
was
one
of
those
that
the
commissioner
case
was
concerned
about.
We
don't
currently
own
land
up
there
now,
but
I
would
say
it's
not
uncommon
for
communities
to
keep
those
things
in
mind
as
development
progresses
in
certain
directions
on
those
gateway
arterials,
so
that
they
keep
that
in
mind.
H
C
C
C
B
Yes,
so
I
was
going
to
add
there
too
that
ultimately,
it
would
be
the
city
council's
decision
because
it
would
be
going
on
city
property.
So
you
know
staff
would
work
with
a
committee
on
and
and
whoever
was
looking
at
donating
funds
or
if
somebody
just
had
the
design
and
had
the
funds
and
wanted
to
present
it
to
council.
But
I
mean
it
is
a
big
community
decision,
because
you
would
want
all
of
your
gateways
to
coordinate
so
that
would
that
would
ultimately
be
the
city
council.
C
B
A
A
A
N
B
N
K
A
B
Yes,
and
just
to
address
with
the
group
here-
and
I
had
talked
with
mark
a
little
bit
about
that
whole
open
public
comment
and
that
there
was
going
to
be
a
large
group
here
for
this
item,
and
if
anybody
wanted
to
state
anything,
perhaps
after
we
have
the
presentation
they
they
could
do
that.
I
do
want
to
caution
that
we
limit
it,
though,
just
because
it's
not
a
public
hearing
for
this
item
and
I'll,
explain
kind
of
why
you
know
it's
not
typical
that
we
have
concept
plans
before
you.
We've
done
it
before.
B
B
B
So
looking
at
a
mixture
of
the
pud
which
they
would
come
forward
with
their
pud
plans
for
at
a
later
date,
after
the
concept
plan
would
be
approved
or
in
conjunction
and
then
also
some
combinations
of
residential
development,
so
the
single
family
and
multi-family,
and
then
also
rural
residential,
with
larger
lots
there
to
the
south.
So
a
nice,
a
nice
mixture
for
residential
uses
there
and
then
with
commercial
abutting.
B
B
L
L
L
L
The
design
of
the
senior
living
community
is
intentional
and
it
will
employ
an
exemplary
model
of
holistic
living
that
promotes
the
dignity,
freedom
and
wellness
of
its
residents
and
staff
members.
We
all
know
that
in
the
covid
pandemic,
staff
have
worked
their
fingers
through
the
bone
in
almost
every
way
conceivable
across
the
nation
and
the
world.
So
we
are
very
much
highlighting
how
staff
fit
into
this
picture.
L
L
First,
by
building
and
then
providing
housing
and
services
for
veterans,
sioux
falls
just
announced.
A
tiny
home
village
down
in
sioux
falls.
Well,
we're
going
to
be
a
lot
larger
than
tiny
homes
up
here
and
their
services,
some
of
whom
would
need
elder
care
services
would
fit
right
into
the
other
parts
of
the
campus
number
two.
L
In
addition
to
that
collaboration
on
the
challenger
site,
which
will
have
a
park
of
24
acres
with
the
tagline
from
the
prairie
to
the
stars,
we
will
also
we
have
been
commissioned
to
receive
a
voyage
mark
ii,
skill,
solar,
a
scale
model
of
the
solar
system,
and
it
will
be
woven
throughout
that
park.
The
virgin
prairie
park
land.
L
In
addition
to
that
collaboration
with
lake
area
tech,
we
are
going
to
provide
student
housing
for
students
in
the
allied
health
care
disciplines
at
lake
area,
so
that
would
be
occupational
therapy.
The
new
lpn
program,
cosmetology
and
other
disciplines
that
interface
with
health
care
and
then
last,
but
not
the
least,
we're
going
to
develop
workforce
housing.
I
know
from
my
friends
who
are
in
the
housing:
business
houses
aren't
staying
on
the
market
more
than
24
hours,
and
so
people
need
a
place
to
live.
L
L
Currently,
we're
working
with
austin
engineering,
hoffman
planning
and
design
out
of
appleton
wisconsin
and
many
other
people
in
our
area
to
make
this
plan
move
forward
later
this
month.
We'll
ask
you
if
the
approval
for
harmony
hill
can
go
forward.
We
very
much
want
to
take
this
step
with
this
window
of
opportunity.
That's
open
with
the
collaboration.
That's
happened
and
the
things
that
keep
emerging
literally
every
day
for
partnerships
for
the
betterment
of
the
people
of
watertown,
for
a
new
cutting
edge
healthcare
system
in
watertown.
L
A
L
It
will
be
nice,
and
I
just
I
do
want
to
thank
brandy
and
stacy
and
heath
you've
been
on
lots
and
lots
of
phone
calls
with
us
and
zoom
meetings
and
terry
kelly
in
the
parks
board
was
amazing.
You
know,
and
so
thank
you
for
affirming
our
vision
working
with
us.
I
think
you
see
the
goodness
of
this,
so
thank
you
very
much.
H
Mr
chairman,
I
I
believe
a
couple
of
the
design
professionals
are
here
tonight
would
maybe
like
to
speak
or
talk
through
some
of
the
details
of
the
concept
plan
and,
like
brandi
indicated
it's,
it's
not
common,
that
we
bring
a
concept
plan
to
the
to
the
commission
before
the
formal
submittal
of
it
for
approval.
But
again,
given
the
scope
and
magnitude
of
this
one,
there
was
there
were
a
handful
of
design
components.
We
thought
it
was
a
good
idea
to
walk
through
with
the
board
ahead
of
time
before
they
consider
formal
approval
of
it.
J
I
Our
company
works
on
a
lot
of
we
work
on
all
types
of
projects,
but
we
have
a
unique
situation
that
we
work
with
women,
religious
communities
all
over
the
country.
We've
worked
with
over
50
communities
all
over
the
country,
and
so
there's
a
our
mission
fit
with
women.
Religious
is,
is
very
strong,
so
we
had
the
privilege
of
getting
involved
several
years
ago
in
in
some
initial
planning
have
been
brought
back
in
recently
in
the
last
six
months
to
assist
the
sisters
with
their
vision
and
dream
for
the
property.
I
I
The
the
passion
and
the
excitement
behind
us
is
is
incredible
and
you're
fortunate
to
have
the
sisters
here
and
also
I've
met
some
some
wonderful
people
involved,
some
leaders
in
the
community
and
and
others
that
want
to
be
involved
in
this
project
and
the
enthusiasm
is
infectious,
so
I
could
sit
here
and
talk
for
a
couple
hours
on
a
500,
acre
master
plan
and
I'd
love
to
do
that,
but
I'm
not
gonna.
I
won't
do
that.
I
I
I
Most
of
the
comments
are,
we
feel
fairly
expected
there.
There
were
just
a
few
issues
that
that
really
came
to
the
forefront
that
we
really
are
still
working
on
and
our
intent
is
to
to
work.
The
plan
that
you
see
tonight
will
be
modified
slightly
in
response
to
those
comments
and
we're
going
to
resubmit
it
and
hopefully
come
back
to
you.
I
Well,
not,
hopefully
we
we
intend
to
come
back
on
april
22nd
and
with
a
hopefully
an
approval
recommendation
for
approval
from
staff,
and
hopefully
we
can
have
a
great
public
hearing,
and
you
can
hear
more
about
the
project
at
that
time,
and
we
would
ask
for
your
approval
and
the
the
real
goal
here
is,
as
sister
barb
mentioned,
is
to
begin
this
elder
community
and
because
the
sisters
owned
this
huge
piece
of
property
to
follow
your
protocol.
We
we
really
needed
to
prepare
a
concept
for
the
entire
500
acres.
I
I
The
rest
of
this
is
conceptual
with
every
intent
of
developing
it
as
closely
as
we
can
predict
right
now,
and
so
that
that's
really
our
intent,
so
that
the
issues
and
I'll
ask
brandy
or
heath
to
step
into
it
on
any
of
these,
but
we've
really
gotten
it
down
to
several
issues
that
are
key
one
of
them.
There
was
discussion
about
parks.
I
The
sisters
have
in
their
being
care
for
mother
earth
is,
is
extremely
important
and
we've
had
the
privilege,
like
I
said,
working
with
so
many
congregations,
and
that's
one
of
the
wonderful
things
is
they.
They
really
want
to
take
care
of
what
they
what's
there
and
if
they
do
want
to
develop
it,
it's
in
a
very
sensitive
way,
sensitive
to
the
land,
sensitive,
the
environment
and
sensitive
to
the
community.
I
I
I
I
don't
know
if
it's
classified
as
a
official
creek
but
yeah
today
it
is,
but
we
want
to
respect
the
the
natural
drainage
on
the
property
so
we'd
like
to
some
of
that
will
be
restricted
by
codes
by
because
some
of
it
will
be
classified
as
wetlands
or
stream,
but
we'd
like
to
to
leave
area
around
that
to
create
a
trail
system
and
a
park
system.
Again,
we
haven't
worked
out
exactly
what's
public
and
what's
private.
I
Yet
what
we
do
know
is
those
areas
will
be
green
space
of
some
sort
and
then,
in
our
meetings
with
the
parks
with
parks
department,
we
did
talk
about.
We
we
specified
a
couple
of
areas
that
they
felt
were
appropriate
for
I'll
call
them
them
official
public
parks,
which
would
probably
have
more
typical
play
areas
and
things
like
that
for
residents
within
the
development
or
anybody
in
the
community,
because
they
would
be
public
parks.
So
we
identified
yeah,
that's
the
plan.
I
We
identified
three
areas,
so
those
are
I'll
call
them
potential
public
park
areas
and
we
all
agree.
Those
are
potentially
great
locations
for
those
and
we're
our
intent
is
to
meet
with
continue
to
meet
with
parks
and
staff,
the
rest
of
your
staff
to
fine-tune
the
the
park
system,
the
trail
system
and
exactly
what
would
happen
in
those
in
those
park
areas
and
who
owns
and
maintains
them.
I
We
didn't
quite
know
because
again
it's
such
a
large
piece
of
property,
how
to
predict
what
was
going
to
be
absolutely
in
the
city
or
what
might
what
might
remain
outside
of
the
city.
So
we
had
suggested
a
initially
a
city,
county
or
city
limit
line
on
the
property
that
by
no
means
it
doesn't
mean
that
the
rest
of
the
property
couldn't
at
some
point
be
in
the
city.
So
what
we've
talked
to
staff
about
is
as
far
as
a
concept
plan.
I
We
really
probably
can
just
eliminate
that
line
on
the
plan,
with
the
understanding
that
we
don't
know
exactly
when
or
exactly
when
land
would
come
into
the
city
other
than
on
their
phasing
plan.
We
do
want
to
annex
that
pha,
there's
parts
of
that
first
phase.
If
you
can
go
to
the
phasing
plan
next,
one
there
you
go.
Thank
you.
So
the
only
thing
on
this
plan-
that's
really
critical,
is
phase
one,
the
rest
of
it
phase.
I
We
want
to
start
to
develop
that
that
private
park
we
want
to
start
to
develop
the
elder
community
and
we
want
to
start
that
this
year,
so
our
intent
is
hopefully
to
get
a
concept
approved
through
through
through
you
and
and
then
actually
start
on
the
detail.
Plans
for
phase
one
immediately
like
april
23rd,
if
not
before,
so
that's
that's
really
and
as
we
move
forward,
we'll
bring
those
all
those
details
to
you.
We
want
to
work
on
the
the
public
streets.
I
There's
a
another
issue
on
the
plan
that
we
had
talked
to
engineering
about
the
your
typical
requirements
for
collector
streets
and
we
didn't
quite
meet
the
the
typical
requirement
so
we're
working
on
that.
I
think
we've
got
some
solutions
that
we're
we
talked
about
as
late
as
today
and
we're
going
to
hopefully
meet
with
you
tomorrow
and
and
talk
about
those.
So
some
of
those
things
will
be
changed
a
little
bit
on
the
plan,
but
we,
I
think,
we're
headed
in
a
good
direction
together
and
then
utilities
we're
at
concept
plan
level.
I
We
understand
that
if
there's
lift
stations
needed
or
booster
pumps
or
or
things
like
that,
we
will
work
through
those
with
you
and
with
staff
and
and
make
that
happen
right
now.
There's
utilities
adequate
to
serve
what
work,
what
we're
considering
for
phase
one
but
then
the
overall,
as
as
it
continues
we'll
put
together
a
complete
utility
plan
for
the
entire
property
and
it
will
be
phased
in
as
development
occurs.
I
That
was
really,
I
think
in
my
mind,
those
were
the
the
key
issues
that
that
needed
to
be
addressed.
There's
a
long
list,
but
I
would
say
90
of
those
are
expected
to
be
addressed
at
a
preliminary
plan
level
when
we
get
into
the
more
detailed
planning.
So
I
think
that's
all
I
have
we
are
available
for
questions
and
I
think
there,
if
you
would
indulge
us
there
are
some
people
here
that
are
extremely
passionate
about
this
project.
Some
of
them
can't
be
at
subsequent
meetings.
M
Good
evening,
mike
courtney,
I'm
going
to
talk
to
you
from
excuse
me
talk
to
you
from
a
number
of
different
hats
on
my
first
one
is
a
private
citizen
in
watertown.
I
want
you
to
notice
that
the
passion
and
the
reasoning
for
this
is
not
monetary
gain.
It's
for
the
sisters
to
leave
a
legacy
and
a
gift
to
watertown
and
being
a
lifetime,
a
lifelong
resident
of
watertown.
M
This
is
a
this
is
the
area
that
the
sisters
have
offered
us
and
we're
looking
very
hard
at
that,
but
the
we
have
some
steps
to
finish
our
process,
but
when
you
mix
this,
what
you're
going
to
see
is
that
this
not
only
provides
an
exceptional
makes
watertown
world-class
and
healthcare.
You
know
make
watertown
world-class
in
education
of
our
students
also
providing
support.
There
are
30
000
k-12
students
within
90
miles
of
watertown.
M
That
would
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
the
challenger
center
be
here.
The
third
hat
is
I'm
also
the
chairman
of
the
watertown
sea
of
goodwill,
which
provides
our
motto
is
serving
those
who
serve
so
the
the
veterans
that
are
supported
by
this
plan
are
it's
a
sorely
needed
support
for
them.
We
have
over
8
000
veterans
approximately
in
in
connington
county,
and
that
population
needs
this
kind
of
support.
M
So
there's
four
hats
that
I
have
versus
a
private
citizen.
I
couldn't
think
of
a
better
gift
to
watertown
into
this
community
and
better
motivation
for
doing
a
project
like
this
again,
the
as
a
as
a
challenger
center,
I'm
a
home
for
that
that
will
make
watertown
world-class
for
our
k-12
and
and
college
students
and
and
then
again
as
a
sea
of
goodwill
chairman
for
our
veterans.
So
thank
you.
A
A
O
Joy,
nelson
I've
been
working
with
the
sisters
here
for
several
months,
maybe
nine
months,
sister
barb
and
having
been
in
the
development
game
for
like
30
years.
You
know
in
this
town.
I
don't
believe
that
I've
ever
seen
a
more
creative,
beautiful,
comprehensive
development
than
than
the
development
that
you're
looking
here.
It
is
so
inter-generational
and
serves
so
many
quality
of
life
issues
for
watertown.
O
So
it's
been
an
absolute
honor
to
work
with
these
sisters
and
I'm
going
to
continue
to
do
so
and
we
are
blessed
to
have
them
in
our
community
and
michael
cartney
said
it
best
when
he
said
that
the
motive
years
is
not
monetary
gain
it's
to
give
back
to
the
city
of
watertown,
and
so
it's
a
monumental
development,
and
so
I'm
hoping
we
can
can
get
this
moving
along
just
as
fast
as
we
possibly
can.
So.
Thank
you.
J
I
A
A
Yeah,
thank
you
for
this
presentation.
This
is
a
very
cool
and
unique
concept,
and
I'm
I'm
glad
you
guys
did
bring
it
before
us
today
to
let
us
see
this
and
and
like
you
said,
it's
letting
us
see
something
different
I
mean
you
know.
Usually
we
see
lots
laid
out
where
you
get
as
many
as
you
can
and
and
this
this
is
cool.
So
thank
you
guys
for
for
this
presentation.
A
H
Chairman,
if
I
could
just
add
some
some
clarity
and
maybe
gets
a
little
bit
of
feedback,
if
appropriate,
from
the
board,
one
of
the
reasons
staff
felt
it
was
important
to
bring
us
before
the
planning
commissioners
was
to
just
give
a
general
update
and
look
at
the
the
layout.
Of
course,
this
is
a
an
outstanding
project,
a
lot
of
great
things
going
into
this,
nearly
a
full
section
of
land.
H
Of
course,
staff
were
commissioned
with
throwing
the
regulations
at
the
folks
or
outlining
them
or
explaining
them,
and-
and
I
hope
the
day
I
meet
my
maker-
I'm
not
held
to
a
higher
level
of
scrutiny
for
for
this
particular
project,
but
just
just
for
discussion
sake.
We
just
wanted
to
point
out
a
few
things
so
that
they
don't
catch
you
off
guard
at
the
next
meeting,
when
this
is
for
before
you
for
approval.
H
One
of
those
things
was
the
transportation
network
that
mark
alluded
to,
and
it
sounds
like
he's
working
on
some
solutions
there,
but,
as
you
may
or
may
not
know,
the
comprehensive
land
use
plan
gives
us
some
guidelines
on
where
our
collector
streets
should
be
ran.
As
we
expand
the
city
limits
in
this
situation,
you
know
again
call
this
a
full
section.
H
H
So
that
was
one
of
the
concerns
that
we
had,
because
as
this,
this
section
is
annexed
and
develops.
Of
course,
we're
looking
ahead
to
what's
next
after
that
and
how
is
that
going
to
connect
from
a
transportation
network
standpoint?
So
those
those
are
some
critical
components
that
we
just
wanted
to
be
sensitive
to,
and
that
was
one
of
them.
The
other
one
that
mark
also
mentioned
was
the
annexation
boundary,
leaving
out
that
southwest
quadrant,
as
initially
proposed,
was
a
concern
of
the
design
review
team.
H
We
felt
that
that
might
cause
a
pocket
of
county
land
that
again,
if
somebody
to
the
south
wanted
to
eventually
develop
we'd
have
that
hurdle
to
deal
with
that
pocket
of
county
land.
That
would
then
be
a
gap
in
our
congruent
annexation
process
so
or
that
contiguous
annexation
process.
So
that
was
a
concern
of
ours
too.
That
again,
mark
has
alluded
to
that.
It
sounds
like
you
know,
they're
willing
to
work
with
from
a
conceptual
plan
level
and
adjust
that
annexation
boundary.
H
As
far
as
the
concept
plan
is
concerned,
the
last
thing
I
wanted
to
note
and
emphasize
too
that
we're
working
with
the
design
team
on
is
is
phase.
One
is
the
critical
component
here
we've
committed
to
the
sisters
to
expedite
as
much
as
we
can
on
the
city
staff
level
and
and
begin
that
review
and
approval
of
the
phase
one,
the
pud
area
as
timely
as
possible.
H
H
F
Facilitate
just
one
other
thing:
if
I
could
and
brandi
please
correct
me
if
I,
if
I
don't
get
all
of
these
steps
in
terms
of
it,
is
a
complex
project,
as
you
guys
know,
so
start
with
the
concept
plan
which
will
be
brought
forth
at
the
next
meeting,
also
annexation
and
zoning
that
would
be
coming.
I
believe
right
on
the
heels,
as
well
as
preliminary
plan
and
then
back
to
the
park,
sport
as
well,
and
then
at
the
final
platt
level,
that's
more
when
we're
going
to
get
into
the
actual
infrastructure.
F
B
G
Park
I'm
kidding,
I
do
and
I
don't
want
any
response.
I
don't
want
any
answers,
I'm
just
throwing
the
things
that
I'm
gonna
say
that
night,
because
that's
what
I
do
are
you
having
trail
or
sidewalk
system.
I
think
it's
fitting
for
a
trail
out
there
and
then
the
other
concern
I
would
have
is
the
28th
coming
in.
We
have
one
way
going
in
there
now
and
when
I
go
out
there,
I'm
I'm
you
know
a
terrible
driver,
so
it's
not
very
wide.
G
G
A
B
A
B
B
When
somebody
comes
forward,
let's
say
a
grocery
store
convenience
store
and
when
they
ask
when
they
ask
for
the
conditional
use
for
the
bar
tavern
that
we
traditionally
asked
that
there's
a
separate
entrance
and
whatnot
so
that
there
would
be
separation
that
way
there
isn't
anything
technically
an
ordinance
that
that
makes
that
prohibits
that
or
requires
that.
I
guess
it's
actually
the
better
way
to
say
it.
B
So
the
definition
for
bar
tavern-
and
I
don't
know
okay,
so
bar
tavern-
any
establishment,
including
restaurants
and
gambling
establishments,
licensed
to
sell
alcoholic
beverages
for
consumption
under
the
premise
where
sold
or
provided
the
term
or
the
term
bar
or
tavern,
shall
also
include
establishments.
Establishments
licensed
to
sell
alcoholic
beverages
for
consumption
off
the
premise
we're
sold.
So
the
definition
for
bar
or
tavern
includes
on
sale
and
off
sale,
obviously
both
still
needing
approval
by
the
city
council
for
the
license
issuance.
But
it
does
create
it's
a
little
arbitrary.
B
N
Sure
so,
a
lot
of
this,
the
genesis
kind
of
came
from
just
trying
to
understand
what
our
current
ordinances
were
surrounding
our
historic
or
just
our
history
of
watertown,
prohibiting,
I
guess
off
sale
of
beer
wine.
What
have
you
in
grocery
stores
gas
stations,
et
cetera,
like
many
other
communities
in
south
dakota,
do
and
then
understanding
that
that's
actually
not
an
ordinance
or
anything,
that's
just
a
practice
that
we
followed
that
led
me
to
bumping
into
the
bar
tavern
conditional
use.
N
What
struck
me
about
it
was
the
part
we're
trying
to
kind
of
strike
out
here.
The
term
bar
tavern
shall
also
include
establishment's
license
to
sell
alcoholic
beverage
for
consumption
off
premises
were
sold
to
me
when
reading
that
that's
a
little
confusing,
I
actually
had
to
get
clarification
from
city
attorney
as
to
what
that
meant.
Really.
N
So,
if
somebody
was
just
a
liquor
store,
for
instance,
they
would
still
need
to
get
a
bar
tavern,
but
they're,
not
a
bar
and
they're,
not
a
tavern,
so
it
just
kind
of
seemed
like
a
lack
of
clarity
within
that
conditional
use,
I
could
understand
some
of
the
intent
behind
it.
I
think
you
know
when,
when
we're
fearful
about
the
location
of
where
alcohol
is
going
to
be
sold,
a
lot
of
that
is
the
worry
that
you
know
there
might
be
intoxicated
people
in
inappropriate
places
where
we
wouldn't
expect
to
see
them.
N
Well,
when
you
go
to
a
liquor
store,
you
don't
see
that
person
or
that
individual
typically
they're,
not
consuming
on-premise
or
anything,
so
it
just
seemed
mildly
inappropriate
to
be
calling
that
a
bar
or
a
tavern.
I
guess
the
ambiguity
that
brandy
brings
up.
I
don't
think
most
of
our
liquor
stores
realize
that
that,
because
they
carry
the
bar
tavern
conditional
use,
they
could
technically
put
taps
in
and
just
start
serving
beer
and
wine
if
they
wanted
to.
N
K
K
N
And
that
does
bring
up
you
know
if
a
an
establishment
like
that
did
want
to
still
do
on
sale
in
some
way,
like
I
don't
know,
or
off
sale
a
lot
of
times.
You
see
that
with
locations
that,
let
you
you
know
buy
beer
to
take
with
you,
you'd
still
get
that
with
an
off
sale.
We're
combined
right
now,
so
you
automatically
get
that
just
with
the
on
sale,
off
sale
and
you're
already
a
bar
tavern.
So
some
of
our
restaurants
in
town
do
that.
N
I
know
for
the
breweries
that
we
utilize
that,
but
I
guess
for
me
it
was
a
disconnect
of
if
somewhere,
such
as
a
gas
station
or
a
grocery
store.
What
have
you
had
decided
that
hey?
I
just
want
to
sell
beer
wine,
they
would
have
to
go
get
a
bar
tavern
license,
even
if
they
have
no
intent
of
being
on
sale
and
never
wanted
to
be
on
sale
at
all.
So
more
than
anything,
this
is
a
language
cleanup.
N
If
we
are
worried
about
the
location
aspect
of
it,
that's
already
covered
just
with
the
on
sale
off
sale,
malt
beverage.
If
you
read
that
in
the
third
paragraph
it
kind
of
explains
it
that
it
can't
be
located
within
100
yards
of
the
locations,
you
would
kind
of
expect
yeah.
It's
just
something
that
I
guess
struck
me
and
our
practice
with
it
is
a
little
strange.
F
Mr
chair,
if
I,
if
I
might
hear
these
are
excellent
points
to
consider
and
from
a
land
use
perspective,
are,
are
they
the
same
thing?
Is
a
liquor
store
and
or
beer
and
wine
sales
for
off-premise
consumption,
the
same
thing
as
a
bar
or
tavern,
looking
at
it
in
terms
of
impacts
and
with
our
conditional
use
process
being,
would
a
bar
tavern
fit
in
this
particular
location?
Are
there
any
screening
measures
that
type
of
thing?
Is
it
right
next
to
residential
all
of
those
things?
F
So
I
think
that
too
kind
of
steering
back
to
the
land
use
component
on
it.
You
know
in
terms
of
selling
something
for
off
sale.
Consumption
seems
to
be
more
of
a
retail,
at
least
in
my
mind,
but
we're
wanting
to
get
the
board's
input
on
that
versus
having
a
bar
tavern,
which
could
and
will
indeed
probably
have
hours
that
run
late
into
the
night,
potentially
more
traffic,
potentially
all
of
the
things
that
come
with
a
bar,
tavern
and
and
also
concerts
events.
F
A
N
N
N
I
I
guess
I
kind
of
view
it
as
you
buy
tobacco
anywhere,
because
it's
a
product,
you
can
buy
cbd,
pretty
much
anywhere
it's
a
product,
even
though
some
of
these
are
controlled
substances,
some
aren't,
but
for
whatever
reason,
we
treat
alcohol
in
this
form
differently
when
it's
just
a
packaged
good.
If.
D
N
K
E
Two
comments:
first,
these
seem
like
two
separate
distinct
uses,
so
I
think
this
is
a
great
idea
to
split
and
differentiate
them.
Right
I
mean
a
bar
is
different
than
where
I
go
to.
You
know:
buy
a
six
pack
of
beer
or
a
12-pack
of
beer,
something
like
that
makes
total
sense
to
differentiate
between
the
two.
Secondly,
I
think
we
should,
if
you
know
what
the
discussion
slides
over
to
that,
whether
or
not
we
should
allow
gas
stations
to
sell
beer
six
packs.
Something
like
that.
I
don't
see
anything
wrong
with
that.
E
It
seems
like
an
odd
distinction.
The
way
that
we
do
it,
I've
lived
other
places
been
other
places
where
you
can
go
grab
a
six-pack
at
the
casey's
or
whatever,
and
it
just
seems
like
an
odd,
unnecessary
distinction
that
we've
taken-
and,
I
think,
is
probably
a
vestige
of
strange
liquor
laws
that
are,
you
know
historically
related.
C
M
J
Do
have
one
question,
I'm
losing
something
here
you
alluded
to
it
brandy,
maybe
it's
self-explanatory.
This
would
then
eliminate
the
need
for
a
separate
entrance.
I
know
we
made
cases
do
that
a
number
of
years
ago
the
when
target
came
before
us
few
years
ago.
We
said
they
could
do
it
if
they
had
a
separate
entrance
for
you
know
to
enter
into
that
area,
so
this
would
eliminate
that
need
to
to
do
that.
Is
that
what
I'm
understanding
if
we
were
to
go
through
this
change.
K
Yeah,
so
this
again,
I
guess
to
reiterate
what
councilman
hoyer
has
said.
Essentially
what
the
councils
have
historically
done
is
not
been
required
by
law.
So
as
we
sit
today
without
changing
a
thing
in
ordinance,
if
target
were
to
come
forward
to
make
the
same
request
they've
made
in
the
past,
the
council
could
go
ahead
and
approve
them
to
sell
beer
right
inside
of
target.
K
It's
just
historically,
we've
never
done
that,
and
so
all
this
will
do
is
remove
the
requirement
that
they
purely
off
sale,
establishment,
whether
that's
off
sale
in
a
grocery
store
or
gas
station
or
standalone
liquor
store,
remove
the
requirement
that
they
get
the
bar
tavern
conditional
use.
Okay,.
B
Yeah
it's.
It
has
never
been
required
to
have
that
separate
entrance,
but
that
is
true
that
when
casey's
came
before
the
board,
probably
a
couple
years
ago,
now
that
that
was
one
of
the
conditions
and
so
but
that
that's
just
been
tradition.
I
guess
you
know
there
is
nothing
in
ordinance
that
requires
that.
A
N
A
Liam's
on
screen,
so
no
no,
I
appreciate
that
and
I
think
I
think
we're
you
know
good
with
moving
moving
forward
on
that
with
a
future
meeting
with
an
actual
ordinance
amendment,
it
just
seems
like
we
were
all
in
agreeance
that
that
does
make
sense
that
there
is
a
difference
between
drinking
it
on
site
and
buying
it.
To
use
later
I
mean
that's
thanks.
B
F
I'll
just
mention
quickly
that
you
will
likely
see
a
list
of
cleaned
up
goals
at
the
next
meeting.
So
thank
you
to
those
of
you
that
did
go
on
and
make
comments
on
the
priorities.
I
just
need
to
get
all
that
data
organized
now
and
present
it
back
to
the
board,
so
we'll
we'll
be
seeing
that
that
next
time,
so
just
so,
you
know.
A
K
K
K
Maybe
it
was
identified
that
there
was
some
language
in
the
zoning
ordinance
related
to
the
the
definition
of
a
kennel
which
could
be
construed
or
or
is
essentially
a
limitation
on
the
number
of
dogs
that
somebody
can
own
unless
they
have
a
conditional
use
in
the
egg
zone.
So
essentially,
right
now
in
the
in
the
zoning
ordinance,
it
defines
kennel.
K
K
Keep
clicking
on
hold
on
just
say:
okay,
there.
It
is
oh
yeah,
so
essentially
what
the
proposal
in
front
of
you
is
proposing,
I
guess,
is
to
remove
the
definition
of
kennel
from
the
animal
control
ordinance
to
eliminate
there's
a
reference
there
to
applicable
setbacks
for
dog,
kennels
or
dog
houses,
to
basically
eliminate
that
rule
from
the
animal
control,
ordinance
and
eliminate
it
all
together
and
then
basically
put
a
definition
in
the
animal
control
ordinance,
not
a
definition,
a
rule.
K
Correct-
and
there
was
some
back
and
forth
about-
maybe
maybe
allowing
for
an
appeal
process.
You
know
if
somebody
wanted
to
have
more
than
five
for,
for
whatever
reason
they
could
come
forward
to
the
animal
control
board
and
ask
for
a
special
special
permission,
and
then
the
question
was
well
whether
or
not
that
maybe
should
be
a
land
use.
Reque,
that's
more
of
a
land
use,
so
should
that
come
through
come
through
the
board
of
adjustment.
K
K
I
wouldn't
suspect
that
the
if,
if
and
when
this
passes
through
the
city
council
that
we're
going
to
be
out
knocking
on
doors,
it's
more
more
for
us
to
have
a
tool
where,
if
there
is
some
issues
with
somebody
with
a
plethora
of
animals
at
their
house,
that
this
would
be
a
tool
we
could
use
to
site
them.
Potentially.
K
The
way
it's
proposed
right
now,
it's
limited
to
only
dogs
but
other
other
communities.
It
is
typically
you
see
in
other
communities,
it's
a
broader
net,
so
it'll
save
dogs,
cats
or
other
household
pets,
with
the
exclusion
of
fish
and
reptiles,
or
something
like
that,
but
but
just
for
the
kind
of
for
purposes
of
moving
this
forward.
We
we
left
it
to
just
dogs
at
this
time.
D
J
B
B
K
The
keeping
of
the
keeping
of
domestic
foul,
which
would
include
chickens
shelby
by
special
permission
of
the
animal
control
board,
and
then
that
so
that's
a
pretty
that's
a
simple,
straightforward
sentence
in
the
ordinance
and
then
the
animal
control
board
has
ended
up
adopting
a
basically
an
application
that
the
ammo
control
officer
kind
of
administratively
utilizes
for
folks
that
want
to
have
chickens
and
if
they
want
more
than
I
believe
it's
six
or
nine.
I
can't
remember
on
the
application
and
they
do
come
forward
to
ask
the
permission
of
the
animal
control
board.
F
I
have
a
quick
question.
This
is
stacy.
It
looks
to
me
as
this
is
written
now,
so
there
would
be
not
more
there.
Not
more
than
five
dogs
would
be
allowed.
Unless
you
have
this
commercial
kennel
now
would
that
be
a
complaint
base
that
would
go
to
the
animal
control
officer?
It
looks
like
to
me
versus,
like
code
code
enforcement.
K
K
Now,
if
somebody
was
so,
I
think
in
the
case
where
somebody
just
owns
678
dogs.
That
would
certainly
be
the
animal
control
officer.
Now,
if
we
discover
somebody's
running
a
boarding
operation
and
doesn't
have
like
a
commercial
boarding
operation
and
doesn't
have
that
conditional
use,
then
I
think
that
that
would
end
up
being
a
zoning
code
enforcement
issue.
C
K
You
know
he's
been
invited
to
be
a
part
of
our
our
meetings
and
but
he
has
missed
the
last
couple
of
animal
control
board
meetings.
So
I
don't
know
if
he's
seen
this
latest
proposal,
but
I
think
he's
generally
okay
with
kind
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
here.
Is
there
something
that
you
see
that's
concerning.
C
C
I,
especially
when
you're
talking
about
complaint
based,
that's
a
difficult
thing
to
do,
and
the
more
when
you
get
to
five
dogs.
I
don't
know
what
the
definition
of
pack
mentality
is,
because
I'm
not
an
animal
psychologist,
but
I
think
you
might
be
verging
on
something
like
that.
I
I
can't
just
basically,
five
dogs
are
too
many
for
me
or
any
of
my
neighbors
to
have.
I
would
be
way
more
comfortable
with
three.
D
E
Go
ahead,
there
was
a
fair
amount
of
discussion
about
that
number
and
I
think
this
I
think
five
is
perhaps
one
of
the
larger
numbers
like
when
you
look
at
surrounding
communities,
brookings,
aberdeen,
rapid
city,
you
know
they
buried.
I
think
anywhere
from
three
to
six.
There
was
weight
restrictions.
E
I
think
some
of
them
maybe
contain
breed
restrictions,
it's
really
hard,
but
I
think
what
we
ultimately
settled
on
and
maybe
met
it
was
todd
and
I
and
matt,
and
then
dr
mark
reeb
and
and
a
few
of
those
folks
what
we
ultimately
settled
down
is
we
thought
that
the
nuisance
statutes
would
probably
suffice
to
control
that
issue.
So,
for
instance,
if
there
is
a
sanitary
issue
or
a
noise
issue
that
you
we
could
also
fall
back
on
the
nuisance
issue
or
ordinances.
E
K
Yeah,
to
give
a
little
bit
of
a
little
additional
context
there
you
know.
Originally,
I
think
kind
of
the
instinct
of
the
animal
control
board
initially
was
to
say
well,
why
have
a
cap?
Let's
just
enforce
our
enforce
the
potential
negative
externalities
of
having
too
many
pets?
You
know
feces
in
your
neighbor's
yard,
dogs,
running
at
large
nuisance,
ordinances,
nose,
noise,
ordinances,
orders
etc.
So,
there's
all
these
other
tools
that
you
can
use
to
police
the
externalities.
K
C
This
is
for
it
again.
I
can.
I
can
certainly
see
relying
on
the
nuisance
ordinance
if
it
weren't
complaint
based,
but
when
it's
complaint
based
that
throws
a
whole
different
level
of
interaction
with
your
neighbors
people,
you
have
to
live
with
into
it
complaint
based.
Well,
it's
you
can
always
say
to
someone.
You
have
the
right
to
complain
and
that's
certainly
a
fact,
an
intellectual
fact,
but
emotionally
there's
a
huge
roadblock
against
doing
that,
and
I'm
I
just
I
just
see
it
as
burdensome
overly
burdensome
to
people
creating.
K
O
C
E
Let
me
let
me
respond
briefly.
First
diane
diana,
I
agree
with
you
entirely.
I
don't
think
anybody
should
have
more
than
three
dogs,
but
from
my
own
personal
standpoint,
but
from
the
way
the
law
is
written,
it's
going
to
be
complaint
based
whether
it's
three
dogs,
whether
it's
two
dogs,
whether
it's
five
dogs,
whether
it's
ten
dogs,
is
going
to
be
complaint
based
and
the
combination
of
the
five
hard
cap
plus
the
externality
that
the
feces
sanitary
noise
at
large.
E
I
feel
like
this
probably
satisfies
it,
because
it's
going
to
become
plant-based
regardless
right
and
this
we
did.
We
had
a
lot
of
discussion
and
some
consternation
about
this
particular
issue,
and
when
I
reviewed
other
cities
statutes
ordinances,
I
could
tell
just
by
reading
them
that
this
is.
This
is
apparently
an
issue.
E
You
know
regionally
or
perhaps
probably
nationally,
there's
a
lot
of
discrepancy.
Oddly
written
statutes,
you
name
it
strange
carve
outs.
So
it's
obviously
a
challenging
issue,
but
I
think
that
we
can
accomplish
unless
we
go
to
a
patrol-based
enforcement
of
code
which
just
really
isn't
practicable
there.
I
don't
know
any
real
solution
to
this,
so
the
other.
The
final
comment:
generally,
I
love
the.
I
love
the
work
matt.
I
think
you
did
an
excellent
job.
I
think
it
really
encapsulates
in
a
very
succinct
way
our
discussions,
which
and
frequently
were
not
succinct.
K
I
just
want
to
add
one
one
piece
to
that.
As
far
as
the
complaint
base
goes,
this
isn't
explicitly
complaint
based
it's
just
for
practical
purposes.
With
the
staffing
levels.
You
know
we
don't.
We
don't
have
15
code
enforcement,
slash
animal
control
officers
out
there
looking
for
municipal
code
violations,
so
most
everything
that
we
deal
with
from
from
the
city's
perspective
ends
up
being
complaint
based.
C
C
C
I
really
need
to
file
a
complaint.
These
dogs
are
living
five,
five,
five
dogs
and
ten
square
feet,
and
there's
dog
poop
that
hasn't
been
cleaned
up
for
two
weeks.
How
will
I
know
my
neighbor
is
not
going
to
for
the
for
the
benefit
of
the
animals.
I
think
people
need
to
understand
that
they
can
make
a
complaint
and
there'll
be
some
assurance
of
anonymity.
F
F
C
M
C
So
I'm
just
throwing
that
out
there.
Food
for
thought.
Communication
is
important.
If
you
let
people
know
how
they
can
go
about
something
it's
so
much
more
comforting
and
settling
and
people
are
so
much
more
cooperative
if
they
know
what
the
process
is
right
now
I
don't
know
that
most
people
who
might
want
to
take
advantage
of
the
process
know
what
the
process
is.
K
Yeah,
that's
a
it's
a
good
point
and
I
think
that
you
know
we
could
certainly
write
something
into
ordinance.
But
as
we
you
know,
besides
us
25
on
this
call
or
so
a
lot,
not
a
lot
of
people
really
dig
into
our
ordinance.
I
think
what
it
comes
down
to
is
more
of
a
public
awareness
of
the
channel
of
the
channels
that
are
available,
because
you
know
whether
it's
code
enforcement
issues.
K
You
know
the
police
department,
animal
control
officer
is
actually
housed
in
the
police
department,
and
so
that's
where
the
complaints
typically
end
up
for
animal
control
issues,
and
so
I
think
that
just
maybe
making
the
public
more
aware
that
those
avenues
exist
and
and
to
know
that
you
know
it
doesn't
have
to
be.
Your
name
doesn't
have
to
be
tied
to
it
now.
You
know,
obviously,
with
these
animal
issues,
you
know
it's
it's
pretty
easy
to
figure
out,
sometimes
I
suppose
who's
making
the
complaints.
K
F
I
think
it
is,
I
think
it
comes
in
and
then
it
it
goes
to
brent
as
code
enforcement
officer,
and
then
I
think
I'm
carbon
copied
on
it
as
well,
but
certainly
there
we
could.
You
know,
look
at
look
at
that
and
get
that
more
available
and
hopefully
in
the
future
there
will
be
more
of
a
way
for
citizens
to
go
online,
be
able
to
to
report
things
and
just
have
that
anonymous
or
a
non-amenity.
A
I
think
that's
a
good
discussion
that
we've
had
on
the
zoning
and
I
think
it
is
apparent
that
something
needs
to
change
with
our
kennel
definition
with
the
way
it
sits.
So
I
appreciate
all
the
hard
work
that
that
subcommittee
has
done
on
that.
So
thank
you
for
that
and
thank
you
for
presenting
it
just
today.
B
K
No,
no,
no,
I
think
I
knew
it
was
coming.
I
knew
he
was
coming
real,
quick,
just
just
a
heads
up.
Then.
If
there's
no,
you
know
suggested
changes
to
the
languages
in
front
of
you.
I
think
what
the
next
step
will
be.
So
the
reason
this
was
kind
of
an
oddity
where
we're
having
that
we're
having
to
coordinate
between
two
boards,
because
you
know
it's
the
animal
control
board,
that's
kind
of
seeking
the
change,
but
the
change.
K
We're
seeking
they're
seeking
is
currently
governed
by
the
zoning
ordinance,
so
we're
trying
to
facilitate
both
processes
at
the
same
time.
So
the
animal
control
board
has
already
approved
what
you
see
in
front
of
you
and
so
the
next
at
the
next
plan
or
board.
Excuse
me
plan
commission
meeting
we'll
propose
the
actual
ordinance
change
put
it
on
the
agenda,
notice
it
and
then
you'll
have
to
you'll
have
a
chance
to
vote
on
it
at
that
time.
So.