►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting - 08-06-2020
Description
Plan Commission Meeting - 08-06-2020
Agenda for this meeting can be found:
https://watertown.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Id=97
B
A
B
B
Item
three
invitation
for
public
comment
participants.
So
if
there's
anybody
in
the
room
that
would
like
to
speak
to
the
board
on
something,
that's
not
on
the
agenda
today,
we'll
have
a
spot
for
that
at
the
end,
after
the
regular
agenda
feel
free
to
sign
up.
Moving
on
to
item
four's,
the
approval
of
the
agenda.
A
I
have
some
amendments,
okay
and
also
so
in
the
agenda
packets
that
were
sent
out.
The
order
has
changed.
If
you,
if
you
guys
noticed
the
one
that's
posted
online,
is
the
most
current,
and
so
I
will
actually,
though,
we'll
be
striking
item
a
for
the
commission.
Consideration
of
resolution
number
2020-38
adopting
the
boundaries
of
the
tiff
number
14
that
will
be
coming
forward
on
the
august
20th
meeting.
A
A
B
B
C
A
B
C
E
A
B
C
B
E
A
Okay,
thank
you
blake.
So
this
is
commission
consideration
of
resolution
number
2020-36,
a
zoning
text,
amendment
to
chapter
2129,
the
cl
lake
commercial
district
of
the
revised
ordinances
of
the
city
of
watertown.
So
this
goes
back.
We
just
created
this
cl
district
in
2019
and
obviously,
as
a
new
district,
a
new
zoning
district
that
there
would
be
you
know
it
wouldn't
be
perfect
and
there
would
be
some
changes
that
would
have
to
be
made
as
it
was
utilized.
A
So
basically,
though,
so
we
have
the
design
standards
and
under
structure,
then
we
said
currently
it
says:
impervious
areas
shall
not
exceed
50
of
the
total
lot
area
and
I
believe
the
intention
was
that
we
would
just
have.
We
would
have
open
space,
and
so
we
thought
using
impervious
encompassed
that,
but
it
does
have
a
deeper
meaning.
So
then,
just
to
be
specific,
then
I
think
what
we're
proposing
to
add
is
that
it'll
will
add.
Wetlands
and
water
bodies,
including
required
detention
ponds,
shall
not
count
towards
impervious
areas
for
the
purpose
of
this
calculation.
A
C
A
B
E
Perhaps
we
should
rewrite
this
to
not
use
that
word
at
all
and
come
up
with
a
if
it's
the
board's
intention
that
what
brandy
was
getting
at,
that
wetlands
can
be
the
borders
really
meaning
that
there
needs
to
be
open.
Space
and
wetlands
can
be
included
as
part
of
that
calculation,
which,
I
think
is
the
intentions
of
what
brandy
is
getting
at
here.
If
the
board's
intention
is
that,
I
think
it
can
be
reworded
to
be
to
clearly
express
that
intention.
G
D
Yeah
this
is
a
commissioner
brink.
We
do
have
in
our
ordinance
the
definition
lot
coverage
and
it's
that
portion
of
a
lot
covered
with
structures
and
hard
surfaces
such
as
parking,
loading
and
storage.
I
don't
know
if
that
better
fits
what
we're
looking
for,
but
that's
already
in
our
ordinance
and
defined.
A
E
H
I
B
B
A
B
F
F
If
we
said
we
were
redefining
the
word
impervious
by
eliminating
some
of
the
things
that
actually
are
considered
impervious,
I
I
don't
think
that's
really
the
best
way
to
go.
I
think
I
think
that
lot
coverage
term
is
so
much
better,
especially
if
we've
already
got
it
used
in
our
ordinances
and
it's
already
defined.
It
seems
like
the
perfect
solution.
B
H
H
C
C
C
I
Well,
I
can
tell
you
what
my
desire
is
because
I
know
three
of
us
sat
in
a
room
for
four
months
and
we
had
several
conversation
about
this
and
if
we
would
have
known
that
the
term
impervious
being
used
as
part
of
the
subdivision
and
drainage
regulations
was
going
to
complicate
what
the
intent
was.
I
don't
we
would
have
used
the
word
impervious.
B
I
B
I
I
E
And
I
chair,
I
didn't
mean
to
drag
us
into
the
proverbial
wetlands
here,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
weren't
defeating
the
purpose
of
our
ordinance.
I
didn't
understand.
The
purpose
was
purely
one
of
open
spaces
and
live
coverage.
Not
I
didn't
realize.
I
thought
that
there
was
a
underlying
storm
water
issue,
or
perhaps
that
was
to
avoid
a
storm
water
or
drainage
issue.
But
if,
if
that
that
wasn't
the
purpose,
then
I
don't
have
any
concerns.
B
G
A
A
A
B
A
D
D
C
D
D
Do
we
want
all
remaining
five
thousand
feet
to
to
be
built
upon,
or
would
we
rather
that
be
half
of
that
and
be
2500
and
2500
might
be
a
little
restrictive
and
maybe
maybe
it
is
too
restrictive,
but
would
we
rather
have
the
applicant
come
to
us
with
a
variance
request,
then
just
outright
change?
The
ordinance
now
before
we've
had
any
building
in
our.
I
You've,
the
first
time
we've
varianced
the
ordinance
you
basically
effectively
lowered
the
bar.
So
if
we're
setting
ourselves
up
for
variance
requests,
we
might
as
well
just
make
everything
a
conditional
use
and
just
handle
it.
That
way,
I
mean
I
hate
creating
policy
that
you
got
to
bend
the
rule
the
first
time
it
comes
out.
I
A
Well,
we're
trying
to
set
the
pre
like
set
well
and
what
the
intentions
were
like
in
the
subcommittee
meetings,
and
it
was
brought
to
our
attention
just
that
impervious
had
a
different
definition
than
what
that
group
was
aware
of.
So
then
that's
just
where
we
just
wanted
to
clarify
it
right
away.
I.
B
I
Right,
I,
I
don't
think
it's
just
you
know,
I
don't
want
to
say
it's
just
the
the
subcommittee.
We
all
talked
our
way
through
this
once
if
we
haven't,
if
we're
having
buyers
remorse
on
it,
then
then,
maybe
that
the
idea
is
not
it's
not.
It's
just
leave
the
impervious
in
and
and
we've
when
we
run
with
it
and
then
then,
but
we
don't
have
impervious
identified
or
defined
in
the
zoning
regulation.
I
I
think
there's
a
legal
argument
that
made
that
that
they
could
make
an
argument
that
impervious
doesn't
have
is
only
germaine
to
the
storm
water,
drainage
aspect
of
it,
but
I
I
mean,
but
the
point
is
from
my
perspective:
we
either
just
you
know,
qualify
and
what
we
were
trying
to
say
before.
Obviously,.
C
C
C
C
B
B
G
Yeah,
mr
chair,
from
a
staffing
standpoint,
I
would
concur
with
with
your
comments
there.
I
think
the
intent
here
was
to
clean
up
the
language
to
better
reflect
the
intention
that
was
originally
set
out
for
and
which
again
goes
back
to
undeveloped,
green
space,
open
space
being
preserved
on
a
certain
percentage
of
a
lot,
that's
being
developed
as
a
cl
under
the
cl
district.
B
I
E
E
A
B
D
A
E
I
C
B
D
E
A
A
A
Obviously,
plan
commission
doesn't
take
action
on
it.
It's
just
for
information
and
then
city
council
will
act
on
it
on
august
17th
when
this
or
when
this
goes
to
council.
The
development
agreement
is
pretty
standard.
The
only
thing
that
is
different
than
than
typical
agreements
is
just
that
we
have
that
pro
rata
share
for
the
cost
recovery
of
2nd
street
northeast
or
northwest.
I
keep
messing
that
up.
A
A
I
A
G
I
I
just
remember,
being
you
know
we
were
talking
about
when
my
property,
where
we
built
our
new
offices
and
making
18th
a
collector
route
going
back
to
the
east,
and
I
know
we
had
discussions
when
we
were
doing
the
land
use
plan
about
18th
running
again
to
the
west
as
a
as
a
something
of
a
collector
route.
I
don't
maybe
with
the
school
we
didn't
want
to
do
that.
I
can't
remember.
G
A
C
A
A
G
A
A
A
E
B
A
Yep,
thank
you
blake,
so
this
is
approving
the
plaid
of
the
watertown
airport,
first
subdivision
to
the
municipality
of
watertown
in
the
county
of
cottington
south
dakota,
and
this
is
basically
just
a
up
here
that
you
can
see.
In
the
background
information.
The
property
is
zoned
i1,
light
industrial.
This
is
just
encompassing
all
of
the
bound
all
of
the
airport
boundaries
and
just
getting.
I
think
it's
been
a
while,
since
this
has
been
done.
If
you
guys
remember
you
probably
don't
remember,
but
like
a
year
ago,
we've
been
working
on
to
get
this
done.
A
Obviously,
it's
a
large
project
and
then
you
know
working
between
the
consultant
and
then
the
faa
and
making
sure
that
everything
was
being
followed
and
then
so.
But
we
did
have
a
vacation
of
that
brooklyn
edition
that
there
was
some
right-of-way
that
existed
still
and
that
was
on
the
southeast
portion
of
the
airport
property,
but
basically
just
just
to
clean
up
to
get
all
of
the
all
of
the
airport
property
planted.
A
G
This
all
kind
of
stems
back
to
the
efforts
of
this
project
and
the
faa
kind
of
driving.
This
requirement
on
the
airport
to
correct
any
discrepancies
in
the
airport
legal
descriptions.
You
know
preserving
the
airport
property
boundaries
and
then
protecting
and
preserving
the
accesses
that
go
to
and
through
and
across
airport
property.
B
G
G
B
G
I
would
just
add,
mr
chairman,
if
I
could
you
know
this
is
a
pretty
extensive
plan
and
it
did
take
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
dedicated
work
from
our
consultants,
with
the
survey
side
of
things
with
helens
and
associates
and
and
their
participation
in
this,
and
I
I
can
tell
you
it.
It
is
a
great
project
to
get
completed
if
you
know
upon
approval
of
this
at
the
council
level
to
have
the
airport
property
now
truly
definitively
defined.
A
G
B
C
B
A
E
G
G
Normally
it's
just
you
know,
approved
via
the
the
budgeting
function
that
the
council
performs
by
awarding
a
budget
for
the
project
to
commence,
and
then
it's
administratively
carried
out
through
the
engineering
staff.
Now
what
I
can
tell
you
on
that
project
in
particular,
there's,
obviously
a
lot
of
public
involvement
with
the
adjacent
landowners.
G
So
we
did
hold
a
public
open
house
a
week
week
and
a
half
ago
and
invited
all
the
property
owners
adjacent
to
the
scratch
of
10th
avenue
that
will
be
reconstructed
and
then
subsequent
to
that
meeting.
We're
also
having
individual
landowner
meetings
on
a
one-on-one
basis
with
engineering
staff,
our
consultants
and
those
property
owners
and
and
talking
through
all
the
details
of
the
design
and
any
impacts
that
they
might
have.
E
G
E
G
G
You
know
that
that
collector
route
designation
does
does
stem
not
only
from
our
our
comp
plan,
our
transportation
master
plan,
but
also
just
simply
from
the
the
facts
of
the
traffic
volume
that
that
road
sees.
You
know,
there's
national
standards
too,
when
it
comes
to
these
classifications
and,
generally
speaking,
nationwide.