►
From YouTube: Plan Commission - 02-18-2021
Description
Plan Commission - 02-18-2021
B
C
Okay,
we
can,
we
can
proceed
so
and
all
right.
So,
as
jeff
has
stated,
this
is
commission
consideration
of
resolution
number
2021-08
amending
the
zoning
map
of
the
city
of
watertown
for
a
portion
of
property
legally
described
as
lots
22
through
28
three,
a
martin's
railway
edition
from
r2a
single
family
attached
residential
to
c3,
highway
commercial-
and
you
can
see
here
on
the
map
to
kind
of
get
an
idea
of
where
this
is
located.
C
It
is
on
the
corner
of
3rd
and
8th
avenue
southeast
there
here,
like
in
this
area,
that's
mcdonald's
and
then
the
salvation
army
property.
So
it's
right
in
that
vicinity
where
this
there
are
seven
lots
there
currently
and
810
properties.
Mike
lansberger
is
petitioning
to
rezone
that
to
c3
it
meets
the
comp
plan
recommendations
as
well
as
the
minimum
size
requirements
for
a
c3
lot,
which
is
20
000
square
feet,
and
this
slot
has
20
280
square
feet.
C
D
C
C
A
B
C
A
D
C
So
what
we're
looking
at
here,
you
can
see
right
now.
There's
split
zoning
going
on
on
this
property
with
c2
and
r3.
They,
the
owner,
is
petitioning
to
rezone
the
property
completely
to
our
three
multi-family
residential
district,
and
this
will
also
tie
into
their
tif
plan
that
we
approved
at
the
last
meeting
to
15
for
the
planes,
which
is
a
workforce,
housing
district.
C
And
so
we
look
to
see
multi-family
residential
units
here,
and
so
that
will
be
a
great
addition
in
this
location
and
it
does
also
follow
the
recommendations
of
the
comp
plan
and
as
far
as
I'll
touch
on
the
the
plating,
it
will
be
required
to
be
replated,
but
it
will
be
able
most
likely
will
be
able
to
be
administratively
approved,
because
the
adjacent
right-of-ways
have
already
been
dedicated
and
constructed
with
all
public
improvements
necessary.
So
we
should
not
have
to
enter
into
a
development
agreement.
D
C
D
B
C
C
C
E
C
Yeah
they'll
have
to
it
doesn't
it
does
make
it
challenging
to
a
certain
extent,
but
they
could
do
like
a
private
street
as
well.
If
say,
they
wanted
to
do
like
a
little
duplex
community
or
something
they
could
be
creative
with
it.
Otherwise,
if
they
had
a
like
a
cul-de-sac
situation
where
they
wanted
it
to
be
public
right
of
way,
there
would
be
options
still
that
it's
not
it's
not
restricting
it
being
developed.
A
C
Correct
yeah,
it
is
nice
to
see
you
know
to
be
able
to
utilize
highway
81,
and
then
you
know
the
further
north
we
get.
We
do
anticipate
this
and
this
is
quite
a
ways
out,
but
we're
26th
ave
we've
looked
at
that
as
being
a
collector
route
in
the
future.
So
it
would
we.
We
would
foresee
this
being
developed
along
highway,
81
adjacent
to
highway
81
as
commercial,
because
this
could
become
quite
a
commercial
node
in
the
future.
A
C
A
D
C
A
F
This
is
this:
is
foreign
mr
chair
yep?
Go
ahead.
I
just
was
curious
about
a
couple
of
these
designs
in
our
packet.
There's
a
cross
hatch
area
there.
There
are
two
different
designs:
one's
on
page
61
and
one's
on
page
48
of
our
packets
and
in
the
in
the
outlined
area
of
the
property.
It
includes
that
alley
to
the
north,
and
then
it
also
includes
that
little
tiny
strip
of
land-
that's
part
of
the
alley,
that's
north,
of
the
parking
lot
3
25
east
camp.
G
Good
question:
so
what
we
do
with
oh
kershaw
can
water
television
company
so
what
we
do
with
the
alleys?
Well,
one
of
the
next
actions
I
think
on
the
agenda
is
to
vacate
the
north-south
alley
between
the
current
well,
the
palace
and
the
senior
center,
but
we
include
alleys
so
that
infrastructure
costs
are
eligible
project
cost
and
on
this
one
there's
going
to
have
to
be
some
infrastructure.
G
That's
moved
around
and
run
in
that
north
or
the
east
west
alley
to
the
north
of
the
old
palace
apartments,
so
cap,
so
to
capture
those
costs.
You
would
have
to
take
the
alley
to
do
that.
So
there's!
That's
really.
The
reason
to
include
the
alleys
in
there
is
there's,
usually
work
being
done
because
they're
getting
dug
up
for
footings
and
then
they're
fixed
when
they're
done.
G
G
D
A
G
That's
right,
yep,
but
if
I
could
comment
on
one
thing
that
chairman
brink
had
can
you
go
to
the
total
tax,
so
we
have
actually
noticed
a
mistake
on
our
tif
plan
for
the
current
taxable
value,
all
of
all
of
city
of
watertown's,
1.7
billion,
you
know
actually
allowed
10
percent,
which
would
be
172
million.
So
we
have
been
understating
how
much
tiff
we'd
actually
have.
I
mean
I
don't
see
us
ever
getting
anywhere
close
to
172
million.
So
it's
been
understated
by
mistake.
G
C
A
A
G
I
think
it
was
probably
just
a
state
state
law
that
probably
prohibits
I
mean
with
I'm
just
guessing
here,
but
I
would
imagine
the
way
our
taxes
are
structured.
Property
tax
is
an
important
revenue
generator
for
cities
and
counties
that
could
be.
My
guess
is
just
to
limit
the
amount
of
tiff
projects
in
a
certain
city
based
on
their
taxable
value.
G
D
G
One
more
comment:
this
one
is
preliminary
classified
as
affordable
housing,
so
it
it
holds
harmless
the
school
district
and
all
that
so
much
like
our
last
couple
of
our
last
tips.
This
is
why
it's
different
have
been
classified
as
economic
development
or
industrial
which
also
hold
the
school
district.
Harmless.
This
one
is
classified
differently
as
affordable
housing.
Much
like
tif
15
was
for
the
plane,
so
just
a
quick
update,
because
I
know
that
gets
a
question
gets
asked
to
and
just
want
to
make
sure
that's
clear
for
the
record
as
well.
E
G
Yeah,
so
you
know
without
knowing
the
final
park
design.
So
what
happens?
Is
we
took
the
whole
area
out?
Let's
reiterate
kind
of
what
brandy
said.
So
we
took
the
whole
area
because
we
know
that's
going
to
get
parceled
out
later,
so
it's
separate
from
the
project
versus
the
park.
But
until
that
happens
you
know
you
run
into
some
timing
issues
with
tiffs
because
they
have
to
go
to
planning
and
zoning.
Then
they
have
to
go
to
city
council
and
they
have
a
20-day
waiting
period.
G
So,
rather
than
wait
for
it
to
get
replanted
and
waiting
for
the
park,
we
just
want
to
bring
it
as
one.
So
eventually
the
plat
will
be
filed
where
the
ruins
project
and
the
old
senior
center
we
broke
out
separate
from
park
park
projects,
so
it
probably
looks
like
one
on
like
you're
looking
where
it
shows
like
the
park
and
everything,
but
there
is
no
benefit.
G
G
That's
right:
the
project
costs
are
listed
in
there
as
well
so
more
more
of
a
timing
issue,
and
that
was
that
was
pushed
by
me
just
because
development
company
finances
these.
So
we
in
order
to
keep
everything
rolling.
That
was
a
push
that
I
made
and
a
request
to
just
take
the
whole
thing
for
now,
so
we
can
keep
the
ball
rolling.
G
D
C
C
C
Half
goes
to
each
adjacent
property,
but
we
are
in
working
with
the
developer
on
this
project.
Most
likely
we'll
be
utilizing
the
entire
alley
for
the
new
structure
and
then
also
for
the
time
being
and
as
the
utilities
were
brought
up.
There
are
quite
a
few
watertown
municipal
utilities
and
there
are
private
utility
companies.
I
emailed
a
list
or
email
emailed
it
out
to
a
list
of
the
private
utility
companies,
and
I
did
hear
back
from
vast
broadband
and
midco
that
they
do
have
utilities
within
that
alley.
C
But
for
the
time
being,
then
that
gives
all
the
utilities
assurances
that
they
still
are
able
to
utilize
that
alley
and
then
will
work
in
conjunction
with
the
developer
and
watertown
municipal
utilities
and
relocating
otherwise
to
the
the
east-west
portion
of
the
alley
will
remain
and
will
be
a
through
alley
there.
So
with
that
I'll
open
it
up
for
questions.
D
C
C
Yeah
we'll
have
to
work
through
those
details
and
we'll
have
to
see
kind
of
what's
proposed
as
far
as
the
the
building
itself,
but
today
how
how
it
is
split
is
is
half
and
half
and
maybe
matt
if
you
can
chime
in
on
how
we
handled
that
with
parkside
place,
because
we
did
the
this.
Was
this
it's
a
very
similar.
A
Situation
the
so
the
intention
would
be
to
convey
once
the
vacation
is
complete
by
operation
of
law.
Our
half
would
go
to
for
the
half
adjacent
to
the
city's
property
would
go
to
the
ownership
of
the
city,
but
then
we
would
convey
back
similar
to
what
we
did
with
parkside
place.
We
would
convey
back
our
half,
and
this
is,
of
course,
an
economic
development
project,
so
we
utilize
the
wdc.
We
transfer
our
half
the
wdc,
who
then
then
facilitates
the
transfer
to
to
the
developer,
to
complete
the
project.
C
D
When
I
look
at
these
type
of
alleys
that
aren't
all
the
way
through,
you
know
it's
easier
for
me
to
look
at
an
alley
like
this
and
think
it
should
be
vacated
or
could
be
vacated
because
you
know
you're
not
able
to
go
from
kemp
all
the
way
to
first,
since
so
no
one's
going
to
take
that
alley
to
get
onto
another
alley.
So
when
I
look
at
the
applications
like
this,
I
feel
like
they
only
make
sense
and
kind
of
clear
up
things.
So
that's
just
kind
of
my
thoughts.
E
A
D
C
Yes,
thank
you
jeff,
and
so
yes,
this
is
for
the
plot
of
wilson
edition
and,
as
you
can
see
here
on
the
map,
it
is
on
the
west
side
of
lake
kompeska
along
78th
street
southwest
and
edford.
It
kind
of
sounded
like
jeff
said
williston,
it
is
williston
is
nearby,
but
this
is
wilson,
so
just
if
there
was
any
confusion
there.
So
what
you'll
see
here,
it's
an
existing
parcel
that
they
plan
to
subdivide
into
three
lots:
there's
an
existing
house
and
detached
garage
and
what
they
so
they're
going
to
subdivide
into
three
lots.
C
This
actually
could
be
performed
or
approved
administratively
because
it
does
meet
all
of
those
requirements.
The
reason
why
it's
before
you
today
is
because
this
northern
lot
came
out
of
the
same
parcel
and
that
was
actually
administratively
planted
last
year,
and
so
you
can't
administratively
plant
lots
within
the
same
parcel
within
three
years,
so
you
have
to
wait
three
years
before
we
would
be
able
to
administratively
plat
again.
So
that's
why
it
is
before
you.
C
There
will
be
no
public
improvements.
We
will
include
a
waiver
of
rights
protests,
future
sidewalk
improvements
with
the
building
permit.
Issuance
and
then
with
this
plat
as
well,
they
will
have.
We
do
have
a
trunk
sewer
cost
recovery
that
is
implemented
for
lots
that
do
not
have
sewer
service
today.
So
this
is
lot
too.
C
They
already
have
service,
so
they
don't
have
to
worry
about
this
charge
or
this
cost
recovery
fee.
But
for
lot
one
and
lot
three.
They
will
lot
one.
It's
a
thousand
dollars,
plus
a
dollar
per
100
square
feet
in
excess
of
15
000
square
feet.
So
this
assessment
cost
a
recovery,
cost
sorry
comes
to
a
thousand
eighty
six
dollars
and
seven
cents
and
then
lot
three
comes
to
a
thousand
two
hundred
and
twenty
one
dollars
and
twenty
three
cents.
So
that
will
be
collected
before
we
record
the
plot.
C
But
otherwise
there
is
not
a
need
for
a
development
agreement
for
any
public
improvements.
It
is
zoned
appropriately.
It's
our
one
single
family
residential
and
then
this
existing
lot.
There's
no
setback
non-conformities
happening
from
this
replat,
so
they
still
meet
their
setback,
requirements,
minimum
lot
size
and
in
excess
and
whatnot.
So
with
that
I'll
open
up
for
any
questions,.
D
All
right,
thank
you,
brandi
for
that
explanation
and
good
catch.
I'm
not
administratively
planning
that
that's
a
small
detail
in
the
ordinance
that
you
guys
found
and
with
that
I
will
open
the
public
hearing.
If
there
is
anyone
to
comment
on
this
or
if
anyone
from
the
board
has
any
questions
from
brandy
or
staff
chair.
D
C
So
that
will
kind
of
be.
You
know
right
now,
it's
owned
by
the
wilsons,
and
so,
if
they
kind
of
depends
on
how
they,
they
obviously
will
not
be
able
to
build
on
it,
because
it
doesn't
mean
minimum
lot.
Sizes
they're,
not
planning
that
strip,
but
possibly
if
they
create
some
type
of
access
agreement
for
those
three
lots
but
it'll
it.
It
seems
like
that
will
be
a
private
issue.
F
C
Yeah,
you
know,
I
guess
we
we
can
look
at
re-addressing.
Typically,
you
know
we'll
give
addresses
for
the
other
two
lots
and
would
would
go
with
that
odd
numbering
sequence,
because
1190
is
existing.
I
guess
we
can.
We
can
think
about
that.
You
know
it's
for
us,
it's
a
matter
of
sending
a
letter,
but
for
the
people
that
have
the
home
there
it
could
be.
It
could
be
a
pain,
but
we'll
talk
about
that.
B
C
D
C
H
I
just
wanted
to
provide
a
quick
update-
and
I
know
that
we
had
talked
about
this
in
one
of
our
previous
meetings
to
come
forth
with
a
list
of
goals
and
objectives,
including
ordinance
amendments
and
things
that
the
commission
would
like
to
see
staff
work
on
this
year.
So
I
just
wanted
to
let
everyone
know
I'm
planning
to
bring
that
forward
at
the
next
meeting,
so
we're
working
on
it,
but
we
just
didn't
didn't,
get
it
drafted
and
thoroughly
vetted
with
staff
in
time.
For
this
meeting
so.
A
A
C
G
We've
been
working
with
some
industrial
clients
that
look
at
doing
some
expansion
or
some
new
building,
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
we
can
take
a
look
at
the
parking
requirements
per
square
footage
for
these
buildings.
Just
a
couple
thoughts.
You
know,
as
things
get
more
automated,
I
think
we're
building
way
too
much
parking
than
what's
needed
for
these
buildings
that
are
going
up,
and
I
also
think
from
a
industrial
standpoint
if
they
own
their
land
in
industrial
park.
G
That
I
think
some
of
the
parking
requirements
is
a
business
decision
on
their
point
that
if
I
don't
see
them
making
a
bad
business
decision
by
limiting
parking,
I
think
they
know
what
their
needs
are
and
what
their
shift
hours
are
for
their
workers
and
different
things.
So
would
just
like
to
see
that
move
forward
so
that
I
know
in
the
spring
there's
going
to
be
some
expansions
planned
I'd
kind
of
like
to
have
a
road
map
for
them,
just
we're
not
taking
one
by
one
and
hashing
it
over
on
every
project.
G
H
Thank
you,
mr
shulkin.
I
just
wanted
to
comment
quickly
that
the
parking
is
on
our
list
of
things
and
we
very
much
from
a
general
perspective.
Agree
with
that.
So
we'll
be
taking
a
quick
look
at
that
and
kind
of
seeing
what
other
communities
are
doing,
but
I
think
by
and
large
nationwide,
as
we're
seeing
different
times,
yeah
parking
requirements
are
are
as
a
percentage
they're
they're
getting
reduced.
C
Yeah
and
I
think
all
around
less
is
more
because
then
it
contributes
less
to
the
stormwater
needs
and
and
even
storm
sewer
systems.
Everything
together,
but
I'm
wondering,
if
should
we
almost
maybe
get
some
plan
commission
members
if
we
want
to
form
a
subcommittee
just
to
stay
on
this,
because
with
our
list
of
things,
there's
a
lot
and
so
and
stacy,
and
I
and
heath
have
all
been
in
discussion
that
this
is
something
that
we
do
want
to
pursue
it.
C
A
C
H
I
agree,
I
think,
just
to
give
some
feedback
and
then
generally,
we
can
kind
of
talk
through
some
of
it
and
yeah.
I'm
very
hopeful
that
this
is
something
that
we
can
kick
off
rather
soon,
as
as
it
is
very
needed
and
how
we
look
forward
to
to
having
something
that
better
matches
the
actual
parking
demand.
So.