►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting - 02-04-2021
Description
Plan Commission Meeting - 02-04-2021
D
C
C
A
C
A
A
C
B
C
A
B
Yep,
thank
you
blake,
so
this
is
for
commission
consideration
of
resolution
number
2020-02
adapting
the
boundaries
of
tax
increment
financing
district
number
11
within
the
city
of
watertown.
So
this
is
a
project
that
crest
stone
is
initiating
here
and
and
developing
this
tiff
boundary
that
the
plan
commission
is
looking
at
approving.
So
it
is
at
15,
first
straight
northwest
on
the
corner
there
of
kemp
avenue,
west
and
first
street
northwest.
B
C
B
D
E
E
E
E
C
And
I
know
just
just
looking
at
the
plan
and
what's
what's
proposed,
it's
certainly
going
to
be
an
increase
net
increase
of
the
parking
from
what's
there
today
with
the
existing
property,
correct,
just
a
question-
and
you
know
I
know
the
answer
already,
but
I
want
to
look
at
related
to
the
total
cost
for
the
project.
Can
you
pull
that
up
here
right
here
this?
The
schedule
2
brandy,
that
you
have
on
the
screen?
D
C
And
then,
if
you
look
at
the
project,
costs
that
are
part
of
the
tif
purchase
of
land
is
one
of
those
and
and
in
the
tiffs
there's
a
difference
between
the
assessed
value
and
the
land
title
closing
costs,
other
land
purchase
costs.
So
in
this
case
you
know
that
that
total
is
higher.
In
this
case,
the
diff
is
the
difference
related
to
the
difference
between
the
market
value
of
the
land
versus
the
tax
assessed
value
of
the
land.
E
C
C
You
chris,
it's
just
a
just
a
point
of
clarity,
because
the
you
know
the
the
number
does
stand
out
in
some
of
these
cases.
Where
you
know
the
market
value
can
be
substantially
higher
than
what
the
tax
assessed
value
is.
But
it's
also
an
important
note
to
to
make
that
the
project
investment
is
going
to
substantially
increase,
that
that
base
tax
value
of
the
property
over
the
course
of
the
project.
D
D
C
B
B
All
right,
so
you
can
see
the
location
of
this
property
is
on
the
corner
of
16th
avenue,
northeast
and
highway
81.
it.
It
does
have
split
zoning
currently,
so
it
has
the
c2,
the
local
commercial
district
and
the
r3
multi-family
so,
and
the
project
itself
is
for
three
workforce
housing
apartment
buildings,
so
it
will,
they
will
be
rezoning
this
and
you
guys
will
see
this
on
february
18th
for
the
petition
to
rezone
the
entire
property
all
to
r3.
B
F
Last
year,
the
state
changed
it
to
be
allowed
to
be
used
for
workforce
housing
projects.
Essentially
it's
a
loose
term.
Workforce
housing
could
be
essentially
a
moderate
town,
any
any
apartment.
Currently
so
this
tiff,
just
we're
clear,
is,
is
it
is
classified
as
an
affordable,
housing
tif.
So
there's
a
couple
different
classifications
of
tiff
levels
from
the
state
that
affect
how
the
county
and
the
school
district
are
affected,
so
affordable
housing,
tif
plan
holds
harmless.
F
Those
two
so
it'd
be
all
like
all
the
other
ones
that
we've
been
approving,
so
so
workforce
I'd
say
is
a
loose
term,
but
you
know
they're
going
to
be
72
units
in
each
one,
a
little
more
tailored
towards
some
family
style
living
some
two
and
three
bedrooms
garages
and
different
things
compared
to
what
we've
been
doing
most
recently
with
like
downtown
stuff.
So
they're
a
little
bit
different
use
there.
A
A
F
F
D
C
B
C
D
C
A
A
A
F
Yeah,
this
is
they're
not
to
get
two
in
the
weeds,
but
their
financing
and
ready
financing.
Everything
is
based
on
this
tif
approval.
So
there's
the
about
four.
If
this
wouldn't
happen,
this
project
would
happen.
So
also
too,
I
think
you
know
we've
been
doing
downtown
redevelopment,
which
is
certainly
a
tiff.
You
know
one
of
the
things
they
point
out
there
directly.
F
Another
thing
they
point
out
directly
is
for
affordable
housing
and
these
this
project
is
classified
as
affordable
housing.
So,
although
slightly
different
than
the
last
ones,
we've
been
doing
either
industrial
or
downtown,
so
I
would,
I
would
agree
with
you
that
this
is
different
based
on
those,
but
as
far
as
overall
tiff
use
historically
across
the
state.
I
would
say
this
is
you
know
new
to
watertown,
but
not
new.
In
theory
to
tiffs.
F
F
F
And
I
will
also
point
to
this:
one
is
also
slightly
different.
This
is
this
is
more
of
the
classified
as
pay-as-you-go
tiff.
So
much
like
the
terex
tiff
was
where
you
know,
there's
there's
no
financing
to
to
this
one.
There
they're
they're
self-financing
that
is
essentially
getting
their
money
back
over
the
20
years,
that
of
the
life
of
the
tif.
A
A
D
C
B
Okay-
and
I
I'm
sorry
it's
always
after
a
long
meeting
discussion-
is
never
favorable,
so
we'll
try
to
keep
this
brief.
We
have
talked
about
this
amendment
to
the
ordinance
previously
probably
around,
like
last
fall
just
briefly,
and
at
that
time
the
board
asked
that
they
would
like
to
see
what
other
communities
do.
This
is
in
regards
to
residential
accessory
structures
and
the
limitation
on
the
sidewall
height.
Currently
an
ordinance.
We
have
it.
B
It's
limited
to
10
foot,
2
inches
and
I
know
a
handful
of
garages
that
garages
or
accessories
structures
that
are
looking
at
12
foot
for
their
spring
project,
so
those
would
be
variances
that
would
come
to
the
board
and
just
in
the
past
you
know
we
have
granted
the
12-foot
variance,
so
I'm
just
bringing
it
forward
as
trying
to
be
proactive
too.
If
we
think
it's
okay,
let's
just
get
it
added
to
ordinance,
so
it
doesn't
have
to
keep
being
a
variance
request.
C
Yeah,
my
personal
preference
on
this
has
has
always
been
to
regulate
the
max
height
at
the
peak,
because
there
can
be
so
much
variability
in
in
the
structure
where
you
could
actually
have.
You
know
a
structure
be
taller
than
you
know,
a
small
structure
with
a
sidewall
of
10
foot
versus
you
know
a
smaller
structure
with
a
sidewall
of
12
foot
compared
to
a
really
large
garage.
D
B
G
Personally,
I
don't
I,
I
would
like
to
get
rid
of
the
sidewall
and
just
go
to
the
peak
as
lean
and
blake
were
discussing,
I
personally
don't
mind
having
these
come
to
come
to
the
board
for
a
variance,
because
we
have
such
a
variety
of
neighborhoods
and
houses
in
this
town.
I
think
it's
appropriate
for
me
anyway,
to
look
at
each
one
that
needs
a
variance
and
make
a
decision
on
them
individually.
B
I
I
think,
though
it
does
really
make
it
it's
hard
to
claim
hardship
for
why
you
need,
because
you
have
a
a
large
rv.
You
know
it.
So
that's
why
I
think
that
you
know
in
in
following
what
other
communities
in
south
dakota
are
doing
it
just
I.
I
think
it
would
be
appropriate
to
just
add
it
to
the
ordinance
and
say,
and
then,
if
somebody
wants
something
larger,
then
ask
for
variants
but
find
that
consistent
or
find
the
happy
medium,
which
I
would
propose.
B
My
thought
process
there
is
that
I
mean
even
in
a
single
family
residential
district,
the
house
which
can
be
35
feet
tall,
has
the
same
side
yard
setback
as
as
the
accessory
structure
or
like
a
detached
garage.
So
you're
not
like
you
could
potentially
have
a
35
foot
structure
nine
feet
from
the
property
line.
So
that's
where
I
just
don't
think
that
the
accessory
structure
is
really
impacting
much.
So
if
we
can
allow
a
larger
height
it's
just,
and
it's
not
going
to
be.
That's
the
only
impact
that
I
could
really
think
of
it.
B
B
B
G
C
B
And
so
like
right
now,
if
somebody
has
like
a
six
one,
six
to
one
slope,
they
would
be
able
to
go
a
little
taught
like
they
would
be
able
to
go
taller
than
18
feet
on
how
our
ordinance
is
written
and
but
where
we
restrict
them
is
the
side
wall.
So
that's
why
I
think
that
just
getting
I
mean
getting
rid
of
both
things
that
that
kind
of
arbitrary
language
with
the
18
feet
and
then
just
saying
that
the
maximum
height
for
an
accessory
structure
is
yeah,
maybe
20
feet.
I
think
too
diana.
B
C
I
think
that's
particularly
important
in
the
r2a.
You
know,
districts
of
town,
where,
if
you
were
to
try
to
you,
know,
match
some
of
those
old
rough
pitches
right,
you
probably
couldn't
even
do
a
10-foot
sidewall
in
some
of
those
and
be
consistent
with
it.
Modern
trust
design
is,
is
so
much
different
than
what
was
done
100
years
ago,
and
these
properties
have
very
little
space
to
begin
with.
So
having
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
on
what
they
can
do
within
a
common
constraint,
I
think,
would
be
a
step
forward.
D
D
B
That's
good
discussion
there.
If
you
guys
are
I-
and
I
just
do-
have
one
more
one
more
thing
to
bring
up
as
a
part
of
this
discussion
for
the
accessory
structures,
so
also
we
have
all
of
these
thresholds
of
so
an
unattached
garage.
We
have
a
size
limitation,
so
it's
based
on
the
total
square
footage
of
the
residential
lot.
B
So
you
can
see
that
with
the
different
lat
sizes,
then
you
have
additional
allowance
for
a
larger
detached
structure,
and
then
I
also
did
talk
with
other
communities
about
this
as
well,
and
a
lot
of
them
are
doing
just
total
lot
coverage,
which
we
also
we
sew
on.
On
top
of
this,
then
we
already
say
that
structures
may
be
located
in
the
required
rear
yards,
but
may
not
occupy
more
than
30
of
the
required
rear
yard
so
and
kind
of
what
we've
done
with
other
districts
is.
B
We've
just
done
lot
coverage
and
I
did
hear
back.
I
just
sent
the
email
out
today,
just
because
I
was
thinking
about
it
here
on.
Has
they
don't
do
any
limitations
on
the
size?
They
say
a
45
lot.
Coverage
and
yankton
does
a
35
lot
coverage
and
when
I
just
did
quick
math
of
like
a
completely
typical
residential
lot,
the
minimum
size
is
9
000
square
feet.
B
The
setbacks
take
up
52
because
you
don't
have
as
large
of
a
rear
yard
setback.
So
I
think
that's
also
something
that
I'll
look
at
further.
But
if
you
guys
are
in
agreement,
I
think
that
that
would
just
clean
the
ordinance
up
and
and
make
it
easier
for
people
to
to
be
able
to
interpret
and
then
because
otherwise,
there's
just.
C
B
Yeah-
and
I
could
put-
I
could
put
together
some
examples
there,
but
I
think,
and
that
hasn't
been
as
big
of
an
issue
as
the
sidewall.
So
that
could
be
something
that
I
continue
to
research
and
just
with
workload
and
everything,
and
but
I
wouldn't
mind
putting
some
figures
together
for
you
guys
to
really
get
an
idea,
and
even
for
me,
like
I
said
I
just
kind
of
thought
of
it
today.
So.
B
Yeah,
but
if
you
guys
are
on
board
with
with
seeing
an
amendment
for
just
eliminating
that
sidewall
limitation
and
then
just
putting
a
maximum
height,
I
would
I
would
actually
I
would
bring
that
forward
at
the
next
meeting,
just
to
keep
that
moving.
So
with
spring
coming
on
and
knowing
these
potential
building
permits
and
just
trying
to
be
proactive,
there.