Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Third, 2026 City of Watertown Planning Commission meeting to order. Brandy, would you please do roll call? Um, yes. Elby here. Case here. Spire here. Cohane here. Turnis John or I tried putting Charis Johnson together. Hold on here. Um Han Churnis here. Tate here.

Kakachek here. And Tupper is here but uh we do have a quorum. And then Darcus Johnson is absent. Thank you. Next item on the agenda. I would entertain a motion for the April 9th, 2026 meeting minutes for approval. So moved. Second. Motion by Tate, second by Albby. Are there any comments, questions, changes? Hearing none. All those in favor of approval say I. I.

Opposed. Same sign. Motion passes. Minutes are approved. Uh number four is disclosure of conflicts or exparte communication. Has anyone had any discussion with anybody? Would really be the East Plat or East Point edition? They need to disclose. Okay. Wonderful. Hearing none. That brings us to declaration of new business. Staff or board members have any new business that they want to address later in the meeting. I I will discuss the Western Planners Conference. Wonderful. Briefly. Thank you, Brandy. Anybody else? Public comment sign up. If there's anybody, there's nobody here, but if there is anybody that wants to talk about anything that's not on the agenda, we will get to that to the end. Just let Randy know.

Approval of the agenda. I'd entertain a motion, please. So, move. Uh, are you on approval of the of agenda? I am. Can I make a switch for to move 8 C up to the first item since the other two are ordinance amendments? Okay. We staff proposes 8 C become 8A and 8. So moved. Wonderful. Motion by K, second by Spear. Any further discussion regarding the agenda? Hearing none. All those in favor of the agenda as amended say I. I. Opposed. Same sign. Motion uh the agenda as amended passes. Which brings us to 8C.

Okay. Commission resolution of the plat of East Point edition. Brandy, go ahead.

Okay. Thank you, Lamba. So, this plat that that is before you is a replplat uh of a property that the city recently sold and you guys have seen come before you with conditional uses and whatnot for the contractor shops and storage yards. So, the reason this plaid that looks like it could be administratively approved, the reason it is before you is because there's not sanitary sewer within the adjacent ride ofway. But we also do allow per ordinance other private sanitary sewer systems when somebody is over 200 feet from the sanitary from the public sanitary sewer. So uh very prefuncter. Uh I'll stand by for any questions.

Does the board have any questions for Miss Hen? Mr. Chair, go ahead. Um I would just ask if there is plan for uh city sanitary sewer to go down into that area at any is that in the planning stage? Is that it is within the city limits? Right. Yep.

I I can provide a partial answer to that. There is limited capacity to to connect to what was previously a private line in that area. It's not a simple nor inexpensive connection. This really illustrates some of the issues that we had 50 years ago with development in the community without proper planning. Um there isn't a project that uh makes sense to provide sanitary services to 13th and 14th Avenue for about a block in that area. Um there are other businesses that have found ways through private private lines in in one case a private lift station to provide some service. Um but at this point we don't have it in any long-term plan to to bring that into uh the normal collection system. Brandy, would you please pull this up on the GIS real quick? Y

14th and 14th. Is that right? Yeah. Yep. That just went away. I don't know my computer like being connected to the HDMI. Trent, I don't know if this is something. It's like glitching. Well, we can see it on ours. You can? Yeah.

Yeah. All right. So, here is the property that is being replatted. And it's basically she's just splitting one into two lots, right? Or two into three. One into like four total. So, it'll create three additional lots. Okay.

The the parcel that you see, that's not a lot. That's just because that had a separate building permit that so the county just parcels it out, but it has not been platted. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Brandy or for Yeah. When it's uh replatted, each the plats have to have their own uh septic tank or can it um have one tank for all four separate lots? So, no septic systems are allowed within city limits. It's a sealed holding tank and they would all need their own separate.

And then as far as location goes right away, I mean, it's budding up against municipal lot to the south. I guess they would have to figure out, you know, the access because they wouldn't have it from the street yet, either a southern or the eastern access or where the tank is tanks are.

Yeah. Which that u that is all determined at the time of building permit issuance and not something that that has to be determined with the replat. I'm just I guess for future considerations right away is what I'm looking at between the lots you between a municipality and existing I guess they would have to use their own lot access. They wouldn't be able to go into the municipal lot have any access from municipal law. Correct. Yep. and and it's not right of way because these lots are ab budding right ofway which is required but as far as if you're referring to kind of an access easement no they would they would reach that by their own private property. Okay.

All right. Thank you. I would entertain uh there is no public hearing on this particular issue. I would entertain a motion in the affirmments and we can continue discussion but uh on resolution number 2026-15 I move to approve as presented. Second motion and second. Uh further discussion or debate regarding the replat of East Point Edition. Wonderful hearing. None. I will uh uh all those in favor say I. I. I.

Oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. Resolution 2026-15 passes. Which brings us back to resolution number 2026-13, which is zoning text regarding fences and double frontage. Brandy, go ahead.

Okay. Thank you, Liam. So, we've had a couple of these variances come forward and we did just amend the fence ordinance last year. So, you know, with trial and error, that's why we're bringing an ordinance amendment forward because we realize for properties that have double frontage lots that it makes it difficult for them being able to utilize a space within their sideyard when we're when we require the um or yeah, the sideyard that you know functions as their rear yard. um when we require that the fence within the front yard at setback cannot be greater than four feet. So this ordinance amendment would allow the text here uh it states for properties with double frontage the yard with access to parking situated on the lot shall be considered the primary front yard which that language is consistent in other places in ordinance. So, we wanted to bring that through. And then fences within the primary front yard shall comply with the 48 inch height limitation. Fences within the secondary front yard are allowed to have a maximum height of 7 feet like any other residential district. So, with that, I'll stand by for questions.

Mr. Chair, go ahead. in this state.

Um I I am wondering if I I understand that that terminology of the for properties with double frontage, the yard with access to parking situated on the lot shall be considered the primary front yard is taken from other parts of the ordinance. My question is if we have somebody that accesses parking from into a garage that is situated from the back from a alleyway versus through the part of the lot that would you would normally consider it as your front door. are is that if they want to do something different with with a fence, is that gonna then be coming in here for a variance or how would that

Yeah. So, if they're coming off the alley, that would be a sideyard anyway. So, it wouldn't apply to the front yard. And basically, you might run into it if if a house like is facing you see it sometimes on a corner lot where the house is facing one way and the garage is facing the other. Um, but that's just what we'll have to typically we this is the same language that we have used for double frontage lots. So, we just wanted to stay consistent with it. Typically, the front of the house is where they end up accessing it. So I you know we'll see if it becomes problematic and again we can always amend an ordinance.

Go ahead, Mr. Grace. I think we're hitting 95%. I mean there's a few along 19th Street that I can think of um where there you pull off 19th they've got a detached garage. There's very few and I think in those situations and most of them have seven foot fences along east west side of N anyway. So when we go ahead sorry Mr. I'm done. Thank you.

Um when when we talk about double frontage are we talking about both for instance an east and west or a north and south portion of the lot are facing separate rideways or are we talking about a corner lot or both? Corner lot. Okay. Typically for double frontage, but what Todd's talking about, he's talking about Yeah. Okay. I didn't even think about that. That is also double frontage.

Um because I was approached on this matter uh by for a house up by um somebody just was picking my brain on it up by the Prairie Lakes. But as I pull up the map, what happens when we've got uh we've got an attached garage that faces Skyline and a detached garage that faces 7th Avenue? We're back to the same double frontage problem, aren't we? That hasn't been solved. No, that would have to come for a variance because I don't know how if we can solve at all. That's the point. Well, I mean, can it just how do we determine what the address is? The address is based on the front door, isn't it?

Well, you could we could refine the definition of primary or principal address. How is the property address? address off a seven guid line that could we could use that as I but I think again we're we're talking the 5% the the the intent is to basically not punish corner lot people or try defenses right that's the whole intent of this which is a great idea because this is it coincidentally unless maybe it's not a coincidence that um somebody was bugging me about it about a month ago Um

yeah and we have had a lot of inquiries on it as well. So that's what really it that's why we wanted to bring it before you guys as something that we were running into and kind of with the next one too, you know, especially when in the previous variants that we had, you know, where they wanted to replace it or finish filling it in and then it's like the new material looks better than like they're replacing it. it's going to look better and you know if it's not going to have an impact to the a lot of the times the clear view triangle um or just making sure the front yard is inviting and open you know you're not putting a 7 foot fence in the front yard um those types of things

well I think it's a great idea generally I just was trying to you know the particular one I was looking at it it looks like you've got parking access on but the same two frontage issue that you have for so that that wouldn't in this particular instance that wouldn't solve this one primary front yard excuse me chair you know primary front yard and it can be if there's a there's a primary driveway if there's an attached garage or whatever I mean there there's further refinement that could happen I think I would like to get this thing just moving forward we always come back and tweak it if we

okay all right uh there is a public hearing on is there other questions for staff before I open the public hearing. Okay, there is a public hearing on this matter. So, I'll open the public hearing now. If you want to talk about double frontage and fences, walls and hedges, that'll be the time to talk, mayor. No, Mr. Bloom. No. Okay. You don't have an opinion on the matter. Um, anybody else? Any anyone online that wants to talk about double frontage? All right. I will close the public hearing then on this matter and ask for action on resolution number 2026-3. Motion by KS, second by Oh, I forgot. Sorry.

Jesus. Um, further discussion regarding the amendment or the ordinance amendment. Okay. Um, well, fair enough. All those in favor of resolution number 2026-13 say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Resolution passes. That brings us to 8B or C depending on how we're paying attention to the agenda. Regardless, it's resolution number 2026-14. Go ahead, Randy.

Okay. Thank you, Lam. So, again, this is a a cleanup ordinance that we're looking at deck replacements as we've seen those come forward in the the recent past. Um and a lot of the times it so decks specifically we are adding language that says that decks that exist and do not meet current setbacks of primary structures are allowed to be replaced in the same or smaller footprint. And decks were not uh required to meet the primary setbacks uh or the the setbacks of the primary structure until after 2005. So coincidentally, it's 2026 and now there's a lot of decks that have dilapitated and need to be reconstructed. So as long as they are not they can exist where where they have as long as the footprint is not getting larger. Um so that's one of the the changes in here. We are also adding that an attached garage shall be limited to four garage doors or stalls per frontage. Um and that is I mean yeah so four they can have a double door with four stalls four individual door just the main thing is the stalls. Um and then uh if you look on 21101 02 4 2 C. Um here I actually need to make a slight edit. It should say the maximum allowable unattached garage size, width, and depth may be increased by 440 square ft. The difference between the maximum unattached garage size and the actual

size will be subtracted from the maximum allowable unattached garage size. So maximum allowable subtracted from the un and then this needs to say attached garage side. So it's flip-flopped. So, we have the same language for attached garages where the main point behind it is if you're not going to maximize your total square footage that you can have for a garage, um you can utilize an add additional from what your lot allows because I believe as a community we would rather see people be able to store their things inside and if they're hung up with um you know 100 square feet or whatnot just to have that little flexibility. Um so then the um that is that is the bulk of this ordinance amendment is really focused on decks and then unattached garages. Oh, one more thing. Sorry. When we um we also struck when you're maximizing your attached garage size. Um we used to say that it had to be it. Well, let me read that. Um we had language to say that an attached garage shall have a maximum allowable size of 23 52 ft. The length of the attached garage shall not exceed one and a half times the width and shall conform to the design of the house. Example of the wid if the width is 42 feet, the depth cannot exceed 63 feet. However, the overall size cannot exceed 2352 limiting the depth to 56. So, it's just unnecessary. Like the the reason behind

it is so you don't get something very long and linear, but no one's going to you. That's not going to happen. we'll just let people regulate their private properties in that respect um and still regulate the maximum size. So, uh we did strike that. Mr. Chair, go ahead, Mr. Case. And a lot of this I mean, if they wanted to make it long and they have the lot and they have we still have we still have maximum lot coverage and stalls and garage doors. So, it's and if I have a big enough lot, it's whatever, right? Maybe you want to put a batting cage in there. I don't know.

Wonderful. Any other questions for Miss Hatton before I open the public hearing? Hearing none. Oh, go ahead, Mr. Tate. Just a quick clarification to make sure I understood what you said on this section um for uh 4C. the the edit that you needed to make was on on the one word that should say unattached garage. Is that where you and I believe in just a a clerical error there? Yes. The maximum allowable unattached garage size, width, and depth, etc. That's what it should say. Correct. Yep. Nonetheless,

and then the And then I believe I'm looking at read of how this reads. I believe they both they need to be flip-flopped. Then this the last unattached garage size needs to be attached. Yeah. Okay.

Perfect. Okay. Good. Good question. Thank you for the clarification. Uh I'll open the public hearing now. Is there anyone that wants to talk about decks or garages attached or otherwise? Anyone online? going once, twice, three times. I will close the public hearing on this and entertain a commission action on 2026-14. I would ask that if you move to approve, it would be subject to the clerical changes. I would make a motion to approve the changes as presented.

Perfect. We have a motion. Is it by you? Sorry, can't hear right out of my left ear. All right, we have a motion and second. Uh, further discussion regarding 2026-14. Was the motion by Chernis? No. Motion by SP, second by Kachek. Just uh I figured you just didn't want to say consideration for the first uh uh administrative change. Just to put a finer point to it, I believe it should add the legally nonconforming decks that exist. you know, emphasize that they they had a pre-existing either they were grandfathered in or they had prearience or conditional.

Um, yeah, I I think it kind of goes without saying, I'd rather not, but that's just my Somebody could build a deck, but they weren't legally non-conforming and then make an appeal that they want to place it. How's there going to be a check on that? You know, I don't think they were required to even get a permit before 2005. Correct. If it didn't have it before, then they built it after 2005. Was it And we have the legal non-conforming section in ordinance.

Well, if they would have they would have built something after '05 absent a building not been captured by the city and they came in. I want place it. They would not be allowed to even this land. We're not putting a a date on it. It's just decks that exist that do not meet current setbacks. And so because things that are permitted today are required to meet it. So So if somebody says a deck was there and there's records at at the courthouse, assessments have been done, there would be a history that they could prove it. back there even

right I think it's fine any further discussion regarding 2026-14 okay good all those in favor then of approval of resolution 2026-14 say I opposed same sign resolution 2026-14 passes that brings us to open public comment new business.

Okay. Uh, also, if you guys noticed and maybe were using the iPads, uh, those are for your use during the meeting. I should have told you that before. So, you got to mess around with them. Um, so then what we'll do, even though we like our booklets, um, we'll just have you guys pull the agendas up on those iPads and, uh, it will make sure that they're charged and ready to go. They'll stay here because they'll also be for city council. So, but then right on the front uh homepage there they already have a direct link where you can just click on the agenda uh the agenda from the website the agenda page and then they als they have first district's website there as a little app as well so you can pull up the map if you want to look at things individually or if you want to look at a certain ordinance. So you guys will have that capability now. So, thanks to it for getting that going. Um, and then my my announced new business was for the Western Planner Conference. Um, it's pretty early, but we're also doing the conference earlier typically for the South Dakota Planners Association annual meeting. We have that in October, but then now we're teaming up with the Western Planner Conference. So it's a larger conference um bringing in the surrounding states uh North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Utah, Colorado, the western planner states. Um so but Sou Falls is hosting this year and we're going to have it at the Canopy uh hotel and event center down there in the new in the new steel district. and they've really the city of Sou Falls planning staff has done an outstanding job of

putting this together obviously like we've all pitched in uh because I am the vice president of the South Dakota Planners Association. So along with the entire board um Todd and Luke hopefully they actually submit for a session and so yeah and planning districts everyone uh it's going to be a great event and so that is going to be on August 26 through the 28th. So if you go to our website for South Dakota planners it is sdplanners.org org and then you'll be able to register. Um, but how about if you have interest in attending, email me because then I'll talk with Alan about um we do have a a planning commission budget. So, as far as registration costs and then uh hotel to be determined, but let me know if you have interest. We don't have a final agenda put out there yet, but again, it is early. Uh there's time. I think early registration ends towards the end of May. So, just keep that in mind. But, um there there should be really good topics that all of you may be interested in in hearing. And with it being in Sou Falls,

it'll never it'll it won't get this close again for a very very Yeah. They usually keep things out west spear fishes out. we've had hosted in the past. Um it's very good conference. You know, if you're a planning nerd, this there'll be something that would be of interest. Yeah. Like recently they had it in Salt Lake City and Bend. No, it was it was Bend. You Oregon. Oregon.

Um we got a pretty young planning commission or fresh in terms of that. But uh I went to it, Todd and I were on the board. I went to it in spear fishing. It was really good. The speakers were awesome. I mean, you're getting national level speakers. Uh, very educational, very informative, and I learned a lot. Um, worth worthwhile if you guys can make it. All right. Any old other new business? Nope. Old business? Nope. All right. No executive session, I don't think. And nope. Then we are adjourned. Go home to your family. Thank you guys.