Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

this meeting to order, then Brandi, would you please do the roll call?

Yes. Kakachek? Here. Dargis Johnson? Here. Spire? Here. Cohane? Here. Tate? Here. Kays?

Here.

Chernus?

Here.

Okay. And Albie and Tupper are absent. We have a quorum.

Wonderful. I don't think I mentioned this, but this is the... Oh, let's do planning commission. First? Yeah. Okay. This is the... July 9th episode of the city of Watertown Planning Commission then. Next on the agenda is minutes. I'm sorry, I'm just getting pulled up.

Yeah, and you had it right where we usually do BOA first, but how it corresponds with an item on the Board of Adjustment, it makes more sense to do Planning Commission first.

All right, well, that's fine.

I'd say could you transfer to my screen, please?

Yep, so June 4th minutes meeting minutes. Can I get a motion to approve please? So moved motion by Tate second by targets Johnson. Is there any changes addendums? Corrections to the June 4th meeting minutes All right, if not all those in favor of approval of those meeting minutes say aye aye opposed same sign the meeting minutes are adopted and My thing is goofy here. Disclosure is a conflict of interest. Is there anyone on the board that has had any contact or has any conflicts to disclose related to any of the business today? Basically, it looks like some zoning amendments and the new district language relating to Lake Area Technical College. No conflicts of interest we'll move on declaration of new business Liam.

Sorry, I Forgot when you threw in that Lake area technically I am a watertown school district employee But I don't think that would affect my decision-making.

I don't view that as I mean I'll certainly let the board decide if they want to censure or request that miss Gotcha step down, but I don't view that that's probably a problem given the substance of the matter declaration of new business Is there any board member that wants to add anything to this agenda or the next agenda or discuss anything in the future? Anybody staff anything wonderful. All right, then I would move to approve the agenda Which my case second Fire any changes additions to the agenda? I Wonderful. And all those in favor of approval of the agenda, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. That means that brings us, the agenda is approved. That brings us to 8A, which is our regular business. And it is a zoning amendment. Go ahead, Randy. Randy.

Thank you, Liam. So this is a rezone for the property located at lot six of Juren Schulte Industrial Edition. It's currently zoned I-1 Light Industrial, and the applicant is proposing to rezone to C-3 Highway Commercial. The property does meet all of the minimum lot size and district requirements. It actually brings it into better conformance or better context as well. This is where the super 8 hotel resides and It is adjacent to US highway 81 so it's a good fit and it brings the use into conformance With it if it were c3 highway commercial so with that I'll stand by for questions wonderful is anyone from the Commission have any questions for staff before I open the public hearing I

Okay, there is a public hearing on this matter. I will open the public hearing. If there's anyone here to speak on behalf of the resolution changing this piece of property from I-1 to C-3, come on down. You certainly don't have to if you... That's okay. Just for the record, there is a representative here from the property, but is there anyone here that wishes to speak on this matter that is not the petitioner applicant? Anyone opposed to in favor of or otherwise have anything to say about this result Okay, wonderful, then I will close the public hearing and ask for action on resolution number 20 26 27 Go ahead Yes, it does Good question All right, I would entertain a motion to approve resolution number 20 26 I 27 So moved motion by Tate second by Rhonda wonderful further discussion regarding this change from I won to c3 It seems like it makes sense seems pretty perfunctory But I just there's an opportunity if anybody has anything to say about it, okay wonderful Let's just Hearing nothing else, I would ask for all those in favor of I-1 to C-3. Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign. Motion passes. That brings us to 8B, which is the Campus District and Congregate Living Residential District. Go ahead, Brandi, and tell us a little bit about what's going on. I do have a question before we get going on 8B, 1, 2, 3, and 4. Can we just have one public hearing on that, or do we have to have an individual public hearing on each separate action?

I think it would be appropriate to have a public hearing on all four.

Okay. That was my plan coming into this, but I just wanted to verify that. Go ahead, Brandi.

Okay. Thanks, Liam. So, as presented, this is the THE CAMPUS DISTRICT, AND THEN THERE ARE FOUR RESOLUTIONS INCLUDED WITH THE CREATION OF THE CAMPUS DISTRICT, SO WE'RE ACTUALLY in a whole, this will be able to facilitate orderly and efficient development for the areas of our community that have evolved and graduated from using our conventional zoning districts. And this is something that the comprehensive land use plan has had included to implement for a very long time. And if you think Lake Area Technical College, the hospital, it is crafted to include both of those campus type properties along with other institutional or commercial campus type properties. So, the first two resolutions here is the actual CD Campus District. It's a new chapter. And then along with that, it's another new chapter for the R3S, Congregate Living Residential District. then the other two for three and four those are resolutions modifying the current ordinance just including these two new chapters within that so like the district chart and definitions so now to go into a little greater detail we'll start with the campus district and this has been vetted for months and with different subcommittees and with representatives from Lake Area Technical College. I did share it with the hospital. I didn't receive any feedback, but it should be conducive to what they are doing, too, and something that they could look to rezone to as they continue to expand. So what we've seen today is having to use the conventional zoning districts that we have. Their uses don't fit, and they're having to get conditional uses, and every time a new project is happening. So this is really going to make development efficient. And it should encompass their needs while also protecting from adjacent residential properties that a lot of the times that they expand into. So we were very thoughtful on that. The other thing, main point with the campus district is you have to have 10 acres to qualify. So not every school district, or not every school in residential neighborhoods would qualify to rezone to this.

Brandy, briefly, the 10-acre requirement would be of existing property, not of development property that they're intended to develop, right?

Correct. So they could rezone their current campuses, and then there's stipulations in there, too, where they, like adjacent properties, if it's within 300 feet, then they can also include that as long as it's within 300 feet of the the main 10-acre parcel.

Understood. Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Quick question on the 300 feet. They don't have the ability to ask for the rezoning. It would have to be the property owners within that 300 feet to ask for the rezoning?

Correct.

In addition to the campus itself, right?

Yeah. Which a lot of the times is going to be when they acquire properties that they'll end up being the owner because a property owner

Most likely like these areas are within residential so Another quick follow-up go ahead miss so just for example Let's just take the campus district of the hospital and let's say it's 10 acres. I don't know what it is up there but let's say it's 10 acres and They also own properties within 300 feet are currently being used as single-family dwellings and a transition phase I I don't see single-family housing Listed as a permitted use is it or is not am I missing something?

They're not so if they petition to rezone they would be creating a legal nonconformity So if that house were to ever go away it couldn't go back Which is most likely?

What their plan would be anyway right or if they were to change it and use it for? I've seen it in the hospital setting especially I'm thinking it from the perspective that if it's a single-family dwelling They use it for a Ronald McDonald house or something along those lines Would that be that viewed something more as an accessory used to the hospital still would be allowed to occur? Yes, is that how you view it?

Yep, okay, and there's going to be a lot of you know options of what could happen that we have all of the uses that were heavily vetted that were appropriate to be in a campus district so examples such as that should be covered or will be covered.

That was just my big concern, whether it's student housing associated with Lake Area Tech or housing associated for temporary stays for people needing the hospitals. If I have a piece of property that's a single family and it's acquired by the hospital or the school, not the school, but whoever's using that as an intended use, by having it omitted, there's still a way of making sure that it's allowed if that was an

Yes. Brandy, briefly, what's the purpose for the accelerated minimum lot size? I noticed that it's 20,000, which seems substantial compared to our R3 over 12 units. And remind me, does the minimum lot size increase on the number of units?

No, not on the campus district.

But in R3, does it?

Yes, it does.

So is the anticipation that congregate housing would is likely to be over 12 units.

Well, we haven't gotten there yet. Okay, sorry. SO JUST FOR THE CAMPUS DISTRICT, THAT'S THE 20,000 MINIMUM SQUARE FEET.

YES.

AND THAT'S JUST REALLY SO WE DON'T GET A BUNCH OF SPOT ZONING. SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH OF PROPERTY TO REZONE. SO YOU DON'T END UP WITH TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND A SMALL LOT IN BETWEEN. AND A DORM.

OR SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE A DORM.

OR ACTUALLY LIKE THAT YOU COULD HAVE A Let's say, I don't know, a clinic.

Okay.

Right between the two houses type of thing as a permitted use. So that's the idea behind that of at least doing 20,000, which is the minimum for commercial districts.

Roughly half acre.

Yep.

Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Go ahead, Brandy.

No, all good. So what I just explained there, that was the campus district itself. THE CAMPUS DISTRICT DOES INCLUDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE HOUSING, THE CONGREGATE STUDENT HOUSING IS WHAT WE'RE CALLING IT. THE THING ABOUT CAMPUSES, THOUGH, AT LEAST FOR TECHNICAL COLLEGES, THEY TYPICALLY ARE NOT ON THEIR CAMPUS. SO THAT IS WHY WE CREATED, MOVING ON NOW, TO THE R3S CONGREGATE LIVING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. This allows, the only use in this district is for the congregate student housing. How to differentiate? The reason for having a different zoning district instead of just using R3 is so that we really can differentiate that this is student housing and it's going to be higher density. And the reason for that is because they are dorm type structures. The other thing is you're not going to get that conventional R3 development because of how we are looking at the density. So we're looking at the gross floor area instead of looking at the lot area. And I have an illustration somewhere that kind of describes what we look at there.

It's up, it's up.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. Forgot they're all under one. There we go. So there, you can see just how the densities are being looked at differently. And the main thing there, I mean, another, we're trying to facilitate affordable housing and that does mean that densities need to be increased. This could go, a district like this could be proposed anywhere in town, but it would have to meet our definition of the congregate student housing, which we will also get to.

the fourth resolution go ahead quick question so based on your comment that this could go anywhere so we would effectuate some sort of idea about spot zoning and any sort of r1 zone which could be problematic I see the reason why calling it r3 is because it would be transitional to like r3 so I don't I

And it all would depend, too. Is it by a collector route? Where is the proximity? Those are all things that we can look at for the land use itself.

Do we have guiding policies in the comp plan that would allow for us to make that discretionary decision?

I think vaguely.

So would it be more appropriate? I'm not saying to stop this from moving forward, but it would probably be more appropriate to have some sort of amendment to the land use plan that would allow that. I can tell you this, I don't have a problem with this concept. I think congregate living for residential purposes, if it's school related, should be in close proximity to the school. If you go to any major university, whether it be dorm life or fraternities or sororities, they're not sponsored. I mean, they're not located a half a mile or three-quarters of a mile away from the use that it's being used to support. So from that perspective, I think it will assuage some people's fears in this community that I'm not going to have a dorm, you know, four stories or 60 feet or whatever the maximum height can be in that R3 zone, spot zone in the middle of my R1 residential neighborhood. Just something to think about.

And we did discuss that in our subcommittee meetings. At first, we started out with an overlay district, you know.

Mm-hmm.

and this is where we landed because of Really, it's transitional, so I don't think it's spot zoning. I don't I think it's hard to Come up with that radius of Where these could be located in a minute could I do it the lake doesn't make sense to at the lake and we made it congregate living Residential district so it

I think that it's a good place to start. I don't want to set it up that we're going to plan it in the middle of an R1 zone where then 40% of the residences appeal that. It comes back to the city council. City council is going to have to have a super majority to override it, or if we end up having to have special elections to have individuals refer those types of rezoning requests.

But that is what this board is here to do. You would either recommend approval or deny it, depending on the appropriateness with the neighborhood and the other adjacent

Zoning districts is there any thing that stops? Private entity or citizen from proposing an r3s no rezone I Mean so Joe blow developer can buy a couple houses next to Lake Erie Tech and say that this is going to be a dorm But it's going to be a private dorm as opposed to other than in fact the code here saying institutional and that carries the specific Certainly certainly that's not no no no and I that was why I was a little bit confused I wasn't sure if this was something that only LATC could in the hospital effectively in Watertown could petition for or is this or if there was under another similar Church or institutional related deal That was my question, I don't know go ahead and

They actually clarify it most certain most likely would not be Lake Area Technical College own because they're not allowed to So it would be private whether that's a private nonprofit or a private for-profit We don't distinguish in here.

Okay, don't go ahead.

Go ahead. Sorry And I wasn't aware of the the LATC was not allowed to do that. I didn't

Yeah, so with that, there's my concerns, and my skids are going on here real, real fast. Congregate housing, to me, is policed at a college level by that college. They have students living there, and that's pretty standard. We expect that. We all know our kids are going into dorms. The affordable housing thing, where you already have landlords that are accommodating these students, and now you're going to take... Guarantee you that if the rent is less because they're trying to accommodate a student you're gonna fill that up with the workforce And then the kids are gonna pay more rent anyway, so I really have an issue with it not being Do check that definition though pardon I

I have the definition pulled up.

But you just told me that I can do that, Brandy, so I want it full, so I'm going to put anybody in there, and I'm not going to wait for my students that leave me three months empty. And the other thing is the walkability thing. Again, a campus site, to me, should be walkability. That's kind of the attraction of living like that, sharing a bathroom in a situation like that. I'm 18, and now I'm sharing it with a 40-year-old. The ages aren't the same, if you will.

And that is where the definition does say that CONGREGATE STUDENT HOUSING, ANY HOUSING FOR STUDENTS NOT LOCATED WITHIN AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION'S CAMPUS, HOWEVER AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE INSTITUTION OR THE INSTITUTIONAL THEME. A BUILDING OR PORTION THERE OF USED AS GROUP LIVING QUARTERS FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED AT AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WHERE INDIVIDUAL SLEEPING ROOMS ARE PROVIDED WITHOUT FULL KITCHENS IN EACH UNIT AND WHERE BATHROOMS, LOUNGES AND LAUNDRY ROOMS MAY BE SHARED. So, again, that's going to be on the private property manager to be vetting people that are applying to live there.

How is this enforceable?

But a 40-year-old could be enrolled in an educational facility.

True. Agreed. But just what Bill said. How is that going to be enforced? How can you enforce that? We can't police that.

Let's try to limit comments or questions from one person at one time.

It is a lot of these things they have to be privately enforced and if it becomes a complaint issue where The city gets involved. That's where we would start

question on this. You know, when talking about proximity and radius and things like that, if I'm not mistaken, isn't part of the Harmony Hill plan to incorporate some student housing within that up there as well, some student-style housing, so that would kind of make it pretty difficult to impose some sort of radius or whatnot for that from a campus.

Right. And that's a very good point because in creating this, we really are focused on Lake Area Tech and the hospital, but there's other places that could qualify for campuses too. So we don't want to be uninclusive.

What are exclusive? So, but our ordinance already reads, you know, I don't know more than its numbers by any means That we can't have more than what three non related people living together at this point Okay, so so this district is going to allow for that and the other districts are going to stay in place Yes That's not really talking out of both sides of my mouth. I suppose that To me, do we have someone applying for this or inquiring to do this particular congregate living? I mean, if it was the VOTEC, like you said, the VOTEC can't do it. So obviously, there's where my concern is, because that's like shutting the college down without dorms. Of course, they need the dorms. I would love to see that. But it needs, in my opinion, it needs to be policed. And the only way it can be policed is by that lake area Facility they're gonna be concerned about their students. I as a landlord not so much.

I just want it full Rhonda very good points. Let's save our comments for the actual Resolutions and just try to do questions so we can get through this relatively quickly. I'm not trying to I'm not trying to just try to keep things on the rails here Brandi where did you You and staff and and the subcommittees did did you draw upon ordinance from other places? SDSU those kinds of things when looking at this and developing this ordinance.

Yes, and I mean it's been a long time in the making so Reference Sioux Falls looked at like what the city itself does with the different campuses they have But really there I mean it's it It comes down to, I mean, how it fits into our ordinance and how we're going to regulate. The other point I want to make is that we actually should make an amendment to this to make sure that we are clear that you can have more than three unrelated adults in one, in these, because it's actually not clear when I look at this.

It's extraordinarily interesting. And so I don't want to be dismissive in that regard. Any other questions for staff before? Mr. Chair.

Yeah, go ahead, Ms. T. I just want to make sure I'm understanding definition of terms. In the R3S congregate living at residential district, permitted uses that are only one, just for student housing. In the previous documentation for the campus district, there's a whole list of things. So if in the future there would be a need, then we would go back and add that as a permitted use into this?

And it would have to be amended formally, you know, to come back before as an ordinance amendment. And so that's the thing with any ordinance. Starting point and as we you know we can amend things as we see as they come along it But at least we feel confident that this is a good start to incorporate these types of districts into the ordinance And if I could did you ever follow I just I just wanted to have a follow-up, so I want to make sure Just for putting this in a context creating the campus district as

IS VERY BROAD. AND THEN THE PARTICULAR ZONING THAT WE'RE CREATING HERE, OR POTENTIALLY CREATING HERE, IS FOR ONE PARTICULAR USE THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THAT BIGGER CAMPUS DISTRICT.

NO, I THINK THEY WOULD BE ADJACENT, I WOULD IMAGINE. I THINK THE INTENTION IS ADJACENCY, RIGHT?

YES. AND THAT'S WHERE IT GETS BACK TO MY WHOLE POINT ON THIS WHOLE THING. WE'RE BASICALLY USING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CAMPUS DISTRICT Move forward other ancillary uses for the district. That's where I that's where my harbor lies That's where I'm at with I otherwise what I could see is I could easily Go across the street from where I live by the two houses that might be sale and put up.

What's our height respect?

60 feet I could put a 60-foot tall building in the middle of a Which is going to cause a lot of heartburn for those people in the neighborhood So that's where I think Yeah, I'm Todd I don't mean to

Badger or anything, let's try to keep it to questions right now so that we can move on to the public hearing. Great discussion. Save that for once we've got a motion or motions on the table. Any other questions for staff regarding this before I open the public hearing?

Can I finish my presentation?

Oh, yes. I'm sorry, Brandy. But quick. Do it quickly. I will.

Okay. And then, Alan, did you have anything to add?

I was just going to call the question. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Let's... We have to have a public hearing first.

Okay, so now we're moving on to item C for the resolution. This is including these two new districts into existing ordinance. One thing to point out, though, is this was this, and I just want to be clear, transparent. This was discussed previously as far as like the R3 district goes. So if enclosed parking under the same roof as multifamily residential units are included to meet off-street parking requirements, an additional 285 square feet per parking stall. The reason for that number is that is how much space a parking stall takes up on a property. She'll be added to the square footage of the lot and used in the calculation. So they don't really get a like a WHAT'S THE WORD? THEY DON'T GET A BONUS FOR INCORPORATING UNDERGROUND PARKING OR ENCLOSED PARKING. IT ACTUALLY KIND OF HURTS THEM. SO THIS IS JUST GIVING IT BACK BASICALLY. THE OTHER THING IS THAT WE have looked at wanting to create higher density and we do get the request for variances that we have been approving in the past sorry um so that's where we lowered it just slightly so for one bedroom from 1300 to a thousand this is something that i also did compare to Aberdeen, Sioux Falls, Brookings on what their densities look like. And then we also added for a studio because we do see those and they are usually a smaller unit.

And these square footage amounts are in conformity with those other cities? That was the inference I gathered from that.

Okay. Yep. And really, as an average, it's within that. And then the other cleanup here, this we approved previously for the alleys allow for a nine-foot setback when garage doors open perpendicular and four-foot if they open parallel. It wasn't added to this chart.

Good catch.

Okay, so that is that is that one and then now for item D. It's the definition so these are the new items that have been introduced with the campus and congregate living residential district so With that I will stand by for questions sorry It's ad hoc here Any other questions from the board or the Commission before go ahead mistake?

How was the height to requirement of 60 feet determined like commercial like commercial not like Okay other questions before I open the public hearing

There is a public hearing on this matter. There are actually four separate resolutions as you just heard the presentation on For expediency we're going to combine and so there will be a single public hearing as opposed to four separate public hearings on each individual part if you wish to speak on any one of the resolutions which are represented as 2026-28 through 2026-31 those four resolutions basically what you just heard in your presentation and He wishes to speak. Now is the time to do so. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone that wishes to speak on behalf of any of the resolutions? Anyone opposed?

Anyone neutral or have any other opinion on any of the resolutions? Anyone online or on the phone?

Hearing none, again, just one last time, this is the opportunity to speak on 2026 through 28 through 2026-31. Basically, it's congregate student housing and the creation of a campus district or a city ordinance. Okay, hearing none, I'll close the public hearing, and I would ask for action on 2026-28, creating the campus district. Go ahead, Mr. Gase.

I would recommend approval to our...

We have a motion to recommend approval.

Which one is this one? This is 2026-28.

Campus District. Seconded. Seconded by Rhonda Dargetts-Johnson. Further discussion regarding this. We had a lot of good discussion already. I didn't mean to shut that down.

Just one comment, Mr. Chair. Go ahead, Mr. Gage. I want to appreciate staff and all the people that's been involved in putting this together. It's something I know that's been on my wish list for at least two decades. So I think it's a good start.

Yeah, very forward-looking, very interesting. Looks like it's very well thought out and planned. This resolution and this vote will be on the campus district only, 2026-28, and we will move on to the others. Any other further? Mr. Chair. Go ahead and state.

It looks like there's a clerical error on page 21. The resolution, hereby certify that the above resolution, number 26-29, the 29 should actually be a 28. You see that?

Yeah. Yep.

It's a clerical thing.

Yep. We will get that.

We have a motion and a second. I assume that that would be a friendly amendment and a friendly second to make sure that it's clerically correct. Wonderful. So we have a motion and a second. Are there any further discussion regarding the recommendation of the creation of the campus district?

Just kind of a question, comment for should this be added to the ordinances? So campuses that are currently existing, will that zoning be changed? Do they have to petition to change their zoning? Or does that happen once they're going to make an improvement or build something new? But is it for right now, everything will just kind of stay as it is until someone petitions for that change?

Right, yep, it's all on their time. If they want to be proactive when this is, if this is added to ordinance, they can, or we'll probably see it when they're wanting to do the next project.

What is LATC currently zoned?

R3, multifamily residential. So then even when they want to do a new parking lot, they have to get a conditional use.

But I mean, is that even a conditional use under R3?

School.

Is it?

Yeah. Okay.

I apologize. I can't keep track of all the permitted and conditional uses in one district, let alone all of them. Mr. Chair. Go ahead.

So is there anything that qualifies for this route because the minimum density is 10 acres? Do we have a campus of that size now?

Yes.

Which one? Or both? Both. Both are 10 acres that they encompass?

Yep. And that's how we wanted to land on because we did not want to open this up to every institutional or medical type

sir Business building is it would it be too much of you to ask to show like areas boundaries? Yeah, show me that ten acres, please I Mean I believe the hospital because they've kind of got the hill and they've got So even just there this main.

Yes parcel. That's eleven point nine and then the hospital

12.4 and just this main like it doesn't include all the other properties that they also own so at a minimum They have that Okay, so just another you know the question um I want to do this and I want to put this the J&J land that we just annexed into the city and acres there for me to do this and Residential is right there also so the existing and I want to go right across the street Are we going to do any buffering with this or does is that going to be a permitted?

I'm set because now if we pass this I don't need to come to this board I'm going to come to you and say this is where I want to put it right across the street from that Residential they have to come around or they have to come to get the designation It has to be it has to be zoned or rezone that way either when it's annexed it when it's zoned as campus Upon annexation or a reason request right, but there's no conditional reason

I guess the question I think it's a good question where I still think all this needs to come back to this guiding policy If it's something that's brand-new yes, I think there should be some guiding its guidance within the land use plans you would like to have it into a residential owner we need to take into consideration policies that are going to be screening or setback or Those types of things I think it's probably good to have it.

I don't I think those are all included in the district and And that's where it's created to be cohesive And you've got my standards for building construction Perfect

Further discussion if not, I would ask One one final question and sorry if I if I missed it within all the words but when you're talking about satellite facilities and You know I'm thinking of Prairie Lakes campus. I'm thinking of things that Lake area may do off-campus Those do those count those don't count toward the 10-acre So if you know with Sanford now going to have you know we'll have both clinics that are off-campus those would not Those would have to be a 10-acre on their own situation to get this designation then I

Yes. Yep. And then because it has to be within 300 feet of the main campus, that 10 acres to qualify.

Okay. I'm done with questions. No, great question. This is all relatively new and exciting information. Any further questions, concerns, comments about 2026-28 resolution? This is the recommendation of the creation of the campus district. hearing none all those in favor of recommending the City Council for approval say aye aye opposed same sign resolution passes and it will go to City Council with a recommendation that brings us to 2026-29 this is creating R3 as congregate living residential district and could I also whoever makes the motion if you could add to exempt the definition of family from the congregate campus and congregate both

Both, yeah, actually. We'll exempt as it goes forward to council.

Mr. Chair, as the maker of the original motion, I would be...

You're Robert's expert. What else do we have to do? What more do we have to do?

If everybody's in general agreement, we're okay. All right. Everyone in general agreement is... That's what we voted on.

Speak now or hold your peace. Okay. Mr. Chair. Go ahead, Ms. Tate.

Another clerical thing I found. Sorry. If we could just in... Item number six, building construction. It looks like we missed some of the formatting isn't quite right. We've got number one is really the preamble and should be at face brick.

If you want to email me that, I can make that change.

I'm just trying to make it align with the previous resolution. If you look back at page 20, see what I mean?

Can you explain that?

Okay, so the resolution that we just made, that on page 20 See we've got a is kind of a preamble to the list. Yes, and if you scroll down to the To that same that similar section of building materials All exterior walls of permanent structures within that should be an a Oh gotcha And then the face brick should be number one

Yep, yes, okay.

Yeah good point just a couple of Scrivener's thing I'm not terribly concerned with that all right.

We're moving on to 20 26 29. Thank you. We appreciate very much Your attention to detail is Not many people anymore Call her Diana 20 26 29 I would entertain a motion for approval subject to staffs recommendations regarding the definition of family

So moved.

Motion by Michelle. I have a second. Want to get in here?

Ms. Hahn? Second.

Ternes. I'm a second by Ternes. Further discussion regarding 2026-29. This is the creation of R3S, recommendation for the creation of R3S. So Mr. Chair. Go ahead.

So this will allow for a private entity to create a declared student housing with the approval permitted use here in support of an institution Be at the school or the hospital or other future, you know It could be assisted living campus or something in the future to crops up that meets a 10-acre so that private entity would then be leveraging an existing institutions 10-acre and then declaring themselves wanting to create a supporting housing or something for the students here and Where they have no formal connection to that institution or may not have no formal connection They could just say that we're doing this but it's not a part of that institutions master plan, which is the case right now for LATC My understanding so I I'm struggling with this the language as written because of that the lack of ability to enforce and in the overall cogency and coherency The institutions that is professing to support when there is no formal or otherwise There's no board oversight. No Regent oversight or otherwise that I can see that would come forth from this ordinance I Think it's good. Mr. Chair.

Go ahead. Mr. Case.

I think it's gonna be very difficult to somehow Link those two when state law is very specific what? institutions can and cannot do when it comes to technical colleges and Correct. I believe it gets back to, I don't care who owns it, whether it's private, public, nonprofit, whatever, we need this to occur. I get back to my issue is that if we are saying that we're creating campus districts to acknowledge the campus, And to me, this is more of a support regulation, a supporting district to that campus that we've just created. We talk about not being able to increase the, I have to be within 300 feet of the campus to expand the campus. I think 300 feet is a little, it's tight, but if I want to come in and, in my mind, spot zone an area for a 60 foot tall building, I think it needs to be in proximity of the campus district that's been created to support that. That's my only heartburn. Otherwise, I think I have no problems with this.

Thinking about that proximity again, aside from the possible Harmony Hill plans, things like that, that would make the proximity issue difficult. You know, the students might not just encompass full-time students. There are students that are coming to Watertown that maybe are doing internships, and this is rotations, internships, things like that, and they might not be enrolled in a local institution. So that need for proximity wouldn't necessarily be you know, there.

Isn't that something that ultimately we evaluate, this board would evaluate, or our future subsequent? I question whether or not we need something very specific about it, or if it's just something we set a precedent the first time this comes up, that if this is in the middle of whatever, I'm trying to think of one of the developments, Northeast Watertown, from our one district, sorry, you're just not going to get it.

I just remember the headache we had along 14th Avenue when somebody wanted to put this apartment. 12 Plex, yeah. Yeah, 12 Plex.

12 Plex, yeah.

And that property was even adequately zoned at the time to do that. I'm just saying that even if you took a dual path, one where if it's within a proximity of a campus, it's an automatic. If it's going to be something that is beyond a certain scope, then maybe it becomes a condition. I don't know. I'm just waxing poetic right now.

Go ahead, Brandi. You had something you wanted to add, Ms. Hannon?

yeah i i have a suggestion as like i said we did talk about this in the subcommittee and we talked about doing an overlay district and but what i would suggest if you guys would like a proximity we could say that this zoning designation can only be applied for if it's within a quarter mile of a campus district

That would make me feel better because you're using two words that I have a problem with, student housing, and yet you're not limiting it to student housing. So don't call it that. Don't call it what it isn't. It's just housing. Congregate housing. It's not student housing. So Because you're not gonna police that Liam. There's no policing that I'm sorry You don't know who's living in my apartment buildings. You have no clue So and you're not gonna come and city doesn't have time to manage that that's just not you know And the walkability is so therefore like you said if it were in a proximity Then that takes a little bit of my heartburn away because it is now serving its purpose for the boat Lake area It should be a walkability Or the hospital. Go ahead, Mr. Case.

Sorry, sorry. I saw City Attorney Carrico's hand.

Oh, sorry. I'm burying my head. Okay, go ahead.

Ms. Carrico, did you have? I will try to make it brief so that your concerns can be eased on enforcement. So, yes, it may be that later on we have to embellish the enforcement aspect of it. I think we all are aware that most of our ordinances, especially with code violations, are reported-based. They're citizen complaint-based. So what theoretically would happen is we would get a complaint that there are not students in there, there are workers on the windmills or whatever it is, and then we would go in and we would be requiring the property owner to produce that these people are students, because that would be their responsibility. And if they didn't, then they would get fined. Now, to that extent, right now we do have fine language in all of our ordinances for any violation. But if it needed to be embellished to support the enforcement mechanism of that, then we would do it at that time. But again, like Brandy said, we need to start applying it in order to figure out what revisions would be needed. But that would be the enforcement mechanism.

Yeah, I guess I mean I I understand mr. Argus Johnson's I mean we don't want to end up in a situation where we inadvertently create a man camp the dreaded man camp right From the old days of the oil boom up in North Dakota Go ahead.

Mr. City manager complete.

Oh, yeah, we don't want to inadvertently create an avenue to do that and then try to try to stuff the cat back in the bag after we're done, but I don't I I feel relatively confident based on what our discussion has been today. Vote against it then, Rhonda. It's fine if you don't feel comfortable.

Go ahead. Commissioner Kays has raised a very valid point several times, not just in this discussion. But in the absence of a true future land use plan, this becomes difficult. We could add a sentence in here. To clarify that it's in accordance with the future land-use plan And that's something we need to work toward and that might might help a lot of heartburn not just with the r3s but r3 and r2 and all of the other discussions that as a commission you struggle with Got another question on proximity again, sorry Todd coming at you I

So being of a development mindset and looking at the neighborhoods that are in proximity to campuses, by putting that restriction on it, are we making things a moot point by making it either having to be this close and then likely getting rid of some of our stock of single-family homes?

that area in those areas because if you look at available development land in close proximity it's limited so and I'll pile on myself on this argument by saying it only happens within a quarter mile and then no one sells or buys you know then we're saying well then we push it out and it doesn't happen so I mean that that's the flip side of that argument too You know we're cutting off our nose to spite her face and that in that respect so I don't know what the answer is I just know that if you were to oppose Oppose this across the street from where I live I would be at a meeting with porches and pitchforks So saying I would I would miss Chad I'd report miss Dargis's contention that if it's this one specifically for student housing and if that's a state of purpose there's got to be a walkability and

and proximity to the intended institution. So it makes sense to me that I would not want to place a student housing two miles away from the main campus. doesn't fit with the purpose and the why there.

It doesn't alleviate the parking issues that the Lake Area already experiences. It doesn't, what is it, yes, it gives the student housing and it helps the parents, you know, good, my kid's got a safe, you know, dormitory to live in. I think it's a great idea, don't get me wrong. I wish we did have dorms. I truly do. But we're kind of backwards now. That should have been done back in, you know, maybe the 70s, to your point. taking out some of the residential that was around there. You know, you tell me now that somebody can put up a building, just guess what? I'm just going to add $100,000 to the price of my house so you can't do it. Or that, you know, I'm going to, you know, now we've got you.

Well, that's part of the game that gets played, I think, already. I agree. And I think LATC, if you look at the plat map, they've already bought a bunch of stuff to the east of the campus. I agree. I mean, I like the idea. It's knowledge.

I'm not poo-pooing the idea of student housing. I wish we had it. I truly do. But I think the mixing, I just see it turning into a real.

In the effort of expediency and of focus, Is there a specific amendment, or is it simply, does anyone want to make a specific amendment to this proposal for R3S for proximity, and we can vote that up or down?

Mr. Chair, I'm not going to make a, I think the comment has been made. I think the City Council will hear what we are saying here, and I trust the City Council to make the decision based upon what we've talked about here. I think, I don't think we, I don't, There's been too much hard work that's been done at the staff level for us to nitpick it. I think they can carry the message forward to the city council, for those city council members that aren't watching the meeting, saying that the planning commission generally likes this idea. There are some concerns about, can this be done anywhere in the community? There's concerns about making sure that it is students, and there are concerns about proximity to the campuses, if that's what we're trying to do. Would hate to foreclose on some really neat idea that isn't within proximity right just the way you don't like that I can't even foresee or imagine By doing that so but I just know the nature of where things are that today when somebody wants to propose something Different in the middle of an established our ones on there. We brush back and that City Council So there's nobody here today talking about it waiting to wait until it gets applied and then it's gonna be a bloodbath

Okay. If anyone wishes to make an amendment based on our discussion, we can do so and vote it up or down and then move forward. Otherwise, we have a resolution for recommendation as stated by staff with the changes to the family portion of it. We have motion and second currently for recommendation based on that. Call the question. Okay. All those in favor of the resolution, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Aye.

Motion passes. Mr. Chair, probably should ask for a head count.

All right, fine.

Do a head count.

Chernus. Case. Aye. Tate. Aye. Culhane. Aye. Speyer. Nay. Dargus Johnson. No. Kachak. Aye.

Mr. Chair go ahead. Mr. Casey. I would just say that the night the nays that are here I think are the reason I'm saying let's push it on and let the city council very robust discussion Great discussion love that and just because we some of us disagree Nothing personal.

That was fantastic. All right, that brings us to the third resolution in of the quad Which is 2026 30. This is the zoning text to Zoning 21 10 21 10 the chart the summary of district regulation this chair so moved to recommend approval of City Council motion by case second Second I think I heard turn us say that first we're gonna go with motion by case second by churn us This is basically the chart Any further discussion Again, want to commend staff. Looks great. Looks wonderful. Thank you for being forward-thinking and very detail-oriented and to whomever served on the subcommittees for the time that they donated for that. Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. That brings us to 2026-31. This is the zoning text amendment 221.9. Definitions. Definitions. Definitions the definitions. This is the very last page. Thank you Brandi Any further I need a motion, sorry So moved motion by tape So I can second by fire any further discussion regarding the definitions Hearing none all those in favor say aye aye Opposed same time motion passes. I That brings us to the conclusion of our regular agenda. Now is the time for open public comment. If there was something that you wish to speak on that was not on the Planning Commission meeting, we're going to get to the Board of Adjustment. Thank you guys for waiting so patiently. Sorry that it took a little while to get through that. But if there's something that was not on the regular Planning Commission agenda that you wish to talk, now is the time to do so. All right, new business.

None that I have. New business. Any new business?

No. Any old business? Just the land use policy, I think.

Oh, we had talked about it.

I hadn't thought about it since then. Actively blocking it out of our minds. Any need for an executive session?

No.

Wonderful. Then we are adjourned, and we will reconvene as the Board of Adjustment very shortly and address the variances in conditional use permit.