Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey, Trent. Can you hear me? Trent. Um, do I need to turn my mic on the teams or does that register? Nope, you should be fine. Okay, thank you. We good to go, Trent?

Are we Are we ready, Trent? Yep. All right. I'll call this August 21st, 2025 planning commission meeting for the city of Watertown to order. Brandy, would you please do roll call? Yes. Alletki, present. Kak, present. Spy present. Cohane here. Case here. Dolly here. Darus Johnson here. And Tate is online. Um but we do have our full board present. So it and with the actions today it'll be um majority in the affirmative. We'll pass.

Perfect. Thank you. We have a quorum. Uh this is the time that I invite anyone from the public that wants to speak uh about something that is not on the agenda. We have a period of time at the end of the agenda dedicated for that. If you fall into that category, please let Brandy know sometime in the next few minutes and we will get to it towards the end. All right. I'd ask for a motion to approve the agenda. Make that motion. We have a motion and a second. Further discussion, changes to the agenda. Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. I'd ask for a motion to approve the July 10th meeting minutes. So move. We have a motion. Second. Second.

Uh, further discussion, changes, corrections to the July 10th minutes. Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. Minutes are approved, I guess. Uh, regular agenda is 6A. This is the Kenneth and Arlene Lucin edition annexation. Brandy, please take it away.

All right. Thank you, Liam. So this uh we'll be taking two separate actions with it being an an annexation and zoning but we will discuss it as one item because they do coincide together. So this property is approximately 2 acres being brought into the city. Um it's an existing single family dwelling. It would will be brought in as R1 single family which are all of the adjacent property. the the adjacent properties are also zoned R1. Um the main purpose here um then they will connect to the city water and sewer services and there are associated assessments with the property that in that are included in your background on the agenda. Um but that is for the trunk sewer assessment within Golf Course Road. the park dedication that will be confirmed by um the park board on Tuesday's meeting and then the Souville water consent decree. So this it's just the single property there. The rest of the remaining property will still be egg land in the county that's under the the same ownership. Um and then this will be platted separately and within city limits. And with that, I'll stand by for any questions.

Thank you, Brandy. Does uh anyone from the commission have questions for staff? Mr. Chair, go ahead, Brandy. Um being that this is a an established house with established um lot or what have you, um that's why we would not be looking at doing a master plan, but if this was just a I wanted to bring in two acres that is bare ground, we would require some sort of concept plan for the remaining of that quarter. Is that our general practice? Correct. Yeah. But since they're not expanding the footprint of what is existing, then that is why there you do not have to go. It's subdivision exempt. Thank you.

Uh Brandy, there was a and this is probably a better question for Bert. I don't see him in here, but um there was at one point a concern or questions about additional sewer capacity when we get kind of towards the western and southwestern part of the lake. Is that a concern? Obviously, this is sort of southeastern, but so and actually it would be Robert Dari with the wastewater. Robert Dari. Yes. But um sewer is not a concern. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff before I open the public hearing? Hearing none, I'll open the public hearing. If the proponent is here and would like to introduce themselves and speak, now would be a time. You don't have to. You don't have to.

Okay. Uh, is there any other proponents or opponents to the annexation? Anyone online that wishes to speak? Hearing no one, I will close the public hearing and I'd ask uh for a motion on the annexation. 2523 is the resolution. So, making a motion uh to approve the uh request for annexation. Are we also doing the zoning or was that separate? Separate. Two separate motions. Okay. So, just the annexation then. Good question. Thank you. So, we have a motion by commissioner. I'll second that.

Uh second by Oletki. Further discussion regarding the annexation. Concerns, questions. Uh hearing none. I can do a voice vote on that one. Right, Todd? All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. So, the annexation resolution passes. I now ask for uh action on ordinance 25-9, the zoning. So move. Second. Motion by K, second by Dolly. Any uh concerns, questions, discussion regarding zoning?

Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I oppose. Same sign. That also passes. And that brings us on to the concept plan for Dakota Commons. Brandy.

Okay. Thank you, Liam. So, this is a concept plan update to the Dakota Commons subdivision. Uh, originally it was master plan in 2006 and when they came forward to do a subsequent phase in 2021, we had them do an update to their concept plan. So, that is what this um action is also doing. Uh because if you see up here on the screen, I have it pulled up where on the right hand side, that is the currently approved concept plan for Dakota Commons. And everything that is kind of in that lighter hatched um white area that has that was approved. Those were the only areas that were approved with the concept plan. Um the reason why they did not proceed with the southern portions wi within that approval was because it was the request of the city to change the culdesac design back to more traditional design for uh obviously maintenance concerns and snow removal ease. So, um the thing about the Dakota Commons subdivision obviously is the um the design of it and then the the neighborhood component of the walking trails in the backyards, smaller street sizes that were all included within the PUD zoning that it was um that it is currently. So, that's not going away. Okay. So then this this left hand side that will that you can see all of that green area that is the expansion of the walking trail and will also accommodate for the drainage um the drainage way that also happens within that open space. I know that there have been drainage concerns with this area and staff feels that through the continuation of this

development further to the south that those will be addressed and made better because right now it's it's master planned so that it drains all the way down to the south into those ponds that the city owns along Willow Creek Drive. But it obviously has not been developed all the way down to the south yet. So any further development will be an improvement to the drainage and there are not concerns. Staff even had the developer submit a hydraulic analysis with this pro project um which is usually not a requirement of the concept plan. However, we do know that there were drainage concerns. So engine the engineering division has reviewed that and that all um met ordinance requirements and was um acceptable to our engineers. Um, other points to make as far as the differences, uh, they used different colors. Um, but there's like on this north side along Third Avenue, that is still proposed to be R3. Um, even though it's the different color than from what they used previously. And then along 19th, again, that is C2 lo um, local commercial. And if you saw actually a previous version that was posted on the agenda, they were showing it as C3 which which was an oversight that it has always been proposed to be C2 ever since 2006. And then the other change is that pink area here that previously it was R2 development and here it is um proposed to be R3. it does uh transition well and then 19th is a major collector. So we go from commercial to multifamily into the single family attached or duplex development. Um and then that is also

what exists to the north. So there's uh for zoning wise it does transition appropriately. um this subdivision. Uh the other concern that I heard uh I got quite a few calls from the neighborhood and looked into as far as the traffic capacity of 19th and that segment between First and Arrow Avenue is actually the most um congested within the whole with all of 19th Avenue or 19th Street. So that is something that we will keep in mind as far as when further development happens. The threshold for requiring a traffic impact study is after 150 residences or actually dwelling units exist for a development and we are currently at two. So that will take place um in the future and then that will be reviewed prior to any construction plans being approved. Um the solutions that the master transportation plan points out are either adding right turn lanes to the intersection um and then also having collectors to the east to handle those developments. So it is definitely something that we have on our radar and we'll keep a close monitor on. Um but still that street segment is only at 80% of capacity per volume. So that is is good at least that it is not over its capacity for the volume that it's seeing. But we'll definitely um have a traffic impact study done once we're at that 150 dwelling unit threshold for using that access because obviously then the secondary access to

the north goes to Third Avenue which is not improved and we want to avoid uh traffic being pushed to an unimproved street. So with that I will stand by for any questions. Thank you Brandy. Does anyone from the commission have questions for staff? Mr. Go ahead, chairman. Okay. On the area between the walking trail and Third Avenue, that pink that's going to be R3 someday. Are they going to access those from Third Avenue or is that going to be an interior private road to them, apartments or whatever they decide to do.

Um, they could have access to Third Avenue because there's a lot of frontage there. But it all just depends on the layout at the time that it is developed. But they wouldn't allow like individual driveways to different lots, would they? Most likely. No. When do they think they're going to do that road from Third Avenue into this addition?

So, that will be development driven at this time. Um, and I know that it's being discussed in the CIP when they're looking at capital improvement projects knowing the um increase in traffic with the ice arena um being out in that area. Um, currently, you know, the ICE Arena does have paved access up 28th Street and that is the um the route that we would prefer would be taken. Um, and that the township road would, you know, that's the secondary route. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Brandy? Mr. Chair,

go ahead. Um, just looking at the difference where they've gotten rid of a lot of the culde-sacs and and made it more traditional streets. I don't know if my uh if my eyes didn't catch it, but was there a um difference in the number of lots on the previous configuration versus this configuration? So the this new configuration allows for additional density because you are um so there are 120 or 130 R1 lots being proposed. Uh 19 R2, one commercial and um three R3 or actually just the one R3 because the other one's already approved. But um yes, so you do get a higher density with the traditional layout.

It looked that way, but I just want to make sure my eyes are Yep. Mr. Chair, go ahead, Commissioner Case. Uh Brandy, what is the differential between the R1's proposed previous and now? You said 100 130. What was the old one? I didn't count it. Okay, I can I I didn't I didn't count it either, so it's okay. Uh, any other questions for staff before I open the public hearing? Go ahead, Commissioner. Randy, I'm just um for my own thinking here, the greenways with all the walking trails, is that city land then or is that taking care of?

So, that's a great question. So, the hold on, I'm gonna jot down my number where I left off here on my counting with my left hand so I keep my finger on the lot. Um, so that was discussed with the park board. Uh so what the park board ended up uh approving was that that open space that they are dedicating will not be actual parkland dedicated to the city because they have a homeowners association that maintains it and which is ideal for the city because the open space is still acting as recreational space for the neighborhood or you know like a park but the city doesn't have to maintain it and the city already has uh in excess of parkland to maintain per capita. So,

Mr. Chair, that will be maintained by the homeowners association. Go ahead, Mr. Case. Uh quick followup. Um as you're holding that that lot. So, is this green any of this green area is that going to be used for retention or detention? Yep. And that's we don't look at that at the concept, but we look at that more at the preliminary plan. Yep. Okay. Thank you.

Well, and like I said, the um typically we don't ask for a hydraulic analysis with the concept plan. That usually comes with the preliminary plan and the construction plan, but knowing that drainage was was a concern in this development. We did request it and review it at this time, but we will also get into the finer details when each phase comes in. But the reduction of green space from the previous to this one shouldn't have a bearing on available space for detention or retention. No, thank you. Yep.

When I don't want to get too far field, but just when we annex this, I don't remember annexing this. This probably predated my time on the board. What was the story with the Parkland dedication? I don't see like where does that fit in on this one? So, okay. The um we've always just accepted the open space because then they also install the sidewalks themselves. Okay.

Um or the the trails, per se. Yeah, I understand that that's not within the purview of this particular discussion. I'm just looking at it. I was curious. Okay. Thanks, Brandy. Any other questions for staff? Uh hearing none, I will open the public hearing. I'd ask the proponent uh whoever the applicant is or the I guess proponent for this to come up and speak if they're with us or on the line. Is this the same fella from This is Mills. Mills. Yep. And then Colin D. Young is their agent.

Is there anybody here uh from the project themselves that wants to get up and speak? Uh hearing none, I will ask for uh additional proponents. Any proponents? Any opponents or neutral parties? Does anybody want to speak? Come on up. Please identify yourself, sir. And then if you wouldn't mind, identify where it is that you live. It should be red. There'll be a little red ring around right below the Yep. Now you're good.

Okay. My name is Russ. I live at 2401 uh Palisades Lane. Uh my big concern is on this R3 what zoned? Uh first off on this traffic count uh you mentioned that you done a study it's only 80% full but in certain times of the day there's no way of coming out of that complex and doing a lefthand turn. You got to turn right only. My next concern, uh, I'm against the R3, but you got R3 up there against Third Avenue. If that is turned into an R3, all of that water comes down right behind my house, comes down between my neighbor's house, and down through all the rest of that green area. If you build an apartment in there, the flat space, the hard concrete, the roofs, we're going to have a water problem that you can't believe. So, I guess that's my biggest concern is I'm against R3 and I'm against unless they do something to get rid of that water on long Third Avenue. It's now corn fields or bean fields. has been that way for four or five years or ever since they developed it.

Thank you, Mr. Cor. Was it Cor? Cor, I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you for coming, Brandy. Just to confirm that that property along Third Avenue that was already previously designated as R3 in the first time we approved this back in 21, right? Yes. And and since 2006 and Oh, so all the way back to 2006. The only time I was on the it came before when I was on here was 2019. So the only R3 changes the only R3 changes is along N quite along 19th but it but one off of 19th. Yes.

Okay. Thanks Brandy. Uh additional opponents or neutral parties. Red is good. Okay. Uh my name is Hi, my name is Bert Follic. Uh 2111 Park View Trail and so lived there for for 14 years now in this complex and um so yeah, I don't have a a huge very specific le to say other than the fact that um we bought into Dakota Commons for the Commons and they're getting rid of the Commons. And so and I realize they're having a hard time selling their lots and everything else, but I mean that's not the spirit of which I moved. And I mean, you know, you're looking in the 2006 one, you know, all of those lean, you know, little green legs that stretch out there are the commons area. And so that's what I want to see and and that's why I bought there and that's that's pretty much and then um I understand what you said about traffic, but I'm going to echo what he said about traffic and with three kids, you know, back and forth trying to get out of there. Um if you're going to wait till 150 units or whatever, we've waited about 3 years too long because even right now um 7:30 to 8:30 um 4:30 to 6:00. Yeah, good luck. You know, it's it's just is it as bad as a the Twin Cities or Chicago? No. But for a Watertown, South Dakota, that is a busy very busy stretch of road. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Fick. Follic uh any additional neutral or opponents? Mr. Johnson, come on up or down. And Liam, if I could just add to um or just reiterate, the city is the one that requested that they change to this traditional type of development instead of the culde-sacs because of the expense of snow removal. Um so yes. Okay, understood. Mr. Johnson, would you identify yourself and tell us where you live?

My name is Robert Johnson. I live at 2331 Balisades Lane. And uh I I just have a a couple of concerns. uh similar to what Russ said, that area where they are proposing apartments up there and you know that that water only has one way to run and that's towards us and uh if we get like a 3-in rain now we have water standing in our backyards for a little while. It's you know it's pretty good because they did put some drainage in there. So uh but you know I don't know if we can you know afford any more moisture than what you know from there than what we can handle. Uh the only other thing I I uh wonder is when they when the city finally does do Third Avenue, are they still going to allow all the trucks and and semis to go down that road? anyone.

Um, they actually are not allowed to per their mining agreements and that that is on the township to enforce. Well, that's pretty good since the township doesn't have any police. So, um, because, you know, if they if they do allow us trucks on there, which I'm sure that they'll probably still be going, they still do. Uh they're going to have to make that road a lot stronger than a regular 4 inch layer of tower because if they don't it'll be wrecked in two years cuz that's man there's traffic going down that road semis and 60 miles an hour and I think the speed limit is only like 35. So I I that that's another concern of mine is that you know if if they do it do it right and and not skimp and and having to fix it two years later doesn't make any sense. And one other question I got now, are they are they proposing along 19th the whole way and 19th there on on the Dakota Commons for commercial entities?

Yes, they are. Um so C2 local commercial and that also has been master planned that way since 2006 and only but you see that um it is only this portion is the is what Mills owns. Yeah. And Brandy would you explain what C2 is or briefly?

Yeah so C2 is local commercial. So it is like professional offices um you know dentists, eye doctors that you see kind of further north on 19th um that is the the main purpose of the C2 district. So would they be routed off onto 19th Street then from their businesses or potentially and we would just have to look at that when a building permit came in and what they were proposing

because like I said, you know, that gentleman before me said, you know, from 7:30 in the morning till quarter 9 and from like 4 till 5:30. It's really a bad road to buy on because uh it really can raise your temperature sitting there and finally after five t minutes you just go right. So I guess that's all I have just you know if they do it do it right you know. So thank you Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank your comments. Uh next opponent or neutral party. Guess what I have to say is just simple. Um, I moved here from the country.

Would you please identify yourself? Bridget Johnson, 2342 Palisades Lane. Okay, perfect. Thank you.

I moved here from the country a year ago and I know I'd driven through this area many times as when I would come to Watertown. I always thought that is beautiful. It's like Brookings. They have a beautiful area like this with the walking trails and things in the backyard, the big green spaces. And I'm just saying, please don't cheapen it and put those houses one right after another when we have such a beautiful area in Watertown. When I looked all over town, my husband and I, and we kept coming back here, and we love it there. The neighbors, the neighborhood, the green spaces. There's supposed to be a playground there. They call it a park, but it's actually a slew. There's too much water. And the kids try to play out there, but it isn't working. So, anyway, that's just what I have to say. I said that just cheapens it. Have you ever been to Brookings through those neighborhoods? They're beautiful. And I was hoping that for Watertown, too.

Thank you, Miss Johnson. Additional uh opponents, neutral parties, Doug Allen, 204 Lewis and Clark Trail at the very end of Palisades there. Um, I just want to clarify that the development along Third Avenue that is currently zone uh C3 uh R3 R3 R3 sorry no I don't know the acronyms. Um there's a lot of them.

The cost of the road of fix, you know, of building Third Avenue would fall to the developer. uh not to the city, right? I mean, that's why nothing is happening there right now is that the developer is going to have to say, "Well, okay, I'm going to put apartments in there and I'm going to assume the responsibility for paying for Third Avenue." And that's why right now it's kind of unlikely that somebody's going to do that um just because the cost involved. Um I share the concerns of my neighbors with regard to that. uh realizing we don't have a design or a concept or anything else for that now. And I just think it's probably unlikely that someone's going to come in and do that uh in the near future because of the cost of uh they'll have to bear the full brunt of third avenue development and that's going to be expensive and I don't know exactly how it works. Uh this is a question maybe for Brandy. Um on the very corner there of 19th uh we have a uh that's county owned, right? Uh so how does that work? Do we at some point do we annex that? Uh do we you know what are the options for the city with regard to that? because I don't see the the current owner having any interest right now in getting rid of it except at an extremely high cost. Uh like they want to make millions of dollars off of that piece of property and I don't think anybody's going to buy it at that price. But um

so we would not we don't you can do forced annexations but we usually it's development driven. So the that is problematic for that section of third because that would mean that this like the city would have to pay for that portion of third and we could not assess it until it was annexed in. But also a paved road makes a property a lot more um enticing and valuable. And so then if that if that if the owner who is not looking to develop and they want to sell or they have an a developer approach them then at that time when they would annex and zone it then um we would assess those costs back to the developer. And I want to just expand too on like the fact that Dakota Commons kind of um hopscotched it that property and then developed further to the east. That would not happen in today's development standards because this this area is what um we informally call a spite strip. So that you are avoiding having to pave the collector street. So that would not be allowed per our development standards today. And if you wanted to extend um Lewis and Clark Trail over to this portion on third, that would be the responsibility of the developer to improve that street so that it was all pave paved and connected because third avenue is the secondary access that is required for this development. So today that this would not we wouldn't be in this scenario. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Allen. Any additional uh uh opponents, neutral parties, proponents, anyone else? Anyone online that would like to speak regarding this concept plan? Going once, twice, three times. I will close the public hearing uh and I will ask for a motion and then we'll reserve discussion for the once there's been a motion and second motion to approve. Motion by commissioner Kay's make a second. Second by spear buyer excuse me. Uh further discussion regarding the concept plan.

I just avoided saying Michelle's uh further discussion regarding the concept plan. So Brandy, Mr. Chair. Yes.

So Brandy, um you stated that the original Culdeac design which was um originally approved by the city um accepted by those individuals that have purchased property out there thinking that that's what the long range look was going to be. um the city is the one that's directing or driving the idea to change the layout primarily for the economic reasons of cost to the city and the developer is not objecting to that or had they said that they'd rather keep what they have. I mean what what's the backstory there? And and I don't want to speak for the developer, but I would say that they would prefer to keep on with the layout that they have. And I have a feeling that the referenced neighborhoods in Brookings may be done by the same developer. So, um, they definitely do, uh, they they like creating a space in a neighborhood. And Dakota Commons is great. and that neighborhood. I mean, that's not going away, but it is very expensive for snow removal in culde-sacs. Um, and even just, you know, garbage pickup, all all of the city services where we we appreciate the portions of Dakota Commons that exist, but we did request that they go back to traditional development. Okay.

And follow up, Mr. Chair. Go ahead, Mr. K's, and then we'll get to you, Mr. But and I'm not making a case one way or the other. I'm just trying to understand their reasoning again for the amendment to the concept plan is primarily to take on those R3 areas and that they wanted. Is that again again why they were coming back? It was because it expired. I couldn't remember. I'm trying to understand. Yeah. So they they finally finalized the um the other portions to the south there. So, um, and then then they're changing the, um, that R3 development as well to the on like to the west there.

So, if they wouldn't have changed the R3 and kept their same design as what they had, would we be seeing them right now?

We would because well, so they have to they have to have these phases of their concept plan approved before they can move forward with any development. Um, and then that was where like that's why we didn't approve those other portions of this 2021 concept plan because we did not we weren't the DR the design review team which is um comprised of staff members from all departments. Um we would not have approved it or we did not approve it. That's why then so that they were able to move forward with their next phase is why we only approved phases one and two because we requested

was there any animation to the developer that the proposed phase three would end up changing 10 to 15 years later from the time that was originally conceptually thought of? Was there sort of had the city extended any idea that well the way you've got it laid out in 2006 is how we're probably going to look at it but now we're 18 years later and something different. I'm just I'm just trying to get the understand how we've got to this point.

Yeah. I mean it really is just with the the cost and I know the street superintendent has the cost difference of what it takes to maintain a culde-sac versus a through street. So uh we we we per our engineering design standards and ordinance we actually like we are we prefer to avoid culde-sacs. One last question.

Go ahead. Um, is it possible uh in order to um as the the neighborhood's fears of of change to uh charge um a service fee being that this is a PUD type development as part of the arrangement to help absorb those costs by the neighborhood that's getting the benefit of the culde-sac. you know, that will be up to the developer to um

from a homeowners association standpoint. That's my that I wasn't saying that the city would dictate it, but if that was something that could be negotiated through a developers agreement that the homeowners association who want the openness of the area pay for that extra cost that's going to be and it wouldn't be an exaction exactly, but it would be it would be just a cost that they would be putting upon themselves as a homeowner assoc association to maintain those culde-sacs at the level of maintenance that you know you would expect the for the linear streets to be done, Right. And that could be something to consider. We just don't have anything like that in place. Um

and and there's only two more culde-sacs left that will be installed. The other ones are there and you know they exist. So then but there still will be two more culde-sacs. And then you know with with the southern portion I mean there was only so there were four additional culde-sacs in those areas. Um but and then as far as the walking trail then um you do lose some of those but I would imagine I mean and actually I'm not going to speculate the homeowners association will work out their deals privately. I'm sorry I said one more. I will ask one more. I'm sorry Mr. Chair. No no more after this.

I'm I'm presuming that sidewalks then would be placed on the roads on the road network there for for pedestrian purposes. uh the furthest east north south road and there would be sidewalks as a requirement of this development. Yep. Okay. Yep. Because before we didn't they or because it was a PUD, right? So there were just the the sidewalk network in the rear yards. But then actually with that last phase that that was done, they are they do have sidewalk along the east side of Lewis and Clark Trail. And then these next phases though will have sidewalk um all the way.

Mki, sorry it took so long. No problem. Uh anyways, these here are all our one zone lots and they require 75 ft lot. It's not like these little squishy lots. These are going to be big lots and the big setback. So it's not going to be all congested like downtown like some of these smaller lots. So, they're going to be nice big lots. They're going to meet the setbacks. So, I just wanted to hopefully that'll help you a little bit. Yes. Thank you. Go ahead, Miss Darcus Johnson.

Randy, I have a question for you. Um, I'm I'm kind of leaning um kind of where Todd started out with where these people bought with the idea that this was what their neighborhood was going to look like. And I'm kind of a stickler when it comes to that. We all know that on our last deals that we go through. So, if you would bring up that colored map again of the two comparables of what we had, oh,

we would only lose if this street could join to this street. We would have one, we would have two culde-sacs left. If we were to redesign that a little bit, I don't like the fact that you have, you know, you got that there's readers here. What do we got? The the hidden wood trail. You got 40 homes. Well, 39 on either side of that. As you crawl up that, that's a lot. And I don't know what we've got up in Eastwoods. I should have did my homework on that. You You get up into some of those and it's like you keep whining and whining and whining and you can't get out of there, you know? It's like you got to go way back up to 19th to get out of those. And those drives me crazy because I always get lost and I got to try and turn around. But I'm just if if this were to fail, do you think that they would consider revamping and doing something similar to that where we would keep some of the integrity? I And I I'm the first one to say I don't like culde-sacs. I I think they're crazy. But this neighborhood when we did bring that in, I was on there and I did approve it because of their concept, their whole plan was like she said, um the whole neighborhood development. You were paying for that. They pay HOA fees out there that are, you know, not necessarily cheap. So, they're paying for that already

to be in the integrity of that neighborhood. We don't need this to look like Eastwoods. my rec Yeah, my recollection that I mean that's how it was sold to I'm that's how I feel. I'm I'm probably not going to approve this plan just because I don't like the two I mean holy cattle. I mean look at that. You go all the way on the bottom street. Wrong glasses. What is that one called? Custer. Holy tunnel. You know, look at how far you go with no break in the action. You get on there, you're just you're in for the long haul here. Um, and I just I don't know. I um

that's just how I feel about it. I would love to see the two connected and we we lose two culde-sacs, but we keep two. And I think that might be a nice compromise if that were something they would consider replatting. And I know that's not cheap. So that's my two cents. Thank you. Uh further discussion, comments, concerns regarding the concept plan is proposed and moved. Mr. Chair, go ahead, Mr. Case. Randy, in the event that this was to fail, what happens next?

Um, then we go back to the drawing board. We relay this to the developer and then the design review team discusses because staff told the developer one thing because of costs and maintenance and then if it would fail, I mean, yeah, they'd have to go back to the drawing board, which is unfortunate because we and per ordinance led them there. So, I'm just going to comment. I I I either design doesn't bother me one way or the other. I understand the functionality of of what we're trying to do and with with curbal linear streets. Uh what does bother me though is like I'm still remembering back in the day when this came in how it was sold to the community why it was going to be an alternative housing selection for residents of the city of Watertown. I don't think it's developed as fast as the mills would like to see it developed, but I think that's how it was sold. And anytime we change the game midstream, regardless of what type of development is, commercial, industrial, count, concentrated animal feeding operations, whatever, I always struggle with that and that's where I'm struggling. Well, I think yes, and the best the best thing for the t for the taxpayers of the city is to have cheaper services provided to everybody. I'm going to say though too, this part of the city as designed and as sold carries a premium as far as the the value of those homes and the sales. And so I think that can be offset what you're gaining in taxes. I think they're probably more than paying their way than other parts of the town that don't have

culde-sac. So, I understand if you're just doing a simple algorithmic uh analysis of it, you could make it you could say that this is going to cost the city more. But I'm going to say did we take a look at what the potential tax implications are for the city as far as what we're going to be gaining based upon market share of what's happening. If we didn't do that, then you didn't have a it's not an applesto apples analysis. I can I can give you the cost estimate of yeah, I know like that call stack's going to cost me this versus this, but what are we getting in for inputs from a tax perspective? So based on that, I'm I'm going to be voting no on that because I think we got more homework to do.

I generally don't particularly care for culde-sacs and if this was a new concept plan. The problem is that that I'm struggling with is that what had been kind of sold and discussed, it has apparently been five and a half years since this has been brought up, but I do remember the fellow sitting here, well, sitting over there uh telling us about it. And I I remember perhaps maybe some consternation at that time about sort of shifting sands and trying to develop on it. Um, and maybe I'm misremembering, but u I appreciate the city and what you guys are trying to do because I prefer straight streets. Uh, I understand for fire service, for snow service, for uh for all infrastructure. It's cheaper, it's more effective, it's more uh cost-effective, but I'm struggling with that. Um, I just want to add to that, you know, that is the reason why things expire is so you get another chance to review them, that it's not in perpetuity.

No, I understand that, I guess. Um, and I'm a little bit concerned that the developer didn't show up or send somebody to even discuss it too. So, I'm I feel like we're I I don't I feel like we're missing some information, but maybe not. But um further discussion, questions, comments, concerns

I do think just kind of add same line of thought there. But uh the purview of this board really is to look at things from a long range perspective as well. Right? So when we've looked at the previous the master plan, the previous concept plans we're not looking at just the phase in front of us, but the the master plan as a whole. So the end end state, right? And so those previous approvals were, you know, contingent upon the overall idea. So again, you know, everybody at the time had bought into the full development.

I would be in a different position if the developer was coming in here saying, "I can't make this thing move as I thought it was going to be. It's eating me alive, taxes, or taxes and interest are killing me. I need a different solution to to move the property." And I don't think that's what's happening here. And so I would be I would be a little bit more in the camp of the developer if he was asking for this change because he needed it. And then that becomes the stress point from the existing development. But that's not the case. And so I I think there might be a maybe it's not that design and it's not the original design, but as as uh my counselor down here said, uh we could maybe come up with a better design. All right. Uh, good discussion everyone. I appreciate it. If anyone has any final words real quick, but otherwise I think I'm going to ask for a roll call on this one.

I do have one more comment to make. Just course. Of course. Sorry. I know Darcus Johnson. Thank you.

I wouldn't expect any less. getting back to, you know, like Todd touched on the taxes there and in lie of and again I I appreciate what city was doing because I think we all struggled with all the culde-sacs when it came in remembering who was with me up here but um because like you said they're not they're not efficient but this development was set up this way and we have to account that our tax dollar is not paying to mow any of that green space. So, if we want to put that in in their column saying that, you know, it's costing us more for garbage and snow, but it's also saving us on the mowing end of it. So, just throwing that out there as a thought. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Dargas Johnson. Uh, roll call. Okay. Um, Cohane, pass like you passed. I'm passing. Okay. Which means you've come back. Yeah. Spy, no. Kakachek, no. Alletki, no. Dargas Johnson, no. Dolly, no. Case, no. Cohane, it doesn't really matter, I guess. No. Well, no. To keep it so

uh so unanimously uh seven to zero. It it motion fails. Uh that brings us to open public comment. anything uh that anybody wants to discuss that was not otherwise on the agenda? Nothing that anyone signed up. Perfect. Anybody online? Hearing none. New business. Um did I put this as new business? No, nothing. Um other than actually I will introduce Alyssa Hauling. She is our new permit technician. So she was with us last meeting and I forgot to introduce her and so perfect opportunity. Welcome aboard. Yep. She's been about with us for about a month. So, great addition.

Yeah. [Laughter] Good. No, she's doing a great job. Latin for punishment. Uh, wonderful old business.

Yeah. Just wanted to give you an update on the bylaws that uh Bill and Liam have uh put together and draft and sent the draft to staff. um I have reviewed and then um we are waiting on to get a group together um so we can all discuss internally. Todd, I appreciate that you had sent me some comments. Um so yeah, we're all just reviewing as time allows and then uh we will be setting up a meeting with a core group to be able to discuss face to face and just um get them knocked out. Do you do you feel we're at a point, Brandy, and and no is an acceptable answer, but do you feel if we're at a point now that we can set it for an agenda item, not for action, but for discussion in September or

Yeah. Yeah. I would say um meeting Yeah. Yep. Because to coordinate the meeting, Carla is going to work on that um for us to discuss before bringing it. I would say the second meeting in September. Cool. to keep uh to keep our goals in line. Wonderful. Any need for executive session? No. Perfect. Then we're adjourned. Right. Thanks, guys.