Watertown council rejects rezoning of 2.55-acre Mansell replat after hours of public opposition

The City of Watertown City Council on June 2 voted down an ordinance to rezone a 2.55-acre parcel known as the Mansell replat from R-1 (single-family residential) to R-3 (multifamily residential). The motion to approve the amendment — moved by Councilman Tupper and seconded by Councilman Danforth — failed on a 2–5 roll call vote (Tupper and Bolling in favor; Danforth, Journd/Jurands, Peters, Shetty and Bueller opposed).

The change would have allowed higher-density housing on a lot southeast of Sandy Shore Park along Southlake Drive. Community Development Manager Brandy Hinton told the council the parcel was annexed and zoned R-1 in 2018 and noted a previous 2023 rezone attempt and a denied PUD. She said the 2.55-acre area does not include the larger jurisdictional wetlands on the southern portion of the overall property and described a wetland delineation completed in 2024.

The developers, partners Russell Warner and Aaron Hansen of KAMSCO, told the council they planned two fourplex buildings on the upland portion and that none of the land they intend to develop is inside the jurisdictional wetland. Warner said making the site R‑3 would “maximize the value of our land” and suggested it could expand affordable access to the lake area for people who cannot afford single-family waterfront homes.

Opponents — including multiple adjacent residents and representatives of the Lake Kempfascua Water Project District — urged denial. Greg Blow, chairman of the lake district, said increased density would “escalate” demands on the lake watershed and predicted the project could worsen runoff and harm spawning areas. Resident Dan Gabriel urged the council to allow development under existing R-1 rules but not change zoning after purchase; he said rezoning to R-3 was an attempt to reprice the parcel for greater profit.

Residents raised several site-specific concerns: (1) jurisdictional wetlands and stormwater/runoff from fill placed on the parcel, (2) seasonal snow storage and where plowed snow would be placed, (3) narrow, shoulderless Southlake Drive and existing speeding and safety issues for pedestrians and bicyclists, (4) sewer capacity and lift-station limits around the lake, and (5) emergency access and traffic impacts during heavy use. Brandy Hinton said the developer has permits to place fill and that structures in the floodplain must meet National Flood Insurance Program elevation requirements; she also said required best-management practices (silt fence, vegetative buffers) are in place for the current fill work.

Hinton and other staff provided unit-count illustrations used by the Planning Department: under R-3 standards and the square-footage assumed by staff, a high-density build could allow roughly 46 two‑bedroom units or up to about 60 one‑bedroom units depending on unit mix and lot coverage rules; by contrast, an R-2 scenario (fourplexes) could yield up to eight fourplex buildings (32 units) or duplex configurations producing fewer units. The Planning Commission had recommended approval unanimously at its meeting prior to the council hearing.

Council members cited density and long-term neighborhood fit in explaining nay votes. Councilman Danforth said prior council decisions to annex and zone the property R-1 were a relevant historical constraint; Councilman Jerns (Jurands) and others pointed to sewer lift-station capacity and flood risks as reasons the site is not appropriate for higher density.

After the vote, staff informed the public that the applicants have submitted a planned-unit-development (PUD) petition that will appear before the Planning Commission on Thursday; neighbors within 250 feet were to receive notice for that hearing, Community Development Manager Hinton said. The council did not take additional action.

This zoning vote preserves the parcel’s existing R-1 designation; any future development under R-1 standards remains permitted without a council rezoning decision.

(Reporting note: direct quotations and attributions in this article come from the council meeting transcript and public testimony.)