Council opens first reading on rezone of Southlake Drive parcel; neighbors raise wetland and density concerns

The Watertown City Council opened a first reading on a request to rezone a 2.55‑acre parcel near Southlake Drive from R‑1 (single‑family) to R‑3 (multifamily) after the Planning Commission recommended approval 7–0.

Community Development Manager Brandy Hatton told the council the parcel, located southeast of Sandy Shores State Park along Southlake Drive, was annexed and zoned R‑1 in 2018 and later subdivided into lots. A wetland delineation completed in late 2024 identified jurisdictional wetland areas that are not part of the developer’s rezone request; Hatton said the blue‑hatched area shown to the council has development potential without involving the jurisdictional wetlands overseen by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Property owners Aaron Hansen and Russell Warner (East River LLC) described themselves as the applicants and stood for questions. Hatton said the applicants proposed to construct two fourplex buildings. "The R‑3 multifamily residential maximum could be 65 one‑bedroom units for this 2.55 acres," Hatton told the council, and she added that three‑bedroom units would reduce that theoretical maximum to 44 units; parking and other site standards would also limit practical density.

Several neighbors spoke in opposition during public testimony. Ron Deville, who lives across Southlake Drive, described the area’s Toby Slough and urged the council to leave the slough undeveloped. "All this here that's going on, I've had a lot of comments like what the hell are they doing tearing up a beautiful slough like that?" Deville said, citing concerns about mud, safety and increased activity around the lake.

Council members used the hearing to probe planning and process details. Councilman Jerns asked about the maximum buildout under R‑3; Hatton repeated the theoretical maximums and said the applicants had indicated an intent to develop fourplexes. Council members raised the option of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as a way to lock in specific uses, designs and lot divisions. Hatton and other staff noted a PUD requires a minimum of three acres in the city’s current ordinance; the applicant’s parcel is 2.55 acres and would fall short of that minimum unless adjacent acreage were included.

Council members said they were balancing the applicants’ stated intent against the broader range of uses allowed in an R‑3 district. Councilman Danforth described the recurring public concern about rezoning near established neighborhoods and urged caution: "When we go to a rezoning scenario in developed areas without some kind of ability to hold people to their plan, you have this fight all the time," Danforth said. Several council members advised the applicants that returning with either an R‑2 request (single‑family attached) or a PUD might address neighbors’ concerns by defining lot lines, building counts and ownership structure.

Applicants answered procedural questions: Russell Warner said he had not purchased the property intending a particular development and that flexibility was the reason for the R‑3 request; Aaron Hansen said they would maintain an existing structure on an adjacent lot and that the two proposed fourplexes were the applicants’ current plan.

The first reading closed without a final vote; the council scheduled the matter for a second reading and final action at the next regular meeting. Staff materials and public testimony for that future vote will include the wetland delineation and the Planning Commission record.

No ordinance was adopted at this meeting.