PLAN COMMISSION

June 25, 2009

Members present: Knudson, Burchill, Yoerg, Olson, Selissen and Casanova.

Others present: Amanda Jannen, Mike Darrow, Gordon Conard, Jay Griggs and Denny Darnold

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Knudson at 7:00 p.m.

Motion was made by Burchill, seconded by Selissen to approve the meeting minutes of the June 4, 2009 plan commission meeting per the revised draft dated 6/25/09. Motion carried.

Comprehensive Plan Update – Land Use and Housing Element, Intergovernmental Cooperation and Remaining Schedule. Note: The PowerPoint presentation and draft Land Use section (6/18/09) presented during this meeting is available for review by contacting the Community Development Department.

Darnold introduced Mike Darrow, SEH Project Manager for the city of Hudson comprehensive plan update. Darrow introduced Amanda Jannen, SEH intern. Darrow commented that he hoped to achieve a review / discussion of the policies, map amendments and issues and opportunities. The city of Hudson comprehensive plan is updated, explained Darrow, to provide a road map for planning, a framework for review of development and redevelopment, and an outline of issues relative to economic development, land use, transportation and land use / growth management.

Darrow reviewed the proposed land use classifications. Knudson noted that the total percentage of land uses do not add up to 100% and asked if Darrow can provide how the balance of the land uses are classified.

Darrow noted that one issue that the planning committee has discussed is off-street parking, and he reviewed how shared parking regulations apply to mix-use developments. Darrow asked if the city applies higher standards for development, whether this would deter development. Darrow opined that the city of Hudson is a desirable place for residential and business development due to its proximity to the Twin Cities. Darrow reviewed implementation tools that should be given consideration by the city including design guidelines, mixed use development, higher densities for redevelopment, the development of sub-area plans, interconnected streets, light imprint design, leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED), buffer standards for parking lots, landscape and streetscape standards, rain gardens and pervious pavements.

Darrow discussed the change in the planning district #3 map to include part of the commercial area on the north side of the interstate. This commercial area will be included with the residential development north of Ward Avenue to provide for pedestrian connectivity and promote the development of commercial uses that will be more focused on serving the neighborhood to reduce dependency on the vehicle to access commercial businesses.

Darrow expressed that it is critical that the city identify key corridor areas for sub-area plans. He opined that the city should review the use of incentives or design guidelines to direct growth in the identified areas, such as the dog track or the Carmichael Road corridor north of I-94. Darrow reviewed an example of work SEH has completed for Portage, Indiana.

Page 2, Plan Commission

June 25, 2009

Darrow reviewed the general concept of the planning districts and related key issues. One issue is street connectivity and the creation of cul-de-sacs within subdivisions. Darrow suggested that the city should promote not permitting cul-de-sacs, but cautioned that if allowed that the use of cul-de-sacs should be considered in the proper context.

Casanova mentioned that invasive species may be controlled by grazing of animals on a limited scale versus the use of herbicides particularly near the shorelines of the St. Croix River or Lake Mallalieu.

Darrow reviewed the use of light imprint design to foster the filtration of storm water. Knudson questioned the term - light imprint design. Darrow noted that it is generally used to refer to smaller projects that will have a positive impact on groundwater recharge and quality such as rain gardens and open space infiltration areas. Burchill commented about the WisDNR’s requirements in regard to on-site stormwater control for projects less than three acres in area. Darnold added that the city will be required to meet additional water quality standards in about 2012 when the 2010 Census is published. All of the practices mentioned before will hopefully lead to one result – improved water quality.

Olson asked if the plan commission can discuss the issue of off-street parking, noting that the issue of the adequacy of parking in the downtown area has been discussed for many years. Yoerg commented that a concern of parking in the downtown is that it is not convenient. Olson noted that the city needs to improve signage or a wayfinding system to direct visitors to available public parking lots.

Yoerg noted that some customers to the downtown area do not want to walk one or two blocks to get to a business and that a few entities including the Phipps have a significant demand for parking during the evening or on weekends.

Olson expressed concern about employees parking near the business which may otherwise be used for customer parking.

Casanova suggested the city may need to create an assessment for businesses that cannot provide their own parking to assist with the development and maintenance of the public parking.

Knudson noted that parking in the downtown is a concern, but that some of the pressure may be removed through the education of where public parking is available, including signage. He questioned if the city should invest in off-street parking on the east side of Third Street. Knudson noted that the city must look in the future and come up with ideas to address the projected downtown parking needs. Knudson asked Darrow if he had any suggestions.

Darrow indicated that wayfinding and security are key issues to the provision of off-street parking including sidewalks and pathways from the parking lots to the business locations. Darrow suggested that the city may want to conduct user surveys and parking lot surveys to determine when the use of parking is of the greatest demand. Improved signage may also be of assistance to direct visitors to the available parking. Darnold commented that the city conducted a parking survey about three years ago.

Page 3, Plan Commission

June 25, 2009

Darrow discussed the concept of “proof of parking”, noting that an area may stay undeveloped until a need of parking is demonstrated, thus keeping parking in green space as long as possible. Darrow commented that parking lots when excess parking exists may have a negative impact on the urban landscape.

Darnold stated that the city recently reviewed the parking standards and the use of proof of parking. Darrow commented that often parking standards from other cities have been used and the city should determine standards based on its own experiences and require proof of parking to improve the environment through improved water quality. Darrow noted that the example in the presentation is not the typical shared parking standard. Darrow mentioned incentives for developments that use the proof of parking concepts. Darrow also promoted joint parking between adjacent businesses.

Darnold noted that the city has worked recently with the Ban Tara development to address shared parking considerations where there is a variety of commercial uses including lodging, retail and restaurants which may not have the same demand on parking during the same time of the day.

Knudson inquired about the parking ratio / shared parking chart that was shown in the presentation. Darnold commented that the ratio of retail to retail will be 1:1 versus different commercial uses such as a mixed use commercial development, like Ban Tara. That development will have a variety of commercial uses such as hotels, restaurants and retail that will have different parking demands at different times of the day. Darrow noted that the chart is from a town government unit, and the city should review the requirements of shared parking within the context of the city of Hudson and not require what another community may adopt.

Darrow stated that buffer standards and streetscape standards need to be formulated for the city of Hudson and not simply borrowed from another community.

Darrow reviewed the definition of premature subdivision as a subdivision of land within a plan area that does not meet the objectives of the land use, transportation, utility, water management or capital improvement elements of the comprehensive plan. Ghost platting, as defined, is the consideration of street and utility connectivity prior to the property being formally subdivided, Darrow explained. He commented that the city should work with the adjacent towns of Hudson and Troy to implement both planning strategies.

Darrow commented that strategies will be developed for the corridor plans and / or special studies unique to those areas.

Housing plans should include innovative zoning standards and the consideration of promoting mixed-use residential development, pedestrian environments and reducing dependency on the automobile. The listed goals and objectives were based on the 2006 residential survey. Goals listed included redevelopment within context of the existing neighborhoods and encouraging the use of rain gardens to retain stormwater on the residential sites, the reduction of driveway accesses, the provision of higher densities that incorporate form based zoning and design standards that promote development that is

Page 4, Plan Commission

June 25, 2009

compatible with the historic districts. Darrow reviewed the concept of form-based zoning being that it is the urban form such as building architecture and size rather than use.

Darrow commented on the general plan narrative. He encouraged the plan commission members to forward their comments. He noted he was more interested in substantive changes, rather than editing or spelling, etc.

Burchill commented that the plan commission had discussed that the city would encourage the use of certain standards such as LEED, for example on page 31, the third bullet point. Knudson noted that standards such as the light print standards mentioned would be encouraged or required. Yoerg noted that perhaps the city can incent incorporation of the standards into development. Knudson asked if the plan commission wanted all that had been previously discussed to be required. Darnold suggested that the city may want to, in some instances, encourage developers to implement certain standards until the city may have time to develop standards or determine if standards are necessary.

Burchill commented that redevelopment is a key issue and new standards should be developed to promote quality projects.

Yoerg suggested the city should incent cooperation from developers. Knudson asked how that may happen. One example that was discussed with him is the reduction of inspection costs; however, there are costs for the inspections; perhaps extra square footage may be an incentive.

Casanova suggested that to gain cooperation for a developer to provide the proof of parking and the associated cost of incrementally adding to parking; could the city reduce assessments or taxes. Knudson stated that is not allowed in the state of Wisconsin. Knudson noted that a LEED certified building should be cost savings to a developer and that is in itself an incentive and is the right thing to do from an environmental perspective. The provision of financial incentives would become a subsidy to the developer that the rest of the taxpayers would be paying for.

Casanova noted that he is referring to the provision of additional green space through a required proof of parking or setting aside parking area from being developed as part of the initial development and that there may be some cost to the developer.

Knudson suggested that there may be other development related considerations provided.

Darnold commented that the city may want to reduce the amount of off-street parking required, but the matter for the developers is that they know what the standards are and what the cost implications will be.

Knudson commented that the standard for the use of rain gardens and pervious pavement should apply to more of the planning districts and that the city should consider reducing the amount of off-street parking or perhaps requiring a set percentage of pervious pavements. Darnold suggested that the city may not be able to establish new policies for many of these issues, but rather, to recognize issues and start working on the revision of standards.

Page 5, Plan Commission

June 25, 2009

Yoerg asked about wind turbines. Darnold commented that at this point a turbine may be allowed if not over 35 feet in height, but that is a good example of an issue that the city should be addressing.

Burchill referred to page 31 (June 18, 2009 draft) in regard to required porous pavement, rain gardens and LEED certified buildings. Darrow responded that it must be the city’s decision whether to implement the management practices to achieve water quality and energy savings.

Knudson asked if there were other comments on the June 18, 2009 draft land use section.

Knudson asked about cul-de-sacs and how the city may implement a change in that policy if the city wanted to reduce the number of cul-de-sacs. Knudson noted that the Heritage Greens development has been successful in slowing traffic and an effective street system without cul-de-sacs. Darnold commented the city can ban cul-de-sacs or require a reduced maximum length. Yoerg stated that cul-de-sacs are more expensive to maintain, so why have them. Darrow explained that they may be more preferred in specific locations. Darnold commented that topography may be a determining factor as to whether to allow a cul-de-sac. Jay Griggs commented that the public desires streets that have cul-de-sacs and that the allowance of cul-de-sacs to provide a greater degree of privacy. Knudson noted that the cul-de-sac street is an issue and will need to be reviewed further.

Darnold noted that on page 16 there is a discussion of density, and he recommended that the number of units for the varied residential types be considered:

One and two family residential – up to six (6) units per acre

Medium density residential – 7 – 16 units per acre

High density residential – 16 to 44 units per acre

Darnold commented that the key to implementing the high density residential development is to locate this type of housing near transit corridors.

On page 17, Darnold commented, the description of institutional uses are more descriptive of the areas of public uses; whereas the institutional uses as discussed were the churches, Phipps Center for the Arts, YMCA, etc.

Referring to page 23, Darnold noted, in regard to planning district #2 that the density range suggested should be 3 to 12 units per acre. Darnold cautioned that this area does provide for one-, two- and multiple family developments and not to restrict the density to a lower density than what now exists.

Darnold commented in reference to planning district #3 that the promotion of mixed uses including both residential and commercial may result in a higher residential density than 3 – 6 units per acre.

Darnold suggested that on page 27 the development in planning district #4 should be to “promote” versus expand the low density residential development.

Darnold commented that the second bullet point on page 26 should be limited to scenic national waterway and to delete the reference to historic.

Page 6, Plan Commission

June 25, 2009

Yoerg suggested that planning district #1 (page 21) should also include the creation of a historic district as is recommended in planning district #2 (page 23). Darnold reviewed that there are two historic districts in Hudson that have been placed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) being part of the downtown and part of 6^th Street. Two other areas were designated at the same time, part of Third Street and part of Vine Street but were not accepted by the NRHP. Darnold suggested that the city may want to provide a “local” designation to recognize the common reference to Third Street and Vine Street and surrounding neighborhoods as ‘historic districts’. Yoerg emphasized that the city should promote the maintenance and preservation of the older homes in Hudson.

Olson asked that the objectives listed in planning district #1, Historic Downtown, should address the issue of improved pedestrian access including wayfinding, parking options and safety / security. Also, she questioned what may be included as part of Downtown Improvement District and Downtown Design Assistance Program. Darnold responded that may include streetscaping and other public realm improvements and may be funded through tax increment financing (TIF), business improvement district (BID) or other financing programs and to assist in paying for architectural design assistance for building improvements that comply with adopted design guidelines.

Selissen confirmed that planning district #3 map (page 24) was amended to re-incorporate the area west of 17^th Street back into this district to promote mixed use development on the south side of Ward Avenue. Darrow confirmed that change has been made.

Casanova asked that the plan commission consider prioritizing areas outside of the city for consideration including the consideration of big box development along Carmichael Road. Is that what the city wants he asked? Also Casanova suggested a priority area the city should now consider is the area around the River Crest elementary school. Darnold suggested that the plan commission needs to review in more detail the issues of development in the extraterritorial areas and to establish priorities for locations where corridor or special studies would be conducted.

Knudson noted the use of ghost platting, but who would be responsible for doing that. Darrow answered the more immediate issue for the city is to determine the general land uses and that ghost platting will be reviewed by the city at time an annexation is requested. Casanova reiterated the plan commission must determine the land use designations for the extraterritorial areas where the city may eventually expand into during the 20 year period of this planning document.

Knudson responded that the plan can be amended so it is not all or nothing, but he agreed that the plan commission should review the areas for specific designations now. Knudson added that the city of River Falls has essentially stopped development in the extraterritorial areas. Knudson also commented that an objective of the city is to not allow large lot fragmentation, thus the city further restrict use in the areas from the way it has been done.

Darrow commented that the proposed policies would not allow large lot rural development close in to the existing city limits. He opined that he believes it okay for private development to dictate what the appropriate use is in certain corridor or extraterritorial areas. Darrow commented that the city should, before designating specific uses, conduct studies or an analysis to determine what the best uses may be; and the land use classifications will follow the adopted policies.

Page 7, Plan Commission

June 25, 2009

Burchill asked about the Carmichael Road corridor. The map of the existing land uses and current comprehensive plan designations were reviewed. Darnold asked if the current designations are acceptable to the plan commission or should new designations be established. Darnold suggested that the plan commission prioritize districts to determine which areas will be reviewed in the next 2 - 3 years.

Griggs questioned if the land use designations along the Carmichael Road corridor should include one- family residential development and opined that the area from I-94 to Vine Street should be designated as commercial use.

Olson commented that things have changed and that the area should be re-reviewed in light of how the city has changed in the past 20 years.

Knudson commented that it should not be assumed that the area north of I-94 to Vine Street will be all commercial, that remains an unknown, but did agree that it will not likely remain as designated in the current plan (1993).

Yoerg commented that the state may have some say in the designations in regard to how traffic generated from development in this area affects the Carmichael Road interchange. Darnold responded that the principal concern expressed by Wisconsin Department of Transportation is the proximity of access to the I-94 interchange; otherwise, the city’s position is the development pays for the costs of development.

Burchill commented that the Carmichael Road corridor and the area near the River Crest elementary school were the two highest priority areas for the city to conduct studies. Knudson noted that the city has had a policy not to extend city development south of Tower Road, but that the school was allowed to be developed in this area. If the city implements the proposed policies the city will be dictating that development will not be allowed for large lot residential uses.

Casanova recollected that the city had discussed the Carmichael Road corridor being commercial from I-94 to Vine Street at the time that part of the golf course property was sold for development. Darnold disagreed that the city has ever taken the position as a group, either the plan commission or Common Council that commercial development would be extended to Vine Street.

Yoerg commented that a larger area will be affected extending north of Vine Street. Darnold responded the city has acquired land for the expansion, when needed, of Carmichael Road north of Vine Street.

Knudson noted the extraterritorial areas are designated rather abstractly and should be more defined. Darrow noted that he would work with Darnold in regard to that matter.

Darrow commented that he would take the comments received tonight and incorporate those comments into a revised draft. Darnold asked the plan commission members that had not provided comments in written form to get them in soon.

Page 8, Plan Commission

June 25, 2009

Darnold reviewed the schedule for July, August and September. Land use and implementation will be discussed in July and implementation re-reviewed in August along with conducting the last open house.

A public hearing will be tentatively scheduled for September.

Other business for discussion purposes only or placement on future agendas. No other business was discussed.

A motion was made by Olson, seconded by Casanova to adjourn. Motion carried. 9:04 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis D. Darnold, Secretary