PLAN COMMISSION

Minutes of December 9, 2004

Members present: Breault, Koch, Mailloux, Gilbert and Bieraugel

Others present: John Rask, Scott Huffman, Steve and Susan Lipps, Mark Erickson, Brian Hinz, Roger Riedel, Denny Darnold and others.

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Breault at 7:01 p.m.

Moved by Gilbert, seconded by Mailloux to approve the meeting minutes of 12/2/04. Motion carried.

Final plat, Red Cedar Townhomes North, 56 townhome lots, Wedgewood Circle and Canyon Boulevard, Red Cedar Canyon planned residential development – Hans Hagen Homes. Darnold noted that the plan commission has previously reviewed the revised concept plans for this area of multiple family residential development. Hans Hagen Homes proposes a change in density for this particular area from 44 units to 56 units in exchange for substantially reducing the density in another development area in Red Cedar Canyon. John Rask, Hans Hagen Homes reviewed the proposed plat and site plan denoting the off-street parking, proof of parking and sidewalk system.

Bieraugel asked if this area proposed sidewalks on the perimeter of the block and about the interior sidewalk system. Rask noted the perimeter sidewalks are proposed and are utilized by the residents throughout the entire development and are considered part of the overall sidewalk system. The interior sidewalks provide access to the “front” doors of the individual units and are important because the garage access is on the opposite side of the dwelling units.

Moved by Bieraugel, seconded by Gilbert to approve and recommend approval to the Common Council of the final plat of Red Cedar Townhomes North as proposed by Hans Hagen Homes with the plat to be executed upon the execution of the development agreement. Motion carried.

Request for rezoning from R-1, One-Family Residential District to OFC, Office District, Lot 2, CSM, Vol. 4, Pg. 1175, City of Hudson, 1.65 acres south of Crest View Drive and west of Heggen Street – Mark M. Erickson. Darnold reviewed the site of the proposed rezoning being south of Crest View Drive and west of Heggen Street; but two properties, owned by the city of Hudson and Steve and Dianne Kinney, exist between Heggen Street and the Erickson property. Darnold commented that the site slopes toward the storm water retention pond to the west of the site and that steep slopes exist on the south / southeasterly and north perimeters of the parcel. Development of the parcel for one-family residential development or office development if the rezoning request is approved must consider proximity to the storm water pond and to the trunk sanitary sewer main on the west part of the site and steep slopes on the south part of the site. The high water mark of the retention pond is 823.5 feet msl, and the first floor of the

Page 2, Plan Commission

December 9, 2004

development is generally required to be three (3) feet above that high water elevation. Rezoning from R-1 to OFC district will increase traffic and impervious surface coverage. The number of vehicles a day would be approximately 10 per day for a one-family residence and 110 to 121 per day for an office development of 10,000 to 11,000 sq. ft. of floor space. Darnold commented that that amount of increased traffic onto Crest View Drive west of Heggen St. would not be a traffic volume concern with most of the traffic occurring in the peak hour traffic periods.

Mark Erickson commented that he proposes a low impact office of approximately 10,000 sq. ft that can blend in with the nearby residential development, be energy efficient and sensitive to the existing landscape. Erickson noted that the city raised the high water elevation from 820 feet msl to 823.5 feet msl, but did not compensate the owner Eric Investments as they compensated the abutting residential owners.

Koch asked if part of the proposed building was located in the storm water area. Darnold commented that it was, but that the city is not approving the concept plan at this time. The plan as shown is for illustrative purposes only. Darnold stated that issue was discussed with Mr. Erickson.

Breault asked if the building can be reoriented to move it easterly and above the high water elevation. Erickson stated that would be reviewed, but that there is a concern of fitting in the parking without disturbing the steep slopes on the east and south sides of the site. Erickson explained that they would like to explore potential filling of part of the site and storm water area, but retain adequate storm water storage capacity.

Koch noted that this is a nice site, and any development needs to be sensitive to the existing conditions.

Steve Lipps, president of the HazelCrest homeowners association commented that he does not foresee a negative impact from the development, but added that there were some previous discussions by the property owner that the area would not be developed.

Darnold presented a letter from Steve and Dianne Kinney stating that they are not opposed to the rezoning request, but would welcome an opportunity to discuss their proposal as related to the Erickson parcel at some point in the future.

Moved by Gilbert, seconded by Koch to recommend approval of rezoning the Mark Erickson parcel described as Lot 2, CSM, Volume 4, Page 1175 from R-1, One-Family Residential District to OFC, Office District with the findings of fact as per the community development director’s staff rezoning review dated 12/7/04. Motion carried.

Page 3, Plan Commission

December 9, 2004

The record of decision for approval of the request for rezoning by Mark Erickson is:

The rezoning is not found to be purpose and intent of NR118 because of the following reasons:

Preservation of scenic and recreational resources of the riverway especially in regard to the view from and use of the river. This parcel is not visible from the St. Croix River and will not have any impact on the scenic value or recreational use of the river.

Maintenance of safe and healthful conditions. If development occurs on this parcel the city of Hudson will review the development in light of public safety issues including emergency response and accessibility and safe public street access.

Preservation and control of water pollution, including sedimentation. Developments proposed for this parcel either one-family residential or office development will be required to implement best management erosion control measures.

Location of the site to floodways, floodplains and slope preservation zones and blufflines. The site is located adjacent to a municipal storm water retention area. Generally developments are required to establish first floor elevations three (3) feet above the high water elevation to prevent flooding. Also, as stated before particular care must be given of the proximity of the development’s buildings to the existing trunk sanitary sewer main on the westerly part of the site. Slopes 12% or greater on the north part of the sites are near the north property line and have a minimum vertical elevation change, four (4) feet or less.

Erosion potential of the site based on degree and direction of slope, soil type and vegetative cover; potential impact on terrestrial and aquatic habitat. Much of the development of this site will occur on slopes of less than 10%. Again, the implementation of best management erosion control practices will be required.

Location of the site with respect to existing or future access roads. Access may be achieved via Crest View Drive or possibly Heggen Street. New public Streets will not be required.

Adequacy of proposed wastewater treatment. The city of Hudson wastewater treatment plant capacity is adequate and accounts for all development parcels with in the current corporate limits.

Compatibility with adjacent land uses. Currently the adjacent land uses are undeveloped property. Office development is projected to occur on the Steve and Dianne Kinney property located to the east in the future, compliant with zoning of the Kinney parcel. If the Erickson parcel is rezoned to OFC, Office District, the proposed rezoning will be compatible with the adjacent property. Residential development does occur to the west, but is buffered by the city of Hudson storm water retention pond. If the rezoning is approved, the site should be designed to mitigate any impact on lighting from the building or parking lot. Visual impact also can be mitigated with a building design that complements the existing landscape and considers proximity to the residential development to the west.

Page 4, Plan Commission

December 9, 20054

Request for electronic reader board at Hudson High School, 1401 Vine Street – School District of Hudson. Scott Huffman, Assistant Principal, Hudson High School presented a set of photographs and illustrations representing the type of sign that the school district would like to install at the high school complex on Vine Street. Huffman explained that the sign would be comprised of two sections; identification sign for the

high school (2 ½ feet x 8 or 10 feet) and a reader board area (2 feet, 2 inches x 8 or 10 feet). The signs would be mounted to a base approximately two to three feet high for an overall height of seven to eight feet above ground level. Huffman noted that some of the plan commission members have questioned the need for the sign. Huffman stated that 2,000 to 3,000 persons per day visit the high school campus including students, teachers, guests and people attending after school activities, but not including the number of other motorists or pedestrians that travel by the high school on Vine Street. Huffman explained that the information could include school district activities as well as other general public or community activities. Illumination of the reader board is minimal; and at 15 feet, the illumination is only 50% of the light intensity and at 25 feet 25%.

Breault expressed concern about the overall impact on the community if other public or quasi-public entities want reader boards at their sites including other school facilities, churches and government units. Darnold explained that the sign ordinance would have to be amended to permit a reader board in residential areas; and if the plan commission is going to consider amending the sign ordinance, they should consider requiring approval of a conditional use permit as part of the sign permit requirement so the city can review the specific site conditions.

Roger Riedel, 4^th District Alderman, questioned the need, if the sign was permitted, proximity to the intersection and commented that the sign would be a distraction in a heavily trafficked area.

Bieraugel commented that he questioned the need for the sign.

Koch commented that she does see value in this type of signage in keeping the public informed of school activities.

Breault questioned the location and proximity to the intersection and noted that he had received calls from neighboring residents that have expressed concern about the proposed signage.

Gilbert noted that he lives adjacent to the school, and the sign would probably be visible from his residence, but that he is not opposed to the proposed signage in that it would be of value to the school district and community in keeping the general public informed of school activities.

Page 5, Plan Commission

December 9, 2004

Mailloux questioned if it fits into the adjacent residential neighborhood, the need for the sign and expressed concern of other potential requests for electronic reader boards within the community.

Moved by Gilbert, seconded by Koch to recommend revision of the sign ordinance to allow electronic reader boards in the residential districts upon application and approval of a conditional use permit and to recommend approval of the electronic reader board as proposed by the School District of Hudson at the Hudson High School. Motion denied.

Two votes in favor of the motion (Gilbert and Koch) and three opposed (Breault, Mailloux and Bieraugel).

Revisions to Municipal Code, Chapter 253, Floodplain Zoing to comply with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WisDNR) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements – City of Hudson, Wisconsin. Darnold asked if there were any questions or concerns about the revisions to the floodplain regulations. Bieraugel commented that the regulations cover a relatively small area of the community that is or has development potential. Darnold noted that only a few projects have been subject to the regulations in the past.

Gilbert asked about the section regarding campgrounds and how that impacts the community as they are not designated campgrounds. Darnold commented that he felt because the areas of the islands are not a formally designated campground and that the provisions would not be required.

Moved by Mailloux, seconded by Gilbert to recommend approval of the proposed revisions to Municipal Code, Chapter 253 as proposed by the community development director. Motion carried. Darnold commented that the public hearing is scheduled for January 17, 2005.

Other matters for discussion or placement on future agendas. Darnold noted that there are no other meetings scheduled for 2004. Mailloux inquired about the status of the tree preservation ordinance and how that may apply to a development such as the Erickson site discussed tonight. Darnold stated that the tree preservation ordinance is still being worked on; and in regards to the Erickson parcel, most of the mature trees will not be disturbed because they are in the areas that are protected because of steep slopes or are located within the city properties adjacent to the Erickson parcel.

Breault and Darnold wished the plan commission members a good holiday season and thanked them for the dedication and hard work during 2004.

Moved by Bieraugel, seconded by Gilbert to adjourn. Motion carried. 7:57 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Dennis Darnold, Secretary