PLAN COMMISSION

September 17, 2009

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

Others present: Michael Darrow, Jay Griggs, Gordon Conard and Denny Darnold

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

A motion was made by Burchill, seconded by Yoerg to approve the September 10, 2009 meeting minutes. Motion carried.

Comprehensive plan update:

Implementation – A copy of the SEH Power Point presentation is available at the community development office. Mike Darrow, SEH presented the implementation issues noting that this is a continuation of the discussion held in August:

Planning Applications and Review – Applications for the zoning, subdivision, conditional use, development plans, etc. need to be updated to include the process of review, general timeline for consideration, information required by the applicant, fees, etc.

Comprehensive Plan Review – The comprehensive plan should be updated annually and shortly after the first of the year. A review of priorities, action steps that have been achieved during the past year and determine action steps for the upcoming year.

Amending the Comprehensive Plan – The plan may need to be amended and the process will be established including public notification and hearing, findings of fact, plan commission review and Common Council review.

Planning Districts – The plan establishes eight (8) planning districts within the corporate boundaries. The planning districts will serve to guide future land use within each district, to develop strategic planning efforts and updating of the city land use regulations to assure consistency with the planning districts. Specific reviews may include policies to be established for cul-de-sacs, residential standards, trail and pedestrian shed standards, and performance standards for storm water and urban design. Darrow noted that the matter of consistency is very important.

Knudson noted that there needs to be a listing of zoning map amendments that will be necessary dependent on the final land use map adopted by the city.

Darnold noted that will not be difficult to do as many of the parcels are owned by the city and will be designated “Public” under the new plan and should be rezoned to the “Public” zoning classification.

Knudson asked Darrow to further explain the finding of fact consideration required by the plan commission and Common Council. Darrow noted that a “finding of fact” determination will be necessary when the plan is considered for amendment and that the commission and Council will need to denote the facts that are taken into consideration in deriving the determination of whether an amendment is approved or denied. Darrow stated the finding of fact generally takes the form of a resolution.

Extraterritorial Planning – Darrow suggested that a voluntary checklist be created to outline the requirements, criteria, and factors to be considered before action on a request is taken. Other actions would include meeting with St. Croix County, town of Troy and town of Hudson to discuss the extraterritorial planning authority and growth areas; and the development of premature subdivision standards and ghost platting requirements for plats within the extraterritorial platting area.

Page 2, Plan Commission

September 17, 2009

Premature Subdivision Planning – To address the matter of premature subdivision planning, the city should establish a meeting with the town of Hudson and town of Troy to discuss issues and standards for subdivisions within 1½ miles of the city of Hudson, amend the city zoning standards in the extraterritorial area and to provide that information on the city’s web page.

Corridor Planning – Elements of possible corridor plans, upon the identification of priority issues, will include form base coding, the consideration of mixed use at higher densities and the creation of design guidelines for major corridors.

Knudson stated that it is his opinion that the Carmichael Road corridor north of I-94 is the highest priority area.

Vance asked if a transportation plan is part of a corridor plan. Can the city do one overall transportation plan, Vance asked?

Knudson asked Darrow to present a proposal to conduct an overall transportation plan.

Casanova offered that the issue of Crest View Drive, 11^th Street / Heggen Street and the downtown area should be reviewed as a corridor study or part of a total transportation plan.

Vance asked if he could meet with the SEH staff to discuss the transportation element. Knudson commented that Vance should meet with Van Wormer to review the alternatives for the Crest View Drive, Coulee Road, Carmichael Road and the I-94 crossings.

Parking – Action plans to address parking issues include conducting a forum to establish and understand the parking issues downtown, undertaking a parking study of the downtown area and to adopt parking standards for the downtown area.

Knudson opined that signage or providing the public with information in regard to where to find public parking is a key issue to addressing the parking issue downtown. Also WisDOT will be addressing improvements to STH 35 in about five years.

Darnold commented that he would make copies of the “Putman” study and UW-River Falls study of the parking issues in downtown Hudson.

Economic Development – Darrow commented that the implementation for economic development would be to continue the development of partners to promote economic development and to promote employment and mentorship programs for persons looking for work.

Darrow asked if there were other issues that need to be addressed. Darrow noted that a complete summary of each item will be developed and presented at the open house in October for public comment.

Burchill asked about the status of the park plan and if he could review a copy. Casanova noted the plan is still in draft form, but essentially completed. Darnold stated he would provide a copy of the current draft plan.

Extraterritorial planning – Darnold reviewed two areas; the Carmichael Road corridor and the area south of the River Crest Elementary School in the town of Troy. Darnold noted that one factor that will influence the future expansion of the city is the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Currently the plant has a capacity of 2.2 million gallons per day (GPD) and can be expanded to 2.6 million GPD under the current discharge permit. A future expansion of the WWTP would allow the city to annex and serve the area north of I-94 along Carmichael Road and south of I-94 from west of old highway 35 and north of Tower Road. An area south of the River Crest Elementary school of about 60 to

Page 3, Plan Commission

September 17, 2009

80 acres also could be annexed within the 2.6 million GPD. If additional land south of Red Brick Road would be considered, the city would likely have to expand the WWTP capacity to more than 2.6 million GPD. Darnold explained that expansion of a WWTP takes about three years and that should be considered when areas that are currently outside the city may be annexed and served. The issue for the city, Darnold opined, is when does the city decide to move ahead with the WWTP expansion as it takes three years from the date that the city decides to move ahead with design and construction to the plant being able to function at the new capacity? Any consideration of future annexations to the city must include an analysis of the WWTP capacity, Darnold noted.

Yoerg commented that the parties requesting annexation should pay for the expansion of the plant. Darnold stated that the connection fees that have been collected go to assist in paying part of the expansion and that new development would continue to pay the connection fee to use in the next or other expansions or necessary plant modifications. Yoerg asked about the use of impact fees. Darnold commented that impact fees will be paid by parties that create the need for expanded trunk systems such as storm water, water and sanitary sewer. Yoerg asked if the city can restrict annexation in certain areas until a determined date. Darnold stated yes, but that is a policy that the city needs to determine.

Casanova urged the commission not to establish areas of priority, but rather allow the market to serve what areas are ready to be developed, particularly that would have an immediate impact on the city of Hudson.

Darnold commented that the city would need to establish extraterritorial zoning or boundary agreements with the town of Troy.

Knudson cautioned that Wisconsin law requires cities to wait until the property owner petitions the city.

Darrow noted that areas close to the city should be encouraged to be annexed and served with municipal services, particularly the premature subdivision policy and determining when areas may be phased into the city of Hudson. Darrow commented that he can provide examples of premature subdivision policies.

Burchill noted that some areas that are adjacent to the city were not annexed and now the city provides some services to those areas without deriving the benefit of the property taxes being paid to the city of Hudson. He encouraged the city to consider a policy to require annexation or not be allowed to develop.

Casanova commented that County Trunk Highway F (CTH F), south of Hudson and the River Crest Elementary School is a desirable location of residential development and that it will be an area which will be pressured to be developed in the relatively near future. Casanova cited the residential development east of the Prairie Elementary School.

Page 4, Plan Commission

September 17, 2009

Knudson noted that at one time views expressed by developers were that there was not enough land inside the city of Hudson for a specific type of development and if not they may develop outside of the city if the opportunity arises.

Yoerg asked what about the inventory of undeveloped land or vacant commercial space or homes, how does that fit into the overall issue and how does the city establish priorities for future development?

Vance noted that if the city does annex property the density can be increased because homes and businesses are on municipal sewer and water systems compared to more land being required for development in the towns when low density development is occurring. Vance commented that the city should have the capability to expand the corporate limits and provide services that do allow a greater density.

Knudson commented that it is the city of Hudson’s philosophy that development pays their own way and that the collection of connection fees is to address the current WWTP modifications and future expansions.

Casanova noted that the city must work with the town of Troy to determine when the areas south of Hudson will be developed and gain assurance from the town that they will not allow.

Knudson commented that the city of River Falls has implemented a 3-mile extraterritorial zoning area and controls much of the town of Troy’s future development.

Knudson noted that improved WWTP technology may allow the city to serve more area than described, and he suggested that the city should wait to determine if the city should expand the WWTP to 2.6 million GPD or more, as the demand has diminished considerably due to the present economic conditions and that technology may continue to improve to allow the city to expand beyond the 2.6 million at a more affordable cost than was projected just a year ago. The plan is to wait, but to have a plan to implement when needed.

Yoerg commented the city should review an orderly development policy.

Selissen inquired if the city monitors the progress of development and its impact on the capacity of the WWTP. Darnold noted yes and that generally the trend has been that development has not created more demand than projected and that increased efficiency of plumbing has contributed to that consideration. Darnold noted the WWTP staff can provide up to date information on the current capacity demand of the facility.

Vance inquired why some developments have occurred in the town of Hudson. Darnold explained that he received Council directive to not annex property for residential uses which would contribute to the pressure on the school district and that the city had annexed 600 acres and much of that area would be developed for residential uses.

Page 5, Plan Commission

September 17, 2009

Knudson commented that the Council had taken the position that they had annexed sufficient property for the time. Knudson noted that the annexation of the school south of Tower Road opened the door for residential development in that area.

Yoerg asked what the school district is considering for future facilities. Casanova responded that the school district owns land west of the soccer fields along CTH UU which is not contiguous to the city, but that the school would have the option to sell that and residential development could take place.

Knudson noted the 1993 Comprehensive Plan noted the city sewer might extend as far east as State Trunk Highway 12 (STH 12). Darnold noted that is the long term plan.

Vance asked if developments that would be in the town and request annexation if they would be required to hook up to city sanitary sewer and water. Darnold stated yes.

Knudson noted that the dog track has had a significant amount of capacity allocated to it and that allocation assigned to the dog track should be re-reviewed.

Yoerg commented that perhaps the rights to the sewer capacity could be sold to another development.

Darnold noted that may be true, but that the dog track has paid sewer connection fees and has vested rights to the WWTP. The purpose of assigning the dog track an estimated capacity in the projections for capacity is to assure that the city is not underestimating future capacity, Darnold explained.

Knudson cautioned that for commercial development the city must be careful not to give away too much capacity in the future for residential development that may preclude desired commercial or industrial development.

Casanova encouraged the city to establish a growth policy that was reasonable and flexible enough to allow growth.

Other business for discussion purposes only. Darnold noted the next scheduled plan commission meeting is October 8 for the open house and then November 12 for the public hearing in regard to the comprehensive plan update. Olson asked if there were any other scheduled meetings between now and the 12^th of November. Darnold stated no.

Motion by Burchill, seconded by Yoerg to adjourn. Motion carried. 8:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis Darnold, Secretary