PLAN COMMISSION

January 7, 2010

Members present: Dean Knudson, Alan Burchill, Mary Claire Olson, David Selissen and Pat Casanova

Others present: Rob and Ann Simonson, LaRae and Jim Gavic, Dolly and Gale Qualls, Dick Grekoff, John Gaffer, Tim Caruso and Denny Darnold

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Knudson at 7:03 p.m.

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

Public hearing and consideration of a request by Red Cedar Canyon Assisted Living / Vista Canyon, LLC, 3001 Hanley Road to amend the conditional use permit to add four living units and convert 14 units to be licensed under a community based residential facility (CBRF) per Wisconsin Department of Health Services – Chapter 83. Knudson reviewed the public hearing notice. Darnold reviewed the location of the Red Cedar Canyon Assisted Living facility (north side of Hanley Road at the intersection of Hanley Road and O’Neil Road (south). The building was first approved as a 40 ‘for sale’ unit facility and in 2007 and 2008 received approval from the city to expand the number of units to 55 and then to 63 and be licensed as a residential apartment complex (RCAC) by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (WDHS). Red Cedar Canyon Assisted Living’s proposal would convert the existing ten units on the west wing of the first floor from 10 to 14 units and all 14 units would be used for residences under a community based residential facility (CBRF) as licensed by the WDHS.

Rob Simonson, Apex Management representing Red Cedar Canyon Assisted Living explained that they will be applying for the CBRF license as a Class C facility under the classification of a medium size (9 -21) resident and non-ambulatory (NA) status.

Darnold noted that an issue that has come before the city is the disposal of pharmaceuticals by care facilities such as this being proposed in this application. Simonson explained that CBRF facilities are regulated by the Department of Health Services administrative rules Chapter 83 in that they are required to have a written policy in regard to the disposing of medications. The general required practice is medications are returned to the pharmacy for their disposal, if possible; or that if a resident leaves the facility, medications for that person are sent with them. If there are unused or outdated medications that cannot be sent back to the pharmacy for disposal, then the medications are diluted, dissolved and added to kitty litter and placed in the solid waste / refuse for disposal. Simonson opined that the industry standard, and probably soon to be required by the WDHS, is that the medications will be picked up or taken to a controlled drop off facility and then be sent for incineration.

Darnold suggested that conditions placed on this conditional use permit would include:

- The maximum number of units to be increased from 63 to 67 (4 additional).

- The facility must receive and maintain Wisconsin Department of Health Services licenses for a residential care apartment complex (RCAC) – DHS Chapter 89 and a community based residential facility (CBRF)- DHS Chapter 83, Class C - medium (9 – 20 residents) and non-ambulatory (NA) status.

- A maximum of 14 CBRF units.

Page 2, Plan Commission

January 7, 2010

Darnold asked if the commission wanted to consider any conditions in regard to the disposal of pharmaceuticals.

Casanova expressed that because the disposal of pharmaceuticals is regulated by the Wisconsin administrative rules for CBRFs that should not be necessary.

Knudson added that the city of Hudson is probably heading toward some form of local regulations in regard to the disposal of pharmaceuticals and if adopted will regulate all similar facilities located in the city.

A motion was made by Burchill, seconded by Casanova to approve the request for a conditional use permit to amend the existing conditional use permit for Red Cedar Canyon Assisted Living / Red Cedar Canyon, LLC, 3001 Hanley Road with the following conditions:

- The maximum number of total living units may be increased from 63 to 67 units.

- The facility must receive and maintain Wisconsin Department of Health Services licenses for a residential care apartment complex (RCAC) – DHS Chapter 89 and for a community based residential facility (CBRF) – DHS Chapter 83, Class C – medium (9 – 20 residents) and non-ambulatory (NA) status.

- A maximum of 14 CBRF units.

Motion carried.

Petition for annexation of 6.84 acres, located east of Carmichael Road and south of Center Drive, 653 – 661 Ban Tara Drive, town of Hudson – Blue Jay Properties, LLC / Richard Stout. Darnold reviewed the site generally located south of Center Drive and east of Carmichael Road and immediately east of the Hudson Chrysler auto dealership. The 6.84 acre area is currently used as four one-family residential lots.

City sanitary sewer and water is extended to near the northwest corner of this area, and a city storm water pond is located immediately to the west of the site. In general due to the topography, this area appears to be in the city, Darnold opined. Darnold added that the site is accessed by Ban Tara Lane, a private street. The site may be served through the extension of private sanitary sewer and water mains. Darnold noted that an annexation agreement will need to be prepared for consideration by the Common Council. Darnold recommended approval of the annexation.

Knudson asked if anyone wanted to comment on the proposed annexation. No comments were received.

Knudson noted that the issue of the proposed assisted living facility has been before the city before, so the general matter has been discussed previously; and the city is not considering this issue lightly.

Knudson asked Tim Caruso, Water Utility Director to comment on the proposed annexation. Caruso expressed that the annexation will allow the development to be served by municipal sanitary sewer and water which will provide for the preservation of the aquifer and protection of the city’s water supply.

A motion was made by Burchill, seconded by Casanova to recommend approval of the annexation of the 6.84 acre area as petitioned by Blue Jay Properties, LLC / Richard Stout. Motion carried.

Page 3, Plan Commission

January 7, 2010

Darnold noted that it is his intention to have this matter ready for consideration by the Common Council at their January 18^th meeting if the annexation agreement may be ready for review.

Amendments to sign ordinance, Chapter 202, Municipal Code. Knudson referred to the information related to the sign ordinance in the commission packets and also noted that the Common Council has approved a six month moratorium on electronic signs. The purpose of the moratorium is to allow the city the opportunity to review the existing regulations and prepare recommendations for change in the sign ordinance.

Knudson introduced a rough draft of suggested changes to the sign ordinance. The Common Council did assign the plan commission as the principal committee to review the issue of changes to the sign ordinance, Knudson added. Knudson noted that he did ask the Common Council to work with the plan commission throughout this process.

Knudson reviewed proposed language in regard to banner signs. Knudson commented that this provision is one that is one of the most violated provisions of the Municipal Code. Knudson explained his recommendation would be a relaxation of the regulations regarding banner signs and would permit one banner sign per building wall, so long as it is within the permitted square foot area, no permit required. Knudson explained that Darnold had suggested that a permit be required, similar to permits for wall signs.

Darnold commented that the banner signs, under this provision, would regulate banner signs similar to wall signs. Darnold noted that under this provision if the maximum area of signage is already achieved, then no banner sign would be permitted.

Darnold noted that the wall signs and freestanding signs have not been a compliance issue as permits are required. If a permit is required for a banner sign, staff will still need to review which banner signs erected have received permits.

Olson commented that she is not in favor of the banner signs; but if permitted, she would want them to be required to have a permit. Selissen agreed that banner signs may be allowed, but a permit would be necessary.

Knudson referred to the handout discussing case law in regard to regulating signs. Knudson noted that signage is a form of speech and is constitutionally protected, particularly in regard to content based regulations. Knudson advised the plan commission that cities are given more latitude to regulate commercial speech, but non-commercial speech is a more highly protected form of expression. Knudson explained that the city will need to carefully review the revisions to the sign ordinance in regard to the general issue of content and that the city cannot determine what may be said on the sign.

An example, Knudson noted, is the allowance of a temporary sign for a grand opening of a business, but not allowing temporary signs that may express a different type of message.

Page 4, Plan Commission

January 7, 2010

Knudson asked if there is something in the draft (Mayor’s memo of 12-18-09) ordinance to please comment or make a motion to revise the draft ordinance.

Knudson reviewed the section of the zoning code that regulates signs in the downtown overlay district, noting that a provision of the city Municipal Code allows portable (sandwich board) signs. Knudson commented that the provision has created some confusion as to where sandwich board signs are allowed. Knudson proposed that section of the zoning code be deleted and recreated in the sign code. This is essentially a housekeeping measure so that a business owner that wants to refer to the ordinance to determine what may or may not be permitted, the regulations are all in one section of the Municipal Code.

Knudson noted the review of regulations for electronic display signs begins on page 2. Knudson referred to a handout titled “Signs for Success” as that article does provide model regulations for consideration including definitions and types and operational considerations of electronic signs. The technology of electronic signs now allows the message to be changed in many different ways including, but not limited to, frequency of the message, intensity and color. Knudson also referred to findings from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in regard to the effect electronic display boards have on drivers due to distractions created by the signage. Knudson noted that the state and federal authorities concluded that there is a direct correlation between the signs and driver distraction.

Knudson reviewed suggested level 1 – 4 (levels of regulation) for electronic displays. Level 1 and 2 are generally static display. Level 2 is a static message only and changed by a dissolve, and the messages are not animated and do not provide for a sequential message. Knudson noted that the electronic signs can be flashing, and there are flashing signs in Hudson; but the time the message can be displayed can be controlled. Knudson explained that his proposal would allow level 2 electronic display signs by permit and the minimum timing sequence of once every ten seconds. Knudson commented that in discussion with Kevin Vance the minimum time change should be between two and four seconds. Burchill responded that ten seconds seemed to be a long time for the minimum time a message could change. Knudson noted that the level 2 signs would not require a conditional use permit, thus the greater control of time sequence. Electronic signs that have a change of message greater than every ten seconds would require a conditional use permit, Knudson added. The signs approved by conditional use permit would be required to be reviewed on a periodic basis, such as every two or three years.

Casanova expressed support for the concept of the conditional use permit for the level 3 and 4 electronic signs as it provided some flexibility for the city to regulate these signs. Darnold cautioned the plan commission that the city must have justification for changing the conditional requirements of a permit.

Knudson commented that the electronic signs may be used much as the manual change reader boards are now used except instead of a manual change of letters required the message can be controlled by a computer, whether on or off-site. The key is that the message may be changed more often than a sign required to be changed manually, but the message could be regulated to be static in its display.

Page 5, Plan Commission

January 7, 2010

Darnold commented that the sequencing of the message may be only one consideration of the electronic display signs; other considerations may include the area of the sign, sign height and proximity to residential properties.

Casanova asked about the electronic message board at the downtown Associated Bank facility. Darnold commented that the sign was flashing a message today, which is not allowed. Olson asked if the sign area is compliant and if a permit was required. Darnold answered the sign is compliant as to the limit of no greater than 30 sq. ft. and that a permit was approved several years ago.

Knudson noted there is no clear regulation of this type of sign. Knudson explained the current ordinance states that no sign shall be allowed to change in color or intensity of light, except for time, temperature and public information.

Knudson commented in regard to on-site and off-site advertising that the courts have reviewed this issue and distinguishes how cities may regulate on- or off-site signage. Knudson added that this is an issue in that businesses may request off-premises signs. In regard to the electronic signs only time, temperature and public service announcements can change in color and intensity under the current ordinance, Knudson explained. He added that, in his opinion, if the electronic signs flash or change color the business cannot advertise on-site sales and can only be used to display time and temperature information. Knudson noted that businesses have the ability to re-program the electronic signs on a much more frequent basis, thus a need to review the restrictions on the electronic signs. An example Knudson noted is the brightness or light intensity of signage, with the existing ordinance setting a limit of 33 watts.

Burchill noted that he is not opposed to the electronic signs with the correct level of regulation so that these types of signs can be done tastefully. Burchill expressed that the electronic signs can be an asset to the businesses and that the city needs to find a compromise that will allow the electronic signs with reasonable regulations.

The plan commission agreed to further review the issue of electronic signs at the next meeting.

Knudson reviewed his proposal for the regulation of portable signs. Knudson recommended one portable sign per building or one portable sign for multiple tenant buildings with frontage greater than 100 feet of building frontage, one additional portable sign per 30 feet of building frontage.

Casanova commented that he would like to drive around and look at portable signage that may be up within the community. Burchill commented that some people will consider those signs to be unsightly.

Knudson commented that one of the reasons the original sign ordinance was adopted was to prohibit portable or temporary signs, such as the ones with the removable letters, flashing lights and arrow at the top. Darnold inquired if the portable signs would be allowed only on-site.

Knudson commented that it is the request of Bella Luce to have a portable sign at the intersection of Second Street and Buckeye Street to indicate the location of their business. Burchill expressed concern

Page 6, Plan Commission

January 7, 2010

of the number of off-premises signs that may be requested. Knudson reiterated that communities may prohibit all signs on public property, but cannot allow one type and prohibit another. Currently the city allows open house and garage sale signs on the right-of-way and prohibits political signs, which is strongly protected in regard to the right to free speech. The city may need to consider whether to ban off-site signs altogether or whether to consider allowing (off-site and defined as non-accessory signs in the sign code) on private property upon approval of the property owner.

John Gaffer commented that there are two very different commercial areas, downtown and ‘the Hill’, and the city may need to address signage in those areas differently.

Burchill asked if the most significant issue is a business asking why another business may have an illegal sign on display and why they are not allowed to have a similar sign. Knudson responded that concerns expressed in regard to sign violations are generally in two categories – general aesthetics of the community and why is the city not requiring everyone to follow the rules. Burchill commented that businesses comment that the success of their business is enhanced with signage that may currently be prohibited. How is that issue reconciled to help the businesses to succeed, Burchill asked? Knudson noted that his recommendations would allow businesses two additional methods, the banner and portable signs, to increase advertising opportunities.

Olson commented that during the summer when the garage sale signs are placed at the intersections, the signs are not attractive and are not an enhancement of the community. She reiterated her concern of what do we want the community to look like. She expressed that she wants the businesses to succeed, but the city needs to establish guidelines that protect the aesthetics of the community. She added that there is a need to bring in the business community for their input before the city revises the regulations.

Darnold commented if the city goes to the provision that no signs are allowed in the public right-of-ways that the garage sale signs, for example, will not be permitted.

Knudson added that the city needs to address the constitutionality of the ordinance in its efforts to re-write the regulations.

Knudson referred to the section regarding signs in industrial districts. Knudson suggested some rewording to clean up that section. Darnold suggested that requirement of a ten foot setback be deleted.

Knudson reviewed the definitions that are suggested to be added. Knudson commented the proposed definitions generally refer to electronic signs. The definitions were extracted from the model ordinance, as there are no definitions in the existing sign ordinance that address some of the terminology now used in discussions regarding electronic signs. He asked the plan commission to review the definitions and to suggest definitions that the plan commission believes would enhance the regulations. Knudson also suggested that there probably be a definition of “sequential reveal.”

Page 7, Plan Commission

January 7, 2010

The last matter for review was Knudson’s suggestion to delete a section that prohibits indecent or offensive language as that is a content related regulation. Knudson reiterated that communities have had similar sections of ordinances struck down by court decisions, and the city will need to address the issue of content and the limits that the city can place on private signs such as location and size.

Burchill supported Olson’s suggestion that the city seek input from the Chamber of Commerce and local businesses as that would be helpful in the preparation of proposed changes to the sign ordinance. Darnold commented that there may be different interests based on the location of or types of businesses in Hudson.

Other issues to be addressed are establishing a guideline for the time restriction for the administrative offices to issue permits and giving administrative staff unlimited discretion in regard to approving a sign permit. If discretion is to be considered, then a permit should be reviewed by the plan commission and/ or Common Council and a provision for appeal of a decision.

The plan commission agreed to continue the review at the next meeting in February.

Payment in lieu of required off-street parking – Plan Commission. A motion was made by Olson, seconded by Casanova to postpone discussion and consideration of this issue and to place it on the next plan commission agenda. Motion carried. Darnold reminded the commissioners of the Cold Spring, Minnesota ordinance that was contained in their packets and to review that for future discussions regarding this issue.

Items for discussion only or placement on future agenda. It was agreed by the plan commission members that the plan commission meeting scheduled for January 21 would be postponed to January 28 to allow members to attend the Hudson Area Chamber of Commerce annual banquet.

A motion was made by Burchill, seconded by Casanova to adjourn. Motion carried. 8:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis Darnold, Secretary