PLAN COMMISSION

January 28, 2010                                                                                                                              

 

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

 

Others present:  Joe Matchey, Dick Erickson, Jay Andrews, Dustin Rassbach, Lori Bernard, Gordon Conard and Denny Darnold

 

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

 

A motion was made by Yoerg, seconded by Selissen to approve the January 7, 2010 meeting minutes.

Motion carried.

 

Public hearing and consideration of an application for a conditional use permit for a temporary batch concrete plant at the Mimbach Quarry, 2700 Hanley Road for 8 – 12 days – Trierweiler Construction and Supply Company.  Knudson reviewed the public hearing notice and called the hearing to order.  No comments were received from the public.  Darnold noted that he did get a call from Mr. Scott Wang, owner of a lot in the St. Croix Business Park and that Mr. Wang expressed support for the temporary use of the quarry as a concrete batch plant.  A motion was made by Yoerg, seconded by Olson to close the public hearing. (7:05 p.m.)  Motion carried.

 

Darnold noted that the request is to have a temporary concrete batch plant inside of the Mimbach Quarry, 2700 Hanley Road to provide concrete to a highway project near River Falls.  The operation is expected to last 8 to 12 days and end by mid-July, 2010, with operating hours from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.  It is estimated that 248 trucks per day will deliver concrete to the WisDOT project near River Falls.  Other trucks will be delivering cement, sand and fly ash to the batch plant site.  Darnold noted that one element of this type of operation is that WisDOT will require the specified haul route to be reviewed for existing road conditions and again reviewed after the project is completed.

 

Yoerg asked where the haul route will be inside the city.  Darnold noted that trucks will haul only on Hanley Road from the quarry entrance to the east end of the Hanley Road / STH 35 Intersection and STH 35.  Darnold added that trucks delivering cement, sand and fly ash to the site will use STH 35 and Hanley Road and not Carmichael Road.  Darnold commented that restriction could be a condition placed on the conditional use permit recommendation.

 

Yoerg asked if Hanley Road is designed to accommodate that type of traffic.  Darnold answered yes.

 

Knudson asked if STH 35 might be closed and traffic detoured through Hudson as part of the STH 35 project.  Joe Matchey answered no.

 

Darnold asked if the July 16th completion date is certain.  Matchey answered yes to accommodate the Farm Progress Show near River Falls this summer.

 

Yoerg commented that the total haul route is about 10 miles.  Matchey commented the proposed route is one with few stops and the quarry allows the set up of the concrete batch plant without disrupting the existing use of other property.  Matchey stated that they will haul most of the concrete themselves and contract to have the cement, fly ash and sand delivered.

 

Page 2, Plan Commission

January 28, 2010                                                                                                                              

 

 

Casanova asked how many cubic yards of concrete are anticipated.  Matchey estimated 17,000 cubic yards.

 

Olson asked what happens if the haul route is damaged, who pays.   Matchey noted that WisDOT requires in the project contract a line item for haul route repair.  WisDOT also requires the road conditions to be documented before and after the project and that the local unit of government (city of Hudson) would be contacted to be part of the review if they desire.  Payment is withheld by WisDOT until any repairs that are required are made.

 

Yoerg asked about tracking mud or other materials onto Hanley Road.  Will they be responsible for cleaning up the roadway?   Matchey stated he did not think that should be a concern as this is a commercial site that has gravel hauled out on a regular basis, but they would be responsible for removing any material tracked onto Hanley Road.

 

Olson asked about the cost of the city engineer in review of the road conditions.  Matchey commented that WisDOT will have their engineers involved in the review and if the city wants the city engineer to be involved, he was not aware how that cost may be reimbursed.  Knudson commented that he will contact the city engineer in regard to the documentation of existing conditions and the post project review.

 

A motion was made by Yoerg, seconded by Casanova to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to Trierweiler Construction and Supply Company for a temporary concrete batch plant at the Mimbach Quarry, 1200 Hanley Road for an 8 – 12 day period, 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. until July 20, 2010.  Motion carried.

 

Final development plans, Tire Proz, 6,000 sq. ft. auto service center, 1800 Crest View Drive – Derrick Commercial Contracting.  Darnold reviewed the site location as being the southeast quadrant of Industrial Street and Crest View Drive.  The site will be redeveloped with a new 6,000 sq. ft. facility for auto service and retail sales including tires, wheels and custom accessories.  The easterly accessory building will be razed and the westerly accessory building maintained to store tires until they can be disposed of.  The driveway access is proposed to remain at the existing location. Concern was expressed at the Common Council meeting of maintaining that location due to safety.  Darnold commented that the driveway is not being proposed to be moved south because it would require a steeper grade.  Darnold noted that he did review the traffic at the site on three different occasions and that the access is not blocked except for when a combination of semi-trucks and cars are stacking.  Due to the timing of the light on Crest View Drive the maximum time the cars on Industrial Street would stack is 30 seconds.  This sequencing also allows traffic to be delayed only shortly on Crest View Drive.  Darnold commented that the developer has revised the plans per the city engineer’s comments.  Darnold recommended approval of the final development plans.

 

Knudson expressed support for the proposed development.  A motion was made by Vance seconded by Olson to recommend approval of the final development plans for the 6,000 sq. ft. auto service center, Tire Proz, 1800 Crest View Drive as proposed by Derrick Commercial Contracting.  Motion carried.

 

 

Page 3, Plan Commission

January 28, 2010                                                                                                                              

 

 

Amendments to Municipal Code, Chapter 202 – Signs (sign ordinance) – referred from Common Council.  Knudson commented that this is a continuation of previous discussions at the January 7, 2010 plan commission meeting.  Knudson explained that a meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 9, 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. to invite the business community to discuss issues of the sign ordinance and to explain what changes have been proposed to date.  That meeting is being organized by the Downtown Planning Committee / Hudson Chamber of Commerce.  The meeting will be noticed by the city of Hudson to allow plan commission and Common Council members to attend so that the open meeting law is adhered to.  Also the plan commission had requested to have the business community to participate in the review of the sign ordinance amendments.  Knudson noted that Mr. Tom Madigan, chair of the Downtown Planning Committee is in attendance at this meeting.  Yoerg expressed that he believes the business communities’ input is important and that the plan commission’s efforts should not move ahead too much further until that input is received.

 

Darnold commented that during the past three days he has gleaned through a number of municipal ordinances to see how other communities have recently updated their ordinances to address the issues of electronic signs, off-premises signs and other issues that have been recently addressed through court consideration.  Darnold noted that he has also found another legal review that addresses the issues of constitutionality of sign ordinances.  Darnold commented that he did review the existing electronic signs within the city of Hudson.  Of the signs, two are exclusive time and temperature and the others vary, but no signs had sequence of messages that lasted longer than four seconds.

 

Vance commented that he asked Associated Bank about the sequencing of their messages for their downtown site and their response is that they have it set for a two-second sequence.  Vance noted that Kwik Trip was also set at about two seconds.  Selissen asked about the sequence of the Family Fresh Foods sign.  Darnold commented that about a week ago it was 10 seconds, but has recently been changed to be about three seconds. 

 

Yoerg commented that if the ordinance is amended that it must be enforced.  Knudson expressed agreement, but that the revised ordinance must be enforceable within the limits of city staffing.

 

Knudson inquired about the area of the downtown historic district.  Darnold explained that the historic district includes, in general, the north half of the block of Second Street from Commercial Street to Walnut Street, the whole block of Second Street from Walnut Street to Locust Street and the south side of the west half block of Locust Street from Second Street to Third Street.  Darnold also noted that electronic signs should not be visible from the St. Croix Riverway.  Yoerg asked about the height of signs.  Darnold commented that freestanding signs cannot be higher than 20 feet in the central business district (downtown).

 

Knudson suggested that the sign code include a table that can be a quick reference in regard to the restrictions for the various districts.  Darnold agreed that graphics denoting the different types of signs or how regulations may apply can be done.

 

 

 

Page 4, Plan Commission

January 28, 2010                                                                                                                              

 

 

Yoerg commented that height is an important issue in regulating signs in the downtown area.  Darnold responded that electronic signs may be regulated to address height and proximity to the river or residential areas.

 

Knudson re-reviewed the issue of the time interval of the change of message on electronic signs.  What threshold does the plan commission want to recommend that requires a sign to be approved through a conditional use permit process.  Knudson noted that his initial recommendation was ten seconds and perhaps 2 to 4 seconds is a more reasonable limit.

 

Yoerg asked about the conversion of existing manual reader boards or other signs to electronic signs.  Darnold responded that current area allowance for electronic signs is a maximum of 30 sq. ft.  This area restriction could be set at a larger or smaller area for the different areas of the city.  If an existing manual reader board is larger than 30 sq. ft. the electronic conversion would be limited to a maximum or 30 sq. ft.

 

Yoerg asked if the city may review the sign after a five year period.  Darnold opined that generally if a sign is made non-conforming it may be amortized over a set period of time.

 

Yoerg asked if there were any communities that are known to have a number of electronic signs that have been installed.  Darnold noted that he was informed that one community near St. Cloud, MN has a number of electronic signs that have been erected.

 

Vance commented that often when a reader board is replaced with an electronic reader board that the new sign is smaller in size because the message can be changed on a periodic basis and also due to the costs associated with electronic signs.

 

Knudson asked that there appeared to be an agreement that the minimum time interval between each display is two seconds. 

 

Vance offered that two seconds is a reasonable minimum allowance for a sign to change as it restricts the appearance of a flashing message.  However, one concern is the sequence of the message, such that only one word or image is displayed with multiple displays required to convey the message.

 

Knudson commented that an issue is the display of messages or images in a sequential manner that takes time to reveal the entire message or combined images.  Knudson referred to page 2 of his recommendation for amendments to the sign code, noting that a conditional use permit would be required for electronic signs that display images or letters, graphics or images in a sequential manner.  He commented that if it is the intent of a business to display messages in a sequence of multiple displays that the sign will be required to be approved through a conditional use permit, as currently proposed, no matter how long the sequence is between each display.  In that instance a message may take a greater amount of time to be displayed.  Knudson noted that the message must be displayed in its entirety to not be considered as “sequentially revealed.”

 

 

Page 5, Plan Commission

January 28, 2010                                                                                                                              

 

 

Darnold commented that scrolling of a message would be considered sequential reveal.  Knudson agreed.

 

Knudson asked what criteria should determine when an application for a sign is required to be reviewed and approved through a conditional use permit.

 

Casanova commented that the conditional use permit does allow the city to re-review signs that meet specified criteria on a periodic basis. 

 

Knudson noted that the model ordinance for regulating electronic signs that was provided divides signs into four categories – levels 1 – 4.  Knudson noted he is recommending that level 1 and 2 signs could be approved administratively and level 3 and 4 signs would require approval of a conditional use permit.  He commented that the city may want to do it differently, but Knudson encouraged the plan commission to take a close look at the model ordinance, as it provides a good starting point for considerations.

 

Olson asked if any of the existing signs, if the level 3 or 4 model ordinance provisions are adopted, would be required to get a conditional use permit.  Darnold thought all of the existing electronic signs, except those displaying only time and temperature, would require a conditional use permit because all are displaying all or part of their messages sequentially through scrolling or multiple images to present the entire message.

 

Knudson noted the existing ordinance allows the change of color only if the message displayed is for time, temperature or public service information.

 

Olson asked what might be the changes that will be considered to assist in the enforcement of the sign ordinance.  Darnold responded that the ordinance needs to be updated as to the technology that is available for electronic signs and the issue of off-premises signs also needs to be addressed.  Olson noted that communities do have more latitude to regulate commercial speech, so long as the message itself is not being regulated.  Knudson reminded the commission that, in short, regulations can address time, place and manner; but cannot discriminate in regard to the content, as the First Amendment rights needs to be respected and protected.

 

Political signs, which is a form of non-commercial speech, are strongly protected political signs that are not allowed to be on the public right-of-way; but the city allows some other forms of signs to be placed on the right-of-way including garage sale and open house signs, Knudson added.

 

Selissen noted that the general provision of the ordinance restricts all signs not to be placed on the right-of-way.  Darnold explained that the sign ordinance was later revised to allow open house signs and garage sale signs on the right-of-way; but the general provisions section was not amended accordingly. 

 

Knudson expressed concern that the city may in the enforcement of the sign ordinance remove political signs in the right-of-way, that are protected form of speech, if other forms of signs are allowed in the

 

Page 6, Plan Commission

January 28, 2010                                                                                                                              

 

 

right-of-way.  He noted that the only way the city may be able to effectively enforce no political signs in the right-of-way is to restrict all signs to be allowed on private property only.  This consideration would require garage sale signs and real estate related signs to be restricted from the right-of-ways.

 

Vance expressed concern that if political signs are allowed on the right-of-way that someone could place a political sign in front of a business, in the right-of-way, that could be misinterpreted to be the view point of his business.

 

Yoerg asked if the city can restrict the amount of time the signs may be placed on the right-of-way.  Darnold commented if that is a provision it must not be a way to allow some types, but not others.  Knudson commented that the placement of signs off-premises is a challenge in that some businesses have expressed that they want to be able to have a sign, off-premises and in the right-of-way, directing traffic to their business.  This issue was reviewed by the city of Stillwater and their determination was not to allow signs in the right-of-way.   Another issue is the placement of signs in the right-of-way of a state highway may require WisDOT approval as the city of Hudson has that situation for Second Street.

 

Olson commented that intersections such as Second Street and Vine Street are cluttered with garage sale, real estate and other forms of temporary signs during the summer weekends.

 

Vance asked if the off-premises signs may be allowed on private property with permission of the private property owner.  Darnold stated yes, but that the city may want to regulate how many signs may be permitted.  Vance commented if off-premises signs might be allowed on the private property the property owner also would be able to enforce what signs are placed on their property.

 

Knudson asked to revisit the interval to be required between displays for electronic signs.  Vance asked for clarification of the sequential reveal consideration.  Vance commented that it appeared that the city wants to eliminate the flashing messages and the minimum two second restriction between images should address that issue.  Darnold commented that part of the sequential reveal issue is the length of the message and the time that it may take to view the entire message may be a distraction for a driver of a vehicle.

 

Knudson noted that the flashing of messages may be annoying, distracting or the aesthetics is in question.  The minimum time between displays may dictate the length of the message to be presented.

 

Vance noted that too much delay in the display time may allow the viewer to see only part of the message.

 

Knudson suggested taking the minimum time from ten to two seconds for the working draft.  It was agreed to reduce the minimum time between messages to be two seconds.  The other issue is the consideration of sequential reveal.  Darnold noted he has prepared a draft of a definition of sequential reveal based on dictionary definitions.  Vance expressed concern that a provision of sequential reveal may be difficult to enforce.  Vance opined that with the minimum display time set at two seconds the electronic signs will essentially be replacing reader boards and not intended as a “Vegas billboard” type of sign.

 

Page 7, Plan Commission

January 28, 2010                                                                                                                                              

 

 

Yoerg commented that the discussions have generally been in the perspective of the motorist that has a limited time to view a message.  There are other perspectives that should be considered such as bicyclist or pedestrians who may also become distracted by the sign.  Another perspective is the interstate highway traffic, Knudson noted.  Because the interstate motorist is traveling at a higher speed than local traffic the image may need to be larger or one word at time, thus the issue of sequential reveal becomes a greater concern.

 

Tom Madigan requested that for the meeting on February 9th that a summary of the suggested changes in the sign ordinance discussed to date would be beneficial, so that information is not presented to attendees for the first time at that meeting.  Darnold explained that he prepared a summary of the discussions for the plan commission and that summary can be updated based on discussions held at tonight’s meeting.  That summary would be two or three pages total.  Knudson added that it is his intention to have some pictorial representations of the varied sign types or issues.

 

Madigan noted that it is his desire to have the discussion to be general in nature and not a specific discussion of one or more specific businesses in regard to compliance or non-compliance with the ordinance.  Knudson commented that examples probably will not be of signs within Hudson, but elsewhere, that may serve as good examples for what may be discussed.  Madigan stated that he may have recommendations of other communities where pictures can be taken.

 

Darnold commented that the city must, as Ms. Olson has commented upon, decide how the community wants to appear and not the needs of a few businesses.

 

Knudson reiterated that he is suggesting the relaxation of some of the regulations of the sign ordinance, but to heighten the enforcement.  The result will be fewer signs, but signs that comply to reasonable regulations.

 

Vance asked what the concerns were previously expressed in regard to banners.  Olson expressed concern of general aesthetics and the use of banner signs in the downtown area.  Vance opined that there will be a need to regulate the different commercial districts within the context of that district.  Vance added that the proposal is to restrict the banner signs to be regulated as are all wall signs and must be included within the required coverage area allowed.

 

Yoerg asked why a business may want to install an electronic sign instead of a banner sign.  Vance indicated that currently is being determined by costs of electronic signs.  Knudson indicated that he recommended a banner sign can only be erected if it is within the wall area coverage allowance, generally 10%, for that specific district.

 

Darnold responded that the city may need to require banner signs to be smaller in area, in the downtown area, due to neighborhood’s pedestrian atmosphere.

 

 

 

Page 8, Plan Commission

January 28, 2010                                                                                                                              

 

 

Knudson asked if the plan commission wanted Darnold to prepare examples of regulating the banner signs by district.  He expressed that drafts be prepared for continued discussions and would be able to be amended.

 

Vance reiterated his concern about the off-premises signage and what that may lead to.  Darnold suggested that he would review other municipal sign ordinances to see how those communities regulate off-premises signs, if allowed.  Darnold noted that size of signs, permission of the property owner and the number of signs would need to be determined.  Knudson explained that his recommendation for portable signs would apply to all business districts, but restrict the number of portable signs that may be placed on a parcel to include off-premises signs also.

 

Vance inquired if the off-premises signs may be allowed in the right-of-way in the downtown commercial district only.  Darnold opined that is a concern, but that if the city allows all signs in the right-of-way it must allow all types of signs in the right-of-way.  Knudson commented that issue will need to be reviewed further with assistance from the city attorney.

 

Payment in lieu of required off-street parking in the B-3, Central Business District (downtown) – Plan Commission.  Knudson expressed he thought the payment in lieu of required off-street parking is a good concept.  Knudson recommended that city staff utilize the Cold Spring, MN ordinance as a template for the preparation of a draft ordinance for the city of Hudson ordinance, but to begin on section 555.05 (page 3) of the Cold Spring ordinance and to place the support or findings in the “whereas” part of the ordinance.  This provision may become part of the current city of Hudson parking utility ordinance.  Knudson suggested that the existing ordinance specifies uses of funds collected and that part of the ordinance can be referred to.  The plan commission agreed with Knudson’s recommendation.

 

Other business for information only or placement on future agenda.   It was decided not to have a plan commission meeting on February 4th.  The date for the second meeting is February 18th in which three members will not be able to attend on that date, as well as for February 25th.  It was decided to set the date of the next meeting for Thursday, March 4th at which time a hearing for a conditional use permit will be scheduled.  It was agreed that if one or two minor items may be needed to be reviewed that a morning meeting may be scheduled if a quorum can be established.  No other business was discussed for placement on future agendas.

 

A motion was made by Yoerg, seconded by Casanova to adjourn.  Motion carried.   8:42 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis Darnold, Secretary