PLAN COMMISSION
October 22, 2009
Members present: Knudson, Burchill, Yoerg, Olson, Selissen and Casanova
Others present: Nick Hackworthy, Paul Gerrard, Peter Gerrard, Jeff Moorhouse, Brian Hinz, Gordon Conard and Denny Darnold
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Knudson at 7:01 p.m.
A motion was made by Yoerg, seconded by Casanova to approve the October 8, 2009 meeting minutes.
Motion carried.
Review and consideration of the extension of a conditional use permit for the use of 904 Third Street as a manufacturer representative / wholesale sales office with two non-resident employees – David Tank. Darnold reported that this permit was initially approved in 1999 and has been extended four times and that he is not aware of any issues with the compliance of this permit and recommended approval of an extension. A motion was made by Yoerg, seconded by Burchill to recommend approval of the extension of the conditional use permit to David Tank for the use of 904 Third Street for a manufacturer representative / wholesale sales office with two non-resident employees with a review to be scheduled in three years (2012) with the following conditions:
- One commercial sign not greater than three sq. ft. in area
- No additional signage or lighting for purposes of commercial use identification
- The permit is non-transferrable
Motion carried.
Review and consideration of the extension of a conditional use permit for the storage of flammable or combustible liquids at 2700 Harvey Street – Grammer Inc. Darnold noted that there have been no issues in regard to the compliance with this conditional use permit and he recommended approval. The initial permit was approved in 2004 and twice extended. A motion was made by Casanova, seconded by Yoerg to recommend approval of the extension of the conditional use permit to Grammer Inc. for storage of flammable or combustible liquids, as identified in the 6/24/04 application and amended on 7/15/04, 2700 Harvey Street with a review to be scheduled in three years (2012). Motion carried.
Review and consideration of the extension of a conditional use permit for a vehicle repair garage at 1300 Gateway Circle – Matt Briggs / Briggs Auto Service. Darnold commented that this is a conditional use permit that was approved one year ago. A condition set with the initial approval, that the building inspector review improvements to the plumbing and the heating and ventilation systems (HVAC), has been satisfied. Darnold commented that there are several vehicles parked on the property. Darnold recommended approval of the extension of the conditional use permit but an extension would not need to attach plumbing and HVAC plan submittal/review. Yoerg asked about the parking issue as it was mentioned as a possible issue when the permit application was reviewed a year ago. Darnold stated he would visit with Mr. Briggs in regard to the parking issue. A motion was made by Yoerg, seconded by Burchill to recommend the extension of the conditional use permit to Briggs Auto Service / Matt Briggs for a two year period with the conditions:
- The permit will be re-reviewed in two years (2011)
- Tires and junked vehicles need to be kept within the fenced area
Motion carried.
Page 2, Plan Commission
October 22, 2009
Final plat, Heritage Cottages subdivision, 11 two-family lots, 4 one-family lots and two outlots, west of Heritage Boulevard, Heritage Greens planned residential development – TV&H Properties / Nick Hackworthy . Darnold reviewed the proposed plat of Heritage Cottages which includes 4 one-family and 11 two-family residential development lots and two outlots. The two outlots will be for a private street, Ivy Green and for the future development of one-family lots. The two-family lots are proposed for development by Gerrard Companies for elderly housing and the 4 one-family lots are proposed for development by TV&H Properties. Darnold reviewed the five items identified by the city engineer in their review including:
- Drainage and utility easements on lot perimeters
- Drainage easements for lots 8, 9 and 10
- Drainage easement on lot 4
- Part of outlot 2 (area proposed for future subdivision) to be incorporated into lot 12
- Discrepancy in the proposed name of the plat – Heritage Cottages or Hudson Cottages
Darnold commented that there is a general notation and graphic on the face of the plat and it is not necessary to specify the standard drainage and utility easements for each lot and that the plat name is Heritage Cottages. The other three issues deal specifically with storm drainage. Drainage easements are required on lots 8, 9 and 10 to provide storm water pipe and inlets to be installed to allow drainage of lots 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11. The drainage easement requested for lot 4 is for a proposed rain garden on the front portion of that lot. Darnold commented that he is working with the project engineer and city engineer to resolve the drainage easement issues and if and where drainage easements are necessary. In regard to outlot 2, that area is proposed for four future lots that will abut the future extension of Promise Boulevard. There is an area that will be used for storm drainage near the back lot lines of the existing lots 97 and 98. This area may become part of the proposed future lots or designated as an outlot designed for storm water retention.
Darnold recommended approval of the final plat for Heritage Cottages with the condition that the drainage easements for lots 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 be required or revised grading plans be submitted for approval by the city engineer which will remove the necessity of the easements and that the matter of outlot 2 will be addressed in the future subdivision. Darnold also noted that if the plat is requested to be recorded prior to the installation of proposed street and utility improvements that a development agreement must be executed and the provision of a surety of 125% of the estimated cost of the improvements will be provided to the city prior to the plat being executed.
A motion was made by Burchill, seconded by Yoerg to approve the final plat of Heritage Cottages and recommend approval to the Common Council with the following conditions:
- Provision of drainage easements for lots 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and the portion of outlot 2 to be incorporated into lot 12.
- If the plat is requested to be filed prior to the installation and acceptance of the proposed street and utility improvements that a development agreement be executed and the provision of a surety of 125% of the estimated costs of the improvements be provided prior to the execution of the plat by the city of Hudson.
Motion carried.
Page 3, Plan Commission
October 22, 2009
Concept development plans, remodeling and addition to 529 Second Street – Monarch Ventures LLC / Andy Kron. Darnold introduced Brian Hinz, project architect. Hinz reviewed the proposed project which includes the removal of the existing building on the west side that currently does not have a first floor area with off-street parking on the west side of the building abutting the alleyway. Olson inquired if the existing tenants will remain. Hinz responded that it is his understanding that the existing tenants may be relocated to the remodeled basement area. The exterior of the building will be modified to provide a brick façade with increased window area on the east side (Second Street) and on the eastern side of the north elevation and to provide arched windows on the north side of the building. On the alleyway or western side of the building there will be a secondary access to the main and basement levels. Olson asked how high the building would be. Hinz commented that the proposed building height of the addition will be at the same height of the existing building, or one story.
Darnold asked Hinz to review the south elevation and the proposed façade materials. Hinz noted that the existing block materials will be retained but on the addition a fire-proof concrete masonry material (CMU) will be used due to the possibility that the adjacent property to the south that may extend to their building covering that south façade.
Yoerg asked if the back half of the building will be removed. Hinz noted that the part of the building that is now painted green will be removed. Hinz commented that the present slab on the western half of the building cannot be reused.
Darnold commented that the city engineer’s comments identified three options to address storm water drainage. One is the possible reuse of an existing storm water main that extends from the lot to the storm water main located in Locust Street. This option would not require the disruption of Locust Street.
Darnold noted that off-street parking is another issue that must be addressed. Darnold commented with the addition, the gross square foot area proposed for office or retail use is 8,627 sq. ft. The city provides that for the first 6,000 sq. ft. that off-street parking is not required. Thus, off-street parking is required for 2,627 sq. ft. or 13 spaces at one space per 200 sq. ft. The plans propose four off-street parking spaces. Yoerg inquired about the proposed use of the building. Hinz stated it is proposed for professional office or retail.
Casanova commented to Hinz that they should look at the access door on Locust Street to be treated like the windows. Hinz commented that the door is a security door and the treatment may be to provide a brick veneer on the door to allow it to blend with the other façade materials.
Yoerg asked how the parking on the south side of Locust Street is oriented. It was noted that the on-street parking on Locust Street is angled parking; and to allow access directly from Locust Street, on-street parking spaces would need to be removed.
Darnold reviewed the parking requirements in the downtown commercial area that the first 6,000 sq. ft. of building is granted an exception from the requirements of off-street parking. Thus taking out the basement area that is proposed for storage, the balance of the area will require 13 stalls.
Page 4, Plan Commission
October 22, 2009
Yoerg asked about the ownership of the parking lot on the west side of the alleyway. Darnold answered that is the city’s parking lot.
Casanova asked if there could be a mechanism that property owners can provide a monetary contribution to assist in the construction of off-street parking in the downtown area if they cannot provide off-street parking in accordance with city off-street parking regulations. Darnold noted there is no current system in place, but in concept an assessment could be charged to assist the city to pay for additional off-street parking in the downtown area if the property did not meet the required off-street parking.
Yoerg asked if a utilization study has been conducted to determine how much the lot to the west is used. Darnold noted that he provided such a study at the last meeting, but that the lot to the west of this proposed development generally has a high rate of use.
Burchill questioned if there is a parking issue in the downtown area and that the city should promote the redevelopment of parcels when possible. Burchill noted that the parking lot to the south of the Public Safety Building is not well used in the daytime and that an exception or waiver for possibly nine stalls for gaining an improved site would appear to be a reasonable trade-off.
Casanova and Knudson cautioned the plan commission that if exceptions are continuously given that at some point in the future there becomes a shortage of parking and how is it addressed at that time. Knudson suggested that the city needs to decide if there is or there is not a parking concern in the downtown commercial area.
Knudson noted that parking within a block of a specific business may be a concern, simply because of the overall success of the businesses downtown, but if customers are willing to walk one block or more then generally there is sufficient parking available. Knudson noted that the city recently changed the off-street parking standards. He noted that the city may need to review the policy of payment in lieu of the provision of off-street parking to assist the city to pay for additional parking. Knudson inquired if additional off-street parking can be provided. Hinz and Darnold questioned if much more than the proposed four (4) spaces can be provided. Knudson asked if a plan can be provided that does provide for more off-street parking.
Casanova questioned that at some point the economic feasibility of the project becomes an issue due to lost revenue.
Knudson asked about the provision of off-street parking on another parcel, such as the parcel to the south. Hinz stated the property to the south has a graveled parking area, but he is not aware if it could be shared or used for parking at the 529 Second Street building.
Yoerg questioned how additional parking may be provided due to the long narrow lot configuration. Knudson asked about a curb cut on Locust Street. If that is considered there will be a loss of on-street
Page 5, Plan Commission
October 22, 2009
parking. Olson asked if any additional off-street parking could be added where now proposed. Hinz stated perhaps one additional space could be added by eliminating the disability stall and narrowing the proposed stalls to 8 feet in width, or convert a stall on Locust Street to a disability stall.
Knudson suggested that modifying the amount of area required per stall to 400 sq. ft. per stall would assist in addressing the issue of parking in the downtown area.
Yoerg asked about reorienting the stairwell on the west side of the building to provide more space for parking. Hinz responded that there would not be any additional stalls added by reorienting the stairwell. The current orientation does allow for more landscape space.
A motion was made by Burchill, seconded by Casanova to
approve the concept development plans for the addition and remodeling project
at 529 Second Street. Motion carried.
Certificate of compliance, public ownership of buildings at 701 First Street and 700 Second Street for proposed use for police department, library, cable television and municipal offices and offices for non-profit organizations – City of Hudson. Knudson noted that the city has entered into a purchase agreement to buy the buildings at 700 First Street and 701 Second Street for use as library and police department facilities at the 700 First Street building and some of the offices from the 911 Fourth Street municipal building to occupy the building at 701 Second Street.
Burchill asked about the parking in these buildings. Knudson noted that there are 52 off-street parking spaces between the buildings and potentially 17 underground parking spaces within the building at 700 First Street. Knudson noted for the surface parking that it is about one stall for every 400 sq. ft. of building area. Yoerg questioned if the underground parking will be used. Casanova commented that the city does have parking available at the Lakefront Park bathhouse parking lot.
Knudson noted that the police department uses about 12 - 16 off-street parking spaces, and the parking required for customers is minimal. The overall parking may be enhanced because the police department parking north of city hall will not be utilized. The more significant parking demand is that created by the library and the stalls at the current library facility are not generally fully occupied.
Yoerg commented that the NMC parking lot was used exclusively by that company with no availability for public parking. Knudson noted that if the lot is owned by the city it could be used for public parking.
Casanova commented that the use of the lot for public parking may reduce parking congestion during the evening hours and on weekends when parking is of greater demand. Yoerg noted that there would be a need to reserve parking for the library. Darnold commented that the lot would serve as a shared parking lot for library / general parking depending on the time of day.
Olson asked about the potential reuse of the municipal building at 911 Fourth Street. Knudson noted that if the facilities at First and Second Streets are purchased it would be the city’s intent to vacate that building and find a buyer.
Page 6, Plan Commission
October 22, 2009
A motion was made by Casanova, seconded by Yoerg to recommend approval of the certificate of compliance for the public ownership of the buildings at 700 First Street and 701 Second Street by the city of Hudson. Motion carried. Knudson commented that it is the intent of the city to retain the B-3, Central Business District zoning classification.
Comprehensive plan update. Darnold commented that he has forwarded some comments to SEH in regard to the latest draft of the comprehensive plan. Also the intent to meet tonight is to discuss land uses along the Carmichael Road corridor. Darnold reviewed a map of the city of Hudson and towns of Hudson and Troy showing the current corporate limits, current extraterritorial limits and an area within 1½ miles of the city. Knudson expressed concern that the city of Hudson needs to extend extraterritorial authority into the town of Troy particularly along the STH 35 corridor. Yoerg agreed that the city should be proactive in addressing land use issues in the town of Troy and the STH 35 corridor. Casanova noted that the city should at a minimum address development along the STH 35 corridor to the intersection of Coulee Trail and STH 35. Knudson commented that his concern is the impact that development may have on the city without the city benefitting from the tax base to assist in paying for the impacts such as traffic.
Darnold reviewed the existing future land use map for the area of Carmichael Road north of I-94 to Vine Street. Knudson commented that it will become less attractive for residential uses to develop abutting Carmichael Road. Knudson opined that it is time to change the direction of development for this area. Knudson suggested that it may be considered that the property abutting the roadway would be commercial with residential uses further away from the roadway.
Yoerg asked about the possibility of a frontage road system along Carmichael Road. Darnold stated that there will be some form of access control with either a frontage road system or interior roads further to the east or west of Carmichael Road. Darnold commented that there will probably be three intersections allowed between Vine Street and the northern on / off ramps to I-94 at Exit 2.
Casanova expressed that the city should not be too restrictive, or to designate too narrow of an area for commercial use abutting the roadway. Knudson commented that the width of proposed commercial area shown at the west side of Carmichael Road at Vine Street is about the same width as the commercial area designated south of the golf course club house.
Darnold commented that the comprehensive plan consultants, SEH, are advocating the use of form base zoning for new development which may regulate the development of this area as mixed commercial and residential uses.
Knudson asked the plan commission if they wanted to make decisions in regard to the land uses along the Carmichael Road corridor tonight or ask for staff recommendations.
Casanova inquired if the commercial designation at the northeast quadrant of I-94 would allow big-box development. Darnold responded that the existing zoning in the extraterritorial area is one-family residential, but if rezoned to a general commercial district the zoning would permit big-box retail development. He further commented that may allow the town to develop the area as commercial.
Page 7, Plan Commission
October 22, 2009
Darnold commented that it has been the general understanding that the city will annex ¼ mile on both sides of Carmichael Road north of I-94, so that the proposed development can be served with municipal sewer and water versus private systems.
Darnold commented that from his perspective the plan commission and Common Council have in the past not agreed as to what types of commercial development should be allowed and that there is a need for a discussion to take place for the plan commission and Common Council to discuss that issue and come to some agreement. Yoerg asked if it is a matter of directing commercial development and the Council not wanting it. Darnold responded that he felt it is more of a matter of what type of commercial development may occur, particularly big-box commercial development. Casanova noted that the city should determine a vision for the Exit 2 area north of I-94 and if that will include big-box development.
Knudson commented that the area available and access to major roadways will be part of that determination.
Olson commented that she would not support commercial development on the northeast quadrant of Exit 2.
The plan commission agreed to meet on November 5th to review the land uses to be proposed by staff. It was agreed to meet at 6:30 p.m.
The public hearing for the comprehensive plan, to be conducted by the plan commission, will be held on Thursday, November 12, 7:00 p.m.
Other business for discussion purposes only or placement on future agendas. No other items were discussed for placement on future agendas.
A motion was made by Yoerg, seconded by Casanova to adjourn. Motion carried. 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis Darnold, Secretary