PLAN COMMISSION

March 8, 2007

                                                                                                           

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

 

Others present:  David Robson, Matt Frisbie, Alan Catchpool, Lee Wyland, Judy Olson, Dennis Kroll, Marc Putman and Denny Darnold

 

The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Breault.

 

Motion by Caruso, seconded by Yoerg to approve the February 22, 2007 meeting minutes.  Motion carried.

 

Final development plans, 5,252 sq. ft. restaurant (196 seats) and 5,775 retail facility, 901 Pearson Drive, south of Stageline Road and east of Carmichael Road, Ban Tara commercial development – Ban Tara, LLC.  Darnold reviewed the general location and stated that approximately one-half of the proposed building will be used for the restaurant and one-half for the retail use or uses.  Darnold stated that the city engineer’s recommendations addressed minor changes in the plans and specifications.  The landscape plan and off-street parking are compliant.  Darnold noted that the off-street parking is compliant based on the proposal of a 196 seat restaurant.  If at the time of application for a building permit the number of seats is increased, the parking will need to be re-evaluated.

 

Matt Frisbee, project architect noted that the location of the trash enclosures has been moved to the east side of the initial building.  Frisbee reviewed the proposed building elevations and consistency of the architecture with the previous buildings constructed in the Ban Tara commercial development.

 

Motion by Caruso, seconded by Yoerg to recommend approval of the final development plan for the restaurant and retail facility as proposed by Ban Tara, LLC based on a 196 seat restaurant and that the plans be revised per the city engineer’s comments.  Motion carried.

 

Review of guidelines, standards, regulations and policies and architectural review of projects in the downtown business area – Putman Planning and Design and Community Development Director.  Marc Putman, Putman Planning and Design reviewed a condensed summary of the guidelines.  Putman showed a chart regarding how the proportionality of space is perceived by people, noting that generally a proportion of height to width of 1:1 is generally well accepted.  Putman showed several areas including downtown Hudson that have a ratio of 1:1 to 1:2.  Putman explained that there are many design tools that may be applied to a building to provide interest, and these tools are incorporated into the guidelines proposed.  Putman showed an example of the application of the guidelines / design tools to the River City Center case study.

 

Page 2, Plan Commission

March 8, 2007

                                                                                                           

Putman briefly reviewed a series of questions regarding considerations by the plan commission to confirm, modify or deny.

 

The application of tax increment financing (TIF) within the downtown area was discussed by the plan commission.  Caruso stated that the financing program can be used to enhance individual properties as well as the entire downtown area, increase property values and use will result in higher quality development.  Gilbert stated that TIF can be used to assist in the creation of higher quality development and provide improvements in the public realm such as the river walk. 

 

Putman explained that often the part of private investment that is first to be reduced or eliminated from development budgets is the aesthetic qualities; and by providing incentives for development, the city can better defend that the investment of quality design and aesthetic characteristics of projects are retained. 

 

Mailloux noted that he felt if TIF is used that it would better serve the city by creating additional parking in areas further north in the downtown area.  Gilbert suggested that there is a need for parking on the south part of downtown also.

 

Yoerg noted the city needs to project the need of parking in the downtown area. 

 

Bieraugel stated that TIF can be used for more than just parking improvements, such as placing the power lines underground, sidewalk and other public realm projects.

 

Darnold reminded the plan commission that for a tax increment district to be successful it has to produce revenue.  Darnold suggested that TIF may not be the only financing mechanism available to the city to provide for off-street parking projects; another financing mechanism is special assessments.

 

Koch noted that too much emphasis is being placed on parking.  Bieraugel stated that he is concerned about the turnover of downtown businesses and that the city and business community need to find a way to get people downtown.  Putman added not only to get people downtown, but to keep them downtown for longer periods of time.

 

Mailloux expressed concern that the city will have guidelines, but will not be able to say no to a development that the city does not like. 

 

Koch suggested that the city must have something beyond the guidelines that are regulatory in nature.

 

 

 

 

Page 3, Plan Commission

March 8, 2007

                                                                                                           

Breault suggested that the plan commission invite the Common Council members to participate in the remainder of discussions and considerations.  This will allow the council members to discuss the issues at earlier period in the considerations and hopefully expedite the overall decision making process.

 

The plan commission reviewed the proposed guidelines identified on pages 20 through 29 and agreed to the general guidelines proposed for 1.1 through 1.2.2; to provide a map regarding focal points for 1.3; agreed to 1.4, but to take out the 11th bullet point regarding the interpretation of height limits; agreed to sections 1.5 through 1.7; agreed to 1.8 but to remove the general discussions regarding roundabouts; agreed to 1.10 and 1.12 and 1.13; agreed to 2.8 through 2.8.4, 2.8.5 and 2.13.  The remaining issues, as listed below, will be further discussed and considered at subsequent meetings:

            1.9 through 1.9.3 - Parking

            1.11 – Alleyway Settings

            2.1 – Variety and Accent / Mixed-use and Styles

            2.2 – Color Variation

            2.3 – Trademark Building Design / Adapted Identity

            2.4 - Setbacks

            2.5 – Building Height and Variation

            2.6 – Roofs

            2.7 – Architectural Variety

            2.9 – Materials

            2.10 – Detailing

            2.11 – Utility Areas and Mechanical Equipment

            2.12 – Lighting

            2.14 through 2.14.8 – Signs

            3.0 Additions and Alterations

 

Other business for discussion only or placement on future agendas.  Darnold noted that the next regular scheduled meeting is March 22, 2007.   Breault noted that at that meeting the Common Council will be invited to attend.  Darnold noted that the moratorium on downtown development has been extended for an additional 120 days, but that there is an exemption for small projects which will require plan commission review and approval by the Common Council.  John Mingo has proposed one project for review at 112 Walnut Street and Darnold asked if the plan commission may be able to meet next week during the morning to review Mr. Mingo’s proposed project.  The plan commission members thought that they should be available to meet as requested.

 

Moved by Yoerg, seconded by Bieraugel to adjourn.  Motion carried.  8:47 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis D. Darnold, Secretary