JOINT MEETING OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL / PLAN COMMISSION
May 31, 2007
Council members and Mayor present: Lee Wyland, Scot O’Malley, Al Burchill, Randy Morrissette, Dennis O’Connell, Paul Radermacher and Mayor Jack Breault
Plan commission members present: Jack Breault, Al Burchill, Fred Yoerg, Don Mailloux, Tim Caruso and Bob Bieraugel
Others present: Catherine Munkittrick, Pat Smith, Al Keller, Dick and Carol Fey,
Judy Olson, Carol Hardin, Gordon Conard, Marc Putman, Dennis Darnold and others
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Breault (Council) / Chairman Breault (Plan Commission) at 7:00 p.m.
Resolution adopting DOWNTOWN VISIONING – Guidelines for Policy
and Design Quality, March 19, 2007 (Refined 5-30-07) and amendments to
Section 255 Zoning Code to create a
downtown overlay district and amend floor area ratio and off-street parking
regulations in the B-3, Central Business District. Darnold reviewed the proposed resolution
for adoption of Hudson, Wisconsin
DOWNTOWN VISIONING – Guidelines for Policy and Design Quality, March 19, 2007
(Refined 5-30-07) noting this document will be used for guidance in determining
guidelines and policies relevant to downtown development; and it is not a
regulatory document.
Yoerg asked that if this is a guidance document, does the city have any way to enforce the recommended policies and guidelines. Darnold answered that is the purpose of the proposed downtown overlay district. O’Malley noted that the downtown overlay district will incorporate a review and appeal process including the staff, design review committee and Common Council. Yoerg asked how the staff will be able to conduct the administrative responsibilities. Darnold stated that like engineering review of projects there will be a consultant with architectural / landscape architectural expertise that will assist in the review of the projects.
Wyland expressed concern that the city should require minimum standards for articulation of wall frontage so that a large building will have the appearance of a set of smaller structures, such as requiring the frontage to be articulated differently every 70 feet or so.
Darnold referred the plan commission and Common Council to page 7, (a) of the proposed downtown overlay district regulations which addresses building widths and facades. Putman noted that the Visioning Guideline Design Tools do not specifically address building widths in a quantitative consideration, but on page 27 (Downtown Visioning), item 47 the issue of Vertical Divisions in historic references is provided for developers to address.
Page 2, Joint meeting of the Common Council and Plan Commission
May 31, 2007
Discussion continued on the maximum allowable width of wall
areas before the buildings must be articulated in a varied form to create
interest. Putman suggested that on page
35 of the visioning guidelines it is recommended that the form of buildings be
in traditional form, generally rectangular in shape. Putman noted that he did not recommend a
specific maximum width of buildings as that can be addressed at the time the
building plans are reviewed. Putman
stated that downtown
Wyland remarked it is the goal of the city to have a building or mass of buildings look like a series of buildings.
O’Malley and Wyland suggested that the building widths to be denoted in (4) (a) on page 7/12 be shown as 100 feet of overall width to be divided into smaller increments of between 45 feet and 85 feet. The Common Council and plan commission agreed to this suggested standard.
Building setbacks denoted on page 6/12 were discussed. Wyland asked about other features of site
developments besides buildings that create curb appeal that could be
constructed at the property line. Putman
presented the case study of the
O’Malley suggested that the section (2) (a) Building Setbacks include building and / or site design elements or amenities. It was discussed whether to try to quantify the amount of building and or other design elements that would be required to be set at the property line. Munkittrick suggested that the city should establish a minimum standard. Darnold recommended seventy (70) percent of the main façade or design amenities must be located on the property line and 50 percent / 50 percent on the next section (3) Corner Buildings and to include the provision that the setback would be for the building and / or site design elements and amenities. O’Malley asked about the 15 foot setback minimum requirement for the balance of the frontage. Darnold suggested that the designated maximum setback to be 30 feet. The Common Council and plan commission agreed to the proposed standards.
Darnold noted a change on page 4/12, subsection (b) (1) to be changed to “pedestrian positive experience”.
Darnold reviewed page 2/12 section on Exemptions to the standards of the downtown overlay district in Section C that provided for an exemption for parking lot expansions
Page 3, Joint meeting of the Common Council and Plan Commission
May 31, 2007
that were a limited percentage. Darnold suggested deleting that section. The Common Council and plan commission agreed to deleting the proposed section.
Subsection (13) (c), page 9/12 refers to colors on buildings and which sets a standard for the amount of the building façade that use bright white or primary colors as accents. The Common Council and plan commission agreed to a maximum of fifteen (15) percent.
O’Malley suggested an amendment to page 1, Section A, Design Review Committee Composition that the Common Council aldermanic appointment would be made in May instead of April. The Common Council and plan commission agreed to the amendment.
Darnold noted that all references to the downtown visioning guidelines and policies manual should have the date of March 19, 2007 (Refined 5-30-07).
Darnold reviewed amendments to Section 255, Zoning Code that were recommended in the visioning guidelines and policies manual. The first is to suspend or delete the requirement for floor area ratio of 4:1 in the B-3, Central Business District. Darnold noted that with a maximum building height requirement of 45 feet in the riverway district that deleting the required maximum floor area ratio should not be problematic. However, the proposed change could be applicable to areas in the downtown that are not located in the riverway district. East of Second Street, the standard could be changed to allow buildings to exceed 45 feet in height.
Yoerg questioned if buildings east
of
Darnold reviewed the proposed change of using the Urban Land Institute’s Shared Parking 2005 standards for mixed-use development in the B-3, Central Business District.
Wyland expressed that he felt this would be applicable for the entire downtown. Darnold noted that a single use would be required to meet the standards for off-street parking that are now in place. Putman explained that single use parcels will be required to have parking for that specific use. The issue is the change of uses over a longer period of time. The uses may become more intensive from the parking demand perspective, Putman noted. The mixed use developments can be evaluated multiple parking demands that are identified and the association of parking in peak hour demand periods. The purpose is to provide sufficient parking, but require less because the peak demand is not throughout the entire day.
Darnold suggested that the city initiate the shared parking requirements for the mixed use developments. If in the future the city wants to apply the shared parking requirements on
Page 4, Joint meeting of the Common Council and Plan Commission
May 31, 2007
a block-by-block or multiple-block basis, that can be evaluated and implemented at that time. He suggested the city should start to first implement the shared parking criteria with new developments. Putman noted that the shared parking should be used also as an incentive to provide parking, not only for proposed uses, but to create additional parking for areas in the downtown business neighborhood that cannot construct their own parking due to the amount of land that is available to them on their individual lot. Darnold noted that the next issue of exempting required off-street parking for the first 6,000 sq. ft. of building area in the B-3, Central Business District also addresses that issue. Putman suggested that more discussion and consideration needs to take place regarding the overall strategy of providing off-street parking downtown.
The Common Council and plan commission agreed to the changes proposed in the Zoning Code regarding the downtown overlay district, floor area ratio requirement and off-street parking requirements.
Darnold asked city attorney Catherine Munkittrick whether the resolution could be acted on jointly or in separate considerations. Munkittrick advised the resolution should be acted on separately by the plan commission and Common Council.
Motion by Yoerg, seconded by Bieraugel to approve Plan Commission Resolution #1-07
adopting the Hudson, Wisconsin, DOWNTOWN
VISIONING – Guidelines for Policy and Design Quality, March 19, 2007
(Refined 5-30-07). Motion carried.
Motion by Morrissette, seconded by Radermacher to have first
reading and suspend the rules for second reading of Common Council Resolution
#12-07. Motion carried,
6-0 vote in favor of
the motion.
Motion by O’Malley, seconded by Radermacher to approve
Common Council Resolution #12-07 adopting the Hudson, Wisconsin, DOWNTOWN VISIONING – Guidelines for Policy and
Design Quality, March 19, 2007 (Refined 5-30-07) as recommended by the plan
commission. Motion carried, 6-0 vote in favor of the motion.
Motion by Burchill, seconded by Yoerg to recommend approval to the Common Council of the
proposed amendment to the city of
Motion by O’Malley, seconded by O’Connell to accept the
recommendations of the plan commission and set the public hearing date for the
proposed Downtown Overlay District for Monday, July 2, 2007. Motion
carried, 6-0 vote in favor of the motion.
Page 5, Joint meeting of the Common Council and Plan Commission
May 31, 2007
Wyland asked about the recommended northerly boundaries of
the proposed downtown overlay district.
Darnold stated it is proposed to extend to
Motion by Bieraugel, seconded by Mailloux to recommend approval of the following amendments
to the city of
- Amend Section 255-25, Dimensional Requirements to delete the floor area ratio (FAR) requirement in the B-3, Central Business District.
- Amend off-street parking requirements, Section 255-48, to create a new requirement that mixed use developments located in the B-3, Central Business District shall be determined by the Urban Land Institute’s 2005 Shared Parking publication and that an annual review of the parking demand shall be required to determine continued compliance, create new section 255-48 (3) (r).
- Amend off-street parking requirements, Section 255-48 to exempt required off-street parking for the first 6,000 sq. ft. of building area in the B-3, Central Business District, create new section 255-48 (3) (s).
Motion carried.
Yoerg asked if the recommended provisions apply to all the parcels in the B-3, Central Business District. Darnold stated yes, except for the shared parking standards that will only apply to the mixed use developments.
Motion by Morrissette, seconded by Radermacher to accept the
Plan Commission’s recommendations of the
zoning code amendments as listed above and to set the public hearing for July
2, 2007, 6:50 p.m. to review the zoning code amendments regarding floor area
ratio and off-street parking requirements in the B-3, Central Business District
. Motion
carried.
Consider request by
GCI Builders for the city to dispose (sell/trade) of city property west of
River City Center abutting First Street – River City Partners. Breault asked that this issue be deferred
and placed on the June 4th Common Council agenda to be discussed
under closed session. Yoerg agreed that the issue should be sent to the Council
for discussions to take place in closed session in light that another
development group has expressed interest in the
Page 6, Joint meeting of the Common Council and Plan Commission
May 31, 2007
Al Keller, GCI Builders expressed their desire to move ahead with their proposal and that they want to close on the property in the very near future. Pat Smith representing the current property owner stated that there were verbal requests by another development interest, but that only the formal offer from GCI Builders has been received.
Breault noted waiting until next Monday, June 4th would only delay the process four days.
Al Keller stated that they are willing to proceed with a conditional approval of the city to dispose of the property.
Breault stated the Common Council will have a decision regarding the land on June 4th.
Putman commented that the use of the city property allows a
proposed design of the
The issue of the disposition of the city property will be held over until it may be discussed at the June 4th Common Council meeting and that a closed session will be scheduled to discuss the issue.
Other business for discussion purposes or placement on future agendas. There was no additional business to discuss or consider for placement on a future agenda.
Motion by Caruso, seconded by Yoerg to adjourn. Motion carried. 8:12 p.m.
Motion by O’Connell, seonded by Wyland to adjourn. Motion carried. 8:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis D. Darnold, Secretary – Plan Commission
Acting Secretary – Common Council