PLAN COMMISSION

August 6, 2009

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

Others present: Nick Hackworthy, Dan Billmark, Michael Knisely, Randy Hanson, Gordon Conard, Michael Darrow and Denny Darnold

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Knudson.

A motion was made by Yoerg, seconded by Olson to approve the June 25, 2009 meeting minutes. Motion carried.

Final plat, Heritage Market, two lots and six outlots, southern portion of the Heritage Greens planned residential development, north of Hanley Road and west of STH 35 – T V & H Properties / Nick Hackworthy. Darnold presented the proposed final plat for Heritage Market. Lots 1 and 2 are proposed for development for the 15 unit Hudson Supportive Housing (lot 1) and the 32 unit Hudson Elder Housing (lot 2) as proposed by Accessible Space Inc. These two housing projects would be discussed later in the meeting. The six outlots are allotted for the development of three private park areas; Outlot 1 – Harvest Green, Outlot 3 - Harmony Green and Outlot 5 – Market Green and for two future development lots which will be further subdivided in the future. Darnold noted that there needs to be revisions made to the proposed plat to address easements on Lot 1 to provide for a sidewalk easement where the sidewalk exists and also a 10 foot wide utility and drainage easement on Lot 1. Darnold clarified the comments made by the city engineer for the recommended easements abutting Heritage Boulevard and Heirloom in that those easements were inadvertently shown on the two sets of development plans for the Supportive and Elder housing projects. The easements cannot be required because there is a zero lot line building setback provision along those street frontages.

Darnold recommended approval of the plat with the following conditions:

- Provide an additional easement on lot 1 to accommodate future connection, maintenance and replacement of the existing Tribute Avenue sanitary sewer stub (located north of Lot 1) – 15 feet on each side of the sewer stub.

- Provide a ten foot wide drainage and utility easement along the Tribute Avenue street frontage on the west side of Lot 1 including a five foot wide access easement abutting the Tribute Avenue right-of-way.

- A development agreement shall be required to be executed requiring a letter of credit of 125% of estimated costs, as approved by the city engineer, if the developer requests to file the plat prior to Heirloom (private street) street and utility improvements being constructed and accepted by the city.

A motion was made by Burchill, seconded by Casanova to approve the final plat of Heritage Market and to recommend approval to the Common Council with the following conditions:

- Provide an additional drainage and utility easement on lot 1 to accommodate future connection, maintenance and replacement of the existing Tribute Avenue sanitary sewer stub (north of Lot 1) – 15 feet on each side of the sewer stub.

Page 2, Plan Commission

August 6, 2009

- Provide a ten foot drainage and utility easement along the Tribute Avenue street frontage on the west side of Lot 1 including a five foot wide access easement abutting the Tribute Avenue right-of-way.

- A development agreement shall be required to be executed requiring a letter of credit of 125% of estimated costs, as approved by the city engineer, if the developer requests to file the plat prior to the Heirloom (public street) street and utility improvements being constructed and accepted by the city.

Motion carried.

Concept development plans, 15 units, Hudson Supportive Housing, north of Heritage Boulevard and east of Tribute Avenue, Heritage Greens planned residential development – Accessible Space Inc. (ASI). Darnold introduced Dan Billmark, Director of Development, ASI and Michael Knisely, project engineer, DISTYLE Design. Billmark reviewed the proposed Hudson Supportive Housing project noting that it is a unique project as it is the only Department of Housing and Urban Development (DHUD), Section 811 project to be funded in the upper Mid-west section of the country. The project will provide fully accessible living units for persons with physical disabilities. The residents must meet income guidelines. A significant aspect of this project is that the maintenance and operation of the project is funded for a 40 year period.

Billmark noted that Accessible Space Inc. is the largest provider of DHUD Section 811 housing in the United States.

Knisely presented the site plan and building elevations. He noted that the site is fully developed which lends itself to availability of funds through DHUD, the reduction of overall land costs and the provision of affordable housing. Parking is provided at one off-street parking space per resident. Typically about 40% of the residents have a vehicle, Knisely noted. Knisely explained that there exists a zero setback on Heritage Boulevard and the corner of the building extends near the lot line. He noted that the building is oriented to take advantage of the roadway orientation and sight lines.

Billmark commented that the vestibule will have an electronic card access and sliding glass doors to provide improved access to the residents. Also a feature of this development is the provision of a 24 hour emergency call system.

Knisely explained that there will be a permanent live-in facility care-taker.

Olson questioned if the windows will be Andersen Corporation. Knisely noted at this point Pella windows are being proposed.

Darnold commented about the refuse containers being stored inside the building and will be rolled out the day of pick-up. Darnold asked about snow removal and if it may be necessary to remove snow from the site in large storm events or as snow may accumulate throughout the winter. Billmark stated he will review that issue. Billmark commented that T V & H Properties has agreed to allow ASI to store snow as needed in open areas in the development.

Page 3, Plan Commission

August 6, 2009

Darnold recommended approval of the concept development plans with the condition that the plans be revised per the city engineer and the city building inspector comments / recommendations for final development plan submittal to the plan commission.

Motion by Burchill, seconded by Casanova to approve the concept development plans for the 15 unit Hudson Supportive Housing project as proposed by Accessible Space Inc. on the proposed lot 1 of Heritage Market plat with the condition that the plans are revised per the city engineer and city building inspector comments for incorporation into the final development plan submittal. Motion carried. The following discussion was held prior to the vote.

Burchill asked if this development was income restricted. Billmark answered yes that the incomes of the residents cannot exceed 50% of the median family income for St. Croix County.

Yoerg inquired about the proposed stormwater system. Knisely responded that the issues that were expressed by the city engineer are in regard to the on-going maintenance of the system as it requires that system be pumped out on a regular basis similar to a septic system.

Knudson asked why the building is not placed up to the property line as there is an allowance for zero setback. Darnold noted that the minimum setback is zero, not a build to setback. Knisely offered that the building with the patio will be very near the property line and the corner of Heritage Boulevard and Tribute Avenue where the patio is located will be a busy intersection. Hackworthy noted in the development architectural review the building was reviewed as a focus point for the development and issue of the orientation of the building was carefully looked at.

Knudson asked about the southeast corner of the building. Knisely noted that there will be an electrical transformer at that location and will be screened with plantings and a trellis designed to complement the architectural elements of the entrance signage and other architectural features in the overall development.

Concept development plans, 32 units, Hudson Elder Housing project, east of proposed Heirloom (public street) and south of Ivy Green (private street), Heritage Market / Heritage Greens planned residential development – Accessible Space Inc. (ASI). Billmark noted that this project will be funded through Section 202 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (DHUD). The housing project will provide affordable housing to frail residents, age 62 or greater. Again a provision of this program is that it provides funding for the operation and maintenance of the housing development for a 40 year period. The resident’s income level must be 50% or less than the county median family income. This type of housing allows the frail elderly residents to age longer without needing to transition.

Knisely noted that 10% of the off-street parking will be reserved for disabled persons. A total of 32 off-street parking spaces are provided. Knisely noted that like the Supportive Housing proposed it is anticipated that about 40% of the residents have a vehicle. A covered entry way will be provided to enhance entry to the building and the on-site sidewalks will be extra wide to enhance mobility, Knisely explained.

Page 4, Plan Commission

August 6, 2009

The building will be three stories overall with the end units (north and south) at two stories. The building is designed to radius with the street, which will require some additional space and associated costs, but will provide a consistent setback from the property line along Heirloom. All units are one bedroom units except for the caretaker’s unit which will be a two-bedroom unit.

Of the total resident units, 20% will be fully wheelchair accessible.

Yoerg noted the overall height of the roof is 46 feet. Knisely noted that in part the roof line is determined due to the accommodation of the radius of the building.

Knudson noted that the building will be at a lower elevation than property in the Red Cedar Canyon residential development to the west which will assist in mitigating the overall height. Knudson commented that he felt the two projects proposed by ASI are much needed in the community and are great projects which the city should support.

Darnold recommended approval of the concept development plans with the city engineer and city building inspector comments/recommendations to be incorporated into the final development plan submittal and that ASI, TV&H Properties and city representatives meet to discuss the coordination of construction schedules to assure the public street and utility improvements are completed in a timely manner in conjunction with the construction of the elder housing project.

A motion was made by Selissen, seconded by Yoerg to approve the concept development plans for the 32 unit, Hudson Elder Housing project as proposed by Accessible Space Inc. with the condition that the plans be revised per the comments / recommendations of the city engineer and city building inspector prior to submittal to the city for final development plan review and that ASI, TV&H Properties and city of Hudson representatives meet in the next two – three weeks to discuss the coordination of development schedules for the Hudson Elder Housing project and the Heirloom street and utility improvements including the extension of stormwater utility in Ivy Green (private street). Motion carried.

Comprehensive plan update. Michael Darrow, SEH project manager, reviewed the implementation survey that was forwarded to the plan commission members. The general issues were urban design standards, water quality, extraterritorial, parking, and corridor study. Olson noted that wayfinding is a significant issue, particularly in the downtown area.

Yoerg noted the plan commission had previously discussed potential corridor study areas particularly Carmichael Road and Hanley Road areas. Darnold suggested that the city will need to conduct studies of these areas in the future and the corridor study areas should be prioritized. Darnold noted that the specific elements of study, such as water quality or transportation, may have different priorities depending on the corridor study area being considered. Darrow stated that is what he would like to try to achieve in the discussions this evening along with general priorities the plan commission wants staff to focus on.

The plan commission identified the following areas as corridor areas to be studied:

- Carmichael Road (north and south of Interstate Highway 94)

- Hanley Road

Page 5, Plan Commission

August 6, 2009

- 17^th Street and Coulee Road

- Crest View Drive

- Downtown

Vance asked about corridor studies and what may be included. Darrow noted that the elements within the corridor study will be dependent on the area to be studied / reviewed, but may include the following; standards that address roadways, parking, architecture, zoning, pedestrian access, economic development and others focusing on the planning and economic development perspective for that identified area.

Knudson asked if the plan commission could discuss and decide the issue of priority of corridor studies and the issue of priority of some of the planning issues such as stormwater management or transportation. Darrow noted that each corridor study may include various elements and some may not need a lot of planning per se, but focus on specific details such as parking, wayfinding, economic development as may be needed in a downtown study.

Knudson opined that wayfinding and landscaping are relatively low priorities, zoning would be intermediate and corridor studies and design standards may be varied dependent on the specific area.

Knudson asked about wayfinding, what priority that may be. The commission responded that it should be a low priority except for Olson. She noted that wayfinding is an important element of the downtown commercial area. Darnold commented that as we go through these discussions that in some corridors the issue may be low priority for one study area and high for another study area. Yoerg asked the question what wayfinding may entail. Darrow noted it would be signage to public elements of the city such as parking or parks, but may be focused on vehicular and pedestrian travel, both or separately.

Darnold suggested establishing a matrix defining the potential five corridor study areas and the priority issues within each of the areas.

Knudson asked about landscape standards. The plan commission responded low as there have been concerted efforts to amend the landscape standards of the city.

Olson asked to relist and to prioritize the potential corridor study areas. Darnold listed the potential corridor study areas, but not specific to priority as: Carmichael Road, Hanley Road, Coulee Road / 17^th Street, Crest View Drive and Downtown. Casanova asked the entire length of Carmichael Road. Knudson expressed the area north of I-94 is of a higher priority than the area on the south, but that both should be studied. Knudson asked if the county government center would be included in a corridor study for Carmichael Road. Darnold responded yes, it should be included.

Hanley Road was discussed both east and west of Carmichael Road. Yoerg stated that Hanley Road is an east /west connection in the community and the city should not focus only on the eastern section but the entire area from old STH 35 to Heggen Street. Yoerg commented on the limited capacity of the Hanley Road street system west of Carmichael Road. Knudson noted that the issue west of Carmichael Road may be more about transportation than development or redevelopment. Darnold commented

Page 6, Plan Commission

August 6, 2009

that transportation should be another element where a priority should be discussed in any of the corridor study areas.

Vance commented that transportation will be a significant issue for any of the corridor study areas and should be a high priority including the identification and establishment of design elements to allow the flow of traffic that is required on major roadways.

Knudson noted the next item for consideration was water quality / stormwater management. Darrow noted that at the past meetings the commission had discussed developer responsibilities and the level that the city may want to require rain gardens or pervious pavement for example and the overall stormwater drainage system and natural infiltration. Yoerg commented the city should, in regard to rain gardens and pervious pavement, incent participation where possible. Darnold commented that part of the program is the education of the public, such as rain barrels and the availability of rain barrels through St. Croix County. Darrow commented that he would like the city to consider development standards that reward development that will include rain gardens, pervious pavers and other water quality enhancements through the provision of reduction of setback or density considerations. Darnold suggested that Darrow provide some examples of those types of incentives at the next meeting.

Knudson explained that the city staff has been working on a proposed stormwater utility which would be supported by a utility fee, such as the existing sewer or water utility fees, from generators of stormwater that would pay to maintain the stormwater system. Knudson related the incentive noting that property owners that participate in programs to reduce or eliminate stormwater discharged to the city stormwater system may gain partial or total exclusion from payments to the stormwater utility. Knudson acknowledged he had reservations about the creation of a stormwater utility, but that it may be a fair way to reward parties for their participation in lowering the discharge or enhance infiltration on-site. Knudson stated that the standards for water quality could go hand in hand with the possible creation of a stormwater utility.

Vance cautioned that if the standards are too restrictive the associated costs to develop in Hudson may discourage businesses / developers from considering Hudson as a location to develop their business.

Vance encouraged incentives to be given considerations versus mandates. Darrow noted that there should be ways to incent cooperation in developing with preferred standards, but that Hudson is a desirable community to locate their businesses or residential development.

Knudson noted the next discussion is transportation. Darrow noted that one of the transportation components was connectivity of streets or pedestrian ways. Darrow noted that the city should promote connectivity and may not want to have a blanket policy to prohibit dead end streets or cul-de-sacs. Connectivity between neighborhoods should contribute to traffic calming, Darrow commented.

Darnold commented that street maintenance is another reason for connectivity. Darrow noted that this should not become a policy unless the city is willing to say no to a developer if a development does not meet the standards that are created to promote connectivity. Vance asked if a proposed standard for

Page 7, Plan Commission

August 6, 2009

the maximum length may be provided. Darrow noted recommendations will be provided in regard to general connectivity, which length of dead end / cul-de-sac streets may be one element.

Yoerg expressed concern about existing subdivisions and the provision of streets into adjacent undeveloped areas. Yoerg asked about the county government site. Darnold noted that there are three access points from either the west or north side of the site.

Vance noted the length, some a half-mile long, of dead end roadways in the extraterritorial areas that the city may expand into. Darrow noted that can be addressed through extraterritorial zoning or subdivision standards and ghost platting and also the intergovernmental cooperation with adjacent towns.

Knudson asked about traffic calming standards. Some examples Darrow noted would be roundabouts, timing mechanisms at intersections or pavers to distinguish intersections / pedestrian crossings, as some, but not all examples. Yoerg asked about the issue of pedestrians crossing that hold up traffic that want to turn during that green light, such as the intersection of Second Street and Walnut Street, as the pedestrian takes up too much of the available green light time. Casanova commented in his recent visit to Seattle he noted that at intersections the pedestrian must request the walking signal to come on and that the police department is very proactive on enforcement of jaywalking. Casanova also noted that in the Twin Cities some of the downtown areas have eliminated left turns that take longer to complete when having to wait for pedestrian crossings. Vance inquired how you balance traffic calming with trying to move traffic on higher volume roadways. Darrow offered that there are different street functions and the traffic calming would not be a priority issue on a roadway like Carmichael Road where you are trying to move higher volumes of vehicles versus the downtown area that may also have a high volume of vehicles but is mixed with a greater volume of pedestrian trips.

How are roundabouts a traffic calming consideration, Vance asked. Darrow noted that a modern roundabout requires entering into the roundabout at lower speeds which is contributable to traffic calming. Darnold offered that it is not just the traffic calming that is the benefit of the roundabout; also modern roundabouts have a better safety record, are less costly to maintain over the long run because traffic lights are not required and are more efficient because the traffic does not generally have to stop to wait, but rather slow down and then proceed through the intersection or interchange. Darnold noted that roundabouts must be located in the proper context and not forced into an area because it is a popular concept. Vance asked if a policy on the placement of modern roundabouts may be considered in the comprehensive plan. Darrow answered that can be done if desired by the plan commission.

Knudson questioned if traffic calming is an applicable standard for the arterial and collector streets where the city is trying to move traffic in a reasonably efficient way. Knudson also questioned the applicability of roundabouts in Lakeland, Minnesota where roundabouts were constructed to specifically slow down traffic. Vance noted that roundabouts are an efficient way to move traffic through busy intersections. Selissen agreed but it also achieves in getting traffic to slow down which results in a safer intersection. Knudson noted that a roundabout, if space was sufficient to do so, at Second Street and St. Croix Street should be considered due to the amount of traffic on STH 35 and turning either north or south from St. Croix Street. Knudson noted that the plan commission would want some policies offered

Page 8, Plan Commission

August 6, 2009

for the development of roundabouts. Casanova commented that those policies should address two different applications: higher volume commercial areas (efficiency) and lower volume residential areas (traffic calming). Knudson suggested one possible location for construction of a roundabout would be the intersection of Crest View Drive and O’Keefe Road.

Comments regarding pedestrian access, Knudson asked. Olson stated that Coulee Road (east of 11^th Street) and Crest View Drive are areas that should be reviewed for improved pedestrian access. Knudson stated that Coulee Road is a possible retro-fit project in conjunction with street improvement from 11^th Street to about the east side of the Freedom Station including pathways.

How about parking, Knudson inquired? The commission expressed that the issue of parking should be ranked as a high priority.

Olson asked to be able to discuss other alternative transportation issues such as transit options. Casanova noted that as the alternatives for transportation advance westward on the I-94 corridor the city should be ready to address where depots / stations may be or parking that will allow for carpooling or an alternative form of transportation that may be linked to a light rail system for example. Knudson noted that the visitor center site on Crest View Drive may serve for carpooling or a depot / station for transit alternatives. Casanova suggested that site may be better suited to be used as a development that will create a tax base and a depot / station be created on a larger parcel, like the dog track.

Knudson noted that there was expressed interest from the public at the first open house on the issue of alternative / mass transportation alternatives and support for the city to implement alternatives as available. Knudson reported that the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) has under review two alternative routes for high speed rail, one of which is the Tomah / Eau Claire / Menomonie / Hudson route and the other is the Minnesota corridor north from La Crosse. One issue will be a rail crossing at the St. Croix River. In regard to light rail the I-94 route has been promoted to terminate at the St. Croix River on the Minnesota side. The issue, if this alternative is implemented, is that a Hudson area resident would be required to travel to the depot / station in Minnesota. That could be achieved by a relatively short trip from Hudson by individual car, carpool, transit (bus or taxi) or even bicycling. Back to the high speed intercity rail alternative Knudson noted the depot / station location should be north of I-94 Exit 4 near the rail line (near the intersection of CTH A / USH12) particularly because of the highway infrastructure that now exists. Darrow commented that issue is addressed in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. Knudson stated that the city should address this issue even if a potential depot station would not be in the city of Hudson. Knudson commented that city support of this alternative is important to the Wisconsin effort to provide high speed rail transportation, so inclusion in the comprehensive plan or another form is warranted.

Casanova commented that the high speed rail depot will not be at the Cemstone quarry just west of the river. Knudson agreed that if there is a location it is likely to be north of Exit 4 or near Roberts along the existing route and that the light rail station would likely be located at the Cemstone quarry and not cross the river into Wisconsin. Knudson opined that the city of Hudson and the other governmental units in the area can make a very good case of having a stop near the CTH A / USH12 interchange.

Page 9, Plan Commission

August 6, 2009

The next subject for discussion was extraterritorial standards. Premature subdivision standards were voted to be a low priority and ghost platting and extraterritorial map as high priority issues. Returning to the premature subdivision standards Darrow explained that is more likely a text amendment in the subdivision ordinance that regulates when subdivision can and cannot occur in the extraterritorial areas.

Darnold suggested postponing discussions of extraterritorial areas in regard to the Carmichael Road area in the town of Hudson and the CTH F area south of the River Crest Elementary School in the town of Troy. Darnold noted that he has information that the commission members could take home to review prior to the next meeting.

Darrow commented about the next meeting being scheduled for an open house on August 27^th. Darnold stated he felt that the SEH or city staff, nor Plan Commission will be ready for an open house on that date and that it should be postponed until the second meeting in September. The August 27^th meeting should be used for continued discussions relative to the implementation standards.

It was agreed, due to scheduling conflicts, not to meet on August 27^th. The next plan commission meeting for the continued discussions of the comprehensive plan update will be Thursday, September 3^rd. Other plan commission meetings in September will be September 10^th (regular business) and September 24^th (comprehensive plan update). The issue of whether to schedule the open house for September 24 will be reviewed at the September 3 meeting.

There was no other business for discussion only or placement on future agendas. A motion was made by Burchill, seconded by Yoerg to adjourn. Motion carried. 8:53 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis Darnold, Secretary