PLAN COMMISSION

October 26, 2006

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

Others present: Bill Wanner, Jon Sonnetag, Al Keller, Ed Druek, Wanda Kremer, Jon Anthinson, Chass Rising, Pat Smith, Gabe Lane, Dan Bauer, Jim Meffert, Roger Humphrey, Jim Zeller, Derrick Passe, John Kromer, Randy Hanson, Denny Darnold and others.

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

Motion by Mailloux, seconded by Koch to approve the meeting minutes of 10/5/06. Motion carried.

Concept development plans, parking lot expansion, 24 net additional stalls, 400 South Second Street, Grandview Professional Building – RMH Leasing / Robert and Marcia Hansen. Darnold explained that RMH Leasing has requested the Wisconsin Department of Transportation sell or lease part of the STH 35 right of way to expand their existing parking lot. The expansion as proposed will add 24 off-street parking spaces. Darnold stated that the plans according to WisDOT use agreement must maintain the existing access locations. Darnold noted the plan provides for new landscaping along the STH 35 frontage between the pathway and parking lot and that the city should require that a surety shall be provided to assure the restoration of street, boulevard and pathway improvements.

Bill Wanner representing RMH Leasing noted that WisDOT has agreed to lease the land on an annual renewal basis with the DOT reserving use of the property in the future for highway expansion . Wanner reviewed the development plans noting that the expanded parking area is proposed to accommodate Edina Realty.

Mailloux asked about snow removal. Wanner noted that snow will likely be stored on the north and south parking areas.

Breault suggested that a south bound right turn lane should be implemented if possible or that the radius of the curb be increased to allow easier access to the site. Caruso suggested a re-alignment of the north driveway that may accommodate easier access.

Yoerg questioned if the sign may be increased in area when relocated. Wanner stated it is the intent to enlarge the sign area, but not significantly, and that it would remain a monument sign.

Page 2, Plan Commission

October 26, 2006

Moved by Caruso, seconded by Bieraugel to approve the concept development plans for the proposed parking lot expansion for the Grandview Professional Building, 400 South Second Street with the condition that the proposed sign will be reviewed at the time of the final development plan submittal. Motion carried.

Certified survey map, two-lot minor subdivision, two one-family residential lots, town of Troy (extraterritorial subdivision review), north of Tower Rd. and approximately one mile east of STH 35 – Linh Tran and Thu Nguyen. Darnold noted that the proposed subdivision is of a parcel with one existing residence, so the net effect is one new development parcel; and the area is substantially developed on both sides of Tower Rd. Darnold noted the city comprehensive plan designates this area as rural residential and not an area for future extension of city sewer and water services. Motion by Caruso, seconded by Yoerg to approve and recommend approval to the Common Council of the proposed two-lot certified survey map located in the town of Troy as proposed by Linh Tran and Thu Nguyen. Motion carried.

Master sign plan approval, F.W. Gordon / Aldi Foods, northwest quadrant Hanley Rd. and Carmichael Rd. Darnold reviewed the location and general sign dimensions noting that he had informed F.W. Gordon that the signage area must be limited to 135 sq. ft. total for one side. Yoerg asked about the proposed height of the sign. Darnold stated it is 29 feet, eight inches in height. Yoerg asked if the sign will be located in the Carmichael Rd. right-of-way. Darnold stated the sign is proposed on the private property. In applying for a master sign plan, which allows Aldi Foods to have signage on the freestanding sign on the Carmichael Rd. frontage that Aldi Foods will need to enter into a deed restriction precluding a freestanding sign on their lot. The net result is one less freestanding sign erected for the two development lots.

Gabriel Lane, F.W. Gordon representative noted that only one freestanding sign is proposed for the two lots collectively. Lane reviewed the materials to be used in the sign.

Motion by Gilbert, seconded by Mailloux to recommend approval of the master sign plan for the F. W. Gordon retail center and Aldi Foods with the following conditions:

- Limited to one freestanding sign not to exceed 135 sq. ft. of signage (one side).

- Not to exceed 30 feet in height.

- Aldi Foods to agree to a deed restriction which will preclude Aldi Foods from developing a freestanding sign on their lot.

- Wall signage restricted per municipal sign ordinance.

Motion carried.

Page 3, Plan Commission

October 26, 2006

Request for land acquisition west of River City Center, north of Buckeye Street and east of First Street – GCI Builders, Inc. Darnold reviewed his staff memo regarding this issue with three alternatives that may be considered:

- no sale of the city property west of River City Center

- sale of all or part of the property

- defer sale of the property until plans are sufficiently advanced, but with the premise that a proposed building will be located entirely on the existing private development parcel.

Al Keller, GCI Builders and Chass Rising, architect reviewed the need for the city property noting that only about 6,673 sq. ft. is needed which will allow the building to be oriented so that the building can be set back 15 feet every 90 feet of horizontal distance resulting in a more attractive building. Keller noted that part of the existing River City Center parcel would be deeded to the city in the exchange. Rising stated that with a new property line established the building can be retained 15 feet from the re-established west property line. Keller noted that GCI Builders is willing to construct on-street parking for the benefit of the city at an estimated value of $165,000. Keller expressed concern about a redevelopment project moving ahead and the city not willing to improve the area west of River City Center. Keller emphasized that he wants to do a quality project and what is best for the city.

Gilbert suggested that the city may have other benefits that could be negotiated with GCI Builders in exchange for the city property such as improvements with Lakefront Park.

Caruso stated he is concerned that if the property is sold it may preclude improvements to First Street, such as realignment of the street and placement of on-street parking on the west or park side.

Koch noted that there is a public concern for additional parking in downtown Hudson and that selling the land may preclude that possibility. Yoerg expressed concern that the city will lose control of public use of the area if sold.

Mailloux stated his concern on deferring consideration of the sale as it may be perceived that it gives approval of the project. Darnold stated that if the deferral alternative is considered that it must be with the premise that building improvements must be located on the present River City Center property.

Page 4, Plan Commission

October 26, 2006

Motion by Mailloux, seconded by Yoerg to recommend to the Common Council to defer consideration of the sale of the city property with the premise that the building improvements must be located on the existing River City Center property. Motion carried. 4-3. Aye – Breault, Koch, Yoerg and Mailoux; No – Gilbert, Caruso and Bieraugel.

Certified survey map, three commercial lots, north of Stageline Rd. and east of STH 35 – DaMe Properties. Darnold noted that he had received a call from DaMe Properties’ representatives stating that due to discussions today with the cinema developers that they now propose to add a fourth lot, and they have withdrawn the proposed three lot commercial subdivision. They have requested that the city discuss with them tonight the issue of street improvements immediately east of the proposed lots, but in the town of Hudson. Roger Humphrey reviewed a site plan showing the additional lot and location of the proposed street. Humphrey stated that the developer is willing to build the street to city specifications and asked if the city would be willing to accept it if dedicated to the city as public street. Breault asked if there may be a legal issue regarding the city accepting the street if located in the town of Hudson. Breault suggested that question be submitted to the city attorney for review and comment.

Darnold stated that the intersection improvements, with a modern roundabout or additional left turn lanes, also remain an issue that will need to be addressed.

It was questioned why the city would want to accept the road improvements if the DaMe land may be developed and retained within the town of Hudson. Darnold commented that the roadway will directly benefit the businesses located in the commercial development with the possibility that businesses may exist in both the town and city. Darnold felt it would be best that the street be built to city standards and that the city should accept the improvements as a street dedicated to the city.

No action was taken.

Height of buildings in central business district / downtown – Plan Commission.

Darnold referred to a memo to the plan commission regarding height of buildings in the downtown area including height of existing buildings. Yoerg expressed concern about future development in the downtown area and impact on overall appearance of the downtown and visibility of the St. Croix River by residents and visitors. Darnold asked if a building height 45 feet was too high. Yoerg explained that some buildings in the downtown area are greater than 45 feet in height and seem appropriate in those locations such as the Phipps Center for the Arts and Nuclear Management, but other locations may

Page 5, Plan Commission

October 26, 2006

be more of a concern in how the areas are developed, particularly in light of the redevelopment potential on the east side of First Street from Buckeye Street to Walnut Street. Yoerg noted that it is not one project being a concern, but the cumulative effect of several potential projects.

Mailloux expressed concern about the potential of a two block long development and impact that may have on the views toward the river.

Bieraugel asked if a moratorium on development may be considered by the plan commission and Common Council to allow the plan commission to review and propose development standards. Darnold stated that a moratorium, if approved, must be reasonably short in duration, say 90 days, but enough time to allow the plan commission to prepare recommendations for regulations and design standards. Darnold cautioned the plan commission that generally the plan commission only meets once in November and once in December and to evaluate and develop revised standards that the plan commission will likely need to hold special meetings to discuss the downtown development issues.

Breault stated that he has held discussions with a consultant that may be willing to assist the plan commission in review and preparation of design standards for the downtown area. Breault felt it would be important to retain a consultant experienced in preparing design standards and regulations if a moratorium is to be considered.

Motion by Bieraugel, seconded by Mailloux to recommend to the Common Council that the council consider adoption of a 90 day moratorium on development within the downtown business district to afford the plan commission an opportunity to review, develop and recommend amendments to existing regulations and develop new standards as necessary for development within the downtown business district. Motion carried.

Motion by Caruso, seconded by Yoerg to adjourn. Motion carried. 8:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis Darnold, Secretary