PLAN COMMISSION

January 21. 2009

                                                                                                           

 

Members present:  Knudson, Burchill, Selissen and Casanova

 

Others present:  Dave Simons, Heather Kienitz, Glen Van Wormer and Denny Darnold

 

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

 

Motion by Casanova, seconded by Burchill to approve the meeting minutes of January 8, 2009.  Motion carried.

 

Note:  A copy of the PowerPoint presentation for this meeting as presented by Dennis Darnold and the SEH staff is available for review by contacting the city of Hudson Community Development Department.

 

Economic Development Element – Dennis Darnold, Community Development Director.  Darnold reviewed the draft of the economic development element noting the general content of this section of the comprehensive plan labor force analysis, employers, economic trends, strengths and weaknesses analysis, developable land, environmentally contaminated sites, and economic development programs.  Darnold reviewed the policies in the 1993 plan (attached for reference) and cited issues that should be further reviewed by the plan commission (pages 11 and 12, 12-4-08 draft).  Darnold noted that it is his intent to establish preliminary policies for this element with assistance from the Hudson Area Chamber of Commerce and the St. Croix County Economic Development Corporation. 

 

Transportation Element – Short Elliot Hendrickson (SEH) staff – Glen Van Wormer, Heather Kienitz and Dave Simons.  Van Wormer presented the outline of the Transportation Element and noted that this element is meant to be a ‘working document’ and is to be used in review when transportation issues are discussed or developments are proposed.  The transportation element reviews the existing transportation system and identifies any existing problems or concerns, Van Wormer explained.  Van Wormer noted that there are inherent issues with the proximity of the city to the St. Croix River, the Willow River / Lake Mallalieu, Interstate 94; all restricting traffic flow throughout the community to a few streets.  Other traffic concerns include a state highway through the ‘downtown’ commercial neighborhood and the industrial districts have experienced quick growth.  Van Wormer also noted that the city of Hudson has become a regional destination because of the commercial development along the I-94 corridor and that much of that traffic flows to Carmichael Road creating congestion during the peak hour periods and Saturday daytime traffic.

 

In review of 2000 Census data the general commute for workers living in Hudson is 24 miles and that Hudson also is an importer of employees and that this creates traffic that is both leaving and coming to Hudson during peak hour periods.

Page 2, Plan Commission

January 21, 2009

                                                                                                           

 

Casanova asked when traffic counts are taken and how that may affect the results.  Van Wormer responded that the WisDOT conducts the traffic counts periodically, generally on a two-year basis.  Casanova noted that there may be issues such as the closing of the bridge at Stillwater that impacts counts in the downtown area.  Van Wormer reviewed traffic counts for the I-94 system and that those numbers have significantly increased; however, the traffic counts in the downtown have not had a similar increase.

 

Van Wormer explained that Carmichael Road near the Exit 2 interchange is experiencing about 30,000 vehicles per day and that this becomes a key issue for the city and that it is important to tie the issue of traffic and land use together to address the traffic issues along Carmichael Road.

 

The goals and objectives were presented and are included as an attachment to the minutes.

 

Van Wormer reviewed the functional classification system map that is developed by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) and that there exist differences in the city’s adopted plan and the classifications adopted by WisDOT.  The classifications were reviewed including principal arterials, minor arterials, collector and local streets and the hierarchy of traffic and issue of access control and flow of traffic.  Specific discussions included:

            Carmichael Road – Opportunities exist to improve the flow of traffic in that the signal system can be modified, with cooperation from WisDOT.  Van Wormer suggested that alternatives be investigated and tried and suggested that models be tested to pre-determine what the impacts may be before the alternative practices are put in place.  Better data will assist the city in determining alternatives to address the congestion concern such as origination and destination (O / D) surveys.  In 2009 the WisDOT is reviewing the I-94 corridor system needs east of Hudson and that WisDOT has previously offered to include the city in part of that effort.  Van Wormer noted that pro-active measures such as the O / D study would assist the city in determining where and why traffic moves as it does.  Again Van Wormer noted that the alternative resolutions to reducing the traffic congestion should be kept on file and used as needed rather than to ‘recreate the wheel’ every time that an issue is reviewed for consideration.

            Heggen Street / Eleventh Street – These streets provide an alternative route used by Hudson residents instead of using Carmichael Road during periods of traffic congestion.

            I-94 connection or crossing – Alternatives have been presented that may provide opportunities to reduce traffic on Carmichael Road, such as a bridge located west of Carmichael Rd. that ties into a road system north of Target or a two-way roadway on the east side of Carmichael Rd.

 

 

Page 3, Plan Commission

January 21, 2009

                                                                                                           

 

            Downtown – Due to the amount of traffic flowing through downtown the signal system should be reviewed for conversion to an actuated system so the lights change based on traffic demand.  Left turn lanes also should be reviewed to allow traffic to flow through the intersections without being delayed by vehicles making a left turn movement.  Van Wormer also cautioned the city in regard to the use of a one-way street system for First and Second Streets because of the increase speeds that often result from one-way systems

            STH35 and US12 – Van Wormer suggested that the city / town work with WisDOT to provide an interconnected system between STH35 and US12 permitting a better flow of traffic between the roadways.

            South Industrial Park (Between Heggen Street and O’Keefe Road) – Van Wormer suggested that the city review O’Keefe Road as a minor arterial roadway to move traffic north / south in the southern part of the community.  Currently O’Keefe Road has a limited number of accesses.  Also he noted that the city should review a potential connection between Wal-Mart and County Market.

 

Van Wormer requested the plan commission to again read through the draft Transportation Element (1-12-09, draft #3) and to comment on any sections or narratives that may need to be amended or if any information may be missing.  It is the intent of the SEH staff, Van Wormer noted, that the transportation element is easily understood by the users such as the city committees and general public.  The next steps for the city is to list and prioritize transportation projects, develop a process to review potential projects, document planning efforts for use now or in the future and to implement on a year to year basis and for the plan to be updated as needed.

 

Knudson asked about the difference of the city street classification designations (1993) and that of the WisDOT, noting that the city designations appear consistent with what the city is currently implementing.  Kienitz responded that the SEH staff has had discussions with WisDOT in regard to the differences and that WisDOT has acknowledged that the designation of Vine Street as a primary arterial could be changed.  Which classification map is correct, Knudson asked.  Van Wormer noted that there may be two different maps one at the local level and used only for local decisions and one approved by the State that is used for review of projects that may be impacted by State or Federal funding, but he noted that it would be best to try to be consistent between the two as much as possible.

Selissen asked if WisDOT may use the classification map for funding of projects.  Van Wormer stated that is a potential use by WisDOT.

 

Darnold asked if SEH could review the two functional roadway classification maps and propose recommendations to amend one or both the city and the WisDOT classification maps that would make them more consistent based on the observations and information that SEH has been able to accumulate during this planning process.

 

Page 4, Plan Commission

January 21, 2009         

                                                                                                           

 

Knudson suggested that pages 8 – 10 of the draft Transportation Element be redrafted based on potential changes in the classifications and to explain the discrepancies with the state classification designation where they may continue to exist and how the city may use each map in review of local transportation issues.  SEH agreed to re-review the classifications section and to make recommendations for designations of classifications.

 

Burchill inquired about the use of the classification designations in determining the placement of stop signs and access locations and if criteria may be created to assist a community in determining where to locate stop signs and accesses.  Van Wormer noted that many communities have established criteria for both stop signs and accesses and it is important to document those adopted policies in a written form that may be provided to residents or businesses.  Burchill asked if SEH may provide some examples to the city.  Van Wormer agreed to provide examples of other municipalities’ policies.

 

Knudson asked if there are criteria for bicycle pathways based on street classifications.  Kienitz noted that there are criteria for pathway systems, such as when a pathway must be segregated from the roadway.  SEH agreed to provide the criteria for pathways.  Simons noted that the issue of pathways would be further discussed in the parks / community facilities element.

 

Knudson commented on the potential for light or high speed rail service; that the city should review the potential for these types of alternative transportation and address where possible support for one or both of the alternatives.  Potential locations for depots should be identified in or close to Hudson, Knudson added. 

 

Casanova mentioned the application of alternative transportation along the I-94 corridor including bus service and the opportunity to work with the other east metro communities to develop alternatives.

 

Knudson expressed that it is important that the city support these alternative modes of transportation and to do so in this comprehensive plan update.

 

Darnold suggested that the update to the comprehensive plan may not be able to fully identify the alternatives in sufficient detail by the time the plan is adopted.  Rather it may be necessary to identify the potential of the alternative transportation modes, that the city supports the development of the alternative modes and that future planning can be incorporated, in the future, by addendum to the adopted plan.

 

Simons noted that there will be an implementation section that is completed regarding transportation and he asked if that section would be a separate document or integrated into the overall plan.  Darnold suggested that a hybrid of both should be considered in that the implementation section should be included in the overall plan, but also in a

Page 5, Plan Commission

January 21, 2009         

                                                                                                           

 

convenient format that allows it to be used in the review and consideration of transportation issues by committees of the city such as the public works or safety committees.

 

Simons reminded the plan commission that it is their homework assignment to review and make comments regarding the draft Transportation Element as presented this evening (dated 1-12-09, draft #3).

 

Darnold noted that the next plan commission meeting to discuss the comprehensive plan is February 19th.  Also a date needs to be set for the second open house for the comprehensive plan process.  It was agreed that date will be determined when the SEH and city staff are able to provide the information for review at the open house.

 

Other issues for discussion only or placement on future agendas.  Darnold reminded the plan commission of the Monday, January 26, 2009 meeting.

 

Motion by Burchill, seconded by Casanova to adjourn.  Motion carried.  8:50 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis Darnold, Secretary