PLAN COMMISSION

February 19, 2009

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

Others present: Gordon Conard, Mike Darrow, Dan Jochum, Mike Bebeault and Denny Darnold

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

Moved by Burchill, seconded by Yoerg to approve the meeting minutes of 2-11-09. Motion carried.

Comprehensive plan update: Review of draft land use element and planning districts. (A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is available through the community development office upon request.) Darnold introduced Mike Darrow and Dan Jochum of SEH to discuss the comprehensive plan update issues scheduled for this evening. Darnold noted that he had provided a copy of his review of the consultant’s recommendations.

Darrow noted the concentration of discussions would be in regard to the planning districts and objectives proposed for each planning district. Why create planning districts? Darrow explained that the planning districts are proposed:

- To provide a detailed description of specific areas of the city.

- To separate the city into geographical areas that have similar land uses or development issues.

- To serve as a road map for the city in making land use decisions in the future.

Darrow explained that the planning districts are not the same as zoning (regulatory) districts, but are created for development strategies. After the comprehensive plan is adopted the zoning ordinance must be in conformance with the comprehensive plan, advised Darrow.

The proposed planning districts will be used to provide guidance, determine types of preferred development and establish policies specific to the districts, Darrow explained; further noting that each district will have unique features, but that there may be some policies that will be similar in more than one district.

Darrow noted that things will change over time and that the planning districts must be able to be amended periodically. Amendments will require the comprehensive plan to be amended which provides a process for discussion of the issues when an amendment is proposed.

How will policies be determined? Darrow explained that the policies will be determined by the plan commission upon review of the existing conditions and public review and input.

Page 2, Plan Commission

February 19, 2009

Darrow summarized the activities for the this evening’s discussions including review of the land use and recommendations for each planning district, determine opportunity areas outside the city of Hudson corporate limits and establish a date for the next open house / public review session.

Darrow explained that the proposed planning district boundaries were established with review by the community development director initially and fine tuned through discussions with the mayor, city administrator and community development director. At this time, it needs to be understood that the districts are subject to change and are based on a combination of issues; geography, similar land uses and physical barriers. Darrow briefly reviewed the general locations of the eight (8) planning districts and five (5) opportunity areas. Darrow reminded the commission that this is a work in process and the draft shown tonight is meant to be a beginning point in the review process.

Knudson encouraged the plan commissioners to be actively involved in the discussions.

Planning district #1, Historic Downtown. This area is comprised of the downtown or central business district from I-94 to Elm Street and extending from the St. Croix River to as far east as Fifth Street in some instances. Most of the area is designated as commercial and includes Lakefront Park. Darrow explained that the policies for this planning district were based on the 2007 Downtown Visioning plan.

Yoerg asked about the potential growth of the downtown, reuse or redevelopment of residences and the commercial parking that is creeping into the residential neighborhoods. Darrow suggested that the city may want to consider form base zoning for which the city will be more interested in the form or appearance of the structures than the actual use.

Vance asked about the chart and map coordination. Darnold noted the discrepancies of the map and the chart color designations do not match (chart – pink, map – gray) as presented.

Knudson inquired about the terminology of medium family density and neighborhood commercial. Darrow responded that the terms were borrowed from the 1993 plan. Darnold noted that medium density residential will go up to 16 units per acre and that the term neighborhood commercial should be changed to downtown commercial for planning district #1.

Vance asked what changes may be discussed. Darrow noted that map or policy changes are being reviewed and open for discussion and revision. Darrow asked the commission to forward map changes to Darnold.

Page 3, Plan Commission

February 19, 2009

Knudson noted that the future land use map may not align with existing zoning and that in some instances the zoning may need to be amended to align with the newly adopted land use map.

Olson asked what land uses were included in the public category. Darnold responded that had previously been discussed and that only governmental uses should be included.

Darrow noted that the term Future Land Use Map should be shown only as Land Use Map (drop Future).

Darnold commented that the second policy, in regard to an overlay district in regard to mixed use parking, has been completed.

Yoerg asked about medium density residential. Darnold noted that a high density residential district designation should be created for densities greater than 16 units per acre and that the single- and two-family residential districts are designated separately. Darnold also explained that the zoning code may allow differed densities within the medium density range.

Discussion ensued in regard to Lakefront Park and if the Park designation should include additional properties including the city owned building that was formerly owned by Luepke Oil located on the south side of St. Croix Street. Darnold commented that the park board has had an unofficial policy to try to purchase properties on the west side of First Street, but was not able to due to the lack of funding for this initiative. Knudson asked about the provision of land to connect First Street to the city owned pathway west of First Street. Darnold explained that two areas, at the Orange Street right-of-way and Myrtle Street (30 foot right-of-way), can serve that purpose.

Yoerg asked about the islands and the dike area and if specific plans should be conducted to determine uses for those areas. Darnold responded that the areas should be shown and that general policies developed, but that this plan will not go into specific detail and if that is a desire of the plan commission and Common Council that a study will need to be authorized in the future to implement the established policies. Yoerg asked that the islands and dike road be mapped to show the existence of the properties. It was agreed to place these areas on the map(s).

Vance inquired about showing additional properties as park. Darnold responded that the Xcel Energy property north of St. Croix Street is shown. Darrow stated that if the city wants to indicate their desire for additional property in that area that it be shown and presented as drafts for public review.

Page 4, Plan Commission

February 19, 2009

Darnold noted that the park board has had a desire to purchase land on the west side of First Street when properties become available, but never had the funding support to implement that desired objective.

Vance asked about the expansion of the downtown area and the one-half block located east of Third Street from Walnut to Vine Streets as the downtown must continue to grow to remain economically healthy. Yoerg noted that the downtown has crept into the residential areas and commercial parking has created a concern for the residents.

Darrow offered that the city may address that issue in two ways; first by designating the area for future development, second by keeping it as residential and allow parties to petition for a comprehensive map amendment and rezoning.

Knudson noted that the commercial area is not just developed by commercial building, but also by parking and that the city must look at the provision of additional parking downtown.

Darnold opined that the one-half block east of Third Street from Walnut to Vine Streets is a mixed use and should that area be designated all commercial except the residence south of Locust Street on the west side of the alley.

Darnold reviewed land use designations / map changes to include:

Extend the park designation for the area west of First Street from Buckeye Street to the marina.

Designate the former post office building as commercial.

Designate the Phipps Center property as institutional for the west half of the block from Locust Street to Vine Street and First Street easterly to the alley way between First and Second Street.

The plan commission directed the westerly one-half block for the area between Third and Fourth Street and from Walnut to Locust Streets to be changed from single-family residential to downtown commercial.

Planning district #2, North Central District. This area is located generally in the northwest quadrant of the city east of the St. Croix River and south of Lake Mallalieu and easterly to 11^th / 12 Streets. Much of this area is developed as single-family residential and one historic district, the Sixth Street District, is designated on the National Register of Historic Places.

Knudson inquired about the use of the term ‘marginal’ in policy #4 in the narrative. Darrow stated that was intended to identify residential areas that may allow reuse of the

Page 5, Plan Commission

February 19, 2009

properties for residential or other compatible uses and that the policy should be changed to remove ‘for marginal homes’.

Darnold commented on the reuse of existing residential as it is an issue that the city may need to narrow the scope of redevelopment. Darrow agreed noting that the function of uses must be compatible with the existing neighborhoods.

Darnold noted that policy #5 may be eliminated as no homes are in need of acquisition or removal due to flood hazard conditions.

Map changes proposed by Darnold include:

Designate the church properties in the St. Croix Street areas as institutional.

Designation of the public garage ‘west’ located west of Second Street and south of the railroad tracks as public.

Remove the designation of the railroad tracks east of Eighth Street as single-family residential.

Designate the former hospital site, now part of Prospect Park, as park.

Designate part of the Willow River Cemetery located west of 9^th Street as institutional.

Designate an area north of St. Croix Street and east of Twelfth Street to medium density residential (where multiple family zoning exists).

The plan commission directed the Willow River Cemetery property west of 9^th Street to be changed from medium density residential to institutional.

Knudson asked about the designation of the old courthouse on Third and Orange Streets and the synagogue across the street to the south. Darnold commented those should be changed to single-family and institutional designations respectively.

Vance inquired about the potential change of single-family to two- to four-unit structures in this planning district. Darrow noted it would not be a variance, but may require a conditional use permit in conformance with the neighborhood scale. He noted that mixed uses exist in the area, and this issue would be addressed in the zoning standards. Darnold commented that the further north you get within this planning district the more careful the city will want to be as those neighborhoods do have a high percentage of single-family homes. Concerns were expressed by Vance and Yoerg about providing too much flexibility to incorporate change in these established residential neighborhoods. Yoerg pointed out the existence of the historic neighborhoods and potential impact on those areas.

Darnold commented that the two-family zoning district was set up in 1957 to serve as a transition district and the commission may want to create a specific area close-in to the downtown area that would allow for potential transitions to commercial uses or greater

Page 6, Plan Commission

February 19, 2009

density of residential uses. Darrow suggested that should be considered in a more specific recommendation or policy and to identify a specific area as a transitional area that may be designated. Jochum also noted that the zoning regulations will restrict the density that an area may be redeveloped through the number of units per lot area.

Darrow recommended that in this planning district that an overlay district be created to identify the historic districts and that there may be specific regulations for that historic overlay district to protect redevelopment to be implemented within the context of that neighborhood. Darnold indicated that that would be similar to the downtown overlay district created in 2007.

Yoerg asked about the day care and SOS theatre properties. Darnold responded those are permitted uses through a conditional use permit and the land use can remain as a single-family designation.

Planning District #3, Central District. This district is located north of I-94, east of Carmichael Road and south of Vine Street and provides mixture of single-family and medium family residential as well as institutional uses including a school, churches and part of the Willow River Cemetery.

Darrow reviewed the policies proposed indicating that the commercial area south of Ward Avenue should be reviewed with the perspective that it be redeveloped to be much more pedestrian friendly and with the orientation of buildings between Ward Avenue and Coulee Road to be re-oriented toward Ward Avenue reflecting comments received previously by the plan commission and the public.

Darnold suggested that the commercial areas abutting Coulee Road from Eleventh Street to Carmichael Road be included in planning district #6.

Burchill asked about the designation of an area on both sides of Grandview Drive that should be public as it is part of the storm water system. Darnold confirmed that is correct. Knudson also noted that Wilcox Pond was part of that storm water system and is owned by the city and thus designated public.

In regard to the policies Darnold suggested that policy #2 be removed because there is no areas south of Ward Avenue in this planning district, except west of Eleventh Street which is proposed to be moved to planning district #6.

Darnold suggested that the land use map be amended to include:

O’Connell Funeral Home located east of Eleventh Street and south of Summer Street as medium density residential.

Page 7, Plan Commission

February 19, 2009

Designate the eastern half of the block on Fairway Drive to medium density residential (area that is zoned for multiple family residential). Also, the entire area of Wintergreen, Pine Ridge and Hudson Community Home located south of Wisconsin Street and east of Thirteenth Street to be designated medium density residential.

Knudson commented that the south edge of this planning district has recently been the area of the most crime in the city and that it is an area for potential redevelopment because it is heavily trafficked and that it is a heavily populated area of the city. Darrow commented that this area needs to be looked at as being oriented to the north to the residential areas instead of a car only destination. Vance asked about the higher density residential areas on the north side of Ward Avenue.

Yoerg commented that this area has recently experienced some vacancies. Darrow noted that this is a transitioning area and the city should establish parameters as to how it may be redeveloped, if that is desired. Knudson asked Darrow if they may be able to draft some recommendations to address the issue of redevelopment. Darrow agreed to do that.

Planning District #4, North Side District. This area is comprised of a mixture of public, institutional, school, park, commercial and single family and medium density residential uses; is located north of Vine Street and from the Hudson Senior High School to the east corporate boundaries.

Darrow urged the plan commission to review the issue of connectivity through streets and trail systems that will provide opportunities for the flow of traffic, particularly pedestrian traffic, between the public, institutional and residential uses in this area.

Darnold commented that because this area is essentially developed and that policy #1 perhaps should not include the term ‘expansion’.

Darnold reviewed map changes:

Designate the school forest area to be consistent with the school.

Designate the Jacobson’s Woods subdivision as single-family.

Designate the First Presbyterian Church property as institutional.

Designate the city water tower site on Carmichael Road as public.

Designate the multiple family residential part of Oakridge, located north of the county government center, as medium density residential.

Designate Lake Shillelagh as public.

Knudson noted that the YMCA property should be designated as institutional.

Yoerg asked about St. Croix County’s plans to develop part of the county government center site. Knudson responded that the county purchased that property with the intent it would be used for public purposes and that the city has investigated the possible

Page 8, Plan Commission

February 19, 2009

development of satellite fire, EMS and police facilities at that site as well as the possibility of a library facility. The city needs to remove the discrepancy between the designated land use and zoning for the county government site as the existing zoning is one-family residential and the city now has a public zoning district classification. Knudson opined that he feels the designation should remain public.

Vance questioned the intent of recommending the development of a street network that can accommodate development to the east. Darrow commented that the city must consider the capacity of the roadway systems that are available for future development if the city continues to extend easterly in the future. Darnold commented that Carmichael Road can be expanded to a four-lane roadway.

Planning District #5, Bluff District. The Bluff District is an area south of I-94 abutting the river and extending easterly to Heggen Street and is comprised for primarily single-family and medium density residential development. Darrow reviewed the recommendation to develop higher design standards for this area including Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and dark-sky standards due to its scenic location on the St. Croix River. Darnold questioned the proposal of dark-sky standards recommendation in that of all the city of Hudson this may be the area that has the lowest level of light flooding in the community and why not propose that to other areas of the city where lighting is more intrusive. Darrow stated he would be cautious to recommend that in the downtown commercial area or in areas where lighting is necessary. Darnold noted one issue is the amount of light that is allowed to flood upwards.

Yoerg asked about the applicability of the riverway standards. Darnold noted that this entire area is in the St. Croix national scenic riverway district and that the height of residences is limited to 35 feet and that the residences are required to be 40 feet from the bluff, thus reducing the visibility of the structures.

Map amendments proposed by Darnold include:

To include three parcels on the west side of River Ridge Road near the intersection of Mont Croix Drive and River Ridge Road as medium density residential (as shown as multiple family zoning).

To change the designation of Anderson Park at the southeast quadrant of River Ridge Road and Mont Croix Drive to park.

Knudson noted that much of the I-94 right-of-way area is designated as single-family residential and should be undesignated as is other street right-of-way areas.

Planning District #6, Carmichael District. This is a large area comprised of commercial, industrial and residential areas located on both sides of I-94. Most of the area is south of I-94 except the commercial properties that abut I-94 / Coulee Road located on north side.

Page 9, Plan Commission

February 19, 2009

Darrow suggested that the city should review a wayfinding signage system; sustainability standards for landscaping, lighting and traffic calming; buffer standards; alternative living standards; and a comprehensive traffic strategy. Knudson noted that is a lot to be considered. Darrow noted yes, but there are issues such as a wayfinding system to direct people in getting to their destinations and shared parking to reduce the impact of the large parking lots that may be resolved rather easily.

One significant policy proposed includes the promotion of redevelopment of the neighborhood area north of I-94 which is more pedestrian oriented, Darrow explained.

Darnold suggested the following map changes:

Inclusion of the commercial area east of Eleventh Street and the Plaza 94 area, both north of I-94 into planning district #6.

Change the single / two-family area east of O’Keefe Road and north of Mississippi Street from commercial to single-family.

Designate city owned storm water ponds and water utility properties to public.

Designate the part of the Bieneman Farm residential development that now exists as single family or two-family from medium residential to single-family residential.

Place the area east of River Ridge Road and immediately north of Mayer Road within planning district #5.

Designate River Crest Elementary School as institutional, or which designation that the plan commission wants to assign to schools.

Jochum stated that some communities have one combined district for institutional,

Olson questioned why the schools were designated institutional. Darnold explained that had been discussed at previous meetings of the plan commission, and it was proposed that way. After further discussion it was agreed that the schools that are part of the School District of Hudson will be designated as public and the parochial schools will be designated as institutional as are the churches.

Knudson suggested that the vacated Hudson Meadows greyhound racing facility be designated as general commercial. It was agreed by the plan commission to change the designation title from Highway and Recreational Commercial to General Commercial land use designation.

Knudson also asked for the commission to decide on the single-family residential area immediately south of the commercial area and east of O’Keefe Road. The plan commission directed that area be designated single family. Yoerg noted there is some medium density residential development nearby. Darnold noted he is recommending the area, east of Namekagon Street at the terminus of Mississippi Street to be designated medium density residential.

Page 10, Plan Commission

February 19, 2009

Yoerg asked about the quarry located west of the St. Croix Business Park. Darnold commented that the quarry may have 25 to 30 years more life expectancy, but that part of the area may at some time in the future be used for both industrial and park/recreational uses.

Selissen commented that because of the possible review of the potential transition of the commercial area north of I-94 that that commercial area should be placed in planning district #3. Knudson reminded the commission that this planning district also has Target and Family Fresh grocery which is more in common with the commercial entities south of I-94. It was decided that the commercial area from 11^th Street through the Freedom Station east of 19^th Street should go into planning district #3.

Vance inquired about the level of specificity for transportation for the planning districts. Darrow noted that this is a general plan and the plan may recommend specific areas that should be studied in more detail.

Knudson asked about the Wisconsin State Travel Center, which is proposed to be closed due to state budget revenue shortfalls or is to be operated by non-state agencies. Darnold noted that there has been on-going discussion between the city of Hudson and WisDOT for the city to purchase the property, but that it would need to be used for transportation uses. The plan commission directed the WisDOT parcel to be designated as public.

Knudson questioned the inclusion of policy #8, to create design standards which incorporate energy efficient building materials, solar and wind power, LEED certified buildings and use of impervious paved surfaces as that is a lot to suggest. Darnold asked if the intent was to require this in new and / or redeveloped parcels or to incent the efficiency standards in some other form. Knudson commented that he would like to see the city of Hudson be a leader in providing environmentally friendly commercial development. But how do you foster or achieve that when requiring it through regulations, Knudson asked. Darrow noted it is their suggestion to incent the improvements, but that developers have started to realize the cost benefits derived by providing energy efficient elements into their designs. Darnold stated that this is a key area for redevelopment and should be redeveloped incorporating some of the ideas that Darrow expressed.

Knudson mentioned that the city is working with the other Hudson area municipalities to develop a community-wide sustainability policy.

Yoerg noted that the city should re-review the issue of pervious surfaces where applicable.

Page 11, Plan Commission

February 19, 2009

Planning District #7, Southeast District. Comprised primarily of newer mixed-use residential subdivisions this area is located north of Hanley Road, west of old highway 35 and south of I-94.

Darnold indicated that much of this area has been approved through master plans for the types of housing and density and that there is not a lot of area of expansion of low density residential uses as suggested in policy #1. The plan commission agreed to change the term ‘expansion’ to ‘continuation’ in policy #1.

Knudson questioned the configuration and designation of the Heritage Market (neighborhood commercial) area at the northwest quadrant of STH 35 and Hanley Road. The plan commission directed that area to be designated neighborhood commercial instead of highway commercial. Darnold stated he can provide SEH with the proper configuration to be shown on the map. Knudson also recommended the private park areas of Red Cedar Canyon to be designated park and the areas on the north and west sides of Hudson Meadows, now owned by the city, (east of STH 35) to be designated public.

Darnold suggested the following map changes:

Designate the western part of the Lighthouse residential neighborhood as single family as well as the homes abutting Amherst Circle.

Designate the water utility property on the east side of O’Neil Road and north of Hanley Road as public.

Knudson suggested that the commercial area at the southwest quadrant of STH 35 and Hanley Road would be a good area to consider the incorporation of lighting standards to mitigate the impact of commercial development in close proximity to the existing residential development on the north side of Hanley Road or the east side of STH 35.

Planning District #8, Industrial District. Generally located south of Hanley Road and west of old highway 35 much of the area is comprised of St. Croix Business Park. It was questioned how the quarry area may be designated. Darnold explained that the St. Croix Business Park Corporation has had on-going discussions with the quarry property owners for potential use of the quarry property for expansion of the business park. Another potential use is for park land.

Darnold indicated that policy #2 indicated the creation of a street network that will support the development from the east and that Hanley Road and the interchange of Hanley Road and STH 35 were specifically designed for future capacity increases. Tower Road from old highway 35 to O’Neil Road will need to be improved, at some time in the future, and could provide an opportunity for additional traffic capacity.

Page 12, Plan Commission

February 19, 2009

Darnold suggested map changes in the business park to indicate the storm ponds to be designated public.

Opportunity Areas – town of Hudson and town of Troy. Knudson noted that this discussion is significant in that the city is affected by activities that occur in the towns abutting the city to the east and south. An example is the provision of traffic lights on Carmichael Road or updates to roadways that border on the corporate limits. Knudson mentioned that the areas circled on the map indicating the opportunity areas are not meant to be limited to those specific geographical areas.

Darrow noted that there is a list of proposed policies that is not part of this PowerPoint presentation and was part of the informational packet forwarded to the plan commission.

Darrow reviewed the five Opportunity Areas located either in the towns of Hudson or Troy:

Area #1. This area is located immediately east of STH 35 and north of I-94 and includes the Carmichael Road corridor. Development of the Carmichael Road and school property on CTH UU are primary issues.

Area #2. This area is generally located at the intersection of Hwy 12 and CTH U near the railroad. Darrow indicated that this area may be suitable for the location of a depot for high speed rail or light rail service if extended into the Hudson area.

Area #3. The intersection of Hwy 12 and I-94 may be an opportunity for more detailed planning to determine best uses for the expansion of services to this area.

Area #4. This is a largely undeveloped area in close proximity to the new River Crest elementary school and south of the city of Hudson. The possibility of implementation of annexation agreements with the town of Troy should be explored. Is large lot residential development desired in this area, Darrow asked; if so, how may the area be transitioned into the city if necessary?

Area #5. Located in the town of Troy and along the STH 35 corridor there is an opportunity to review mixed use developments.

Darrow emphasized that the city must discuss and cooperate with the towns in consideration of these issues.

Darnold cautioned the plan commission in having a ‘blanket’ policy that would not allow annexations if there is available land within the city. An example is the hospital’s recent purchase of property abutting the hospital, but located in the town of Hudson. Does the city want to preclude the hospital from possibly expanding at some point in the next five (5) to ten (10) years? Yoerg suggested that may be addressed by exempting essential services. The plan commission agreed to incorporate that into the proposed policy addressing annexations.

Page 13, Plan Commission

February 19, 2009

Jochum noted that the city must be careful in consideration of annexation of property when it may result in land being brought into the city, not being developed for a long period of time and the town losing property tax revenues. Knudson responded that the city annexation review is extensive and requires details in regard to cost implications and utility capacity to be reviewed by city staff and information then presented to the plan commission and Common Council prior to consideration of the annexation requested.

Knudson noted that there is room for a lot of work on the policies proposed for the opportunity areas.

Upcoming meeting for the comprehensive plan update and open house. Darnold commented that an open house was scheduled for late February or March, but he further opined that it may be premature to schedule the open house until late March or April to provide the plan commission and SEH to get through more discussions so that sufficient information is available to the public to review. Mike Darrow / SEH agreed. It was agreed to wait to schedule the open house until sufficient information is available. Darrow commented that the next comprehensive plan discussion will include the continued discussion of land use issues and infrastructure and utility issues.

Burchill inquired about the Carmichael Road corridor north of I-94. Knudson answered that that area is part of opportunity area #1 and that the circles are not meant to identify a specific geographical area, but rather a general area.

Vance asked about the possibility of meeting with the towns in regards to the issues identified by the city. Knudson acknowledged that the town of Troy has invited that opportunity for discussion.

Other business for information only or placement on future agendas. Darnold noted that the next regularly scheduled meeting of the plan commission is Thursday evening, March 5^th. Knudson stated that is the spring break week for the school district and asked that everyone check their calendars to see if they will be available to meet on that date. Darnold agreed to poll the commissioners about their availability on March 5 or the following week. Tentatively the next comprehensive plan discussion is scheduled for March 19^th.

Motion by Yoerg, seconded by Olson to adjourn. Motion carried. 9:28 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis Darnold, Secretary