Presentations to Urban Design Commission

 The texts of the Steering Committee's presentations to the Urban Design Commission on May 24th follow:

DATE:             May 24, 2005

TO:                  Urban Design Commission, City of Madison

FROM:            Westmorland and Midvale Heights Neighborhood Associations

RE:                   DENSITY Issues of the Midvale Plaza Proposed Redevelopment Project

I am Don Severson, a member of the combined neighborhoods Steering Committee, and a resident for 17 years in the Midvale Heights neighborhood community.

I will provide you with a summary of our review of the Developer’s May 17 submittal to the UDC and our recommendations for your consideration and action regarding density.

We believe in and support the City of Madison Comprehensive Plan and the concept of infill development on this site.  Specific provisions of the Plan related to this redevelopment project and the neighborhoods surrounding it provide “In general, Low-Density Residential areas should be protected from encroachments of higher density or higher intensity uses than presently exist in the neighborhood…” (p. 83) There are ZERO residents on the property now.  We are comfortable with low-density residential development on the site, 16 units per acre (3.5 acres) or 56 units, as referenced in the Comprehensive Plan.

The Plan continues:  “Infill or redevelopment projects should be compatible with established neighborhood character…”(p. 83) These neighborhoods are made up primarily of single story ranch homes.  Therefore, we support two-story buildings and the continued use of setbacks throughout the project.

We are supportive of “infill” and NOT “overfill” (40 units per acre) as is currently proposed.  We request the UDC take the lead in this regard, as your decision will set a precedent for what “new” urban infill should look like in historical, low-density, residential neighborhoods such as Westmorland and Midvale Heights.

We note that the current proposal shows no three-bedroom units as suggested by the UDC on May 3. Converting some units to this size would be one step in the direction of reducing density and scale.

The possible intent stated by the developer to make all residential units condominiums should be a requirement of an approved project. The developer makes several references to numerical ranges and trade-offs, such as 2-4 floors, etc. The UDC is requested to require a great deal more specificity for the project prior to approval.

Finally, the Midvale Plaza Redevelopment Steering Committee of the Westmorland and Midvale Heights Neighborhoods Associations respectfully requests the UDC to refer the current proposal back to the developer until such issues as we are addressing and the concerns of the UDC are specifically and satisfactorily rectified.

Thank you for your consideration.

TRAFFIC:

My name is Bonnie McMullin-Lawton.  I’m a resident of Westmorland and chair of the combined neighborhood steering committee.  I’d like to talk about:

TRAFFIC

Traffic is, in part, a subset to density, so we are glad to see that Mr. Krupp is considering a reduction in density and a switch to condos in Phase II.  However, if he does make this switch he intends to keep the garage on Caromar, providing no new changes for traffic configuration.  We feel we’ve got some creative suggestions to offer: 

But first, I’d like to give you a little better understanding of the streets in the neighborhood affected by the development (foamcore map – you have a similar map in your packet).  Caromar, bordering the plaza on the east,  is a small, curvy residential street, which leads past Midvale School one block north and then winds around for a couple of blocks before it connects to Owen at Queen of Peace school.  Owen is a small curvy residential street with small side streets connecting at angled intersections that leads past Queen of Peace School to Mineral Point Road, a very tempting cut-through. .  Tokay Blvd sounds like a major street but in reality it is not.  It is a residential blvd, a connector street.  With parking on both sides, it is only one lane wide each way.  It leads east to Glenway St at the Glenway golf course, not to any major arterial. 

Back to the suggestions:

Looking at the southeast corner of the site, intersection of Caromar and Tokay, there is a fair amount of space there allocated for mechanicals and dumpsters in Phase I.  Could we look at Reconfiguring this  such that the surface parking and the garage from Phase I exit onto Tokay at/near/in conjunction with the current intersection with Caromar – with some adjustment to the median perhaps. 

OR If there are exits from the garages or surface parking onto Caromar, we’d like to look at a traffic control system that forces the traffic to turn right and go to Tokay Blvd, not through the neighborhood and yet without causing it to flow back in through smaller sidestreets. We need to protect these sidestreets from ‘Tokay interlopers’.  We recognize that this traffic system would be a sacrifice of convenience for neighbors in exchange for more neighborhood safety.

AND Let’s  look at  raised crosswalks on Caromar. 

Two other related concerns remain:

There is still parking at the Midvale entrance to the site which is a safety issue for those entering from Midvale when others are backing out of a parking spot.

and The reduced surface parking for the library, library staff and retail will lead to more parking on neighborhood streets, as requested by Mr. Krupp, making pedestrian flow more dangerous.  Again, can we look at raised crosswalks.

 We’d like to see this proposal referred again until we have the opportunity to work together on some of these issues and the traffic issue is adequately addressed. 

DESIGN: 

Speaker:  Paul Haskew

I would like to be registered here as being in favor of this redevelopment because there is much to be admired in the concept. I agree with the two-phase approach, which could permit uninterrupted service from the present tenants, except it doesn't. I agree with the notion of infill, but not overfill. And I agree that this is an appropriate place for a PUD, but not this PUD.

Along with the objections that have already been raised, I wish to add that the proposed architectural style has nothing in common with the neighborhood. The City of Madison Comprehensive Plan calls for architects to "balance redevelopment and development with the preservation of the unique character of Madison's existing neighborhoods, focussing on such issues as requiring that the size and scale of new development enhances and is compatible with the established and planned neighborhood character and density. (Volume II, 1-6).

The midcentury-modern homes, schools and churches that comprise this neighborhood have nothing in common with the townhouse retro that you have been asked to approve. The local ranches and split levels (just like the ones that are being celebrated next month in the Madison Trust for Historic Preservation's tour of the Hill Farms homes) are the quintessential American homes emblematic of the 50's, and along with the tepee and the skyscraper, are the most identifiable and internationally envied American buildings.

Introducing an alien architecture to this site suggests a careless disrespect.  We maintain that the neighborhood ranch homes could better be reflected in a multi-story building by single floor residential units with no interior stairs (saving space), and by offering a contemporary re-interpretation in the exterior of the "longer, lower, wider" aesthetic of the period. The nearby churches and the two schools, the only local buildings of comparable size to the proposed re-development, are typical '50s buildings, and we would like to see the new Midvale Plaza honor these design elements.

Additionally, the UDC called for more green space in the design, but there is no increase in the latest drawings. If the individual front doors were replaced with a single entrance, more frontage for green space would be available, and it would be big enough for the imaginative incorporation of hardy native trees and shrubs with associated improvements in water retention and drainage.

I urge you to refer this plan for comprehensive re-thinking that answers neighborhood objections and incorporates neighborhood input in the revisions. I would like nothing better than to come before you with the developer and ask for your endorsement of the new Midvale Plaza and Sequoya Library.

 

DATE:            May 24, 2005

TO:                 Urban Design Commission, City of Madison

FROM:            Westmorland and Midvale Heights Neighborhood Associations

RE:                 Retail Issues Associated with Midvale Plaza Redevelopment Project

Good evening.  My name is Denise Lamb, and I am a member of the neighborhood steering committee working to bring this development more into line with neighborhood needs and desires.  Before focusing briefly on concerns that we have about the proposed retail format for the new plaza, I would like to cite the Congress for a New Urbanism, the City of Madison Comprehensive Plan, and a nearby resident.

In New Urbanism:  “At the edge of the neighborhood, there are shops and offices of sufficiently varied types to supply the weekly needs of a household.”

An Objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to:  “Maintain and enhance economically viable business centers as . . .centralized convenience shopping and service centers for area residents.”

One Resident Commented in the Survey:  “Neighborhood shopping has finally returned to ‘vogue’—let’s make the most of this unique resource to enhance our neighborhood.”

As designed, the Midvale Plaza project does not support these goals and in fact works against them.  The plan:

  • Does not appear to provide the loading docks required by city codes and needed by most retailers, as well as the library.
  • Reduces the total amount of retail space from what is currently available.
  • Does not provide sufficient retail space in Phase I for those merchants who have expressed an interest in staying.
  • Is likely to reduce retail opportunities attractive to the neighborhood, resulting in more car trips by residents who now walk to nearby stores.
  • Does not add residential uses to a commercial/retail center, but rather subordinates what is currently a retail center to excessive residential infill.

Furthermore, current vacancies cited by the developer as a reason for reducing retail are a result of poor management and poor maintenance of the present structure, rather than lack of support for retail by the neighborhood. 

We would like to see the retail square footage in this project increased, possibly to extend along the entire frontage on Midvale Blvd., and we would like the developers to work more closely with current tenants to find solutions to the space problems created by the proposed design. I would request that you again refer this project to ensure that what is approved and built more closely meets the criteria established by the Commission in its review and the neighborhood in its survey.  Thank you for your attention.

This is the complete text of the presentations made by the steering committee to the Urban Design Commission at its May 3, 2006, meeting. 

Introduction: Presented by Bonnie McMullin-Lawton

My name is Bonnie McMullin-Lawton and I am speaking in opposition to the Midvale Plaza redevelopment plan as currently proposed. I have lived on Chatham Terrace, one block east of the plaza, for 30 years. I grew up in Midvale Heights, about a block west of the plaza, so I’ve been a resident of these neighborhoods most of my life. I am a member of the combined neighborhood steering committee on the redevelopment plan.

As outlined in the City of Madison’s Comprehensive Plan, we have a responsibility and a right to provide input into major projects such as this, which will significantly affect our neighborhood for decades to come.  Our concerns mirror many of those expressed by your commission in February, and we do not believe we are being listened to by the project developer and owners.

As outlined in the history submitted to you last week, we have sponsored many efforts to convey neighborhood concerns about this project to the developer and owners, including:

An August 2005 meeting with the owner and developer.

An October roundtable to gather broader neighborhood input, the results of which were presented to the developer.

January and February 2006 public meetings with the developer and architect, where there was significant public opposition to the proposed plan.

A March/April 2006 neighborhood survey to gather input on the plan; results of this were presented to the developer and architect on April 23, 2006.

An April 25 public meeting attended by more than 200 people at which concerns remained strong.

Our concerns about the new plaza have been consistent.  Ideally, we desire: 

 Our concerns since seeing the draft plans in January remain: 

Other speakers this evening will discuss our survey and our objections to the current plan in further detail.  I would conclude by noting that we recognize the need for infill and are ready to welcome a reasonable amount of new housing into our neighborhoods.  What has been proposed by the developer is not reasonable. Thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns.

Neighborhood Survey Results: Presented by Don Severson

I am Don Severson, a resident for 17 years in the Midvale Heights neighborhood community. I will provide an overview of the data responses to the Opinion Survey that are significant to your purview as members of the Urban Design Commission. My opening statements will provide a data basis and links to corroborating evidence and analysis. Along with the overview, my statement will provide you with specific considerations for your decision-making. Additional evidence and rationale for these considerations will be presented by those who follow me.

Please refer to the Summary of Opinion Survey Results. The Westmorland and Midvale Heights Neighborhood Associations formed a Steering Committee to work with the stakeholders (neighbors, developer/owners and City) on the proposed Midvale Plaza Redevelopment project. The Steering Committee is composed of residents of the two neighborhoods with various backgrounds of experience in neighborhood issues and activities, as well as various work and family  backgrounds.

The Steering Committee designed an Opinion Survey of residents in order to 1) inform them about the project and 2) solicit their input and feedback about the various elements of the proposal.  Great care was taken to assure objectivity with the topics and balance as to the choices for response. Respondents were asked to determine the strength of opinion (on a scale of 1 to 10) of the choices they made. Space was provided for respondents to write comments about the topics, choices and opinions. A Fact Sheet was developed to accompany the Survey to provide verified information about each topic.  The Survey and Fact Sheet and a return addressed envelope were mailed to 2451 residences in the two neighborhoods. Completed Surveys could be returned by mail or to a drop-off box at the Sequoya Library located in the Midvale Plaza.  A total of 646 Surveys were returned, for a 26.4% return rate.  The data were compiled; these have been provided for you in summary and graph form. Verbatim written comments, totaling 2,922, were recorded. 

a.      5 times return rate for such surveys

b.      Topics listed in same order as on the Survey (numbered 1-13)

c.      Numbers refer to total respondents to each choice (515/609)

d.      % of response for each choice of total responses (85%)

e.      Strength of Opinion on scale of 1-10 (10  strongest), (8.58) Average over 7.50 is statistically significant

f.        See the actual comments for context on responses (refer to notebooks)

g.      Response numbers are consistently high and opinions strong taking issue with all 8 dimensions of the project and the Survey. Five of those dimensions (denoted by *) are of direct concern to you as members of the UDC.

1.      *Redevelopment & commercial space 

2.      Density

3.      *Scale

4.      *Design

5.      *Traffic flow & parking

6.      Safety

7.      Environmental

8.      *Neighborhood quality and fit 

1. Redevelopment:  Upgrade and Restoration  (85%  8.58) 

a.      predicated on undesirability of existing condition: a blight on neighborhood

b.      consistent with mix of retail & neighborhoods’ needs as a day-to-day service center & preferably locally owned (88% about right / not enuf)

c.      impact of scale on residential neighborhoods will create a blight of another kind

d.      library expansion desirable, but not at expense of overall community service

e.      unique neighborhood resource—a community service center solidifying the sense of community as a focal point, gathering / meeting place

f.        design has to fit scale and density, so the design as it is—a moot point relating only to 4 story scale—affects SITE PLAN, ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPE PLAN and  URBAN CONTEXT 

2.  Density relating to scale  (84% – 8.86 

a.      high resistance (concern) re rentals

b.      out of balance with commercial and with neighborhoods

c.      less resistance (concern) re condos (owner occupied), but still too many (62%  8.82)

d.      rentals: higher turn-over, less stability

e.      condos: owner-occupied with stake in neighborhoods 

3. Scale: it is the overwhelming concern of the neighborhoods that scale as proposed  is not acceptable 

a.      Stories: 2 stories at best;  3 and 4 stories not acceptable (77%  9.11)

b.      Out of sync: size and type of housing

c.      Not like Hilldale, Nakoma, Westgate, which have been traditionally retail centers and higher density/scale mixed use residential—more like Lake Point Commons on University Avenue

d.      Does not fit neighborhoods 

4. Design (not a propos when redesigned)  54%/18%  7.73/9.11 

a.      Must change with scale

b.      Design highly dependent on changes to scale and density

5.  Traffic / Traffic flow / Parking (CIRCULATION)  [impact 67%/9.48  Flow poor 56% 8.71] 

a.      of great concern—cars and people are compromised  

b.      poorly designed—traffic and parking management and ped, bike at cross-purposes and flow

c.      impacts on streets (no matter the calming devices—streets and flow can’t be redesigned to accommodate both cars and people)

d.      impacts on movement and access for cars as well as peds / elderly / bikers

e.      elderly: inhibits and isolates

f.        increasing activity and reducing parking 

6.  Safety (82%  8.46) 

a.      unsatisfactory—congestion (CIRCULATION)

b.      ties to traffic flow—crossings of streets and driveways 

7. Environmental (SITE PLAN) —site plan needs to be redone with revision of scale and circulation] 

a.      highly valued

b.      not enough specifics in the design

c.      site plan needs to be redone upon re-scaling of the project and attention to circulation issues and environmental issues 

8. Quality [neg 44%/9.11 unsure 22%[  [fit neg 49% 9.29  mixed 29% 7.18] 

a.      Objective responses here are much more dramatic and poignant upon review of the comments written.  Positive and Unsure/Mixed responses were qualified with “better than what is there now” comments

b.      strength of opinion VERY HIGH—lots of qualifications for change in scale, design and circulation, and fit

c.      unfriendly effects

d.      balancing of conflicting values—upon reduction of scale

Neighborhoods prepared to support mixed-use redevelopment that includes                                                                         

i.      Reduction of scale, design and rework of site plan for improved circulation 

ii.      New—expanded library as proposed                                                             

iii.      Maintenance of neighborhood community service center 

iv.      Retention of historical scale and character of residential neighborhoods                                                                          

v.      Management of  ‘normal’ growth and movement of traffic (peds, bikes, elderly, and cars)

vi.      Honoring existing look and amenities neighborhoods  

Thank you for your consideration. Now, please give your attention to those who follow for additional rationale and corroboration for the recommendations for referral to the developer and redesign to meet the expectations of the neighborhoods and the Commission. 

Surrounding Neighborhood Context: Presented by Tom Talerico 

My name is Tom Talerico. I reside at 4218 Tokay, one block from the Midvale Plaza site. My wife and I have lived in Westmorland for 14 years and have completed two significant remodeling projects on our house. We are actively involved in the neighborhood, having served on its board of directors, as a block captain, and as volunteers at its annual Fourth of July and Halloween celebrations. We have two daughters who attend school in the neighborhood and a baby. We have a vested investment and stake in the neighborhood, as do numerous others with stories similar to ours. 

During this part of our presentation, we will show you the problems with the design as currently proposed and demonstrate the need for the Commission to refer the proposed plans so that these problems can be rectified. Four speakers will present problems with the design. The discussion addresses the seven criteria that the Urban Design Commission rated during a February 22, 2006 meeting. 

As Don mentioned earlier, the problems across these seven areas are inter-related and do not stand alone. The discussion on urban context responds to the following concerns expressed by members of the Urban Design Commission during a February 22, 2006 meeting. 

In the information that we submitted last week for today’s meeting, you will find color maps of the five neighborhoods surrounding the development, which should help frame the discussion. These neighborhoods are: 

 The submitted materials provide a detailed analysis of each of these five neighborhoods, so in the interest of time, I will focus my presentation on the Westmorland neighborhood, the neighborhood in which this development will be built. As you can see, the map describing the Westmorland neighborhood in the submitted materials closely matches the developer’s site location map. To give you a feel for the residential setting of Westmorland, the neighborhood contains about 890 single-family homes and an additional 60 rental units in the Midvale Heights Apartments, for a total of 950 residential units. The proposed Midvale Plaza development calls for an additional 141 residential units, consisting of 42 condominiums as part of Phase I and 99 rental units as part of Phase II. Therefore, this project increases the number of residential units in the Westmorland neighborhood by 15 percent (141 ÷ 950) and increases the number of rental units by 165 percent (99 ÷ 60). These increases are substantial and demonstrate that this project will drastically alter the context of the surrounding neighborhood. Now, with regard to fit with the surrounding neighborhood, please note that: 

 These facts make it obvious that: 

Similarly, the four other adjacent neighborhoods consist of small, single-family homes, many of them ranches and Cape Cods. The submitted materials substantiate this claim.

Now, I want to talk about some projects that the developer has completed in Madison. The source for this information is the developer’s website. Let’s start with Kennedy Place Apartments, a development with 52 apartments and 20,000 square feet of retail, which is much smaller in scale than the proposed plans for Midvale Plaza (141 apartments and condos, roughly 17,000 square feet of retail, and over 20,000 square feet of library space). When comparing the surrounding neighborhood context of Kennedy Place Apartments to that of Midvale Plaza, we see two entirely different pictures. Kennedy Place Apartments is located in the Schenk-Atwood Revitalization area. Here is a map and an aerial photo of this area. As you can see, Kennedy Place Apartments is surrounded by numerous commercial and multifamily structures, many of which are four stories or more. Here is a map and an aerial photo of the area surrounding Midvale Plaza. As you can see, the neighborhood context is single-family, one- and two-story homes, two-story apartments, and one- and two-story commercial structures. 

Similarly, in the Capital Neighborhood (on West Main and Wilson Streets), the developer has built Renaissance Apartments, Bel Mora Apartments, City Place Apartments, and Wilson Bay Apartments. Each of these developments has between 24-39 apartments and no retail. Again, these are much smaller in scale than the proposed plans for Midvale Plaza. Here is a map of the Capital Neighborhood area and an aerial photo. As you can see, the four Capital Neighborhood developments are surrounded by numerous commercial and multi-family structures, many of which are four stories or more. So again, when comparing the surrounding neighborhood context of the four Capital Neighborhood developments to that of Midvale Plaza, we see two entirely different pictures.

Clearly, the developer is applying to plans for Midvale Plaza standards and scales that have previously been used on projects in areas with distinctly urban contexts. The problem is that the context of the neighborhood surrounding Midvale Plaza is entirely different from the context of the neighborhoods surrounding Kennedy Place and the four Capital Neighborhood developments.

Therefore, we recommend that the Commission refer this project until the developer gains an understanding of the surrounding neighborhood context for this project and alters the plans accordingly to fit this context. As Bonnie presented earlier, we have been closely working with the developer to provide this context, and we are willing to continue this dialogue to ensure that the developer gets it right. We want this project to be something that the neighborhood, the City, and the developer will be proud of for years to come. In conclusion, the surrounding neighborhood context for this proposed four-story development is essentially single-family, one- and two-story homes, two story apartments, and one- and two-story commercial use structures. The only exceptions within the immediate vicinity of the plaza are schools, and even here we’re talking 2 ½ stories. Therefore, the plans for the Midvale Plaza redevelopment project do not fit with the surrounding neighborhood context and the project should be referred until the developer can provide a proposal that meets this criterion. Again, we want to emphasize that the neighborhood understands that the Commission “supports density as an alternative to urban sprawl” (as noted in the Commission’s comments), and is willing to support a project that is limited to two stories to meet these needs. Finally, the following general comment was made by a Commission member at the February meeting: 

Based on the survey data (which Don aptly discussed and which has been provided to the Urban Design Commission): 

 Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak and your consideration. Here is Steve Welch, who will talk about the plan’s problems regarding architecture and density. 

Architecture and Density: Presented by Steve Welch 

Hello, my name is Steven Welch. I am a graphic designer and I have been a resident of Madison for 30 years and a homeowner in the Westmoreland neighborhood for the past three years. I’d like to thank the commission for giving us this opportunity to voice our concerns about the Midvale Plaza Development. 

To begin, I agree that this site is badly in need of an upgrade and should better reflect the pride we all take in our neighborhood. However, along with most of my neighbors, I am firmly opposed to the existing development proposal. I respect the experience and skill of the Krupp team and appreciate the efforts they have put into their plan, but this proposal is simply wrong for this site and especially wrong for the neighborhood.  

The growth in this neighborhood has traditionally come from improving and remodeling existing homes. Families make this commitment because this is a safe, pedestrian-friendly, kid-friendly and senior-friendly community. It has been a stable neighborhood for over 50 years, has the oldest neighborhood association in the city, and contributes to the positive image of Madison. It is exactly the type of community that makes Madison such a livable city.

Because of the dramatically increased density and the inappropriate scale of the existing Midvale Plaza plan, I believe it will have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood.  Ours is a neighborhood made up of one to one and a half story ranches, bungalows and cape cods. They are predominately 1,200 to 2,000 square feet and built on modest 6,000-8,000 square foot lots. A four-story structure would dominate and change the landscape, especially dwarfing the one story ranch homes to the east, which are already below the grade of the site. In addition, the architecture, which has been described by the development team as commercial eclectic and neo-prairie, has more of a row house feel that belongs in a more urban setting.

This neighborhood is classic mid-century design, and despite its relative youth, is really historic. In fact, several homes were featured in The Parade of Homes in the 50’s. The nature of this architecture with its modern, horizontal emphasis gives the neighborhood a small-town, human scale. As a central resource for the neighborhood, 

Midvale Plaza should reflect that style and scale. It needs to be designed in context with this mid-century sensibility. As quoted from the survey, “The existing plan doesn’t integrate or compliment the predominant architectural style of the surrounding structures,” or my personal favorite, put more succinctly “Respect the Ranch."

By far my biggest concern is the density of this design. The step-back architecture employed may address the scale of the project to a small degree, but it does nothing to address the fact that this site, which now has zero residents, will have hundreds. The addition of 145 additional families will create numerous traffic and safety problems, which will be addressed in detail by Anna Strenski.  

In conclusion: I believe that most Westmoreland and Midvale Heights residents understand the need to control urban sprawl in Madison and to use wisdom in planning our growth.  I believe that a mixed-use project that adds 40-60 residences is a reasonable solution. This is an established and modest neighborhood, not the place to add dramatic density.  It’s an opportunity to build a vibrant hub in an already vibrant community. Let’s do the right thing and build an anchor for our neighborhood, creating an appropriate amount of new housing that fits the context of its surroundings. If we undermine the delightful nature of this successful neighborhood, it can’t be undone. Thank you for your time. 

Landscaping, Amenities, Lighting and Signage: Presented by Pamela Mather 

I am Pamela Mather, a resident of Westmorland. My colleagues have raised issues related to what is in the current plan. I would like to focus on several items that are not there.

We understand that if this site is zoned as a PUD, this designation will remove any legal recourse we might have in regard to lighting, signage, and the like in the future. Because the owner has not maintained the structures currently on the site, we have concerns about the future appearance of the property. We therefore want to see detailed plans for this site, whatever final shape it takes, for all aspect of the property, including the following: 

Lighting

We recognize safety needs, but also note that this is a residential neighborhood where intense night lighting is a nuisance and large signs are inappropriate.  The current plan makes no reference to lighting.  Before this project receives final approval, we would like to see a detailed lighting plan for the site, including but not limited to: 

Signage

Similarly, little or no specific signage was shown in the prepared plans. Because there will likely be several components to the development—residential, library, and commercial—a variety of signage may be necessary. We would like the opportunity to review the signage plans for the site when these are ready. This would include but not be limited to: Maximum sizes and specified materials for retail, residential, and library signs. 

Landscaping

We applaud the environmental landscaping in the plan, but, we see problems with the design as well: 

 Retail

Despite the developer’s assurance that current retail tenants will be given an opportunity to stay, we have noted several apparent omissions that will make this impossible: 

 Midvale Plaza has been a retail center for the last 40 years.  We want it to continue as a viable neighborhood resource.  The plan as proposed does not add residential to a shopping center—it is two condo/apartment buildings with commercial a seeming afterthought. 

Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Vehicular Circulation: Presented by Anna Strenski

I am here to voice some of the neighborhood’s concerns about circulation–pedestrian, bike and vehicular–as it relates to the current Midvale Plaza Redevelopment Site Plan.

First let me introduce myself. In September 2005, I bought a home on S Owen Dr.  After searching for a year and a half, we found our home in the Westmorland neighborhood.  We did a great deal of research–on schools, library accessibility, the bike path availability, and closeness to our work.  Our family moved from Madison’s North side where we had to drive to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. We moved to the Westmorland neighborhood looking for a walkable/bikable, kid-friendly neighborhood in which to raise our son. Like myself, there have been many families with children moving into this neighborhood in the last 5 years. 

Now I would like to discuss our concerns about flow of traffic and circulation within the Midvale Plaza Redevelopment Plan. 

First, there is clear lack of access to the library from the Midvale-Tokay corner.  The Sequoia library is THE busiest library in of Madison.  It needs to have easy access from a variety of directions.  Children and families walking from the Westmorland neighborhood, as well as the Midvale Heights neighborhood need easy pedestrian access to the library.   

The developer has offered a pedestrian cut thru (walkway) in one design option, but this has not been stated as the final design option.  It is also our understanding that the developer will be charging the city for the lost retail revenue for this walkway.  From the design, it is clear that this walkway will be a dark, narrow tunnel which children and families will walk thru to get to/from the library.  Some might say, a scary and unsafe passageway to/from the library.

The second area of concern is the Midvale Blvd entrance/exit.  There are a dozen parking spots at this entrance/exit way.  Parking at an entrance will make it difficult for traffic to flow in/out of Midvale Plaza.  It will make it especially hard to safely enter the plaza when driving south on Midvale, turning left and crossing the northbound traffic.  Vehicles that are backing out of these entranceway parking spots will not allow for vehicles to safely enter from Midvale Blvd. 

The third area of concern is the limited number of parking spaces for the library and retail.  The aboveground parking is designated at 25 spaces for the Library, 69 spaces for the retail.  Not enough – especially if you consider how many library and retail employees will need aboveground parking space.  Not enough when you consider again that the Sequoia library is THE busiest library in Madison and that commuters from all over the west side come to this library. 

The fourth area of concern is the number entrances/exits that empty onto Caromar Dr., a residential street that is less than a block from Midvale Elementary School and three blocks from Queen of Peace Elementary School. 

That leads to our next major area of concern: The traffic and circulation surrounding the  development as it relates to the site plan. Midvale Plaza is surrounded by Midvale Blvd on the West, Tokay Blvd on the South, and by three small neighborhood streets – S. Owen Dr., Caromar Dr. on the east, and Keating Terrace on the north.   S. Owen Dr., Caromar Dr., and Keating Terrace were clearly not designed for high-volume traffic. 

Again, two elementary schools are located in our neighborhood – Midvale Elementary, on Caromar Dr., and Queen of Peace Elementary, on S. Owen Dr.  This creates a large number of children walking and biking up/down S. Owen Dr. and Caromar Dr to attend these schools, after school activities and sport activities.  There is heavy pedestrian traffic, primarily children, during prime commuting hours. (7-8:30am and 3-6pm). 

The City Traffic Engineering Dept has stated that building 99 apartments and 42 condos will increase in residential traffic by 1400 auto trips per day.  These will all enter/exit on Caromar Dr.  That number does not reflect any vehicular traffic for the library or retail space. The new residents of the Midvale Plaza Development will be driving down residential streets.  For example: To get to eastbound Mineral Point Rd, drivers will use S. Owen Dr (going past Queen of Peace elementary school) to avoid the 2 stoplights of Midvale/Tokay, and Midvale/Mineral Point Rd.  To get to northbound Midvale, drivers will use Caromar Dr., turning Left on Keating Terrace (going past Midvale Elementary school) to avoid the Midvale/Tokay stoplight.  It is a common traffic problem that is exacerbated by the high density of this Midvale Plaza Site Plan and by having vehicle entrances/exits on a residential street. Tokay Blvd residents east of the plaza are also expecting an increase in traffic to get to Glen Dr., which leads to Monroe St or Mineral Point Rd. Anthony Lane residents are expecting an increase in traffic to allow drivers to get to Odana Rd. 

I have personally heard from many residents frustrated with 3 entrances/exits on Caromar Dr.  This is a poor site design for circulation of vehicles. 

Finally, I would like to discuss the wonderful quality of life available in these two neighborhoods.  We are in fact excited about a redevelopment plan.  We currently have a high pedestrian traffic of children, children on bikes, families, seniors, daily bike commuters, and even a moderate number of bus riders.  We want smart growth and development that will allow our neighborhoods and the new residents of the Midvale Plaza to be able to safely walk/bike to schools, the library, a grocery store, a postal station, a bakery, after-school activities and sport programs. We need to create safe pathways from all directions for pedestrians – especially children and elderly. Create walkable neighborhoods.  Create safe pathways for bike riders and city bus users.  Create retail space important to the neighborhoods.  Create a small number of housing units — with choices for a range of household types and incomes. We want to reduce the need to drive. 

In conclusion, an in-depth traffic study should be completed before this site plan can go forward. This traffic study needs to include not only vehicles, but also, the heavy pedestrian and bike traffic that is currently in existence. Again, we want smart growth and development. 

Report of the Open Letter Committee: Presented by Astrid Newenhouse 

Hello. My name is Astrid Newenhouse. I live at 3814 Winnemac Ave, ~ 5 blocks from Midvale Plaza. I have lived in Madison for 28 years and in Westmorland for 6 years. I am a member of an ad hoc neighborhood committee that responded to neighborhood concerns about Midvale Plaza.

We call ourselves the Open Letter Committee and we wrote a letter and circulated it for signatures. The letter asks that the developer take into consideration community input that has been given over several community meetings since October 18, 2005. You have a copy of the letter in your paperwork for this meeting. 

We are very much in favor of the redevelopment of Midvale Plaza, and very much in favor of infill to reduce sprawl. The concerns we have are that the buildings integrate better within the surrounding neighborhood, and fit with the low-profile, ranch-dominated neighborhood.

We ask for less density, two stories, more retail (not less as currently proposed), less car traffic, more pedestrian accessibility, and sustainable building and landscaping practices. 

We would like the buildings to follow the tenets of New Urbanism, which we understand to include the goals of more walkable retail, less car traffic, and a more compact mixed- use development that fits with the long term plans for the region. 

With very limited resources (donations covering $19.50 in xeroxing and $20 in website fees) the group began distributing the letter via website April 17, 2006, and paper copies April 22, 2006. As of today, 168 people have signed the letter.   

The results of the neighborhood survey came out on April 23, and they fit hand-in-glove with the sentiments of this letter. Only 22% say that the proposed redevelopment fits positively with the character of the neighborhood, 77% say that 4 stories is too many, and 84% and 62% say that the number of rental units and condos are too many. Again, we are very excited about the potential for this project and look forward to a development that continues to be a community hub, which is how our library and the current retail stores function now. Thank you. 

Conclusion: Presented by Denise Lamb

Good evening, my name is Denise Lamb.  I am a resident of Midvale Heights, a Director of the Midvale Heights Community Association, and a charter member of the Midvale Plaza Steering Committee.  We have been told that we must accept this project as is because infill is part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.  In concluding our presentation, I would like to note how this project does not meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

According to the Plan, infill projects should: 

Have a “scale and density [that is] . . .reasonably compatible with established neighborhood character.”  We do not believe the project meets this criterion. 

Have “A strategic mix of non-residential uses appropriate to the location and potential market so that some neighborhood supporting goods and services are conveniently available to residents.”  We support this goal but believe the project as proposed removes rather than adds useful retail resources to the neighborhood. 

“Provide adequate parks and community gathering spaces.”  We see this as very desirable and do not see any viable community gathering spaces in the plans. 

“Protect and enhance defining neighborhood views.”  As proposed, the development will almost completely obscure the south approach to Midvale Community Lutheran Church, which has been built in conformance with the setting. 

“Preserve and enhance established neighborhood character and design.”  As has been noted repeatedly tonight, the proposed project will detract from, rather than enhance, the neighborhood character. 

In addition, the Madison Common Council has received the draft of a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Ordinance.  Reading from the draft ordinance: “Madison is endowed with many distinctive neighborhoods . . . that contribute significantly to the character and identity of Madison.  [This] ordinance is a means to conserve the essential physical character of these neighborhoods.  [Using the ordinance], neighborhoods can prevent insensitive development and promote better harmony between new and existing structures.” While our neighborhoods are not currently covered by such an ordinance, the current proposal flies in the face of all these goals. 

In conclusion, I would note that I have lived or worked on Madison’s west side since 1985.  My husband and I moved to Midvale Heights about four years ago, coming from Evansville, a city noted for its historic homes.  There, we lived in a 1937 Dutch Colonial that was considered too new to be of much interest.  When we started attending community board meetings here, I learned that several neighbors were preparing a history of Midvale Heights.  This seemed to me presumptuous at best.  How could this post WWII neighborhood have a history?  Four years later, I realize that all neighborhoods have histories, and we should all work to preserve their character.

We did not create sprawl; we bought existing small homes on small lots, often paying more per square foot than we would have for new development because we wanted to live in an established neighborhood with a human scale.  People remodel their homes rather than move.  We do not want to see our neighborhood ruined by too-large new construction that does little to enhance our sense of community. Thank you for your consideration. 

1 Comment »

  1. Midvale Plaza Forum » Urban Design Comments Posted said,

    May 30, 2006 at 12:04 pm

    [...] Comments made by Steering Committee members at the May 24th Urban Design Commission meeting have been placed on the Presentations to the Urban Design Commission page. [...]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.