Final(?) Decision on Day Resource Center Tonight

So, the Plan Commission is hearing about the conditional use for the day resource center tonight. If they approve it, (and its not appealed) this will be the final step to it opening sometime next year! Exciting? Or, more likely anti-climactic as it is after waiting for 7 years and being disappointed in the operator of the facility and their model for services. Local businesses have given a ABSURD list of conditions, local advocates have a long list of concerns and the city council and county board have been largely ignored when telling the staff to include adequate storage, laundry facilities and that they will not be funding additional services beyond the day resource center. So, it will interesting to see how this all turns out, see below for a list of concerns that are not adequately addressed.

from: EKuharski
to: becker.casey@countyofdane.com
cc: brendakonkel@gmail.com,
heidimayree@gmail.com,
learner4ever@msn.com
date: Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 4:57 PM
subject: Comments on DRC draft floor plans & site plan

Casey, It was good to see you at the information session last week. Here are a few comments on the draft site & building design plans that were presented. Sorry for the belated response. I realize that the plans don’t have to be fully cooked for the initial submittal, but it is important to be strategic about what is included in both the initial and final submittal as that sets the scope of what can be done without having to reopen a new complete review/approval process later. These are not comprehensive comments, just things that really jump out on an initial review.

The draft design seems to fall short on a real understanding of what the basic missions of the Center need to be. While it is intended to be a place to connect with service providers, it is more fundamentally A LEGAL PLACE TO BE during the day. The main shortcomings of the draft plans are that they don’t seem to reflect this basic fact; instead the space allocations tilt strongly toward being a social service office suite, which diminishes the ability to adequately provide for the base function of a day shelter.

Items to consider:

1.) Sitting space seems light for the numbers likely to use the Center for its . Suggest increase from the 70 in the general seating areas on First Floor to 100.
2.) The first floor kitchen is poorly located to support food brought in by other entities and served efficiently in quantities and is much too small to serve 100-150 guests. The rear “multipurpose” area would be a much better location with the ability to receive deliveries directly from the rear and to relate to dumpsters (which could be located closer to the building). This area was described in the presentation as the “quieter” area, but I think given the relationship to the rear as main entrance that the opposite would make sense: noisy/active/arrival to the rear and quiet/contemplative/restful activities to the front.
3.) Laundry facilities are inadequate both in terms of number and ratio of machines and in terms of folding & waiting space for those using the laundry. There should be more dryers than washers, as drying gear is a primary need of guests more than washing and drying tends to be the bottleneck in most any laundry facility.
4.) There is no designated sleeping space for 3rd shift workers. Some of the excess office space on second floor would lend itself well to this purpose.
5.) No places for overnight/long-term storage. The Common Council just passed the ordinance in support of Tami Fleming’s excellent Keys to Dignity program for most properties in the center city. The County does not have to be the operator – a church or other non-profit can be the operator. At least one locker cluster (I believe that would be 10 outdoor, weatherworthy lockers with approved screening) can and should be located on the DRC property and others in close proximity on other owners’ land (MGE for instance).
6.) Virtually the entire second floor is designated for outside service provider offices and “training” rooms. The 11 private offices, most quite large, are far in excess of any possible need. (See #4 above for one suggest alternate use for some of them.) The second floor can do a lot more of the core work needed to serve the volume of guests that will show up most days.
7.) The county is not planning to maintain an access easement from the state to connect E.Wash to the rear entrance & outdoor activity space, so it is probably unworkable to limit the entrance to the rear doors. Why can’t this easement be continued for pedestrian access?
8.) I strongly recommend that the “Ronnie Barbett” volunteer greeter function be provided at the main entrance. The central control desk doesn’t offer the same opportunity to greet, check in and screen guests, or to monitor what is going on in the outdoor areas.
9.) The plans should indicate the general outline of how the building can be expanded in the future. It is important to include this now to insure proper flexibility going forward without having to reopen the entire CU process in the future.
10.) The 30 parking stalls are certainly in excess of what is truly needed to support the facility. It is important not to commit to excess parking in the CUP, even if the initial plan is to maintain all those existing stalls. That would impair the ability to fully exploit the potential of the site in the future.
11.) Other site concerns include the little walled courtyard connected to the family area. It should be larger and I would recommend expanding it to the Northeast to eliminate the pocket of yard space that will be hard to supervise.

I hope these suggestion make sense and can be conveyed to the architects and the rest of the planning group. I would be happy to meet with any and all of the project team to help improve the design.

Warm regards, Ed

Edward Kuharski, Architect, AIA, LEED AP
Green Design Studio
405 Sidney Street
Madison, WI 53703
608-469-5963 (c)

ekuharski@aol.com

“The best way to predict the future is to help create it”

Meeting is tonight at 5:30 in room 201 (where the council and county board meets) in the City-County Building. Public testimony is encouraged. The item is number 17. So, no need to be there right at 5:30. You can register or speak your opinion. Or, send the plan commission your thoughts . . . particularly about the ABSURD list of conditions, the flaws in the plan as noted above, and (and this is the tricky part) your support for the project despite the flaws . . .
Members include:
Bradley A. Cantrell
Fatima Bendada
James E. Polewski
James F. Oeth
Ken Opin
Ledell Zellers
Maurice C. Sheppard
Melissa M. Berger
Michael W. Rewey
Sheri Carter
Steve King

Email addresses are:
bacantrell@charter.net
bendada@madison.k12.wi.us
jpolewski@charter.net
kenopin@ameritech.net
district2@cityofmadison.com
mcsheppard@madisoncollege.edu
melissaberger2@gmail.com
hiwayman@chorus.net
district14@cityofmadison.com
district7@cityofmadison.com