So, I watched it on TV, therefore missed a little, and there wasn’t all that much to report. Just a few interesting points for the geeks among us.
SHADY WOOD NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
I was at work til 6:00 so missed everything except some questions of staff and the comments by the members of the Commission. They are sending it back to the council with the same recommendation to approve A and refer B & C for 6 months. Lots of comments about this being less than ideal, wishing it had been done in a different way, comments about hoping it doesn’t happen this way again, etc. etc. End result the same, Cnare opposes because this is not the way we should plan, but it passes. Pleas by commission members to not send another plan to them this way are supported by at least some members who voted yes.
FIRST CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT!
Staff explain that this is just the report that gets them to move on to do a study of the Dewey Court/Schley Pass/East Wilson area to decide if there are characteristics of the neighborhood that should be preserved through a conservation district. Some questions about the lack of responses to the surveys and concerns about not being able to demolish dilapidated housing. Staff explained that the conservation district is not a historic district and shouldn’t affect demolition, it just affects what would be built or rebuilt. One neighbor in support explained that he didn’t respond to the survey because it came out the day after Thanksgiving and was due the day after Christmas. Some also speculated that perhaps people didn’t think that they had to turn in the survey because it had been talked about for so many years. I believe one person voted no, but I don’t know who but it sounded like a male voice.
CONSENT AGENDA
The following items all passed on the consent agenda without comment 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16 & 17. With 13 being referred. The items are all here.
BADGER BUS
There was a presentation by the developers and the folks from the bus depot. Comments from the public. Several speakers appeared to speak against removing the only intercity bus facility in Madison and that in a few years, it could have more value than it has now. The bus owners said that bus terminals are no longer needed by the public, because people buy tickets on line. [This kinda worries me as people who rely on the buses tend to be lower income and less likely to have the internet access that most of us enjoy.] There seemed to be a possibility that Kelly Williamson might sell tickets at their gas station. The neighborhood said this wasn’t where they wanted a bus station in their plan and that they wanted it across the street. Only a few people actually talked about the building. Verveer and neighborhood in support with a few concerns. Motion was to approve with the additional conditions:
Gruber added these conditions.
1. Proof of financing and contract with construction firm prior to demolition permits being issued.
2. Windows on 1st floor can only have window shades or drapes and no other coverings and should be clear glass.
3. Drive through approved separately.
Cnare make a motion to add to his condition number 2:
Street facing windows may not be blocked by more than 25% by product or promotional or other paper materials. Gruber wanted 10%, Cnare negotiated for 20%. It became a friendly amendment
Bowser added that:
4. Applicant work with John Leach on turn on to W. Washington.
Olson added that:
5. 1 bike parking stall per bedroom.
Schumacher asked how many bedrooms – answer 113. Staff suggested 1 per unit (82) as required by zoning code and additional space could be provided in other ways (walls behind parking stalls, storage rooms, etc in addition to storage racks). Judy says that was her intent, that seemed friendly.
There was some discussion that the issues of where the city puts the bus station is not appropriate to be discussed with a PUD application. [I guess the question then is, when is it appropriate?] However, the motion passed unanimously.
[Gruber made an annoying comment that Plan Commission is only advisory to the Council, but that isn’t true. The demolition decision is theirs alone. I really wish people who should know better didn’t repeat the spin.]
AUTUMN LAKE
Judy Olson had questions about storm water and “adverse conditions” for ground water since the project was initially approved and she wanted to know what changed. She said it was especially important because of the intense development. Applicant answered the question, not staff. They say that they have already installed ground water monitoring wells, and that they could do a plan if this doesn’t work and they would notify homeowners if necessary after that. It sounded like staff signed off on this plan. The applicant said the reason for the sensitivity was because the City did sanitary sewer project and an interceptor and they incurred ground water issues in constructing that project. Olson continued to ask questions about the if the Lake had anything to do with the sanitary interceptor. Don Esposito (Veridian) said that water tables have risen all over the county. Esposito said that this is not the right time to worry about the groundwater and there will be other things that will impact it. He said they were the only developer in Dane County that offers 100% dry basement guarantee and they take that very seriously.
Unanimously approved on a voice vote.
MALT HOUSE OUTDOOR EATING AREA
Ok with all the conditions (20 or so) except repaving the parking lot, as he does not own the property and landlord won’t do it. Would cost $5 – 6K. Outside area would seat 30 people but he isn’t asking for increase in capacity for his establishment. Gruber asked if they had authority to remove those conditions, staff didn’t know if the commission had authority or if it was statute. Murphy suggested they express their intent so that if there is discretion the Zoning administrator would know which way to go. Boll points out that the code is pointed out in the email late this afternoon. Murphy says they haven’t spoken to the city attorney’s office. Boll makes motion to refer to get opinion of city attorney’s office to find out what plan commission authority is. Olson makes substitute to approve with conditions. She says if they wait two weeks it will be July and by then hard to get the work done. Thinks it will be quicker. Cnare wants improvements to corner and thinks it should be done. Schumacher says applicant hasn’t applied to ALRC, applicant says he already has approval. Motion passed with Basford, Gruber, Olson and Cnare. Bowser, Boll and Schumacher against.
Olson adds a condition that Plan Commission does not believe that the request for outside seating should not invoke the requirement for the parking lot to be paved and striped. Several members asked several questions about what they could and could not do and Murphy gave his best bureaucratic non-answer. Boll suggests that the bureaucratic nightmare that might ensue if it isn’t resolved by the plan commission might be worse than the two week delay he originally suggested. [I love Boll!] Olson says she is torn, but thinks Boll makes a good point, is willing to withdraw. Basford moves to reconsider previous motion, staff points out the next meeting is in 3 weeks, motion to reconsider passes unanimously. Motion makes a motion to refer to next plan commission and get info from city attorney, traffic engineering and zoning administrator about what their authority is. [This should have all been resolved before it got to the plan commission.]
They then went back to items they skipped at the beginning of the meeting, special and routine items 2 & 3 which are here. They appointed no one to Long Range Tranportation Planning Commission, but will check with Hiefitz.
They did not have a zoning code rewrite committee update. Staff gave tehm alternative dates where they could get caught up and suggested that they schedule a special meeting. [Schumacher, made suggestions that made it clear he hasn’t read his materials, very annoying.] It sounded like they were leaning towards the 29th or they might just keep it on their agenda, but who knows. They spent so much time discussing this that they could have probably just had the discussion.
Items 2 & 3 passed without discussion.
No business by members.
Memo noted on the agenda for communications. Fey noted EIS statements sent to her in her Joint SW Campus committee
Secretaries report – see list of upcoming items.
No announcements.
Boll moved adjournment with a heartfelt apology to the bureaucrats and they adjourned.
Just an interesting note – the women on the committee really dominated the discussion tonight.
