The neighbors in the Midvale Plaza area are clearly upset about this new development in their neighborhood. I’ve gotten several emails trying to appeal to me “as a member of Progressive Dane” or “someone who cares about Inclusionary Zoning”. I’ve been attacked for not sticking up for a “middle class” neighborhood. Bottom line is this folks . . . we grow up or we grow out. I believe this is what we asked for in our Comprehensive Planning efforts. But . . . its never over until its over . . . so here’s a few exerpts (with some editing to make it clearer to the blog reader) from some of my responses to neighbors and a bit of advice.
INCLUSIONARY ZONING
I think you may have misunderstood my concern about the 4th floor and IZ. What I really wanted, was more three bedroom units to be IZ. He had loaded all the units with more bedrooms on to the 4th floor and then asked for the 4th floor to be “IZ Free”. I’m willing to look at an “IZ Free” zone as we are recommending as a change to the ordinance, but he can’t escape having units with more bedrooms (3 bedrooms) being IZ.
A second concern of mine was that he was trying to have some decisions about IZ made now, under one ordinance and then postpone other decisions until we have an amended ordinance in place, and he can’t have it both ways. So we deferred the decision until we have the amended ordinance and this is not unusual.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Regarding the comprehensive plan, as one of the people who spent a year of extra meetings working on the comprehensive plan, I hold what we wrote in there with high regard. I truly believe that this type of project is what we expected when we wrote the comprehensive plan. As a city, we have to grow up, not out. That means that we need to grow up in areas other than the downtown. This corner is one of those places we decided we should add density.
4 STORY BUILDINGS
You may know that I have a 4 story building 2 feet and 9 inches from the back lot line of my 2178 square foot lot. I am intimately familiar with how a 4 story building impacts a neighborhood. Perhaps I’ve lost perspective, but the step backs on Krupp’s building seemed reasonable and you have a whole street separating the building from the neighbors.
ADVICE TO NEIGHBORS TRYING TO INFLUENCE THIS VOTE
One neighbor quoted this part of the comprehensive plan to me:
Yet one of the “key recommendations” of the Comprehensive Plan (page I-6) states “Balance redevelopment and infill development with the preservation of the unique character of Madison’s existing neighborhoods, focusing on such issues as requiring that the size and scale of the new development enhances and is compatible with the established and planned neighborhood character and density.” Let’s not turn maximum infill standards in the Comprehensive Plan into a cookie-cutter approach that fails to recognize the differences in neighborhoods.
I suggested that the neighborhood should focus their comments on what is unique about their neighborhood when they come to the council on the 18th. I don’t think I heard much about the unique characteristics of this neighborhood that make them special.
And finally, I also had this to say . . .
I suggest that when you all come to the council, when you talk about the height of the building, I think you should talk about how it will impact you. Focus on the impacts of the building. And I would try to separate the height issue from the density issue. A shorter building can have the same number of units. Height does not equal density. If its the density/number of people in the building, lowering the height may not solve your problem, cuz more units can be shoved into a shorter building.
One last note, we have to consider standards when we make our decisions. PUDs have the standards listed below and I would focus your comments on these standards. I would go as far as to specfically refer to them while you are speaking.
*********************
(f) Criteria For Approval . As a basis for determining the acceptability of a planned unit development district application the following criteria shall be applied with specific consideration as to whether or not it is consistent with the spirit and intent of this ordinance and has the potential for producing significant community benefits in terms of environmental and aesthetic design. For Planned Unit Development Districts With Residential Components in Downtown Design Zones, the Design Criteria adopted by the Common Council shallbe used as guidelines for determining whether the following criteria are met. (Am. and Renumbered by Ord. 12,866, 8-7-01)
1. Character And Intensity Of Land Use . In a planned unit development district the uses and their intensity, appearance and arrangement shall be of a visual and operational character which:
a. Are compatible with the physical nature of the site or area.
b. Would produce an attractive environment of sustained aesthetic desirability, economic stability and functional practicality compatible with the general development plan.
c. Would not adversely affect the anticipated provision for school or other municipal service unless jointly resolved.
d. Would not create a traffic or parking demand incompatible with the existing or proposed facilities to serve it unless jointly resolved. A traffic demand management plan and participation in a transportation management association may provide a basis for addressing traffic and parking demand concerns. (Am. by Ord. 13,422, 10-24-03)
2. Economic Impact . Planned unit development district shall not adversely affect the economic prosperity of the City or the area of the City where the planned unit development is proposed, including the cost of providing municipal services. (Am. by Ord. 12,415, 7-23-99; Am. by Ord. 13,012, 2-26-02)
3. Preservation And Maintenance Of Open Space . In a planned unit development district adequate provision for the improvement and continuing preservation and maintenance of attractive open space shall be made.
4. Implementation Schedule . A planned unit development district shall include suitable assurances that each phase could be completed in a manner which would not result in an adverse effect upon the community as a result of termination at that point.
