Plan Commission Recap on Downtown Plan

Also, live blogged, kind of . . . updates posted as I went along, kinda. That means that I typed it live and didn’t proof read, essentially. Just trying to make sure it gets done.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Brad Murphy says that the booklet is just the recommendations, the plan will be written over the next few months, it will contain responses to some of the issues they heard. Sept 23rd these were presented, they are meeting with commissions that will see this when it gets introduced. Just looking for feedback and comments now. If information missing or recommendations missing they want to hear that, they have several maps with them for the commission to look at. They have maps for the Mifflin area, they continue to get conflicting comments on that, if they want to talk about it.

Michael Waidelich has nothing additional to add.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Dick Wagner from the Urban Design Commission (UDC) says UDC saw the plan and saw lots of good things. They aren’t commenting on those things. They have a couple areas of concerns. They were concerned this was a status quo plan instead of how it might evolve. They want to know where they would find creativity and flexibility. One of the issues are about the height issues, one of the issues is that 4 stories in the Mifflin area, they looked at a 4 story building but 6 stories in the back because of topography and this doesn’t deal with that. He says when looking at Downtown Design Districts they had bonus floors for additional stories. He says similar thing happened on Johnson St where they traded affrodable hosuign for different height and mass. He says the last issue is Mifflin, he says that preserving the form, not the houses might be the goal. Would the area be better served by cohousing and cooperative housing instead of the physical form. One member said that Mifflin moved to Willy St long ago. They also said that W. Washington is a big space that should be preserved. The plan is about downtown, but some aspects drifts outside the area they are talking about.

Judy Olson asks about other examples where bonus stories worked. She says there was nothing in the ordinances that allowed for affordable housing.

Wagner says that they listed specific things they had to accomplish in the ordinance. Projects have many goals and they get sorted out by commissions like these.

Julia Kerr asks what the Commission said about Mifflin St.

Wagner says they didn’t make any specific recommendations in the end. Langdon and Johnson is having new housing forms approved and there was no analysis of what they have been doing ad hoc as they develop student housing. They are saying that it will remain as is, was not comfortable.

Kerr asks about area around Mifflin, where 3, 4,5 and 6 story buildings, were there concerns about those heights on page 7.

Wagner says height, density and form. They were interested in some 6 story buildings.

Basford says nice to see him here. He asks about W. Washington concern, did they thought that what was in the plan would alter the streetscape to the point where we would lose what they are looking to preserve.

Wagner says what is on page 14 does not change the space. It’s wide enough, missed some.

Susan Schmitz representing Downtown Madison Inc says she is going to talk 500 feet above, we get to think about our future few times, that is where great ideas come from. Downtown Madison has been through a renaissance since the Downtown 2000 plan that took us out of the 70’s. The plan called for . . . she reads off a whole lot of things . . .and now we can look beyond to the next big ideas. We are the economic engine that drives the region, and we need jobs and investment. We have 33K employees with $213M in retail value. Students add $1?? and downtown residents at 96M and visitor add ????, damn live blogging. Sorry. Numbers suck.

DISCUSSION
Kerr says we might not be looking as aggressively as we could on W. Washington, why keeping the little buildings, shouldn’t we be thinking bigger. Couldn’t we have more development like the Alexander project and others that are big statement kind of projects. If you’re going to develop that kind of housing, you’d want it there, not on W Dayton.

Brad Murphy says that several alternatives were presented, what is included in the draft recommendations is a middle ground or compromise between a more full scale redevelopment and a more of a preservation or conservation district recommendation for the entire area. It would accommodate a significant amount of new development. The question for the plan commission is what is the appropriate future for the two areas. Staff can argue both sides of the issues, good points to support larger scale buildings, want to preserve set backs to preserve wide corridor that exists today, the plan adopted in 1989 recommended larger scale projects. Basset plan recommended a different future for W Washington, the question for us is what do we want it to be, can we preserve these buildings and if we can’t will we build new with similar scale or not. We’re heard a lot of comments on both sides. Capitol Neighborhoods comment is we’re split right down the middle. I kind of smiled, because that is exactly what we have been hearing.

Kerr says taht a different way to handle it is to separate W. Wash from inner facing blocks. CNI might kill me after this, but she sees W Wash is a city central focus and its a different condition than W Mifflin and Bassett, the smaller streets. We need to get past the view shed issue. This is a linear view, it can be done. She thinks more work is needed on W Washington, she doesn’t think that the housing is preservable or sustainable, she thinks more than the downtown neighborhoods should vote on this, its the city in general, thinks more density should be there.

Basford says view shed and density are not mutually exclusive. We can do ti while maintaining the unique nature of the boulevard. Thinks staff did a good job. Wants staff to give copies to EDC staff and the Economic Development Commission so they can see how this gets done.

Cnare asks about transportation center, what is the fallback if we don’t get the train. Are we just going to wait and see.

Murphy says need a little more time before we can decide. Wouldn’t want to say now what direction we would head in as an alternative. He says the Government East and half of municipal lot will move forward, those are key redevelopment lots, and ultimately, there should be a station or stop in close proximity. Hopefully sooner than later.

Cnare asks about people with kids living downtown, she didn’t see us talking about partnering with the school district, has there been any discussion with our plans.

Murphy says don’t know if direct discussion. They would be happy to follow up, excellent point. Some areas better for households with children, but it is something we would like to pursue, there is a elementary school in close proximity on the east side and we want to see it thrive and families would help it thrive.

Waidelich says that they look at Butler St area as promising, reasonably close to the primary school

Cnare would encourage it, so we can flush out how it will be.

Gruber says lots of good things in there, thanks staff. He says transportation center, high speed rail best thing that will happen for a long time, bring tourists here, generate economic development, etc, would be a great loss. Should keep it in the plan. He wants to add to getting around downtown plan section. He tells story of how it is confusing to get around. He a talks about how street patterns are formed, he wants them to look at all the streets and consider a grid and make streets through streets. Missed a bunch. Answering question about how people sign in. He thought originally they should have more density on Mifflin, but he likes what has been presented, housing stock could be used for quite a while [ok, who stole Tim Gruber and replaced him . . . did he get hit on the head on the way here tonight?] He talks about storefronts and porches not blank walls, talks about blank wall on library, federal court house, Overture, etc. He says that talking about various areas should all have mixed use included, almost all the blocks have mixed use and it would provide for vibrancy of downtown. He says page 18. First few have it, have all of them have it to reflect existing conditions and that we want to continue. He handed out a photo. Talks about how it is inviting and provides for safety. He says if people are given nice places to walk, they want to walk. That should be encouraged as we move forward.

Judy Olson says that she wants more emphasis on families downtown. We have the example of Vancouver that has a downtown attractive to families with kids. You do it by requiring areas for play sets and other considerations and it needs to be in the plan to work. On W Wash/Mifflin, W Washington could benefit from larger buildings, and interior smaller, she says it should be reversed in the picture they have.

Bowser says not much discussion of integrating transportation system downtown. When Monona Terrace was developed there was discussion about shuttle or circulatory to go up State St and the hotels and wondering if there could be a partnership between DMI and Metro.

New Member (can’t spell her name yet), likes the diversity of the neighborhoods. Liked the permeable boundaries. She saw flexibility in the document, but on page 19, objective 3, preserving buildings, likes 3.5, but says that 1998 plan needs to be changes. What we see as historic is ever evolving. She is looking forward to the next draft. She also thinks families is really important, not just Vancouver, but Portland Oregon as well.

Kerr likes page 37 and the language about John Nolen, hoping it would be more fleshed out, and more thought put into that approach to downtown. She thinks it is underutilized parkland.

Gruber says opposed to filling of the lake, we did enough already, should not do more, relocate the surface parking for the boathouse.

They say that people can still submit comments to staff if they have further comments.