Midvale Plaza

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.




Read more!

6/26/06 Picks of the Week

Lots of opportunities to hear about TIF and 2007 funding for Community Services and Community Development Block Grant programs


Monday, June 26
Board of Estimates - 4:30 Room 260 Municpal Building (215 MLK Jr. Blvd.)
Neighborhood Grants
Parks Budget Amendment (Money taken from projects in Breese Stevens, Warner Park, Forest Hill, Peace Park, Wingra and Tenney for Goodman Park)
Agreement on Donation of land and money for a Library in Grandview Commons
$130,000 in TIF to TJK Properties LLC
Amending State Street TID (TIF District)
Creating Union Corners TID (TIF District)
Changing Park Fees Use and Collection

Community Development Block Grant Commission 5:00 Room 310 City County Building (210 MLK Jr. Blvd.)
Agency Presentations for 2007 Funding (Economic Development and Neighborhood Civic Places)

Community Service Commission 5:00 Room 120 Municipal Building
Review of proposals for 2007 Funding

Tuesday, June 27
Pedestrain Bicycle Motor Vehicle Commission 5:00 Room 260 Municipal Building
Annual Hearing on Pedestiran and Bike Improvements Public Hearing Starts at 6:00
Crossing Guards

Special Plan Commission Meeting on Cherokee Park 5:30 Alliant Energy Center
Also a discussion on Inclusionary Zoning Marketing

Wednesday, June 28
Early Childhood Care and Education Board 8:35 am Room 260 Municipal Building
Review of 2007 Funding Requests

Senior Citizens Advisory Committee 1:30 Madison Senior Center 330 W Mifflin St
Presentations on 2007 Funding Requests

Urban Design Commission 4:15 Room 260 Municipal Building
Take a peek and see if anything impacts your neighborhood.

Community Services Commission 5:35 Warner Park
Continued review of 2007 Funding for Agencies

Thursday, June 29
Community Development Block Grant Commission 5:00 Room 260 Municipal Building
Presentations on Access to Community Resources - Including Homelessness Programs
Read more!

Here we go again . . . give us our private meetings

Is it fair to the public when there are 4 meetings that discuss a particular issue and a certain segment of the business industry stays away (some didn't) and does not give their input in the public meetings. Then after there is a public decision made, then that segment of the business industry comes in and wants to start the discussion over before the City Council votes . . . outside of the view of the public.

It happened this morning, and when I brought this up - I was accused of being "unhelpful".

Excuse me . . . I'm a public official. We work in the public, not in smoky back rooms, regardless of what certain segments of the business industry want us to do. We are government, responsible to "the people". Its about integrity. Its about transparency. Its about fairness.

Not to mention, its absolutely disrespectful to our citizen committee members who have spent hours of their valuable time in good faith working on something just to have it flushed down the toilet because a certain segment of the business community didn't feel like they had to participate in the public process.

As a taxpayer, as a citizen, don't you feel ripped off? And how can you have faith in the government if this is the way that it works? No wonder the public gets so mad at the City Council because we "don't listen". That's the way certain segments of the business community want it - and after all - some people think they are the most important constituent of the City Council. I disagree, our most important constituents are the people of this city - not a bunch of corporate entities.

(Note: I said certain segments of the business community. This means that I don't think that about all businesses.)

Read more!

Ask a question . . . and let the chaos begin . ..

So, I asked a question in a private meeting the other day . . . and I've had people ask me the silliest questions ever since . . . . My question was "Why is the CDA bonding going towards Pres House?". It was a question about number 5 and 25 on the council agenda of June 20th, 2006. The best explanation of what we are doing is in the fiscal note which says:

The bond issue in an amount not to exceed $17,000,000 authorized by this resolution will be used to fund construction of a 43 unit apartment project owned by Presbyterian Student Center Foundation, Inc. Although issued in the name of the CDA, these bonds are payable solely from housing project revenues. They do not constitute an indebtedness of the City or the CDA. The CDA will receive an issuance fee of approximately $56,350 in conjunction with this transaction. This resolution has no other budgetary impact.

Truth be told, I did say something to the effect of "Why are we issuing bonds for a religious facility?" and "Isn't there a separation of Church and State issue?" Someone tried to argue that the Pres House wasn't a religious facility, and I argued that it was. Although this is an issue that I asked about . . . my real concerns go much deeper than that.

I wanted to know more about the details of the program . . . but about all I could find on the city website was this (scroll down to the bottom).

Housing Revenue Bonds/Rental Housing Bonds
Contact: 608/266 - 6558 ext. 311

When I asked about the program I was told "Don't worry, it's a good thing. The CDA will make money."

But that's not the point. This is a tool that could create affordable housing. I wanted to know what the specific terms of the program required. What benefit is there to the developer for using this program? How affordable is the housing? How long does it have to remain affordable? How does a developer learn about this program? What could we do to have more developers use this program if it is beneficial? What are our priorities for this program? Why would we be using it on student housing? Is there a limit to how many bonds we can issue? Can we put stricter rules on the bonds? etc. etc. etc.

But I haven't heard answers to any of these questions and I certainly can't find them on the City website. Instead, people seem fixated on the fact that I asked a question about the church/state issue as a legal curiousity. What I really need to know is:

• Why this project?

• Why we don't use the bonds more often?

• What are our priorities?

• How do people find out about the program?

• What is being done to promote the program?

• Why don't we use it more often?

And after reading more about the program, I don't understand why this tool is being used for a student facility . . . just doesn't seem to fit the objectives of the program.

And on the religious issue, geesh . . . settle down. I just asked a question. Didn't know it was so offensive to be curious.
Read more!

Bus Wraps - Things I Haven't Heard.

Remember all those safety issues on busses? How about people with visual disabilities? What if we don't get the revenues that are projected? And as Alder Golden points out in a way that only he can, what about the other departments that have increased fuel costs?

Ok- I think the bus wraps are ugly. And I don't think that we should be subjected to the onslaught of advertising in areas where low-income people are essentially forced to be due to their economic status. But lets put those two issues aside and talk about a few other things.

Safety - Remember all the pleas from the city staff to allow cameras on busses? Remember how important it was to have more eyes on the people riding the busses to protect the safety of the workers? How does wrapping a bus in material that makes it so that you can't see into the bus going to help with these safety concerns?

Vision - During my stint on the Transit and Parking Commission for three years I remember pretty eloquent testimony from people with visual disabilities and how these wraps hinder their bus riding experience. Yes, we have the talking busses now, but how often do you know where you are going by sight and don't know the name of the cross street of where you need to go?

Revenues - Advertising in Parking Ramps is down 20% at the moment. I tried to find out from Metro staff and Comptrollers office how the other advertising on busses is going (inside and current advertising on the outside), in fact, I sent the following email to staff a week ago, but haven't gotten a response. Not even an, I'll get back to you courtesy response.

Could one of you tell me how much money we have made in advertising on Madison Metro for the past 5 years? I'm loooking for the annual trend . . .
b

I recall from my Transit and Parking days that the revenues have been steadily decreasing since 9-11. I was looking for the facts to back up my statement, but I guess I'll just have to wait . . .

I did, however, get some really helpful information from Bill Knobeloch regarding the advertising in parking ramps. (Which I also opposed.) We had projected that we would make $75K but at $5193 per month we will likely only make $62K. This is only 82.6% of what we expected. Can we expect the same from this proposal from Metro?

Other Departments - I also tried to find out what the impact of increased fuel costs was on other departments. I asked this question a week ago as well, and tried to follow up on Friday and guess what - more of the same (not!) response. The emails I sent below:

Re: Fuel increases . . .
which departments are bieng hit the hardest and what are they doing to fill the gap? how much of a gap are they seeing?
b

Which was followed up with . . .

Re: Fwd: Fuel increases . . .
i didn't see a response to this, can you help me with this on monday?

Anyways, the point is, if we know what other departments are affected and what they are doing, perhaps we could either do similar activities with Metro or . . . maybe Ken Golden is on to something?

Bus Fare Increases/Route Cuts - And finally, if we support this revenue stream does that mean that we won't face bus fare increases and route cuts? How did we get ourselves into this ridiculous situation where we have a basic city service that is expected to break even? We don't expect the police department or fire department or streets department to break even. Should we have them cut services and raise user fees so that they break even every year - or is theirs a basic service that needs to be supported by tax payers for the good of the community?
Read more!

Picks of the Week - City Meetings

Meetings this week of interest . . . and note, there is a new section on the website that provides additional information for meetings that previously were not in Legistar. It's called "Notice of Additional Public Meetings". Thanks to the IS department for doing this . . .

Monday, June 19th
Brown Bag lunch with David Denig-Chakroff, Water Utility Director Noon Room 417 (Council Office) City- County Building

Plan Commission 5:30 Room 201 City-County Building
- Approving the Redevelopment Plan and District Boundary for the Allied Drive
Redevelopment District. (10th AD)
- Petitioning the Governor of Wisconsin to create a Capital Area Regional Planning
Commission.
- Amending Tax Incremental Finance (TIF) District #32 (Upper State Street)
- Creating Tax Incremental Finance (TIF) District #37 (Union Corners)
- Midvale proposal for library and 4 story building
- Inclusionary Zoning

Tuesday, June 20th
Board of Water Commissioners 4:35 Water Utility Building, 119 E Olin Ave
Common Council Meeting 6:30 Room 201 City-County Building
Employment Contract for Water Utility Manager
Property Management Contract for former Hauk Properties on Allied Drive Contract
Fireworks
Verified Response
Bus Wraps
Paid Sick Leave

Wednesday, June 21st
Board of Education - City Council Liaison Committee 4:30 545 W. Dayton Street, Room 103
Allied Drive Update
Alcohol License Review Committee 5:30 Room GR-27 City-County Building
There's something on there for everyone!

Thursday, June 22nd
Allied Area Task Force Head Start Building 5:00 2096 Red Arrow Trail

Friday, June 23rd

Read more!

(Historic) Kozak Properties

Ok - so I expected that some of those Kozak properties were going to be of historic value. After all, as I was reminded on Friday, some of them are in the Fourth Lake Ridge Historic District . . . but I wasn't prepared to find all so many of them listed in the Wisconsin Architecture and History Inventory . . .

The following houses are in the Fourth Lake Ridge Historic District . . .
(Sorry the photos aren't the greatest, between dodging traffic, avoiding taking pictures of people and moving cars, the trees, the sun and the shadows it created and using a camera phone, this is the best I could do . . . but it will give you a flavor of the homes.

Additionally, I'm don't have any experience in historic research, but this is what I could find on my own.)

651 E. Gorham
1895 H Fletcher House


645 E. Gorham
1931 A. O. Fox Apartment House



625 E. Gorham
1909 Nathanial Crampton House
(Apparently known for attending every UW home football game from 1890 until his death in 1933. He was a member of the Capitol Police Force and a Capitol Guide. He came to Madison in 1850. He fought in the Civil War and shook Lincoln's hand. He belonged to the GAR and was Mason. It appears he was involved in one of the first water controversies in Madison during the Capitol fire in 1904 which he discovered and there are several stories with his first hand account of what happened.)


623 E. Gorham
1902 August and Carolina Scheibel House


619 E. Gorham
1905 Minorah and Vincent Kubly House
(One of the original owners of Wolff, Kubly and Hirsig hardware store. In 1891 he and Louis Hirsig went to Monroe to learn the sheet metal trade. In 1902 they formed Wolff and Kubly at 136 S. Pinckney. In 1907 it became Wolff, Kubly and Hirsig. In 1909 they moved to the corner of Broom, Gilman and State. In 1919 they opened a second store on the square.)


615 E. Gorham
1913 Fred and Philomena Schmitz House



609 E. Gorham
1910 Theodore and Emily Wiedenbeck House
Theodore was the Vice President of the Union Trust Bank and President of Wiednebeck-Dobelin Co.


601 E. Gorham/323 N. Blair
1904 E.B. and Sophie Steensland House
(Started as the Secretary and later became president of the Savings and Loan Trust, which was started with his father in 1890.)


As far as I can tell, the following houses are not in the Fourth Lake Ridge Historic District but have some history behind them . . .

314 N. Blount St.
1894 Henry Fletcher House


319 N. Blair
1916 Lewis and Clara Giffert House


311 N. Blair
1852 Joseph Bayer House


309 N. Blair
1886 August Bayer House



602-04 E. Johnson
1885 Charles Hoebel Residence



606-08 E. Johnson
1921 Kenney Company Two Flat


610 E. Johnson
1900 John and Mary Eagan Residence


612 E. Johnson
1913 Fred Schmitz Residence



614 E. Johnson
1903 Christian P. Schubring Grocery Store


618 E. Johnson
1853 Collins-Farwell-Hendricks House


620 E. Johnson
1871 Carl Hoebel Residence


630 E. Johnson
1927 Harry and Ethel Church Residence


644 E. Johnson
1885 Linous Palmer



308 N. Blair St.
1877 R.R. Smith House


119 N. Franklin
1899 George H. & Dagmar Armbrecht residence



101 N. Franklin
1857 William F. Reiche residence
Born June 21, 1825, Died February 23, 1866. Attended German Methodist Church.



209-11 N. Blount
1912 Peter Lahm, Jr. Duplex



These were the houses I found no historic information on . . . but the assessors site says they were built in the following years:

315 N. Blair (built 1910)
520 E. Johnson (built 1885)
104-06 N. Blair St. (1947)
103-5 N. Franklin (1918)
710 E. Johnson (1907)
711-13 E. Johnson (1909)
707-09 E. Johnson (1880)
213-15 N. Blount St. (1909)
207 N. Blount (1925)

I couldn't find any information on th1s house . . .
708/708 1/2 E. Johnson
Read more!

Kozak Properties

Last week, Marc Eisen wrote a piece in the Isthmus on the potential sale of several Kozak properties, the majority of which are on the 600 block of E Gorham/Johnson. While there is decent debate about what could and should be there, it was the ending of the article that caused me concern.

After explaining how difficult and expensive it is to turn rental properties into owner-occupied housing, Eisen has this to say:

At the same time, the city isn't without financial tools to help homebuyers and developers. The interesting question to ask is why the city isn't looking at restoring these properties as part of its affordable housing strategy. . .

My response is as follows:

a. Where are these financial tools that he's talking about? In case he didn't notice, every time we try to get money into affordable housing, such as the Affordable Housing Trust Fund we have to fight with the conservate wing of the common council to get it. We have TIF and the depleted Capital Revolving Fund and that's about it for City resources. (The CDBG office has some federal pass through money, but the City doesn't really use its own resources for affordable housing.) Even worse, TIF is a pretty difficult way to create affordable housing because the way TIF works is if it creates maximum increment and you don't create the maximum increment with affordable housing.

b. If its very expensive to get the homes from rental to ownership, why would we pour even more money into these units to make them affordable? Seems like some terribly expensive affordable housing and we could spend the money, if we actually had it, in a much more effective way.

The other thing that bothered me was that the article seemed to imply that there wasn't a plan for this neighborhood. I beg to differ. In fact, they are in the middle of updating their plan at the moment.

More to come on this topic, I'm sure.
Read more!

Where to start . . .

You know, sometimes trying to decide what to blog about, or what not to blog about can get really confusing/overwhelming. Right now, I could blog about

the silly bus wraps proposal,
(not so) dirty water,
mowing (or lack thereof),
Warner Park fireworks,
upcoming budget issues,
this week or next weeks picks of the week for city meetings,
paid sick leave,
verified response,
the Kozak properties,
what to put in (or not!) the city's time capsule,
the latest school board referendum,
local purchasing,
TIF,
powerlines,
rumors about Whole Foods,
allowing small businesses to be in a transportation pool to buy bus passes at a discount,
Radfest or whatever they call it now,
real fixes for Madison Metro,
Parade of Homes,
selling those houses and/or land in James Madison Park,
Fitchburg going smokefree,

and on and on and on and on . . .

Meanwhile, I blogged so much about inclusionary zoning, I/we now have our own site for all things IZ.

And then, there's just the ridiculous things that I probably shouldn't respond to, but sometimes, you just want to point out how ridiculous something is that someone said . . .

Like when Zach Brandon says I had a "Nader/Laduke" sticker on my laptop . . . um that was 2000 when they ran and I wasn't even on the council, in 2004 I had a David Cobb sticker on my computer and Nader was running with Camejo. And funny, he waits until the stickers are gone to complain about it. (BTW- the stickers are gone cuz the hinge on my computer had to be fixed and they replaced that part of my computer, not because the nearly one year old complaint had merit. The stickers could peel right off and not harm the computer.)

Or when Larry Palm throws this absurd statement out there:

Third, the Mayor has specifically used the term “affordable housing” to describe IZ. Remember, a family of four must earn more than $51,240 (70% AMI) to afford a $106,103 efficiency unit. IZ has a lot of potential, but this is hardly affordable housing in my mind.

Um, Larry, the incomes limits are maximums so they can't make more than that amount and who ever said a family of four is going to live in an efficiency? I can't even begin to understand how you got that so twisted . . .

Sigh . . . so much to blog, so little time.
Read more!

What's Historic?

So, as the downtown continues to thrive and we see very little end to the onging redevelopment, we are running out of vacant land or obvious spaces to redevelop . . . which means we have to tear something down. But what?

Is the only reason to resist tearing something down because it is historic? Or when deciding to tear something down, should we care if it is still structurally sound and economically viable? What type of recycling should be required when demolitions are allowed? Should we be encouraging moving houses to make way for redevelopment?

Does it matter what will replace the buildings when deciding if they should be torn down?

Is a building historic/worth saving because it was built more than 100 years ago? Does it make a difference if it is brick or wood? Does it matter what neighborhood it is in?

Is a building historic/worth saving if it is listed in the Wisconsin Historic and Architecture Inventory? Does it matter if we know who lived in the home or used the building?

Is a building historic/worth saving if it appears in a City document as possibly historic? Or only if it is in a historic district? Or if the Landmarks Commission has previously determined a building is a City landmark?

Is a building historic/worth saving only if it was made my a famous architect or a noteworthy person lived there? (And who decides who was noteworthy?) Or what if it just holds fond memories?

Does it make a difference if there is a whole collection of houses to be torn down? Is a look and feel to a neighborhood worth preserving?

Should commercial buildings be treated differently than houses?

Should there be a better process for demolition by fire?

Should someone have to own the buildings before we approve the demolition?

A subcommittee of the Plan Commission will be reviewing the proposed demolition ordinance changes and discussing these questions and much more in the upcoming months. And there's lots to think about . . .
Read more!

Portage Tornado, a little too close to home.

Here's something you probably didn't expect from me (for so many reasons!) but, . . . last Tuesday, as I was in the City Council meeting, my mom and stepdad, were dealing with a little disaster of their own.

Tornado (the hill on the right in the back of the picture is where my parents farm is/was.)



meets Barn. (My step-dad, step-cousin, a dog or two and a pig were in the barn when it collapsed.)



and Grainary.



and old house. (My parents no longer live here, but its the house I lived in during Jr. High and High School.)




and trees.



but everyone was safe.

Yes, including the pigs.




So, this weekend, we (many generous neighbors and relatives, most of whom had tornado damage of their own, and me) spent some time cleaning up.




And while we made progress . . .




There is still work to be done . . .


Read more!