Tear down 11 houses and build 3 big buildings on E Johnson Street? Sure, screw the neighborhood plan . . . if we aren't going to follow them, why have them?
[I think this was the toughest project I ever had to face as an alder, the Edgewater would have been even more challenging. The project is a great project, it just belongs 3 blocks to the south, where it would be consistent with the neighborhood plan, not conflict with the character of the neighborhood and it would have been able to be more dense. I convinced myself to vote both for and against the project several times. The loss of the houses was tough, the project was good, the location was wrong. And it doesn't comply with the neighborhood plan and comprehensive plan.]
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Helen Bradbury - Stonehouse Development - in support - Said she develops section 42 affordable housing, she is very grateful to have support of TLNA, talks about the amazing number of hours of work listening to their story and tweaking the project, and says that it is a better project as a result. She had 3 main issues to consider:
1 - There is a huge need for workforce housing in all of Madison and specifically in this area. Their project Park Central [1100 E Wilson by Central Park] has a waiting list of 100 people.
2 - She explains the type of property that they are talking about. It is high quality, green development and should be an asset to Johnson St. Stonehouse will be the long term property management. This is their 5th project in the city.
3 - She says the houses that they are forced to take down have outlived their useful economic lives. She says the target market is just no longer there - they were student housing and the students have left. Hopes project will revitalize the area. She says that the project has front porches so have the pedestrian residential feel and feel it will help the E Johnson St. businesses.
Rich Arneson - Stonehouse Development and the easel for Helen Bradbury's presentation - Describes the project: 3 buildings, 3 stories, site plan developed with neighborhood, changed multiple times to fit with existing neighborhood as much as possible, underground parking, courtyards in the back, shared green space with Gorham street, some gardens for residents, some gardens will be accessible, 1st floor all have private entrances and are 2 story and have condo feel, large porches to continue historic feel, green built building certified, Madison Environmental Group will do a LEEDS feasibility study, they have received tax credits, hope to get project going in gloomy economic climate. He says that Randy Bruce the architect and Michael Matty from Renaissance Property who is the developer/rehab person for the Northern half of the property.
David Waugh is in opposition. He's lived in the neighborhood for 17 years, he's the Vice President of the Tenney Lapham Neighborhood Association. Doesn't want to be in opposition of the project. Developers did a fantastic job and there is much to be desired in the project. They did their due diligence and worked properly with the neighborhood. However, the recently adopted neighborhood plan wanted infill in targeted areas. He would love the development to be moved two blocks and then would support it. Was on the sounding board that reviewed the project which had numerous meetings. He says most people on the sounding board in opposition of the plan. Nothing in the project goes along with the neighborhood plan which is his number one concern. You [the council] just approved the neighborhood plan a year ago. When you see the bulldozers tearing down 11 houses those who aren't on the listserves are going to be upset about what is going on here. Press says the neighborhood strongly in support, that isn't true. Those of use on sounding board, trying to get something that resembled some piece of our neighborhood plan. He says there is no list of why we are going against the plan - it just says that it merits an exception. This doesn't conform with plan.
Patrick McDonnell - President of the Tenney Lapham Neighborhood Association - He says that the neighborhood struggled mightily with respect to the project. He says first Michael Matty presented a project and more recently he started working with Storehouse. He points out that just last year the Council approved the neighborhood plan which was an update after 13 years of the old plan. The neighborhood plan called for a vision for the restoration and rehabilitation of the traditional built environment, but also wanted infill in other areas that were not traditionally built out. It was a conundrum - two conflicting ouftcomes - Gorham St had much to applaud with the restoration of houses in a federally recognized historic district, they liked the reduction in density with removal of rooming houses - but with Johnson St it was the opposite of what we were looking for. Many still think the properties should be preserved. But, other aspects such as increased owner occupancy, rehab and restoration of the properties is also in the plan, but these properties would likely be at the bottom of the list. The properties would just continue to decline. So, fair expectation to have a developer do a reinvestment. Also interested in more working people and young families moving to the neighborhood. Section 42 was very compelling to many in the neighborhood. Quality of construction will be far superior to the standard market rate housing. Thinks it will bring more reinvestment. Restoration of green space from backyard parking was also a value. Modification from one to two developers and the way they split the project speaks to each of their strengths. Michael Matty got a historic preservation award from the Historic Trust and Stonehouse has a good track record. The demolition of the traditional built out block is not something we want you to think is a precedent or green light for any and all proposals that might come down the pike. Emailed a one page position paper with reasons for exemption to the neighborhood plan.
3 others in support - Randy Bruce [the architect], Michael Matty, Richard Linster
MOTION
Alder Bruer - He moved approval of the Plan Commission recommendation substitute with addendum to include additional conditions in number 5 which the alders have on their desks. Not available to the public, of course.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Rhodes-Conway - Asked about the open space for the project all being located on the historic properties and how that impacts the historic value of structures or how it will impact the historic district.
Brad Murphy says that the largest amount of open space is on northern half but thinks it is good that they are eliminating the surface parking and restoring the homes. He also says that the side and front yards of the Johnson St. properties are attractively landscaped. [For a project on the edge of town!] He says the houses are late 1800's to early 1900's houses and they are generally in not good shape. They are deteriorating, some could be restored if you threw enough money at them. They are not structurally unsound. In reviewing the project, Landmarks recommended it not be approved, UDC and PLan recommended approval because of benefits of the project. They have no concerns about the project being approved based on UDC and Plan recognizing the loss of 11 homes in exchange for affordable units, underground parking and restoration of the houses.
DISCUSSION
Rhodes-Conway - Says her concerns is the same as the last speaker, and that is the precedent and not following the neighborhood plan. She has no problem with the project, but problem with regularly going against approved neighborhood plans. If the neighborhood is in support and have a reason to support it it hard to not support that, but doesn't like the precedent to go against neighorhood plan.
Kerr said that Plan Commission wrestled with issue of demolition, but required that for the 8 homes to be restored, they took the landmarks commission recommendation to go to state historical preservation officer or landmarks commission. Plan commission did take into consideration what Landmarks said.
Rummel respects both developers and says they did fantastic projects in her neighborhood. She has a problem with saying that the houses have outlived their useful economic life. There's more to it than that, the previous owner allowed these houses to deteriorate (tragically), they assembled the properties. She says they are always on alert and that is why they created a neighborhood conservation district. She says that this is a precedent no matter what you call it. Seen the neighborhood change a block at a time and wouldn't want it in her district. Can't support it.
Maniaci - alot of work and input from many people over 6 - 9 months, project provides high quality affordable workforce housing that replaces rundown workforce neighborhood. The project is crafted to the needs of the neighborhood. Everything out her front window will be torn down but she still approves it. The project was thoroughly worked on by the neighborhood, she thinks this is housing the neighborhood needs, for people who want to stay in the neighborhood that will be priced out. Wants people to support it.
Schumacher asks about substitute - Staff says they and the developers are comfortable with condition number 5 in the report (in the packet). Schumacher says it is a great project, says its a good developer that will invest and in the future people won't want hese buildings torn down. He also says it is very affordable housing for the downtown area and thanked the alder for taking leadership and Kerr for showing him how to be on the plan commission. [Ok, this is what he thinks is very affordable: Efficiency $575, 1 bedroom $640 - $740, 2 bedroom $770 - 865, 3 bedroom $885. Ok, the 3 bedroom is a good price, but there are only 9 of them. The units will be available for people making up to: Efficiency $27 - 32K, 1 bedroom $31 - $36K, 2 bedroom $34 - 41K, 3 bedrooms $38 - 46K. And, I have to say, I'm curious, what leadership did Bridget display here? The project was through the neighborhood process before she was elected and she missed all the sounding board meetings.]
Rummel was the only audible "no" on a voice vote.
Read more!
Showing posts with label 600 East Johnson Street. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 600 East Johnson Street. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
City Row: The 600 Block of E. Johnson
The Tenney Lapham Neighborhood Association held a neighborhood meeting last night to provide information to the neighborhood about the project and to get their feedback so that they could make a decision about their support of the project. Here's where I think we are at after the meeting.
THREE ISSUES TO DECIDE
I think there are three issues to resolve or make a decision about.
1. Do the positives of the project outweigh the mass and the scale of the project and what it might mean for the future of the neighborhood? Will this set a precedent and bring more similar large/massive, out of scale development further into the neighborhood?
2. Do the positives of the project outweigh the demolition of the homes? What does it mean for the historic district/homes to the North on Gorham and the neighborhood if we tear down 11 turn of the century homes on an intact block? Can we agree on the condition of the homes and if they should be torn down? (See the homes here - not all of the homes listed will be demolished, only those 604-630 East Johnson Street, 309-323 North Blair Street.)
3. How do we deal with the fact that this project doesn't comply with the neighborhood plan? Do we make an amendment or an exception? If we make an exception, what are the details of that exception?
As for what I heard from the people who came to the meeting. I learned that the "Elizabeth St contingent" definitely is in support of the project, Michael Matty and Stonehouse Development. I heard that those who live closer to the project have a substantial list of questions and concerns that can likely be addressed, with the notable exception of the mass and scale and change in character of the neighborhood. And I heard that there are mixed feelings about the demolition of the houses and that most people haven't been in the houses to know if they feel that they should be demolished or not. There is some concern/heartbreak about the demolitions even from some who support the project.
CONS & QUESTIONS
I have 8 pages of notes, but here's a summary of the concerns I heard about the project, and some of the unanswered questions I heard (in no particular order):
1. Traffic - Headlights shining on the neighbors upon entry/exit, how much additional noise will it create with speeding up and slowing down, will it create traffic issues on Johnson as people enter/exit, will people have trouble exiting the driveway, should there be an entrance on Blair, how much local traffic will be generated by driving around the block, will the traffic coming out of the project conflict with the bike path traffic, will they have a community car, will large buildings add to the "highway effect" on Johnson, etc
2. Trees - will the mature trees be saved?
3. Neighborhood plan - its not consistent and how will we fix it?
4. Shade/Light - can they change the roof line to make more light for the people living on the sides of the buildings? How can you do gardens with the shade likely caused by the large buildings?
5. Construction - how much will it disrupt the neighborhood?
6. Demolition of 11 homes.
7. Will kids really live here? Should there be some playground equipment for the kids? Will their parents let them try to cross the streets on both sides of them? Can they get to the park? school?
8. Will there be green roofs?
9. Mass/Scale - The depth of the buildings going into the back yards, large buildings not in scale with single homes in the neighborhood. How much is the height of these buildings out of context with the buildings around them?
10. What happens if the homes are demolished and the project doesn't go forward?
11. Lack of green space.
12. How will it impact the rentals that others own?
PROS
The things people clearly liked about the project were as follows:
1. Affordable/Workforce housing.
2. Kids for Lapham and the possiblity of bringing more families to the neighborhood within this project and hopefully around it.
3. Quality of Construction/Nice housing for the neighborhood.
4. Energy efficiency and green building.
5. Underground wiring around the project.
6. Potential to increase owner-occupancy as they potentially convert to condos.
7. Removes backyard parking.
8. More people to support the business district.
9. Renovation of the homes on E. Gorham.
10. Better than doing nothing. May help with the large buildings being built on campus taking the students out of the neighborhood and leading the landlords to loosen their screening criteria.
11. Excitement about some innovative things they might do (bike washing station, energy efficiency, gardens).
CLOSE CALL/NEXT STEPS
So, as you can see, its a bit of a close call. The neighborhood has been thoughtful and careful in weighing their options and it will be interesting to see what happens on Wednesday. There are clear concerns from several in the neighborhood and some of those concerns can be addressed, others, can only be addressed by a complete revision of the project. And ultimately, the question is, is there enough "good" here to outweigh the "concerns"?
The meeting lasted 2 hours and 40 minutes, the next step is that the nieghborhood association will discuss this at their meeting tomorrow and maybe (?) vote on if they support the project and if so, with what conditions. And then try to figure out how to address the neighborhood plan issue. This project won't get to the plan commission til April 20th. Read more!
THREE ISSUES TO DECIDE
I think there are three issues to resolve or make a decision about.
1. Do the positives of the project outweigh the mass and the scale of the project and what it might mean for the future of the neighborhood? Will this set a precedent and bring more similar large/massive, out of scale development further into the neighborhood?
2. Do the positives of the project outweigh the demolition of the homes? What does it mean for the historic district/homes to the North on Gorham and the neighborhood if we tear down 11 turn of the century homes on an intact block? Can we agree on the condition of the homes and if they should be torn down? (See the homes here - not all of the homes listed will be demolished, only those 604-630 East Johnson Street, 309-323 North Blair Street.)
3. How do we deal with the fact that this project doesn't comply with the neighborhood plan? Do we make an amendment or an exception? If we make an exception, what are the details of that exception?
As for what I heard from the people who came to the meeting. I learned that the "Elizabeth St contingent" definitely is in support of the project, Michael Matty and Stonehouse Development. I heard that those who live closer to the project have a substantial list of questions and concerns that can likely be addressed, with the notable exception of the mass and scale and change in character of the neighborhood. And I heard that there are mixed feelings about the demolition of the houses and that most people haven't been in the houses to know if they feel that they should be demolished or not. There is some concern/heartbreak about the demolitions even from some who support the project.
CONS & QUESTIONS
I have 8 pages of notes, but here's a summary of the concerns I heard about the project, and some of the unanswered questions I heard (in no particular order):
1. Traffic - Headlights shining on the neighbors upon entry/exit, how much additional noise will it create with speeding up and slowing down, will it create traffic issues on Johnson as people enter/exit, will people have trouble exiting the driveway, should there be an entrance on Blair, how much local traffic will be generated by driving around the block, will the traffic coming out of the project conflict with the bike path traffic, will they have a community car, will large buildings add to the "highway effect" on Johnson, etc
2. Trees - will the mature trees be saved?
3. Neighborhood plan - its not consistent and how will we fix it?
4. Shade/Light - can they change the roof line to make more light for the people living on the sides of the buildings? How can you do gardens with the shade likely caused by the large buildings?
5. Construction - how much will it disrupt the neighborhood?
6. Demolition of 11 homes.
7. Will kids really live here? Should there be some playground equipment for the kids? Will their parents let them try to cross the streets on both sides of them? Can they get to the park? school?
8. Will there be green roofs?
9. Mass/Scale - The depth of the buildings going into the back yards, large buildings not in scale with single homes in the neighborhood. How much is the height of these buildings out of context with the buildings around them?
10. What happens if the homes are demolished and the project doesn't go forward?
11. Lack of green space.
12. How will it impact the rentals that others own?
PROS
The things people clearly liked about the project were as follows:
1. Affordable/Workforce housing.
2. Kids for Lapham and the possiblity of bringing more families to the neighborhood within this project and hopefully around it.
3. Quality of Construction/Nice housing for the neighborhood.
4. Energy efficiency and green building.
5. Underground wiring around the project.
6. Potential to increase owner-occupancy as they potentially convert to condos.
7. Removes backyard parking.
8. More people to support the business district.
9. Renovation of the homes on E. Gorham.
10. Better than doing nothing. May help with the large buildings being built on campus taking the students out of the neighborhood and leading the landlords to loosen their screening criteria.
11. Excitement about some innovative things they might do (bike washing station, energy efficiency, gardens).
CLOSE CALL/NEXT STEPS
So, as you can see, its a bit of a close call. The neighborhood has been thoughtful and careful in weighing their options and it will be interesting to see what happens on Wednesday. There are clear concerns from several in the neighborhood and some of those concerns can be addressed, others, can only be addressed by a complete revision of the project. And ultimately, the question is, is there enough "good" here to outweigh the "concerns"?
The meeting lasted 2 hours and 40 minutes, the next step is that the nieghborhood association will discuss this at their meeting tomorrow and maybe (?) vote on if they support the project and if so, with what conditions. And then try to figure out how to address the neighborhood plan issue. This project won't get to the plan commission til April 20th. Read more!
Monday, March 2, 2009
Tonight: Neighborhood Meeting on 600 Block E. Johnson
What will be the future of the 600 block of E Johnson St. and how will it impact future development of the Tenney Lapham Neighborhood area? You input needed, please attend!
Public Meeting on the 600 E. Johnson Housing ProposalRead more!
Mon, 2-Mar-2009, 7:00 pm
TLNA is sponsoring a public meeting at Lapham Auditorium to hear about
the revised proposal for 600 E.Johnson from Stone House Development
(Rich Arnesen) and Rennaisance Property Group (Michael Matty). City
Planning staff will also attend. Doors will open at 6:30.
See this proposal for further information.
More information at http://www.danenet.org/tlna/RPG.pdf .
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
600 E Gorham/Johnson Project Meeting Tomorrow
Here's the notice sent out to neighborhood associations and put on the postcards that went out to direct neighbors.
The project numbers keep changing, but there are about 140 units, underground parking, about 10 homes will be "deconstructed" aka demolished. Among the homes being demolished are some historic homes that appear here. See houses on 300 block of N Blair and 600 - 630 E Johnson. Read more!
Notice of Neighborhood Meeting
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008
7:00 p.m.
Gates of Heaven
302 E. Gorham Street
Madison
The Renaissance Property Group is proposing a redevelopment on the southwest end of the 600 block of East Johnson Street. The site fronts along East Johnson Avenue, Blair Street and East Gorham Street. The redevelopment proposes the deconstruction of existing structures on Blair and East Johnson, the construction of three new buildings and the renovation of the historically significant structures on East Gorham.
We have scheduled this meeting with surrounding neighbors to explain the proposal and obtain neighborhood comments. Representatives from the development team including Michael Matty with Renaissance Property Group and Randy Bruce with Knothe & Bruce Architects will be on hand to answer your questions. Alderperson Brenda Konkel is also planning to attend.
We look forward to seeing you.
Michael Matty
The project numbers keep changing, but there are about 140 units, underground parking, about 10 homes will be "deconstructed" aka demolished. Among the homes being demolished are some historic homes that appear here. See houses on 300 block of N Blair and 600 - 630 E Johnson. Read more!
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
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:
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)