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.
