City of Madison
Legislative File ID   06761
Type:   Resolution    Status:   Passed
Enactment Date:   2/8/2008    Enactment No.:   RES-08-00167
Title:  
Adopting the Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Plan as a supplement to the City of Madison Comprehensive Plan.
Controlling Body:   LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
Introduced:   6/13/2007    Version:   1
Final Action:   2/5/2008    Contact:   Document Services 608-266-4280
Name:  
Adopting the Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Plan as a supplement to the City of Madison Comprehensive Plan
Extra Date 1:  
Requester:   PLAN COMMISSION
Sponsors:  
Brenda K. Konkel
Legislative History
DateActing BodyAction TakenMotion
6/13/2007Department of Planning and Community and Economic DevelopmentFiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group Completed on 6/13/2007
6/13/2007Comptroller's Office/Approval GroupApproved Fiscal Note By The Comptroller's Office to the Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development Completed on 6/13/2007
Notes: Bohrod
6/13/2007Department of Planning and Community and Economic DevelopmentReferred for Introduction
Notes: Plan Commission, Board of Estimates, Landmarks Commission, Long Range Transportation Planning Commission, Board of Park Commissioners, Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Commission
6/19/2007COMMON COUNCILRefer to the PLAN COMMISSION Completed on 1/28/2008
Notes: Additional Referral(s): Board of Estimates, Landmarks Commission, Long Range Transportation Planning Commission, Board of Park Commissioners, Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Commission
6/19/2007PLAN COMMISSIONRefer to the BOARD OF ESTIMATES Completed on 7/30/2007
6/19/2007PLAN COMMISSIONRefer to the LANDMARKS COMMISSION Completed on 7/9/2007
6/19/2007PLAN COMMISSIONRefer to the LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE Completed on 7/19/2007
6/19/2007PLAN COMMISSIONRefer to the BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS Completed on 7/11/2007
6/19/2007PLAN COMMISSIONRefer to the PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION Completed on 8/28/2007
6/26/2007PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION Members wanted more time to review the Plan and the staff comments. Motion by Webber/Skidmore to refer. Patrick McDonnell, 441 N. Paterson Street, representing the Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Association, registered in support. · This will be the first neighborhood plan since the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan in 2006. [Ed. note: It was subsequently clarified at the 8/28/07 PBMVC meeting that the Spring Harbor Neighborhood Plan was the first one adopted following the City's adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.] · The Plan contains a strong connection between land use and transportation planning. The land use goals are tied to transportation planning and will be an important part of the discussion. · The last plan for this neighborhood was adopted in 1995 and the neighborhood thought it important to have an updated one, especially since the neighborhood is changing from student housing to single-family homes. · Residents expressed interest in becoming more of a multi-modal area of the city. Linda Horvath, City Planning, indicated that referring the Plan to the July meeting fits within their schedule. She advised that the hand-out tonight was just the transportation section and members could contact staff if they wanted a copy of the entire Plan. Pass
7/9/2007LANDMARKS COMMISSIONReturn to Lead with the Recommendation for Approval PLAN COMMISSION Completed on 1/28/2008Pass
Notes: Landmarks Commission supports the plan with the addition of notice that Fyfe's Corner Bistro is a landmark.
7/11/2007BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERSThe Park Commission approved Resolution #06761 Adopting the Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Plan as a supplement to the City of Madison Comprehensive Plan with the following amendment: On page 50 of the Neighborhood Plan, the Park Commission unanimously went on record approving the transfer/sale of the two historic dwellings at 640 and 646 East Gorman Street but opposed the sale of any parkland under those or any other building located within the park. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Pass
7/19/2007LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEEPatrick McDonnell, President of the Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Association (TLNA), provided an overview of the key transportation and land use recommendations contained in the draft Plan. He noted that there are changes in the demographics in the TLNA area and that this creates a need to revisit the transportation and land use goals for the neighborhood. He said that, in general, the neighborhood supports more jobs in the area, a commitment to schools and parks, and a re-integration of owner-occupied family housing. McDonnell also felt that the high volumes of traffic on Johnson Street and Gorham Street are not compatible with the land use goals for the neighborhood and that strategies should be undertaken to address this. Michael Basford expressed concern about the recommended conversion of Johnson and Gorham to 2-way operations, and said that there needed to be better data and analysis to back that up. Kevin Hoag stressed the importance of park-and-ride lots, but located further out than is recommended in the Plan. He also cautioned the location of the park-and-ride lots in terms of their impact on our air quality, noting that this region is on the borderline of becoming non-attainment (i.e., federal air quality standards). Hoag said that he supported strong transit through the area and the need to better manage traffic through the neighborhood. Tim Wong said that a "bicycle boulevard" concept should be considered for East Mifflin Street, as a way to provide better bicycle travel and discourage cut-through auto traffic. He also said that there needs to be better cross-isthmus bus transit in the area. Judy Bowser said that she had some questions for Traffic Engineering staff and requested that they be present at the next meeting. Mike Rewey said that he would like another month to make some detailed modifications to the Plan's recommendations and that a referral would be a good idea. The LRTPC unanimously then voted to "refer resolution ID 06761 to the August 16th LRTPC meeting, request that Traffic Engineering staff be available at the meeting to answer questions, and request that the Plan Commission delay action on the TLNA Plan until LRTPC acts", on a motion submitted by Mike Rewey/Bob Schaefer. Pass
Notes:
7/24/2007PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION Pass
7/30/2007BOARD OF ESTIMATESnext meeting.Fail
(1:3)
7/30/2007BOARD OF ESTIMATESReturn to Lead with the Recommendation for Approval PLAN COMMISSION Completed on 1/28/2008Pass
(3:1)
8/16/2007LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEEA motion was made by Webber, seconded by Skidmore, to Return to Lead with the Following Recommendation(s) to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes: Ald. Robbie Webber/Ald. Paul Skidmore then submitted a substitute motion to: “Accept the Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Plan and recommend that a multi-modal transportation study be undertaken for the isthmus and downtown area; further, all recommendations contained in the TLNA Plan should be examined as part of the study and that specific LRTPC comments and LRTPC meeting minutes be forwarded to Traffic Engineering, City Engineering, and/or Planning Division (whichever agency will be leading the study) for their consideration as part of the study.” The Commission then unanimously passed the motion.
8/28/2007PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION Substitute motion to accept the Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Plan and recommend that a multi-modal transportation study be undertaken for the isthmus and downtown area; further, all recommendations contained in the TLNA Plan should be examined as part of the study and that specific Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Commission comments, PBMVC meeting minutes (7/24/07 and 8/28/07), and the Traffic Engineering staff changes re: TLNA Plan-Revised Draft 8/22/07 be forwarded to Traffic Engineering, City Engineering, and/or Planning Division (whichever agency will be leading the study) for their consideration as part of the study. DISCUSSION: The following persons was present on this item: Patrick McDowell, 441 N. Paterson Street, representing the Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Association, registered in support and was available to answer questions; Ald. Brenda Konkel, representing the Tenney-Lapham area; and Linda Horvath, City Planning. Wittke mentioned that she is a member of the Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Board and voted in favor of the Plan. · Shahan reminded members this had been referred from last month's meeting due to concerns. · The Long Range Transportation Planning Commission moved to accept the Plan and made additional recommendations. Shahan felt this motion was a good starting point. · Wittke asked for clarification of TE staff's comment that the Plan is inconsistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Dryer stated that there is a fundamental difference in the belief that the Johnson-Gorham arterial corridor is destroying the neighborhood. TE is trying to make the Plan more objective. Dryer indicated TE also recommended expanding the “implementer” agencies for some of the goals. He stated that TE did not have a problem with the studying the listed items. Given the neighborhood's revised draft 8/22/07, Wittke asked if TE still felt the Plan was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Dryer responded he would have to see it in the overall context to see how it all fits together. Skidmore agreed that there are inconsistencies with the neighborhood plan and the City's Comprehensive Plan. · Ald. Konkel did not understand how TE saw inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. Almost everything in this Plan is in the neighborhood's adopted 1995 Plan. She felt the neighborhood did a good job of revising the existing Plan. If this Plan is not adopted, the existing Plan will remain in force and in some ways it has harsher language than what is being proposed now. · Konkel fully supported the comments made by McDowell at the July meeting. She did not think what the Plan proposes is so extreme or unusual that it requires the staff reaction it got. Staff has been looking at it for the past 16 months. She was not aware of anything in the Tenney-Lapham Plan that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. · Skidmore pointed out that changing Johnson-Gorham to two-way traffic is a big issue. It's a recommendation that goes beyond a neighborhood plan and would affect the whole region. Konkel noted that this recommendation is in the current Plan. Skidmore was not necessarily opposed to looking at the idea but would want staff's reaction. Dryer stated that the idea of studying the proposal is fine. · Dryer reiterated it comes down to the fact that TE staff does not buy the fundamental belief in the Plan that arterial streets can't co-exist with neighborhoods. He supported replacing the first paragraph of the Transportation Vision Statement with the language proposed by TE staff. Wittke noted that the neighborhood's Vision Statement is consistent with the old Plan that was adopted. · Wittke emphasized that Goal 1 says to study certain strategies; it does not say to implement them. The neighborhood doesn't want them taken off the table until they've been studied. The neighborhood wants all the strategies looked at together as one piece. · Wittke urged the PBMVC to adopt the Plan, not to merely accept it as the LRTPC did. Motion by Wittke/De Vos to adopt the Plan as amended in the revised draft 8/22/07. Webber noted the statement that recommendations 2-4 may be implemented independent of the Transportation Management Plan study, and she wondered how this jibed with Wittke's statement that the neighborhood did not want things done piecemeal. McDowell explained that some issues were not seen as major systemic issues and could be done without converting Johnson-Gorham to two-way traffic. Goals 2-4 are more local things that can be done in terms of traffic calming without the bigger scope changes. It doesn't make sense to delay these for a number of years when they could be done within the limited scope of a neighborhood plan. Goals 2-4 were adopted in the 1995 Plan but have not been done yet. They could be addressed on their own merit. De Vos mentioned that the older neighborhoods in Madison (e.g., Tenney-Lapham, Dudgeon-Monroe) were built so that people could walk and bike to destinations without having to drive everywhere. But there is a transportation conflict in the central part of the city with motorists from outside the city using these neighborhood streets to get through Madison. The neighborhood streets were not constructed for this type of use, and it affects the quality of the neighborhood. She felt it was wrong to acquiesce to the mentality that these motorists need to be accommodated on neighborhood streets. It's important to see the advantage of having neighborhoods where people live near where they work and can walk, bike or bus to work. She supported the Tenney-Lapham Plan because it seems to address that. Webber referred members to the July minutes which include recommendations for additions to the Plan to facilitate an increase in the ped/bike modal split and a corresponding reduction in single occupancy vehicle trips. The recommended additions would strengthen the Plan and actually point out ways to get the modal split that is desired. Shahan read the recommendations he had suggested at the July meeting. Webber understood the neighborhood's desire to reduce speed and volume of motor vehicles but felt that there's too much focus on reducing cars going through the neighborhood and too little on beefing up other modes to encourage a mode shift. She felt there were a number of questions that have not been addressed yet and thus was uncomfortable with adopting the Plan as it stands. Shahan suggested the PBMVC could make the same motion as the LRTPC and include the recommendations in the PBMVC's minutes. Shahan pointed out two areas that need to be addressed: the desire to capture other comments/recommendations to strengthen the Plan to better achieve a multi-modal split; and a reaction to the comments made by Traffic Engineering related to the neighborhood's revised draft dated 8/22/07. Wittke asked whether the recommendations would be part of a larger transportation plan or included in a neighborhood plan. Webber responded that if the neighborhood wants to make recommendations as to what should be studied in the transportation plan, then the suggestions made by Shahan at the July meeting should be included. She reiterated the need to beef up the language regarding transit, bike and ped modes if you want to reduce the number of single occupancy vehicle trips through the neighborhood; you need to figure out other ways to get through the neighborhood. It would be very difficult if not impossible to funnel more motor vehicle traffic to East Washington. The transportation study needs to look at all modes, not just motor vehicles. Crandall wanted to know the best way to ensure that staff's comments and the comments made tonight are incorporated into the Plan. He would like to see more emphasis on other modes of travel. Substitute motion by Webber/Skidmore to accept the Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Plan and recommend that a multi-modal transportation study be undertaken for the isthmus and downtown area; further, all recommendations contained in the TLNA Plan should be examined as part of the study and that specific PBMVC comments and PBMVC meeting minutes be forwarded to Traffic Engineering, City Engineering, and/or Planning Division (whichever agency will be leading the study) for their consideration as part of the study. Webber felt that trying to amend the Plan so that members felt comfortable adopting it would take a long time. The Plan Commission is the lead agency and will make the recommendation to the Common Council. The motion allows enough time for the neighborhood and staff to make the amendments to the Plan if they so desire and then forward that to the Plan Commission. Konkel noted that there is already an adopted Plan on file; if the new Plan is accepted, which one rules? If the PBMVC wants additional comments in the Plan, it should recommend amendments to the Plan. She felt accepting this Plan would serve no purpose and basically leave the status quo, where the previously adopted Plan remains in force. Webber pointed out that the Common Council will make the final decision on the Plan. The PBMVC's recommendation to the Plan Commission is to consider the PBMVC comments outlined in the minutes. Konkel felt that if the PBMVC wants it comments heard, they need to be incorporated in the Plan. The Plan Commission will have lots of information before them and she was not sure the PBMVC concerns will be adequately heard at that point. Webber remarked that both the LRTPC and the PBMVC had concerns about the current form of the Plan and she assumed the Plan Commission will read the recommendations of the other referral committees. Skidmore and Compton supported the substitute motion. The PBMVC is asking the Plan Commission to approve the recommendations suggested by the PBMVC and the LRTPC. Wittke pointed out that the Plan language says “to study” all the options, and options emphasizing other modes of travel can be added. Changing the Johnson-Gorham corridor to two-way traffic appears to be a flashpoint, but the Plan merely asks for a study; it does not say “do this.” Whether the PBMVC accepts or adopts the Plan, all it is doing is agreeing with the Plan recommendation for a study. Skidmore noted that the Johnson-Gorham recommendation affects the whole region and needs to be looked at in a larger sense. Crandall asked the impact of adopting the Plan without making any amendments. Shahan advised that the Plan goes to the Plan Commission. The critical issue is, what does the PBMVC want forwarded to the Plan Commission? For the PBMVC to work through all the issues would take too long; instead, the motion is to forward the PBMVC's recommendations regarding additional things that should be studied as well as other comments/concerns. For instance, there had been disagreement about a park-and-ride lot. Rather than try to come up with a location, the recommendation is that it be studied. Shahan's comments at the July meeting were intentionally about general areas that needed to be beefed up without too much specificity. Linda Horvath, City Planning, felt adoption of the Plan, rather than acceptance, would send a stronger message to the Plan Commission. The PBMVC's recommendations and comments could still be included with a motion to adopt. Wittke commented that action on this Plan affects the other east isthmus neighborhoods in partnership with Tenney-Lapham. This Plan has been a collaboration with other neighborhoods; it is not just Tenney-Lapham looking out for itself. Webber urged acceptance of the Plan versus adoption. She did not feel comfortable with some of the recommendations for study items, for example, the specifics of the park-and-ride lot were not run by the neighborhood where the lot would be located, and there are concerns about the impact for ped crossings of double turn lanes. The Plan is a little too incomplete to adopt. Webber preferred to see more work done on it and was comfortable having the LRTPC's and PBMVC's recommendations forwarded to the Plan Commission. Compton agreed and did not want to spend time now going through all the recommendations, nor did she want verbiage from the PBMVC saying that they adopted them all. She wants them to be studied to see if they are workable. Skidmore felt it was beyond the scope of a neighborhood plan to make recommendations that impact other neighborhoods. Some of the proposals may have merit, but he would want to have them studied. Shahan reminded members they still needed to deal with TE staff comments. Friendly amendment by Webber/Skidmore to also forward TE staff comments. Substitute motion as amended carried on a 5-2 vote.Pass
(5:2)
11/5/2007PLAN COMMISSIONA motion was made by Basford, seconded by Bowser, to Rerefer to the PLAN COMMISSION, due back on 1/14/2008. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
1/28/2008PLAN COMMISSIONA motion was made by Boll, seconded by Gruber, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO ADOPT - REPORT OF OFFICER. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes: The Plan Commission recommended approval with the changes recommended by staff in the Planning Division correspondence of October 12 and 23, 2007, with the exception of staff Recommendation #2, which would not be included.
2/5/2008COMMON COUNCILA motion was made by Ald. Verveer, seconded by Ald. Webber, to Adopt. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:

  powered by Daystar Computer Systems, Inc.