| 1/30/2007 | Planning Unit | Fiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group Completed on 1/31/2007 | |
| 1/31/2007 | Comptroller's Office/Approval Group | Approved Fiscal Note By The Comptroller's Office to the Planning Unit Completed on 1/31/2007 | |
| Notes: Bohrod |
| 1/31/2007 | Planning Unit | Referred for Introduction | |
| Notes: Plan Commission, Economic Development Commission, Urban Design Commission |
| 2/6/2007 | COMMON COUNCIL | Refer to the PLAN COMMISSION Completed on 6/18/2007 | |
| Notes: Additional Referral(s): Economic Development Commission, Urban Design Commission |
| 2/6/2007 | PLAN COMMISSION | Refer to the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Completed on 3/7/2007 | |
| 2/6/2007 | PLAN COMMISSION | Refer to the URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION Completed on 3/14/2007 | |
| 3/7/2007 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | A motion was made by Erlanger, seconded by Gleason, to Return to Lead with the Recommendation for Approval to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by acclamation.
Mark Olinger, Director of the Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development, explained the lengthy history of the CGCP, starting with the initial BUILD Grant application in 2003. He noted that the neighborhood plans for the area all used the centerline of E. Washington Ave. as the boundary for their plans, and the East Washington Corridor needed a plan that brought these other plans together and focused E. Washington Ave. as a locus of economic development activity. The East Rail Corridor Plan made reference to this as a future plan. He explained that the CGCP was an 18-month long process that cost $100,000. Building height was always an issue at these meetings.
He said the cost of land in this area is high and this forces potential manufacturing uses to locate where land is cheaper. Mixed uses of businesses are called for in the plan, not the creation of an office park environment.
Question: Why all the dissent now instead of during the 18-month long process?
Answer: All meetings were public. Perhaps there was a disconnect between the representatives and their groups. At the last CGCP meeting there were 30 motions that were voted on.
EDC members offered the following comments:
- The EDC cannot evaluate what is the best building height.
- There was a process that was created and followed over the 18-month period.
- The corridor needs a dramatic something and this plan is it.
John Schlaefer, representing the Marquette Neighborhood Association (MNA) spoke in agreement with the Capitol Gateway Corridor Plan (CGCP) except for the building heights.
Brad Mullins, Capitol Gateway Corridor landowner and developer, spoke in support of the CGCP. He would prefer even greater building heights to be allowed.
Patrick McDonnell, Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the CGCP; density and building heights were his key issues.
Kevin ODriscoll, 450 N. Baldwin St., spoke in support of the CGCP.
Brian Mullins, 1903 Rowley Ave., spoke in support of the CGCP with increased heights at a few locations.
Peter Wolfe, 945 Jenifer St., spoke in opposition to the CGCP. He opposed the building heights and the effects of increased traffic due to higher density.
Robert Horowitz, chairperson of the East Washington Avenue Capitol Gateway Steering Committee, spoke in support of the CGCP.
Ilse Hecht, 141 N. Hancock St., registered in opposition to the CGCP and did not speak.
| Pass |
| Notes: |
| 3/14/2007 | URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION | A motion was made by Host-Jablonski, seconded by Geer, to Return to Lead with the Following Recommendation(s) to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| Notes: The Urban Design Commission recommended provisional approval based upon four conditions:
1. A statement be added to the plan that makes a serious commitment for on-going transit planning.
2. A serious commitment is made for a public process to discuss and scrutinize the creation of the Urban Design District #8 Design Guidelines.
3. Bonus stories/heights will only be granted in exchange for solar/green building components, as well as extraordinary design, high value streetscape, etc. that will always be required for PUD applications.
4. The plan shall be amended to incorporate F.A.R. (Floor Area Ratio) provisions and other creative techniques for height considerations to prevent blocky buildings. |
| 3/19/2007 | PLAN COMMISSION | A motion was made by Konkel, seconded by Ohm, to Rerefer to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by the following vote: | Pass
(6:1) |
| Notes: The Plan Commission referred this matter for 90 days, with an expected return date of July 9, 2007.
In referring this matter, the Plan Commission requested the following:
-That staff provide additional information regarding the nature of the comprehensive transportation and parking plan needed for the Isthmus and how much such a study will cost.
-That staff prepare an analysis comparing the bulk and massing recommendations in the proposed BUILD Plan with the recommendations in the East Rail Corridor Plan, Yahara River Master Plan and draft updated Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Plan.
-That the draft Urban Design District guidelines related to the E. Washington Capitol Gateway Plan be provided to the Commission to be reviewed concurrently.
The motion to refer replaced an earlier motion by Ald. Konkel, seconded by Ohm to approve the plan subject to the completion of a comprehensive transportation and parking study for the Isthmus and a condition that the heights in the E. Washington Capitol Gateway Plan be limited to the heights recommended in the draft updated Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Plan and East Rail Corridor Plan until after the transportation and parking study is completed. |
| 6/18/2007 | PLAN COMMISSION | A motion was made by Bowser, seconded by Gruber, to Rerefer to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| Notes: The Plan Commission referred consideration of the plan to allow staff an opportunity to reconcile the differences between the proposed East Washington Avenue plan and the draft Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Plan, the East Rail Corridor Plan and the Yahara River Parkway Plan. The Commission asked that the staff be prepared to report its findings no later than the Plan Commission August 6, 2007 meeting. |
| 8/6/2007 | PLAN COMMISSION | Rerefer to the PLAN COMMISSION due on 9/17/2007. Completed on 9/17/2007 | Pass |
| 9/17/2007 | PLAN COMMISSION | A motion was made by Bowser, seconded by Gruber, to Rerefer to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by voice vote/other. | Pass |
| Notes: James Boll recused himself from this item. |
| 1/28/2008 | PLAN COMMISSION | A motion was made by Bowser, seconded by Heifetz, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO ADOPT AS AN ALTERNATE - REPORT OF OFFICER. The motion passed by voice vote/other. | Pass |
| Notes: The Plan Commission recommended adoption of an alternate resolution which inserts a final “whereas” clause which reads as follows: “WHEREAS this plan was deemed to be inconsistent with some previously adopted neighborhood plans, as well as one presented in draft form, leading to the appointment of and charge to a subcommittee of the Plan Commission to reconcile those inconsistencies.”
The Plan Commission also recommended an amendment to the first “RESOLVED” clause to read as follows: “NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Common Council accepts the East Washington Capitol Gateway Corridor Plan Advisory Committee final report as amended by the Plan Commission Subcommittee, and hereby adopts the East Washington Capitol Gateway Corridor Plan and recommendations…”
The main motion to adopt the plan included a recommendation that the final plan incorporate the following changes:
1. On Figure 14 “Future Land Use Definitions” a statement should be added which reads: “Encourage a mix of uses -- excluding residential-- uses with employment uses remaining the predominant use. Encourage uses that are complementary and allow for the use of shared parking.”
2. On the 1500 Block, add an area designated as “18C” with a land use recommendation to read “Residential/employment (medium density residential).”
3. Replace the building height ranges included in the plan on the maps and in relevant charts with a number of stories which shall represent the maximum height allowed on each block. The asterisk indicates the potential for additional stories if the project provides certain amenities as described in the Plan Commission Committee Capitol Gateway Corridor Plan minutes of December 10, 2007. Bonuses may be granted for three additional stories in areas designated with a 12-story maximum, two additional stories in areas with an 8-story maximum, and two additional stories in areas with a 6-story maximum.
4. On the north side of the 1500 Block, the Plan Commission recommended a maximum façade height of 4-stories as recommended by the Emerson East Eken Park Neighborhood Plan.
5. On page 28 in the Transportation Section the Plan Commission recommended the inclusion of a statement that indicates that the plan recommends that East Washington Avenue should not be widened any further.
6. The plan should include a statement which recommends that no further barriers be created which would make it more difficult to extend Main Street through the Madison Metro property if Madison Metro were to ever move from its present location.
7. Replace the Transportation and Parking section starting on page 28 of the plan with the language recommended in the August 2, 2007 draft text.
|
| 2/5/2008 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Verveer, seconded by Ald. Bruer, to Adopt. The motion passed by voice vote/other. | Pass |
| Notes: 2 Registrant(s) in support wishing to speak; 1 Registrant(s) neither in support nor opposition wishing to speak.
|