City of Madison
Legislative File ID   09550
Type:   Resolution    Status:   Passed
Enactment Date:   6/3/2008    Enactment No.:   RES-08-00616
Title:  
AMENDED SUBSTITUTE - Adopting the Stoughton Road Revitalization Project Plan and the goals, recommendations, and implementation steps contained therein as a supplement to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Controlling Body:   PLAN COMMISSION
Introduced:   3/11/2008    Version:   3
Final Action:   6/3/2008    Contact:   rcnare@cityofmadison.com
Name:  
Adopting the Stoughton Road Revitalization Project Plan
Extra Date 1:  
Requester:   PLAN COMMISSION
Sponsors:  
Judy Compton, Lauren Cnare, Larry Palm
Legislative History
DateActing BodyAction TakenMotion
3/11/2008Department of Planning and Community and Economic DevelopmentThis Resolution was Referred for Introduction
Notes: Plan Commission, Urban Design Commission, Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Commission, Long Range Transportation Planning Commission, Transit and Parking Commission, Board of Park Commissioners, Board of Estimates
3/18/2008COMMON COUNCILThis Resolution was Refer to the PLAN COMMISSION
Notes: Additional Referral(s): Urban Design Commission, Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Commission, Long Range Transportation Planning Commission, Transit and Parking Commission, Board of Park Commissioners, Board of Estimates
3/18/2008PLAN COMMISSIONThis Resolution was Refer to the URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION
Notes:
3/18/2008PLAN COMMISSIONThis Resolution was Refer to the PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION
Notes:
3/18/2008PLAN COMMISSIONThis Resolution was Refer to the LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMISSION
Notes:
3/18/2008PLAN COMMISSIONThis Resolution was Refer to the TRANSIT AND PARKING COMMISSION
Notes:
3/18/2008PLAN COMMISSIONThis Resolution was Refer to the BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS
Notes:
3/18/2008PLAN COMMISSIONThis Resolution was Refer to the BOARD OF ESTIMATES
Notes:
3/27/2008PLAN COMMISSIONThis Resolution was Refer to the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Notes:
4/2/2008ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEEA motion was made by Brandon, seconded by Selkowe, to Return to Lead with the Recommendation for Approval to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by voice vote.Pass
Notes: Rebecca Cnare, Planning Division, explained there are two plans being developed for this area, one by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) for Hwy 51 from Deforest to McFarland and the second plan, Stoughton Road Revitalization Project (SRRP) for a 4 mile section of Stoughton Road by eight neighborhood associations and the City of Madison. The Cunningham Group was hired by the City of Madison to work on the SRRP. The SRRP has been developed over a three (3) year time frame. The SRRP divided the area into 3 development focus areas; the Garden Development from Hwy 30 south to Buckeye Road, the Grid Development from Buckeye Road to Pflaum Road and the Gateway Development south of Buckeye to McFarland. Ms. Cnare noted the proposed TID # 39 is adjacent to the Gateway Development area. Gary Peterson, 210 Marinette Trail, registered as neither supporting or opposing the plan, commented that the SRRP is an example of the point made in the Economic Development Draft Plan about the lack of economic development culture in the City. He said the SRRP is a huge plan that lacks job creation. The summary of the plan uses the word “employment” only twice. Alder Marsha Rummel, District 6, registered as neither supporting or opposing the plan, spoke as an Urban Design Commission member. She said the fly-over bridges proposed in the WisDOT plan are not good for this area. Alder Judy Compton, District 16, registered as supporting the plan, stressed the importance of this area as a front door to the City of Madison, not just a gateway. She mentioned the WisDOT plan lacked input from the neighborhoods. She further stated this plan is a pro-active effort by the residents to say the southeast quadrant of Madison is important. This plan sets the framework for adjacent industrial development. Ms. Cnare added this plan does stress business more than other neighborhood plans. Mark Olinger confirmed that this is a job generation corridor and the Gateway area is critical to the TID’s future. Alder Zach Brandon asked that if this plan is a facelift for Stoughton Road, do businesses buy into it? How would the facelift be enforced? Through an Urban Design District? Ms. Cnare noted that businesses were involved and bought into this plan process. They are happy the frontage roads will be maintained. Alder Zach Brandon asked if there any generators proposed for the TID? Alder Compton responded the movie theater, the BioAg Incubator, Tradewinds Park, GE Healthcare, the Danisco expansion, and proposed hotel are all generators. Ms. Selkowe expressed her concern about the proposed Flyovers called for in the WiDOT plan. Could anti-Flyover language be added into the SRRP? Ms. Cnare described the Flyovers as huge multi-story bridge structures that would limit access to some of the parcels in the Gateway Area. The SRRP does say Flyovers are not preferred, but also does give options for land use if they are constructed. Ms. Torkildson expressed her concern about the visibility of the businesses and signage for the businesses along Stoughton Road if it is depressed as called for in two of the WisDOT options. Alder Compton responded that a street level Stoughton Road is more neighborhood oriented and the Flyover option is most expensive and probably will not be constructed. Mr. Clarke stated the relationship between the SRRP and the neighborhood plans is not clear. On page 16 it mentions “supports” the neighborhood plans. He is concerned that this is similar to the East Washington BUILD plan and might be in conflict with other existing adopted plans. Mark Olinger stated this is a business corridor plan, which doesn’t have the same type of conflict with neighborhood plans, as was the case with the East Washington BUILD. Mr. Slone was concerned about the type of businesses and the continuity of design for businesses, called for in the SRRP. Ms. Cnare explained design guidelines are included in the SRRP. Alder Compton mentioned that if an urban design district is created, and the style is dictated, she would prefer the businesses voluntarily adhere to these guidelines. Ms. Selkowe mentioned the lack of metrics on the number of jobs or businesses this plan could create. Mr. Olinger said the proposed TID Project Plan could set a specific number for job creation.
4/9/2008BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERSIt was noted this item is for introduction only with action by the Park Commission in May. MacDonald commented she drove the corridor and felt that people become so accustomed to what they look at that they don’t think there could be room for improvement. Widstrand added that this is the one corridor that looks like a typical highway corridor, others like John Nolen Drive, Northport Drive, East Washington all have a much higher level of aesthetic development. A motion was made by Wallner/Chewning to commend Dick Grasmick for all of his extra work, long hours and help as Interim Superintendent of Parks these past few months. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY with applause.
Notes:
4/16/2008URBAN DESIGN COMMISSIONA motion was made by Woods, seconded by Slayton, to Return to Lead with the Above Recommendation(s) to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes: The Urban Design Commission RECOMMENDEDS and supports of the provisions and objectives of the Stoughton Road Revitalization Project Plan in regards to land use, design and neighborhood planning. The Urban Design Commission does not support WisDOT provisions contained in the plan relevant to fly overs, sunken roads and high speeds as a detriment to the corridor’s economic, social and neighborhood fabric. The Commission recommends approval of the land use and design objectives. WisDOT Alternatives not acceptable; they are inconsistent with other objectives of the project plan. The Urban Design Commission specifically recommends against WisDOT Alternatives B and C, but supports Alternative A with WisDOT provisions requiring alteration to be more in support of the level of service (LOS) provisions of alternate modes of transportation for motorists, transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists. In general, the WisDOT alternatives don’t work on the economic and sustainable basis and rationale of the plan. The Commission specifically recommends the following: · No grade separated crossings or intersections, sunken roads or fly over provisions; detrimental to the plan and any additional development along the corridor. · WisDOT Alternative A should be modified to be more of a “parkway” in the landscaped areas and more of a “boulevard” in urban areas. · Support both a boulevard and parkway types of highway improvements. · The corridor should have at grade intersections with additional median plantings and have a maximum 45 mph speed limit along the entire corridor. · WisDOT Alternatives B and C are fundamentally detrimental to the goals of the plan and its vision and will be a detriment to the further development and unity of neighborhoods within the corridor.
4/17/2008LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEEJudy Bowser/Ald. Paul Skidmore submitted a motion to approve the SRRP plan. Judy Bowser/Mike Rewey then submitted a motion to add some specific comments and recommendations to the approval of the SRRP plan: “The LRTPC does not support the “flyover” interchange at Stoughton Road and Broadway, supports a 45 mph roadway facility in the SRRP corridor (between STH 30 and the South Beltline), supports new multi-modal connections across Stoughton Road (between Buckeye Road and Pflaum Road), and supports the use of two-way frontage roads between Buckeye Road and Pflaum Road.” A motion was made by Bowser, seconded by Skidmore, to Return to Lead with the Following Recommendation(s) to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by the following vote: Pass
(5:2)
Notes:
4/29/2008PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONThis Resolution was Return to Lead with the Following Recommendation(s) to the PLAN COMMISSION The PBMVC recommended to approve the resolution with the following recommendations: (1) that there be five multi-modal bridges and no Texas U-turn bridges in the Grid Development Area; (2) that WisDOT should consider the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users and their connections to businesses on Stoughton Road when looking at frontage roads and/or other parallel routes to Stoughton Road; (3) consider how buildings interface with streets in the Garden Area; (3) that Stoughton Road be an at-grade 45 mile-per-hour boulevard in the SRRP corridor; (4) that there be no flyover interchange at Stoughton Road-Highways 12 & 18; (5) that WisDOT be encouraged to create a different park-and-ride facility than what is in place now; (6) that there be a transit connection from the park-and-ride lot to the East Transfer Point; and (7) that the Plan identify missing sidewalk segments. DISCUSSION Rebecca Cnare from Planning was present and distributed an 8-page summary of the project. · The Plan focuses on the segment of Stoughton Road (Highway 51) from Highway 30 on the north to the Beltline interchange on the south, approximately 4 miles. · The Plan is a vision of what the corridor could look like in the future. · WisDOT is undertaking its own planning process for the reconstruction of Highway 51, and the SRRP segment is a small piece of the WisDOT project. To date, WisDOT has completed a needs assessment and alternatives analysis. WisDOT’s study includes three alternatives. · The SRRP tried to work with and relate to the WisDOT alternatives. However, the Plan is not a fan of the flyover ramp concept but if that is the way things go, the SRRP must be ready to make the best of it. · The SRRP has three development areas: Garden Area, which includes the Post Office and American Family; Grid Area from Buckeye Road to Pflaum Road; and Gateway Area at the southern end. · The Gateway neighborhoods want to see more development. · The Grid Area wants better connections across Stoughton Road and more complete streets. · The Garden Area goal is to maximize the landscaping and amenities for a parkway feel. · The SRRP has been to three City commissions so far. The EDC recommended adoption and highlighted the need for more economic development. The UDC found WisDOT alternatives B (flyover) and C (sunken road) to be unacceptable and also recommended that Stoughton Road be a 45 mph roadway in this corridor. The LRTPC felt the SRRP has some good ideas but expressed concern about the WisDOT alternatives. · The SRRP looked at Level of Service for all modes, not just motorized traffic. The SRRP wants to increase sidewalks and bike lanes. There were two registrants on this item: Fred Arnold, 1242 Meadowlark Drive, supported the resolution. He had to leave before the item came up on the agenda. Jim Polewski, 5010 Starker Avenue, representing the Stoughton Road Revitalization Project, supported the resolution. The committee spent a lot of time working on the Plan. It is not a transportation plan per se; rather, the committee tried to make transportation work for the eight neighborhoods in the area. The neighborhoods have a real interest in how Stoughton Road will work and look for the people who live there. They want connections across Stoughton Road, including better ped/bike access, to knit the neighborhoods together. He urged the PBMVC to approve the Plan. Webber expressed concern about one-way frontage roads. Bicyclists would have to cross Stoughton Road to travel in the opposite direction. It’s fairly onerous to go a mile out of the way to travel in the other direction. Cnare indicated one-way frontage roads are also a concern to the neighborhoods. The Plan asks WisDOT to look at two-way frontage roads, even if it makes some intersections more crowded. Webber asked about the areas north of Buckeye or south of Pflaum, but Cnare indicated that the Grid Area is the only segment where WisDOT talks about one-way frontage roads. In response to Shahan’s question, Cnare was not sure whether the Texas U-turn bridges recommended by WisDOT allow for bike accommodations. Compton indicated that one reason the Plan recommended other bridges was to accommodate bikes. Shahan emphasized that the bridges need to be bike friendly. Cnare noted that the Plan says all bridges should be multi-modal. Motion by Webber/Compton to suspend the PBMVC Rules & Procedures to continue the meeting past 8:00 p.m., carried unanimously. Shahan mentioned that that Garden Area section does not contain much detail about setbacks from the sidewalk and orientation to the street. Cnare said the Plan tries to emphasize the landscaping elements and looks at this area a little differently than the others. Shahan suggested adding language to place more emphasis on the orientation of buildings and how they interface with the streets. Shahan noted that the Gateway Area section talks about an expanded park-and-ride but it’s not shown on the map. Cnare explained that an expansion of the park-and ride is envisioned as part of a redevelopment project so it’s not sure where it would be located. Compton noted that WisDOT owns the park-and-ride and has a strong interest to create something more pleasant than what’s there if the plan is to redevelop the parcel as multi-level shopping facility. Cnare pointed out that the existing facility is indicated on the map. Shahan commented that WisDOT is talking about rebuilding Stoughton Road in 10-15 years. If that doesn’t happen, how are the Plan recommendations affected. Cnare stated that the Gateway Area improvements could start next year since it’s in a TIF district. The neighborhoods want to get ahead of the WisDOT plans. Shahan was more concerned about the Grid Area because WisDOT alternatives B and C recommended depressing Stoughton Road. Cnare felt development could happen without a sunken roadway. Compton emphasized that the neighborhoods’ desire is to keep traffic at 45 mph. Some things could and should happen regardless of what WisDOT does. De Vos asked if there is a transit corridor. Cnare indicated that one potential light rail line would come down just north of the Garden Area. Webber suggested that Metro run a bus from the park-and-ride lot to the East Transfer Point, which would eliminate some of the trips up and down Stoughton Road. Webber commented that the LRTPC had pointed out a lack of graphics for ped and bike connections in the Plan. The neighborhoods have expressed how important ped and bike connections are, so better representation in the Plan would be good. Cnare indicated she will look into it. She noted that the Plan does talk about how a better street system is good for bikers as well as motor vehicles. Webber noted that there is a disconnect between some of the streets and the Plan should identify where connections need to be made. Shahan suggested that missing sidewalks should be shown in the Plan and identified as things to be fixed. Also, key locations for any additional transit service should be identified in the Plan. Motion by Compton/Webber to approve the resolution, reserving approval for one-way frontage roads and Texas U-turns, making bridges multi-modal in the event overpasses are required (the road is dropped), paying attention to the garden area and how the buildings interface with streets, recommend a 45 mph. boulevard with at-grade levels and no fly-over at Hwys 12/18 & 51, encourage WisDOT to create a different park-and-ride than what is in place now with a transit connection from the park-and-ride to East Transfer Point, and identify missing sidewalk segments. Compton indicated that the Plan tries to create a pallet of recommendations for a blighted area. The City needs to create another business area so people don’t have to travel to the other side of town. The neighborhoods want to create a different atmosphere, something that is more bike/ped friendly. A boulevard would be a little more mid-speed rather than the high speed roadway envisioned by WisDOT. The Plan would encourage an economic development quadrant (Gateway Area) by offering employers something for their employees (places to eat, shop, etc.). Webber asked for clarification of the motion, was Compton in favor of Texas U-turns? Compton replied no. She didn’t want the PBMVC to go on record approving one-way frontage roads or Texas U-turns. When DOT presents its plan, she doesn’t want them saying “you approved this.” Her intent was to reserve approval on both Texas U-turn bridges and one-way frontage roads until such time as WisDOT has a plan. Friendly amendment by Webber to remove the language about reserving approval and instead say that the PBMVC goes on record as recommending that there be five multi-modal bridges, not including Texas U-turns; that WisDOT should consider the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users and their connections to businesses on Stoughton Road when looking at frontage roads and/or other parallel routes to Stoughton Road. Webber believed that if consideration is given to the needs of peds and bikes, two-way frontage roads will be the logical choice. However, she also recognized that two-way frontage roads require more right-of-way and this may not be accepted by all the neighborhoods so she did not want to specifically recommend two-way frontage roads. Motion: The PBMVC recommends approval of the resolution with the following recommendations: (1) that there be five multi-modal bridges and no Texas U-turn bridges in the Grid Development Area; (2) that WisDOT should consider the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users and their connections to businesses on Stoughton Road when looking at frontage roads and/or other parallel routes to Stoughton Road; (3) consider how buildings interface with streets in the Garden Area; (3) that Stoughton Road be an at-grade 45 mile-per-hour boulevard in the SRRP corridor; (4) that there be no flyover interchange at Stoughton Road-Highways 12 & 18; (5) that WisDOT be encouraged to create a different park-and-ride facility than what is in place now; (6) that there be a transit connection from the park-and-ride lot to the East Transfer Point; and (7) that the Plan identify missing sidewalk segments; motion carried unanimously. Pass
Notes: This Resolution was Return to Lead with the Following Recommendation(s) to the PLAN COMMISSION The PBMVC recommended to approve the resolution with the following recommendations: (1) that there be five multi-modal bridges and no Texas U-turn bridges in the Grid Development Area; (2) that WisDOT should consider the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users and their connections to businesses on Stoughton Road when looking at frontage roads and/or other parallel routes to Stoughton Road; (3) consider how buildings interface with streets in the Garden Area; (3) that Stoughton Road be an at-grade 45 mile-per-hour boulevard in the SRRP corridor; (4) that there be no flyover interchange at Stoughton Road-Highways 12 & 18; (5) that WisDOT be encouraged to create a different park-and-ride facility than what is in place now; (6) that there be a transit connection from the park-and-ride lot to the East Transfer Point; and (7) that the Plan identify missing sidewalk segments.
5/12/2008BOARD OF ESTIMATESA motion was made by Verveer, seconded by Rhodes Conway, to Return to Lead with the Recommendation for Approval to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
5/13/2008TRANSIT AND PARKING COMMISSIONRebecca Cnare of the Planning Department gave some background to the Stoughton Road Revitalization Project (SRRP) Plan. The process began in 2005, when a group of eight different neighborhood association representatives and residents, three alders and two county supervisors got together outside of the City process to create a neighborhood plan with a vision for this corridor. An 8-page summary of the Revitalization Project was distributed. [Electronic or hard copies of this summary are available by contacting the Planning & Development Department at 266-4635.] The Wis DOT had begun working on a construction plan for the corridor, which provided an opportunity for the group to get input from people via focus groups and public meetings, knowing that DOT was working on their separate plan. Cnare said the SRRP Plan was a neighborhood land-use and urban design plan. Because the transportation effect of the DOT plan was significant and had to be taken into account, the SRRP talked about the group’s findings and what they wanted DOT to look at and consider. As a result, the SRRP was careful not to say absolutely one thing or another about the WisDOT plan. Cnare, the three alders and the Stoughton Road Steering Committee were working on preparing an amendment to the SRRP, to make sure that language be included that: · Supports the expansion of the Park ‘n Ride lot on Broadway – either a simple expansion or as part of a development (probably what everyone would prefer). · Looks at bicycle route connections and transit connections (“community connections” displayed in language and maps) that could happen along the corridor. Cnare responded to questions. By approving the SRRP, the TPC would be recommending that the plan be included in the Comprehensive Plan, rather than approving specifics in the SRRP, such as reconfigurations of intersections. Alder Lauren Cnare would be introducing some amendments at the Plan Committee meeting the following Monday. Also, many comments/opinions about the WisDOT plan and the planning process had been collected, which the group hoped would be included and considered when the City provided comment on the draft EIS. The City would be encouraging WisDOT to take a look at the SRRP to see how it might influence their three Alternatives. Madison Metro was involved; staff attended meetings. Though the group didn’t want the Plan to get too specific, it realized that if the desired kind of development happened here, it would become important to study what needs Metro would have. Registrant Fred Arnold, Chair of the Stoughton Road Revitalization Project, spoke before the group. He said that a few years ago, in 2005, there was no Stoughton Road Project, no core group, and no thought about where to go with the project. A few people were invited to attend a meeting at Pinney Branch Library in June 2005 to talk about Stoughton Road, where they listed the attributes of the 4-mile corridor between Highway 30 and the Beltline. These attributes were discussed in terms of their relevance to the community, their attractiveness and the kinds of contributions they made to the community. People did not care much for what they saw, and felt that they could do better. The core group of the Stoughton Road Revitalization Project was formed and he was named Chair. First, they created a vision statement focusing on aesthetics, creating a welcoming approach to the City, safety, public art, sustainable practices, and more, related to things that help define the City. Arnold went on to say that the process was a ground-up, collaborative, and inclusive. Their group was able to generate revenue sources (from state, county, city and private sectors) to finance the work of their consultant; and held four large public meetings, many focus group and neighborhood meetings, talks with Senator, Assembly members, County Exec, Mayor and others. The SRRP was the result of a planning process, with the intent that once approved, the Plan would take off and result in a 10- to 30-year project that would transform the Stoughton Road corridor into a place to be proud of and where people would be happy to call home. Regarding the issue of transit-oriented development in the Plan, Cnare said the SRRP took its cue from the Comprehensive Plan and its concern with the intersections of Highway 51 at Buckeye and Pflaum. The SRRP talked about the need for taller buildings (higher density), mixed-use development, and employment as factors in transit-oriented development in these areas. District 16 Alder Judy Compton then appeared before the group. She said that the Project had been one of the most admirable things she had experienced as an alder. It was 100% grass roots effort, where eight neighborhoods thought that their “front door” had been neglected too long, that the entry into their neighborhoods was extremely negative, that maybe the reason they weren’t getting services that other neighborhoods were getting was that they didn’t have an identity. The Stoughton Road corridor was where people came into the city, which contained the State Capitol, the county seat and the City of Madison itself. One of three “front doors” to the City, Highway 51 stretched from Louisiana to Hurley. The project group found themselves among many communities all along the Highway who were working to revitalize it. The eight neighborhoods representing 25,000 city residents determined they were going to do this with/without support of the city, county or state because it needed to be done. So they went about trying to raise funds to create the plan, and did a good job of it. Eventually, they received support from the City, County, and State. Compton sought TPC approval and wanted to make the Commission aware of the need to better integrate Metro into the 16th, 15th and 3rd districts, because the southeast quadrant of the city was one of major sites in the city with underutilized land ripe for economic development. The area had increased its number of bike paths/lanes, and now needed better bus service to the area; so, for example, people in the 16th district didn’t feel they had to hop in their car to drive downtown to get a bus. She hoped that once the need for buses was there, enough service would be provided (as opposed to cutting service on such Routes as 17 and 38). Compton talked about possible plans for the Park ‘n Ride, which could include multi-level parking with a coffee shop on site. Currently, the lot was being used by people taking the bus to Chicago; and by people who parked there and then rode their bikes to the Ag building. Compton said that she and others would be coming to the TPC as different parts of the Plan were developed. She believed it could be implemented in five years. She felt that the area was obviously a sensible place for smaller shops and integrated neighborhood businesses, much needed for economic development, so people have a place to go for lunch and to do errands. Rather than being threatened by the possibility of undesirable elements coming into the area, residents of the three districts wanted to take control. Compton felt it was necessary to move quickly, because they were about 20 years behind, and businesses were leaving the corridor because they feared the DOT Plan and being forgotten. The Plan lets these businesses know that people wanted them to stay, and wanted integrated neighborhood use. The Plan aimed to make this area an major asset. Compton concluded by saying that the neighborhood group was one of five in the U.S. in a position to receive an award as “Neighborhood USA”. Poulson thanked Compton for her presentation, and said he was happy to hear that she would be a strong supporter of Metro for future service improvements. Solomon/Poulson moved to recommend approval of the Plan. During discussion, Webber noted that the Long-Range Metro Transit Planning Committee had discussed the appropriateness of having a bus route that ran from the Park ‘n Ride lot straight up Stoughton Road to the East Transfer Point. It might take a lot of people coming in from out of town off of Stoughton Road, and get them to the ETP, where they could get to pretty much anywhere in the city. Webber offered a friendly amendment to the motion, to encourage the Parking and Transit Utilities to work together to accomplish this at some point in the future. The motion passed by voice vote/other to Return to Lead with the Following Recommendation(s) to the PLAN COMMISSION: The Commission recommended approval of the Plan with the recommendation (put forward by Webber) that the Parking and Transit Utilities be encouraged to work together to create a bus route that would run from the E. Broadway Park and Ride directly to Metro's East Transfer Point, straight up Stoughton Road. Pass
Notes: The Commission recommended approval of the Plan with the recommendation that the parking and transit utilities be encouraged to work together to create a bus route that would run from the E. Broadway Park and Ride directly to Metro's East Transfer Point, straight up Stoughton Road.
5/14/2008BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERSResolution #09550 Adopting the Stoughton Road Revitalization Project (SRRP) Plan and the goals, recommendations, and implementation steps contained therein as a supplement to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Registered Speakers: NAME SUPPORT OPPOSE Rebecca Cnare XX James Polewski XX Ald. Judy Compton XX F. M. Arnold XX It was noted there are three areas of interest for the Park Commission in this plan. It is not a transportation plan but is a neighborhood land use and guidelines plan. Another item that affects this plan is a study by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) on the proposed reconstruction of the Highway 51 (Stoughton Road) corridor. This plan covers the area between Highway 30 and Highways 12/18 and is broken into segments covering different portions of the road. There is the area between Highway 30 and Buckeye Road that is a “greening” area, such as landscaping along the side of the road and connections to the parks that exist in the area; the area between Buckeye and Pflaum Roads that is more urban with the Glendale neighborhood just west of the corridor and then the area from Pflaum to Highway 12/18 that includes wetlands and Edna Taylor Conservation Park. One of the proposals being considered by WisDOT is called a flyover ramp that moves traffic from the Beltline and then touches back down. The WisDOT process is a separate process. They are currently working on the environmental impact statement. The group involved with the SRRP took the comments they heard from the various committees into consideration in the final draft of the Plan. In the Acewood Park area, the park is not being brought closer to the highway but they suggest that mixed-use development be considered in connection with uses for the park. They have not proposed any new open space but have discussed how new development could take advantage of the existing open space and recreation. They do not want the existing businesses to go away but want to make sure that new development takes advantage of the open spaces and might possibly create additional open spaces that are privately owned and could tie into the wetlands. The SRRP Plan also encourages WisDOT to consider additional landscaping between Milwaukee Street and Buckeye Road. The Plan identifies the development areas as The Garden Concept , the Gateway Concept and the Grid Concept. The Garden portion is located south of Highway 30 and has large landscape features such as wetlands, corporate lawns and buildings. The area between Buckeye and Pflaum is called the Grid because it provides an opportunity to link both sides of Stoughton Road with bridges at Hob, Helgesen, and Allis to provide better connection across Stoughton Road for those neighborhoods. The third area is called the Gateway because it is one of the front doors to the city when you come in off I-90 to Highway 12/18. Now there is a hodge podge of uses but if the Park and Ridge were expanded and became part of a larger development that could tie in to the wetlands east of that parcel. There is a question as to what additional development would do to that ecosystem, especially in light of the bridge over the Beltline into the wetlands. An option is to look at parking ramps instead of surface parking. Private open space can also help with run off issues and help filter that water. The Plan does not call for any additional bike paths because they are waiting to see what WisDOT is going to propose. They have looked at where bike connections could be made at a future date and have discussed a balance for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and mass transit that could be addressed as levels of service with various options. Ald. Compton noted this Plan is a collaboration of grass roots efforts by members from eight neighborhoods encompassing more than 25,000 residents. Part of the impetus for this Plan came from the knowledge that WisDOT was studying the road for reconstruction in some fashion. Another factor was the major economic development on the Southeast side. The area has not yet been declared as an urban design area. Once this plan is adopted it will be part of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Finally, Ald. Compton announced that this Plan was submitted for a national award and a group of five individuals will be presenting the Plan before National Neighborhoods, USA. A motion was made by Schumacher/Clausius to approve Resolution #09550 adopting the Stoughton Road Revitalization Project Plan and the goals, recommendations, and implementation steps contained therein as a supplement to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Notes:
5/14/2008This Resolution was Return to Lead with the Recommendation for Approval to the PLAN COMMISSION
Notes:
5/19/2008PLAN COMMISSIONA motion was made by Cnare, seconded by Bowser, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO ADOPT - REPORT OF OFFICER. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
5/19/2008A motion was made by Cnare, seconded by Bowser, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS - REPORT OF OFFICER. That the Common Council adopt a substitutue resolution adding the following four "Be it Further Resolved Clauses" to the original resolution: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Planning Staff is directed to include language in the Plan that supports the under-grounding of overhead utilities as redevelopment occurs and high-voltage transmission wires, as well as include language that supports expansion of the Broadway Park’n’ride lot, and language and graphics that illustrate potential bike route connections, as well as missing sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities as part of the Community Connections sections of the Draft Plan on pages 42, 54 and 68, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Madison supports the Stoughton Road Revitalization Project Plan’s Grid traffic arrangement, and opposes the Texas U-turn Bridges at Pflaum and Buckeye Roads and opposes the flyover at Broadway as currently proposed in the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s Draft Alternative Concepts for the US Highway 51 Central Segment, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that specific recommendations and statements from City of Madison Boards and Commissions during the adoption process of the Stoughton Road Revitalization Project Plan that refer to the WisDOT transportation facility alternatives should be considered during the time that a formal response to the WisDOT US Highway 51, Stoughton Road Draft Environmental Impact Statement is made by the City of Madison, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Madison urge WisDOT to carefully consider the impacts that the transportation facility options being considered for Stoughton Road have on the land use and redevelopment alternatives contained in the Stoughton Road Revitalization Project Plan, as the US Highway 51/Stoughton Road Environmental Impact Statement evaluation process moves forward, and The motion passed by voice vote/other.
Notes:
6/3/2008COMMON COUNCILA motion was made by Ald. Compton, seconded by Ald. Clear, to Adopt With Amendment(s). The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes: 3 Registrant(s) in support not wishing to speak.
Approvals
ApproverDateApproval Status
Daniel Bohrod3/13/2008Approved
Daniel Bohrod5/29/2008Approved

  powered by Daystar Computer Systems, Inc.