|
June
28, 2004 Meeting Notes
-
The
Union Corners Planning Studio met June 28,2004 to talk
about traffic issues [only].
Thirty people attended - including District 6
Alder Judy Olson, City Planning Director Mark Olinger,
and developer Joe Krupp. Krupp was there to speak in favor of restoring
two-way traffic to Winnebago from the river to First
Street.
-
At
least a half dozen of the neighbors had not attended a
Studio before. They
were drawn to this meeting by specific traffic issues
- particularly the two-way Winnebago proposal [Buell];
and effects of a proposed Sixth Street-East Washington
Avenue signalized intersection [East Dayton, Seventh
and Mifflin]. Also Ken Genskow, 2138 Winnebago, was there for
discussion of Winnebago Street traffic calming
proposals.
-
Dan
McCormick, from City Traffic Engineering, &
McGrath consultant John Lichtenheld, from
Schreiber-Anderson, led discussion.
-
Lichtenheld
pointed to parts of the big East Washington
reconstruction job - like the First Street-East Washington
Avenue intersection, and the Highway 30-East
Washington Avenue full interchange - and said
they're part of a City policy to keep as much through
traffic as possible on major arteries like East
Washington, Highway 30 and Pennsylvania - and off of
neighborhood streets.
-
Emerson
East Neighborhood Association member Beth Cannestra
made a case for considering a roundabout at East
Washington Avenue-North Street-Milwaukee Street,
rather than a conventional signalized intersection.
-
Marquette
Neighborhood Association member Will Warlick said he's
concerned Winnebago might become more of a through
route - and funnel increased through traffic onto
Williamson Street - rather than trying to keep as
much through traffic as possible off of East
Johnson-Gorham and Williamson-Winnebago - and funnel
it onto East Washington instead.
-
Warlick
suggested: 1.
Narrow the width of Winnebago, from Union Corners to
Schenk's Corners; 2. Restrict some turn movements
at the proposed Sixth Street-Winnebago intersection;
3. Build an island in the middle of the Fourth
Street-Winnebago intersection; and 4. Change the
traffic signals at Schenk's Corners to increase travel
times on Winnebago and make it less attractive as a
through route.
-
Dan
McCormick then described the various traffic calming
actions the City plans to take in and around the
Emerson East neighborhood: Sixth Street, East Johnson
Street, Third Street.
He described the process the City typically
goes through to get neighborhood consent to go ahead
with traffic calming, like building islands or speed
humps.
-
Re:
Winnebago McCormick said, "We would like to
narrow the street, as well."
Also, he said, the City would like to build
islands in the middle of Winnebago like on Baldwin
between East Washington and East Johnson.
The islands cost $2000-$5000 apiece, he said. McCormick
said the City is concerned it might not get a big
enough percent response from Winnebago property owners
to give work the okay. Narrowing the width of the street could be fairly expensive
for the property owners along Winnebago, he said,
because reconstruction would be assessed by frontage
foot of your lot.
-
McCormick
explained there's a difference between traffic calming
on a local street like Waubesa vs. traffic calming,
like pedestrian refuge islands, built as part of the
arterial enhancement program, as on Milwaukee Street.
-
The
proposed 'straightening' of the LaFollette
Avenue-Winnebago intersection was discussed.
It was agreed McGrath could propose the
elimination of Division Street, from LaFollette to
Winnebago, to increase the amount of green space in
front of the French Battery Building without
necessarily 'straightening' the LaFollette-Winnebago
intersection; the two do not necessarily need to be
tied together.
-
Lichtenheld
noted the proposed pedestrian-bike crossing off the RR
tracks at Jackson is tied to the proposed vacating of
Division Street because McGrath will likely argue the
two are a 'package'.
You are eliminating one grade crossing
[Division] and adding a new one [Jackson]; so, taken
together, the two would be a wash.
-
Lichtenheld
argued strongly against designing the proposed Sixth
Street-East Washington Avenue intersection to prevent
certain turning movements.
-
Near
the end of the meeting Alder Judy Olson said she came
to the meeting expecting one of the issues the Studio
would discuss this night would be restoring two-way
traffic on Winnebago from the river to First.
-
Schenk's
Corners business owners - and particularly, now, Joe
Krupp who is trying to interest store owners to locate
in his new mixed-use Kennedy Place development along
Atwood Avenue - feel very strongly that two-way
traffic needs to be restored - to help create a PM
drive time flow of traffic past their businesses -
so the PM traffic does not just keep going on Eastwood
Drive and bypass Schenk's Corners businesses.
-
There's
money in the budget, Olson said, to do a
"trial" of the two-way idea but neighbors
who live on Merry and Buell fear two-way traffic on
their portion of Winnebago would make it difficult to
'get out' onto Winnebago and might create an
intimidating situation. "It's clear to me,"
Olson said, "this is part of a larger discussion
involving Union Corners, and the future of Winnebago,
but it actually predates Union Corners."
McCormick said he agreed, that neighbors on Merry and
Buell are "concerned about what's happening up
here, at Union Corners," because it might make
the situation they fear even worse - that Union
Corners might be "shooting a lot more traffic,
along Winnebago, right in front of where they
live."
-
Todd
McGrath reported he and his team have had some initial
meetings with City staff about submitting his GDP
[General Development Plan]. The GDP, he said, will be "very conceptual."
McGrath said the GDP would include the vacating
[elimination] of the Winnebago Street moving merge
into East Washington, and the vacating of
Division Street from LaFollette to Winnebago.
Back to
Top
Union
Corners Studio Meeting
June 2, 2004
- The
agenda for this wrap-up studio meeting included a
review of the large public meeting of May 26 and a
look at next steps. Rebecca Krantz (RK) asked
for general impressions. Todd McGrath said he
felt the meeting was positive. Glad to see other
stakeholders whom he hadn't seen before show up.
RK said maybe 200 people attended the meeting, up to
160 at any one time in the room. Lance McGrath
(LM) thought the format was great. Mark Olinger
(MO) was pleased with the turnout, thought more AV
work would have been an improvement. Lack of a
sound system was a problem. Larry thought the
meeting worked well. Perspective views of
project were helpful. RK would have liked more
time. Most important thing, from her
perspective, RK said, was help and a committed group.
- RK
asked for feedback on responses from the meeting,
including surprises. Questions on the following
topics were discussed:
- Height
and density: Some noticed a concern
over height and density, while others thought there
was less concern about this than expected. A
comment coming from the large public meeting was that
the buildings in this development should not exceed
the height of East High School. That would limit
the buildings to six stories or less. Todd
seemed to think that was a reasonable limit.
Doug noted that land across the railroad tracks is
higher, so somewhat taller buildings on the
development site would have little impact. MO
thought access to light by most adjoining
neighborhoods would not be an issue. Trudy
pointed out that getting affordable units might
require compromise on points like height and density.
Greater density spreads the cost of land among more
units, bringing down the development cost per unit.
- Design:
Several people noted that the buildings pictured in
the birds eye perspectives of the project made it look
like an office park. Todd pointed out that these
perspectives were massing studies. They are
preliminary drawings to show the overall sizes of the
buildings in relation to the neighborhood. Todd
also pointed out that four or five architects would be
chosen to design different buildings in the
development in order to provide some architectural
diversity. Todd asked if others thought some of
the new buildings should reflect the style of the
French Battery Building (brick exterior, industrial
look). Several studio members agreed that one or
two of the new buildings should be in this style.
Barb Irvin suggested that the buildings in this style
face East Washington Avenue.
Doug wished that the designs of buildings
evoked the neighborhood.
- Noise:
Several people noted comments about potential noise
problems, including noise from the railroad, traffic
on East Washington Avenue, and airplanes. Todd
responded that a lot could be done in the construction
details to shield interiors from outside noise.
He has experience with this in a Basset Street
development. There was a discussion on the
possible end to the railroad crossing whistle ban.
According to MO, new rules from the Federal Railroad
Administration will probably require the whistles to
be reinstated. A studio member pointed out that
people have lived with the whistles a long time; the
problem is that the railroad has made them louder now.
- Family
mix: Two people commented that the
project does not seem to appeal to families because of
the lack of open space and elevator style living.
Todd pointed out that elevator buildings are
intergenerational and do not preclude family living.
MO pointed out that there are schools in the
neighborhood and that serving the family market seems
logical. Not only are adequately sized units and
yards important to families, but also layout of rooms
is important. RK noted anecdotal evidence of a
shortage of large, affordable housing units (i.e.,
four to six bedrooms). Todd said he might
undertake a market study to look at this.
- Main
Street: Was there a "Main
Street" (shopping street) in the development?
Todd said that "Main Street" in the plans
(an extension of Winnebago) would have ground floor
retail on both sides as well as diagonal parking.
- Parking:
Todd pointed out that a lot of people looking at the
plans and perspectives would not know that parking
would be provided underground for many of the
buildings. There would be adequate parking,
though parking ratios would be slightly less than in
conventional developments.
- "Private
Streets:" There was some confusion about this. Todd
pointed out that it was not the intention to create a
gated community or to limit public access to the
streets in the development. He would propose
public ownership of the streets if possible. MO
pointed out that private ownership was proposed as a
possible way to get around State DOT street design
standards that would probably not allow a street as
narrow as the lane proposed along the south edge of
the site. There are examples of other
developments around the country, which include private
streets so that they can be built according to the
more pedestrian-friendly standards of
"traditional neighborhood design." MO
also pointed out that privately-owned streets would
not necessarily preclude public access, and he cited
an example of a development on the west side of
Madison whose privately owned street (Craig Avenue)
looks and functions like a public street.
"Private streets," as described in this
development, does not mean gated community.
- Public
space and residential streetscape: Doug
didn't see porches or balconies in the drawings,
which provide ways for people inside buildings to
interact with the street. Todd pointed out that
the drawings served more as massing models (so porches
and balconies were not shown). The buildings
could have some element of separate entries, even
though they are multi-story. MO talked about the
need for public spaces. Though common elements
within buildings (or the courtyard between Buildings D
and E) would be useful, common space for the community
is essential. Not providing such a space is the worst
mistake of urban planning. Well-designed,
residential streetscapes can serve this role. MO
mentioned the Bedford Court development (500 block of
West Main Street) as a good example of a building,
which adds to the streetscape. The development
is not just a block of apartments; it creates private
places at street level that encourage interaction with
the public street.
- "Common
elements" as public spaces: Todd described
unconventional "common elements" (public or
shared spaces) that could allow some buildings to work
as neighborhoods. Examples included a rooftop
garden and an enclosed space on a rooftop with views
of the Capitol. Todd was also considering a
community center in Building G (southeast corner of
the site) with housing above. Could this serve
as public space? MO thought its role was
different: It would be a busy place and generate
traffic from outside the neighborhood. It is not
the same public space as a good streetscape.
What he is looking for are spaces that encourage
interaction of neighbors - i.e. from front yards or
porches.
- Other
public spaces: Todd mentioned
dog-walking grounds as great places of neighbor
interaction. Others mentioned possible public
spaces: A pocket park like Elmside Park in the
Atwood Neighborhood; a town square; a linear park or
walkway such as along some bike paths. Todd was
considering a pedestrian mall-like street on Florence
but was worried about impact on circulation.
Maybe Sullivan would do better for that. He was
also considering wider terraces and limited access on
these streets.
- Grocery
store: On the timing of the
grocery store construction, it was pointed out by Todd
and Doug that this is linked to the East Washington
Avenue reconstruction project schedule. The
segment at Milwaukee Street will be rebuilt in 2007,
so a grocery store being built on the site before then
is unlikely.
- RK
reminded everyone of the upcoming traffic meeting on
June 28 at 6:00pm at Holy Cross Lutheran Church on
Milwaukee Street. She is working with Judy Olson
on this. Todd said he wanted to invite John
Lichtenheld, who would have some new traffic counts.
- RK
reviewed the next steps. Todd will meet with the
City regarding the General Development Plan. MO: Once
this is submitted, the project goes on autopilot (bad
time to change the design). Maybe the studio
should meet again just prior to submission. Barb
Irvin suggested that the studio meet just prior to the
project being taken to the neighborhood associations
for their review.
- RK
asked about possible site tours. Todd thought it
would be better to wait until more people were
interested before scheduling a new site tour.
- Todd
thought the studio process had a good result.
Thanks all around.
Back to Top
May
26, 2004 Union Corners Public Meeting Comments and
Questions
(The
number in the first column denotes the card number for administrative purposes
only.)
|
|
General
Comments
|
|
5-3
|
The
process is excellent - a model.
|
|
7-1
|
Overall
the plan looks much more spiffy than I had anticipated.
|
|
42
|
I
hope the retail/small business spaces will not stay
vacant for long - the remodeled East Madison Shopping
Center on East Washington Avenue had several retail
spaces that finally just now filled up.
|
|
44
|
Too
many contentious points were presented as "set in
stone".
|
|
Response:
|
Building
Density and Height
|
|
38-1
|
Buildings
seem a little tall.?
|
|
9
|
PLEASE
nothing exceeding four stories!
NO six-story
"towers"! We are losing sunlight, air, and sky.
|
|
39
|
We
(undecipherable word) urban Dwellers moved to Madison
for its "Big Small Town" character.
We do not want to lose sky, sunlight and air
circulation to high buildings! (Which eventually create
concrete canyons).
|
|
41
|
Remain
height conscious about buildings.
Like the variety.
Susan Agee
|
|
43-4
|
I
hope to see mix of commercial and residential
three-story buildings.
|
|
40-1
|
I
like the density mix.
The width of East Washington Avenue supports
taller buildings.
|
|
33-2
|
Density
and heights of buildings seem OK to me - sounds like
it'll be real "town center" for surrounding
neighborhood existing.
People spoke against five-story tall buildings
but I think that can be done without the massiveness of
the United Way building that is out of scale with
Atwood Avenue not because of its height but because of
its massiveness and humongous parking lot.
Be sensitive to good design principles (scale and mass
etc.) sounds like you are..
|
|
Response:
Comments from
the large public meeting was that buildings in this
development should not exceed the height of East High
School. A
community member noted that ground level across the
railroad tracks is naturally higher, so somewhat taller
buildings on the development site would have little
impact. The
placement of the buildings and the path of the sun
should make access to light by most adjoining
neighborhoods not an issue. Another community member pointed out that getting
affordable units may require compromise on points like
height and density as greater density spreads the cost
of land among more units, bringing down the development
cost per unit thus making for more affordable housing.
|
|
Different
Architects
|
|
34-1
|
I
really like the idea of using several different
architects for the buildings so we don't end up with
some homogenous looking block.
|
|
2-1
|
Multiple
architects should design buildings.
This will guarantee architectural variety.
|
|
16
|
How
many architect firms are working on this project?
I'm doubtful you will see significant diversity
of buildings unless there are multiple firms involved.
|
|
Response:
The developer agrees that multiple architects
will be chosen to design different buildings in order to
provide diversity.
Point taken that these architects should
represent different architectural firms.
|
Drawings
- Appearance of Buildings
|
|
1
|
I
think that many people at the meeting had the initial
impression that the development would contain
significant office space, because many of the building
renderings presented appear like transplants from
suburban office parks.
Particularly troubling is the thrice-repeated
"gateway" rotunda/turret.
This project is going to be ultimately judged by
its look as well as feel.
This is an opportunity for some great displays of
architectural innovation.
I'd hate to see research park copied and pasted
to this corner. And
does the irony escape everyone, putting all the rotundas
on union "corners".
Respect the landscape.
|
|
24
|
The
drawings show the apartments and condominium building as
separate buildings.
Would really like to see both owner and rental in
each residential building - integrated.
|
|
37
|
The
sketch by the architect titled "Florence Street"
depicts exactly what I hope the buildings don't look
like - it looks like all that stuff out in Middleton
west of the Beltline - too much metal, glass, stucco,
pointy things sticking out.
Please scrap and start over.
That doesn't look like anything in our
neighborhood. It
looks like the Jetsons crossed with Greenway Cross.
(Draws mad face)
|
|
19-
|
Too
futuristic - Jetsons looking
|
|
Response:
The drawings you saw were only preliminary
massing studies to show overall general sizes of the
buildings in relationship to the neighborhood and each
other. Exterior façade should be ignored at this point.
|
Design
|
|
21-3
|
DON'T
SKIMP ON ARCHITECTURE!!!!
I would prefer to see building similar to those
on/along major corridors on the North Side of Chicago
(Clark, Lincoln, Belmont, etc.) - mostly deriving
designs from early 20th century commercial
(matches neighborhood context); have some new, European
inspired designs. Avoid
similar designs to West Washington Avenue condominiums.
|
|
30-3
|
Strangely
it is possible to make sidewalks too wide.
Look at State Street width.
These look too wide.
State Street is narrow yet it accommodates
outdoor cafes.
|
|
29
|
Would
like to see the entire French Battery building
preserved, not just the three-story portion.
|
|
Response:
The overall architectural theme of the project
has not been determined.
The goal is to use multiple architects - who
are talented designers - to design buildings that
compliment each other and the surrounding neighborhood.
The two-story section of the French Battery
building needs to come down to provide site access and
improve surface water drainage.
|
Community
Input into Design
|
|
40-4
|
Please
incorporate local artists in (maybe a juried process) to
design certain community amenities like benches, light
fixtures, special windows, entryways, and courtyard
elements to help give it a sense of place.
|
|
40-2
|
Allow
an element of community design to be done by the
residents who eventually take up the space so they can
make some of the shared public space their own.
|
|
Response:
The developer has been open to community input
though out the neighborhood planning process and
comprehensive streetscape improvements will be part of
the overall plan.
|
Transportation
and Traffic
|
|
31-4
|
Winnebago,
from Sixth eastward should be bounded - on both
sides by dense commercial uses of varying sizes.
That means continuous, not chopped up as
is shown.
|
|
43-2
|
I
hope to see better, safer traffic patterns.
|
|
2-5
|
Narrowing
Winnebago to slow traffic, prevent cut-through, keep
local.
|
|
14-2
|
In
favor of closing Division at Lafollette.
|
|
14-1
|
Concern
over traffic cutting through down Division Street to
site. Hawthorne
Park . high traffic for children.
|
|
23-6
|
No
drive-through between building H & F
|
|
23-4
|
No
four lanes off Milwaukee onto East Washington Avenue
|
|
7-3
|
I
am also worried about the traffic congestion associated
with the project in general and being able to turn onto
Milwaukee Street from my home on Corry Street.
A cleaner intersection at LaFollette and
Winnebago would also improve this situation.
|
|
30-5
|
All
streets should have very tight turning radii
(15' +/-)
|
|
31-6
|
The
massive Milwaukee Street expansion will be hugely
detrimental to the "street life" of this project. It will wall off the project from across Milwaukee Street
and East Washington Avenue.
|
|
23-1
|
No
through traffic on Sixth Street.
(Like the idea of traffic diverters at East
Washington Avenue).
|
|
31-2
|
North
Sixth Street must not allow through traffic.
This can be done while providing access to the
development thusly.
(Draws diagram on the card.)
|
|
43-4
|
Close
Division Street across RR and adjust the angle of
Winnebago at RR at least to make it bike safe.
|
|
23-3
|
Support
bike access from LaFollette
|
|
2-4
|
Define
"Main Street" within development.
|
|
Response:
Site access is very important to the long-term
success of this project.
The existing difficult access is one of the main
reasons why the former Kohl's store did not thrive at
this location. The
developer will continue to work with the surrounding
neighborhoods and City staff with regards to traffic
access and street design.
|
Environment
and Green Space
|
|
40-5
|
I
appreciated the scope of storm water ideas intended to
slow flow off the site.
|
|
40-3
|
I'd
like to see cistern style or rain barrels added to the
mix.
|
|
2-3
|
Too
little green space for all those people.
Use roofs to fulfill green space for building
residents.
|
|
3
|
Too
little green space for so many residents.
Especially if Atwood community Center is located
here.
|
|
23-7
|
More
green space - less pavement.
|
|
30-1
|
ALL
of green space in front of French Battery must be saved.
The "lane" chops it up, making it useless.
|
|
43-4
|
I
appreciate green space on streets of development, much
underground parking, and centrally located surface
parking.
|
