Stone House Old Sauk Project Meeting of March 13

Last Wednesday evening, March 13, Madison hosted a second neighborhood virtual meeting for a presentation by Stone House Development of their revised plans for an apartment building at 6610-6706 Old Sauk Road. Invitations were mailed to 1,134 nearby residents, and 162 participated for at least part of the meeting. Timothy Parks of the Planning Department served as ZOOM moderator and was thanked by several participants for his deft management. Everyone who wished to speak had at least one opportunity. There was also a lively on-going interaction in the ZOOM chat.

There may well have been many others who wished to participate, but whose schedule conflicted.

A recording of the meeting is now available here.

A copy of the chat is now available here. 

Stone House modified the proposed building design in the wake of comments at the first meeting. Building height was reduced from four to three stories and number of units reduced to the 130 range (mix of unit sizes is not finalized which will impact the total number that will fit within the footprint). It was noted that the current zoning of the property would permit one or more buildings with up to 115 living units. Therefore, this building would still require a zoning variance and conditional use permit ultimately decided by the Common Council.

Stone House presented a number of elevations (exterior façade images) and one of their consulting engineers provided an extensive review of stormwater management plans. Stone House noted that units would be market rate with a predominance of studio apartments.

Summary of Resident Comments

I’m going to try to summarize the major reactions of the participants, including those I noted in the chat. Don’t hesitate to email me, if I have mis-characterized what I thought I heard.

There were numerous expressed concerns that the development would injure their home’s market value. I have inquired with Planning and Community Development whether there are any credible studies in Madison and Dane County of the impact of multi-family rental housing on property values. I was informed that there are studies of the impact of subsidized affordable housing (it doesn’t have an impact), but none on the impact of market rate rental projects.

An almost universal concern was the impact of rental housing on the attractiveness and livability of the surrounding neighborhood. This was perhaps best expressed as the concept that part of what makes Madison so attractive are its quiet leafy neighborhoods with single-family homes, duplexes, and condos whose owners maintain them and invest in the neighborhood, that an intrusion of renters will inevitably degrade that sense of neighborhood. There seemed to be a sense of a “slippery slope” with this project, that in combination with the draft West Area Plan, Old Sauk Road was going to quickly become a dark canyon of high-rise apartment projects, many of them with subsidized units.

I don’t recall it being expressed during the meeting but both before and after the meeting I received emails from residents hurt by the social media posts labeling them racists. I’m no expert on racism, since I’m an old white guy who grew up in a little Wisconsin village with no diversity, but having met many people from this neighborhood and knowing some of them for years, it’s difficult for me to imagine them as racists. When I attended a recent event at the Black Business Hub, I inquired whether this kind of opposition is a form of racism. The consensus was that it was not. In fact, families of color with the wealth to live in this and similar neighborhoods are warmly welcomed and appreciated. However, it was thought this kind of opposition arises from our urban economic class system. People with the wealth to live in these neighborhoods fear proximity to those who appear to have less wealth, and feel entitled to a veto over such developments. I don’t’ know, but it’s something I will ponder. The chatter in the meeting and emails afterward expressing fear that this development might some day include some subsidized units, makes me wonder if there isn’t some truth to the class system thesis.

There were a few comments that reduction of the project to 115 units as permitted under current zoning would be more tolerable. Given the large apparent aversion to a rental project, I’m not sure that would be a majority position.

Humans exhibit a wide aesthetic sense when it comes to architecture. Unsurprisingly, there were differing views of the proposed elevations. The shear mass of the building was a concern, whether a flat roof (fewer shadows on neighbors) or a gable or hip roof (architecturally attractive), etc.

There was an expressed interest and later inquiries about whether the property could be developed with “missing middle” housing – with units owned by the occupants. There was some chat about the possibility of neighbors pooling their resources, buying the property, and developing it with a form of housing more to their liking. It would be an interesting exercise in the current economic ecosystem of housing development. I sit on a subcommittee of the Housing Strategy Committee that is looking specifically at how Madison could encourage more “missing middle” housing, since it is so important to moving renters to an equity-building future. I spoke with Planning and Community Development about tools the City has for this purpose. I learned that there is nothing available at this moment, since the Common Council has prioritized the limited funds for subsidized rental housing on major thoroughfares with public transit and where there are adequate support services for the residents. However, given the Council’s interest in “missing middle” housing, it’s conceivable that some might be set aside by a future Council to target it. I should note however, that the available tools involve leveraging tax credits and other federal and state development funds with a little help from City funds targeted at those earning less than 50% of area median income, and especially those earning less than 30% of AMI. Given the apparent aversion of the neighborhood to low-income residents, this might not be palatable.

Notwithstanding the Stone House presentation on stormwater management, there remained considerable concern about the subject. I have walked the property and seen the potential impact of run-off on immediate neighbors, so I understand the concern. Madison dramatically increased stormwater management requirements after the 2018 flood event, with much grumbling by the development community. Nevertheless, it is the law, and Stone House will need to satisfy the Engineering Department that the final plan is workable.

There were even more concerns about traffic and parking impacts. I understand that a traffic study will be required. This will be another focus of various departments before the project gets to the Common Council. It occurs to me that since current zoning permits up to 115 units on the parcel, the traffic question may focus on the increment of units and their type.

Nest Steps

Several of the participants in the Wednesday virtual meeting prepared a list of fairly technical questions about the project. Planning and Stone House are drafting responses.

On March 6, Stone House notified me of its intent to submit an application for a permit to demolish the old barn on the property. This is in accordance with a Madison ordinance which requires a 30-day notice of such a filing to the appropriate alder. It’s part of a process to give the Landmarks Commission time to research the possible historic value of the building to be demolished and advise the Planning Commission accordingly.

Depending on how the demotion application proceeds, the developer will eventually submit an application for a building permit. Various departments will analyze the permit and related plans and specifications in great detail and submit reports to a variety of boards, commissions, and committees. For example, there will be a report on stormwater management. The consideration of these reports by the relevant boards, commissions and committees will be public meetings at which residents and other interested parties may submit written comments or register to make verbal remarks at the meetings. I will do my best to notify my District 19 constituents of these meetings with their dates and the deadlines for comments and registration for appearance.

It is not unusual for actions on permits to be referred back to various committees. Even when the permit application comes before the Common Council, it may refer it back to one or more committees. Hang on. This may take some time.

If the permit application does come before the Common Council, interested parties, not just residents, will again have the opportunity to submit comments and register to appear when it is added to the Council agenda. Boards, commissions, committees, and the Council have a long standing rule that registrants are limited to three minutes of speaking. The goal is to assure that everyone who wishes to speak has a reasonable opportunity to do so. Hence the reason for some Council meetings lasting to 2 am in the morning. When a registrant has a statement to make, that even if concise and not aimlessly rambling requires more than three minutes, the best strategy is to coordinate with others of the same opinion to spread the presentation across several registrants.

Let me finish here with a suggestion about strategy, which you are welcome to discount, since I have only been in this position for eight weeks, albeit with years of study of the Common Council.

Several comments were made during the Wednesday meeting that Stone House is not the enemy, they were just lured to propose a development by an evil or stupid Madison government, which is the real enemy. While that may be an effective rallying cry for residents and others, I humbly suggest that it may not be the best tactic. While these proceedings may take some time, the highest probability is that the Stone House permit will be considered by the Common Council before the next election, when you may or may not be successful in “throwing the bums out”. 

I have been thinking about what it means, if the City is the enemy. As noted, I have not been there long, but my current impression is that there has been a solid majority of alders who are voting consistently (but not always) for permits that increase density. Further, it is my current impression that those alders ran on a platform of addressing housing issues through greater density and were elected precisely because of that position. If that is true, then your enemy is your fellow citizens of Madison.  There are lots of alternative possibilities that make the City your enemy. Your fellow citizens could be idiots, ignorant or gullible, unable to see the wisdom of your position or your entitlement. Maybe they’re brilliant but have inadvertently elected a majority of the Council who are idiots, ignorant, or gullible acolytes of an evil mayor and staff, and so on. Perhaps you get my point. Asking a majority of the Council to accept that they have been stupid but now see the wisdom of your position may be a tough sell. Despite a slight odor of liberal hypocrisy, it may actually be OK to argue that Madison will benefit from preserving some very nice neighborhoods where more wealthy residents and immigrants feel safe and welcome, that we need all sorts in our wonderful city.

As always, let me repeat my pledge from the meeting. I consider it my duty as an alder to assure that your opinions are respectfully considered by the various departments, boards, commissions, and committees as well as the Common Council, regardless of my personal opinion.