AGENDA City of Monona Plan Commission Monona Public Library - Municipal Room 1000 Nichols Road Monday August 25, :00p.m.

Transcription

1 AGENDA City of Monona Plan Commission Monona Public Library - Municipal Room 1000 Nichols Road Monday August 25, :00p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes of August 11, Appearances 5. Unfinished Business A. Public Hearing on Proposal by Royal Capital Group Represented by President Kevin Newell, for a General Development Plan for the Four Lots in CSM No on East Broadway, Including the Development of the Broadway Square Apartments, a 5 Story Mixed Use Multi-Family Residential and Commercial Development on Lot 4 of CSM No (Case No ) B. Prehearing Conference on Proposal by Royal Capital Group Represented by President Kevin Newell, for a General Development Plan for the Four Lots in CSM No on East Broadway, Including the Development of the Broadway Square Apartments, a 5 Story Mixed Use Multi-Family Residential and Commercial Development on Lot 4 of CSM No (Case No ) 6. New Business A. Plan Commission Recommendation to City Council on Ordinance Revisions Required by State and Federal Law to Chapter 2 of the Monona Municipal Zoning Code, the Floodplain and Shoreland-Wetland Zoning Ordinance. 7. Miscellaneous Business A. Review of Topic for Comprehensive Plan Public Survey. B. Staff Report Regarding Status of Development Project Proposals. C. Plan Commission Requests for Information Concerning Development Projects. 8. Adjournment

2 NOTE: Upon reasonable notice, the City of Monona will accommodate the needs of disabled individuals through auxiliary aids or services. For additional information or to request this service, contact Joan Andrusz at (608) , FAX: (608) , or through the City Police Department TDD telephone number The public is notified that any final action taken at a previous meeting may be reconsidered pursuant to the City of Monona ordinances. A suspension of the rules may allow for final action to be taken on an item of New Business. It is possible that members of an a possible quorum of members of other governmental bodies of the municipality may be in attendance at the above state meeting to gather information or speak about a subject, over which they have decision-making responsibility. Any governmental body at the above state meeting will take no action other than the governmental body specifically referred to above in this notice. Agenda posted 8/18/14 on the City Hall, Library, and Community Center bulletin boards and on the City of Monona s website,

3 Plan Commission Meeting August 11, 2014 Draft Minutes Subject to Approval Minutes Plan Commission Meeting August 11, :00pm Chair Busse called the meeting of the City of Monona Plan Commission to order at 7:00pm. Present: Excused: Chair Aldm. Jim Busse, Aldm. Brian Holmquist, Mr. Grif Dorschel, Mr. Chris Homburg, Ms. Sharon Devenish, Mr. Dale Ganser, Mr. Robert Stein Mr. Dennis Kugle Also present: City Planner Sonja Reichertz, City Administrator Pat Marsh Approval of Minutes Appearances A motion was made by Mr. Dorschel seconded by Mr. Ganser to approve the minutes of July 14, The motion carried. There were no appearances. Unfinished Business There was no unfinished business. New Business 6.A. Public hearing on request by Farrell Equipment and Supply for approval of 14 x80 decorative concrete driveway and additional impervious space at 6809 Mangrove Lane. Jeff Witt, Branch Manager at Farrell Equipment and Supply, presented plans for a driveway addition to the property at 6809 Mangrove Lane. The proposed driveway is 14 wide by 80 long and would be located on the east side of the property in the existing grass area. The driveway materials are decorative stamped concrete. He said they need the driveway because the business has grown and thereby eliminated space in the storage area where trucks could have otherwise turned around. The driveway is also needed because there is a new no parking zone along Mangrove Lane. It is also unsafe to load material into a truck parked on the street. Mr. Ganser arrived. 6.B. Consideration of action on request by Farrell Equipment and Supply for approval of 14 x80 decorative concrete driveway and additional impervious space at 6809 Mangrove Lane. 1

4 Plan Commission Meeting August 11, 2014 Draft Minutes Subject to Approval City Planner Sonja Reichertz reported the Farrell Equipment building and site were constructed in 2012 after zoning permit approval. The findings of fact in that 2012 permit stated that less than 30% green space was permitted because additional landscaping points were provided and other hard scape improvements were made that enhanced the site. This proposal is a further reduction of the already low green space, so it is scheduled for Plan Commission consideration. Mr. Homburg said that generally we would not want to further reduce the green space percentage. He said, however, the City has created a burden by removing parking on the street and the proposed driveway is an aesthetic enhancement. In exchange for less green space and the new driveway, he would like to see additional landscaping. He noted opportunities for new canopy trees near the parking area and along the street. He said the appropriate subgrade for the driveway will need to be installed so the stormwater detention basins are not damaged. Mr. Ganser said that the business has been a wonderful addition an otherwise tired neighborhood and he appreciates their attention to aesthetic quality, including the decorative concrete in this proposal. A motion was made by Mr. Homburg, seconded by Mr. Ganser, to approve a zoning permit for Farrell Equipment and Supply for a 14 x80 Decorative Concrete Driveway and Additional Impervious Space at 6809 Mangrove Lane, according to Section of the Monona Municipal Code of Ordinances with the following conditions of approval: 1. The new driveway pavement is located over buried stormwater detention chambers and therefore, the applicants shall install appropriate pavement sections to accommodate anticipated traffic loads without damaging the stormwater facilities. 2. Additional landscaping shall be added to the site as discussed at the August 11, 2014 Plan Commission meeting and shall be submitted for final approval by Staff. The motion carried. 6.C. Consideration of action on request by the Pizza Oven for approval of two wall sign permits and a landscape ground sign permit for the Pizza Oven Restaurant at 5511/5507 Monona Drive. Allan Darkow, 931 Harrington Drive, Store Manager, presented the proposed signage plans. He said there are two separate entrances, two separate addresses, and two separate sign cabinets for the building and therefore they are requesting approval of the two separate signs. Mr. Homburg said this was allowed for the previous tenant, the Village Pedaler, because the spaces had two entrances and addresses and were somewhat divided. He said two signs were also allowed in case the one space was more separated into different businesses in the future. He said this particular proposal seems to be even more justified than the previous tenant s signs because the owner is branding the pizza restaurant separately than the sports bar area. He added that the existing landscaping around the sign is weak and they could add more and should be in compliance with the previously approved landscaping plan. 2

5 Plan Commission Meeting August 11, 2014 Draft Minutes Subject to Approval Mr. Ganser confirmed that the sign cabinets are the same as the existing cabinets. A motion was made by Mr. Homburg, seconded by Mr. Dorschel, for approval of two wall sign permits and a landscape ground sign permit for the Pizza Oven Restaurant at 5511/5507 Monona Drive, as proposed, according to Section of the Monona Municipal Signage Code, with the following findings of fact conditions of approval: Findings of Fact: 1. Two wall signs are permitted because there are two separate entrances and two separate addresses for the space, and two cabinet signs were permitted for the previous use. Conditions of Approval: 1. If glare from the signs becomes a distraction to drivers on Monona Drive, the illumination shall be reduced as required by the Plan Commission. 2. The landscaping around the ground sign must be maintained in accordance with the previously approved landscape ground sign permit. The motion carried. 6.D. Consideration of action on request by Jacob Anderson, Monona Parks & Recreation Director, for approval of one new landscape ground sign at each of the following parks: Oneida Park, Arrowhead Park, Graham Park, and Wyldhaven Park. Mr. Ganser abstained from this item. Jacob Anderson, Monona Parks & Recreation Director, appeared and presented plans for four new landscape ground signs. He said that the Graham Park sign is in the same location, which is 25 feet from the curb, and will use the existing landscaping. He is requesting a variance for the setback distance of the Wyldhaven Park sign from the curb. City Planner Sonja Reichertz reported that approval is recommended of all four signs, including the variance request at Wyldhaven Park because of specific physical site conditions and because the proposed location will not interfere with vehicle sight lines. Mr. Homburg said that in fact, there is brush piled near the neighboring properties that creates more of a visual impediment than the sign does. He is not concerned with the shorter setback distance. He said the Oneida park sign could actually be moved about 10 closer to the curb. City Planner Sonja Reichertz said this is okay because it will still be about 16 from the curb. A motion was made by Mr. Homburg, seconded by Ms. Devenish, for approval of sign permits for four new landscape ground signs, one at each of the following parks: Oneida Park, Arrowhead Park, Graham Park, and Wyldhaven Park, as proposed, according to 3

6 Plan Commission Meeting August 11, 2014 Draft Minutes Subject to Approval Section of the Monona Municipal Zoning Code with the following finding of fact and conditions of approval: Findings of Fact: 1. A special exception to the required setback distance is granted for the sign at Wyldhaven Park due to specific physical site conditions, including terrain change and the location of an existing tree, which prevent a greater setback distance and because the proposed location will not conflict with vehicular or pedestrian circulation. Conditions of Approval: 1. Landscaping of the signs is required upon sign installation according to the approved landscaping plan. The motion carried. 6.E. Review of City Wayfinding Signage Package Location of Signs and Destinations City Administrator Patrick Marsh provided background on the wayfinding signage proposal, including that it was identified as a need during the planning process for the Monona Drive Reconstruction. He said that the City is currently requesting proposals for the design and fabrication of signage from qualified firms. City Planner Sonja Reichertz added that the package provided to the Commission includes 33 sign locations with various destinations which would be the maximum number signs possible. She said that the Commission should provide feedback on the locations and destinations, as well as feedback regarding the solutions to identify business districts on specific signs. Ms. Devenish said the very first step would be to list the destinations that should be included in the wayfinding system. Second, the best routes to these destinations should be charted, mostly using the main arteries like Monona Drive, as opposed to residential streets. She said the City should apply sign standards consistently to municipal signs and business signs; in this case, she feels there is way too much information on each sign and this would never be allowed for business signs. Chair Busse said business districts do not make sense. He said the address of business would be known, rather than what district a business is in. If someone is traveling from out of town to a sporting event at a school or park, on the other hand, they might rely on the wayfinding system. He said city facilities such as parks, the pool, post office, and community center are important. Mr. Stein said that the word Department can be removed from destinations like Police and Fire Department for simplification. Mr. Dorschel said that he agrees that there is no need to define different districts for customers and that these business districts have been distinguished in the past mainly for planning 4

7 Plan Commission Meeting August 11, 2014 Draft Minutes Subject to Approval purposes. He said the important elements are schools and destinations such as Ahuska Park. He said the locations should be based on travel to and from Monona Drive and Broadway. Alder Holmquist said that districts can be considered identification for branding purposes as opposed to way finding. Overall, he said the way some destinations were combined are confusing, as well as why some destinations are included. He cited locations that are located along residential streets and therefore does not see a need for the sign. He noted that Stone Bridge is a park, not a beach, as identified on the draft sign. Chair Busse asked if Stone Bridge was a necessary destination. City Administrator Patrick Marsh said that the sailing club sails from there. Alder Holmquist said that the direction for Winnequah School on sign location 24 would lead to the back entrance. He said parents are not allowed to pick up children from the back entrance. City Administrator Patrick Marsh said the signage would be intended for people coming from out of town, so parents would already know where to pick-up students. Chair Busse asked if the softball diamonds should be signed. Ms. Devenish said the traveler should know once they have arrived at a location. Alder Holmquist said Fireman s Park should be more prominent on signs. Parks that do not have event space (shelters) are not as important in the wayfinding system. Mr. Homburg said he is glad that the city is looking at way finding signage and supports the project overall but agreed that the package needs to be reworked. Mr. Stein asked about which parks were chosen and why were they chosen. He asked how the schools were chosen and whether Immaculate Heart of Mary School should be included. Ms. Devenish said there seems to be a lack of signage on the north side of town for traffic coming from Madison on Monona Drive and Cottage Grove Road. She also asked about the role of the selected design company. City Administrator Patrick Marsh said that the sign company will be responsible for fabrication and design, not the actual selection of destinations. Ms. Devenish asked whether a small sub-committee to work on this should be formed. Mr. Ganser said wayfinding signage packages are hard to make effective. He said that schools are number one for municipal wayfinding signage, municipal facilities number two, and major regional parks are number three. He said design and function are important considerations. He said that some of the content as shown has so many letters that it would require a very wide sign, which would not achieve the design and function the city desires. Mr. Homburg said that an effective way finding program is possible. He agreed with Alder Holmquist s statement about branding the different business districts. He said this does not 5

8 Plan Commission Meeting August 11, 2014 Draft Minutes Subject to Approval necessarily need to be done by listing the district as a destination. He said businesses could begin to identify with a certain district and it would add character to the community. Chair Busse asked if the plan was to add signage to existing poles where possible. Ms. Devenish said that branding elements for districts could also be on the light pole banners, or the sign could be a different shape or color. There was no further discussion. Miscellaneous Business 7.A. Review of Comprehensive Plan Public Input Survey and Draft of the Agricultural, Natural, and Cultural Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan. City Planner Sonja Reichertz presented a draft public input survey and a Draft of the Agricultural, Natural, and Cultural Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The consensus of the Commission was that the Agricultural, Natural, and Cultural Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan can be approved to move forward with the minor edits discussed. The Commission discussed the types of questions included on the draft public input survey. The consensus of the Commission was that additional time to review and think about the questions is needed. Staff agreed that revisions could be made for a future meeting, and that the Plan Commission was encouraged to submit their own suggestions for questions and that the survey as written is open to their desired edits. 7.B. Staff Report Regarding Status of Development Project Proposals. City Planner Sonja Reichertz said the Plan Commission will meet next on August 25, C. Plan Commission Requests for Information Concerning Development Projects. There were no questions. Adjournment A motion was made by Mr. Dorschel, seconded by Mr. Stein, to adjourn. The motion carried. 8:15 pm. 6

9 Plan Commission Meeting Date: August 25, 2014 PLAN COMMISSION (Agenda Item 5.A. and 5.B.) AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing and Prehearing Conference on Proposal by Royal Capital Group for a General Development Plan for the Four Lots in CSM No on East Broadway, Including the Development of the Broadway Square Apartments, a 5 Story Mixed Use Multi-Family Residential and Commercial Development on Lot 4 of CSM No REQUESTED BY: Kevin Newell, President, Royal Capital Group Case No PERMIT/POLICY ANALYSIS STATEMENT: Brief Description of Proposal: Royal Capital Group submitted revised plans in response to the Plan Commission s concerns discussed at the 7/14/14 prehearing conference. The major plan revisions include: The proposal now includes all four of the Whitehorse properties and is a mixed-use residential/commercial development. This is submitted as a preliminary General Development Plan which would be implemented in phased review of Precise Implementation Plans for each specific site. The original Broadway Square Apartments building proposed on Lot 4 is now the Broadway Square Building. The original number of residential units was increased from 68 to 84 units, while keeping largely the same square footage. This was achieved by eliminating all of the three-bedroom units and converting them to studios. The proposal still includes 20 two-bedroom-plus-den units. The applicants have stated that this change was intended to reduce the number of children in the development based on Plan Commission concerns. The Broadway Square building is now a mixed-used residential and commercial building. A floor plan showing the building s commercial components is in the plan submittal. The executive summary also lists the commercial components. The site plan for the Broadway Square building now includes a portion of the large Lot 2 for additional surface parking. Green space on the Broadway Square site was increased and the access route and circulation was changed. Other uses are shown on the remaining lots including a hotel, a market rate mixeduse residential and commercial building, and a third building that continues the

10 existing gas station use and increases density with additional commercial space on the second floor. This proposal will be reviewed by the Plan Commission on 8/25/14 in a preliminary application for a general development plan (see Sec (b) of the Code) and second public hearing/prehearing conference. Current Policy or Practice A zoning permit is required for a new use, substantial addition or alteration, or new construction according to Sec of the Zoning Code. The subject property is zoned Community Design District (CDD). All zoning permits in this district must receive Plan Commission approval. Plans submitted are viewed according to the following ordinance sections: - Use, Site and Operational Performance Standards and surrounding land use context - Community Design District Performance Standards - Appendix A of the Zoning Code - Chapter 15 Erosion Control and Stormwater Runoff Control - Broadway Corridor Plan, Strategic Housing Plan, Redevelopment Area No. 6 Project Plan, and Monona Comprehensive Plan - And all other application sections of the Monona Municipal Code of Ordinances. The applicants have also submitted a preliminary general development plan that should be reviewed according to the Planned Community Development section in the zoning code. To qualify for consideration as a planned community development, the site shall be of sufficient size in relation to the proposed used to justify the application of the special regulations as set forth in Article F of the Code, and shall be under the single or unified ownership of the applicant. Prior to the formal application for a planned community development, the applicant shall meet with the Commission for an informal discussion of the proposed development in order to provide the basis for proper submittal and processing. Recommendation No action is recommended at this prehearing conference. The Plan Commission should: - Discuss changes made to the proposal for the overall preliminary general development plan. o Discuss mix of uses for consistency with zoning code o Discuss mix of uses for consistency with land use plans o Discuss compatibility with surrounding land uses - Discuss changes made to the Broadway Square proposal for consistency with zoning code and land use plans - Determine if the application qualifies for the Planned Community Development section of the Code.

11 In general, the Plan Commission should provide feedback on whether the new proposal is an acceptable mix of uses for the area and if the proposal is a comprehensive, rationally planned development that can meet the land use plans and zoning designation for the area. If feedback is favorable, the applicants should be directed to prepare more detailed information which could include: feasibility studies for proposed uses, phasing and timeline for implementation, and detailed plans for a precise implementation plan for the Broadway Square building (including landscaping, lighting, architecture, parking, utilities, erosion control and stormwater management, etc.) If feedback is not favorable, the applicants will reconsider their options and whether the project will move forward. Note: This staff review is not meant to be all inclusive of any other comments and recommendations from staff or the Plan Commission. Additional information may still be requested, and recommendations made by City staff, and the Plan Commission.

12 Item 5.A. and 5.B. Public Hearing and Prehearing Conference on Proposal by Royal Capital Group for a General Development Plan for the Four Lots in CSM No on East Broadway, Including the Development of the Broadway Square Apartments, a 5 Story Mixed Use Multi-Family Residential and Commercial Development on Lot 4. Plan Commission Meeting August 25, 2014 Background on the Sites A copy of Certified Survey Map No is attached that shows the four parcels in this area. CSM Lot No. and Existing Use Lot 1: SF Home Lot 2: Former Auto Parts Site (Vacant) Lot 3: Gas Station Property Address Owner Acreage 1200 E Broadway 1208 E Broadway 1220 E Broadway Lot 4: Vacant 1210 E Broadway (?) Harry R Whitehorse, Debra L Whitehorse Dennis W Whitehorse, James J Whitehorse Whitehorse Properties, LLC (Walter Whitehorse) Whitehorse Properties, LLC (Walter Whitehorse) Lot 2 (5.64 acres) and Lot 4 (1.79 acres) together constitute one of the largest remaining vacant tracts of land available for development in the City at approximately 7.43 acres total. The total acreage for all four Whitehorse properties is 8.49 acres. Lot 4 does not have an assigned property address. The property s parcel number is 258/ and is outlined in black in the image below. The property sits just southeast of the Shell Station on E Broadway, 1220 E Broadway, and just east of the former Chief s Auto Parts Site at 1208 E Broadway. 1

13 Development Team and Partners Royal Capital Group has performed as the Principal/Developer on over 400 units of housing with funded housing including two multi-family developments in the Madison Area including the Maple Lawn Apartments (Fitchburg), and the Nob Hill Apartments (Madison). Royal Capital Group has hired Excel Engineering for architectural, site, and engineering design. ACC Management Group is the intended management company for the development. The development will receive funding assistance through Section 42 Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) awarded by the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA). The development was also awarded 8 project based Section 8 vouchers which will be marketed towards families and Veterans of the United States Armed Forces. The development team has also partnered with Lutheran Social Services (LSS) to provide greater resources to U.S. Military Veterans as well as other residents with a need. Original Proposal Submittal of Broadway Square Apartments July 14, 2014 Plan Commission Review Royal Capital Group submitted a proposal for the Broadway Square Apartments to be developed on Lot 4 of CSM No The Broadway Square Apartments development consisted of 68 multi-family apartment units. The unit mix included 9 one-bedroom units, 14 two-bedroom units, and 45 three-bedroom units. The information submitted described the targeted demographics for the development. The executive summary stated: The development will be attractive for working families of all income types. This includes households with incomes as low as 30% of the County Median Income (CMI) to families with incomes that far exceed the CMI. In our efforts to target members of the veteran population, an in conjunction with the Dane County Housing Authority, the development was awarded 8 project based section-8 vouchers which will be marketed towards families and Veterans of the United States armed forces. Furthermore, the development will market an additional 9 units for this demographic, with rents for threebedroom units as low as $630. This will provide working families and veterans with limited financial means the opportunity to gain access to safe, affordable, high quality housing. The architectural narrative provided detail on the proposed multi-family housing structure and site design. The building was L shaped with a mixture of surface parking and interior building parking (at grade). The materials included: split-faced masonry veneer, brick veneer, and fiber cement lap siding and trim. The ends of the building included masonry and fiber cement cladding was shown on portions between the masonry ends. The proposed roof design was a flat roof with parapet extensions of various heights as accent features. New architectural designs were not included in the revised proposal (described below). 2

14 Public Hearing and Prehearing Conference Held July 14, 2014 A public hearing was held 7/14/14. A notice was mailed to surrounding properties and posted on the city website. A summary of the prehearing conference can be reviewed in the attached letter from City Planner Sonja Reichertz to Kevin Newell dated 7/30/14. The approved 7/14/14 meeting minutes are also attached. Revised Proposal Royal Capital Group submitted revised plans in response to the Plan Commission s concerns discussed at the prehearing conference. The major plan revisions include: The proposal now includes all four of the Whitehorse properties and is a mixed-use residential/commercial development. This is submitted as a preliminary General Development Plan which would be implemented in phased review of Precise Implementation Plans for each specific site. The original Broadway Square Apartments building proposed on Lot 4 is now the Broadway Square Building. The original number of residential units was increased from 68 to 84 units, while keeping largely the same square footage. This was achieved by eliminating all of the three-bedroom units and converting them to studios. The proposal still includes 20 two-bedroom-plus-den units. The applicants have stated that this change was intended to reduce the number of children in the development based on Plan Commission concerns. The Broadway Square building is now a mixed-used residential and commercial building. A floor plan showing the building s commercial components is in the plan submittal. The executive summary also lists the commercial components. The site plan for the Broadway Square building now includes a portion of the large Lot 2 for additional surface parking. Green space on the Broadway Square site was increased and the access route and circulation was changed. Other uses are shown on the remaining lots including a hotel, a market rate mixed-use residential and commercial building, and a third building that continues the existing gas station use and increases density with additional commercial space on the second floor. This proposal will be reviewed by the Plan Commission on 8/25/14 in a preliminary application for a general development plan (see Sec (b) of the Code) and second public hearing/prehearing conference. The Plan Commission should provide feedback on whether the new proposal is an acceptable mix of uses for the area and if the proposal is a comprehensive, rationally planned development that can meet the land use plans and zoning designation for the area. If feedback is favorable, the applicants should be directed to prepare more detailed information which could include: feasibility studies for proposed uses, phasing and timeline for implementation, and detailed plans for a precise implementation plan for the 3

15 Broadway Square building (including landscaping, lighting, architecture, parking, utilities, erosion control and stormwater management, etc.) If feedback is not favorable, the applicants will reconsider their options and whether the project will move forward. Planned Community Development Procedure Article F of the Zoning Code allows for Planned Community Developments (PCD). The intent of the PCD is to allow flexibility and diversification of uses permitted and variation in the relationship of uses, structures, and open spaces in developments while still requiring substantial compliance to the general plan for community development. PCDs are implemented through two procedural steps: the General Development Plan (GDP) and Precise Implementation Plan (PIP). Together with the Community Design District (CDD) zoning designation, the PCD encourages coordinated development of large tracts of land rather than piecemeal development of smaller parcels. To qualify for consideration as a PCD, the site shall be of sufficient size in relation to the proposed uses to justify the application of the special regulations as set forth in Article F, and shall be under the single or unified ownership of the applicant. - The applicants do not currently have single or unified ownership of all properties. This would be pursued based on feedback from the 8/25/14 meeting. In a PCD, the suitability of uses proposed and their intensity and arrangement on the site shall be based on the standards in Sec (e) and shall also comply with the City s land use plans. Please review the following code sections for additional guidance: - Sec : General; Intensity and Character of Land Use; Common Open Space, Park and Other Amenities; Economic Feasibility and Impact; Implementation Schedule; and Enforceability. 1. General Development Plan (GDP) (Sec (d)) The application for approval of a GDP is intended to provide sufficient definition of the proposed development to make possible a determination as to its basic acceptability in terms of its character; use pattern; intensity of use; economic, environmental, and service impact; and other such factors as would be pertinent to such basic decision prior to the preparation of detailed engineering, architectural, and landscape plans. 2. Precise Implementation Plan (PIP) The PIP shall present in greater detail the information given approximately in the general development plan. The PIP shall include detailed construction and engineering plans and related detailed documents and schedules. The Broadway Square would be phase one of the GDP. The applicants should specify anticipated timing and feasibility of other uses shown on the preliminary GDP. The preliminary GDP shows five uses: 1) Broadway Square (Lot 4) 2) Hotel (Lot 2) 3) Mixed-Use Market Rate Residential and Commercial (Lot 2) 4

16 4) Two story commercial building with lower level gas station and upper level commercial. (Lot 3) 5) Open space (Lot 1) Surrounding Land Uses Land uses on the adjoining properties are listed in the table below. Overall, the existing land uses in the east Broadway corridor area are predominately commercial uses. The properties in CSM No are bordered by high volume traffic corridors including Broadway/County Highway BW, Highway 51/Stoughton Road, and the Beltline Highway 12/18. Stoughton Road is planned for reconstruction and major alterations in the next decade. The plans for Stoughton Road/Broadway intersection includes an elevated separate lane that will go through the wetlands adjacent to the site and will bring the highway interchange closer to this site. The preliminary road project plans are attached. Surrounding Land North South Existing Land Use Commercial (Gas Station, Menards, Denny s Diner) Wetland Zoning Designation CDD CDD/Potential Shoreland- Wetland Zone Future Land Use Plan Commercial Open Space East Wetland CDD/Potential Shoreland- Wetland Zone Open Space West Sewerage District Pumping Station No. 18 and Medical Clinic CDD Commercial Residential Land Use The Plan Commission discussed residential land use at length during the 7/14/14 prehearing conference. A summary of discussion is as follows: Staff explained the various ordinances and plans the proposal must be reviewed in accordance with, including the Community Design District and its Performance Standards, the Use, Operational, and Site Performance Standards, the Comprehensive Plan, and its component plans, including the Strategic Housing Plan, the Broadway Corridor Plan, and the Redevelopment Area No. 6 Project Plan. Staff explained that the CDD zoning district lists residential as an allowable use in the district, but that it must be a compatible mix of residential, commercial, industrial, or open space uses, which realize the goals of the Master Plan. The proposal would also require authorization by the Community Development Authority and the City Council for consistency with the Redevelopment Area plan. The clear consensus of the Plan Commission was that a solely residential development in this location was not an appropriate land use. o The Commission explained that while the zoning district allows for residential 5

17 uses, it must be a compatible mix of uses that is consistent with the City s Comprehensive Plan and other land use plans. o The Commission cited that the future land use plan in the Redevelopment Area No. 6 Project Plan shows the subject property and surrounding parcels as commercial uses. o The Commission stated concern that this residential use would be isolated in this location since it is surrounded by highway commercial uses and high traffic corridors. Isolation of families and children from city services, schools, and the city center, in addition to isolation from other residential neighborhoods, was cited as a concern. o The Commission stated that the intent of including residential in the allowable uses of the CDD zoning district was to create a mix of uses that is compatible. o The Commission stated that this area is the most industrial part of the Broadway Corridor. In the past, the City has worked primarily on the creation of employment centers in this area. o The Commission noted that the Strategic Housing Plan states that the City should avoid creating concentrations of low income housing. The Commission explained that transportation connections are not adequate to serve a residential development at this location. o The Commission said the area is not comfortable for walking, and could be unsafe especially for children. o Biking and walking to the city center and schools is farther than the distances listed in the documents submitted. o The closest Madison Metro Bus Service stop was across Stoughton Road/Hwy 51 and there is not a safe pedestrian connection between the subject property and the bus stop. o The applicants stated that they are exploring commitments from Madison Metro on adding a bus stop directly adjacent to this property. The Commission stated that the applicants should provide documentation on any commitment from Madison Metro. If a bus stop were available here, the Commission noted that it would still not connect residents to Monona schools and city services because the only other Madison Metro stops are farther west on Broadway. The Commission applauded the vision of the project and what it would offer a particular segment of the community, but stated that the location proposed was problematic. The revised proposal shows more than only a residential land use. The Broadway Square building includes commercial space on half of the ground floor. A second building is proposed as market rate residential with lower level commercial. A third building is shown as a hotel, and a fourth building is a two-story commercial building. 6

18 Zoning Residential is listed as an allowable use per the Community Design District (CDD) Zoning but that it must be incorporated as compatible mix of residential, commercial, industrial or open space uses which realize the goals of the Master Plan. The Plan Commission must review the proposed land use to determine compatibility with the CDD District and the CDD District Performance Standards in Sec of the Zoning Code. In addition to the district performance standards, the proposal must also be reviewed for compliance with the General Use, Operational, and Site Performance Standards of the Zoning Code (attached), and for compliance with surrounding land uses. The Plan Commission should also consider surrounding land use context. There are no other residential developments in the area, aside from one single family home; this parcel is also noted as a future commercial property. Most of the surrounding land uses are highway oriented commercial land uses that generate high traffic counts, including truck traffic. The development site is surrounded by busy traffic corridors including Broadway, Stoughton Road/Hwy 51, and the Beltline Highway 12/18. Land Use Plans The Plan Commission must also determine if the proposal is consistent with land use plans for the City, which includes the 2004 Comprehensive Plan, and its component plans, which include the 1989 Broadway Corridor Plan, the 2007 Strategic Housing Plan, and the 2010 Redevelopment Area Number 6 Project Plan. Future land use plans indicate that this property s future land use is for commercial development. Commercial Land Uses The revised proposal shows more than only a residential land use. The Broadway Square building includes commercial space on half of the ground floor. A second building is proposed as market rate residential with lower level commercial. A third building is shown as a hotel, and a fourth building is a two-story commercial building. The Plan Commission should discuss the proposed commercial components with the applicants. Proposed uses in the Broadway Square building are: - Entrepreneur tenant space request additional information on this space. How will it be staffed and managed? Is it publicly accessible? How is it different from a common conference room and the business center space? - Café space is this a commercial tenant or more of a coffee bar area for resident use? - Offices for Royal Capital Group and Dane County Housing Authority - Community Room discuss use as teen center. Consistency with Zoning Code A zoning permit for a new use, substantial addition or alteration, or new construction is required according to Sec of the Zoning Code. The property is zoned Community Design District (CDD). Zoning permits in this district must receive Plan Commission approval. Sec , Community Design District, is described as follows: 7

19 The Community Design District is characterized by large, predominately undeveloped tracts. Because of the salience of these properties, the community vests a particular interest in their rational, comprehensively planned development. As part of the limited remaining area of undeveloped land within the City, these properties are of critical importance in establishing a balance of land uses and in community services. It is expected that the development of property within this District will take advantage of the flexibility provided by the Planned Community Development procedure. Further, it is expected that the district development will include a compatible mix of residential, commercial, industrial, or open spaces uses, which realize the goals of the Master Plan. The CDD Performance Standards, Sec (b), are as follows: 1. Development shall occur only after coordinated advance site planning to retain the unique character of these tracts and to strike an acceptable balance between natural preservation, growth, and development. 2. For each tract, development shall occur according to a large-scale plan rather than on a piecemeal basis. It is intended that this plan be a mutual product of efforts of the property owner and the City. 3. Development shall preserve the maximum possible amount of open space and environmental amenities through techniques such as clustering, site planning and permanent reservation of open space. 4. All uses and their intensity, appearance and arrangement shall be of a visual and operational character which: a. Is compatible with the physical nature of the site with particular concern for preservation of natural features, open space, tree growth, unique or environmentally significant landforms and unobstructed public views of bodies of water. b. Would produce an attractive environment of sustained aesthetic and ecological desirability, economic stability and functional practicality compatible with the general policy guidelines of the comprehensive Master Plan, as well as specific concerns expressed by the community. c. Would not create traffic or parking demand incompatible with the existing or proposed facilities to serve it unless jointly resolved. d. Would not seriously affect the anticipated provision of school or municipal services unless jointly resolved. e. Serve regional and community needs for employment, open space, moderate-cost housing, lake access and/or recreational facilities. Sec lists the General Use Performance Standards. Sec lists the General Site Performance Standards. The Plan Commission consensus from the 7/14/14 meeting was that a single and 100% residential development on this property was not consistent with the zoning district. The revised proposal should be considered for consistency with the zoning district. 8

20 Consistency with Land Use Plans Broadway Corridor Plan, 1989 The subject property is within the Broadway East district of the Broadway Corridor Plan. The Project Area Concept (copied below) for this area is described as: corridor, mix of highway commercial, long range redevelopment potential, depends on success of target area projects. The Land Use Intensity for the Broadway East district (attached) is shown as retail mixed-use medium density, which includes the following land uses: retail, service businesses, office, and residential above the first floor. Comprehensive Plan, 2004 The land use goals, objectives, and policies from the Land Use Element and the Housing Element of 2004 Comprehensive Plan are attached. Strategic Housing Plan, 2007 The goals, objectives, and strategies from the 2007 Strategic Housing Plan are attached. Redevelopment Area No. 6 Project Plan, 2010 The Redevelopment Area No. 6 Project Plan was adopted in The proposed land use map (attached) for the entire district shows all parcels as Commercial land uses (except for two open space uses, parcels #21 and #5, and one utility use, parcel #14). Redevelopment Area No. 6 CDA and Council Authorization The subject properties are located within Redevelopment Area (RDA) No. 6. Substantial remodeling, enlargement, or major structural improvements in redevelopment areas require review by both the Community Development Authority (CDA) and the City Council for authorization for compliance with the redevelopment area goals. The 8/26/14 CDA agenda includes a discussion of this proposal. 9

21 Architectural Design and Floor Layouts Architectural designs were submitted for the 7/14/14 prehearing conference but were not resubmitted for the 8/25/14 prehearing conference. The revised plans maintained the 5 story building mass with at-grade parking, but added commercial uses to the north-south leg of the L on the first floor. Above the first floor on the north-south section are four floors of residential units. In the east-west section of the building, the first floor is at-grade parking, with four floors of residential units above. Site Design Broadway Square The site design includes: the 20,810 SF building footprint, 93 surface parking stalls, 30 interior at-grade parking stalls, stormwater facilities, outdoor recreation area, playground, access drive, sidewalk, and landscaping. Lot Coverage Sec.VII (a)(2) of Appendix A of the Zoning Code requires that all sites will generally be required to cover up to thirty percent (30%) of the site in open green space. Caculations will need to be resubmitted. Setbacks The CDD zoning district does not include dimensional guidelines for building setbacks from property lines. For example, while the single-family zoning district requires a street yard setback of 30, the CDD zoning district has no such standard. Instead, proposals are reviewed in accordance with the district performance standards, general site performance standards, surrounding uses, and other applicable ordinances and plans. Vehicle Access and Circulation The lot does not front on Broadway. The original proposal included a new driveway building on a 25 easement to the east of the gas station from Broadway. The revised proposal shows access from the west side of the gas station and a pedestrian access to the east of the gas station. Per Sec (b) of the Zoning Code, safe and efficient vehicular circulation, parking, and loading shall be assured. Vehicle circulation is reviewed by the City s consulting engineer. Circulation is reviewed according to the vehicle circulation of the city s largest fire truck (46 ). Parking Parking standards are regulated by Appendix A of the Zoning Code. These standards are outlined in the table below. The proposed development does not meet the minimum parking requirements of the Code. The development is currently 25 parking stalls below the minimum parking standards for residential development. Parking Summary Interior (First Floor at Grade) 30 Exterior (Surface) 93 Ratio 1.46 stalls/unit 10

22 Stalls Required/Unit No. of Units Proposed No. of Stalls Required/Unit Type Proposed Studio One Bedroom One Bedroom + Den Two Bedroom + Den Commercial Space 1/300 SF ~5,345 SF 18 Total Required: 148 Total Proposed: 123 Transit Access The Plan Commission discussed transit access and stops for the Madison Metro in the prehearing conference 7/14/14. The applicants have not provided any updated information on this subject. Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Sidewalks and bicycle lanes are located on both sides of E Broadway. A sidewalk connecting the site to E Broadway is shown on the site plan. Density and Building Mass The proposed building is five stories high. The Plan Commission should consider this proposed height relative to other development in the area. The proposed density of the proposal for this site is approximately 49 dwelling units per acre (the new west parking area needs to be added in order to do an accurate calculation). For comparison, the density of the recently approved Lake Edge Apartment development was dwelling units per acre. Landscaping Landscaping standards are regulated by Appendix A of the Zoning Code. Points standards are to be the minimum standards on the site, and acceptance of the landscaping plan will also be based on the distribution of landscaping on the site. All sites will generally be required to cover up to thirty percent of the site in open green space. Residential sites are generally required to have more green space than commercial sites. Canopy tree requirements are calculated based on parking provided. The proposed development provides 123 stalls (surface and interior). 9 trees plus 1 tree for each 12 spaces or fraction thereof is required. The minimum points required for this site, based on the 123 parking stalls, totals 1,845 (123 stalls x 15 points). Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Stormwater/erosion control plans will be required in future plan submittals. Erosion Control A land disturbance of greater than 3,000 SF is shown on the plans, and therefore requires an Erosion Control Permit per Sec of the Code. 11

23 Stormwater Management A land disturbance of greater than 3,000 SF meets the definition of redevelopment per Sec (a)(4) of the Code. Therefore, per Sec (4), a stormwater permit is required, and the plans should include stormwater management measures for the proposed impervious areas meeting the stormwater management performance standards of the Code. Utilities Director of Public Works Dan Stephany stated that no water main fronts this property and the sanitary sewer extension into the property will need to be verified. The Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District has also completed a preliminary review of the sewerage connection feeds due with this development, and the developer has been notified. Floodplain This property was removed from the floodplain in Environmental Corridor The Capital Area Regional Planning Commission (CARPC) reviewed the environmental corridor boundaries near this site on 6/27/14 and determined property is not within an environmental corridor. Also, CARPC confirmed there are no structural setback requirements from any wetlands because fill has been added to the site and it is now above the 100-year flood plain. The environmental corridor boundary is illustrated by the thick black line on the map below. Department Review The original proposal was distributed to City Department Heads. Their returned comments included: Police Chief Walter Ostrenga: - I like the concept, but I think this will lead to many more calls for service. I ve got some calls into other agencies that have similar facilities. Fire Chief Scott Sullivan: - NFPA : A fire hydrant will need to be located within 100 of the Fire Department Connection - Monona Fire Code Sec High Rise Buildings: Building will need to meet all requirements of this section if it falls into high rise definition - Monona Fire Code Sec Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems: System will need to meet Monona Fire Code for sprinklers, all areas will need to be protected. - Monona Fire Code Sec Lock Box Requirement: Building will need to have a Knox Box installed. - Monona Fire Code Sec Standpipes: A standpipe system shall be installed. 12

24 Director of Public Works Dan Stephany: - Broadway has a median at the entry. Entry and exit would be right in and right out only. - No water main fronts the property. - Sanitary sewer extension into the property will need to be verified in the field. - Will the building have one master water meter or will each unit be served with its own meter? Meter sizes? Building Inspector Marty Pilger: - State review will be required. City Administrator Pat Marsh and City Clerk Joan Andrusz also received a copy of the plans for review. 13

25

26 City of Monona Planning and Community Development Sonja Reichertz City Planner Assistant Economic Development Director 5211 Schluter Road Monona, Wisconsin Phone: July 30, 2014 Kevin Newell, President, Royal Capital Group 500 W Silver Spring Drive, Suite K-200 Glendale, WI VIA Re: Broadway Square Apartments, Plan Commission Prehearing Conference Dear Kevin: The Plan Commission held a public hearing and prehearing conference on 7/14/14 for the proposal by Royal Capital Group to construct a 68 unit multi-family apartment development at parcel number 258/ (approximate address 1210 E Broadway). The following is a summary of the Plan Commission discussion. These notes are subject to approval of the 7/14/14 Plan Commission minutes. 1. Public Hearing Summary Rob Dickie, 2001 W Broadway #1, Dane County Housing Authority, registered in support of the proposal. Ken Whitehorse, 6651 County Road K, Blue Mounds WI, spoke in favor of the proposal. He provided background on his family s Ho-Chunk history and difficulties the Ho-Chunk had with housing availability since the 1920s. He said John Livesey had previously proposed a more upscale development for all of the Whitehorse properties on East Broadway. He said that was fine, but his father Walter and his family know how important housing is and they believe this proposal would be very fitting for their property. Walter Whitehorse would be proud that it will help a lot of people. He said there is a bus nearby, health care, employment in the area, and kids could play near the wetlands. Susan Fox, 4637 Tonyawatha Trail, Monona Grove School District (MGSD), School Board President, spoke for informational purposes. She stated that the information submitted lists the incorrect schools; they should be corrected to list MGSD schools, not the Madison School District. She would like more information on the expected number of families with children that will occupy the apartments so they can determine the impact on enrollment. She said all students living in this apartment will need to be bused because it would be outside of the two mile limit. The site plan will need to consider bus access and circulation and a safe pickup area. She said the other side of Broadway (north side) would be much better for this proposal, but understands that this may not be possible. Safe routes to school for children walking will need to be considered. There should be specific 1

27 programming or attention paid to pre-teens and teens in the building. Kathy Thomas, 5903 Winnequah Road, spoke for informational purposes. She said this is a very laudable project and the veteran s housing component is a good aspect of the project. She has concerns, however, with families and children living at this location. Monona definitely wants to attract families and children, but it is very important to consider where. She said it is likely that the three bedroom units would have children in them and at this location they are isolated from other children, the library, City Center, and Monona neighborhoods. She said they would not feel like they are growing up in the Monona community. She said Monona has historically supported scattered site low income housing rather than this type of concentration. 2. Land Use Staff explained the various ordinances and plans the proposal must be reviewed in accordance with, including the Community Design District and its Performance Standards, the Use, Operational, and Site Performance Standards, the Comprehensive Plan, and its component plans, including the Strategic Housing Plan, the Broadway Corridor Plan, and the Redevelopment Area No. 6 Project Plan. Staff explained that the CDD zoning district lists residential as an allowable use in the district, but that it must be a compatible mix of residential, commercial, industrial, or open space uses, which realize the goals of the Master Plan. The proposal would also require authorization by the Community Development Authority and the City Council for consistency with the Redevelopment Area plan. The clear consensus of the Plan Commission was that a solely residential development in this location was not an appropriate land use. o The Commission explained that while the zoning district allows for residential uses, it must be a compatible mix of uses that is consistent with the City s Comprehensive Plan and other land use plans. o The Commission cited that the future land use plan in the Redevelopment Area No. 6 Project Plan shows the subject property and surrounding parcels as commercial uses. o The Commission stated concern that this residential use would be isolated in this location since it is surrounded by highway commercial uses and high traffic corridors. Isolation of families and children from city services, schools, and the city center, in addition to isolation from other residential neighborhoods, was cited as a concern. o The Commission stated that the intent of including residential in the allowable uses of the CDD zoning district was to create a mix of uses that is compatible. o The Commission stated that this area is the most industrial part of the Broadway Corridor. In the past, the City has worked primarily on the creation of employment centers in this area. o The Commission noted that the Strategic Housing Plan states that the City should avoid creating concentrations of low income housing. The Commission explained that transportation connections are not adequate to serve a residential development at this location. o The Commission said the area is not comfortable for walking, and could be unsafe especially for children. 2

28 o Biking and walking to the city center and schools is farther than the distances listed in the documents submitted. o The closest Madison Metro Bus Service stop was across Stoughton Road/Hwy 51 and there is not a safe pedestrian connection between the subject property and the bus stop. o The applicants stated that they are exploring commitments from Madison Metro on adding a bus stop directly adjacent to this property. The Commission stated that the applicants should provide documentation on any commitment from Madison Metro. If a bus stop were available here, the Commission noted that it would still not connect residents to Monona schools and city services because the only other Madison Metro stops are farther west on Broadway. The Commission applauded the vision of the project and what it would offer a particular segment of the community, but stated that the location proposed was problematic. 3. Floor Plans Floor plans were discussed. There was some concern with the 2 bedroom plus den units being considered three bedroom units. The Plan Commission requested additional information, specifically, is the den really just a den, or is it intended, and likely to be used as a third bedroom? If it will be used as a third bedroom there was concern that there is no common space in the unit overall and there is no closet in the third bedroom. 4. Unit Mix The Plan Commission requested a schedule of the unit mix proposed which should include the number of bedrooms, income qualifications, and resident target groups and how they would be located and mixed throughout the building. The Commission also asked if any market rate units are proposed. Please provide additional information on the veterans housing component of the proposal. If the units that are reserved for veterans do not end up being occupied by veterans, who is eligible for these units? Is the veteran s component only a goal, or is it a requirement of the project? 5. Community Services The Plan Commission asked for more information on what would be provided by Lutheran Social Services and which residents would receive the services. Specifically, are the services they provide only available during an initial shorter time period, or are they ongoing? Are the services available to all residents, or only particular segments? Is staff available on the site for a resource to residents? If so, what are their hours? 6. General Use, Operational, and Site Performance Standards of the Zoning Code The Commission noted some sections of the Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan, and other component plans that the proposal does not comply with. The proposal appears to be inconsistent with the following District Performance Standards: 3

29 o o Sec (b)(2): For each tract, development shall occur according to a largescale plan rather than on a piecemeal basis. Sec (a): Because of the salience of these properties, the community vests a particular interest in their rational comprehensively planned development. The proposal appears to be inconsistent with the following General Use Performance Standards: o Sec (e): The proposed use shall not be adversely affected by existing uses in the area. o Sec (g): The proposed use is appropriate to the immediate neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan Housing Element directs the City to: o Encourage mixed-use developments in appropriate areas. o Evaluate appropriate amenities associated with housing development and address amenity levels in plan approval. 7. Site Plan/Architecture Parking: The Commission noted that the proposal is substantially below the minimum parking requirements of the Zoning Code. Because the property is removed from community and transportation services, it requires use of automobiles. The consensus of the Commission was that more parking would be needed. If the applicants are going to propose a different amount of parking, then the reasons why need to be documented. The Commission noted that the lack of outside space for recreating and gathering was a concern. Are cameras and surveillance a part of the proposal? Please contact me with any additional questions on the summary above and as you consider revisions to the proposal. I can be reached by phone at (608) or at sreichertz@ci.monona.wi.us. Regards, Sonja Reichertz City Planner City of Monona C: Patrick Marsh, City Administrator 4

30 Plan Commission Meeting July 14, 2014 Approved August 11, 2014 City Planner Sonja Reichertz reported that this is the first review of this proposal and the Plan Commission may request additional information. She noted that erosion control and stormwater permits will be required for this proposal, and the applicants should make sure there is enough room for circulation of semi-trucks. Mr. Dorschel asked about additional landscaping. Mr. Vogel said that based on their 25 parking stalls there are still over the landscaping points standard in the Zoning Code, and they have no plans to add landscaping. Mr. Ganser asked whether the addition meant that there will be an accompanying increase in jobs. Mr. Vogel said they have hired five people in the last six weeks. Mr. Ganser asked what will be done with the existing building that is white in order to make it blend in with the 2009 addition and the proposed elevation that are both yellow. Mr. Vogel said he plans to re-side that portion. Mr. Homburg said that the 2009 addition turn out very well. He asked if this is a zero lot line building. Mr. Vogel said yes. Mr. Homburg said he will need to make sure everything is compliant with State Building Codes because of the close proximity of the building on the property to the east. Mr. Homburg asked for additional information on green space. There was no further discussion. 6. F. Public Hearing on Proposal by Royal Capital Group to Construct the Broadway Square Apartments, a 68 Unit Multi-Family Residential Development on Lot 4 of CSM No on East Broadway. Kevin Newell, President, Royal Capital Group, presented plans for a proposed 68 unit multifamily residential development on East Broadway. He said the project has received Section 42 Tax Credits from the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA) and eight Section 8 Vouchers. The project will include units from units for those at 30% or less than the County Median Income (CMI) level to market rate units. He said residents would have a mix of incomes from $9 an hour to more stable employment at the UW Health Clinic, for example. Housing for Veterans is also a component of the proposal and they are working with the Dane County Housing Authority. He said that Dane County has one of the largest concentrations of homeless veterans. He said that resources will be provided for stability by Lutheran Social Services. He said these services would include educational resources and assistance with various applications. Jonathan Brinkley, Architect, Excel Engineering, presented building plans and elevations. He said that the development team examined the neighborhood context, specifically nearby employment centers, health care facilities, retail opportunities, and recreational facilities. He said the building proposed is five stories with at-grade parking. Jason Daye, Engineer, Excel Engineering, reviewed the proposed site plan. In total, the site is 1.71 acres. It includes approximately 10 square feet of wetlands on the southeast corner of the 6

31 Plan Commission Meeting July 14, 2014 Approved August 11, 2014 site. Access to the site is proposed via a 24 foot wide driveway from Broadway and a pedestrian sidewalk. There is a circular vehicle circulation proposed for the site. The proposal includes 36.8% green space. He described the proposed refuse enclosure, tot lot, and stormwater management facilities. Mr. Brinkley described the proposed building massing. He described the aesthetic treatments of the proposed building including window placement in horizontal groups and a masonry base. He presented building material samples, including split face bricks, clay brick, blue and white fiber cement siding, and cast stone bands. He said that they are working with the Wisconsin Green Build Initiative program and are consulting with Robin Pharo to complete the program. Rob Dickie, 2001 W Broadway #1, Dane County Housing Authority, registered in support of the proposal. Ken Whitehorse, 6651 County Road K, Blue Mounds WI, spoke in favor of the proposal. He provided background on his family s Ho-Chunk history and difficulties the Ho-Chunk had with housing availability since the 1920s. He said John Livesey had previously proposed a more upscale development for all of the Whitehorse properties on East Broadway. He said that was fine, but his father Walter and his family know how important housing is and they believe this proposal would be very fitting for their property. Walter Whitehorse would be proud that it will help a lot of people. He said there is a bus nearby, health care, employment in the area, and kids could play near the wetlands. Susan Fox, 4637 Tonyawatha Trail, Monona Grove School District (MGSD), School Board President, spoke for informational purposes. She stated that the information submitted lists the incorrect schools; they should be corrected to list MGSD schools, not the Madison School District. She would like more information on the expected number of families with children that will occupy the apartments so they can determine the impact on enrollment. She said all students living in this apartment will need to be bused because it would be outside of the two mile limit. The site plan will need to consider bus access and circulation and a safe pickup area. She said the other side of Broadway (north side) would be much better for this proposal, but understands that this may not be possible. Safe routes to school for children walking will need to be considered. There should be specific programming or attention paid to pre-teens and teens in the building. Kathy Thomas, 5903 Winnequah Road, spoke for informational purposes. She said this is a very laudable project and the veteran s housing component is a good aspect of the project. She has concerns, however, with families and children living at this location. Monona definitely wants to attract families and children, but it is very important to consider where. She said it is likely that the three bedroom units would have children in them and at this location they are isolated from other children, the library, City Center, and Monona neighborhoods. She said they would not feel like they are growing up in the Monona community. She said Monona has historically supported scattered site low income housing rather than this type of concentration. The public hearing was closed. 7

32 Plan Commission Meeting July 14, 2014 Approved August 11, G. Prehearing Conference on Proposal by Royal Capital Group to Construct the Broadway Square Apartments, a 68 Unit Multi-Family Residential Development on Lot 4 of CSM No on East Broadway. City Planner Sonja Reichertz explained the various ordinances and plans the proposal must be reviewed in accordance with, including the Community Design District (CDD) and its Performance Standards, the Use, Operational, and Site Performance Standards, the Comprehensive Plan, and its component plans, including the Strategic Housing Plan, the Broadway Corridor Plan, and the Redevelopment Area No. 6 Project Plan. Staff explained that the CDD zoning district lists residential as an allowable use in the district, but that it must be a compatible mix of residential, commercial, industrial, or open space uses, which realize the goals of the Master Plan. The proposal would also require authorization by the Community Development Authority and the City Council for consistency with the Redevelopment Area plan. She said the Plan Commission should discuss the proposed land use first, and that additional detail of the proposal could be discussed. For instance, the proposal is currently 28 stalls below the minimum parking standard in the Zoning Code. Mr. Homburg said this is a horrible location for housing. He said the property is in the most industrial section of the Broadway corridor, and area where the City has focused on job creation. He said the intent of the CDD zoning district allowing residential was to have housing appropriately integrated with commercial in a compatible mix of uses. He said that Highway 51 is soon to be rebuilt with a grade separation which could further isolate the site. Mr. Stein said that he is concerned with isolation of housing in this area and the lack of connection to the rest of the community. He said that he applauds the vision of what the project could offer the community, but it is not in a good location. Mr. Kugle said that the City has worked hard on creating future land use plans. He said the plans direct the City to avoid concentrations of low income housing. Regarding floor plans, he said there are two bedroom plus den units, and small three bedroom units. In the two bedroom plus den units, he asked if the den is really just a den, or is it intended, and likely to be used as a third bedroom. If it will be used as a third bedroom there was concern that there is no common space in the unit overall and there is no closet in the third bedroom/den. He was concerned with the lack of green space considering the large number of children that could be expected in the development. He said children living here will not feel a part of the Monona community because it is so far from the city center and city services. He does not feel this is an appropriate land use at this location, whether the proposal is market rate or low income. Alder Holmquist said that the site is completely disconnected to other parts of Monona. He said that he did not feel comfortable walking in the area in front of the gas station on Broadway and it certainly would not be a safe and comfortable walk for children walking to school. Mr. Ganser said that city plans state a preference for urban infill in a walkable community context. He said that the comments here regarding isolation are correct. He said that if you are biking or walking from the site is it a far distance to destinations, and not a safe commute. He said he likes the project overall but is very concerned about the location. He said this multi- 8

33 Plan Commission Meeting July 14, 2014 Approved August 11, 2014 family proposal is in a clearly commercial and industrial area surrounded by high traffic corridors. He said what we are looking for there is very different. Mr. Dorschel said that he shares the concerns about the isolation of the site. He asked whether the applicant had experience with this mix of target renters. Mr. Dorschel asked about the unit mix for the residents. Kevin Newell said that the units are mixed and mingled. He said that the floors are mixed income, and the veterans are not in one particular wing. Mr. Newell said he has worked on other projects with similar mix of occupants and they are doing well with good occupancy. He explained the proximity to neighborhood amenities and other residential. He walked along Copps Avenue, the most direct route to a nearby single family neighborhood and the drive took only 38 seconds from this property. The drive to the Copps grocery store was only 40 seconds. He said he understands there may be isolation from different parts of the city, but this is an opportunity to connect those parts. He said this is a housing opportunity for someone that works at Menards or Buffalo Wild Wings and he could not imagine a better place for those employees to work. They are often out-priced in the rental market in Madison which also has a very high occupancy rate. He asked if this is not good enough for low income households, then what is. He said it is necessary to bridge the gap. Other services could be explored such as a van service to other locations in Monona, and education about what amenities are in the center. He said that as decision-makers, we often find ourselves in the position of judging if the proposal is good enough for the residents. He said his team, WHEDA, and the Dane County Housing Authority are making an $11 million bet that he project will be good for its residents. Chair Busse said that he would like to see more information on the two bedrooms plus den units, the overall unit mix and layout, income percentage of the units overall, the number of market rate units, in a schedule of the unit break down. He requested additional information on the veterans housing component of the proposal. He asked if the units that are reserved for veterans do not end up being occupied by veterans, then who becomes eligible for these units. He asked if veterans housing is a goal or a requirement of the project. He said the Zoning District and land use plans direct development to occur according to a large-scale plan rather than on a piecemeal basis. The Code also says the community vests a particular interest in the comprehensively planned development of these properties. He asked the applicants to make the case of how the proposal is harmonious with the surrounding highway commercial uses. The applicants stated that they are exploring commitments from Madison Metro on adding a bus stop directly adjacent to this property. The Commission stated that the applicants should provide documentation on any commitment from Madison Metro. If a bus stop were available here, the Commission noted that it would still not connect residents to Monona schools and city services because the only other Madison Metro stops are farther west on Broadway. Chair Busse said that the Comprehensive Plan outlines opportunities for mixed use housing, with residential above the first floor, and is compatible with adjacent uses. He said that the Comprehensive Plan also states that concentrations of low income housing should be avoided. He said that the strategic housing plan also calls for mixed housing opportunities. 9

34 Plan Commission Meeting July 14, 2014 Approved August 11, 2014 Chair Busse asked about the proposed staffing of the project. He said to detail the hour that tenants would have access to management. He also asked about proposed security cameras or surveillance of the building. He said that he would like to see more details on Lutheran Social Services and whether they would offer ongoing services or just initially, and whether they offer services on site. Mr. Homburg asked whether the commission should be asking for details on the project when they have not yet answered the initial question on if the land use is appropriate. Chair Busse said that the applicants will have an opportunity to respond and a future meeting. Mr. Dorschel said that since the proposal is removed from some services and businesses it will required the use of vehicles by tenants. He said if less parking will be proposed for the site than what is required, a parking study should be conducted and the reasons why less parking is proposed should be well documented. Mr. Newell said minimum parking standards for these types of developments often exceeds the need. He said the tenants are most often single parent households. He said that based off of experience we do not need as much parking as required. He said that typically 1.5 stalls per unit is enough. Alder Holmquist said that there is not a lot of outdoor space aside from the tot lot. Mr. Brinkley said that the goal was to accommodate small children on site, and others could walk to Ahuska Park. Mr. Stein said he would like to see more details on parking. He also asked about the size of the tot lot. Mr. Homburg said that with a residential project and a land use of this intensity we usually look for more than 30 percent green space. He said that the architecture is plain in the middle of the building. He said he likes the masonry ends and brick work, but more needs to be added in the middle. City Administrator Pat Marsh noted that Walmart and WPS have private contracts with Madison Metro. If the applicants move forward with Madison Metro, this could be something to explore. Chair Busse said that the applicants should provide more information on parking, landscaping, the buffer between the sidewalk and drive aisle, any security cameras, restroom access for people using the community room, ADA access to tot lot. There was no further discussion. Miscellaneous Business 7.A. Staff Report Regarding the Status of Development Project Proposals. 10

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 Edna Taylor Pkwy. Femrite Dr. Sh 13 S. Stoughton Rd Copps Ave. 11 E. Broadway D:\temp\Gary_B\Monona CDA Dev_ \arc\ArcMap-MXD\TID6_09\TID6_Map4_ProLU.mxd Beltline Hwy Legend Map 4: Proposed Land Use TID # 6 & Redevelopment Area #6 City of Monona TID #6 & Redevelopment Area #6 Boundary Proposed Land Use April 23, Commerc ial Open Space Utility Feet # VAI Created Pin Numbers Data Source: Dane County Land Information

56 Beltline to Broadway Alt A

57 Beltline to Broadway Alt A

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67