Tonight!
East Washington Avenue BUILD
Capitol Gateway Corridor Land Use and Urban Design Plan
Steering Committee Meeting # 9
Monday, Oct. 17th, 2005, 5:00-8:00 pm (food and beverages provided)
945 E. Washington Ave
Purpose of meeting: To finalize core values and
make significant progress on height questions.
*******************
Below are some of my comments about the E. Wash
BUILD to committee member, Marsha Rummel. The
original "Core Values" doc is below my comment.
*****************************
Hello Marsha,
Thanks for this opportunity to provide input on the E. Wash Ave. BUILD.
I realize that the man from Vandewalle did not
want "semantic" discussions, but here goes
anyway. (And I realize you are asking about
building heights, but wait, transportation
choices *do* have a huge impact on building
height issues, as ye shall see....)
One of the core principles in the doc was "Firmly
Establish the Corridor as a Transit-Supportive
Employment Center." In talking with a couple of
folks from the adjoining areas (thanks, Marsha &
Peter!), it became clear that what we should be
seeking is a "Place-Supportive Employment
Center", or "Place-Oriented Development" rather
than one which aims to bring people in from far
away. Long distance transportation should be
de-emphasized no matter the means--yes, even
transit. This by no means is intended to
disparage transit, but it is about setting
priorities: Priority #1 being, ***living near
work!***--Near enough to make walking more
convenient than any other mode. Next in the
prioritization scheme should be in this order:
bicycling, transit and last (and least) the
automobile.
The point is to obviate the need for disruptive
transportation choices and instead, build a
place-centered community.
One means to get at this is an idea that has been
applied at large institutions in large urban
areas. The aim is to get people who work in the
area to live in the area and vice versa. A prime
tool toward this aim is what is known as a
"Walking Mortgage." This is where an employer
offers its employees cash toward either a
downpayment on a house or the security deposit on
an abode within a mile of the workplace. The
original aim was to help populate depressed urban
areas (especially around hospitals) with job
holders, and thus inject some economic and
perhaps social leadership power into the area. In
this case, the aim would be to reduce disruptive
transportation in already vibrant communities;
communities which are also overburdened with
someone else's traffic from far, far away.
There are other ways to further eliminate the
subsidy for long-distance transportation. Below
are some of them. I wrote this up before my
thinking evolved (thanks for helping me evolve,
Marsha & Peter!) toward a more "place-oriented
development," so you will see some language
regarding "transit-oriented development;"
however, the concepts can still move us toward a
more place-centered design and better spatial
efficiencies. I have tried to re-prioritize these
with an eye toward supporting living close to
work first & foremost. Car-oriented, spatial
efficiency stuff is farther down the list. The
prime idea is leveling the economic playing field
between living far away in a cheaper house vs.
living close to work in a more expensive or
smaller place but not being forced to drive.
1. Parking Cash-Out. Ensure that all employers
have a fair transportation benefits program that
provides a benefit equal to a parking space for
all employees, no matter how they get to work, if
parking is provided free (or below market rates)
by the employer. This means providing the cash
value of the parking space (or the subsidy, if
below market) for those who bike, walk,
car/vanpool or take transit. For those employers
who do not want to provide the cash, a parking
space should not be provided for free either. In
short, all modes should be treated fairly on an
economic basis (at least). (See also Items 4, 5 &
6.)
2. Mixed Use Development. Ensure that all
development accommodates daily needs within a few
block walk, so that car-free or car-light
lifestyles are supported by development patterns.
The residential-only model of development that
has occurred along Old University Ave. should be
avoided at all costs. [This seems to be covered
well in the Core Principles document.]
3. Parking Maximums: One stall per unit. Urban
living provides the power of proximity. Nearness
to one's daily needs reduces-significantly-the
need for a second, and in many cases, the first
car. Developers who wish to provide parking at
ratios below 1 stall per unit should be
encouraged to do so. (See item 2: Mixed Use
Development.)
4. Separate Parking Leases from Residential
Leases. By charging for a parking stall
separately the incentive for people to own cars
excessively is reduced. It also helps achieve
housing affordability for those who don't want or
can't afford to own a car. Several of Madison's
downtown developers are already doing this with
great success (See Item 1. Parking Cash-Out).
5. Separate Parking Leases from Commercial
Leases. This provides the incentive for employers
to establish their own incentives for employees
to get to work by other than driving alone (see
Item 1.).
6. Parking Priced Daily/Hourly. Monthly parking
rates tend to lock people into one mode. Keeping
parking priced on a daily basis allows people to
try different modes with no financial penalty.
The University of Wisconsin's Flex-Parking
program is a very successful local implementation
of this principle.
7. Time Shared Parking. Maximize the use of each
parking space by allowing residents and
businesses to share parking over the course of
the day. Current zoning concepts (which PUD's
still tend to follow) dictate one space per use,
which leaves most parking spaces empty for 2/3 of
the day. Time shared parking can significantly
maximize the use of each stall over the course of
the day and thus reduce the costs of building
parking structures and thereby increase
affordability and boost developer profitability.
(See also Item 2. Mixed Use Development.)
8. Parking Structures as Multi-Modal
Transportation Centers. Transit-Oriented
Development, as a concept, should undergird the
design of any development along E. Washington.
(See the latest iteration of the Madison
Comprehensive Plan.) Complementing TOD's are bike
stations. These could include bike lockers, bike
rentals, showers (for both pedestrians and
bicyclists) and repair stations. The newest &
most notable example of the complementarity
between parking, transit & bike stations is
Chicago's new Millennium Park.
9. Reward Car-pooling. Reduce parking fees for
people who carpool. Accelerate the reductions the
more people agree to ride along. For
brainstorming purposes, two people might enjoy a
25% reduction in parking costs, three people get
a 60% reduction and a full car of four gets in
free. Current swipe-card technology allows for
good control over such a program.
10. Community Car. The concept behind Community
Car is a good one. It allows someone to live a
car-light lifestyle. By reducing car ownership,
more stalls can be freed up, or not built in the
first place. However, sometimes Community Car has
been used as a greenwashing ploy to cover for
building excessive amounts of parking in recent
developments around Madison. Community Car should
be used in conjunction with the other measures
here, rather than as a green weapon against them.
Note that these strategies are mutually
reinforcing. For too long, transportation has
been divided out from land use, and different
modes have gotten divided out one from the other.
This isn't a be-all-end-all list. But I hope it
gets some creative, integrative thinking going
instead of the old compartmentalized thinking.
The Core Principles document is very
design-oriented, which is fine; up to a point.
One should build streetscapes with the pedestrian
in mind. But there is a strong economic factor
involved in walking/living close to work that is
really not addressed here. Until a life lived "in
place" is financially rewarded as much as living
far away, we won't be very successful in getting
more people to walk. And thus we'll see a
continued degradation of our urban environment
with ever more car-bound commuters.
And now you may be wondering what all this boring
transportation stuff has to do with the glamorous
topic of building heights....Well, given the
water table issues that are bound to crop up on
our low-lying isthmus, any structured parking is
likely to have to go up, meaning, less room for
actual, economically productive space--especially
given any height limits. So the more spatially
efficient we make our transportation choices, the
more economically productive our isthmus will be.
Oh, one other thing. The "Core Principles"
document suggests paying for parking with TIF. I
strongly disagree. Parking should be provided at
the developer's expense. If anything, public
policy and public monies should be directed
toward incentives to minimize parking.
And finally, where is the sense of play for this
place? It is all so very serious and adult. Play,
whimsy, creativity and fun should be built in to
the landscape and the architecture!
Thanks for your work on this, Marsha!
-Mike
**********************************
As an EWA BUILD committee member I am very
interested in hearing comments. Thanks!
Marsha
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Julie A. Melton
To:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:30 PM
Subject: [SASYNA-Discussions] East Wash: How tall is tall?
Monday night the East Wash BUILD committee will
try to agree on a set of urban design principles
that will guide future development along East
Wash -- including building heights.
If you have strong feelings about how tall the
buildings along East Wash from Blair to First
Street should be -- e.g., taller towards the
Capitol, not as tall towards Baldwin Street / the
Yahara River, read through the material below. [
We're not talking here - explicitly, anyway -
about Union Corners (Rayovac); Blair Street to
First Street only. ] Clearly, as we've been
saying for a year and a half now, the Mayor wants
heights and density along East Wash to
significantly increase.
If you think our neighborhood association should
be on record, one way or the other, on the design
principles below, let this list know. Sorry
about the short notice. I received the agenda
late Friday; read through the materials just now
(early Sunday afternoon). Dan Melton
_______________________________________________
East Washington Avenue BUILD
Capitol Gateway Corridor Land Use and Urban Design Plan
Steering Committee Meeting # 9
Monday, Oct. 17th, 2005, 5:00-8:00 pm (food and beverages provided)
945 E. Washington Ave
Purpose of meeting: To finalize core values and
make significant progress on height questions.
Memorandum
To: E. Wash BUILD Committee
From: Scott Harrington, Vandewalle & Associates
Date: 10/16/2005
Re: Core Principles, Agenda Item B.
Dear Committee Members,
Attached is a draft of the Core Principles as
discussed at the end of the last meeting as
reviewed and revised by Mark Olinger. The
document attempts to reflect all of the input
provided by the Committee and had input from the
consultants and committee project management team.
As noted on the agenda, the first part of
Monday's meeting will be used to gain consensus/a
decision on this document. Accordingly, please
review it carefully for the following:
Are the four Core principles listed "The" core
principles? If not, what should be added or
deleted? Please keep in mind that for these to
be useful and effective in the review of future
development it is strongly recommended by the
City that we have absolutely no more than 5 core
principles, and preferably, only 4.
Under each Core principle are several techniques
or means of achieving them. Is the list for each
principle complete? If not, what should be
added? Further, are there bullets listed that
are inappropriate and should be removed? In the
interest of time, we are not planning to review
every bullet. If there is something significant
missing, let's add it. If there is something
inappropriate, let's delete it. However, let's
not spend time trying to wordsmith each. If you
have suggestions on specific wording please
provide a mark-up to the consultants after the
meeting for them to consider in preparation of
the next draft.
If we can stay focused on the basic content and
meaning of the principles and the bullets and
avoid semantic detail, we should have more than
enough time to complete this important aspect of
the project in the time allotted.
Thanks! See you Monday.
Scott Harrington, AICP
Principal Planner
Vandewalle & Associates
608-255-3988 ext. 217
___________________________________________
East Washington Avenue Core Urban Design Principles
Protect and Enhance the Iconic View of the Capitol
* Incorporate building setbacks and stepbacks to
ensure the current view window of the Capitol
from all points within the East Washington
right-of-way is not reduced in breadth or depth
* Incorporate building setbacks and stepbacks to
frame views of the Capitol in a complementary
fashion from one side of East Washington to the
other
* Incorporate building designs, materials, and
exterior colors so that the primary focus of
attention along the corridor remains the Capitol
* Incorporate varied building stepbacks and
varied roof designs within permissible height
limits to avoid a walling/canyon affect of the
Capitol view corridor and a plateau affect of
flat and uniform building tops
Respect and Strengthen Existing Neighborhoods
* Provide a mix of housing types that, together
with the existing housing stock of the adjoining
neighborhoods, provides a wide range of housing
options within the Corridor * Provide a mix of
commercial uses that serve the needs of the
adjoining neighborhoods and other development
within the Corridor that are complementary with
the existing commercial uses and districts
located and north and south of the Corridor
* Where adjacent to existing residential uses,
incorporate building setbacks and stepbacks to
provide a compatible street level scale and
adequate solar access
* Where adjacent to existing residential uses,
incorporate building designs, materials and
colors that are consistent with the existing
residential environment
* Orient primary vehicular entries to side
streets and service areas to internal courts to
minimize development-related traffic and effects
on East Mifflin and East Main
* Provide building orientations and scales,
streetscape features and public gathering areas
along side streets to create safe and inviting
pedestrian and bicycling connections between the
neighborhoods to and across East Washington
* Provide transit shelters and other amenities
that serve neighborhood residents as well as
users of the project
Firmly Establish the Corridor as a Transit-Supportive Employment Center
* Permit a broad range of employment-type land
uses, especially on the south side of East
Washington
* Work with existing businesses to determine
future plans and needs so they can grow and
prosper in their current location
* Work with existing property owners to develop a
complete inventory of available space, lease
rates, and build-to-suit opportunities
* Use TIF funds to provide parking, rail transit,
and public amenities needed to attract new
employers to the Corridor
* Develop marketing materials and a marketing
strategy to actively promote the corridor to new
and expanded businesses
* Permit intensive development of parcels
identified for employment including a high
percentage of lot coverage, high floor area
ratios, and multiple stories as an off-set to
high land costs and to maximize existing
infrastructure investments
* Permit a mix of integrated uses within areas
designated as employment to support the needs of
employees and employers (such as small-scale
retail, personal and business services, and,
possibly, limited residential or live-work
spaces) °© prohibit free-standing commercial and
residential development
* Encourage development of housing where
identified as appropriate on the north side of
East Washington that would be attractive to
employees on the south side to increase live-work
options
* Provide incentives for employers/employees to use transit
* Develop additional transit options including streetcars and/or commuter rail
Create an Inviting and Vibrant East Washington Avenue Corridor
* Develop a consistent pallet and design concept
for trees and landscaping along the East
Washington Avenue frontage to create a sense of
unity from one end of the Corridor to the other
* Create a consistent rhythm of street level
facades from one end of the Corridor to the other
* Incorporate consistent setbacks to accommodate
landscaping, entry plazas and outdoor gathering
and activity areas such as dining and art displays
* Incorporate consistent setbacks and expanded
sidewalks to provide a comfortable environment
for pedestrians by providing greater distances
from moving traffic on East Washington
* Incorporate complementary building setbacks and
stepbacks to from one side of East Washington to
the other to frame the corridor and provide a
consistent sense of enclosure
* Incorporate design elements on the lower 3-4
stories, including stepbacks, that clearly
differentiate the lower floors from the upper
floors and that create a more comfortable and
inviting environment for pedestrians
* Orient main building entries to East Washington
by including entry plazas and other ground level
design elements
* Require a mix of ground floor uses
* Provide a high level of transparency on the
lower levels of buildings °© prohibit large blank
walls
* Require a continuous, uninterrupted block face
°© prohibit interruptions for vehicular access
from East Washington unless no other option is
available
* Prohibit parking and other service areas along East Washington
* Incorporate transit amenities, such as
shelters, at regular intervals along the Corridor
* Respect and highlight historic buildings by
setting back and stepping back new development
and additions
Questions for reflection in preparation for height & setback discussion, Item E
1) Background: We have agreed we want this plan
to help promote economic development. We also
seem to have some emerging consensus that having
specific guidelines for building size and design
may help us promote economic development, because
it would increase the predictability of the
approval process for developers and as a result
reduce their risk. We also agree that we would
like the plan to help increase the uniformity and
attractiveness of the corridor, which implies
that specific recommendations be consistent in
some way across the study area. However, we also
want to respect the existing neighborhoods, which
means fairly restrictive height limits in some
areas. If we restrict the height too much across
the entire area, we may interfere with economic
development that we desire.
Question: Can we find a set of height and setback
limits that meet all of these goals? Or would a
uniform set of restrictions that was low enough
to respect the neighborhoods be too low in other
areas that could bear more density? If we cant
find one set of guidelines that meets all of our
core values, where do we want to compromise? Are
some core values more important than others?
2) Background: There have been a number of
different positions expressed on height limits so
far during these meetings. They include:
a. There should be no limit to the height of buildings
b. Buildings should be limited by the State and
Federal statutes only (approximately 16-17
stories within one mile of the Capitol)
c. There should be a uniform maximum height limit
across the entire study area that is lower than
the State & Federal statutes
d. There should be a height limit that specifies
decreasing heights further from the Capitol, as
in the East Rail Corridor Plan
e. Height limits should depend on the context °©
something like character areas, defined by
surrounding neighborhoods.
Question: Which of these positions, or what
combination of these, will best meet the most of
our core values?
3) Background: Similarly, there are a variety of positions on setbacks
a. Consistent setbacks the entire length of
avenue (older buildings grandfathered in), with
trees.
b. Consistent setbacks the entire length of
avenue (older buildings grandfathered in),
without trees (to further preserve Capitol views
from sidewalks & lower stories of buildings).
c. Setbacks vary depending on size of building,
with shorter buildings requiring smaller setbacks.
d. Setbacks allowed to vary to create plazas and
other areas of interest/pedestrian focus.
Question: Which of these positions, or what
combination of these, will best meet the most of
our core values?
Funders of this project include the Dane County
BUILD program, the City of Madison, Marquette
Neighborhood Association, MG&E, The Mullins
Group, Curt Brink, and Research Products, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
