AGENDA # 1. City of Madison, Wisconsin

Transcription

1 City of Madison, Wisconsin AGENDA # 1 REPORT OF: URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION PRESENTED: August 3, 2011 TITLE: 677 South Segoe Road - PUD(GDP- SIP) for a Three-Story Residential Building with 60 Apartments. 20 th Ald. Dist. (19952) REFERRED: REREFERRED: REPORTED BACK: AUTHOR: Alan J. Martin, Secretary ADOPTED: POF: DATED: August 3, 2011 ID NUMBER: Members present were: Richard Wagner, Henry Lufler, Melissa Huggins, Marsha Rummel, Richard Slayton*, Dawn O Kroley and Mark Smith. *Slayton recused himself from this item. SUMMARY: At its meeting of August 3, 2011, the Urban Design Commission GRANTED INITIAL APPROVAL of a PUD(GDP-SIP) located at 677 South Segoe Road. Appearing on behalf of the project was John Bieno, representing TJK Design Build. Registered and speaking in opposition was Mike Scott. Bieno presented the Commission with changes to previous plans including underground parking in the second building, a required loading bay, a sectioned off area by having the walkway go to the entry. They have alleviated some traffic pressure by pulling the second entry into the second part of the building. They also agreed to do a traffic study, which is not required. Some flipping of the building has been done to accommodate moving the loading bay to the end which created a nice big greenspace. Stepped planters will be used at entry points. Mike Scott spoke to the Commission in opposition of the project. He referenced a letter he submitted to the Commission that was in the Commission packet. He cited concerns with density, traffic circulation, mass and neighborhood compatibility. Wagner mentioned that the Commission had received the Minutes for the Midvale Heights Community Association and had that information. He also noted that the Urban Design Commission is charged with design issues; these issues are more for the Plan Commission. Bieno stated they have had neighborhood meetings with little to no issues mentioned. Huggins stated it has come a long way and looks great. ACTION: On a motion by Huggins, seconded by Rummel, the Urban Design Commission GRANTED INITIAL APPROVAL. The motion was passed on a vote of (4-0-1) with Smith abstaining and Slayton recused. After the Commission acts on an application, individual Commissioners rate the overall design on a scale of 1 to 10, including any changes required by the Commission. The ratings are for information only. They are not used to decide whether the project should be approved. The scale is 1 = complete failure; 2 = critically bad; 3 = very poor; 4 = poor; 5 = fair; 6 = good; 7 = very good; 8 = excellent; 9 = superior; and 10 = outstanding. The overall ratings for this project are 7, 7 and 7.

2 URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION PROJECT RATING FOR: 677 South Segoe Road Site Plan Architecture Landscape Plan Site Amenities, Lighting, Etc. Signs Circulation (Pedestrian, Vehicular) Urban Context Overall Rating Member Ratings General Comments: Significantly improved project. Very nice project. Study creating a double height entry with common space on third floor. Three-story volume proportion on the interior is quite tall. Activate main façade with public activity. Architecture, scale, site plan all vastly improved. Attractive façade at Segoe and Odana. Issues of density concern neighborhood but not UDC jurisdiction.

3 City of Madison, Wisconsin AGENDA # 2 REPORT OF: URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION PRESENTED: August 3, 2011 TITLE: 4716 Verona Road - Modified PUD(GDP-SIP), "U-Haul" Rental/Storage/Warehouse, Pylon Signs and Wall Signage. 10th Ald. Dist. (21680) REFERRED: REREFERRED: REPORTED BACK: AUTHOR: Alan J. Martin, Secretary ADOPTED: POF: DATED: August 3, 2011 ID NUMBER: Members present were: Richard Wagner, Henry Lufler, Melissa Huggins, Marsha Rummel, Richard Slayton, Dawn O Kroley and Mark Smith. SUMMARY: At its meeting of August 3, 2011, the Urban Design Commission GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL of a PUD(GDP-SIP) located at 4716 Verona Road. Appearing on behalf of the project were David Pollock and Jim Schaefer, representing UHaul/Americo. Pollock summarized changes made since initial approval, including design of the exterior units, signage and landscaping. He noted the possibility of changes to some of these plans in 2014 or 2015 due to the DOT s Verona Road/12 & 18 project. Plans by Wisconsin DOT for stormwater has now taken up the entire area of Lot 2 and encroached some on Lot 1. The parking lot/storage area now incorporates a larger island that crosses the lot and separates the UHaul area from the future development parcel. He stated they have gotten approval from the Common Council with some conditions attached. They would like to use the current poles set up for their UHaul ground sign. Schaefer addressed the landscape plan, cataloging the locations and species of trees. The existing landscaping will remain, most of the changes will come to the storage area and the new islands on the south half of the site. They had a teleconference with a member of the neighborhood association and were assured that the neighborhood does not have any concerns with landscaping for this project, as long as it stays clear of the bike path. Matt Tucker, Zoning Administrator discussed signable areas and sizes. He talked about the illumination of the letters and how that fits into the code. An allowance in the code for large buildings are allowed up to four accessory signs at up to 50% of the height and 50% of the net area of the main sign. One area of concern is the diamond pattern as a painted on feature which is not considered as an architectural element, therefore it is classified as a sign. Zoning will need information from the applicant as to the night views of their signage as well as the colors to be used. Tucker further stated that the sign would be non-compliant. Rummel stated that she sees reusing the existing ground sign has its ecological benefits versus tearing it down and throwing it away. Huggins asked about the detention pond, she feels this site is not getting the due it needs from a planning standpoint; Pollock replied he had to do some digging to find out about the pond. There was some discussion about the patterning on the building and how that can act as a sign for the brand. O Kroley and Smith both wanted to see the readerboard sign come into compliance. O Kroley also said she wished the exterior storage units had more of a canopy. She further inquired about the landscaping requirement in the Planning Division s

4 approval of the project because that is not reflected in the new plans. Slayton commented that Ash trees listed on the landscape plan will need to be maintained and replaced as they will likely succumb from Ash Borer disease. As far as the ground cover along the property line, he would like to see it as minimally landscaped as possible. Schaefer informed the Commission that the neighborhood is working on a master plan for this area to cover the landscaping and safety issues. Slayton would like to see some vegetation behind the storage units as a backdrop to soften the parking. Tucker explained the landscape points required for this area and how they relate to the number of parking stalls and storage areas proposed. ACTION: On a motion by Lufler, seconded by Slayton, the Urban Design Commission GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL. The motion was passed on a vote of (6-0). The motion provided for the following: Approval of the Building Façade/Signage as contained in Industrial Option 2 with no diamond painted pattern. Eliminate the existing pylon structure or change to a conforming sign. Lower accessory wall signs closer to horizontal reveal and eliminate accessory signs on storage building. After the Commission acts on an application, individual Commissioners rate the overall design on a scale of 1 to 10, including any changes required by the Commission. The ratings are for information only. They are not used to decide whether the project should be approved. The scale is 1 = complete failure; 2 = critically bad; 3 = very poor; 4 = poor; 5 = fair; 6 = good; 7 = very good; 8 = excellent; 9 = superior; and 10 = outstanding. The overall ratings for this project are 5, 5, 5, 5 and 5.5.

5 URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION PROJECT RATING FOR: 4716 Verona Road Site Plan Architecture Landscape Plan Site Amenities, Lighting, Etc. Signs Circulation (Pedestrian, Vehicular) Urban Context Overall Rating Member Ratings General Comments: Has to go somewhere. Reuse is welcome.

6 City of Madison, Wisconsin AGENDA # 3 REPORT OF: URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION PRESENTED: August 3, 2011 TITLE: 652 Bear Claw Way - PUD(GDP-SIP) for a Twenty-Eight Unit, Three-Story Apartment Building and PUD(GDP) for a One-Story Commercial Building. 9th Ald. Dist. (22366) REFERRED: REREFERRED: REPORTED BACK: AUTHOR: Alan J. Martin, Secretary ADOPTED: POF: DATED: August 3, 2011 ID NUMBER: Members present were: Richard Wagner, Henry Lufler, Melissa Huggins, Richard Slayton, Dawn O Kroley and Mark Smith. SUMMARY: At its meeting of August 3, 2011, the Urban Design Commission GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL of a PUD(GDP-SIP) located at 652 Bear Claw Way. Appearing on behalf of the project was Donald Schroeder, representing Knothe & Bruce Architects, LLC. Registered in support and available to answer questions were Alex McKenzie and Tim McKenzie. Schroeder reviewed changes to the plans since their last visit to the UDC. The landscape plan has incorporated more interesting shapes with bioretention areas and more shade trees. The form of the roof was mentioned in relation to the loft units; Schroeder presented a building section that shows how those units have a loft and how the roof treats that space. Brick material samples and two colors were shown, as well as composite window materials. Huggins appreciated the demonstration of how the units work with the roof shape. Slayton mentioned some concern with the Crabapple trees; he would prefer a tree with a base shape so the branches won t be at eye level. The detention area needs a few more hedges to accentuate the shape. He would also like to see more groups of trees rather than singles. ACTION: On a motion by Lufler, seconded by Slayton, the Urban Design Commission GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL. The motion was passed on a vote of (5-0). The motion required address of the landscape comments. After the Commission acts on an application, individual Commissioners rate the overall design on a scale of 1 to 10, including any changes required by the Commission. The ratings are for information only. They are not used to decide whether the project should be approved. The scale is 1 = complete failure; 2 = critically bad; 3 = very poor; 4 = poor; 5 = fair; 6 = good; 7 = very good; 8 = excellent; 9 = superior; and 10 = outstanding. The overall ratings for this project are 5, 6, 6 and 7.

7 URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION PROJECT RATING FOR: 652 Bear Claw Way Site Plan Architecture Landscape Plan Site Amenities, Lighting, Etc. Signs Circulation (Pedestrian, Vehicular) Urban Context Overall Rating Member Ratings General Comments: RIP flat roofs?

8 City of Madison, Wisconsin AGENDA # 4 REPORT OF: URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION PRESENTED: August 3, 2011 TITLE: 1129 South Park Street - Demolition to Construct New Gas Station/Convenience Store in Urban Design District #7. 13th Ald. Dist. (23443) REFERRED: REREFERRED: REPORTED BACK: AUTHOR: Alan J. Martin, Secretary ADOPTED: POF: DATED: August 3, 2011 ID NUMBER: Members present were: Richard Wagner, Henry Lufler, Melissa Huggins, Richard Slayton, Dawn O Kroley and Mark Smith. SUMMARY: At its meeting of August 3, 2011, the Urban Design Commission RECEIVED AN INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION for a demolition to construct a new gas station/convenience store in UDD No. 7 located at 1129 South Park Street. Appearing on behalf of the project was John Sutton. Sutton presented plans to remove the existing Clark station and replace it with a new C store. The entire site would be updated, including replacement of tanks, new pumps, new bituminous paving, increasing landscaping, reusing the canopy with a facelift. This will be an independent station. Sutton feels they meet the criteria for UDD No. 7 which he will break down at the next UDC meeting. They have met with the neighborhood once and have received strong indications of what their needs are. The main building material to be concrete block; there is a strong use of block along Park Street on service and industrial-oriented buildings. For its size he is trying to create some interest by using a major fascia element on the taller roof in the back that can be tied in with the canopy material. They will be creating a two-story entry element. The plan creates an edge along Olin and Park Streets including a separation between the site and the sidewalk. The owner wants to focus on the green effect and will use all LED lighting and is looking into the possibility of sensors for regulating lighting and energy, as well as solar panels. Huggins inquired about staff s opinion of traffic exiting on Olin Avenue; Sutton replied that the biggest concern is people turning south on Park Street. He met with Traffic Engineering and explained the two access points are necessary for fuel coming in and out. The third access point is required because they have parking with no drive-thru aisle. Neighborhood concerns have ranged from noise to worries over customers and employees. The owner has now hired security for certain times of day. Huggins asked who the restaurant tenant is slated to be; staff remarked that Matt Tucker, Zoning Administrator already has some concerns about the combination of uses in an already too tight site and how that will impact the area. Slayton suggested one of the access points to be designated entrance only, as well as labeling one of the stalls for mopeds and bicycle parking, in addition to pursuing one-way circulation through the site and rounding off the geometry curb treatment and islands; too sharp, need to soften. O Kroley touched on some of the UDD No. 7 requirements for street frontage that should be addressed, including site context with adjoining properties. Smith noted the sharpness of the curb and their need to be softened. Additional comments were as follows:

9 Relocate the stall to bike parking area and vice versa. Provide flush mounted under canopy lights. Primary entry needs to be oriented to street. Eliminate the parking stall on the right side of the Olin Avenue driveway entry to increase green area with the incorporation of a shade tree in combination with the reconfiguration of stalls to relocate the handicapped parking stall and bike parking stalls along with enhancing the pedestrian entry on the west elevation off of Park Street. Rethink interior triangle at the apex in front of the building and incorporate a canopy above the entry doors. Look at on-site traffic patterns to see how much space is left over around the pump area overhead canopy, including reconsideration of pump locations. Provide relative grade information. Signage will require future consideration. ACTION: Since this was an INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION no formal action was taken by the Commission. After the Commission acts on an application, individual Commissioners rate the overall design on a scale of 1 to 10, including any changes required by the Commission. The ratings are for information only. They are not used to decide whether the project should be approved. The scale is 1 = complete failure; 2 = critically bad; 3 = very poor; 4 = poor; 5 = fair; 6 = good; 7 = very good; 8 = excellent; 9 = superior; and 10 = outstanding. The overall ratings for this project are 5 and 6.

10 URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION PROJECT RATING FOR: 1129 South Park Street Site Plan Architecture Landscape Plan Site Amenities, Lighting, Etc. Signs Circulation (Pedestrian, Vehicular) Urban Context / Overall Rating Member Ratings General Comments: Vehicular circulation is the issue; study one-way in from Olin (no exit onto Olin). Any improvement would be welcome.

11 City of Madison, Wisconsin AGENDA # 5 REPORT OF: URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION PRESENTED: August 3, 2011 TITLE: 113 South Mills Street - Demolition of Two Residential Buildings for a PUD- SIP for Meriter Hospital Child Care Facility. 13th Ald. Dist. (23412) REFERRED: REREFERRED: REPORTED BACK: AUTHOR: Alan J. Martin, Secretary ADOPTED: POF: DATED: August 3, 2011 ID NUMBER: Members present were: Richard Wagner, Henry Lufler, Melissa Huggins, Richard Slayton, Dawn O Kroley and Mark Smith. SUMMARY: At its meeting of August 3, 2011, the Urban Design Commission RECEIVED AN INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION for a PUD-SIP located at 113 South Mills Street. Appearing on behalf of the project were Kirk Keller of Plunkett Raysich Architects, LLP and Kevin Snitchler, representing Meriter Hospital. Keller presented details of plans for a combined nursery/daycare center. They noted meeting with Ald. Ellingson and neighborhood representatives with a positive review of the project. A detailed review the project included details of the multiple rooms for children of different ages, playrooms, controlled entrances at the north and south, a public entry on the north end along St. James Court, with another entry point for Meriter employees. All food will be delivered from the hospital to a warming kitchen. Five drop-off stalls will be included and St. James Court will be widened; the employees have designated parking spots elsewhere. Two outdoor play areas will be incorporated. O Kroley suggested windows over the second floor corridor for light through the stairs. Smith thought the windows seemed very odd and out of place with the rest of the building and design. The key would be proportion. He was also not in favor of residential treatment in this neighborhood; he would prefer brick in keeping with the rest of Meriter s buildings and the adjacent buildings. He wondered how many people will be walking to this location and how many people will be using the five drop-off stalls and driving through St. James Court. Keller stated that given the information he received from the director at the Longfellow daycare, these five drop-off spots will be more than enough for the parents needs. Wagner shared the concern of whether the architecture really fits in the context of the site. ACTION: Since this was an INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION no formal action was taken by the Commission. After the Commission acts on an application, individual Commissioners rate the overall design on a scale of 1 to 10, including any changes required by the Commission. The ratings are for information only. They are not used to decide whether the project should be approved. The scale is 1 = complete failure; 2 = critically bad; 3 = very poor; 4 = poor; 5 = fair; 6 = good; 7 = very good; 8 = excellent; 9 = superior; and 10 = outstanding. The overall ratings for this project are 5 and 6.

12 URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION PROJECT RATING FOR: 113 South Mills Street Site Plan Architecture Landscape Plan Site Amenities, Lighting, Etc. Signs Circulation (Pedestrian, Vehicular) Urban Context Overall Rating Member Ratings General Comments: Big house with funny windows.

13 City of Madison, Wisconsin AGENDA # 6 REPORT OF: URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION PRESENTED: August 3, 2011 TITLE: 6854 Stockbridge Drive - PUD-SIP to Construct 86 Multi-Family Units in Three Buildings. 3rd Ald. Dist. (23445) REFERRED: REREFERRED: REPORTED BACK: AUTHOR: Alan J. Martin, Secretary ADOPTED: POF: DATED: August 3, 2011 ID NUMBER: Members present were: Richard Wagner, Henry Lufler, Melissa Huggins, Richard Slayton, Dawn O Kroley and Mark Smith. SUMMARY: At its meeting of August 3, 2011, the Urban Design Commission RECEIVED AN INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION on a PUD-SIP located at 6854 Stockbridge Drive. Appearing on behalf of the project was Brian Stoddard. Registered and speaking in opposition were Blake Theisen, Ann Simonson and Robert Simonson. Stoddard presented details of the site located south of Interstate 94 east of Sprecher Road surrounded by medium density multi-family development. The plans call for 86 dwelling units with 1.6 parking stalls per unit to be located primarily underground with surface parking internalized. The buildings are brought up to the street on Stockbridge with the building opening to greenspace, integrated into the neighborhood because of the single-family development across the street to the south. The buildings are 2-stories on the end and 3-stories in the middle, divided as a 28-unit building, a 30-unit building and another 28-unit building. Blake Theisen spoke in opposition to the project, noting density and traffic concerns. Given the density that was established, that was all predicated on a traffic pattern which has now changed. He encouraged the Commission to review this and request a new traffic study. He is also concerned with the driveway location as it is not adjacent to a roadway access (not aligning with street directly south), it is directly across from a residential driveway. The building heights are a stark contrast to the existing buildings in this neighborhood. Ann Simonson spoke as a neighborhood resident who walks the neighborhood quite a bit. She has noted the development across the street is similar in nature and that has caused an extensive amount of parking along the road which is a safety concern. She also noted the stark contrast in the height of the buildings with the rest of the area. She would like to see a redesign with the buildings set back farther from the road, not have sidewalks coming to the road, and allow for more greenspace. Robert Simonson also spoke to the noted increase in density across the street and would like to see this project decrease the density as this seems like too much mass of building in too small of an area that allows for too many units. Huggins inquired about building materials for each of the three buildings. Stoddard replied that all buildings would use the same materials. She suggested having three distinct characters for the different buildings to create some sort of an interesting complex. The idea of an apartment building being a single-family house blown up is not the way to approach this; she would like to see this as urban living with a more appropriate roof type (not pitched or gabled). Smith noted there is no easy access to a collector street to take you directly to an arterial;

14 you will have to go through the neighborhood. He wondered if it helped or hurt the development to eliminate one of the access points to draw circulation more internally with moving the access to under building parking away from the streetside. O Kroley commended the sense of scale. It was recommended to move the northerly building towards the open space/drainageway and eliminate the third story of the easterly building along Stockbridge across from single-family residents in combination with increasing the height of the northerly building adjacent to open space to offset; generally play with building heights to resolve issues with adjacent single-family development. The applicant was requested to consider relocating southerly drive more easterly and rethink central island within the centrally located surface parking area and cut down the number of walks to the street but provide the walks at the building. ACTION: Since this was an INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION no formal action was taken by the Commission. After the Commission acts on an application, individual Commissioners rate the overall design on a scale of 1 to 10, including any changes required by the Commission. The ratings are for information only. They are not used to decide whether the project should be approved. The scale is 1 = complete failure; 2 = critically bad; 3 = very poor; 4 = poor; 5 = fair; 6 = good; 7 = very good; 8 = excellent; 9 = superior; and 10 = outstanding. The overall ratings for this project are 5 and 5.

15 URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION PROJECT RATING FOR: 6854 Stockbridge Drive Site Plan Architecture Landscape Plan Site Amenities, Lighting, Etc. Signs Circulation (Pedestrian, Vehicular) Urban Context Overall Rating Member Ratings General Comments: Study 2 drives off Hill Parkway with greenspace between. Study grades assisting with reducing massing. Rework internal vehicular circulation. Eliminate access from Stockbridge. Enhance main entry. Where have I seen this before? Hmmm.

16 City of Madison, Wisconsin AGENDA # 7 REPORT OF: URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION PRESENTED: August 3, 2011 TITLE: 1208, 1212, 1214 Spring Street - PUD (GDP-SIP) for an 8-Story Apartment Building. 8th Ald. Dist. (16968) REFERRED: REREFERRED: (Amendment to a Previously Approved PUD(GDP-SIP), Wall Sign and Text for "Humbucker Apartments." Project includes 1216 and 1218 Spring Street Addresses.) REPORTED BACK: AUTHOR: Alan J. Martin, Secretary ADOPTED: POF: DATED: August 3, 2011 ID NUMBER: Members present were: Richard Wagner, Henry Lufler, Melissa Huggins, Richard Slayton, Dawn O Kroley and Mark Smith. SUMMARY: At its meeting of August 3, 2011, the Urban Design Commission GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL of an amendment to a previously approved PUD(GDP-SIP), wall sign and text located at 1208, 1212, 1214 Spring Street. Appearing on behalf of the project was Mary Beth Growney Selene, representing Ryan Signs, Inc. The Secretary reviewed the history of this project and signage and why they need to review these changes based on restrictions in the Zoning Text that required R5 consistency and approval by the Urban Design Commission of which the current wall sign version under consideration did satisfy; unless approved with this amendment. Growney Selene presented a new sign with a guitar graphic to match the blue of the building façade, with brushed aluminum letters for contrast. ACTION: On a motion by Lufler, seconded by O Kroley, the Urban Design Commission GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL. The motion was passed on a vote of (5-0). After the Commission acts on an application, individual Commissioners rate the overall design on a scale of 1 to 10, including any changes required by the Commission. The ratings are for information only. They are not used to decide whether the project should be approved. The scale is 1 = complete failure; 2 = critically bad; 3 = very poor; 4 = poor; 5 = fair; 6 = good; 7 = very good; 8 = excellent; 9 = superior; and 10 = outstanding. The overall ratings for this project are 6, 7 and 7.

17 URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION PROJECT RATING FOR: 1208, 1212 & 1214 Spring Street Site Plan Architecture Landscape Plan Site Amenities, Lighting, Etc. Signs Circulation (Pedestrian, Vehicular) Urban Context Overall Rating Member Ratings General Comments: Sign OK font for address is odd.