Development: United neighbors split the council
A controversial development proposal on Twin Sunset Road cleared a first hurdle at the common council on March 16. The proposal concerns a single lot at the corner of Twin Sunset Road and Evergreen Road at the western edge of the city (red rectangle on the map; the pinkish polygon on the right is Bob Suter’s Capitol Ice Arena). This lot is in the city of Middleton while the rest of Twin Sunset, a small dead-end street with seven single-family homes, is in the town of Middleton. To the south across the street (Evergreen) is the higher-density Hidden Oaks subdivision, also in the city. Hidden Oaks was developed as a planned development district (pdd), a zoning designation that allows for greater flexibility both for the developer and for the city regulators than a straight-forward single-family residential (r-1) zoning for instance.
And this is where the trouble starts. The lot in question is currently zoned r-1, which means that the owner could immediately ask for a building permit, which the city would have to grant, and build a single-family residence up to 35 feet tall (essentially three floors) that could cover up to 35% of the lot, not counting the driveway (impervious-surface wise). In fact, according to city staff, because of the size of the lot, the owner could even split it and build two single-family homes, also without any special strings attached, city-imposed contingencies allowed, or neighborhood input required. Instead, the owner has opted for rezoning to pdd, which, in theory at least, would allow him to build something different, i.e. more living units, than the r-1. Earlier versions of the plan had asked for six units, which last year was reduced by the plan commission to four units in two duplexes.
The residents of Twin Sunset Road have been unanimous in their opposition to this higher-density construction, citing concerns about disrupting the character of the neighborhood, increased traffic and storm-water runoff. A petition opposing the development was reportedly signed by 80 Hidden Oaks households as well. Thinly veiled suggestions made by some proponents of the project (none of whom live anywhere near there) that the opposition might in part be racially motivated (the owner/developer, Koteshwar Katukam, is Asian Indian, and reasonably priced duplexes for rent or ownership often attract a higher proportion of people of non-Caucasian ethnic backgrounds) were met with indignation, including by district 5 alderman Luke Fuszard who represents the area on the council, and who also lives in Hidden Oaks. Some neighbors repeatedly stated that they had no objections to a house or even two built within the existing r-1 zoning.
The city’s planning staff and other supporters of the project point to the city’s desire to promote infill and higher-density development (although, even with only one single-family home, this would be infill no matter what), and create so-called ‘missing middle’ housing, including more duplexes, townhomes and accessory dwelling units for instance. The goal is to provide more housing for people of all income levels.
The city is also trying to move away from its rigid r-1, r-2, etc. zoning, and until the zoning code has been overhauled, a process that is beginning this year, aggressive use of rezoning to pdd is its weapon of choice in achieving more flexibility.
Every rezoning to pdd is to a certain extent a political decision, but whether doing so with this lot was politically a wise decision remains to be seen.
Luke Fuszard made a motion seconded by district 8 alderman Mark Sullivan to reject the rezoning request and general implementation plan on the grounds that in view of the unanimous neighborhood opposition, granting the request would destroy a lot of trust between residents and city government. He also criticized the developer for not having reached out to the neighbors, lamenting the fact that despite his efforts a compromise was out of reach, leading him to vote for rejection.
District 6 alderwoman Susan West led the charge in favor of the rezoning and made a substitute motion, seconded by district 7 alderman Dan Ramsey, to that effect. She largely succeeded in reducing the discussion to only one aspect of the whole issue, namely storm-water management, arguing that the city could impose more stringent requirements under a pdd than an r-1 zoning. District 4 alderwoman Emily Kuhn, who somehow always manages to make every issue about herself or her district, dismissed the neighbors’ storm-water and flooding concerns by declaring that many people on her street (Middleton Beach Road) have sump pumps running 24/7. That information will no doubt give comfort to Hidden Oaks or Twin Sunset residents when they have to run their pumps ‘only four hours a day’ (dixit Emily Kuhn).
Substitute motions take precedence over main motions, and the ensuing roll call vote ended in a 4 - 4 tie, with Susan West, Dan Ramsey, Emily Kuhn and Katy Nelson (district 3) voting in favor of the rezoning, and Luke Fuszard, Mark Sullivan, Kathy Olson (district 1) and Robert Burck (district 2) voting against it. Mayor Gurdip Brar broke the tie in favor.
The vote approving the rezoning, albeit by the thinnest of margins, was unusual not only in view of the unanimous neighborhood opposition, but also because it blatantly went against the wishes of the area’s council representative, thus violating a courtesy that council members have traditionally afforded each other. Mark Sullivan pointed out this latter point, warning his colleagues against upending decades of council practice.
But since rezoning requires an ordinance, and ordinances are voted on twice before they take effect, this particular rezoning ordinance will be back for its second reading and vote, probably at the council’s regular April 6 meeting (unless a special meeting is scheduled for March 30).
The Middleton mayor wants to build a playground, in Madison
At the request of mayor Gurdip Brar, the city of Middleton’s park, recreation and forestry commission (prfc) has begun looking for ways to create a small park with playground to serve the residents in the Greenway Boulevard area west of the Beltline and south of highway 14. It is currently the only part of the city without any park, even though hundreds of apartments have been added in recent years, bringing the total up to about a thousand, according to the mayor’s estimate.
While the need is undisputed, finding a suitable location is more challenging. At its March 15 meeting, prfc was presented with a possible nine sites, none of which are ideal (see map). Most of them are privately owned, and would have to be bought by the city, with assessed values ranging from $233,000 (site 3) to $1.77 million (site 9). Only sites 1, 2 and 4/4b are owned by the city. Those three are conservancy lands or (partial site 4b) utility land. A first bureaucratic hurdle to clear would be for the conservancy lands committee (clc) to agree to release one of its sites from the restrictions that come with the status of ‘conservancy land’. The restrictions are self-imposed, and there is nothing natural about these particular conservancy lands anyway, but clc is at best very reluctant to loosen its hold.
But even if clc agrees to have one site be made a park, it is not going to be easy, because none of the three sites is a natural fit for a playground. Site 1 is wedged between the railroad tracks and the South Pond; it is at a slope and prone to flooding, and, like sites 5 and 9, it is also not centrally located. Site 2 is narrow and would require construction of a retention wall as well as more involved landscaping work, but it is close to a parking lot, and easily accessible via trail and a not-very-busy road (Market Street). Site 4/4b is on the same trail as 2, and next to public parking. It is slightly larger than the other two city-owned sites, but besides clc concerns, it might also present technical difficulties because of the presence of utilities.
The privately owned lands are all potential development sites, except for 7, which is encircled by residences, and whose owner has in the past ‘resisted city interest in adding a playground’, according to city staff.
With his customary unwillingness to face facts, Gurdip Brar argued vigorously in favor of site 7, as well as site 5. This latter site is valued at $588,000, and it is not very well located, bordered as it is on three sides by public streets and on the fourth by a private parking lot. It is also in the city of Madison. But the mayor fancies himself as a negotiator and deal-maker extraordinaire, and he is operating under the assumption that he can either convince the reluctant property owner of site 7 to change their mind and hand the space over to the city of Middleton for an apple and an egg, or convince the city of Madison to help pay for a playground that they have little use for.
During the meeting he also showed a rather cavalier attitude towards the city’s finances, declaring that if the city needed to spend money to acquire land, then so be it. This is quite a conversion for someone who has always presented himself as a fiscal conservative, although it is also possible that he still doesn’t understand how park development fees or ‘fees-in-lieu’ work. (The city gives developers the option to either dedicate some of their land as parkland, or pay a fee instead – most choose the latter.)
He made the argument that since the developers of all those apartment buildings paid fees for parks when they built their units years ago (some more than 20 years ago), the city was under a moral obligation to provide a park, and it should use those fees to build it. Mark Sullivan, district 8 alderman and chairman of the finance committee, as well as member of prfc, pointed out that those fees have long been spent on other park projects, and that if the developers had wanted a park close to their residences, they could have donated land to that effect. While Mark Sullivan is correct in saying that the city is under no legal obligation to spend park fees in the vicinity of the developments that generated them, Gurdip Brar’s argument that the city is under a moral obligation to provide the residents of those developments with a park is valid, too. After all, it is the residents who end up paying the park fees through their rent.
The members of prfc, acknowledging the need for a playground in that part of the city, seemed to gravitate towards sites 2 and 4/4b, with some interest also in site 3. City staff will continue to work on options, which will eventually have to include getting input from clc.