Neighbors cry foul over far west side day care
Frustrated residents of the far west side came out in force at the City Council meeting Tuesday night to voice concerns over the location of a proposed day care center.
The council ultimately voted to delay action on approving the center to their next meeting, but not without a lengthy discussion on the public process and merits of the project.
The proposed day care center would be in a 10,000-square-foot building designed to serve up to 160 children. Its street address would be 8133 Mansion Hill Drive in the city's Midtown Commons development, but one council member described the location as the "hole in a doughnut," with the day care center placed behind several condo buildings on both Mansion Hill Drive and Starr Grass Drive. The day care center would have no street access beyond shared driveways with the condos.
Ald. Judy Compton, who was a member of the council when the original Midtown Commons plan passed in 1999, said she remembered the unique arrangement of this particular area of the plan and that developing the green space behind the condos there should not be a surprise to residents. The plan, which sought to create Madison's first "new urban" neighborhood by planning a dense, walkable development with mixed residential and commercial uses, passed a "very tough" Plan Commission in 1999 after nearly two years of tweaks, she added.
But nearby residents, many of whom attended recent Plan Commission meetings approving the project, questioned whether a for-profit day care center fit the area's proposed civic use as well as whether it abided by new urban principles. Speakers said there's a strong likelihood that the center would need to attract clients outside the neighborhood and thus increase traffic not only in the walking-centric neighborhood, but on the far west side already burdened with traffic issues on County M and other nearby roads.
"This day care has been designed as we've been told, to serve over 160 children. There are not that many children in our neighborhood," said resident Cheryl Awtrey. "The goal of this particular day care is to draw in people from outside our neighborhood, and because of its placement, because it has to enter through residential streets, through residential driveways, it will bring traffic in, and we will not have the walkable neighborhood we want."
Peter Frautschi, a developer for Midtown Commons, said that with 800 or more residences planned for Midtown Commons, it is "feasible" that the center could primarily serve the neighborhood rather than outside residents, promoting more parents walking to drop off children. The center would also likely not serve 160 children right away, he said, and pickup and drop-off times often vary enough in day cares that traffic may not be as affected as some residents argued.
Many neighbors just outside of Midtown Commons also questioned the public process for the development, saying they were not aware of the two public meetings held by developers. Karyl Rice of WC Development, one of the main developers of the project, said the group went above and beyond to issue notices on the meetings, sending the second notice to all neighbors within 400 feet of the project -- double the city's requirement.
The council member for the project's district, Jed Sanborn, was excused from Tuesday's meeting but told the developer and other council members he supported the development. Those opposing it, however, voiced criticism of Sanborn's involvement, prompting questions from several of Sanborn's colleagues.
"I'm disappointed that the public process with the neighborhood was as poor as it sounds like it was," said Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway. "I'm frankly shocked that only 200 to 400 feet were notified. If this were my district, we would have been talking miles."
"I'll support referral," she added. "I'm really not sure what it will do because I don't hear any commitment from anyone to have another meeting with the residents, and I hear grumblings that I suspect mean that the residents haven't gotten very much of a response from their representative, which is unfortunate."
The council members who voted against referral argued that the decision on the project likely will not change with time and that delaying the project further would hurt the developer and promote Madison's reputation for being difficult to do business in.
"I wish the process had gone better and that more people had gotten involved at an earlier time, but I think something is going to be built there, and what I'm afraid is that the residents want first of all that this school not be built there and second of all that nothing be built there," said Ald. Libby Monson. "Referring this to another meeting really isn't going to make anyone any happier and really is not going to accomplish anything, but we'll lose the developer the time they need to get going on the project."
