A lot of reactions to the proposed development are based on what we don’t want. Jeff Grundahl has responded to the most recent round of feedback (with over 200 attendees and dozens of pages of public comments submitted before the meeting) with a new proposal with only three stories. Which is a dramatic improvement! But there are still issues, and I’m now sitting in on a Preserve Historic Mount Horeb meeting and the aim is to be productive rather than just objecting to ideas as presented.
What would be nice in the development is:
accessible businesses (the buildings there, while historic, are not accessible to everyone)
increased traffic safety (the new plan dramatically improves it, even if it requires re-routing traffic, which shouldn’t be a given, but the corner of Main St and Third is also where children as young as 9 make their way alone to the pool in the summer)
bike parking (the newest proposal has 15 spaces, which is better than the 10 of the last round, but we’re aiming to be a bike friendly city and that means having it for businesses as well as residents). Wisconsin Bike Fed recommends a parking spot per unit, which would be at least 44 spaces at the new scale
green space (a rooftop garden in the u-shape of the proposed apartments would be a bare minimum, but a smaller building footprint would allow for more of it and prettier. Hell, the Mound Vue Garden Club could probably be persuaded to maintain a garden spot)
a parking ratio that’s more generous (the latest proposal is 1.2, which now technically meets code but is inadequate – I don’t think we need more retail space at the sacrifice of parking) and doesn’t have the stacked parking nonsense. Possibly also EV charging parking? I still don’t drive, but it’s an important topic that is being discussed in the meeting
sufficient setback for people backing into the alley from their driveways to have acceptable clearance from walls, for people to walk down the alley and safely pass a car – either outdoor parking or a courtyard to form more of a community space would address that
making the building look like multiple buildings, which was present in some previous iterations. Scaling up the differences with more architectural differentiation would be lovely
Having community space and green space was discussed generally as a huge positive, something that would have charm and draw people in to both the shops and Mount Horeb generally. References were made to the development in Middleton where the central green space can be rented out, providing a potential additional revenue stream. A smaller footprint overall, with setbacks and green space and maybe splitting it into actually distinct buildings are sentiments that are being raised repeatedly. The Historium is a great example of creatively splitting up spaces and facades to make a less overwhelmingly large building.
A few members also overwhelmingly prefer two stories, but that sentiment isn’t unanimous, and I actually think three stories is pretty much perfect, especially as compared to the initial proposal.
Discussing the pipe dream of if we were imagining a development from scratch to fulfill the requirements of providing new commercial apartments, the number of apartments that the group came up with was between 10 and 24. Which is a very different idea of appropriate scale. But these are the things that would be nice in a development on Main Street. We want something that continues to look nice and contributes to the picturesque nature of Mount Horeb.
But it’s getting another hearing at the Planning Commission meeting next Wednesday. The Agenda Packet is 260 pages.
The new revised plan is much prettier than the original. The facades will be pleasant to look at from street level and blend well with downtown Mount Horeb. The remaining problems are best summed up by the grassroots campaign against it: it’s simply too big.
But there are important and identifiable components to this: lack of green space, height, and lack of parking.
The lack of green space I addressed in my last open letter as contributing to possible heat islands. It also makes the city less overtly conforming along Main Street with the Tree City USA signs around town. I mean by that both that it will detract from the overall charm that draws tourists and also detract from the perception of values espoused in Mount Horeb, which attracts tourists and shoppers overall. Including a patio for residents is an improvement over complete lack of outdoor space, but is still not green space.
Height is the sticky place: the architects have significantly redesigned, which is fantastic, so there is no longer the horrifying prominence that would dominate downtown. But it’s still too tall. It’s like the Duluth building built by the same developers: on a scale that is aggressively alien to the rest of Mount Horeb. The scale JG Development thinks is appropriate for Mount Horeb does not appear to align with the scale anyone else thinks is appropriate.
Then there is the parking. Everyone is sick of the parking. I don’t even drive. I’m so sick of the parking conversation. I’m also now on the village Green Team, one of the goals of which is more bike friendliness and helping the village be more friendly to a car-free existence. So, to be clear: I am writing my concerns about the parking as a non-driver who will be able to walk to these businesses.
But it’s 68 parking spots for 63 units plus the businesses. That’s 1.08 parking spots per unit. In densely urban areas, that could be not just adequate but generous for business parking. Imagine someone living upstairs from their workplace, or working somewhere else on Main Street. They wouldn’t need a car and would be able to walk everywhere and eat at our great restaurants. And that’s the thing: they’d pretty much always be eating out because grocery shopping by bike mostly sucks, even with as close as Miller’s is to downtown. Nic’s letter in the agenda includes some really relevant wording: the idea of a captive customer base. Because that’s what they’d be. The urban areas where parking ratios like this are generous are not picturesque village downtowns: they’re dense metro areas that have things Mount Horeb simply doesn’t, like public transit and a wide range of delivery options. The concept presented is that tenant parking will be in-building, but the math ain’t mathing.
Which is the colloquial way of saying: the code that the developers themselves quote in their letter requires:
A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided for each bedroom within a commercial apartment.
So, even if we’re not counting studios as having bedrooms, because it’s all one room, leaves us with 13 2 bedroom units and 38 1 bedroom units, for a total of 64 required parking spots. Wow, with that math, their proposed 68 spots actually looks generous.
But the current code minimum is per bedroom with an unwritten addendum of “this is a nice village, so be reasonable,” which gives us 12 studio apartments, 13 2 bedroom apartments, and 38 one bedroom apartments, for 76 minimum parking spaces and a ratio of 1.21. The proposal is for a ratio of 1.08.
Additionally, their letter frames it in a table as dwelling units, when the code is specifically for bedrooms, and the dishonesty is distinctly frustrating. At least they acknowledge later that the reasonable number of parking spaces for their proposed building, if it were anywhere but the downtown area, would be 139. That’s a ratio of 2.21.
And the parking survey addressed non-event days. Which is reasonable except for how hard everyone works on having those event days and attracting people. We invite any out-of-town guests to park in our driveway in the expectation that there will be no parking anywhere else a convenient walking distance from downtown. This could be resolved, potentially, by building a parking garage across the street from the proposed development in the empty lot already owned by JG, which could potentially have an attractive local mural added to the outside, addressing multiple problems at once. Or they could just have fewer units, which would solve more problems.
10 bike parking spaces also seems like a low number when so much is reliant on the ability to attract bike and foot traffic. In fact, if this development were in Madison, 85 bike parking spots would be required. Which is definitely a gap between the proposal and the ideals and development plan the proposal is supposed to conform to.
There are additional issues with the way their letter is presented, such as ignoring the complexities of historical designation – my own house is a 1905 traditional Queen Anne style, with colors appropriate to the Painted Lady style of Victorians popular on the West Coast and several original features including many of the windows visible from the Military Ridge Trail. But it doesn’t have a historical designation because it has undergone many renovations, it has newer features like an addition from 1923 and central air and, most crucially, we have not filed for nor requested any kind of historical designation.
But the other issues with the proposal are, of course, secondary to the main problem of the proposed development is, despite being much prettier, still inappropriate for Mount Horeb.
On Wednesday, our village plan commission had a meeting on, amongst other things, a proposed concept for a new development on Main Street. In advance of the meeting, someone posting one of the design photos on the community Facebook pages, which resulted in not just many comments on the posts but a really tremendous turnout to the meeting itself. I haven’t been attending many of them, even though our municipal building is close and I’m subscribed to their calendar, but this got me to walk over to say my three minutes of comments and also hear out their whole proposal. After, I felt moved to then email the village administrator, who hadn’t been able to attend the meeting. I wanted to then post it in one of the Facebook groups, partly because I think sometimes people don’t have the vocabulary to articulate why they don’t like something about a building, and that’s something I’ve been able to learn something about between a grad class in historic preservation and a crippling HGTV addiction. Anyway! It wasn’t posted in the group and now I’m suspended from posting or commenting in that group for a week. Maxim of charity says that it really was quite a wall of text.
Dear [Administrator],
At the end of the planning meeting on Tuesday, attendees were encouraged to email you with further thoughts on the JG Development concept proposal. I have many thoughts! To preface: I think infill construction in that part of Main Street is a fabulous idea. As the owner of Sugar River Yarns mentioned, accessible retail space there would be not just a general step in the right direction but a specific boon to businesses with client bases with more diverse mobility needs. A Witches Night Out where more attendees can go into every single business would be delightful. Additionally, while I love the trees and shrubs on that lot, it would also be a welcome sight to see more interesting buildings and shops as I come along main street; more of a hint that Main Street is continuous rather than so thoroughly interrupted. Mixed use development such as commercial apartments are an ideal arrangement. In sum: I do not oppose progress generally, and am even in favor of development on those lots specifically. But I think the JG Development concept proposal so thoroughly missed the brief as to make continued work with them a potential waste of everyone’s time.
The things they did well, to give them their due: making it look like multiple different buildings built next to each other is an excellent nod to the composition of the 100 block of East Main Street and the included parking seems nearly sufficient for the majority of the building’s inhabitants at 69 stalls for 66 proposed units.
Still, that leaves the rest of the concept. First, JG Development’s concept is four stories, where the limit is three. Even measuring against the Opera House, it is 7 feet too tall. Included please find a picture I took yesterday as I approached the Farmer’s Market. The visuals included in the concept documents do not include context, but imagining a four story building rising from the trees and green, hulking over Sjolinds and dwarfing the Chamber of Commerce building, is frankly horrifying. The proposed prominence is a rudeness.
And that leads neatly to the architecture of the building itself. In their own words (on page 3 of their Letter of Intent), “The goal of the development aesthetic is to compliment the historic Main Street appeal of Mount Horeb, albeit most small towns anywhere.” While it is perhaps overly pedantic to point out that compliment is not the word they meant, the error seems to reflect a deeper truth: that any nods to the appeal of Mount Horeb are lip service and not reflected in substance. And, of course, there is the more obvious slight acknowledging that the developers do not see anything distinctive or worth preserving, furthering, or contributing to in Mount Horeb, anything that could not be found in “most small towns anywhere.”
That goes some way towards explaining why the entire building is thoroughly modern vernacular architecture and any design inspiration seems to have taken form as awkward applique rather than any true homage or harmony. There is nothing inherently wrong with modern vernacular architecture – obviously, or it would not be so widespread – but it is wildly incongruous with downtown Mount Horeb. We have several styles of architecture downtown, but they are notable and distinct styles, none of which include the pilasters in one segment of the proposed building. We have Norwegian architecture, with the focus on natural elements, clean lines, and pitched roofs, as evidenced in the Chamber of Commerce and Skal buildings. The Opera House as well as many other buildings in town are Queen Anne or at least influenced by it, with turrets and multiple styles of siding. A note: turrets are very different from whatever the proposed detail on the fourth floor of the JG concept is. Other buildings on Main Street are also designated as commercial vernacular, but they were vernacular at an earlier period influenced by, amongst other things, Edwardian architectural concepts of symmetry, simplicity of embellishment, and focus on green space. JG Development’s concept seems to have taken the form of reading that other buildings were also vernacular commercial architecture and then proceeding with disregard verging on disdain for the history and fact of that existing architecture. Some herringbone brick inlaid in the facade of the proposed building is like slapping a bumper sticker on a car and declaring that it changes the make. Mount Horeb also has its own distinct style in the Queen Anne buildings with Norwegian rosemaling decor, such as Open House Imports and houses on Main Street. The design reflects none of these things.
Speaking of green space, the proposed development has none. This is not merely an aesthetic concern but one of the livability and walkability of Main Street. Given the humidity of the Midwest in summer, we are already prone to heat islands. The greenery on those two lots right now provides areas of high albedo and better air flow to reduce the buildup of heat. A walk down Main Street at noon demonstrates this effect as well as any citations of the science would: the north side is frequently cooler than the south side along that block despite the lack of shade. A zero lot line building with no greenery or awnings would negate that. Additionally, there is no proposed green space anywhere on the complex, neither rooftop gardens nor any sort of additional trees. While there are trees on the sidewalk that would not be destroyed during the construction, it would still be an overall decrease in greenery. The proposed U-shape of the apartments above additionally will look down on blank concrete above the parking lot. That sounds both deeply unappealing to residents as well as a lost opportunity to include greenery. The greenery would also reduce noise pollution from the inevitable HVAC requirements of new construction for so many new residents.
[Village Treasurer] brought up in the meeting, almost jokingly, the concept of turning the U around so the blank space was at the front, and having greenery there. That would be a possible viable option – as would two stories straight up and then a recessed U facing south, with green space on the roof.
If there is concern on JG Development’s part about having that additional weight above the parking structure, I suggest they can look no farther than Epic in Verona, where JP Cullen constructed an 11,000 person auditorium with no internal columns. If they can do that, JG Development can surely put the bulk of their apartments above parking.
A final aspect is their insistence on a lobby that takes up fully half of the first floor, which is supposed to be, per the brief, commercial space. A lobby is not commercial space. On a functional level, my company’s office lobby in Washington, DC is a hallway with a security guard and an elevator. When I was last there in November, it also had a Christmas tree. No one was confused on how to find their way to the office. Moving their lobby to the second floor, I suggest, would not prevent people from finding it. Additionally, they propose to include resident amenities in that space. At this point, I must apologize, because I fear my uncontrollable scoff at this point may have been caught on the meeting recording. JG Development proposed that their oversized and out of brief lobby include the building workout facility for residents, as if this would be an attractive amenity. Even fitness influencers, who are professionally exhibitionist with their workouts, prefer to be able to control the lighting and angles of their displays. Working out visible to all pedestrian traffic passing on Main Street seems like spectacular shortsightedness about the actual needs of residents in addition to taking away from potential actual commercial space. There are three proposed commercial spaces, and they mentioned offering first pick to existing businesses. Given that there are four businesses in the existing spaces, that is obviously insufficient. The entire concept of the lobby space seems poorly conceived as well as counter to the spirit of the development as commercial apartments.
This difficulty with the concept does seem to reflect that JG Development does not seem to be experienced in mixed use development, with their divisions doing commercial and residential renovation and construction so separated as to operate under wholly separate names.
In summary, JG Development’s intransigence over the massive lobby and four stories suggest they are a poor fit for this project. But assuming their requests for more information as to what they could improve were genuine, I hope some of this feedback at least is congruent with the opinions of the planning committee.
Best,
Eileen Young
View approaching the Farmers Market. Nothing really stands out except the water tower and American flag. The proposed building would block the view of the water tower completely.
I used separators rather than the quote format because it is such a huge swathe of text to read. Other concerns that I didn’t end up including in the letter:
How the small businesses in the current buildings would be able to survive the construction time (though I did bring it up during my comments)
Whether now is a good time to do this given uncertainty about federal tax credits and the economy generally
Whether there are any attempts to make it energy efficient or ‘green’ – this one I think is more a personal than general concern, though I don’t think anyone likes excess strain on the electrical grid when our utility workers are already heroes who go out in severe thunderstorms. I think development should think about the future, that progress should be progressive, and that low carbon footprint energy efficient buildings save on heating and cooling bills and are also cool and attractive places to live that would appeal to more potential tenants
But those, I think, are more about any specific plan, and I wanted to focus on the concept overall. As you can read, I still had a lot to say about that.
This is posted here as a durable record, and as a thing I can link in village Facebook groups and hopefully not exceed post length requirements. If you are not in Mount Horeb, please do not contact any of our village board. Get involved in your own planning process. Make your opinions known and try to argue for the community you live in to continue to be the kind of place you moved to on purpose.
Eileen Young 