Planning staff present Southwest and Southeast area plan updates; engagement finds transit, sidewalks and affordability as top concerns

Planning division staff updated the Madison Plan Commission on June 2 on the Southwest and Southeast area plans, reporting results from community engagement to date and laying out a timeline for draft recommendations and final adoption.

Urvashi Martin, co‑project manager for the Southwest area plan, and Rebecca Kinnear, co‑project manager for the Southeast area plan, told commissioners the two plans are being prepared concurrently under the city’s 2022 planning framework and that staff are now compiling public comments gathered from online surveys, focus groups, school‑based engagement and neighborhood pop‑ups.

Key numbers: Martin said the Southwest area contains ‘‘approximately a little over 16,000 housing units in this area and approximately 37,000 residents who live here’’ and that about 37% of residents in that area identify as BIPOC or Hispanic/Latinx. Kinnear said the Southeast area has ‘‘a little over 11,000 housing units and approximately 25,000 residents’’ and that about 26% identify as BIPOC or Hispanic/Latinx. Citywide planning staff said Madison is projected to add roughly 15,000 residents and 50,000 jobs between 2020 and 2050; staff said the area plans will propose where and how to accommodate that growth.

Engagement and methods: staff said the outreach so far includes more than 900 responses to the first survey, a ‘‘Madison Madness’’ interactive bracket that drew about 1,400 responses, ten community focus groups (five in each area) conducted with a contractor to reach BIPOC residents, neighborhood walks, pop‑ups at libraries and community events, and outreach to schools (Memorial High School and La Follette High School partnered on classroom input). Staff also contracted with community partners in the Southwest area to increase engagement in priority census tracts.

What residents told staff: both teams summarized recurring themes. Transit and sheltering at bus stops, incomplete sidewalks and unsafe crossings (especially near schools), housing affordability across income bands, job and small‑business support near Meadowood Shopping Center and along Verona Road, lack of identity and third‑place community spaces in some neighborhoods, and concerns about stormwater and park amenities all emerged frequently in feedback.

Community Action Strategy (CDBG) areas: staff said both plans include census tracts that qualify as Community Action Strategy areas (household income at or below 80% of county median). Staff said approximately $400,000 in federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding may be available to support small‑scale physical improvements such as community gardens, park amenities or artist‑led public art projects, but cautioned that funding availability and implementation paths are uncertain.

Timeline and next steps: staff said the plans are in Phase 1 (issues and opportunities). During summer and fall staff will prepare initial draft recommendations, including land‑use vision maps and conceptual 2D/3D illustrations. Late fall and winter will produce draft plan documents, and staff expect to bring plans through city board, commission and committee review and to Council for adoption in spring 2026.

Commissioners asked about sidewalks, parks staffing and the relationship between plan recommendations and CDBG funding. Kinnear and Martin said the city’s policy now generally does not charge property owners to install sidewalks (an operational policy change noted in the discussion) and that sidewalks are usually installed when streets are reconstructed; staff said they will continue to coordinate with Engineering and Parks on implementation timing. On parks, staff noted Parks Division staffing constraints and said recommendations will be coordinated so Parks can incorporate them when capacity allows.

Staff emphasized that even if CDBG funds are not available, the plan will include recommendations tailored to neighborhood needs that could be implemented through other grants, partnerships or budgeting processes.

End: Staff asked commissioners for feedback as draft recommendations are prepared and said they will return with recommended land‑use changes and more detailed implementation suggestions at a future meeting.