Acadia United

Parkwood Hills neighbors standing together

Our neighborhood deserves
safety, not shortcuts.

Acadia United is a coalition of Parkwood Hills residents committed to responsible development that protects the people who call this community home.

What We're Advocating For

A proposed development at 117 N Gammon Rd raises serious concerns which must be addressed. We are not opposed to thoughtful growth – we are opposed to development that puts our neighbors at risk.

  1. Mandatory Gammon Road Access: All primary vehicular traffic (residential and service) must be routed to Gammon Road. We believe the "Special Conditions" required to grant an Escalator Clause for increased density demand that vehicular access be restricted to Gammon Road and not routed through Acadia Court
  2. Appropriate Scale and Height: The building must include a significant 'step-down' in height (to 1 or 2 stories) on the eastern side facing existing single-family homes to mitigate the impact of the site's high elevation.
  3. Protection Against Parking Overflow: To preserve the character and safety of our local streets, the developer must provide sufficient on-site parking for all residents and guests. We request a condition that prevents residential parking overflow from turning Acadia Court, Acadia Drive and surrounding streets into a de-facto parking lot for the complex.
  4. Preservation of Neighborhood Safety: The project scale must be sized to ensure the safety of established daycare drop-off zones and school walking routes. We agree with the Planning Division’s recommendation that a smaller-scale project is necessary to maintain the safety of this residential area.

Take Action

Latest Updates

  • Apr 13, 2026
    Acadia United meeting notes with City Planner

    Three members of the Acadia United group met with Madison City Planner Tim Parks over Zoom during the first week of April. Below are notes from the meeting.

    While the news that the developers have not yet submitted a development proposal, is positive, that could change at any moment. We know that many neighbors have written letters to the Alder, City Planning, and the Mayor - thank you! We would encourage those who have not, to consider doing so.

    1. Updated on the status of any development proposals: Tim Parks indicated that his last interaction with the developers was March 2, 2026 and he and the City have heard nothing in the last four weeks. The developers had an application deadline of March 30, 2026 at noon to resubmit. Mr. Parks was not aware of any resubmission or communications of any kind. Having not heard anything, he stated that he was not certain that they are moving forward.

    2. We requested clarification on the “escalator clause:”: It is not officially called an “escalator clause.” The official term is “select conditions,” which allows an increase to LMR density from 30 units per acre and 3-stories to 70 units, 4-stories, and courtyard and large residential buildings. (In this email, the terms “escalator clause” and “select conditions” are interchangeable). These conditions were revised in 2023 as part of the West Side Plan. The comprehensive plan and earlier West Side Plan allowed for more density base only upon whether the property was on an arterial route. The new list of select conditions “expanded the boxes that should be checked.”

    The Old Sauk project was the first to use the new select conditions. There have been 3 other instances where they have been used. The first, 77 Sirloin strip, was not approved. A second on 709 Northport (a religious org) was approved for a large multi-family project. He was not sure about the third.

    “Select conditions” allow for more things to be possible in the LMR category. He suggested the Old Sauk project was the first to use these conditions. There have been 3 other instances where it’s been used. Only 77 Sirloin strip was not approved. He believed that was based in part on its topography and a more detailed Area Plan that suggested that higher intensity was not appropriate. The project at 709 Northport (a religious organization) was approved for a large multi-family project. He was not sure about the third.

    The Process: The Planning Department provides recommendations to the common council, which holds public hearings. Notices are given to neighboring properties (within 200 ft) with postcard notices. They also post a sign on public street frontage and give a Class-2 Notice in the newspaper. The Plan commission reviews and makes recommendations to the common counsel. (See MGO 28.182).

    Mr. Parks suggested we look at staff reports for Old Sauk, Sirloin Strip, and Northport Drive for guidance on the process and the considerations the City used. He explained that the Area Plans was adopted by ordinance and is the policy guidance for zoning changes. He said the City is talking about possibly moving away from the escalator clause. The SW Area Plan and SE Area Plan are already moving away from the escalator clause. But, so far only in those areas, “so it won't apply to West Side Area.”

    3. Concerns as outlined in the neighborhood petition:

    Mandatory Gammon Road Access: Mr. Parks said he doesn’t have the benefit of knowing if Acadia Court was never intended to continue? Parkwood Hills was platted in the early 1970’s and the end of Acadia Court dedicated as a half of a cul de sac in 2003 as part of the Grams CSM. He conceded that the name “Court” and the CSM suggest it would be a cul de sac. But, he also said “We anticipate we will complete Acadia Court upon the approval of any development.” He further explained the recent history, explaining that there have been conversations about this property on and off going back to 2017. They discussed reconfiguring the Grams property (end of Acadia Ct.) to allow for access on Acadia to get rid of all Gammon access. These discussions went nowhere.

    Discussion about access on Gammon went back to West Area Plan. Originally the plan called for more density, but access was a concern. Since then, “there have been changes in how we understand traffic.” The amount of traffic generated by multi-family homes is not as great as many previously believed. Traffic engineering studies (the ITE Trip generation manual) looks at uses and says there is less per unit than historically understood. Mr. Parks suggested that 117 Gammon would be safer accessed at Acadia Court. Acadia could handle the traffic of a large development. He recognized that was met with a “public thud” at the meeting with the Mayor. Nevertheless, “Acadia Court was thought to be a safer access point.”

    Scale and Height: That is something that will factor into the Block and Lot, Natural features, and topography considerations of the escalator clause. Topography was not present on Old Sauk. It was a significant factor for Sirloin Strip, which had steeper topography that our project. He also reminded us that there is more than just a zoning map change needed. They also need a conditional use, and those standards are even stricter.

    Parking: We asked about the effect of parking on Acadia, since Gammon will not allow for any spillover parking. He said, at the risk of being blunt, parking is for the public – Acadia is a public street. He suggested that parking is not a concern for the City. “The market will look to see if enough parking is provided for in the loan vetting process – that is the primary driver.” In other words, if the mortgage lender approves parking, the City will go along with it. The last plan included over 1-1 parking. He suggested there are declining needs for parking, saying “we hear differing things on parking needs, based on “mode shift” and other transportation needs.” He explained that community and city expectations for parking have changed substantially over the years. Parking wasn’t even required decades ago in downtown. The mindset for parking has changed recently.

    Traffic Safety Traffic safety is still very much a concern. But it is often addressed after approvals or even after project completion. They look upfront at design issues for visibility to drives, turn lanes, signalizing intersections, and obvious safety issues. Then, they do things after project approved or construction to fix what they find. There are things we might foresee and some we don’t. Traffic can be a wait and see how things play out. Eventually turn Gammon into a “TWITL” Travel with center left turn lane.

  • Mar 23, 2026
    117 Gammon Rd development shares parking/traffic concerns with the Old Sauk development.

    We are sharing an email written by Mike Green, an old Sauk Rd resident, and sent to our Alder John Guequierre in regard to the traffic and parking issues around the Old Sauk apartment development. Mike kindly forwarded his email as we share the same concerns and with his permission we are sharing it so you can see the reality of some of the immediate and long term issues related to the possible development being proposed for 117 Gammon Rd.

    One of our concerns with the new development is overflow parking that will very likely happen on Acadia Ct, Acadia Dr and Colony drive. Residents along Old Sauk and neighboring Parkwood Hills streets are already dealing with construction vehicles blocking mailboxes on a daily basis; low visibility for cars exiting our neighborhood onto old Sauk and additional traffic and parking. These issues will very likely continue after construction with resident cars parking along these roads.

    If you haven't already written to our city officials, we hope after reading Mike's email message below you are inspired to write to the city Planning Commission at pccomments@cityofmadison.com, our Alder John Guequierre at district19@cityofmadison.com and Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway at mayor@cityofmadison.com

    Good morning, Alder Guequierre

    Short Term, Immediate Problem

    We have curbside mail delivery by USPS motorized carrier. That carrier cannot/will not get out of the delivery vehicle to deliver mail. The south side of the 6700 and 6600 blocks of Old Sauk Road are lined with construction vehicles during the work week from roughly 7:00 to 15:30 including, frequently, in front of our mailbox (see attachment). Side roads are also parked up as well.

    On average, our USPS delivery is between 13:30 and 15:30 and the carrier cannot drive up to, and deliver, our mail during the workweek when there is a parked vehicle in front of the mailbox. Hence, we may only get mail after 15:30 during the workweek and/or on Saturday. For example, we have not gotten mail for 3 days now due to a car being too close to our mailbox.

    Speaking with the development foreman/manager (who has been polite and responsive to our concerns) has not solved the problem despite whatever remedies he may have tried.

    Questions:

    • Is there any Municipal ordinance that prevents parking so close to a curbside/”rural” mailbox that prevents the USPS from making deliveries?
    • Can such an ordinance be passed if not already in existence? OR Could/should curbs be painted yellow within +/- (roughly) 10 feet (enough to allow a delivery truck to easily swoop in and out) of a curbside mailbox?

    Long Term Problem

    To say the obvious: Neighboring residents have a very real concern as to the possible/likely, future “overflow” parking by residents of the new development.

    Do the math:

    An AI search “What is the average number of cars per dwelling unit in suburban Madison?” suggests “approximately 2 cars per household”. From available information (ca 31 January 2025) there will be:

    • 172 parking stalls available onsite
    • 147 underground (142 standard + 5 ADA)
    • 25 surface (23 standard + 2 ADA)
    • 144 dwelling units

    That suggests the possible/likely overflow of (2x144 – 172) 116 vehicles @ 2 vehicles/DU. Breakeven would be 1.19 (172/144) vehicles/DU. There is also the possibility that onsite parking is additionally charged by the development’s landlord which could lead some tenants to park on-street.

    So there is not just an immediate parking problem (for mail delivery to curbside mailboxes) but the well-known possible/likely long term parking problem as well.

    Please refresh my memory: What is the long term solution to any possible/likely on-street parking? Will there be postings for no overnight parking? Parking by permit only? Parking limited to 2 hours? Unfortunately, any such solutions become new limitations for existing residents.

  • Mar 23, 2026
    Petition Delivered to City Officials

    On March 23, 2026 we delivered to the Plan Commission, our Alder John Guequierre and Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway a petition signed by 177 residents of our neighborhood asking the city to uphold the conditions as outlined in the petition. A huge thank you to all who voiced their opinion for a development that better meets the needs of our community.

  • Mar 10, 2026
    Update on Meeting and Petition Drive

    Approximately 100 people showed up! The positives included the Alder and Mayor's commitments, concessions, or promises that:

    • They will oppose traffic onto Acadia
    • They will oppose the size of the project
    • They think the escalator clause is flawed, wrong, and should not be used and is purely subjective (this gives us potential legal arguments).

    The other positives were the obvious emotions in the room, the incredible turn out, and the near universal opposition to traffic on Acadia and support for a reasonable and appropriate development.

    The Mayor and Alder opened by conceding to and agreeing with most of our objections up front. Although that is promising, neither the Mayor nor the alder make the final decision and we have no real information on what the planning department is thinking or saying. Acadia access could still be on the table and a large project is certainly still in the works. This is the time to keep pushing for reasonable and appropriate limitations on development on Gammon.

    Next steps for you to take:

    1. Sign the petition we passed around last night, if we missed you or you were not able to attend the meeting. The following times are set aside for you to stop by Ann's house at 209 Acadia: Thursday 4:00–7pm and Saturday 10–12. If these times don't work, please contact her and set up another time: aewilson235@gmail.com.
    2. Email the Alder and City Planning with focused, well-reasoned concerns: pccomments@cityofmadison.com and district19@cityofmadison.com. See our website for more content and contact information: acadiaunited.org
    3. Email the Mayor and reference her invitation to email her and make specific points about the promises in the meeting. We should focus on the positives and thank her for taking the time to listen, explain, and make time to hear our concerns. Her email is mayor@cityofmadison.com. Email topics might include:
      • I was encouraged by your commitment to not allow traffic onto Acadia and to assure the project is reasonable size. Please note that this won't alleviate overflow parking for those not wanting to pay for parking on site or visitors using Acadia as a parking lot. Traffic and safety concerns will still be an issue.
      • I agree with you that the “escalator clause” should be abolished and should not be used for this project.
      • Your goals of increasing affordable home ownership will make the city better. Adding high priced rentals does not work towards that goal and likely creates fewer ownership opportunities.
      • Thank you for listening to us and supporting our community.

    And, thank you all for your support in helping to shape a better alternative for our community. Someone asked me how many people are on this email — we are 104 strong and counting!!