This Side of Town . . .: Downtown

Showing posts with label Downtown. Show all posts

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Where is the Win-Win on the Edgewater (Or How Developers Make it Hard on Themselves)

The win-win, is on East Washington.

A week or two ago, a neighbor posed this question on a listserve.

I know most are getting sick about the Edgewater discussion. Everyone on this list is well aware of the condition of the commerce on East Washington -- or lack thereof. We have a newly abandoned Madison Dairy, a vacant Mautz paint factory, an almost vacant Marquip factory, Don Miller is almost completely gone, and we have a huge abandoned Union Corners development. Some influential people in this city are bending over backwards to give $16 million to a luxury hotel that will charge $300/night that none of us will ever stay in. No serious amount of long term jobs. The developer refuses to build to the standards of which the property sits, so let's wake up and kill this project now while we have a chance, and divert this money to a stimulus package to invite real jobs to town. Let's invite proposals for all these decaying properties and long lost jobs so that we can once again be proud to bring visitors up East Washington Avenue. I would bet the mayor never brings guests up East Washington -- and it is a shame that the gateway to our city is falling apart.

This is a shameful hour for our city.

Michael Donnelly makes the same point.

If you think about it, East Washington has plenty of development potential. It has neighborhood support for development (TLNA, BUILD, others), tall (max 12 - 15 story buildings) and dense development. No shoreline zoning and waterfront development issues. It's not in a historic district. It is in a TIF district. There's no 1965 ordinance or problems with building in a city owned right of way. It's ripe for the picking. Had they chosen to develop there, they wouldn't have had all this opposition. (A full list of the Edgewater obstacles here.)

You see, developers can make it easy on themselves or they can do things the hard way. I mean, I'm sure a developer as sophisticated as Hammes Company looked into and explored all the issues they would have to face and still made the decision to move forward. I'm not sure how they ever planned to get through all the issues they had to get through, but they had to have known the challenge it would be.

And when they do things the hard way, I don't really think its fair to complain about a "broken process". See, the rules are there to provide predictability to the developers, something most say they value. Those who know the rules, saw this showdown coming over the landmarks ordinance (not to mention the Zoning Board of Appeals issue.)

Of course, equally challenging, is the Apex proposal. Move a Frank Lloyd Wright Landmark House? Or build on a parking ramp which may or may not be possible? Let me say again, East Washington, East Washington, East Washington. That is where we want the development. I don't know how much more clear we could be - plans and a TIF district are in place. I don't understand why developers take on projects that seem to be going no where when there are other opportunities (with support from neighborhoods) that are wide open.

Say it with me "EAST WASHINGTON!" Read more!

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Hey! It's a Snow Day! Round Up

Eh, I slept in, went to Bizzardoke at the High Noon last night. Now I can't decide if its worth it to get my car out of the ramp, the streets don't really look all that plowed. I was kind of hoping for a plowed spot to move into before tonight. Problem is that if they're not plowed the spots will start filling in as people move their cars for tonight making it hard for the plows, resulting in moving all our cars for no reason at all. Seems silly to shovel to get your car into a spot, so you can shovel to get it back out. Plus, it's a delicate balance of how long to wait . . . and how long everyone else will wait . . . or should I just leave it there . . . uh, yeah, that's an idea. Luckily, I can afford it.

HEY, IT'S SNOWING - EVERYTHING IS CLOSED
I don't understand why the city was sooooooo slow to respond, this one was easy see coming, but they didn't declare a snow emergency for the city until around 5:00. They cancelled the council meeting just three hours before the meeting. They waited til the end of the day to determine that they would be closed the next day, giving city employees little time to prepare for being closed and cancel all the meetings for the next day. They waited til this morning to end Madison Metro service, and if you read the Mayor's blog, apparently the only way Mayor Dave Cieslewicz he could figure it out was by consulting a meteorologist Council member and having the governor tell them what to do, apparently there was no other way to find out how bad the weather was going to be. (If you want more snow links, look here.) Whenever I see him blowing smoke up someone's ass like that, he wants something . . . hmmmmmm . . . .what's going on that the Mayor might be interested in . . . . hmmmmmmmmm . . . . luckily, I think Chris Schmidt has more sense than that and won't let a little recognition sway his vote.

HEY, IT'S SNOWING - SO WE STILL HAVE TO TALK/HEAR ABOUT THE EDGEWATER
Bummer, eh. I think just about everyone from the developer to the alders to the public just wanted this to be over. But, no, we have another week! Sigh . . . so a whole new calculation of where the votes are. Apparently Judy Compton is gone. And Thuy Pham-Remmele might still be out due to the death in her family.

HEY, SOMETHING BESIDES THE SNOW
Where should I start . . . .

TAMBOURINE MAN
My co-worker told me yesterday that she had an idea about the little green box the panhandlers had to stand in. When she was walking down State Street the other day, there was a guitar player playing a few feet from the green box, right in front of the ATM and that was apparently legal so . . . you can see it coming, can't you . . . she was wondering if, well, I'll let her put it in her own (Facebook) words:

[Insert probably not so anonymous co-worker's name here] has a solution for the "corralled" panhandlers by peace park: casio keyboards. i noticed some sidewalk musicians a mere 8 feet or so from the new subway atm, playing music with their cases open... a nice keyboard beat with a preset or perhaps a tambourine...? you can stand anywhere...

Rock over Madison! (Of course, next musicians will be banned as well. They're just so noisy and bothersome to the shoppers with the kids eating their ice cream and holding their balloons.)

DENNIS DENURE IS RUNNING FOR . . .
Well, county board election seasons is coming up, so Dennis Denure is running!

IT'S ROUGH OUT THERE
Churches are feeling the crunch. Need is high, resources are low, stimulus money going out quickly.

GO RAINBOW!
20 years! And a questionable future. We live in interesting times.

You know, without the pressure of having to leave for work, it takes a whole lot longer for me to blog . . . and I didn't even have much . . .
Read more!

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

It's About Integrity

David and Leigh Mollenhoff's advice to council members . . .

In an email entitled "Tell 'em to vote 'no" then sent this note:

Dear Alders,

My wife and I were privileged to serve on the Madison Landmarks Commission for a combined total of 16 years. During that time the original ordinance was passed and the Mansion Hill Historic District was established. This experience and our keen interest in the ordinance since we "retired," prompted us to write you a very brief one-page memo. We felt it was a needed response to the WSJ editorial last Sunday. We hope you find it helpful.

Thank you,
David and Leigh Mollenhoff

With this attachment:

Date: December 8, 2009
To: All Alders
From: Leigh Mollenhoff, 1501 Morrison Street (Landmarks Commission, 1970-1978)
David Mollenhoff, 1501 Morrison Street (Landmarks Commission, 1980-1987)
Subject: Edgewater Vote Must Be Based On City Ordinances

Remarkable, isn’t it, that some Madisonians must be reminded to observe the rule of law. That’s a favorite term of Western leaders when they lecture Third World governments on the benefits of civil society. Alas, such a lecture is necessary for the Edgewater Hotel project. The Wisconsin State Journal, in a banner headline atop a full-page Sunday editorial, urges citizens to rise up and call undecided alders. “Tell ‘em to vote ‘yes,” it screamed.

There is one serious problem with that exhortation: The Common Council today like the Landmarks Commission on November 30, must follow the rule of law embodied in the landmarks ordinance [Chapter 33.19 MGO]. And when a developer appeals a commission decision, the ordinance clearly says the council must base its findings “on the standards contained in the ordinance.” (Italics added.) All city council members and the mayor have taken an oath to uphold all ordinances.

So what’s the problem? Even the lowered hotel tower (the revised plan) can’t come close to passing standards established by the 1976 Mansion Hill Historic District ordinance. Nor does it have the right stuff to get a variance. Words and their dictionary meanings matter. At least they have until now. Much as project proponents would like to make the landmarks ordinance disappear, the Common Council can’t do this, certainly not with its integrity intact.

We find it surprising that such a sophisticated developer (with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and eleven other large American cities) could read our landmarks ordinance and think that such a huge tower could somehow be exempt from the rules that everyone else has to follow. We find it even more astounding that this developer proposed in his original plan to build a tower in the street right-of-way—Wisconsin Avenue—something specifically forbidden by the 1965 street vacation ordinance.

So what choices does the Council have? Really, they are starkly simple? It can follow the criteria and standards clearly set forth by the ordinance and uphold the commissioners’ decision. Or it can concoct new definitions and reach conclusions wildly inconsistent with the ordinance. The “positive” Council vote sought by the Journal and others can only be achieved by getting a super majority of alders to flout the law.

Read more!

Are You Sick of This Yet Round Up

I am. I really want the final vote to be tonight (as long as it is safe for everyone involved) and I really hope no one reconsiders. Of course, if the appeals passes, it will be back for several more votes. (Um, I'm talking about the Edgewater in case you've been living under a rock.) I'll try my best to talk about something besides the Edgewater, but it'll be tough . . . .

A BLOGGER'S DILEMNA
Important things first. At first, I had to be at a WYOU meeting to discuss next years budget, but that has been cancelled. So now, I have to decide, do I join Dusty et al at Amy's Cafe for the drinking game, or bingo (thank you for the "Bruer calls a female Council member by her first name"), or do I show up and see all the good stuff you don't see on camera? Truthfully, I think the drinking game would result in no blog in the morning, it looks pretty harsh, especially the council break - that could be brutal. I'm torn. Dusty's party sounds like more fun.

MUSICAL CHAIRS
So, originally it was reported that Palm and Schumacher would be gone. Yesterday, the council members were informed of the following:

Due to a death in her family, Ald. Thuy Pham-Remmele will be absent from the city starting today, Monday, December 7 until further notice. (Please note that this absence will be updated as needed).

Ald. Pham-Remmele will not be in attendance at the Tuesday, December 8, 2009 Common Council meeting.

My condolences to Pham-Remmele and her husband.

I was also informed the following:

However, it is confirmed that Michael S. is returning to town to vote.

I suppose it is all very unpredictable given the snow, so we'll have to see who really shows up.

SPEAKING OF SNOW
Why is Tim Bruer so eager to make sure the meeting is not cancelled tonight? He must not have gotten a good response to this. I'm sure it is all about manipulating the vote.

NOT MUCH FAITH IN THE COUNCIL
Wow, what does it say that the new poll on my blog is running 75 - 80 against the council actually following the law? Is it my readers, or the small percentage of them that actually voted? Or does the public really have that little faith in the council?

SLOPPY COUNCIL SUPPORT
Yesterday the council members received a list summarizing the emails that went to allalders@cityofmadison.com. It is skewed significantly in support of the project. However, a quick review shows:
- Some were listed in support AND in opposition.
- Some people against are listed as being in support.
- The emails came from all over including Stewsbury, MA, Cedar Rapids, IA, Sauk Creek, Middleton, Fitchburg, Verona, Monona, Waunakee and Spring Green.
- Many are listed with their businesses (some with more than one person from teh same company) including Building and Construction Traces, Epic Life Insurance, Madison's, Building Trades, Hausman-Johnson Insurance, Chamber of Commerce, Alphagraphics, Professor of Zoology, Williams St. Art Center, Lindsay Stone & Briggs, Kelly Financial, Zebradog, Boardman Law Firm, Mansion Hill Inn, TDS Custom Construction, Mad City Style LLC, H&H Industries, WhoopDeDoo Productions, World Council of Credit Unions, HDR ONE Company, Badger Popcorn and the Edgewater.
- 25% did not indicate where they were from.
- Many listed with Madison addresses had a suite number attached to their address, indicating it was their work address not home address.
- Some who had testified on behalf of their businesses, didn't have their businesses attached. (I'm thinking of Downtown Hotels)

Do you really think the Zoology Department meant to weigh in on the project? It's kind of a bummer cuz it makes all that public input somewhat suspect and I'm not sure what it means. Were all those businesses in support, or just people using their work emails? It makes me want to disregard the document because its so sloppily done and seemingly inaccurate, but I can't because 235 people took the time to send in their opinion. Oh well, if you want your voice counted, email allalders@cityofmadison.com and hope they read the email, not just the summary.

VERVEER, "FED UP"
I don't know why, but it makes me giggle when Verveer actually gets mad. He's so even keeled so often - too often. Which is what makes his statements to the Isthmus interesting, he's too nice to say anything too critical. I think everyone knows that behind the scenes meetings happen, I don't think they know to what extent, which is likely what has Verveer talking. But there's something else here, that I pointed out on thedailypage forum, that is problematic. At what point, will the pursuit of getting this project passed cross the line for you. For some, its the TIF, for others it is the landmarks ordinance, but bring in the enviros, because if Verveer is right, their going after the Shorline Preservation Ordinance next:

Verveer says that besides anticipating the need to override the Landmarks Commission, the strategy team has focused on "having the Zoning Board of Appeals taken out of the equation" because the board was seen as a "danger" to the project.

"It's a 100% citizen body, no elected officials on the body, and their decisions are appealable only to a circuit court," says Verveer. "If Hammes wanted to prevail over an unfavorable ZBA ruling they would have to go to court, which would be difficult to overturn, generally, given past precedent."

Under current city rules, the Zoning Board of Appeals must issue a variance to allow Hammes to build so close to the water. The board has not yet acted and Hammes has not yet provided it with materials or measurements. Verveer says this is because there's talk about avoiding the board entirely by amending the shoreline preservation ordinance to exempt commercial buildings.

Says Verveer, "So all the way along, behind closed doors they have talked about how to get around the ZBA."

Regarding the comments that follow the article, if you want to look at campaign finance reports, you probably should be looking for all the conduit and business contributions here (and here and here). And if you want to know how Verveer knows, well . . . people talk. Too much. Too often. And nothing is a secret if you keep your eyes and ears open.

MORE SLOPPY STAFF WORK - "OWNER"
Ok, I really, really, really tried to find an answer to this one that would make some sense, and I couldn't. I asked another attorney who is relatively knowledgable in the way of the city and development process and their response was even more cynical than mine. Anyways, here's the question. Who is the owner for purposes of this language:

. . . After a public hearing, the Council may, by favorable vote of two-thirds (2/3) of its members, based on the standards contained in this ordinance, reverse or modify the decision of the Landmarks Commission if, after balancing the interest of the public in preserving the subject property and the interest of the owner in using it for his or her own purposes, the Council finds that, owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property, failure to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness will preclude any and all reasonable use of the property and/or will cause serious hardship for the owner, provided that any self-created hardship shall not be a basis for reversal or modification of the Landmark Commission’s decision.

A second question that was posed was did Hammes have standing to file the appeal. I think they did, because in that case, the language says:

An appeal from the decision of the Landmarks Commission to grant or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness under Subsection (5)(b) and (c) may be taken to the Common Council by the applicant for the permit.

The fact that they use two different terms "applicant for the permit" and "owner" indicates to me that they didn't intend for the "owner" to be loosely construed to mean the "applicant", but that isn't what Michael May emailed to the alders:

Folks:
I’ve received several emails concerned about the use of the word “owner” in the appeal section of the ordinances discussed in my recent memorandum. (Actually, the ordinance sometimes uses “applicant” and other times uses “owner.”)

The Hammes Co. has pursued the required certificate. My understanding is that they have an option or agreement to purchase the property, which is a sufficient property interest to pursue those approvals and the appeal before you tomorrow night. For purposes of applying the ordinance, you should consider Hammes Co. as the “owner.”

I'm not buying it. It's a rather loose interpretation with no back up and I searched and I couldn't find anything that would justify this conclusion. While I agree that they have sufficient property interest to pursue the approvals and appeal, I can't see how they are the "owner" for the balancing test. I can't tell if the city attorney didn't see it as two different questions, or if he didn't realize the distinction - or if the cynical response is the right answer.

SOMETHING BESIDES THE EDGEWATER
This one includes WYOU, Campaign Finance and Labor getting taken advantage of by big business. Check out how much money went into passing the "Cable Competition" Act or "Cable Con" as it has been labeled.

WATER RATES SKYROCKETING
A 22% increase on top of the recent 13% increase. Where's the taxpayer outrage here? Seriously, cuts to services at the city and county were rampant this year, and this gets little notice.

SPEAKING ABOUT GOVERNMENT BUDGETS
Are you feeling . . . .

Thanks to the smart ass who gave me the button! :)

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
Someone, I don't remember who, posted this on facebook yesterday. I cut and pasted it cuz I liked it, but I thought it would be a good quote for the day.

Economic growth without social progress lets the great majority of people remain in poverty, while a privileged few reap the benefits of rising abundance. John F. Kennedy

Read more!

Monday, December 7, 2009

Hmmm . . . Rescheduled (Edgewater) Council Meeting?

This, could be interesting . . . and convenient. Perhaps Palm and Schumacher will be back . . . but who else might be missing?

Council Leadership has asked the I poll you on your availability to attend a rescheduled Common Council meeting in December. Please let me know by this afternoon if possible.

Given that the forecast is calling for a foot or more of snow on Tuesday night, we would like to know council members’ availability should the meeting need to be cancelled due to a snow emergency. Please respond whether you could attend a council meeting on:

Tuesday 12/15, 6:30pm
Tuesday 12/22, 6:30pm

Thank you.

Lisa Veldran, Administrative Assistant
Madison Common Council Office

Read more!

Another Opinion on the Law and Edgewater

This one from Mansion Hill Steering Committee:

To: Madison City Council
From: Mansion Hill Steering Committee on the Edgewater Project
Date: December 4, 2009
Re: Standard of Council Review of Edgewater Appeal from Landmarks Decision

This Memorandum is being submitted by the Mansion Hill Steering Committee on the Edgewater Project in support of the decision of the Madison Landmarks Commission to deny the Edgewater project’s application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Memorandum concerns the City Council’s standard of review. The standard is established by Section 33.19(5)(f) of the Madison General Ordinances. The applicable part of the ordinance reads as follows:

“After a public hearing, the Council may, by favorable vote of two-thirds (2/3) of its members, based on the standards contained in this ordinance, reverse or modify the decision of the Landmarks Commission if, after balancing the interest of the public in preserving the subject property and the interest of the owner in using it for his or her own purposes, the Council finds that, owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property, failure to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness will preclude any and all reasonable use of the property and/or will cause serious hardship for the owner, provided that any self-created hardship shall not be a basis for reversal or modification of the Landmark Commission’s decision.”

In order to reverse the decision of the Landmarks Commission the Council must determine that:

1. The interest of the public in preserving the subject property is less than the interest of the owner in using it for his or her own purposes; and

2. Owing to specific conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property, the failure to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness would preclude any and all reasonable use of the property, and /or would cause serious hardship for the owner; and

3. If it finds that a serious hardship for the owner is caused, the hardship is not self-created. The ordinance states that “any self-created hardship shall not be a basis for reversal or modification of the Landmark Commission’s decision.”

If the Common Council cannot make these 3 findings, then it must uphold the decision of the Landmarks Commission.

The appropriate standard for determining when an ordinance, such as the Landmarks ordinance, precludes any other reasonable use of a property or causes a serious hardship for the owner, as opposed to a self-created hardship, is found in the case of State of Wisconsin v. Washara County Board of Adjustment, 2004WI56; 271 Wis. 2d 547. In this case, the applicant owned a lake front home situated on a 120 foot deep lot. The opposite lot line bordered a highway. The set back from the lake was 110 feet. The set back from the highway was 75 feet. The two set backs, both created by local ordinance, allowed for no building envelope. The homeowners applied for a variance in order to build an exterior porch and were denied. The Supreme Court stated that the hardship to the owners was created by the ordinances and not by their own actions.

The circumstances of the cited case are not applicable to the circumstances of the Edgewater Hotel. The hardship upon the owner has been created by the owner’s desire to build a structure of a certain size and dimension. This constitutes a self-created hardship. As was demonstrated at the Landmarks Commission meeting, there are other reasonable alternative uses of the property to that proposed at the present time.

In conclusion, under the standard adopted by the City in Section 33.19(5)(f) of its ordinances, the appeal must be denied.

Read more!

More Demolition

Downtown Demolition . . . there's no explanation and I'm blanking on what might be going on here. Seems odd to be demolishing one single family home.

Please be advised that Brandon Cook will be filing a demolition permit application on March 1, 2010 for Plan Commission review that calls for a single family home located at 432 W DAYTON ST Madison, WI 53703 to be demolished. For more information regarding this forthcoming application, you may contact the applicant, Brandon Cook, PO Box 694 madison, WI 53701 at brandon@johnfontain.com or (608)279-7962.

If you have any questions about the Plan Commission demolition permit approval process, please contact the City of Madison Planning Division at (608) 266-4635.

Read more!

Monday Morning Round Up

Lots to comment on . . . not just the Edgewater . . .

MADISON SCHOOLS GET VISIT FROM POCAN AND MILLER
Last Monday they stopped by for a chat with the school board. Here's a report on their meeting. It's the only one I could find and I had been curious how it went as I had gotten an email about it. At the end of the post he includes this suggestion that I thought I'd share for those who care about school funding:

It isn’t easy to move elected officials from words to action. One thing that helps is a show of public support. You can do this in two ways (do both): First go to the Penny for Kids website and sign the petition; second, send Mark Pocan a quick email saying you support Penny for Kids and he should too. You don’t even have to explain why — he gets it.

OH . . . THE IRONY . . .
Apparently, this played right before the Joint Urban Design Commission and Landmarks Commission meeting. You know, the "handful of unelected people" that should be ignored because the Council knows better . . .

I don't know who took the time to do that, but I appreciate it. I had gotten a clip of it from a neighborhood person but the video wasn't working, only the sound. Their description with the video is as follows:

Madison, Wi Mayor Dave Cieslewicz bashed members of his Landmarks Commission after they ruled in a way he didn't like. He called them a "handful of unelected people on one committee" and described the process as "fundamentally undemocratic" even though he appointed them. In this PSA, Mayor Dave asks residents to serve on city committees. He does not mention that he'll publicly bash your hard work . See here.

THAT DIDN'T TAKE LONG
Dorothy Borchardt was quick to respond to news of the RTA appointments on Friday:

I bet the Mayor won't think their decisions are "undemocratic."

The WSJ reported that the Mayor thinks "unelected people on a committee shouldn't be able to block important development it should be decided by the elected representatives of the people." TCT reported the Mayor thinks it is "undemocratic for unelected people" to make decisions."

If the Mayor feels unelected people shouldn't be making big decisions ...why did he support appointing an RTA Board before the referendum on an additional sales tax, to cover commuter rail, goes to the voters? Why didn't he let the voters decide? Or, does it only apply to decisions made by the unelected individuals that the Mayor agrees with? If that is the case ...look for trolleys to be added to the trains before Metro is expanded to meet the needs of the community.

HARSH WORDS FOR DAVE FROM FORMER CITY STAFF
Jay Rath continues his excellent coverage of the Edgewater issue. What surprised me tho, was this comment:

Kitty Rankin, for three decades the city’s preservation planner, is alarmed by such talk. "The mayor is in the development community’s lap by repeating a phrase that the Landmarks Commission process is flawed," she says. "I have yet to see that it is indeed flawed."

Ouch. Even more interesting is what Bob Dunn says:

"No, no," says Hammes president Bob Dunn. The company promised from the start that its project would not set a precedent for the neighborhood. Now, however, it could set a precedent for the entire city. Dunn has plenty of problems with the ordinance, and he’d welcome change, but that "in no way was the intention of this project."

Intention or not, that is the impact. Read the article, its good. I hear there is another one coming today.

STATE JOURNAL BACKFIRE?
Several folks have mentioned they'd like to thank the State Journal for urging people to contact their alders in support . . . they promptly contacted their alders in opposition. Alders have heard that as well from people who called.

SCREW THE LAW AND PUBLIC PROCESS
In the State Journal editorial on the Edgewater, they list 7 alders, who haven't been engaged to the extent of Rummel and Verveer, who have made up their minds that they are voting in support of the Edgewater. I find it interesting, because to date, there has been no testimony or evidence provided that there is a hardship for the owner (not Hammes). Just a reminder, this is what the council must find first, then also find that that the meet the criteria for a certificate of appropriateness or variance (more here):

after balancing the interest of the public in preserving the subject property and the interest of the owner in using it for his or her own purposes, the Council finds that, owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property, failure to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness will preclude any and all reasonable use of the property and/or will cause serious hardship for the owner, provided that any self-created hardship shall not be a basis for reversal or modification of the Landmark Commission’s decision.

SURVEY SUCKS
I didn't want to choose any of the option in the Channel 3 poll on the Edgewater, they too, are ignoring the law and just wanting people to vote on if they like the Edgewater project or not. The survey is really lopsided, but you can just keep voting, so its easy to manipulate. From the alders I've been talking to, their districts are either against or running about 50/50. No surprises that the downtown districts lean more against. As Alder Rummel put it, her constituents who live in historic districts don't understand why they have to follow the law when replacing a porch railing, but a huge developer with lots of money gets to just ignore the laws.

ZWEIFEL JOINS IN
No, not in criticizing Mayor Dave . . . but, I was pleasantly surprised to see Zweifel write this piece in support of state legislation that would, among other things, restore funding for WYOU. Thanks Dave!

WHY IS OLINGER LEAVING?
Most people know, I'm not a big fan of Olinger. Many I know and respect are. So, I'm torn by the news of his departure personally. Politcally, I'm very nervous. While no one is talking much, Bruer pretty much said it all:

City Council President Tim Bruer said Cieslewicz is exercising his authority to shape the city's administration, and that the mayor wants someone more in line with his vision and beliefs and desired management skills. Olinger has done nothing inappropriate, Bruer said

"The mayor is looking at changing demands and challenges facing the city and felt he needs to bring in a different manager," Bruer said, adding that he supports the mayor's decision.

Do we really want someone in line with his visions and beliefs?

STILL TIME TO GET YOUR SHOT
Public health is still hosting clinics for people to get their H1N1 flu shots. Here's who's eligible:
• Pregnant women
• Persons who live with or care for infants less than 6 months of age
• Children and young adults 6 months through 24 years
• People 25 through 64 years with underlying health conditions. For a listing of underlying health conditions
http://www.publichealthmdc.com/disease/swineflu/K12/UnderlyingConditions.cfm
More details here.

NEED TO HEAR FROM ARTS COMMUNITIES

Dear Madison Arts Community;

The City of Madison has been updating zoning codes to make them more user friendly, align with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and neighborhood plans, reflect newer growth and work patterns, encourage biking and transit use, facilitate mixed-use sustainable development, and achieve quality in-fill development. Roughly two months ago, a new draft zoning code was introduced to Madison’s Common Council. Last month, that draft zoning code was referred to the Madison Arts Commission for their review and recommendations.

On Tuesday, December 8, at their 5:00pm meeting in room LL 110 of the Madison Municipal Building the Madison Arts Commission will discuss Madison’s proposed new zoning code language and how it may affect area artists.

There have been many opportunities for public input during the process of developing the new zoning code. However, members of MAC feel that, because zoning codes affect so many artists in our community, extra efforts should be made to inform artists of when and where the Madison Arts Commission discussion of this item is taking place and to invite participation. The commissioners welcome citizen input as they formulate their thoughts and their recommendations to council.

At a previous MAC meeting, City staff briefed MAC on the rewrite and identified the areas of the new code that had the greatest potential to impact artists. Therefore, commissioners are paying particular attention to areas of the code that relate to live/work space and use of accessory dwellings for artistic production.

The proposed code can be found on the City’s Zoning rewrite website:
http://www.cityofmadison.com/neighborhoods/zoningRewrite/

If you cannot attend Tuesday night’s MAC meeting, please feel free to email your comments prior to or at their meeting and they will be shared with the commissioners (note: any written comments become a part of the permanent public record). There is also a “your thoughts” link on the zoning rewrite website that welcomes citizen input.

Sincerely,
Karin Wolf
Staff to the Madison Arts Commission

CANCELLED CITY MEETINGS
With snow coming, this is good timing. Looks like you can now sign up for an email list or rss feed to alert you to cancelled meetings. Much appreciated!
* RSS Feed: Cancelled Weekly Meetings RSS
* Email List: Cancelled Weekly Meetings (under City Hall), can subscribe at : https://my.cityofmadison.com/)

COUNTY ELECTIONS
It's widely rumored and I keep getting asked, but no, I am not running for County Board Supervisor. I like my supervisor Barbara Vedder just fine, thank you.
Read more!

Friday, December 4, 2009

The City Attorney's Opinion on How To Decide on the Edgewater

The key to the Council's decision is . . .

Thus, the question comes down to whether the Council finds that “owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property,” failure to grant the Certificate “will cause serious hardship for the owner.”

Please note, this has nothing to do with the Mayor's claims in his blog.

I am very pleased that Edgewater Hotel developer Bob Dunn has decided to let the Madison City Council have the final say on his project. Dunn has now officially appealed the decision of the Landmarks Commission not to approve his project to the Council, which will take up his appeal next Tuesday. While Landmarks was constricted in what it could consider, the debate before the full Council can bring sharper focus to more basic questions about what is most important to us as a community.

Here's how the ledger shapes up on this proposal. On the plus side we have:

• Nearly 1,000 good-paying construction jobs in an economy where the unemployment rate in some trades is 30%.
• Over $1 million a year in new tax revenues to support our schools, city services, social services and more.
• Dramatically improved views of Lake Mendota.
• New life for the historic original 1940s building.
• Significantly increased public access to the lake.
• More hotel rooms and an amenity that the UW sees as a big asset close to its campus.

On the negative side we have:

• A building that some people feel is too big for the site.

When I weigh these considerations, the conclusion is clear. With so much to offer I can live with a building that might be a little bit bigger than some would want. Do we really want to forgo all these benefits and send a strong anti-business signal to others who want to invest in our community simply because we don't like big buildings? Can we look in the eyes of hundreds of unemployed construction workers and tell them that their families should go without a paycheck because some think the building is a little too big?

I don't think so. But the Landmarks Commission was constrained by a vague and narrowly drafted ordinance that didn't give them the leeway to look at broader community interests. That is precisely the City Council's job. And when they look at this project in its totality, with all its benefits weighed against its small costs, I hope they'll join me in concluding that we should move ahead.

Um, Mr. Mayor, what does that have to do with the even more narrow question the city attorney says is before the council? The full city attorney opinion is here. I didn't see the city attorney mention any of the following as being relevant:
• Nearly 1,000 good-paying construction jobs in an economy where the unemployment rate in some trades is 30%.
• Over $1 million a year in new tax revenues to support our schools, city services, social services and more.
• Dramatically improved views of Lake Mendota.
• New life for the historic original 1940s building.
• Significantly increased public access to the lake.
• More hotel rooms and an amenity that the UW sees as a big asset close to its campus.

I think the Mayor is dead wrong on this. And I will remind folks again, Hammes Company is not the owner of the property. We haven't heard from the owners or about their hardship, this will require testimony from them about the hardship it will cause to them if Hammes can't go forward with the project. It's a very focused, very narrow decision that they need to find in addition to finding that they meet all the criteria for the certificate or variance. All the details are here. And sadly, the legistar file and the information the city has on-line for the city council right now doesn't include all the information in my post, and that is what was before the Landmarks Commission and should be in front of the council. (They fixed it.) Read more!

Breaking Down How the Council Decides if they Should Overturn the Landmarks Commission

The decision before the council on Tuesday in NOT whether they should approve the Edgewater project, it is only a question of if they should reverse the Landmarks Commission decision. If they overturn the Landmarks decision, the project still has a long line of exceptions and variances and changes they need to get/make to laws and ordinances in order to get their project approved.

The way I understand it, they still have to go through at least the following processes if not more:
- Planned Unit Development Zoning Approval (Urban Design Commission, Plan Commission, Common Council)
~~- Conditional Use Permit – Capitol View Height Penetration (Plan Commission)~~
- Conditional Use Permit – Waterfront Development (Plan Commission)
- Waterfront Setback Variance (Zoning Board of Appeals)
- Amendment of the 1965 Wisconsin Avenue Vacation Ordinance (Plan Commission, Common Council)
- TIF Boundary Amendment (Board of Estimates, Joint TIF Board, Plan Commission, Common Council)
- TIF Request (Board of Estimates, Common Council)
- Change of Wisconsin Avenue street grade (Council and other committees)
- Subterranean Lease and/or Encroachment Agreement (Plan Commission, Common Council)
- Developer Agreement (for Public Spaces / Right of way (I think this is staff only unless council directs otherwise, they would likely include requirements they want to see in the PUD approval as conditions of approval.)
- Management Agreement (for Public Spaces) (Also likely a staff function with direction through conditions in the PUD unless the council asked to see it again)

Here's how I understand the limited decision before the council on Tuesday and how I would break it down.

FINDING THE ORDINANCE
(Skip this section if you don't care about looking directly at the ordinance or already know how to find it - I can't figure out how to link to it in a meaningful way. I quote it extensively below.)

MGO 33.19 is where you find the Landmarks ordinance. In order to find it on-line I usually go to the city's website, go toward the bottom of the front page where is says "most requested services", slide the menu down and click on Madison General Ordinance. That will then take you to some service that has our ordinances on-line. They get updated quarterly, so they aren't always the most updated source, but in this case, no changes have been made in quite some time, so we should be safe. Once you get there click on "Madison Code of Ordinances". Then you'll get a screen with several panes. Go to the left hand one and scroll down until you see chapter 33, "Committees, Board and Commissions". After clicking on that, go to the right hand panes and use the pdf search function and search "landmarks". The first hit will be the title of the ordinance, the second will actually be the ordinance. Otherwise, you can just go to page 26 where it starts. It goes from page 26 - 55.

You might wonder why I explained that . . . but its out of shear exhaustion from explaining it over and over and over and over to people who can't find what they need in our ordinances.

WHY IS THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION INVOLVED
The ordinance requires in 33.19(5)(b) on page 28 that:

(b) Regulation Of Construction, Reconstruction and Exterior Alteration.
1. Any application for a permit from the Director of the Building Inspection Division involving the exterior of a designated landmark, landmark site or structure within an Historic District shall be filed with the Landmarks Commission. (Am. by Ord. 8081, 7-29-83; ORD-08-00109, 10-7-08)

The ordinance goes on to say that:

2. No owner or person in charge of a landmark, landmark site or structure within an Historic District shall reconstruct or alter all or any part of the exterior of such property or construct any improvement upon such designated property or properties within an Historic District or cause or permit any such work to be performed upon such property unless a Certificate of Appropriateness has been granted by the Landmarks Commission or its designee(s) as hereinafter provided.

[omitted language about the designee . . . ]

Unless such certificate has been granted by the commission or its designee(s), the Director of the Building Inspection Division shall not issue a permit for any such work. (Am. by Ord. 8081, 7-29-83; ORD-08-00109, 10-7-08)

Since this site is in the Mansion Hill Historic District (map) they are required to apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness.

REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OR VARIANCE
How they apply for a certificate of appropriateness can be found here. There are several options for them as follows:

How to Obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness for Exterior Renovation and Alterations and New Construction
- General Information
- Procedure for Obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness for Exterior Renovation and Alterations
- Procedure for Obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness for New Construction
- How to Obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Demolition
- Procedure for Seeking a Variance from the Landmarks Commission

WHAT THEY SUBMITTED/WHAT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO DECISION MAKERS THUS FAR
JULY 15th - "INFORMATIONAL PACKAGE" (the old version of the project)
I'm unclear if this was intended to be an application. At no point do they request a Certificate of Appropriateness for Exterior Renovation and Alterations, New Construction or Demolition and they don't ask for a variance.

AUGUST 10th PUD SUBMITTAL PACKAGE (old version of the project)
This submission, on page 12 says it is for:

The Project is submitted for the review and consideration of the City to receive
the following grants and approvals:
- Planned Unit Development District (“PUD”) – GDP/SIP
- Conditional Use Permit - Capitol Height Encroachment
- Other Grants and Approvals as Required by the City of Madison

So again, it is unclear if they are applying for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Exterior Renovation and Alterations, New Construction or Demolition and they don't ask for a variance. And in the 63 pages of the submittal I didn't see them ask for a Certificate of Appropriateness or Variance at any point. And, the submittal is incomplete with the 7 of the exhibits at the end of the document left where they promised to insert information later.

AUGUST 19th STAFF MEMO
In this memo, they state that the applicant applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness, but no variance. The staff laid out the criteria they had to follow, provided the list of what other city approvals were needed, state that the application was incomplete and gave them a list of additional materials that they requested from the developer that were to be presented to the Commission on August 24th. If you read any one document at this point, this would be the one I recommend, it has alot of information that would be helpful if you are trying to understand what Landmarks needed to approve the project, even tho this is still the old project, it list alot of valuable information.

AUGUST 20th STAFF MEMO
Here they explain additional information was submitted, but it was late and they didn't have time to review it.

AUGUST 20th LANDMARKS MATERIALS AND HERE (Still the old project)
If you compare what they submitted compared to the list the staff requested. This is the list staff requested:

1. Height/Massing studies of new tower
• Visually Related Area: show existing/proposed buildings from project in context
with all buildings within the visually related area to demonstrate the proposed
project meets section 33.19(10)(e)1-5 (Guidelines Criteria for the Mansion Hill
Local Historic District) and other applicable parts of the Landmarks Ordinance
Chapter 33.19. Provide plans that are to scale and fully dimensioned. [MISSING]
• A 3-D model of the proposal including the context of nearby properties may assist
in this evaluation.[PROVIDED AT THE MEETING, GIVEN TO STAFF A MONTH LATER]
2. Perspective views requested by the Landmarks Commission:
• Views down Wisconsin Avenue[MISSING]
• Views from Langdon[MISSING]
• Views from Pinckney/Gilman[MISSING]
• Views from Lake Mendota[MISSING]
• Views down staircase towards Lake Mendota[MISSING]
3. Alterations to Existing Buildings (both original tower and 1970’s addition)
• Proposed alterations to existing structures are referenced in section 33.19(10)(d), which refers back to 33.19(5)(b) and (c)
• Existing conditions vs. renovations/alterations for the following:
- Dimensioned site plans
- Dimensioned elevations/cross sections, colored with shadow lines
- Materials selections
• Details on two connecting bridges
• Information on the added story on the original tower
• Interface between the public staircase and the existing buildings
4. New Tower and Grand Stair / Public Terrace (plaza above 70’s addition / lakefront area
• Dimensioned elevations/cross sections, colored with shadow lines
• Materials selections
• Grading plan
5. Design Details:
• Design details for elements such as windows, doors, railings, fencing, signage,
lighting, canopies, landscaping and street furniture will need to be approved prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.[MISSING]
• A larger sized set of plans, or enlargements of some elevations may help to
illustrate some of the details more clearly.[UNCLEAR IF PRESENTED]

I may have been generous in saying some of this was provided or perhaps, without explanation, I missed something, but it was still pretty incomplete.

AUGUST 24 PRESENTATION TO LANDMARKS
In the 82 pages, I don't see them directly addressing the criteria for a certificate of appropriateness or for a variance. You probably want to check out the Thelma and Louise animation going down Wisconsin Avenue . . . very entertaining. I'm not sure who would ever see that perspective or what it was supposed to show. Probably good it is still labeled "draft".

NOVEMBER 16th LANDMARKS SUBMITTAL - NEW BUILDING
Finally! 18 days ago, they submitted something that tried to address some of the ordinance requirements! Not in as complete of a fashion as I would like, but much better. With Thanksgiving coming up, there not much time to review it and get it to the commission, but, its a step forward.

NOVEMBER 19TH LETTER - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
Again! Finally! The requested the variance which means they probably just figured out that they had major issues with the ordinance. That should have been figured out and discussed and addressed long, long, long ago.

NOVEMBER 18TH INFO FOR JOINT LANDMARKS/URBAN DESIGN MEETING, AND HERE.
The first link which is section 1 - 3 are comparison between the old and the new projects and a Q&A on their view of how the project is consistent with the Landmarks Ordinance. The second link is their Q&A on issues they see with Urban Design criteria.

MONSTER HANDOUT FROM THE 30TH, AND HERE.
This was what was handed to the Landmarks Commissioners the night of their 7 hour meeting, at least the council will have some time to look at it in advance. Tho, by this point, everything is just starting to look the same and blur together for me, they have handed out so much info, much of it duplicative. There is some new info.

FINAL STAFF REPORT
Again, if you read only one thing, the staff report should be it! It summarizes quite a bit of info.

OTHER INFO
- Letter from Nation Trust for Historic Preservation and CNI President
- Photos from the tour.
- Written public Comment from 11/25 (all against)
- 37 more pages of written comments (all against), including concerns from Tenney Lapham Neighborhood Association (2 national historic districts), Marquette Neighborhood Association (2 of Madison's Historic Districts), David Mullenhoff, an alternative plan from architect James McFadden, comments from the Mansion Hill Steering Committee with photos of the neighborhood and pictures of their model.

WHAT THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION WAS REQUIRED TO LOOK AT FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
To grant a certificate of appropriateness, this is what the 33.19(5)(b)4.c. says:

4. Upon filing of any application with the Landmarks Commission, the Landmarks Commission shall determine:

[cut part on landmark and landmark sites]

c. Whether, in the case of any property located in an Historic District designated pursuant to the terms of Subsection (6)(d) hereunder, the proposed construction, reconstruction or exterior alteration does not conform to the objectives and design criteria of the historic preservation plan for said district as duly adopted by the Common Council. (Sec. 33.01(4)(b)3. Renumbered to 4. by Ord. 11,070, 12-6-94)

So, next, we have to look at the "objectives and design criteria of the historic preservation plan", because 33.19(5)(b)5 says:

5. If the commission determines Subparagraphs a., b. and c. of Paragraph 4. above in the negative, it shall issue the Certificate of Appropriateness . . .

Admittedly, that is a bit confusing with the double negative.

So, when looking at 33.19(6)(d)1. it explains that the plan is in ordinance form:

For preservation purposes, the Landmarks Commission shall select geographically defined areas within the City of Madison to be designated as Historic Districts and shall, with the assistance of the City Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development, prepare an historic preservation plan in ordinance form for each area . . .

So, next we look at page 37. Section (e) in 33.19(10)is the Guideline Criteria for new Development in the Mansion Hill Historic District

1. The gross volume of any new structure shall be visually compatible with the buildings and environment with which it is visually related (visually related area).
2. In the street elevation(s) of a new building, the proportion between the width and the height in the facade(s) shall be visually compatible with the buildings and the environment with which it is visually related (visually related area).
3. The proportions and relationships between width and height of the doors and windows in new street facade(s) shall be visually compatible with the buildings and environment with which it is visually related (visually related area).
4. The rhythm of solids to voids created by openings in the facade of the new structure should be visually compatible with the buildings and environment with which it is visually related (visually related area).
5. All new street facades should blend with other buildings via directional expression. When adjacent buildings have a dominant vertical or horizontal expression, this expression should be carried over and reflected.

WHAT THE COMMISSION FOUND REGARDING THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Basically, they didn't even discuss criteria 2 - 5. They just got completely hung up on, and could not find that:

1. The gross volume of any new structure shall be visually compatible with the buildings and environment with which it is visually related (visually related area).

The staff report has information on what is considered to be in the visually related area, complete with photos and maps. This is what they had to look at:

Do you think those are visually compatible with what you have seen of the 8 stories of the building that stick up above Wisconsin Avenue?

If the photos alone don't do it for you, here's some data about the gross volume:
Kennedy Manor - 1 Langdon - 589,800 cubic feet
2 Langdon - 215,000 cubic feet
10 Langdon - 107,100 cubic feet
12 Langdon - 159,000 cubic feet
Edgewater - 1,692,200

That makes the Edgewater between 2 and 15 times the size of the buildings in the area to be compared. It's no wonder the Landmark's commission couldn't find it met the requirements - but they could still look at doing a variance . . . more details on what they discussed here.

WHAT THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION HAD TO LOOK AT TO ALLOW A VARIANCE
See page 54, 33.19(15):

(a) Authority. The Landmarks Commission may vary the criteria for review of additions, exterior alterations or repairs for designated landmarks, landmark sites and improvements in any Historic District and the criteria for new construction in any Historic District in harmony with the general purpose and intent to preserve the historic character of landmarks, landmark sites and of each Historic District only in the specific instances hereinafter set forth and only if the proposed project will be visually compatible with the historic character of all buildings directly affected by the project and of all buildings within the visually related area.

The variance procedure and standards are designed to prevent undue hardships caused by application of the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter and to encourage and promote improved aesthetic design by allowing for greater freedom, imagination and flexibility in the alteration of existing buildings and the construction of new buildings within an Historic District while ensuring substantial compliance with the basic intent of the ordinance

This confused me to some extent, as it requires them to find that it is visually compatible with the buildings in the visually related area, which they just found it wasn't . . . but, it did expand the area they could look at by including not just those in the visually related area, but also those directly affected.

The standards are set out in the ordinance at (15)(c):

(c) Standards. The Landmarks Commission shall not vary the regulations of this ordinance unless it makes findings of fact based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case that one or more of the following conditions is present:
1. The particular physical characteristics of the specific building or site involved would result in a substantial hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out, provided that the alleged difficulty or hardship is created by this ordinance and has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property.
2. In the case of the alteration of an existing building, the proposed design would incorporate materials, details, or other elements not permitted by the ordinance but which can be documented by photographs, architectural or archaeological research or other suitable evidence to have been used on other buildings of a similar vintage and style in the Historic District in which the building is located, provided that the project will not destroy significant architectural features on the building.
3. In the case of new construction, the proposed design incorporates materials, details, setbacks, massing or other elements that are not permitted by the ordinance but which would enhance the quality of the design for the new building or structure, provided that said new building or structure otherwise complies with the criteria for new construction in the Historic District in which the building or structure is proposed to be located and provided further that it would also have a beneficial effect on the historic character of the visually related area.

Additionally, they can only grant a variance for the following things:

(d) Authorized Variances. Variances shall be granted by the Landmarks Commission only in accordance with the standards set forth in (13)(c) [sic] above, and may be granted only in the following instances:
1. To permit residing with a material or in a manner not permitted under this chapter.
2. To allow additions visible from the street or alterations to street facades which are not compatible with the existing building in design, scale, color, texture, proportion of solids to voids or proportion of widths to heights of doors and windows.
3. To allow materials and/or architectural details used in an alteration or addition to differ in texture, appearance and design from those used in the original construction of the existing building.
4. To permit the alteration of a roof shape otherwise prohibited under this chapter.
5. To permit the use of roofing materials otherwise prohibited under this chapter.
6. To allow use of materials for new construction which use would be otherwise prohibited under Sec. 33.01(12)(f)1.b.

WHAT LANDMARKS DECIDED ABOUT THE VARIANCE
You can see what they discussed here, as there are many aspects to this section, but they still couldn't find there could be a variance. Therefore the certificate was denied.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN DENIED?
33.19(5)(b)5. says:

. . . Should the commission fail to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness due to the failure of the proposal to conform to the above guidelines, the applicant may appeal such decision to the Common Council. In addition, if the commission fails to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness, the commission shall, at the request of the applicant, cooperate and work with the applicant in an attempt to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness within the guidelines of this ordinance. (Am. by Ord. 11,648, 8-20 & 8-26-96; ORD-08-00109, 10-7-08)

So, appeal to the council wasn't the only option. They could have continued to work with the Landmarks Commission. I never heard anyone mention that as an option, except the Landmark's Commission themselves. They even passed a motion at the end of their last meeting to that effect. While they didn't have immediate answers at the time, the expressed interest in continuing to work with them.

Here's the process for the appeal. 33.19(5)(f)

(f) Appeal. An appeal from the decision of the Landmarks Commission to grant or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness under Subsection (5)(b) and (c) may be taken to the Common Council by the applicant for the permit. In addition, an appeal from the decision of the Landmarks Commission to grant or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for any building or demolition project requiring a public hearing, whether this determination is made upon receipt of the application for a demolition permit or at the end of the one-year period in a case where action on the application has been suspended, or to suspend action on a demolition application, may also be taken to the Common Council by the Alderperson of the district in which the subject property is located, or by 20% of the property owners within 200 feet of the subject property.

Such appeal shall be initiated by filing a petition to appeal, specifying the grounds therefore, with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the final decision of the Landmarks Commission is made. The City Clerk shall file the petition to appeal with the Common Council . . .

The grounds they stated are kind of like two kids fighting . . . "yes you did", "no I didn't", "yes you did" etc, etc etc. It would have been better if they had stated what their specific argument is. Was it about gross volume? the definition of "environment"?, the visually related area? etc? etc? I'm not sure what their ground are.

WHAT THE COUNCIL MUST CONSIDER UPON APPEAL
When considering the appeal, the council must follow this ordinance 33.19(5)(f)

. . . After a public hearing, the Council may, by favorable vote of two-thirds (2/3) of its members, based on the standards contained in this ordinance, reverse or modify the decision of the Landmarks Commission if, after balancing the interest of the public in preserving the subject property and the interest of the owner in using it for his or her own purposes, the Council finds that, owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property, failure to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness will preclude any and all reasonable use of the property and/or will cause serious hardship for the owner, provided that any self-created hardship shall not be a basis for reversal or modification of the Landmark Commission’s decision.

Key elements of their decisions are:
- Their decision has to be "based on the standards contained in this ordinance". So, they have to look at the standards for the Certificate of Appropriateness and the Variance - same as the Landmarks Commission looked at.
- They have to balance the "interest of the public in preserving the subject property" with the "interest of the owner in using it for his or her own purposes". This is interesting in that the "owner" is not Hammes Company, but the Faulkners and National Guardian Life.
- They also have to find that "failure to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness will preclude any and all reasonable use of the property and/or will cause serious hardship for the owner". It also goes on to say that it is provided that "any self-created hardship shall not be a basis for reversal or modification of the Landmark Commission’s decision."

CONCLUSION - LAW SUIT?
So, in all of that, in all those things that they have to consider, the criteria for the certificate of appropriateness, the standards for the variance and reasons it can be granted and the additional criteria added in appeal about owner, I'm having a hard time seeing how the council, if it follows the ordinance, can reverse the Landmark's Commission and if they do, I don't see how everyone doesn't end up in court.

I know people want to see the Edgewater renovated and approved, but we also have laws in place. The Landmark's Commission couldn't just ignore the laws, and neither should the council. When people are elected, they sign an oath to uphold the laws of the City of Madison, breaking that oath shouldn't be taken lightly.

I think its time to go back to the drawing board and to work with and have a dialog (give and take) with the Landmarks Commission, city staff and the neighbors in the historic district.
Read more!

Friday Round Up . . .

Ex-alder gives advice to colleagues, Olinger leaving the city, kudos to public health, Kailin service, Brews for WYOU, Homeless Memorial Day, composting, and more, more, more Edgewater . . .

ANOTHER EX-ALDER WEIGHS IN ON THE EDGEWATER . . . PROCESS
Former Alder urges colleagues to do the right thing, not the politically expedient thing. Good letter.

CLARENCE KAILIN MEMORIAL RE-PLAY

Clarence Kailin Memorial will play in its entirety ( 03:00Hrs) starting @ 3pm Saturday Dec.5 - WYOU ch 991 or WYOU ch 95 or wyou.org
Thanks to Judith leurquin and Russ Attoe for letting their program "third world view" be preempted
Peace
Luciano

OLINGER - OUTTA HERE!

From: Olinger, Mark
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 6:02 PM
To: ALL ALDERS
Cc: Mayor; Veldran, Lisa; 'Gregg Shimanski'; Harmon, Ray; Strauch-Nelson, Rachel
Subject: Information

Dear Alders:

I wanted to let you all know that effective January 5, 2010, I will no longer be under contract as the Director of the Department of Planning & Community & Economic Development.

The Mayor has asked me to continue to serve as Director on a provisional basis subsequent to that date to help finish a number of projects that are in critical phases of implementation or financing. I have accepted the Mayor’s offer in order to make sure that these projects get across the finish line.

It has been a pleasure working with you as Director.

Thank you.

KUDOS
I happen to be one of the "lucky" people who have an "underlying condition" (Type 1/Insulin Dependent Diabetes) so I was able to get a H1N1 flu shot the other day. It reminded me how great our Public Health Department is. So, kudos! And thank you!

WHAT MY NEIGHBORS ARE SAYING ABOUT EDGEWATER (FROM LISTSERVES)
Why not East Washington.

I know most are getting sick about the Edgewater discussion. Everyone on this list is well aware of the condition of the commerce on East Washington -- or lack thereof. We have a newly abandoned Madison Dairy, a vacant Mautz paint factory, an almost vacant Marquip factory, Don Miller is almost completely gone, and we have a huge abandoned Union Corners development. Some influential people in this city are bending over backwards to give $16 million to a luxury hotel that will charge $300/night that none of us will ever stay in. No serious amount of long term jobs. The developer refuses to build to the standards of which the property sits, so let's wake up and kill this project now while we have a chance, and divert this money to a stimulus package to invite real jobs to town. Let's invite proposals for all these decaying properties and long lost jobs so that we can once again be proud to bring visitors up East Washington Avenue. I would bet the mayor never brings guests up East Washington -- and it is a shame that the gateway to our city is falling apart.

This is a shameful hour for our city.

Need a new leader.

I think it is time for a future mayoral candidate to step up and address the infantile, temper tantrum histrionics of our present mayor. I hope there is someone out there to step forward and challenge his ability to lead.

E-mail your alders

Please e-mail allalders@madison.com. This entire project is fraught with deception and inaccuracies too numerous to mention. For me, what really is at stake now is the democratic process – including the citizen committees which are a time-honored tradition in Madison. These largely consist of experts in their particular fields who give their knowledge, experience and time freely.

To see so many ordinances violated, as well as the process itself, puts our city at great risk.

Once again, please e-mail allalders@madison.com and let them know that they are accountable to all of us to uphold the ordinances as written, not to bend to the will of a capricious despot.

No TIF

There seems to be an assumption on the part of a lot of people that TIF is free. But the city issues bonds. Issuing bonds affects the city's credit rating. Issue too many and the credit rating goes down and the cost of issuing the bonds go up. Or, another way to look at it, issuing 16 million in TIF bonds for the Edgewater project reduces the amount of money available for other projects, or raises the cost of all city borrowing.

Second xxxxx mentions that TIF is an investment. Again there seems to be an assumption on the part of a lot of people that TIF districts always repay the investment. That assumption is based on the notion that the TIF district gets better as a result of the project, all property values raise, and over time more money comes back to the city. It very questionable whether the Edgewater project will ever pay back the TIF expense. What additional development is theproject going to cause? There is no vacant land in the area to speak of. There are no empty buildings to redevelop. It's a residential area. Is having a large hotel as a neighbor going to inspire landlords to maintain their buildings better? Or maybe they'll let them deteriorate to make it easier to get their own TIF handout. It will probably actually lower the value of nearby residential buildings.

The Edgewater project doesn't meet the city's stated TIF goals and objectives. Giving the project TIF will simply make it harder to say no to all future mediocre-to-bad projects.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Edgewater Heavy Round Up, But a Few Other Things . . ..

This is all I have for today, I got up late and thought I could work on it at work, but 20 minutes in, I can see that isn't going to happen . . .

EDGEWATER
This article has several interesting points about the Edgewater appeal on Tuesday.
- Schumacher and Palm will be absent, meaning if 5 people don't vote for the project, it won't pass.
- Amy Supple seems to be saying they are going to argue the merits of the whole project (jobs), not speaking to the Landmark's Ordinance (visually related area, hardship, etc. I'm working on a post for tomorrow that outlines what the legal issues are and what the council has to vote on.)
- Cnare says her district doesn't really support the project, in contrast with the claims that the farther you get from the project, the more support there is.
- If Labor doesn't settle with Hammes, they won't show up in support on Tuesday.

Here's another blogger speaking in support of the neighborhood. One against. Another opinion.

Dusty defends himself.

Dunn apparently hasn't read the appeal ordinance. He says this about the ordinance:

When the City Council on Tuesday weighs whether to overturn a decision that blocks the $93 million Edgewater hotel redevelopment, it won't be hamstrung by the narrow rules considered this week by the city's Landmarks Commission, officials said.

In appealing the commission vote that the redevelopment fails a key compatibility test with surrounding buildings and environment -- one of the first tests for the project - Robert Dunn, president of the Hammes Co., said the council should look at a host of advantages the project offers rather than the limited criteria the commission had to use in refusing a certificate of appropriateness for the project.

This, of course, ignores the language of the ordinance.

After a public hearing, the Council may, by favorable vote of
two-thirds (2/3) of its members, based on the standards contained in this ordinance, reverse or modify the decision of the Landmarks Commission if, after balancing the interest of the public in preserving the subject property and the interest of the owner in using it for his or her own purposes, the Council finds that, owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property, failure to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness will preclude any and all reasonable use of the property and/or will cause serious hardship for the owner, provided that any self-created hardship shall not be a basis for reversal or modification of the Landmark Commission’s decision.

PEOPLE'S HOUSING VISION

Please join us for our next People's Housing Vision meeting at 5:30 p.m. on December 14 at the Central Library. We'll be in one of the 2nd floor meeting rooms. At our last meeting, our discussion focused on the following:

* Proposals before the City Housing Committee to increase enforcement of Chapter 32 (Landlord/Tenant) of the Madison General Ordinances.
* The need for more quality case management services (obvious, right?), and what quality case management is and how such a definition can be incorporated in future case management funding requests;
* Establishing a security deposit loan program to help low income folks access quality housing and build their credit;
* The practice of public accommodations (like businesses on State St.) requiring a purchase for use of their restroom and how such a policy, besides being hostile to low income and homeless folks, appears to violate State law;
* The need for increased fair housing protection for people with service animals and/or emotional support animals and methods for accomplishing such protection; and
* The need for an expandable overflow shelter and how we can reach out to local shelter staff to assist in this effort.

At this meeting, we plan to touch on some of the things we didn't get to last time (e.g., New York's tenant interim lease-apartment purchase program), get an update on legislative developments at the State level, and give ourselves some deadlines for drafting, publishing and taking action on the Vision.

This is hard work because there is such a great need and so much to do, but we're making progress.
Let's keep at it!

TALK ABOUT SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT
Um, 21 layoffs?! Make me wonder who is teaching the labor unions how to negotiate. First Edgewater labor groups are way out front and spending money to support a project before they have an agreement, now the Sheriff's pushed just a little too hard and may have a big sacrifice to pay.

ON-LINE AUCTION EXTENDED

Flash! Bidding has been extended to Monday, December 7 at 9pm CST!

On-Line Auction to Promote Sustainability Statewide and these Community Causes:
WYOU Community Access TV, Dane County TimeBank, Community Groundworks at Troy Gardens

NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS FOOD DRIVE
From Jim at Cork & Bottle:

Gretchen, from the yoga co-op, proposed collecting non-perishable food items for the Goodman Food Pantry on Atwood Avenue. This would be a nice gesture
by our little business community. Anybody who would like to participate in
this food drive should contact me at the liquor store. Gretchen has said
that she would be willing to pick up any collected items weekly to drop off
at the pantry. I assume that we will continue to collect items until the end
of the year. Thanks, in advance, to all who participate.

Read more!

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Hammes/Edgewater Appeals Landmarks Decision

Get Ready for a Loooooooonnnnnnngggggg Tuesday Night . . . .

Here's the letter sent to the clerk. Read more!

Board of Estimates (Preview of Issues to Come) Recap

Mark Clear violates ethics ordinance?, TIF falling out of favor with Madison School District and County (could future TIF districts and expansions . . . ahem, Edgewater . . . be in jeopardy?), the city budget shortfall (are newspapers partially responsible?) and towing . . . Thuy failed to show on Meadowood if folks are wondering, but Clear didn't fail to disappoint in geeking out, while grinning ear to ear, over software.

This isn't a typical line by line recap, just a few items of note.

CLEAR VIOLATED ETHICS CODE?
So, the ethics code, which there has been alot of buzz about recently clearly says the following:

An elected official who has or whose immediate family member has a financial or personal interest in any matter coming before the Common Council shall disclose on the records of the Common Council the nature and extent of such interest. This provision shall not apply if the elected official disqualifies herself or himself from participating in discussion of the matter and from voting on it. An elected official shall disqualify herself or himself from discussing and voting if the matter under consideration involves her or his or her or his immediate family member’s financial or personal interests to the extent that such interests conflict or appear to conflict with her or his official duties or would impair or reasonably be expected to impair her or his independence of judgment or actions.

While discussing the small business bus pass program at the Board of Estimates, Clear had this to say:

As a quick comment, as one of those companies that is ready to sign, I am very excited about this, and I think its a great program and I'm looking forward to being on of the first to participate.

That didn't sound like a disclosure, and it didn't sound like an abstention. I sounded like someone who has a financial (tax savings!) or personal interest in the passage of this resolution who violated the ethics code.

FED UP WITH TIF?
In discussing the "half mile rule" issue with the Board of Estimates, there were a few interesting tid-bits that were disclosed. Verveer had a substitute that was a "compromise" as a result of some of the concerns.

Gromacki explained that the Joint TIF Review Board had concerns about the project plan that was presented, they got alot of feedback that wasn't positive and he thinks if they had put it to a vote it would have failed. They were concerned that they were committed to paying $2M during a time when there is alot of concern about where funding is going to come from for school districts and underlying jurisdictions. The district is doing well and there is $5.7 million dollars of excess increment without identified costs in the district. That gave them pause and there was alot of pushback for the first time since Gromacki has been here. He said they came up with a compromise, which the joint review board still has to vote on that, that they would eliminate the $5.7M expenditure since it has unidentified costs. They think the $2M of budgeted costs for the capital square area that would be ok.

Bruer asked if, given the growing sensitivity of the other jurisdictions (County, School District and MATC) that have to approve our TIF districts, what the staff saw coming with other TIF district requests (everyone had to be thinking Edgewater, they still need to get the Edgewater in a TIF district before it can get TIF money and that has to pass this board.)

Gromacki says there is growing concern, School District is particularly cash strapped and they are looking at TIF districts that are doing well and wanting to recover cost, they want their foregone revenue back. They aren't really questioning our use of TIF, but they are in a situation where every dollar counts. They county surprised him because they got in the fray. Their concern was primarily with the $5.7M and even the MATC representative was concerned.

Bruer was really pushing for the city and Mayor to follow up to smooth things over to smooth the way for any future TIF requests.

Clear asked what happens from the $5.7? They said that it would be deleted and then it would force an early closing of the district.

Sanborn took the opportunity to explain how the schools and county and technical college fore go increases in taxes in those areas and re-made his argument that we should just borrow for items we think are appropriate. He, of course, was the sole no vote.

GEEKING OUT
So, I sort of was giving Clear grief for being a geek about software, but as they were discussing the upgrades, Dean Brasser mentioned that part of the project means the there will be web based tools to help access data in the financial database to limit the inquiries they get. I can't wait to hear/see more on that! There, now my geek is showing.

BUDGET . . . SHORTFALLS?
Brasser explained the resolution. He says its just a technical change, it presents information about budget amendments necessary throughout the year, they are pretty minor. There were a few departments who went over costs, Rhodes-Conway made sure they were called up to explain themselves. Brasser says streets was the biggest issue, but it was due to recycling costs being down by $1.22M. (See next item). He also then explained that the city, when they can, under the limits of the Expenditure Restraint program, we like to put funds towards the Workman's Comp Fund. We've had a deficit in that fund for years and when we can, "if we have available resources" we try to transfer money to the fund to help make up the deficit. This year we have 2.77M under the Expenditure Restraint program and after all the adjustments they have $1.625M that the CAN transfer if they CHOOSE.

NEWSPAPERS RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR CASH FLOW PROBLEMS?
This caught my ear . . . in response to Verveer, Al Schumacher was describing the recycling revenues being down, he said that newspaper and cardboard has been the main staple of the recycling program and it is down. He said "the downturn in daily newspapers has really caused a big hit and the foreign economies don't want our newsprint because they don't have a market for it." There you go! Blame the media . . . or is that the damn internets?

TOWING
They spent a good hour and a half on this issue. In a nutshell, disputes about zoning, who is the cheapest, who provides the best service and the bidding process were at issue. Prairie Land Towing went through a process, ended up the cheapest and had the best score (95 vs. 76 score) and got a letter saying they were awarded the contract, then there was a protest letter from Schmitz towing, then Prairie Land was told on the phone the contract was a problem because of zoning issues. When Prairie Land looked into their zoning, they found Schmidt's Towing was also in violation. Then the police weighed in saying they preferred the more expensive Schmidts. So the Mayor, Bruer and Clear proposed to overturn the process and scores and go with Schmidt's instead. Lots of talking . . . I skipped through a bunch of it (Bruer). . . in the end Sanborn suggested they go with 6 months and settled on a 9 month process. Bruer and Clausius argued they should stick with 18 months. I found Sanborn's arguments, once again, very responsible and convincing. Something kind of stinks here and it looks bad.
Read more!