This Side of Town . . .: Historic Preservation

Showing posts with label Historic Preservation. Show all posts

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.

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

Monday, December 7, 2009

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.

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.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Edgewater: Denied! (Final)

It was a 7 hour meeting . . . I missed the first three hours, which consisted of 1.5 hours to 2 hours of presentation, there were a 2 - 3 hours of public testimony which was 100% against the project and a hear I missed a few precious moments which I'm bummed weren't televised (there was all audio recorded tho). Then, about 2.5 hours of discussion. By midnight there was still 15 members of the public there (I think two supporters and 13 opponents), 4 or 5 press, and lots of staff still there plus alders Bruer, Clear, Bidar-Sielaff and Verveer.

Apparently, the developers had directed their supporters not to speak. [I’m not sure if that was just good damage control on their part as their supporters wouldn’t speak to the issues before the Landmarks Commission or if they didn't know how to instruct their supporters to speak to the issues or if it was so they can later claim it wasn’t fair somehow and discount the hours of public testimony. Or maybe, they didn’t think they had a chance and didn’t want to waste their time.] Later, staff does count the registration slips and says that it was about 50/50 for an against.

Since I was late, I was at a bit of a disadvantage, but one thing I noticed that was really peculiar is usually that when a developer is done with their presentation, they go and sit down in the audience with the rest of the public. In this case, the the entire 7 hours, the developers sat at the table with the commission . . .

allowing them to participate in the conversations in a more natural way than if they were like the rest of the public who were not allowed to participate. The chair did a pretty good job keeping it under control, but they were able to take advantage of that seating from time to time.

I don't think I've ever seen this type of audacity by a developer before, not even from Veridian! :) It was just odd, but this is project is full of unprecedented incidents. (Developers bussing neighbors to skyboxes at Lambeau, creating a new neighborhood group to support a project, $16M in TIF for one project practically approved before there is even a project, crazy misleading drawings, etc. etc. etc.)

The other annoyance of the evening was the huge submittal they handed out to the meeting without copies for members of the public. I did take a peak at it at the end of the meeting and I couldn't tell if it was a "bury them in paper" type of document or if it was useful information. It was 11 x 17 paper with some pages having a single map or a blow up of a power point slide, others had 20 plus photos on it. The document had to have been about 60 - 75 pages, but there was also dividers and blank pages, so I just couldn't tell if it had value or not. The commissioners did refer to it at several points, so it was at least a reference tool for them.

Anyways, I'm skipping the public testimony and the questions of the developers that relate to much of that testimony and just am trying to get the discussion of the commission. Much of it was confusing as they are referring to a confusing ordinance and without having it in front of you, it was hard to follow the discussion. But I will do my best . . . here we go!

QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Around 9:25 Kitty Noonan, the assistant city attorney, after sleeping through much of questions that the commission were asking (I have a photo, but it didn't turn out well), put on her coat, picked up her bag and left the room. She was promptly chased out of the room and dragged back by Mario Mendoza from the Mayor's office. Mario then whispered in the chair's ear and the chair asked if the members had any questions of the city attorney.

Levitan asked if they have to find as a finding of fact that it is visually compatible or is the finding of fact only relevant once it is in the variance part of the ordinance? Noonan says the later. She says all these things relate to visually compatible, but if they decide it’s not visually compatible, the whole variance is moot. She says the ordinance is poorly drafted, [there's a dumb ass thing to say in public, on the record, if you have to later defend the ordinance in court] but there is a provision to apply for a variance, but can’t apply for it if you can’t get there. She talks about the ordinance and says they have to make a subjective determination in 15a but in 15c have to make specific findings of fact. Noonan says the authority is the general statement – she points to d of the ordinance and says you want to make c and d work together, you can’t read it to say if you have to find something is visually compatible you can’t ever get there. Then it devolves into some mumbo jumbo about the ordinance I didn't quite understand without the ordinance in front of me.

Levitan notes this is likely to go to litigation and so he wants to be clear. He says they have to agree that 15 c applies, then make findings of fact that 1, 2 or 3 in 15c apply – you need to make factual finding that one of those three apply. Noonan confirms and also confirms for Gehrig that it is one of the three have to apply.

Maniaci asks about language in Mansion Hill portion of the ordinance, she asks about the guideline language.

Noonan says that other districts have better language [With friends like this, who needs enemies . . . perhaps she is trying to disqualify herself from this case if it ever goes to court?] – she says it is a pet peeve of hers about the language, but if it is in the ordinance and says shall it is mandatory and if it says may or should then it is different than mandatory. The use of the word guidelines muddies it. The criteria contain "shall" "may" or "should". She points to page 53 and the criteria for review and points out how other district language is different. She says the use of the word guideline is not a "make or break" – guidelines should not be a "shall". Noonan says you have to meet what is under (e) and look at if it says "shall" or "may". Maniaci asks what the difference is between "shall" and "should"? Noonan explains "shall" is a requirement, "should" is the preferred way to go but not mandatory, that is why she wants to avoid the word "guideline."

[My apologies, I'm sure I missed this here, but this is what I think she said.] Noonan explains you have to get through a to get to c – if there are grounds to deny on 1 – 5, then entertain the variance for the guideline that it doesn’t meet. If it is denied on criteria #1, then entertain a variance request on 1, if not granted, then can’t meet the criteria for the certificate of appropriateness. Noonan says have to meet 2 - 5 criteria as well.

Maniaci asks her to explaing 15(c)3. and 15(b). Can they avoid the whole issue by entertaining the variance under 2 as an "addition". Noonan says you can argue new construction vs. addition but there is no clear use of the term in the chapter. Since it is an "addition", you can avoid the whole issue and look at 2. She talks about how it was drafted and says they can’t just write (c)3 as if it wasn’t 2. there. If they call it "new construction", they can only entertain request for "materials" variance on new construction.

Maniaci says that "new construction" doesn’t say "new building", Noonan wishes they had used teh term "development" which is a broader term, "new construction" just means new construction – she says that has more of a meaning to her than changing a door, she points out that an "addition" where they add square feet is "new construction" – not mutually exclusive, if they do define it that way, can’t get to (c)3 unless for "materials".

Maniaci asks about the reference to the plan, and asks if the plan is binding? She asks how they use it. (g) says the plan is the basis for creating the ordinance, so do we go with the document? Noonan says that the criteria are in the ordinance and that is where you should focus your attention. She says it is similar to the zoning ordinance where you have zoning and neighborhood plans. She notes that what happens after 2010 is less clear but that is her problem. She says one is a guideline (plan) other is a requirement (ordinance).

Maniaci asks about guideline criteria 1, what metrics do you use for "environment" in the ordinance language? Do you look at FAR? Noonan says not a legal issue, she doesn’t know the answer but you have to look at the visually related area. Stephans points out "visually related area" definition is in the ordinance. Compatible with the buildings and environment is not.

Stuart asks about "undue hardship" language. Noonan says they shouldn't rest their decision on case law from zoning doctrines.

Rosenblum asks if it is a financial hardship. Noonan says no. She says it has to be a hardship create by the ordinance. Then you might look at if the property is financially useless as a result of the ordinance, then they might need a variance, but would not go much further with dealing with financial aspect, also not look at outcomes of case law. Can be informed by general concept and since it is not spelled out and because it is in the zoning ordinance don’t base it on that. [Funny, earlier she was wishing they had used the word "development" which is defined in the zoning code and would have used that as guidance, she's being inconsistent.]

And with that, Noonan leaves and they go back to questions for the development team.

DISCUSSION IN THE QUESTIONS OF THE DEVELOPER
There is a little discussion sprinkled throughout the questions, and a few interesting points, so I'll note some of it here.

- Taylor, in response to a developer comment that the building is timeless says that this neighborhood is littered with wonderful architecture, but you didn’t relate those pieces to the building, she understands a new building standing on its own, but this neighborhood is unique and special and deserves more respect, instead of timeless.

- Rosenblum says the project is light years ahead of where it was, that they listened to input, pieces of it are wonderful, restoring building and plaza are great strides, but asks them to make a case for how the building will stand out by its sheer size, how does it fit with the gross volume requirements.

- Gehrig asks section 5 page 26 of the developer materials. Staff notes there is a typo. The architect points out a second mistake. They say to look at the staff report for the correct numbers, not the developers materials.

- Gehrig asks about why they are looking at various parts of the buildings differently. The architect says that she makes a good point and they should have been consistent, he also points out that the materials should have been presented differently.

DISCUSSION
Stephans says he thought he knew what he was looking at when he got here – residential vs. commercial - but he is sad to see mansion hill ordinance, which is what they have to respond to, that when it speaks to volume and relationship of heights and doors and solids and voids it refers to "visually related area" which has a clear definition – but when get to variances, then look at all buildings "directly affected". However from what he sees, when he goes back to mansion hill plan, he sees a historic district that was written to defeat further commercial development, but the ordinance does not do that. He is having trouble seeing it doesn’t comply with everything, believes development and those in opposition are speaking from intent of the district, but that is not what the ordinance gives them.

Slattery asks him to expand on residential vs. commercial discussion. Stephans notes the guidelines are about the "visually related area", developer has responded to that. Some of them may be a stretch, but they substantially comply. The opposition to this project is an attempt at, as was the mansion hill plan aimed at, protecting a historic residential district. He would love to make comments to go beyond visually related are, but that is not what the ordinance gives them to judge the proposal.

Maniaci interrupts but chair makes her wait. [There is much grumbling and eye rolling and snickers in the audience, as this has apparently been a pattern for the evening. Including interrupting public testimony by the 30 year city preservation planner.]

Slattery says doesn’t say residential or commercial., but it talks about "new construction" – she asks if they can’t have a commercial building that meets the criteria. Stephans says he says this is commercial and meets the criteria, but it is completely different than what he thought when he came here.

Levitan says if Stephans comments relate to the certifcate of appropriateness criteria– including gross volume – Stephans says yes, when looking at visually related area, he says its arguable, if go outside visually related area it is more questionable. Certificate of appropriateness has something different – thought he had it figured out.

Maniaci says this is the first time she gets to weigh in so she has alot to say, this is her district. She says she is hearing from neighbors in mansion hill and district as a whole, many in Mansion Hill on her side of Wisconsin say they are in support, but they aren’t here tonight and you don’t get to hear that. She says 60 – 65% in her district are in support. [I can't help but wonder what this is based on considering what I have seen from my neighbors and on neighborhood listserves and items I've been cc'd or bcc'd on.] She says that outside of her district the comment is “just build the damn thing”. She says she went through the ordinances and thinks there is a path to see this building built. Why build this building in my neighborhood, why here? She says there are a lot of benefits, we’re not tearing anything down, not affecting any historic mansion, doors on Gene Devitt's house is 1856, this building doesn’t impact the historic character of that door or that house, this doesn’t come at cost of buildings in the district. This is buildable, one of few places to bring in needed amenities for the neighborhood [visible reaction from nearby neighbors], it has so much green space, given the lot sizes and the way it is built there is no other place for green space in the neighborhood. She talks about the view down Wisconsin Avenue – this is improved and helps historic nature of the corridor, this restores what was lost. She is excited to get rid of 70s "VCR". She says she has heard a lot of the suggestions on this commission and at UDC and at private meetings. They were told to get the height down, open it up, that the stair case is too much of a wall, developer has listened to what they have said [well, except for getting the height down] and looked at the criteria and meets it. It’s a good building, she doesn't believe they are there to stop change and new development, they are here to stop tear down of mansions, this hotel doesn’t do that at all. Building is residential in nature, comparable to lots of density that is in other buildings with people coming and going in the other houses. To echo Stephans points if looking at the entire neighborhood, then there less density and having knocked on those doors, there are a lot of people there. She has concerns about construction and traffic, but she can work through that, she wants to be in support of the building, but wants to come back in 50 years and say it is a great decision to make. You also have to acknowledge this is a commercial site, its is a hotel, there will be changes and additions – not stagnant. She has a problem with the suggestion of taking out the trees. She says she told the developer they need to build an efficient building [That was her major concern??] and the more they are pushed on that the building is better, doesn’t want to see massive stretched out building along the lakefront. She says she has lots of notes about language and ordinance, but thinks did a good job. [Psst, your job here is to read the ordinance language and express why it meets or doesn't meet the ordinance - this is a nice speech for the council floor, but not for Landmarks.] She understands it is a big building, they will argue about a 4-story building down the road and people will say that’s too big, she points to a picture in section 5 – pg24. She compares Kennedy to 2 Langdon, it’s pretty relevant. A lot of the neighbors have been working hard on this, appreciates what they are working on, it made her and the developer go back and question things, this is better than 6 months ago. She has a problem with people coming in with proposals on cocktail napkins with their version of the site, she can’t do what ifs, this is the proposal before us. She stressed a lot of things along the way, haven’t talked about the design of the original intent of the building – she thinks they did a smart job with the rooftop glass, very excited to have that in her district, especially when look at success of Overture, might be a neat attribute that you look back in 50 years and say roof top gardens is what they built during our time. She is excited for the project, there are a lot of crummy things in her neighborhood and it can bring lots of good things to the neighborhood and will still respect the old mansions – the neighborhood is not compromised, if you have design suggestions on architecture they should bring those up. She is happy to be at this point, this is a project she can support.
[There you have it, seemingly unconditional support.]

Slattery asks about the gross volume requirement in the ordinance. Maniaci points to the "environments" language, the FAR, the site as a whole. She says there is no apple to apple comparison when you look at Kennedy Manor and 2 Langdon you are all over – she says she struggled with it as well. She asks how do we determine gross volume? She says it is arbitrary here, we need to figure it out. [Well good, it needs to be figured out to see if it meet the ordinance, but then how can you give it your unconditional support without doing that work?]

Stephans says that he likes what they are doing – the tower is too big, it’s his perception, but when reads the gross volume, its improved, developer listened and has been progressive, looks at site of development and gross volume of the site – and then the visually related area, which is what they are restricted to, can’t wander outside of it, when look at that area, gross volume is compatible with buildings and environment. He says the visually related area is not restricted to the buildings. You have developable area where they reduced volume, which contributes to developable mass for the entire site. He points out that when you look from the lake, original building is pretty bad and with the new building you don’t have same perspective impact. Doesn’t like the tower or its development, good architecture, if went into a residential neighborhood not good, but that is not what ordinance says.

Levitan asks applicant about difference in perspectives in the materials that they were provided. He points out that one is horizon at one level and the other at a different level. He asks them to look at the horizon where it meets the 40s tower.

The architect, to his credit, for the second time tonight, instead of making something up, says he can’t explain it. He says they built a computer model, which is accurate, the professional renderer did the pictures, so, it’s possible that these two are not at the same point. He says there are three variables, the model is accurate, if the rendered played with where he is in the model have to look at it.

Levitan asks about the stair and the tower – stairs are too wide. Again, for the third time, the architect says he's not not sure about that. He says the building is 60 feet wide, stair is 18 feet average, is that more than 1/3 of that? He leaves that as a question, but notes, gain, the computer model is hard line wireframe model, that accuracy he will attest to, rendering and then you lose some accuracy, if lay computer model over it you might find discrepancies.

Dunn says that focused on the development of the images in the computer model, challenge for the model and in their rendering is that 2 Langdon is likely set too low in its relationship to the existing building in the rendering. He doesn’t have plans and elevations of 2 Langdon, working to confirm that, brick line says photo is one floor different.

Maniaci asks if the rendering was supposed to match the photo? Manfredi (the architect) says photo and rendering are hard to compare, one is a photo, one is a rendering, I don’t think we are exactly in the same place.

Dunn says they are relatively the same, one is not 18 feet up in the air.

Architect says you can rely on the two dimensional drawings, when get into the rendering, you have an artist, you lose some accuracy.

Supple says that the buildings establish and frame 132 feet says supple. [See what I mean about them sitting at the table and just being able to chime in? That's awful.]

Slattery says that she is looking at the language in the ordinance more literally and at the size of the tower and the size of the buildings, when look at the numbers and stats, its bigger.

Gehrig holds up pieces of paper that she used to measure the volume of the buildings and holds up the extra pieces that represent the extra volume. She says she did that and used math, did comparisons and found that the new building is 3, 8, 16 and 10 times bigger than the other buildings in the visually related area.

Maniaci asks about the "environment". Gehrig says she has been hung up on building's volume and again points to the huge differences with her left over paper that demonstrates the volume of the buildings.

Levitan asks if there is any standard beyond #1 that is not satisfied – is it only gross volume people are concerned about.

Gehrig says she is concerns about #5 related to the 40s building. She says it is visually related – staff says that they looked at it the way it was interpreted before, other buildings in the area don’t count, but that is not what the ordinance says, the ordinance says buildings in visually related area – staff report didn’t include it, applicants saying it should be included it in their comparison,

Stephans says it is an existing building in the 200 foot area.

Maniaci says to look at the volume of 40s and 70s building volume.

Levitan says directional expression, not volume.

Only Gehrig is concerned with 5 so they move on.

Maniaci says that when it comes to the criteria in the certificate vs. variance, Maniaci says it’s the environment, open space around the building, excluding open space to the east which is currently all trees that people won’t interact with it. [Not sure what the point was, but that wasn't her fault, I think it was mine.]

Levitan says she should assume a big building will be where the trees are in the future.

Maniaci says not looking at the right of way, top of 70s building and space opening up there as it relates to the building. She talks about the BUILD and TLNA plan where there are big buildings on East Washington and how they step down, given what they are doing on 70s building, there is space to step back and keep the right of way and view corridor open and not make people feel boxed in.

Levitan says he’s not sure why Stephans thinks variance and certificate criteria are different – why see as meeting certificate but not variance? All buildings directly affected by the project and visually related area.

Maniaci says NGL.

Staphans talks about a house in the neighborhood and comments from neighbors, he says it’s a residential district and intent was to project residential area, if no 40s and 70s building it’s a different conversation, but we have them, the three commercial buildings, they excuse the three buildings commercial buildings in the plan – not moving toward them, but accepted them.

Levitan says that last line in 15a, "directly affected" and "visually related area". He asks what is “directly”? NGL is directly affected, but mansion 3 blocks away are not directly affected.

Stephans says it is arguable, based on intent of the plan.

Maniaci points out the purpose and intent statement on the district language – none of the residential language is there.

Taylor says that old Edgewater was a commercial building, there are 3 unusual buildings, reads from plan – they almost exclude them.

Maniaci says the Edgewater is also included where listed the buildings.

Stephans says they don’t address residential – intent not translated into the ordinance and the developer has responded to the ordinance and that is what they must enforce. Several arguable points, still like to see them.

Taylor is stuck on the volume, even tho the 610 building is there, in reality you do have (e).

Levitan says the tower is too big, but not perceived except from lake, for all intents and purposes it is the tower we are talking about.

Rosenblum talks about testimony from the skipper of the boat that talked about how one lake has an industrial feel and view from lake and if going to look at visually related area, have to look at if from the lake as well, it was a residential lake.

Gehrig says it has a soft shoreline vs. hard shoreline of lake Monona. She says that as much as they don’t like 70’s building, it has the horizontal expression that mimics 40s building. She directs them to page 1 in section 4. Tells them to look at the windows.

Levitan tells her to look at the existing towers, a fenestration treatment at the base isn't the building, the 40's building is vertical.

Gehrig says windows are horizontal. Levitan and Gehrig disagree and argue back and forth.

[At this point, I'm beginning to mutter to myself - someone make a damn motion!]

Maniaci asks a question I missed.

Rosenblum reads the broader language in the variance language.

Maniaci says need to determine what "directly affected" means. [But still unconditionally supports the project?]

Gehrig says all the buildings will be affected, people who live in the district feel threatened.

Levitan asks that all buildings in the district? Every building will be held to these standards. Council put two criteria, "directly affected" and "visually related area". Levitan points out NGL is not "visually related" but it is "directly affected". They would have said different if they meant it.

Stephans says that variance language is broader, also intent of the ordinance is broader.

Stuart asks if they are supposed to look at the district language or broader ordinance language? [Wouldn't it be nice if the city attorney had stayed to help them work through this, instead of throwing them to the wolves . . . she is seriously neglecting her job by going home. None of the other staff do that in the middle of a controversial project, in fact, planning staff had three staff people there to cover all the issues. What happens if this goes to court and it is based on something that happens that might have been prevented had she been there. She just cost the taxpayer a shitload of money.]

Levitan points out that if you look at the general language, it meets the language requirements. The only questionable one is the property values, it meets other criteria.

Maniaci says she has no problem with a – g and pg 1 section 5.

Gehrig points out districts – have to protect the districts, feels responsible to protect them.

Levitan asks how you measure that, by how many people show up?

Maniaci says that neighbors that support don’t feel compelled to come out and sit through meetings for 4 hours, she says the same group of people coming to all the meetings, wants to hear from all her constituents, her job as alder ties to make sure everyone heard. [ooooo, the ol' silent majority argument . . . seriously? If the silent majority is out there, and she supports the project, she should be encouraging them to show up and back her up.]

Stephans asks what the count is on who registered?

Levitan says overwhelming against.

Dunn says they asked supporters not to speak or come, because we’d still be on public comment. [Ahem, see, again, convenient he was sitting right there at the table.]

Maniaci points out that DMI and Susan Schmidt and others have shown up to testify and others have filled out pieces of paper, they are downtown stakeholders. They will come and at least fill out piece of paper, but they are not about getting up and grandstanding. [ooo, ouch. I'm surprised by how her and the Mayor so openly dismiss actively engaged residents of the area. It's embarrassing.]

Rosenblum says that they should talk about #1 – which is the crux of the matter.

MOTION
Maniaci moves to grant certificate of appropriateness based on . . .

Staff interupts and says the registrations are about 50/50 in support and against.

Maniaci repeats her motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the project. Then she asks if this is the "initial approval". The explain to her that is a term used at UDC not Landmarks.

There is no second for quite some time. Rosenblum finally seconds it, for purposes of discussion. [Can you see where this is going?]

Gehrig says that the motion should be broken up.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION
Levitan moves a substitute to grant the certificate of appropriateness for the 40s and 70s building.

Maniaci seconds. They point out that would make it friendly.

Rosenblum asks how does it get us any further? He says the developers know that they like those two portions of the project.

Clear [not on the commission, not sitting at the table, not participating up to this point] says point of order. He says they have to vote on if it is friendly to the body – or vote on the substitute. [On the one hand, I forgot to check to see if Mario had his hand up Clear's butt while he was speaking, but on the other hand, if there was an alder on the commission that knew what they were doing, Clear wouldn't have had to point this out and get them back on track.]

Rosenblum objects to it being friendly.

Levitan withdraws the motion. They are back to the original motion.

ORIGINAL MOTION
Maniaci now asks for a point of order. Do they have to vote on the certificate of appropriateness before they consider the variance. Can they vote on the variance first. [Damn, don't you think you would have asked that before you made the motion - that is something she should have known and calculated before she got to the table and made the motion. I hate to point out how to do her job, but that was pretty basic. If you're trying to get something passed, you should just know that. Sigh . . . ]

They say they could deal with the variance first. [but Maniaci doesn't change her motion at all.]

Gehrig asks the commissioners if they feel there are sufficient drawings for the glass addition on the top of the 40s building.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT
Slattery adds to the motion that the rehab should be done to Secretary of the Interior standards and the staff can judge if they feel they can sign off or they can decide to send it to the commission.

Someone points out that two weeks ago they were "restoring" they project, now they are "rehabbing" the project.

Supple jumps in and says that staff used that term in their report and so that is what they used. [Again, convenient to be sitting right there at the table, and totally, completely inappropriate.]

Maniaci says that Slattery's amendment is friendly.

Maniaci,[despite her motion and apparent unconditional support for the project] points out the need to discuss the entrance and the rendering on the Brigadoon room, which they saw for the first time tonight. She says they have to have a discussion on the details. She asks if changes to 1940s building should be approved by staff or come back to the commission. Maniaci still talking about "final approval".[She doesn't seem to understand that once they approve it, its done and doesn't come back unless they make that a condition of approval. I'm not sure why she is confused on this point, but I'm curious as she seems kind of stuck on it.]

Gehrig asks about the entrance to the 40s building, are they going to build it as intended in the rendering or restore it as built. She says people are excited about the intent, and she wanted to know why built the way it is? She says the historic photos are different than existing building and she was hoping to see both options presented to them and thought she asked for that. [What, the Edgewater team was asked to provide information that they haven't yet provided? What a surprise! eyeroll. Perhaps they should spend more time working on their submittals and less time on bus trips to see packer's games.] Now that we are not restoring, don’t know if need original, not comfortable throwing it all to intent.

Stephans says that construction of original intent is ok, right now the Historical Society is building the reading room to the original intent based on renderings and that does meet the Secretary of Interior standards.

Gehrig asks where the rendering came from – she notes a picture she saw at the old hotel but it was done in '78 – but cuz have a beautiful drawing we don’t know it is the intent of the architect.

Maniaci is talking to Gehrig, no one can hear what she is saying . . . so I missed a whole bunch . . . she says it was originally built as residential structure.

Dunn [seriously, I think he thinks he's on the commission!] and maybe the architect chimes in and says that as researched it, the rendering is the original, plans and specs on page 12 of section 5 are more or less consistent with color photo – design work done is generally consistent with what was built there today. Primary differences are pattern of windows and far corner of building there are later renderings of the building like the one in the lobby 77, rendering building after the building was built. Keys on the original rendering because of the detailing. Dunn also says that actual photography to show what was built, if direction was to restore, the photos show what they would restore to, if you look at page 14, and better on 16 shows what was built on waterfront. Structure still exists, glass taken away, now are is more or less open below, interior façade that is relieved from the exterior wall.

Gehrig is concerned about approving it on renderings with drawings.

Maniaci asks how much goes to UDC and what they talk about? [I don't think anyone answered her.]

Stephans says that if the criteria to build to is "as built", then have to find a date of significance, need to be more specific than to just restore.

Maniaci asks about handing off design to UDC, which changes the building significantly handed off, then what happens?

Slattery says they are leaving options open to discuss these things later. That is what we are being told will happen. Bigger components should come back to us, entrance, roof top, Brigadoon room, then come back here.

Rosenblum says they should leave it to staff to determine if significantly different and should come back here.

Staff says they don’t know what the standard is, what does it deviate from – the original rendering, but they don’t have a solid image?

Maniaci says not enough to give final sign off on. Final construction drawings should come back, other minor design details approved by staff. If in doubt, goes to them.

Gehrig wants them to build to the rendering as built vs. intent. But, she doesn't know what that means for the Brigadoon room.

Dunn [sigh . . . they're getting a shitload of leeway here, unprecedented one might say . . . ] says can’t give rendering of as built of that portion of the building.

Someone says they want the 70s rehab and redesign and any major changes to come back.

Rosenblum says it will change after goes through process, so should come back.

Staff asks for clarification.

They determine they would like to see the later articulations to the plaza, minor changes to staff, major changes come back to commission. The changes should be to the Secretary of Interior standards.

Slattery says "environment" is not just that lot, doesn’t know where to go with gross volume. [There is confusion as they flip through paper, cuz that is the hard part . . . ]

Maniaci says looked at it in terms of the site.

Slattery says she is looking at it broader.

Maniaci says that what is in the circle in open and green space, and don’t count the right of way . . . there is a lot of space around this . . . doesn’t’ complete sentence . . . .

Taylor says looking this being at 2 times and 4 times size of other buildings, just way too massive.

Maniaci says a large part of Kennedy Manor has to do with the streetscape – the lower portion of this building does not do that. She says to look at Kennedy Manor in relation to neighbor, property is on the lot line, this lot at this location – that isn’t what the environment is.

Tayor says its not set back – neither is this.

Maniaci agrees. If Kennedy manor had a big back yard how would we look at it – open space weighs equally to how you read #1 – if no lot space, and trying to put tower next to 2 Langdon, couldn’t do it.

Levitan says that Kennedy Manor did.

Rosenblu says even from the green space perspective, this doesn’t look visually compatible, this is a big building, to say other small buildings are compatible doesn't work, this is a big step up – that’s a big stair step.

Levitan says that every PUD is new. With respect to Maniaci and Stephans approving the certificate of appropriateness that is where we do damage to the landmarks ordinance, gross volume is where we get hung up the most on projects, it is where we are hung up on Holy Redeemer. As all speakers expressed, integrity of landmarks ordinance is important, district by district and landmarks ordnance itself. Even with incorporation of "environment" and FAR – if we say this is compatible, that defines our standards moving forward, that set precedent. When this building is built next NGL comes in and this will be visually related. The Certificate of Appropriateness is where we do damage to the ordinance, variance is different, intellectually this just damages the ordinance. Different analysis.

Maniaci asks about page 1, sub d - what is Levitan looking at?

Levitan says under 10(e) - 1 can’t be met. Its the Mansion Hill ordiance - can't find that standard – approval of this would damage the integrity of the ordinance.

Maniaci asks about the variance.

Levitan says that approving it as a variance doesn’t damage the ordinance.

Staff reads motion . . . it goes something like this . . . they grant the certificate of appropriateness as submitted given the criteria subject to design details of 1940s building (top floor, Brigadoon room, front door) plus the 70's plaza (designed to Secretary of the Interior standards) coming back with other minor changes to be approved by staff, major changes come back to commission.

VOTE
1 - 5. Maniaci the lone voice vote in support of her motion.

NEW MOTION
Maniaci moves a variance under . . .

Levitan interrupts her to tell her what her motion is so that it will be made properly. It takes a little while to get it right . . . but he tells her to make a motion that commission finds that the project will be visually compatible with all buildings directly impacted and they find that massing of the project which otherwise not permitted would enhance quality of design and otherwise complies with new construction criteria . . .

They stop and play back his motion, note that he is reading the language directly from c 3.

Maniaci says she makes that motion.

Chirp.

Chirp.

Rosenblum once again puts them out of their misery and seconds for the purposes of discussion.

Rosenblum asks if this is "new construction" or an "alteration".

Maniaci says they are not mutually exclusive. They say its not clear.

Rosenblum asks if new construction is an addition?

Slattery says needs to be under 2 under d, not 3. That is what staff say. So aren’t we back to c2 vs. c3.

Levitan says they didn’t ask under c2, only need it on the massing, its under c3,

Muphy says the clarification was a reference to d2 as an "addition", in addition to c3.

Slattery is confused.

Staff says motion made is correct – but also have to add d2, and under d2 would allow . . . and they read the ordinance.

Gehrig clarifies it is the whole project with the same conditions as before.

Staff say they would give it a certificate of appropriateness with a variance of criteria number 1 pursuant to c2 and d2 with same conditions as before.

Levitan says enhancement of 40s and 70s building is defensible because of new building. Says "directly affected" are just over limit of visually related area, you can either see the project or project can see you. He says that doesn’t address Devitt’s concerns, he will be directly affected.

Maniaci points to the Ambassador.

Rosenblum says ordinance is not clear.

Maniaci says they need to define it.

Levitan says they can adopt or not adopt and that will define it.

Levitan and Stephans have different interpretations.

Stephans says it "directly affects" the district.

Maniaci says "no".

Stephans says not under ordinance, but under variance.

Taylor point to the "beneficial effect", says that some will look at the green space, but looking at the large building by a 2 story mansion, is that "beneficial" to the ordinance.

Stephans says it refers to the intent of the ordinance.

Levitan asks if it is landmarks ordinance intent cuz then its ok, but not Mansion Hill ordinance intent. He continues making his argument, property values is the one he might have issue with – reads them – he says they have to find all that.

Stephans says if they address the mansion hill ordinance which is part of the whole ordinance, they can’t be in conflict with a subset. He argues what intent it.

Maniaci says 10 is the intent.

Stephans says it clearly states the plan is part of the intent, it says it is "derived" from this plan, this expresses the intent. [At this point, all I can think is LEGISLATIVE INTENT is NOT limited to what is written in the ordinance. I don't think a court would ever limit it to just the strict reading of the purpose section of the ordinance.]

Levitan says no other intent besides to be a district in the Mansion Hill portion of the ordinance. He says 10 a refers to 6 d 1 thru 4. [My notes now say "where the hell is kitty", because a city attorney would be pretty handy about now during this discussion.]

Gehrig clarifies what the motion it.

Levitan verifies that that was a class one notice. Staff confirms.

Staff reads the motion which says to grant the certificate of appropriateness based on variance of standard one, pursuant to c3 and d2 . . . Maniaci tries to help – Murphy says replay it – lots of confusion . . . Levitan tries to state the whole thing, Maniaci tries to tell him how to do it, he indicates firmly but politely he doesn't need her help. I think they finally figure it out.

Levitan says that 80 years ago, the people here would have urged us to reject Kennedy Manor, but as we experience it today it is legitimate. He hopes in 80 years from now this will be too.

Sattery says that yes, but are you are finding that the they don’t need to find the gross volume, now we are saying it is visually compatible under the variance.

Levitan says notwithstanding the gross volume, everything else is compatible.

Maniaci says no definition of gross volume.

Levitan says gross volume out of compliance, this ordinance we have to find them visually compatible, someone would have to harmonize those concepts in their mind – motion is understood.

Maniaci says sub one, wants to tell them how it fits.

Rosenblum says it is the basic intent of ordinance.

VOTE
Maniaci and Levitan vote for the motion, everyone else against, including the chair, its a voice vote.

ONE MORE MOTION - A "COMFORT" MOTION
Rosenblum makes a statement about appreciating the efforts, if doing something on the spot, it has to be a signature building, so more work to be done.

Levitan says a signature building like Milwaukee arts won't be visually compatible.

Rosenblum says the signature piece is the plaza, tower throws it out of whack.

Stephans says gross volume needs to be reduced is his interpretation.

Levitan tells us what motion Maniaci wants to make, a comfort motion, that the construction of hotel addition would be able to be given a certificate of appropriateness with an appropriate gross volume. He says it is a nice gesture but it doesn’t mean much.

Maniaci seconds Levitan's motion.

Taylor asks about the height limit in the neighborhood.

Maniaci says no, don't go there.

Gehrig says yes, Maniaci argues with her, Gehrig says its not a PUD yet.

Levitan says their options now are to go to council and get Landmarks overturned or go to Cincinnati – or for the sake of argument, we should say what is the appropriate volume. He lists examples of how they could indicate that.

Rosenblum says that even with clear direction he's not sure it would change – we did what we are charged with doing, protecting a historic district.

Levitan says to get to iteration 3, we should have an acceptable range.

Rosenblum says he can't do that off the top of their heads. [especially after 6.5 hours of meeting . . . ]

Gehrig says she wants more of a balance between the towers.

Levitan asks if that is the tower and pedestal.

Gehrig says she wants is more visually related to the historic tower, maybe as high as Kennedy manor, she says height is her concern, she is not answering the volume question.

Levitan says height isn’t the standard.

Gehrig says they need to make the volume fit the height.

Stephans says that they need to reduce height and not volume – need to tell them what volume is appropriate.

They clarify the motion, vote unanimously and adjourn at midnight. Read more!