Edgewater: Plan Commission did not do their Job

So, the neighborhood filed an appeal. When the council and plan commission approved the change to the Waterfront setback ordinance for the Edgewater hotel, they both said it was ok because they would deal with those issues when the Plan Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit. Well, check out the thorough job they did.

CONDITIONAL USE "DISCUSSION"

(Ok, I uploaded the videos twice, and they still have the video and audio off, but they play just fine on my computer.)

There are two problems here. First of all, they didn't do the work they said they would do, further eroding the public sense of trust and transparency. Second, legally . . . well, they gave the neighborhood a gift and truly failed to do what they were legally required to do. And the neigbhborhood called them on it, by appealing the conditional use last Thursday, more on this in a moment.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS/FINDINGS
By failing to discuss the conditional use and by merely making a motion to approve, there is no evidence that they made the findings required by the ordinance. Here's what the ordinance MGO 28.12(11)(g) requires:

(g) Standards. No application for a conditional use shall be granted by the City Plan Commission unless such commission shall find all of the following conditions are present:
1. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. (Am. by Ord. 13,232, 2-11-03)
2. That the City be able to provide municipal services to the property where the conditional use is proposed, given due consideration of the cost of providing such services. (Cr. by Ord. 13,012, 2-26-02)
3. That the uses, values and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood for purposes already established shall be in no foreseeable manner substantially impaired or diminished by the establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use.
4. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.
5. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, parking supply, internal circulation improvements, including but not limited to vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, public transit and other necessary site improvements have been or are being provided.
6. That measures, which may include transportation demand management (TDM) and participation in a transportation management association have been or will be taken to provide adequate ingress and egress, including all off-site improvements, so designed as to minimize traffic congestion and to ensure public safety and adequate traffic flow, both onsite and on the public streets. (Am. by Ord. 13,422, 10-24-03)
7. That the conditional use shall conform to all applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
8. That when applying the above standards to an application by a community living arrangement the City Plan Commission shall: [snip]
9. That when applying the above standards to any new construction of a building or an addition to an existing building the City Plan Commission:
a. Shall bear in mind the statement of purpose for the zoning district such that the proposed building or addition at its location does not defeat the purposes and objective of the zoning district, and
b. May require the applicant to submit plans to the Urban Design Commission for comments and recommendations, and
c. May consider the use of the proposed building as it relates to the City’s Land Use Plan.
When a conditional use application is denied, [snip]
10. That when applying the above standards to an application for a reduction in offstreet parking requirements, [snip]
11. That when applying the above standards to telecommunication facilities [snip]

STAFF REPORT
I thought maybe they could get away with saying they were approving what was in the staff report, but this is what the staff report says about the conditional use:

In addition to the Waterfront Development Standards all waterfront development must be approved as a conditional use in accordance with the Conditional Use Standards (copies of which Commission members have available to refer to). The Conditional Use Standards indicate that no application for a conditional use shall be granted by the Plan Commission unless the Commission finds that all of the following conditions are present, and then refers to the eleven standards. The Plan Commission should review the project against all of the conditional use standards. Of particular note are Standards 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Standards 5 and 6 relate to the provision of adequate utilities and infrastructure including roads, drainage, parking supply, and internal circulation improvements. Standard 6 relates to measures which have been or will be taken to provide adequate ingress and egress including off-site improvements designed to minimize traffic congestion and ensure public safety and adequate traffic flow, both on-site and on the public streets. The City‟s Engineering Division and Traffic Engineering Division have recommended conditions of approval for this project.

Conditional use standard #1 states that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. Staff believes that the Plan Commission could find that this standard is met with the addition of appropriate conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Division and other reviewing agencies.

Conditional use standard #3 indicates that the uses, values, and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood for purposes already established shall be in no foreseeable manner substantially impaired or diminished by the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use. Concerns have been expressed by some neighbors of the property concerning the enjoyment of their properties in relationship to the proposed project being built. Concerns have been expressed about potential traffic impacts, bus parking, accommodations of delivery vehicles, and blockage of view corridors, to name several. The Plan Commission will need to carefully consider the testimony provided at the public hearing, materials submitted by both the applicant and those in opposition to this project, and the comments by staff in determining whether this standard can be met or if changes to the project will be required in order for the Commission to conclude that the standard can be met.

Conditional use standard #4 states that the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. Planning Division staff believes that the Commission can find that this standard is met. Many of the properties in close proximity to the project are already developed and all are located in the Mansion Hill Historic District. While it may have been ideal to have an overall plan for all of the National Guardian Life property to consider as part of this planned unit development, staff believe that such a plan is not required in order to conclude that this standard is met. The remainder of the NGL property can still be developed in accordance with the existing zoning on the property, future zoning that will be provided as part of the comprehensive rezoning of properties within the City as part of the rewriting of the Zoning Ordinance, and in consideration of the recommendations within the City‟s adopted plans including the anticipated new Downtown Plan.

Staff also notes that continuing jurisdiction attaches to this project by virtue of its status as a waterfront development conditional use, as specified in Section of 28.12(11)(h)4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Continuing jurisdiction provides the Plan Commission with the ability to address any potential issues that might arise related to the operation of the greater development. In addition, staff recommends that the list of uses permitted within the PUD zoning text be revised to specifically list outdoor eating and recreation areas for the hotel, including future use of the hotel tower roof for hotel/ guest functions, as conditional uses. While it is rare for conditional uses to be specifically enumerated in PUD zoning, staff feels that it may be appropriate in this case to segregate those uses that may have the potential to create concerns and future complaints in the surrounding neighborhood in a fashion similar to the way those uses would be governed under a conventional zoning district. Such a specific treatment for the Edgewater Hotel will also allow the Plan Commission to tailor specific operating provisions such as hours of operations and use of outdoor amplified sound as conditions warrant and specifically address any future complaints directly using continuing jurisdiction. This would also be possible under the waterfront development conditional use.

The staff go on to say:

Planning staff has reviewed the project against the standards for waterfront development and conditional uses and generally believes that the Plan Commission could find those standards met if appropriate conditions are applied to the project, and if the applicant makes any changes to the project determined necessary by the Plan Commission. Staff does not believe the project will have an adverse impact on the normal and orderly development of surrounding properties, although it does recommend that certain outdoor uses proposed in the development be made conditional uses in the zoning text to allow the Plan Commission to directly address any potential future issues that might arise related to the development from the future use of the roof for hotel functions and from the various outdoor eating areas on the subject site. [Note: The outdoor eating areas for the two restaurants, café, club level and ballroom shown on the March 10, 2010 plans will receive their conditional use approval if the project is approved as presented; a subsequent conditional use approval would only be required for newly proposed outdoor eating areas or rooftop uses of the new hotel tower.] The Plan Commission will need to determine, based on testimony at the public hearing and after considering all the information provided, whether any changes to the project are needed to ensure that it does not substantially impair the uses, values and enjoyment of other properties in the area.

The staff didn't just recommend approval, but recommended that they consider several issues on a few of the items, #3 being the the item I would have expected them to discuss or at least make a specific determination. Instead, not a word was said.

1965 ORDINANCE DISCUSSION
I know many people were disappointed in the plan commissions lack of discussion on not just the conditional use, but also the 1965 ordinance change that allows condos, the use of TIF and changing the setback from Wisconsin Ave. They spent just as little time on the 1965 ordinance.


There is no appeal for that ordinance, except to hope that the Council discusses the ordinance more than the plan commission did.

HOW TO APPEAL
Here's what the ordinance says about an appeal:

MGO Sec. 28.12(11)(i)
(i) Appeal From Action By City Plan Commission. An appeal from the decision of the City Plan Commission may be taken to the Common Council by the applicant of the conditional use, by the Alderman of the district in which the use is located or by twenty percent (20%) or more of the property owners notified objecting to the establishment of such conditional use. Such appeal must specify the grounds thereof in respect to the findings of the City Plan Commission and must be filed with the Secretary of the Plan Commission within ten (10) days of the final action of the City Plan Commission. Final action may be either initial action on a conditional use or action following reconsideration of the said initial action under the Commission’s rules of procedure. However, reconsideration shall only occur following written notification of intent to reconsider by a Commission member to the Commission Secretary no later than ten (10) days after said initial action. Thereupon, the notice requirements of Section 28.12(11)(f) shall be complied with before the Commission reconsiders such initial action, except that the notice by publication shall be a Class 1 Notice. The taking of an appeal prior to the third day after said initial action shall not preclude or invalidate reconsideration by the Commission as herein provided.

The Secretary of the Plan Commission or his/her designee shall transmit such appeal to the City Clerk who shall file such appeal with the Common Council. The Common Council shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of the appeal, and give public notice thereof as well as due notice to the parties in interest, and decide the same within a reasonable time. The action of the City Plan Commission shall be deemed just and equitable unless the Common Council, by a favorable vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the Common Council, reverses or modifies the action of the City Plan Commission. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Common Council or any alderperson, officer, department, board or bureau of the City, may, within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk, commence an action seeking the remedy available by certiorari. (Am. by Ord. 6161, 3-7-78; Am. by Ord. 12,163, 7-20-98; Ord. 12,323, 2-26-99)

WELL, WHAT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD TO DO
If their issues were not discussed by the Plan Commission, they need to appeal to have the council discuss them or send them back to Plan Commission for discussion. A conditional use is not approved by the council like other action items, conditional uses are approved by Plan Commission and that is the final action, just like demolitions.

This project, as staff noted, is one of the most contentious in history, and by ignoring the neighborhood concerns, it should sound alarms throughout the city for neighborhood groups.

When Mike Verveer and Marsha Rummel discussed this item on my "This Side of Town - Pilot Show" they, too expressed concern that the Plan Commission did not do their job and that they have spent much longer discussing much more minor projects. (I'll try to get that video up tomorrow)

Anyways, the neighborhood did file an appeal. I'm not so certain they are trying to drag the issue out, as much as just trying to get their issues discussed, and perhaps partially addressed, instead of ignored. Especially since the plaza maintenance and use agreement was passed out after the public spoke and not even Alder Verveer had seen a copy. I think people are realistic that not every issue will get addressed to their satisfaction, but they deserve at least a discussion and consideration of additional conditions of approval. I especially appreciate that they note up front in their appeal letter:

We realize that our appeal will not be welcomed by some parties who would just love to see the end of the Edgewater process, and frankly, most of us would like to get on with our lives as well.

We have some ideas about how we could focus reconsideration, either at the Council or at the Plan Commission, that hopefully could make this process a little less painful, but still deal with important issues.

I think they are a little light on the unresolved issues, but they outlined the ones they felt were important in their letter, perhaps they just mentioned those they thought were more important, letting several smaller issues go. But, it will be interesting to hear how this will be handled.

SCHEDULE
Anyways, since there is still not a TIF application and that still has to go to Board of Estimates, they have plenty of time, unless they plan to go to Board of Estimates on the 19th and then the council on 20th, or as the Mayor recently suggested on Access City Hall, that they may do it on the 21st. Or the date may get pushed back again, allowing only 2 weeks for review of a TIF application seems absurd. I'm guessing they are waiting to make sure the application didn't get to the staff before they did their presentation to the Board of Education - Council Liaison committee. To avoid having to specifically discuss this project.

At the moment, we have:
Council consideration of conditional use appeal: April 13th? (or considered with Landmark appeal, 1965 ordinance, PUD and TIF on the 20th or 21st?)
Landmarks: April 14th
Board of Estimates consideration of TIF request: April 19th?
Council: April 20th and 21st?

More questions than definite answers in that, but that is my guess as to what some will be pushing to make happen before April 20th. Tho, I'm not sure how that can happen, particularly the TIF issue which we still have no info on. More to come, I'm sure.
Read more!

Slow News Week Thursday

The slow news week continues, so I have to make my own . . . luckily I have some material you won't be reading about in the paper, yet.

SUSTAINABLE AG ON COUNTY BOARD AGENDA TONIGHT
The county moved at a city pace on this one, but it was well worth the wait!

IT'S OFFICIAL!
First "This Side of Town" or "Brenda's Blog" show was taped yesterday. It will be played for the first time Saturday at 1:00. If you like it, please donate to WYOU, make sure you mention my show. If people show interest, it could continue, but only if WYOU continues to exist and it can only do that with your support!

SERIOUSLY?
They bought the story, hook. line. and sinker. How's that for a nice Wisconsinesque reference? For the real details, see here. It's not Madison politics that are lopsided, but this article and the survey. It's almost ridiculous.

NEW DIRECTOR OF PLANNING COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Know anyone who would be good?

Employment Opportunity: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Agency: Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development
Category: PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL
Salary: $103,253 - $139,392 annually
Date Posted: 3/30/2010
Application Deadline: 4/30/2010
Residency: Legal Residence within the City of Madison is a Condition of Employment for this Position.

Job Announcement Details

LANDMARKS EDGEWATER MEETING
A special meeting will be held on Wednesday, 4/14 room 260 at 5:00 and:

Madison City Channel will cover the April 14th meeting live on our channel as well as stream it live on our website of www.madisoncitychannel.com. Thanks.

So you won't have to be there and can still follow along from the comfort of your own home where you will likely be able to hear what is going on better.

ORDER YOUR NATIVE PLANTS TODAY

Spring has sprung and thoughts are turning to outdoor projects. If you or your group are considering planting a rain garden, replacing turf with natives or restoring prairie in a park or elsewhere, the Plant Dane! Cost-Share Program provides plants and seed for less than half of retail prices.

Go to http://www.myfairlakes.com for an online application and more information. Orders may be placed through May 15th, 2010.
Plants will be delivered on June 26th.
Now in its 6th year, the Plant Dane! Cost-Share Program provides homeowners, schools and nonprofit organizations with native plants, seeds and information to establish rain gardens and restore prairies through a gift from the Graham-Martin Foundation.

The Plant Dane! Program has provided tens of thousands of plants, resulting in hundreds acres being planted with native species throughout Dane County. Plan your rain garden or prairie restoration today!

EXCITING NEWS FOR RIDE THE DRIVE
I'm not sure if there is more news beyond what they state here, but the successful ride the drive looks to expand.

Join Mayor Dave and the City of Madison, along with John Burke of Trek Bicycle as they announce some VERY exciting news about this year's Ride the Drive events.

Wednesday, April 7
UW Arboretum Visitor Center
9:45am

We will have a short press conference at the Arboretum and then a group bike ride to Vilas Park where refreshments will be served. Hope to see you there!

RSVP is appreciated - ridethedrive@cityofmadison.com

About Ride the Drive
Ride the Drive is a celebration of Madison's commitment to healthy, active lifestyles. This community event is an invitation to leave their cars behind to experience some of Madison's most scenic byways a whole new way - by riding, walking, skating, or strolling along some of Madison's most beautiful streets.

Following the success of last year, we are pleased to announce TWO dates for 2010:

Sunday, June 6
Sunday, August 29

Learn more at cityofmadison.com/ridethedrive

LAKE LEVELS
This might be of interest to some and its FREE!:

NELSON INSTITUTE COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM

Water levels in the Yahara Lakes are heavily influenced by a number of physical factors, both natural (precipitation, groundwater levels) and human-made (paved surfaces, bridges, dams and other land uses). This forum will explore the complex river system that includes the Yahara Lakes and examine how it responds to these influences.

Forums are FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

Water Levels in the Upper Yahara Lakes:
Surface and Groundwater Influences

Presentations:
KENNETH POTTER, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering and Chair, Water Resources Management Program
JEREMY BALOUSEK, Urban Conservation Engineer, Dane County Office of Land and Water Resources
SUE JOSHEFF, Basin Supervisor, Division of Water, Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources
PETER HUGHES, Assistant Center Director, Wisconsin Water Science Center, US Geological Survey

TUESDAY, APRIL 6
5:30 - 7:00 PM
1106 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BLDG.
1513 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Bus Routes 2,3, 70, 71, 72, 19, 81, 14, and 15.
Free parking in Lot 17.

Sponsored by:
Yahara Lakes Association, Dane County Office of Lakes and Watersheds Civil and Environmental Engineering Department

For more information: www.nelson.wisc.edu/community/programs/community-environmental-forums
Event Contact: lambersonphi@wisc.edu

Read more!

Happy New Year!

Careful what you wish for!

Read more!

New Year's Eve Round Up

There were too many items yesterday for me not to do a round up - so here it is . . .

COUNTY BOARD CANDIDATES
I checked the office yesterday, many people on the list got more papers in, but no new candidates. I may update later today. People can still file Monday or up until 5:00 on Tuesday to get on the ballot. 20 potential races so far.

SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATES
Only on race at the moment, in the seat being vacated by Johnny Winston Jr. Tom Farley and James Howard are running for that seat. The only coverage I've seen so far, since their announcements was this little story about a cat fight. I hope the coverage gets better and they start talking about issues.

EDGEWATER COMPROMISE?
Schumacher says that there might be one. Here's the thing about compromise, both parties have to agree. Since no one I know in opposition to the project knows what the compromise is, its unlikely to be a real compromise. Instead, its likely one of those were people on one side decide that they are making some concession and call it a compromise, even if the other side doesn't agree. That's not a compromise. Any which way, can't wait to hear what it is. It's be cool if there really is something new. But, um . . . are we going to find out what it is on Tuesday?

WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THIS, THIS WAY
Brad Murphy explains what projects like the Edgewater need to do to get approval.

All city zoning districts that allow for nonresidential development have permitted and conditional uses. The first requires no review by the city’s plan commission; the second does.

In addition, the city has so-called “overlay” districts that basically impose additional requirements on top of existing zoning requirements. With economic development projects, the two relevant types of overlay districts are urban design and local historic districts, Murphy said. For projects in the first type, developers need the OK of the Urban Design Commission. For projects in the second, they need the Landmarks Commission’s approval.

Otherwise, determining which projects are considered by which city bodies “really depends on the project, where it’s located and what the zoning is,” Murphy said.

So, a different project, located in a different location might not have had this kind of trouble. This was an extremely challenging project as proposed.

Interesting note. Is all new development "economic development"? Should we try to literally build our way out of this recession? Isn't that part of how we got here in the first place?

HOTEL REJECTION, WAS A GOOD IDEA
Former Mayor gently suggests that Edgewater Hotel rejection might not be the end of the world. Um, awkward.

THANK YOU GLENN GROTHMAN
He teed this one up for us! Um, yeah, maybe if the state paid us the money we should be getting for all the university and government buildings here in Madison we'd have more money to plow the streets. Paul Soglin calls it the gift that will keep on giving. So, thank you Grothman.

VOTING EARLY, GOOD OR BAD?
Personally, I like voting on election day. You just never know what might surface in those last days, and I want to make the most informed decision that I can. However, for many, voting early means the difference between voting and not voting, so, I have no problem with it. It's a good thing when used properly. This article takes a look at if there will be changes in the future to early voting.

POLICE TO DRIVE DODGE CHARGERS?
Really? I wonder how much more these will cost? Basic blue book values on a 2009 appear to be the same, but it depends up on what they get.

DRECKMANN ANSWERS REPUBLICANS
Plastic bag law could have been works, it could have been a complete ban. By the way, seems to be popular. Or maybe people were just saving them for months waiting to be able to recycle them. I guess only time will tell. But hopefully, as more and more people participate, the pace will remain the same or improve.

HOW'D THAT SMATH GROWTH LAW WORK OUT FOR YOU?
January 1st, 2010 is State Deadline to Adopt “Smart Growth” Plan ". Dane County finished their plan 2 years early. But here's how others are doing:

According to the state Department of Administration’s latest count in August, 28 counties have approved plans, 41 counties are in the process of adopting, 1 county was in the preliminary planning stage and 2 counties were not planning.

RICHARD RUSSELL ON MAYOR DAVE/OBAMA
An interesting point of view.

BUS SCHEDULES FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW

SERVICE ON DECEMBER 31 & JANUARY 1

NEW YEAR'S EVE: Thursday, December 31
WEEKDAY Schedules
Buses follow regular WEEKDAY service on Thursday, December 31.

FREE NEW YEAR'S EVE RIDES
Thursday, December 31; Starts at 7 PM
Starting at 7 PM, Miller Coors Brewing Company and Metro will offer free extended service until approximately 3:30 AM.

For help planning your trip, call (608) 266-4466 or 1-800-FREE RIDES (1-800-373-3743).
Customer service representatives will be available from 6:15 AM through 1 AM.
New Year's Eve Schedules

NEW YEAR'S DAY: Friday, January 1
Holiday Schedules
Routes 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 30, 32, 36, 40, 50, 51, 59, 63, 67 and 68 operate
Holiday Schedules. These are the only routes that will operate on New Year's Day.

PARATRANSIT SERVICE ON DECEMBER 31
Free Extended Service Starts at 7 PM
Free paratransit service will be available starting at 7 PM until approximately 3:30 AM. Service depends on Metro fixed-route service operating in area of travel.

For help planning your trip, call (608) 266-4466 or 1-800-FREE RIDES (1-800-373-3743). Customer service representatives will be available from 6:15 AM through 1 AM on New Year's Eve.

Complete Info

PARATRANSIT SERVICE ON JANUARY 1
Standing Rides Cancelled
All standing and long term assignment paratransit rides will be canceled on Friday, January 1.
Paratransit passengers must schedule casual rides to travel on this date.

UPCOMING DETOUR
CAPITOL LOOP DETOUR: U.S. Bank Eve
Thursday, December 31; 5:30 PM - End of Service
Due to the U.S. Bank Eve event, Metro detours to the Capitol Loop starting at 5:30 PM on Thursday, December 31.
Buses return to the Capitol Square on Friday, January 1.

Paratransit riders are the losers again. While they might have some service, if they aren't going within 1/4 mile of the routes that are running, they likely won't get service.

That's it for now, there may be some posts later today, or maybe not. Maybe the Wii or the Roku will take over my life instead . . . or maybe, a nap. :) Oh, wait, I still have boxes to unpack . . .

Happy New Year! Have fun, but be safe tonight!
Read more!

End? of the Week Round Up

This may be my last post for the week. I have the rest of the week off . . . but then again . . . maybe not.

UPDATED COUNTY BOARD INFO
I updated yesterday's post with websites and facebook pages I could find. Please feel free to forward any info you find. I also updated with info from the clerk's office yesterday at around 4:20. I also corrected a few errors, there are now up to 20 races possible if everyone files their paperwork.

THIS GUY IS RUNNING IN THE SECOND AGAINST VEDDER?
Yeah, screw child labor laws, who needs em? Department of Labor press release. He also gives money to this PAC that gives mostly to Republicans. Wanna place bets on if this is the realtors candidate? (Um, when I say "realtors candidate" I do mean the association and leadership backed candidate. Some of my best friends are realtors, and they don't vote for many of the association candidates, if they are informed.)

STATE TO TAKE OVER CITY SNOW REMOVAL POLICIES?
It's hard to take anything Glen Grothman does seriously, so this did make me smile. He's such a tool. Yeah, our snow plowing policies suck, maybe our legislative branch of government should take a whack at it first. I wonder if anyone will step forward and get this to the council floor as a discussion. I know we tried in the past . . . but there is great resistance to that. We got accused of micromanaging and were told to stay out of it. So, I appreciate Soglin's comments about the alders not making any conscious decisions. It's all those pesky details people got upset about me paying attention to. They matter. This is why.

DEPUTIES UNION APPROVES AGREEMENT
Finally. More information and press release to follow . . . . uh, when?

HEARING MORE ABOUT WYOU
It was an active year . . . and more changes coming in the new year! Stay tuned! Channels 95 or 991. Consider donating today! It's your public television stations, and yours to lose.

MORE BIG BUILDINGS FOR DOWNTOWN
No official notice of demolitions yet, but here's the addresses:
1208 Spring Street (1880 building)
1212 Spring Street ($1M property)
1214 Spring Street ($.65M property)
45 N. Orchard St. ($1.2M property)

EDGEWATER, DO-OVER, DO BETTER?
Wow. This is quite the dilemna. No one wants to hear all that testimony again. But, there are three members who will make or break this decision, and they haven't heard it. So, if you care alot about the issue, you kinda gotta show up again. No one wants the meeting to go until 5:15 again. So here's some suggestions to do this better this time around.

1. Schedule the issue for a special council meeting, where this is the only issue.
2. Don't let Fred Mohs and Gene Devitt talk for 25 minutes, but not other opponents. That was an ad hoc decision made by the Mayor.
3. Don't take questions after every 10 speakers, especially the developer and neighborhood folks, if they are going to be there til the end, ask them questions at the end after other speak and go home.
4. Have the Mayor pay attention and actively chair the meeting, especially during the council discussion, keeping people on task.
5. Use staff time efficiently and don't make that many staff people sit there for 11 hours. (4 planning staff, 2 clerks, 2 economic development staff, 1 city assessor, 1 city engineer, 1 comptroller, 4 Mayor's staff, 2 city attorneys there well after midnight. And after 2:00 only lost one Mayor's staff. I'm not sure, but we may have lost a few more along the way.)

More comments and critique here. There must be other ideas as well, I just hope they aren't limited to limiting public input. (Yeah, you only get 3 minutes this time around, not 5. Problem is, I don't think the public was the issue. It was the questions from council that dragged it out.)

GROAN

Schumacher is hopeful the council will approve revisiting the matter, and isn’t daunted by the prospect of another all-nighter.

Of course he isn't. He wasn't there for the first 11 hour meeting. And, if there is that many staff there again, is he going to pay for all that staff time that will be used. Or, pay for the 11 hours they wasted the first time around? I wonder how much that cost us? And what the human cost was - I wonder how miserable they all were if they had to go to work the next day.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY
I find Bruer's comments interesting. Could the council go through all of this, for nothing?

Bruer met with representatives from Hammes last week and says the project is now seen by the company as more of a long-shot. He says Hammes had lumped the project with several others around the country to secure financing. "Now that that door has been slammed," Bruer says, "This project is a stand alone competing with hundreds of projects nationally with only a handful of banks able to finance a project of this scale."

If this is true, Cnare's motion was crucial to saving the project. I don't know why supporters insisted on voting against that motion. That may have been the vote that killed the project.

AYE: Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Solomon, Verveer, Cnare, Kerr, Palm, Bidar-Sielaff
NO: Sanborn, Schmidt, Skimore, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Eagon, King, Maniaci
ABSENT: Pham-Remmele, Schumacher, Compton

DANE COUNTY REPBULICANS TAKE A STAND!
Against plastic bag restirctions. Hmmmm . . . it might be more effective to show up to the council meeting when the decision is being made, instead of writing a letter to the editor after the fact. But it is good to see a name connected with the party here, not many are willing to do that. And I liked the first comment after the letter. The commenter forgot to mention cost to the taxpayer as well.
Read more!

New Year's (Slow) Week (Weak?) Round Up

Here's what I got . . . I'd have been tempted to skip it, but it looks like there are still plenty of people reading the blogs over the holidays . . . plus, I've broken readership records this month and might as well see where it goes. It's about as brief as the City and County meeting week ahead.

SNOW
You might have missed it, the Mayor released his rather weak 12 page snow report on Christmas Eve Day. No wonder you missed it. I'll have a blog post on it tomorrow, still looking for something I want to include, but Soglin has a bit to say about it. And he's right, there was no conscious decision made by the Council, some of us (Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Webber and myself) tried to get them to be accountable for the decisions being made and worked hard to make some improvements, but they didn't make it easy for us and make it clear they were annoyed we were "interfering". And it was difficult to get information we wanted. You can see some of it in my past posts (mostly) labeled snow.

FIX IT FIRST
Former Alder Robbie Webber has a good post where she puts the numbers for transportation projects in perspective.

METRO HOLIDAY SERVICE DREAM
The Cap Times reported:

On Christmas Eve next Thursday (Dec. 24), buses will follow their regular weekday schedules but will stop running at 6 p.m.

The former Transit and Parking Commission Chair, Carl DuRocher, who was not reappointed by Mayor Dave, and a paratransit rider, had this to say:

In the same way that Miller Beer voluntarily ponies up money to pay for extended service on New Year's eve, I dream of a benefactor who'd defray the cost of Metro running on Christmas Eve. It's a day when a lot of once a year opportunities are lost for transit dependent riders, especially paratransit riders.

HO CHUNK AND UNION CORNERS
Just to make it clear. This post has some details about ideas that might be pursued. The group's legislative council has not yet voted to pursue the project, but its still exciting to think about the possibilities. And its still impressive that this is where we are starting to talk about the project.

Yeah, that's about it for today . . . not much going on as most people take the week off. Not me, off to work! 9 - 6 Monday - Wednesday.
Read more!

I lied/Can't Sleep Extra Round Up

So, I wasn't going to blog today, but . . . I came home last night after being sniffly all day, made dinner and laid down. I was freezing so I covered up and fell asleep. Now, in the early am, I'm awake, sick/can't sleep cuz of runny nose and cough and waiting for the cold medicine to kick in, so . . . here's what I have for today . . .

STILL, NO ANSWER
Looks like council leadership (Tim Bruer, President and Mark Clear, Pro Tem), Mayor Dave Cieslewicz and Bob Dunn (Hammes Company) didn't come to any agreement today. They're meeting again on Tuesday.


CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG - HO CHUNK AND UNION CORNERS
I've been hearing about this, but was sworn to secrecy, that's why Barrett scooped me! :P Guess it's not a very big secret as this went out over a neighborhood listserve or two:

Today there was a meeting at the Ho-Chunk Nation office on Mendota Street to discuss their plans to develop the Union Corners property located at East Washington Avenue and Milwaukee Street. There were about 20 people including Alders Rummel, Palmer and Rhodes-Conway, reps from nearby neighborhood associations, including SASYNA, and other groups interested in development of this site (i.e. Commonwealth, Project Home, Eco Realty, Progressive Party, Urban Farming, etc.). The nation plans to purchase the entire property and would like to develop it over an eight year period. The very preliminary plans for the first phase include a building for nation offices and a nation museum, a health center and daycare center. The office/museum would be located at the very visible East Wash/Milwaukee Street corner. Phase 2 might include a gas station/convenience store. Phase 3 might include affordable apartments and senior housing with a public meeting hall. A grocery store is possible and the nation is open to partnerships with other businesses or organizations. There are no plans for a casino. The nation has similar types of developments elsewhere in Wisconsin including health care, child care and community centers.

Plans are very preliminary and will be open for input from surrounding neighbors and interested organizations. Joe Green from Ho-Chunk Nation discussed their plans. He grew up in the neighborhood and attended East High. He made it clear the nation wanted to create a project which benefited the neighborhood and city. The project would be affordable and environmentally positive including features such as solar panels and low energy consumption. It would fit into the existing neighborhood so buildings would be shorter than previously proposed for the McGrath development. They would not remove the property from the tax rolls so it would contribute property taxes for Madison schools and services.

A decision to pursue this project will be made by the nation during January. By the end of the January, preliminary plans for the property would be available for review by the public during meetings with interested parties. SASYNA was very involved in the original plans for Union Corners and will continue to involved. Stay tuned for more info during the new year.

There was a very positive reception to the Ho-Chunk plans for Union Corners. This is a very positive development for the neighborhood.

Looks like it wasn't a big secret if all those people were there and its on list serves and even Barrett knows about it. :) Giggle. I'm just always glad when someone tells me something is confidential, and I can't be accused of being the leak.

THAT'S WHAT MAKES THIS FUNNY
Giggle. This article chooses a funny example (and picture) given the above. And points out how out of touch the council leadership is.

AN AGENDA FOR THE CITY
Joe Tarr from the Isthmus gets the Mayor to talk about his agenda for the city. And uses a progressive as Mayor Dave's foil. I suppose he had to, since I'm not sure others have a vision for what the city should be working on in the next year. I happen to agree with Satya Rhodes-Conway and I'm happy she was able to clearly articulate an alternative as good progressives do, I'm just frustrated that the story doesn't have an agenda from the moderates or conservatives on the council. Is this part of the positioning towards the right of the Mayor - or did no one else have an agenda? Or don't they want to admit what their agenda is?

The Mayor's agenda is crime. And then there's these other things:
- building support for a referendum on regional transit next fall
- breaking ground on the new Central Library
- winning federal support for high-speed rail
- improving relationships with the business community
- and pursuing green initiatives, like making the city more bike-friendly and energy-efficient.

Rhodes-Conway counters with:
- strong attention to economic development - she says. "I don't mean attracting large companies. I mean helping support and grow the businesses we have."
- review some basic economic development mechanisms, like tax increment financing and put a process in place for evaluating job creation proposals for TIF
- equal review of downtown and periphery projects
- help people in these tough economic times, pay attention to community services

Heh, people. Notice the mayor didn't mention people who are struggling or community services, even tho they are going through an extensive review of their funding processes and priorities.

Falk gets it right, focusing on jobs.

"ANOTHER DUDE"
This note from the Mayor was forwarded to me with the title above . . . can't say I'm surprised.

I wanted you to be among the first to know that I’ve made a decision about the City IT Director position. I’m pleased to welcome Paul Kronberger to the City of Madison.

Paul has an extensive background in IT. He started his career in the City of Milwaukee IT Department, has worked for the Wisconsin Department of Revenue as IT Director and the Wisconsin Department of Commerce as IT Director. After a few years in the private sector, Paul is eager to return to the public sector to serve the City of Madison.

This was certainly not an easy choice, as we had three very qualified finalists for the position. Dave Faust and Rich Beadles have been the consummate professionals throughout this lengthy process and throughout their careers. I thank them for that and I know that they will continue to make great contributions as we move forward.

You will have the opportunity to learn more as Paul’s confirmation comes through the Council. I look forward to you all having a chance to meet Paul.

I don't know what the applicant pool is, but I'm glad someone is noticing the trend besides me. It may or may not be a valid comment, but, I'd like to hear the Mayor articulate what they are doing to bring gender equity to the leadership in the city. Think maybe the next planning director might be a woman? Ok, I bet not.

MORRISEY ON POT
Um, no, he's not smokin' it. He has an opinion on it. An interesting one at that.

WORDS MATTER
Hmmm, I found this article curious. Joel DeSpain says the following:

"The crime took place outside, and one of the four suspects had a handgun," DeSpain said.

However, if you read to the end of the story you find out:

"Money and electronic items were taken during the robbery, and one suspect was found carrying at least one stolen item," DeSpain said. "Officers also recovered a facsimile handgun."

If the second statement is correct, shouldn't the first statement perhaps have been worded differently?

GOOD TO KNOW
Was I running against Noble Wray? David Blaska claims the following:

In the spring election, Police Chief Noble Wray and the police union defeated Brenda Konkel.

[NOTE: When I quote someone, I provide a link, to provide the reader with easy access to information and to ensure I don't take something out of context and to keep things honest. It would be kinda cool if professional newspapers would hold their bloggers to the same standards.]

Good night, happy holidays to those who will be celebrating over the next few days and stay safe on the roads. Read more!

Still Talking About the Edgewater . . .

Even tho the project may or may not be dead, it seems it is still the main thing people are talking about, so . . . here's another round up dedicated to the Edgewater.

WHERE WAS THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ON THE EDGEWATER
Ok, I'm not sure what Tim Cooley's role should have been, but it probably isn't to bash the city after the fact. He knew so little about TIF and wanted to play poker with taxpayer dollars, but that didn't stop him from commenting, now, he's commenting ignorantly about the approval process. (By the way, good comments at the end of that post.) I laughed as one neighbor responded to the article:

If Tim Cooley doesn't like the messy democracy we have in Madison because he'd rather have an easy job giving into every Tom, Dick and Harriet developer that wants to deface our city, he's welcome to leave and I'd be happy to sponsor his going away party.

I was shocked when the Economic Development Committee had no information (how many jobs? multiplier effect?) when they tried to make a decision about the Edgewater. I was shocked again when at the council meeting neither the unions nor Edgewater folks could say how many jobs would be created. My response to Cooley's comment:

“Our approvals process has to be streamlined,” said Tim Cooley, the city’s economic development director. “It just has to. We don’t have a choice anymore.”

is that maybe if he and his staff had been doing their jobs, the alders could have found differently, but with no info on the jobs, it made it kind of hard. I'm just dying to hear how he thinks the approvals process needs to be streamlines, cuz its not what the Mayor is proposing. The Mayor is talking about ADDING to the landmarks process and having the council weigh in on MORE projects, not less. Quite frankly, I'm sick of this talking point that we have been hearing for years that still has no details, what exactly do they mean by streamlining the process. Details please.

HOW MANY JOBS
No one seems to know, but the forons has some ideas.

IRONIC . . . AND SAD
Looking back, this article seems ironic. Here's my favorite line:

But Cieslewicz insists this new business-friendly approach doesn't mean the city is abandoning its commitment to good projects. There needs to be a balance, he says, between promoting economic development and protecting neighborhoods.

BE HONEST ABOUT IT
Both Stuart Levitan and I ended up on the Landmark's Commission after being kicked off other committees. We openly joked about it being the punishment committee, which is why I find it so interesting that it is receiving so much attention now. As we continue to discuss it's fate, I think Zweifel is right, lets just be honest. Do we care about our history, or not? I think many do not, so lets just be honest about it.

MAYOR WAS HONEST
This is what the Mayor wants to do:

Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz said he wants city staff next year to review and update the city’s landmarks ordinance to strip the commission of its authority to reject construction projects in historic districts. The commission is designed to protect the integrity of historic buildings and historic districts in the city.

At least that is what this reporter got out of it.

NATIONAL TRUST STORY
Here's the article on the Edgewater from the Nation Trust for Historic Preservation.

CAP TIMES CALLS IT LIKE THEY SEE IT
And I'm glad they did. Here's what they have to say:

The truth is that the mayor is less concerned about democracy than about his inability to get his way. Cieslewicz wants to see the Edgewater project go forward and is willing to cut corners in order to make it happen.

Sadly, the opinion piece is titled "Mayor’s role key to renewing Edgewater project". Given how he has bungled it so far, lets hope not.

WHAT DOES DUNN/HAMMES WANT
First, silence. Then, a statement that sounds like the developer has given up. I could be wrong, but this sounds like a guy who has moved on to stadium projects elsewhere. So, what if Schumacher moves to reconsider and it passes and then the developer is no longer interested? There's still a long road ahead for this project with the Zoning Board of Appeals variance issue - if the Mayor doesn't change the law first. And the matter of TIF and the rest of the land use process. Perhaps, they just gave up.

THANK YOUR ALDER
No matter where you stand on the issue and no matter how your alder voted, I think they all deserve a huge thank you! Well, most of them who attended the meeting last week. The sat through a marathon session, got blasted by hundreds of often nasty emails and phone calls (Seriously people, grow up. What makes you feel like you can say those things to elected officials that would make your mother blush?) and really had to dig deep to find out how they were going to vote. Many struggled with the decision but in the end, I think most voted their conscience and they should be thanks for that. You can find your alder email here, or just email allalders@cityofmadison.com.

There's still more . . . but that's all I have for this morning.
Read more!

Lazy Friday Afternoon Round Up

There's so much out there today . . . county and city. No snow or Edgewater today, that'll be saved for Monday.

WHERE'S THE GREAT BUS SERVICE
I understand cutting back on holiday hours for full route service, but I don't understand this:

The paratransit standing rides will end early on Dec. 24, with no rides given after 5:30 p.m. Customers who normally have rides after 5:30 should contact the customer service center (266-4466) by 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, Dec. 23, to arrange for an earlier travel time.

All standing and long-term paratransit rides on Christmas will be canceled. Passengers must schedule casual rides to travel.

Huh? Didn't metro have an extra $3M in their budget that helped bail out the city, couldn't they have saved some of that for holiday paratransit rides?

SHITTY CITY SERVICE
Yesterday I sent this message to city council staff Lisa Veldran:

Could I get a copy of the forms you use to track alder absences from the city for the last 6 months?
thanks!

She was out of the office, the other staff tried to get the info, but then I got this message from Veldran, coppied to the clerk and allalders.

Brenda Konkel can contact the City Clerk's office for official notices of absences. They should have them on file.

Now, remember, I was on the council for 8 years and was Common Council President for one year, I know the information is in the Council Office and that alders get emails informing them when alders are out of the city or country. The Clerk's office was very helpful and sent me this message:

Good afternoon. The City Clerk’s Office does not keep a file on Alderperson absences. However, I could have Information Technology do a search for any e-mail messages sent from the Council Office regarding Alderperson absences. Just let me know the time frame in which you are interested.
Thank you!
- Maribeth

As you can imagine, this refusal to give me the info the Council Office has didn't sit well with me. I'm not going to post what I wrote lest I further embarrass that staff member, but suffice it to say, I can hardly wait to see the results of my open records request and who she was trying to protect.

LOOKS LIKE THE SHERIFF'S AND FALK HAVE AN AGREEMENT.
All that, and they ended up with the same as everyone else.

Falk said the tentative agreement with the supervisors includes the same provision as all the other county unions have ratified: a 3 percent voluntary salary reduction for 2010 in exchange for eight additional days off and a guarantee of no layoffs in 2010. In addition, the agreement includes a 3 percent pay increase on December 17, 2011.

Why all the drama?

WHEN IS A 3% CUT NOT THE SAME AS A 3% CUT
Ok, the above just got my blood boiling all over again. How is it that the 3% for wages, benefits, overhead for non-profits equal to the 3% cut in wages only to the unions when they bargained and got various things (8 days off, promise of a 3% increase at the end of 2010, office space for unions, etc.) Can we get a 3% increase for 2011. I don't recall ever getting a 3% increase from the county.

JUST SAYIN'
When the County Board Supervisors attacked Kathleens appointments to the RTA last night, the separated Khristine Euclide from Dick Wagner, a former County Board Chair. Most, except Eileen Bruskewitz who attacked them for killing a county wide bus system, said they were both fine people, but they wanted someone from the Towns appointed, like in the resolution that the county board passed, but the corporation counsel said the decision was Falk's. What I found interesting was the difference in the votes:

Euclide
AYE: Erickson, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Levin, Manning, Matano, McDonell, Miles, Opitz, Richmond, Rusk, Schmidt, Stoebig, Stubbs, Veldran, Wheeler, Baryd, deFelice, DeSmidt, Duranzyck, Hendrick
NO: Ferrell, Gau, Hampton, Jensen, Martz, O'Laughlin, Ripp, Salov, Schlicht, Solberg, Wiggy, Willett, Bruskewitz, Downing. (All men except Solberg, Hampton and Bruskewitz)
ABSENT: Kostelic, Vedder
Passed 21 - 14 - 2 absent

Wagner
AYE: Erickson, Ferrell, Hampton, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Jensen, Levin, Manning, Martz, Matano, McDonell, Miles, O'Laughlin, Opitz, Richmond, Ripp, Rusk, Salov, Schmidt, Solberg, Stoebig, Stubbs, Veldran, Wheeler, Wiggy, Baryd, deFelice, DeSmidt, Downing, Duranzyck, Hendrick
NO: Gau, Schlicht, Willett, Bruskewitz
ABSENT: Kostelic, Vedder

I wonder what the difference was between the two in the minds of Ferrell, Jensen, Martz, O'Loughlin, Ripp, Salov, Wiggy, Downing. Like most county boards in Wisconsin, its an older white guys club, I don't know if that was a factor or not, but it looks wierd. Just sayin'.

OVERRIDE VOTE
Since I haven't gotten to the recap, here is how they voted:
AYE (Override): Ferrell, Gau, Hampton, Hesselbein, Jensen, Levin, Manning, Martz, McDonell, Miles, O'Loughlin, Opitz, Ripp, Salov, Schlicht, Schmidt, Solberg, Stoebig, Veldran, Wiggy, Willett, Bruskewitz, deFelice, Downing, Durancyzk
NO (stain veto): Erickson, Hulsey, Matano, Richmond, Rusk, Stubbs, Wheeler, Bayrd, DeSmidt, Hendrick
ASENT: Kostelic, Vedder

Override successful, 25 - 10, 2 absences

Here's Chariman Scott McDonell's explanation of his vote and urging colleagues to vote similarly:

Friends-
Some of you may have read or been contacted about the veto override vote tonight before the County Board on a 10 unit subdivision in the Town of Springfield. Just so you all understand that this is a rather nuanced issue from an environmental point of view, I thought I would share my thoughts with you on this topic.

Below is an email the County Board received from the Chair of the Town of Vienna. His central point is that the 10 unit subdivision is in the Town of Springfield Smart Growth Plan that the County Board adopted and the County Executive signed. This is true. While there is also language in the town plan regarding Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and Conservation Subdivision planning, this petition was found by the Zoning Committee (controlled by progressives) to comply with the Town Plan. Complying with adopted plans is a central and critical componant of environmental protection and should bind not only the Towns but also the County.

In addition, a county-wide TDR ordinance is now pending before the County Board which the Towns may veto under Chapter 10 of the state statute. I have worked on this ordinance for years and it would positively affect thousands of parcels of farmland accross Dane County. One of the central premises of that ordinance is that towns would not be mandated to adopt a TDR ordinance, but rather the County will help them administer and implement a it. This veto does just the opposite. It says that because there is no TDR ordinance in place in the Town of Springfield a petition that complies with the Town plan will be vetoed (a town may adopt their own local TDR ordinance but it would not have the legal protection and assistance of the County). I have no doubt that if the County tries to force TDR on the towns over a 10 unit subdivision, the TDR ordinance will be vetoed by the Towns and I would not blame them for that since they were sold on this ordinance being voluntary. Reasonable people can have different views on this issue, but I do not believe that is in the best interest of smart and innovative planning countywide to uphold a veto of this petition. In my opinion it sends the wrong message about Smart Growth and adherence to planning.

Thank you for your time and attention.
Scott McDonell
County Board Chair

I hope to get a recap up, because there was some good discussion and it revealed some interesting things about possible motivations behind the veto.

Eh, that's all I have for my day off, there's actually much more . . . but I'm done.
Read more!

Mayor Dave's Hunger for Power

First it was the Water Utility, then the Transit and Parking Commission during the recent bus fare debate, now the Landmarks Commission. While the first two were obnoxious, this third one, raises some very interesting questions. I'll break it down.

IT'S OFFICIAL: IT IS AN OBNOXIOUS PATTERN
Seriously, anytime a body decides something not to Mayor Dave's liking he starts threatening members and trying to take away their power. It's just getting obnoxious.

The Water Utility issue was about who had the power to manage the water utility. The Mayor won that one with very little opposition. (2007)

The second one, the Transit and Parking Commissioners fought back a little, and some members were replaced. (2008)

Now, its the Landmarks Commission. (2009)

WHO'S NEXT?
Apparently, the Mayor wasn't paying attention when we revised Chapter 33 and, among other things, decided in 33.01(3):

(c) “Board or Commission” means a Sub-unit of the City, except for the Board of Estimates that is given some independent power to make determinations on behalf of the City of Madison.
(d) “Committee” means any Sub-unit other than a board or commission, and generally is limited to making recommendations or reports to the Mayor or Common Council or some other body, unless explicitly empowered otherwise. Any Sub-unit called task force, work group or similar name is a Committee.

I didn't hear the Mayor raising any objections at that time.

You've probably noticed that some committees have switched to commissions and some commissions have changed to committees, to reflect the above. Makes it easy to identify who might be impacted by this power grab. Anyways, if the Mayor wants to eliminate all decisions made by "handful(s) of non-elected people" he will have to review all these commissions and boards.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION COMMISSION
BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE, CONVEYANCE CODE AND LICENSING APPEALS, BOARD OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DISABILITIES, COMMISSION ON PEOPLE WITH
DISABLED PARKING ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE COUNCIL
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION
ESTIMATES, BOARD OF
ETHICS BOARD
HEALTH BOARD OF FOR MADISON AND DANE COUNTY
HUMANITARIAN AWARD COMMISSION, REVEREND DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
MADISON ARTS COMMISSION
MADISON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MADISON PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD
MONONA TERRACE COMMUNITY AND CONVENTION CENTER BOARD
PARK COMMISSIONERS, BOARD OF
PARKING COUNCIL FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION
PERSONNEL BOARD
PLAN COMMISSION
POLICE AND FIRE COMMISSION
PUBLIC WORKS, BOARD OF
REVIEW, BOARD OF
SENIOR CENTER BOARD OF DIRECTORS
STREET USE STAFF COMMISSION
TRANSIT AND PARKING COMMISSION
URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION
WATER UTILITY BOARD
WEED COMMISSIONERS
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

I guess we could make these all advisory and take away all their powers and the Council could start dealing with all the mundane issues that they routinely work on with very little notice. I'm sure the Council can just take on all that extra work. Of course, some of these groups get their powers from state law, that might slow the Mayor down a bit.

WHAT ABOUT THE RTA
Need I say more? Every time he says what's in this article, as an RTA supporter, I cringe. Statements like:

That’s too much power for a commission without elected members, Cieslewicz said.

and

“The Common Council and I are accountable. If people have a problem with how we vote on a project, they can contact us. And if they don’t like the decision, they can make that point at election time.”

Can you just see the anti-RTA commercials and lit pieces now . . .

TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE
In that same article the Mayor says:

“I’m not criticizing the commissioners,” he said. “I truly believe they’re trying to do the best with an unclear ordinance. But I think legitimate issues have been raised about transparency and accountability.”

Well, what is more transparent and accountable than the City Council passing a law during public meetings, charging a committee, which also has public meetings, to follow it. And, if there is disagreement, taking it to a public meeting of the Common Council. How is that not transparent and accountable.

What isn't transparent and accountable is passing a law, then ignoring it when it doesn't suit your needs and spinning that as being ok, because of factors like economic development and jobs. What the laws are there for, are to provide predictability and transparency to avoid favoritism and ad hoc decision making.

WHAT ABOUT STREAMLINING THE PROCESS
Speaking of economic development . . . whatever happened to "streamlining the development process" in the name of "economic development"? It was one of the primary issues that led to our Economic Development Planning and beefing up the committee. This is interesting to me, cuz the push had been to have less decisions come to the Common Council, but if you follow his, and Alder Skidmore's logic . . . it means loooooonnnnggggger council meetings and more process for the developers. The exact opposite of what I thought we were trying to do.

You see, we've been working towards making the development process easier. Moving towards letting staff make more administrative decisions instead of having commissions vote on them. Moving towards making some more routine issues that needed full approval be conditional uses so the Plan Commission can make the decisions without going to the council.

The move to take away those powers from the Landmarks Commission flies in the face of all that work to reduce the unending whining we've been listening to from the development community for years. This is an about face. Makes no sense.

RESPONSE TO FACEBOOK COMMENTS
Ok, I did call the Mayor "nuts" on my twitter/facebook update yesterday. Really, I meant he had a nutty idea. Didn't mean to name call, calm down folks. But I stand by the concept, this is a nutty idea! (See Streamlining the Process above.)

P.S. Sorry about the lack of links this morning. I may try to put them in this weekend.
Read more!

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

The win-win, is on East Washington.

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

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

This is a shameful hour for our city.

Michael Donnelly makes the same point.

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

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

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

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

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

Monday Morning Round Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ouch. Even more interesting is what Bob Dunn says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEED TO HEAR FROM ARTS COMMUNITIES

Dear Madison Arts Community;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Karin Wolf
Staff to the Madison Arts Commission

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

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

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!