Greyhound . . . oh, btw, we're moving. Tomorrow. In less than 12 hours.

The only story that ends up in my google reader to pass along to you. But the story is more about what you don't see. One might think this was some kind of April Fools joke.

From: Harmon, Ray
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 5:06 PM
To: ALL ALDERS
Subject:

Dear Alders-

I wanted to let you know that yesterday I was contacted by Greyhound and informed the lease on their current temporary space on Stoughton RD ends March 31, 2010 and begin temporarily operate a curbside service at the intersection of East Washington and Baldwin St., beginning Thursday, April 1. From this location, Greyhound will continue to run 10 daily schedules. Tickets can be purchased online. Greyhound is working closely with city officials to find a permanent location in Madison.

Please see attached release from Greyhound for additional information.

Sincerely,

Ray Harmon
Office of Mayor Dave Cieslewicz

Working closely with the city, they give them 24 hours notice and the alders get even less. Poor Alder Maniaci sent the notice out at 2am to her constituents with a note:

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Maniaci, Bridget wrote:
Neighbors,
Please let me know of your thoughts.
Thanks,
Bridget

I'll tell you what I think, and I'm not directing these comments at Alder Maniaci but Greyhound . . . this is a shitty way to do business. If someone were leaving on a Greyhound bus today, do they wait by Pug Mahones, or EVP or on the other side by the old Marquip building? Where do people wait in bad weather? What restrooms can they use while waiting? What do they do in bad weather? Is our neighborhood coffee shop to become the Greyhound bus station? Were they consulted about this? Aren't there city approvals needed for curb side pick ups? Are they removing parking spaces? Are they sharing Madison Metro's bus stops and how will that work? And, um, what about those who don't have a credit card to buy tickets on-line, who are also likely the same people who don't have internet access except at public libraries?

For what it is worth, here's the press release:

DALLAS (March 31, 2010) – Greyhound will temporarily operate a curbside service at the intersection of East Washington and Baldwin St., beginning Thursday, April 1. From this location, Greyhound will continue to run 10 daily schedules. Tickets can be purchased online. Greyhound is working closely with city officials to find a permanent location in Madison.

For Greyhound ticket information in Madison, call 1-800-231-2222.

About Greyhound
Greyhound is the largest North American provider of intercity bus transportation, serving more than 2,300 destinations across the continent. For fare and schedule information and to buy tickets call 1-800-231-2222 or visit the Web site at www.greyhound.com. Follow Greyhound on Twitter for the latest news and travel deals, http://twitter.com/GreyhoundBus.

So, if you bought tickets for this weekend to get out of town, SURPRISE! you're leaving from a new location, apparently, they'll twitter you about it? Or worse yet, if you left on spring break and left from Stoughton Rd, you're in for a surprise when you get dropped off at Baldwin and E. Washington Ave.

Don't get me wrong, its a much better location than Stoughton Road and I have at least one staff member who will be thrilled they don't need to bum a ride from friends to get to the station, but as I said before, this is a shitty way to do business. No notice, no working out logistics, no good information for the public.
Read more!

Chilly Morning Round Up

A few topics to chew on as you drink your coffee or tea, or hot cocoa and try to warm up . . .

GOOD THING THE COUNCIL MEETING WAS CANCELLED
Maybe the Worker's Compensation Fund might not get so much money. They had slated it to get extra money from the general fund so that we spent up to our Expenditure Restraint Program (ERP) limit. But with this snowstorm that is supposed to break the bank, they'll like have to adjust that. Won't impact our general fund quite the way this article says, since they were going to put that money into the fund (optional), instead, it will go towards plowing. At least that is what should happen. Of course, the Governor did declare a state of emergency, so perhaps the state will come through for us?

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO WEIGH IN ON EDGEWATER
Gee, I wonder what they will say . . . I'm on the edge of my seat!

The Economic Development Committee hold a special meeting at 5:00 pm on Monday, December 14, in Room 260 of the Madison Municipal Building, 215 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Please use the Doty Street entrance to get into the building.

This meeting is a rescheduling of the December 8 meeting which was cancelled due to bad weather, and has the same agenda. The agenda may be found at: http://legistar.cityofmadison.com/meetings/2009/12/8792_A_ECONOMIC_DEVELOPMENT_COMMITTEE_09-12-14_Agenda.pdf

METRO SPINS
Sound like many bus riders spent extra hours on the bus yesterday. Tales of two hour bus rides seemed common among my facebook friends. Lots of kudos for the drivers for handling the snowy conditions and not many complaints as the buses were stuck in the same traffic with everyone else. What did make me laugh was this:

Morning Madison Metro Announcement

Due to icy road conditions, Metro buses are running approximately 10-15 minutes schedule.

Drivers are maintaining schedules as conditions allow. Delays may increase through the rush hour.

Please plan extra time in your commute.

Evening Madison Metro Announcement

Thursday, December 10: 4:09 PM.

Due to icy roads, many buses are running 10-30 minutes behind schedule. Drivers maintain schedules as conditions allow.

Please plan extra time for your commute.

Optimistic group of folks they are! Sounds like they should have added an hour to that notice.

CITY WANTS TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK

Sustainable Madison Information and Survey Available on the Web.

You can now view information regarding what Madison has done regarding sustainability and green initiatives from other cities.
You can also fill out an on-line survey and help the City priorities sustainability goals and initiatives.

http://www.cityofmadison.com/Sustainability/community/

BRUSH WILL BE COLLECTED
Sounds like the storm did quite a bit of damage to the trees . . .

Winter Storm – downed trees, branches and brush collection

Due to the heavy, wet snow Madison has many downed trees and branches. The city of Madison is asking citizens to do the following:

Street Tree – if a street tree or branch, by definition a tree planted in between the street and sidewalk, is blocking a street or sidewalk or if there is a hanging branch, please call 266-4816 to report the damage. City Forestry crews are currently responding to over 200 calls for service on damaged trees.

Private Tree – if your private tree was damaged, you may need to call a private contractor to address the damage.

Brush collection – please place the brush for collection on your property’s terrace just as you would normally. City crews will collect the brush after they have completed the clean up from Tuesday’s storm. The brush may not be collected immediately and we ask for everyone’s patience as city crews continue to work on the clean up.

You may also bring the brush to the Streets Yard Waste Sites. They are open Monday – Friday, 7:30a.m. – 3p.m.
East: 4602 Sycamore Ave. West: 1501 W. Badger Rd.
For more information on winter in Madison Parks, visit www.cityofmadison.com/winter

WOW, THAT WASN'T FAIR
The Tenney Lapham Neighborhood and others have been talking about a two-way Johnson and Gorham for years, its been in city approved plans for years. There are even plans for where the stop lights would go and that have identified costs and issues to be resolved. We just decided to get the Downtown Plan done first. When talking about this, the neighborhood was looking at slowing down traffic, returning the neighborhood to a more family friendly place with hopes of getting more owner-occupants downtown, quality of life issues like noise and actually being able to open your street facing windows in the summer and still hear the tv, making it easier to cross the streets and much, much, more. But how does the new alder frame the issue?

Ald. Bridget Maniaci, who lives on Johnson Street, has mixed feelings about the idea. "There are a lot of good reasons to do it, but we don't have a lot of data," she says. "We have to [show] why this is good for the city, not just that property values will go up."

What?! In all the discussions, pro and con, this hasn't been the issue. Every time she insults her constituents, I feel a greater sense of responsibility for letting my neighbors down. I think they deserve an alder that supports their positions, not insults and dismisses them.

STRANGER STILL
This is the email sent to the neighborhood listserve last week, in the middle of the Edgewater controversy:

On a non-Edgewater related topic...

A number of folks in the neighborhood have been interested in the long-term prospects of turning Johnson and Gorham Street back to two-way streets. Our council staffer, Lisa Veldran sent the following article to council members, and I thought it'd be worth it to send it on to you all and weigh in on. It's not that I've been totally skeptical, but such a prospect would require a lot of planning for our neighborhoods and a lot of city resources (millions of dollars) that requires broad city-wide buy-in. If our neighborhood wants this to happen, we need to embrace the full realization of what needs to happen and the full planning and impacts of the proposal. So let's try to be real and check the pie-in-the-sky philosophies at the door on this one moving forward and get working on the hard issues.

Some thoughts on how it could happen (maybe):

1) the major stumbling block to this idea is the intersection of Baldwin and Johnson/Gorham. One idea I've visualized is to put in a large roundabout to get access to both Johnson and Gorham Street. That roundabout would likely require the removal of the CDA assisted living facility on the peninsula between Johnson and Gorham to be consolidated with a new (larger, denser) replacement housing facility where the Baldwin Street facility and parking lot currently stands.

Pro: that housing could probably use to be upgraded & use more efficient use of the Baldwin lot.
Question: what happens to the residents of that housing while construction is underway?
Question: How much money would be required for new CDA housing & for the intersection reconstruction. My stabs in the dark: $3-4 million for the intersection, $7-10 million for the new housing (variable depending on underground parking).
Con: Streets city staff is totally opposed to this idea. Many alders are leery of this idea because of the impacts to their constituents' commutes and questions of manuverability (think Badger football weekends). Substantial studies need to be done to determine traffic flow patterns under this scenario. We need to hear what CDA's plans for their facilities are.

Question: who's going to pay/do those traffic studies? What reasons outside of our own parochial interests are there to convince Alders and city-staff that this is in the best interest of the city?

2) We usually talk about the farther end of the neighborhood, but what about the impact to the near isthmus neighborhoods?
Concerns I have: Blair Street is a small, residential sized road. We don't have our infrastructure built to handle the transfer of massive amounts of Johnson Street traffic to E Wash via Blair Street. -Blair St. reconstruction needs to get into the 5-year city budget & stop getting pushed back as it is because the road is falling apart.

Also, I'm very concerned with turning N Blair Street, which is residential, into a car-laden thoroughfare more than it already is (even if we physically had the street in a condition to handle the traffic). There is a great divide on S Blair between neighborhoods stemming from it's highway-like nature. N Blair has a very different character and I don't want to see a divide and disconnect develop when it's a continuous neighborhood from one block to the next. How do we mitigate that? -Could N Blair Street also turn 2 way? Would that do anything?

3) What is the cost to our neighborhood in real metrics under the current situation? What are our goals for change and can we make the case for millions of dollars such a plan would require for our neighborhood? How is our residential character & local businesses different/ more deserving of attention than other major thoroughfares throughout the city (Whitney Way, Midvale, Mineral Point Road, Bassett/Broom, Willy St.)

Some of these points are easier than others to work through, though none are simple. The Baldwin intersection/CDA tie-in is a 10 year plan idea. Other questions: Are any federal road funds available? This part of Johnson isn't a highway (like E Wash is). Are parking issues at all intertwined in this? What sorts of parking improvements could be made? Would we lose street parking by going 2-way? If so, how much?

The last sentence in the article hits the quandary on the head:
"I wouldn’t argue that two-way streets are any sort of panacea for urban revival, Vancouver’s experience notwithstanding. And I understand that they are not always practical. Some streets simply are too narrow to have traffic moving in both directions; others have to be designated one-way because their purpose is to feed traffic onto expressways. What I would say is this: When it comes to designing or retrofitting streets, the burden of proof shouldn’t fall on those who want to use them the old-fashioned way. It should be on those who think the speedway ideology of the 1950s serves much of a purpose half a century later."

Let's see if there's a way to work forward on this idea, but I ask you to acknowledge the amount of work and time ahead and realize that our neighborhood won't get everything we want out of this process. We have to be cost-conscious, realistic and pragmatic if we want this to go from a nice idea to a functioning, improved reality, if indeed this concept operates in the best interest of our neighborhood.

Like I said, Traffic Engineering has done the studying, and it will cost a little over $600,000 in 2008 dollars. There's so much else in there to respond to, I don't know where to begin.

IT'S ALL ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Immigration, that is:

Washington D.C. - The Immigration Policy Center has compiled research which shows that immigrants, Latinos, and Asians are an important part of Wisconsin's economy, labor force, and tax base. Immigrants and their children are a growing economic and political force as workers, consumers, taxpayers, and entrepreneurs. With the state working towards recovery, immigrants and their children will continue to play a key role in shaping the economic and political future of the Badger State.

Highlights from Wisconsin include:

* Wisconsin was home to 252,150 immigrants in 2007.
* 41.2% of immigrants in 2007 (or 103,291 people) in Wisconsin were naturalized U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote.
* Latinos accounted for 4.8% (or 268,879) and Asians 1.9% (or 106,431) of Wisconsinites in 2007.
* The 2008 purchasing power of Latinos totaled $5.3 billion and Asian buying power totaled $3.0 billion in Wisconsin in 2007.
* If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Wisconsin, the state would lose $2.6 billion in expenditures, $1.2 billion in economic output, and approximately 14,579 jobs.

There is no denying the contributions immigrants, Latinos, and Asians make and the important role they will play in Wisconsin's political and economic future. For more data on their contributions to the Badger State, view the IPC fact sheet in its entirety.

* New Americans in the Badger State (Wisconsin)

DIDN'T EVEN TRY
Our house was fully shoveled by 10:30 or so, but still, no mail. Here they explain why the creed is dead. Not a bad excuse, probably a good decision. Just sayin', the times they are a changin'.

SPEAKING OF CHANGES
You may have noticed I've been playing around with the look of my blog and what extra tools are available on it. And I'm allowing anonymous comments. It's all a big experiment, so let me know what you like, and what you don't. Looks like I may have added too much, as its loading a little slowly. It's work in progress, feedback welcome. 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!

Will you be towed?

At least they are telling us which streets they are going to target, that's progress. I'm "lucky" enough to live on one of them, are you?

A snow emergency remains in effect for the City of Madison. Residents are asked to keep their vehicles off the street this evening. If you must park on the street you should park on the EVEN house numbered side of the street. Details on winter parking restrictions are available at www.cityofmadison.com/winter. Violations of the alternate side parking restrictions during a snow emergency are punishable by a $60 fine.

Cars parked illegally on the following streets may be towed

* W. Doty St.
* W. Main St.
* W. Washington Ave.
* 10-200 blocks of W. Gilman St.
* E. Mifflin St.
* W. Mifflin St.
* N. Hancock St.
* S. Hancock St.
* N. Franklin St.
* S. Franklin St.
* N. Blair St.
* E. Johnson St. (between Blair and Baldwin)
* Wisconsin Ave. (200,300 and 500 blocks)
* 300 block of S. Henry St.
* 300 block of S. Hamilton St.
* N. Bedford St.
* S. Bedford St.
* N. Henry St.
* N. Carroll St. (300,400 and 500 blocks)
* E. Dayton St.

Due to the heavy amount of snow and blowing and drifting that will occur today, it is possible that the snow emergency will be extended. Residents should check the city’s web site www.cityofmadison.com/winter or call 261-9111 for updates.

Read more!

Another Opinion on the Law and Edgewater

This one from Mansion Hill Steering Committee:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more!

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!

Wednesday Round Up

Today is Friday for me, as I get to enjoy another 4 day weekend (Steel Bridge Music Festival in Door County!), then panic when I get back to work on Monday. So, here's a smattering of items to comment on, as my blog topic list grows and grows and grows and I can't get to it all!

STATE BUDGET - PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION TAKEN OUT OF BUDGET BY ASSEMBLY DEMOCRATS
So, according to the Wisconsin State Journal, the celebrating may have been premature. It matches what I was hearing, contrary to the Mayor's crowing about his great accomplishment after 5 years. You know, he claims he personally lobbied on this and takes credit for its resolution. Well, doesn't look so good according to this article:

In votes behind closed doors late Tuesday night, Assembly Democrats voted to make several changes to the budget, said Rebekah Sweeney, spokeswoman for Assembly Speaker Mike Sherdian, D-Janesville.

The changes would delete budget provisions that would have: [snip]

• Resolved a long-running dispute over when housing units for seniors and low-income residents can receive tax breaks. The deleted provision has been vigorously sought by Madison non-profits who say they need it to keep providing housing to the poor.

COMMUNITIES UNITED/PAT SCHNEIDER ON COMMITTEE DIVERSITY
They are asking all the right questions! But . . . um . . . I nearly started banging my head against the wall when I read that they were going to collect all this information themselves. I appreciate them being sensitive to staff, but this is about priorities!!! Seriously, it can be done and probably done quicker with volunteers that know what they are doing, but the data won't have as much credibility and it sends a really strange message about how important diversity is to the city. I guess what the City and Mayor are saying are that yes, those are important questions to ask, but apparently staff can't be bothered to gather the information. I guess it speaks volumes to the Mayor's commitment to diversity. Can you believe after talking about this for a few years, the Mayor's office doesn't even know if women, people of color and people with disabilities are even applying for the positions and can't share that information? I thought that part of the plan by Affirmative Action was outreach last year, how will they know if it is successful if they don't have a benchmark to measure it by?

OH, MANIACI
Yes, my first direct comments about her performance. I've been trying to keep an open mind, encourage her and give her an opportunity to find her way. However, I have some pretty major concerns that I hope she is working on and I just don't know about! But, um . . . shouldn't we know . . .

1. After attacking me throughout the campaign about not doing enough for the Johnson St. businesses, (after all 11 businesses left in the 8 years I was in office) it turns out, 2 businesses left in her first 2 months in office. Along with that we're losing Don Miller and lost the Madison Dairy. I haven't seen any public meetings or comments on listserves or any information about any of this from her. Not a peep. I'm more concerned about the E. Washington corridor and know that they are reviewing the proposals for marketing for the area, I hope she is working with the neighborhood to make sure we get the best group for the job!

2. For someone who talked so much about safety, she really blew it when she paved the way to stop the speed humps that were supposed to be getting installed by Tenney Park on Marston Avenue. Even tho the neighborhood surveys were in and they were approved by the residents that lived there by over 60%, she had them re-survey and the results ended up slanted by the absentee property owners/landlords. I sure hope no child gets injured in that area as a result.

3. The Edgewater. Psssst, wanna fill us in? What's going on, where's the community discussion? There should have been a public meeting before the students left for the summer. To make this decision over the summer without their input is not representing the students in her district very well. At this point, even if she delays this til they get back, the major discussions will have already been done and their ability to have an impact will be greatly diminished.

4. Already complaining? These are her comments from the Critical Badger blog about electronic voting:

Interesting… but (1) If this were my full time, living-expense paying job, I might have the time to work on this outside of all the other demands of the district at the moment (Maybe Steve King’s got some time for this jk….), so if you’d like to advocate for above-minimum wage, fair pay for your friendly local alder, awesome!

A much better answer would have been, I'll check with the City Attorney to see if we have the authority to do that. And the likely answer is no, no need to make excuses about time.

Oh, there is more, but those are three major issues in the neighborhood that have me concerned and one observance.

CRITICAL BADGER
Ok - I know I'm a bit behind on a few topics I want to blog about, but what took the Critical Badger so long to respond to a month old story.

POLICE MEDIA STRATEGY AND RESPONSE TO SHOOTINGS
So, on the 5th, the police announce that they are going to have a press conference about the shootings. Since its Friday, a kinda bad press day, they decide to wait until Monday to appeal to the public to help the with this problem, and the next day, someone is dead. Maybe, just maybe, they should worry a little less about controlling their message and good placement in the media and more using the media to get information to and from the public. Talk about misplaced priorities! Meanwhile, they did manage to try to bury the story about their racial disparities in traffic stops - that's good enough news for a Friday.

DUH/MELANIE CONKLIN?!
First, the shocker! I didn't even know Melanie Conklin was still in the news business, I nearly fell off my chair when I saw she wrote this article!

Second, I'll just say duh. Housing. First. works. We just don't want to pay for it, even tho in the long run, it will likely cost us less.
Read more!

CC Recap - 600 East Johnson

Tear down 11 houses and build 3 big buildings on E Johnson Street? Sure, screw the neighborhood plan . . . if we aren't going to follow them, why have them?

[I think this was the toughest project I ever had to face as an alder, the Edgewater would have been even more challenging. The project is a great project, it just belongs 3 blocks to the south, where it would be consistent with the neighborhood plan, not conflict with the character of the neighborhood and it would have been able to be more dense. I convinced myself to vote both for and against the project several times. The loss of the houses was tough, the project was good, the location was wrong. And it doesn't comply with the neighborhood plan and comprehensive plan.]

PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Helen Bradbury - Stonehouse Development - in support - Said she develops section 42 affordable housing, she is very grateful to have support of TLNA, talks about the amazing number of hours of work listening to their story and tweaking the project, and says that it is a better project as a result. She had 3 main issues to consider:

1 - There is a huge need for workforce housing in all of Madison and specifically in this area. Their project Park Central [1100 E Wilson by Central Park] has a waiting list of 100 people.
2 - She explains the type of property that they are talking about. It is high quality, green development and should be an asset to Johnson St. Stonehouse will be the long term property management. This is their 5th project in the city.
3 - She says the houses that they are forced to take down have outlived their useful economic lives. She says the target market is just no longer there - they were student housing and the students have left. Hopes project will revitalize the area. She says that the project has front porches so have the pedestrian residential feel and feel it will help the E Johnson St. businesses.

Rich Arneson - Stonehouse Development and the easel for Helen Bradbury's presentation - Describes the project: 3 buildings, 3 stories, site plan developed with neighborhood, changed multiple times to fit with existing neighborhood as much as possible, underground parking, courtyards in the back, shared green space with Gorham street, some gardens for residents, some gardens will be accessible, 1st floor all have private entrances and are 2 story and have condo feel, large porches to continue historic feel, green built building certified, Madison Environmental Group will do a LEEDS feasibility study, they have received tax credits, hope to get project going in gloomy economic climate. He says that Randy Bruce the architect and Michael Matty from Renaissance Property who is the developer/rehab person for the Northern half of the property.

David Waugh is in opposition. He's lived in the neighborhood for 17 years, he's the Vice President of the Tenney Lapham Neighborhood Association. Doesn't want to be in opposition of the project. Developers did a fantastic job and there is much to be desired in the project. They did their due diligence and worked properly with the neighborhood. However, the recently adopted neighborhood plan wanted infill in targeted areas. He would love the development to be moved two blocks and then would support it. Was on the sounding board that reviewed the project which had numerous meetings. He says most people on the sounding board in opposition of the plan. Nothing in the project goes along with the neighborhood plan which is his number one concern. You [the council] just approved the neighborhood plan a year ago. When you see the bulldozers tearing down 11 houses those who aren't on the listserves are going to be upset about what is going on here. Press says the neighborhood strongly in support, that isn't true. Those of use on sounding board, trying to get something that resembled some piece of our neighborhood plan. He says there is no list of why we are going against the plan - it just says that it merits an exception. This doesn't conform with plan.

Patrick McDonnell - President of the Tenney Lapham Neighborhood Association - He says that the neighborhood struggled mightily with respect to the project. He says first Michael Matty presented a project and more recently he started working with Storehouse. He points out that just last year the Council approved the neighborhood plan which was an update after 13 years of the old plan. The neighborhood plan called for a vision for the restoration and rehabilitation of the traditional built environment, but also wanted infill in other areas that were not traditionally built out. It was a conundrum - two conflicting ouftcomes - Gorham St had much to applaud with the restoration of houses in a federally recognized historic district, they liked the reduction in density with removal of rooming houses - but with Johnson St it was the opposite of what we were looking for. Many still think the properties should be preserved. But, other aspects such as increased owner occupancy, rehab and restoration of the properties is also in the plan, but these properties would likely be at the bottom of the list. The properties would just continue to decline. So, fair expectation to have a developer do a reinvestment. Also interested in more working people and young families moving to the neighborhood. Section 42 was very compelling to many in the neighborhood. Quality of construction will be far superior to the standard market rate housing. Thinks it will bring more reinvestment. Restoration of green space from backyard parking was also a value. Modification from one to two developers and the way they split the project speaks to each of their strengths. Michael Matty got a historic preservation award from the Historic Trust and Stonehouse has a good track record. The demolition of the traditional built out block is not something we want you to think is a precedent or green light for any and all proposals that might come down the pike. Emailed a one page position paper with reasons for exemption to the neighborhood plan.

3 others in support - Randy Bruce [the architect], Michael Matty, Richard Linster

MOTION
Alder Bruer - He moved approval of the Plan Commission recommendation substitute with addendum to include additional conditions in number 5 which the alders have on their desks. Not available to the public, of course.

QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Rhodes-Conway - Asked about the open space for the project all being located on the historic properties and how that impacts the historic value of structures or how it will impact the historic district.

Brad Murphy says that the largest amount of open space is on northern half but thinks it is good that they are eliminating the surface parking and restoring the homes. He also says that the side and front yards of the Johnson St. properties are attractively landscaped. [For a project on the edge of town!] He says the houses are late 1800's to early 1900's houses and they are generally in not good shape. They are deteriorating, some could be restored if you threw enough money at them. They are not structurally unsound. In reviewing the project, Landmarks recommended it not be approved, UDC and PLan recommended approval because of benefits of the project. They have no concerns about the project being approved based on UDC and Plan recognizing the loss of 11 homes in exchange for affordable units, underground parking and restoration of the houses.

DISCUSSION
Rhodes-Conway - Says her concerns is the same as the last speaker, and that is the precedent and not following the neighborhood plan. She has no problem with the project, but problem with regularly going against approved neighborhood plans. If the neighborhood is in support and have a reason to support it it hard to not support that, but doesn't like the precedent to go against neighorhood plan.

Kerr said that Plan Commission wrestled with issue of demolition, but required that for the 8 homes to be restored, they took the landmarks commission recommendation to go to state historical preservation officer or landmarks commission. Plan commission did take into consideration what Landmarks said.

Rummel respects both developers and says they did fantastic projects in her neighborhood. She has a problem with saying that the houses have outlived their useful economic life. There's more to it than that, the previous owner allowed these houses to deteriorate (tragically), they assembled the properties. She says they are always on alert and that is why they created a neighborhood conservation district. She says that this is a precedent no matter what you call it. Seen the neighborhood change a block at a time and wouldn't want it in her district. Can't support it.

Maniaci - alot of work and input from many people over 6 - 9 months, project provides high quality affordable workforce housing that replaces rundown workforce neighborhood. The project is crafted to the needs of the neighborhood. Everything out her front window will be torn down but she still approves it. The project was thoroughly worked on by the neighborhood, she thinks this is housing the neighborhood needs, for people who want to stay in the neighborhood that will be priced out. Wants people to support it.

Schumacher asks about substitute - Staff says they and the developers are comfortable with condition number 5 in the report (in the packet). Schumacher says it is a great project, says its a good developer that will invest and in the future people won't want hese buildings torn down. He also says it is very affordable housing for the downtown area and thanked the alder for taking leadership and Kerr for showing him how to be on the plan commission. [Ok, this is what he thinks is very affordable: Efficiency $575, 1 bedroom $640 - $740, 2 bedroom $770 - 865, 3 bedroom $885. Ok, the 3 bedroom is a good price, but there are only 9 of them. The units will be available for people making up to: Efficiency $27 - 32K, 1 bedroom $31 - $36K, 2 bedroom $34 - 41K, 3 bedrooms $38 - 46K. And, I have to say, I'm curious, what leadership did Bridget display here? The project was through the neighborhood process before she was elected and she missed all the sounding board meetings.]

Rummel was the only audible "no" on a voice vote. Read more!

Earth Day Success at Tenney Park!

Look at all the work done led by Ed Jepsen and the Friends of the Yahara River Parkway with 72 volunteers!!

The workday was a wonderful success with at least 72 people (folks who signed the volunteer forms) showing up at Tenney Park for Earth Day activities.

* Twenty trees in Burr Jones along the bike/ped path. (some great help from the scout troop at Trinity Lutheran)
* One swamp white oak at Tenney Beach (thanks Briarpatch volunteers)
* Karen led volunteers in planting over 430 wildflowers near Tenney Beach
* Sean Gere from Gere Tree Care removed honeysuckle and buckthorn along the river
* Jody and Tom led a group of St. Olaf alumni in a clean-out of the shrub/tree beds in Filene Park (Sean helped here too!)
* litter pick-up through-out the park

All the plants are in the ground and enjoying the rain today.

The only thing left is for the city crews to haul away the cuttings...

Thanks to all the volunteers for a great effort!

Read more!

New Tenney Park Shelter

At first, I was concerned that this new shelter would be unaffordable for the groups currently using the shelter and instead would be just another mostly unused closed park building for weddings and gatherings for people who could afford it and figure out how to get it reserved. I was reasonable assured, however, that would not be the case. We subsequently put money in the budget for about half of the costs, with the rest to be raised by the community. Check it out! And thanks to everyone who is helping to make this a reality! Read more!

600 E Gorham/Johnson Project Meeting Tomorrow

Here's the notice sent out to neighborhood associations and put on the postcards that went out to direct neighbors.

Notice of Neighborhood Meeting

Wednesday, December 10th, 2008
7:00 p.m.

Gates of Heaven
302 E. Gorham Street
Madison

The Renaissance Property Group is proposing a redevelopment on the southwest end of the 600 block of East Johnson Street. The site fronts along East Johnson Avenue, Blair Street and East Gorham Street. The redevelopment proposes the deconstruction of existing structures on Blair and East Johnson, the construction of three new buildings and the renovation of the historically significant structures on East Gorham.

We have scheduled this meeting with surrounding neighbors to explain the proposal and obtain neighborhood comments. Representatives from the development team including Michael Matty with Renaissance Property Group and Randy Bruce with Knothe & Bruce Architects will be on hand to answer your questions. Alderperson Brenda Konkel is also planning to attend.

We look forward to seeing you.

Michael Matty

The project numbers keep changing, but there are about 140 units, underground parking, about 10 homes will be "deconstructed" aka demolished. Among the homes being demolished are some historic homes that appear here. See houses on 300 block of N Blair and 600 - 630 E Johnson. Read more!

James Madison Park Selling Houses, Not the Land!

Well, that didn't quite work out as expected, but I feel good about our decision.

As expected, the committee decided to sell the two smaller houses, with a preference for owner-occupied residents, you get them "as is" and get a 66 year lease on the land and can't move them. The Collins House has a preference for commercial or public use. More details here.

The surprise came in where we decided NOT to sell the land underneath the Lincoln School. I even surprised myself, sort of.

I was beginning to regret selling the land to get improvements to the park, but when the committee heard that we had an agreement that we got Lincoln School back in another 25 years or so if we didn't make this deal, things began to change with the rest of the committee members as well.

And, we did have alot of persuasive testimony about why we shouldn't sell parkland now to fill a whole in a budget. It is short-sighted.

And, I was also kicking myself for not thinking of the rental housing as an asset to the neighborhood as it is one of the few places you can rent that is not trashed over-rented housing.

And, we had heard that many of the people in the rentals would not be able to live in the new condos because they could not afford them.

And, finally, I can't see the sale of the land passing referendum. The houses, probably, the land, not so much.

So, in the end, we decided against recommending that the land be sold. You can read more about it here or here. Read more!

Amplified Sound at James Madison Park Next Weekend

Heads up for the neighborhood.

On Saturday, September 27, Volunteers for Obama will hold a fund-raiser and record-breaking (they hope) Twist-o-rama at James Madison Park. They will have amplified sound from 11 am - 4 pm - only for announcements, no music. If they are rained out, they will try it on September 28.

Read more!

James Madison Park - Why's it taking so long?

So, below is an open record that I have been sitting on for quite some time. It's always tough to know what to do with this information, but since the Wisconsin State Journal is looking for blame for why this is taking so long . . . please read below (you might want to read from the bottom up for the full effect). Its classic, sticking the staff in the middle.

From: Marx, Don
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 7:43 AM
To: Olinger, Mark; Harmon, Ramon; Twigg, George
Subject: RE: James Msn Park committee

Just for the record. This committee process has been in the Mayor's Office for many months. We were specifically and repeatedly instructed to wait for direction from the Mayor's Office before we do anything. We have received numerous inquires on the status of this committee process from alders, citizens, and occasionally reporters all of which have been referred to the Mayor's Office as we were not in a position to provide status. We continue to await direction from the Mayor's Office.

---

From: Olinger, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 4:52 PM
To: Harmon, Ramon; Twigg, George
Cc: Marx, Don
Subject: RE: James Msn Park committee

None scheduled to date.

Office of Real Estate Services will set the dates. Awaiting further direction on the communciations piece.

m.

---

From: Harmon, Ramon
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:45 PM
To: Twigg, George; Olinger, Mark
Subject: RE: James Msn Park committee

Mark:

What are the committee meeting dates?

Sincerely,

Ray Harmon

Office of Mayor Dave Cieslewicz

210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.

Room 403

Madison, WI 53703

608-266-4611

608-267-8671 (fax)

---

From: Twigg, George
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 1:01 PM
To: Olinger, Mark
Cc: Harmon, Ramon
Subject: James Msn Park committee

Mark:

I got a call from Bill Lueders inquiring about the status of this. Sheridan G also stopped by the office the other day. What's the latest, from your perspective?

Bill's basic line is, the members of this committee were all named as of Sept. 07, here it is April '08 and no meetings yet, what's up?

George Twigg

Communications Director

Office of Mayor Dave Cieslewicz

(608) 266-4611

Sorry about the momentary tangent, but had this been a text message, if the Mayor and Alder Zach Brandon get their way, this would not have been an open record. (Read here for my full statement of concerns about eroding open records.) With the new fancy phones the staff have, that is not outside the realm of possibilities.

Back on topic - It's makes it all the more ridiculous that we are now being asked to rush to meet the Mayor's time line. I'll leave you with this final thought, from one of my neighbors:

I really really hope that this reflects the mayor trying very hard NOT to do anything about this, and not a serious level of incompetence in the city govt staff.

Read more!

Passionate James Madison Park Testimony

Thanks to everyone who showed up to give us your opinions on James Madison Park. We heard testimony on whether the land under Lincoln School in James Madison Park should be moved (er, I mean sold!), should the three houses be sold, should the land under them be sold, should the houses be moved and a few other things.

We also received the official statements from the Tenney Lapham Neighborhood, Capital Neighborhoods and the Madison Trust for Historic Preservation. Here's a summary of what the individuals who showed up to the standing room only hearing had to say:

1. Someone from outside the neighborhood came to ask that we don't sell parkland by the lake. The parks are our heritage and once we give it away, we will never get it back. Move the houses or tear them down. Parks Commission has already said not to sell the land. Developers can develop elsewhere.

2. A neighborhood resident said to save the park space. Ok to move the houses in the park closer to each other. Collins House should remain a community use. Others should be community use too - suggested a Madison history museum or center for research and study for sustainable Maidson. Don't sell the buildings without the land. Land under Lincoln school should be used for green space and lake access. The land behind Lincoln School (parkland) is not working out.

3. Madison Trust board member and downtown resident spoke in support of selling land under Lincoln School with restrictions - no adding on to the building, no building on the parking ramp,if the building is damaged City can buy it back. Houses should be preserved on site. This is a residential neighborhood not a drive by. These buildings are landmarks and in a historic district and the city did a bad job of maintaining the buildings. THis is an opportunity to demonstrate imaginative reuse of buildings.

4. Madison Trust board member and owner of two properties (one owner-occupied, one rental) across the street supports sale of land with restrictions. Would like to see three houses in private ownership because the City is not maintaining the properties. City should keep the land. Moving the houses would be a mistake because these houses have a familial relationship as well as a common architect. This is a National Register District and they are working to make it a local one. There is lots of investment going on in the neighborhood and the idea of a driveby overlook is foolish. There's lots of investment going on in the neighborhood and we should get some investment in these historic houses.

5. TLNA President said the neighborhood has extensive and heartfelt discussions over the last two years. It was unanimous to keep the three houses in place. Split over whether to sell the land under school, however they voted and agreed that it was ok to sell the land under the school with restrictions. City should get a realistic appraisal of the value of that land and should be able to buy the land back if anything happens to the building. The houses need to be sold to someone more dedicated to restoring them, unlike the city. Parks should keep the land under the houses. If you want views and site lines, take down the "brutalist architecture" silos/stacks on the shelter. There is a nice garden and new cafe there. He said 2.3 of the proceeds should be used to improve James Madison Park.

4. Former owner of the Collins House Bed and Breakfast testified that the houses should not be moved. During the time they worked there they talked to family members of all the houses and keeping the houses is important to preserve that history. The houses are landmarks and Claude and Starcks - theres still the whole shoreland behind them to develop for the park. He said the City of Madison is a lousy landlord. Not because of the people, but the fact that there isn't one Madison. The departments in the City of Madison don't agree and alders from outside the district don't understand the issues. If the houses are sold, the land under them should be sold to.

5. Spokesperson for ULI, that owns Lincoln School spoke to clarify that the proposal was to buy the land at the actual appraised value and $600,000 was just a minimum. Reiterated that this was a Madison Landmark and on the National Trust. He said that the City had a provision to buy back the land if anything happened to the school. The price would be the original price plus a CPI adjuster. He also clarified the property sold was limited to the land directly under the building plus the subterranean rights for the parking, the land above the parking is park land. They support the Madison Trust restrictions on selling the land - no new denisity, no docks, no additional land to be sold.

6. The person who bought all the Kozak properties said that we need to improve James Madison Park. If the money is needed he supports selling the land under the school. He thinks its ok to move the houses to Blount Street, but only if they stay in the neighborhood and stay together. If the houses are moved, they would be sold for a minimal price.

7. A neighborhood resident said the Collins house should remain a public purpose. The houses should not be moved. Doesn't want the land sold under the school. This land was preserved for us, and we should preserve it for others.

8. A neighborhood resident said the houses needed to be in private ownership to maintain the buildings and they should stay on site, the city should keep the land. The houses have historic significance that we can never get back. This has value to the entire City of Madison, not just the neighborhood. The context of the buildings needs to be maintained. He was also in favor of keeping the land under Lincoln School and wanted to make sure there was no building on the land above the parking garage.

9. A downtown/Marquette resident urged us to look at the history of what has happened here. He said if we moved the houses we are forfeiting a part of their historic character. He noted that these houses have a relationship to the recently moved Conklin House which is also a Claude and Starck. He also noted that we need to maintain the connections that exist. Ok to alter the Kenton Peters shelter for a better view. Private ownership might be preferrable to maintain the houses but the city should keep the land. Giving up the land under Lincoln School is giving up something. While he had high regard for the work done to the building and the people who did it, didn't seem in favor of selling the land. Also supports condos and development, but didn't think this should be a place for new development.

10. A "far west sider" came to say that she is "in love with the views of the lake" and takes visitors to see the lakes. She said it would be a shame to sell the land. It's not appropriate to sell land for an operating budget. She said it was ok to sell the houses and it would be "wonderful to keep them where they are" but it might be ok to move them as well.

11. A neighborhood resident supports keeping the houses where they are. He likened it to the park in Philadelphia where the houses we a central feature of the park and a part of the history. Opposed to selling any of the land, it is important to keep the land in case the structures go. He said we needed to honor the relationship of the builidngs and didn't want them moved. If any were moved, it should be the smaller one on the end.

12. Former Mayor, Joe Sensenbrenner, who lives two blocks east of the park thinks that we should be very wary of selling the park land. He thought it was to the advantage to neighborhood and city as a whole is to improve the parkscape and to remember young kids use the park too. He is in favor of relocating the houses on teh same side of or across the street. He, himself lives in a Claude and Starck house. He ended by thanking the committee and everyone who showed up.

13. A person who lives in Lincoln school spoke to the fact that the people who live in the school will likely be relocated because they cannot afford the new condos. He reminded us that most people talked about historic value or scenic value - but this is about the people who use the parks. He doesn't think that the things we are talking about will increase the use of the park. He also noted that the new condo owners aren't going to like the people who use the park being in their backyard. He doesn't think the improvements that can be made for the relatively small amount of money we would get from the sale of the land would end up disappointing us. Said ULI is a good landlord, the people in the building respect it and the park.

14. A neighborhood residents opposes selling any of the land. He thought the houses should be moved or knocked down. Thought the bed and breakfast could be moved to the end of Blount Street and then make Blount between Gorham and Johnson a culdesac. He noted that Lincoln School would be a good community center because his kids have to cross, Johnson, E Washington and Williamson St. to get to a Neighborhood Center and the activities they have there. He even suggested moving the boathouse. He said teh silos/stacks could be removed, perhaps the entire shelter. Noted he helps a bit with the gardens and picks up garbage in the parks.

15. A neighborhood resident opposes moving the houses. Ok with selling land under Lincoln school and the houses.

The meeting was just a bit over an hour. The new Parks Superintendent literally had to stand the entire meeting because there were not enough chairs. When Alder Verveer arrived, they had to scramble to find a chair from another room.

Our next meeting is July 9 at 5:00 room tbd. If you have comments you would like to share, please send them to drolfs@cityofmadison.com, swidstrand@cityofmadison.com or me. We'll make sure they get to the committee. At our next meeting there is also another opportunity for public comment, but we'd like to get to discussion. Read more!