The Edgewater . . .
Seems fitting that this flyer was awaiting me when I got home at 10:00 after the Urban Design Commission. The reason for the late hour was because they spent over 2 hours on the Human Ecology Building demolition and the issues discussed by the landscape architecture professor at the plan commission . . . before they even got to the Edgewater. That project was standing room only as well, in fact, when I got there, there the room was full with about 8 people spilling down the hallway and this note greeted me:
This is the how the Urban Design Commission meeting went [with my comments sprinkled throughout.]
PRESENTATION BY HAMMES
Amy Supple starts the presentation. Says that they are going to go over things not done last time [but not much new since Landmarks or different than what they showed the neighborhood.], answer questions and she says she thinks it is best for referral [Just like at Landmarks, much of the information they need to get approval are not completed for the Commission to make their decision.]. Says spending alot of time understanding the roles of the committees and understand the info they want from them. [Which is odd, because later she says that they are giving the UDC the information they prepared for Landmark’s Commmission – which is looking at other criteria and aspects of the project.] They put up UDC code on slide. And point out the areas of the presentation they are going to cover.
Site Context
– They point out they read past planning documents from the city and studied how city was formed, became clear connection to water front was important.
– They looked at relationship to capital, neighborhood and overall downtown.
– They studied view corridors back from the water with the capital as the central focus.
– They looked a heights and densities in previous plans.
– They says even tho these are not current plan, they show the progression of thought.
– Notes that even in 1800s desire to provide public space on waterfront.
– In the 70’s there was even an idea of water taxi.
– Most recent, Edgewater site and planning of the project focused on comprehensive plan. She picks out items they looked at in the comprehensive plan that they feel are addressed in the project.[It should be noted, that the comprehensive plan took the downtown area and set it aside for additional planning and that work is not yet complete.]
– Notes Edgewater site is consistently treated differently – sometimes in Mansion Hill Neighborhood and sometimes in the Langdon neighborhood. [This seems so petty and I couldn’t figure out why they have mentioned this frequently – but she finally explained.] She says it shows context of where it sits in the city and how the city looks at where the building should fit in.
– Show’s historic district and says that it is thought of in an different context then the rest of the district because is is singled out on the map.
Historic District
– Says they read the 1976 plan and looked at progression of district over time.
– Original plan it was a priority building.
– In the 70s plan the district had the highest amount of multifamily housing in the city.
– Points out demographics of the area. [This was the same as the numbers presented by Dunn at the neighborhood meeting. They seem to emphasize that it was a low income student area that was transient.]
– District today is mixed use with a strong residential component and civic and commercial uses as well. She point out the Edgewater and the Bed and Breakfast.
– Says the Edgewater on Wisconsin Avenue connects the lake and the capital [Blocks the connection would be more accurate.]
– Goes over some more statistics about the character of the district.[People in the room were questioning what this had to do with Urban Design, and I couldn’t figure out the connection.]
– She says this is a dense urban neighborhood.
– Shows map of landmarks and non-conforming properties.
– Claims Edgewater is removed from district and not visually related to any historic buildings in the area.
– Says Edgewater is fairly removed from residential uses.
– Notes there are lots of non-conforming uses, esp. on lakefront and predominantly shown on lakeshore.
– Says there is alot of density and tall buildings in the area. [She keeps changing the area she is talking about, sometimes it is the historic district, sometimes it is the “neighborhood” and sometimes it is different mile radius’ around the area. Not apples and apples.]
– Shows more economic and demographic issues again. Compares 1970’s historic district plan – with same numbers from 2000 census.
– Claims the interesting trends are population and number of units are up but owner occupied and single family home usage is down. [Duh, why is this surprising, properties have been accumulated, torn down and then replaced with high density rental housing. Just because that is a trend, doesn’t mean that is what should be. I don’t get their point here, but the present it as if it is significant.[
– She says these facts and statistics to inform hem as they go along. 98% multifamily as compared to 72% in three mile radius and 52% city overall.
– Shows the blight study for TIF. Says 173 of buildings were correctable blight, so reinvestment is needed. [It is important to remember that the TIF statutes have a very liberal definition of the word blight and a dead bird laying on the property has been used as evidence of blight in the past.]
– She says that part of discussion about TIF is that Edgewater will be the economic catalyst to allow reinvestment in the district through TIF funding.
– Says in the visually related are, 4 of 5 parcels are blighted, including the Edgewater.
Height & Density – presented by Dunn.
– Shows elevation from the lake, shows National Guardian life and capital.
– Says they spent alot of time studying the view corridor.
– Says Edgewater tower is 30 feet taller than National Guardian life.
– Shows map with density in neighborhood, block by block map – says are is 70 – 140 units per acre and some blocks are 185, 190, 245 units per acre.
– Proposed plan is 112 units per acre.
– Points out that the green space gives them lower density.
– Says density is even lower if you adjust for hotel rooms being smaller than residential units.
Barnett asks what footprint they are using and if they are counting the vacated street as part of the site. He asks if they use equivalent of vacated street when looking at densities of the surrounding areas. Supple says they looked at parcels, not considering street. She says if took right of way out – they could take that out of the analysis taking it from 2.2 to 1.75 acres.
– Says this impacts zoning text they drafted, open space is what is unique about the site.
– Talks about view studies. [Same slides as neighborhood meeting.]
– Talks about the cantilevered wall being removed 30 feet, so opens up the horizon.
– Says the stair area will now have a perspective to the water’s edge.
– Compares the site to Olin Terrace, before the Monona Terrace was there.
– Shows perspective from sidewalk – building hidden by trees. [Why can’t they just show the building from Wisconsin Avenue, what are they hiding?}
– He notes that there are alot of suggestions building will stick out into the view as far as the flag poles in the picture. [He seems to present this as if its a crazy idea and he doesn’t know where it came from – but it came directly from him early on in the project. He loses so much credibility with me when he says these kinds of things. I won’t say he’s lying, but he’s stretching the truth too far for my comfort.
– He notes they moved the building 30 feet to the east.
– Shows view from Langdon. View is more constrained acording to Dunn. Won’t see space until midway up the block.
– Shows images from the water – shows existing view corridor. [The views from the lake he shows are from so far away they are useless. Here’s a picture handed out by a member of the public that shows something a little different – it’d be interesting if Hammes would do these types of perspectives]
– Shows view from Union and James Madison Park.
Plaza Concepts
– Work in progress, still changing – they are not satisfied with where they are.
– Wants to continue the sidewalk feel until get to the outer edge of the terrace – currently it is too elongated and they are trying to tighten it up.
– They pulled the auto court further back to make more plaza space.
– Says they tightened the radius to minimize disruption to the view corridor.
– Shows existing building and says the height will be the same across the site to the point where they get to Wisconsin/Langdon so level grade.
– Points out again they are pulling back a structural bay from the water. Wants the view from the lake to be a pattern of people and life instead of facade you see today.
– Talks about architectural treatments – uses Monona Terrace as examples.
– Shows pictures of what is there today. Says there is a “treacherous” stair, dumpsters, loading dock access to the ramp fairly cluttered series of spaces at the front door. Hope to clean that up.
Supple says that they have heard alot of people commented on size of auto court and that is was too large.
Rummel says she wants to see more pedestrian space and less car space.
– Supple says they think they have it worked out so that there will be enough space for fire access. The auto court is not 2200 sq feet smaller. Says symmetry with Wisconsin Avenue was important – explains the stair is off center and they had to adjust to work around that.
– She says with the auto court pulled back, there is more green space.
– She says they are trying to break spaces up into multiple areas so if a function there would be other spaces and paths through the project.
– She says they heard a fair amount of comments about seating so she points out that they created a mini garden right off lobby of hotel.
– They are working on lighting – working to get rid of light poles and do up lighting.
– Dunn says it is a level to Wisconsin Avenue. Points out the circular area that is supposed to be a focal point at entrance to the old building – wants it activated.
– Urban garden with significant landscaping and people space.
– Notion of stair is not sending you all the way up the stair and around to get to a public space.
– Wants to have a green edge down the stair.
– Dunn says they are thinking about the width of the stair – don’t want it to be too wide. Concerned it miggt have “low population” and he wants it to be more intimate. More like an Italian stair. [There are snickers around the room because originally they were saying it was 25 feet, but looking at the drawings you could see it was much smaller, they are not saying it is 15 or 16 feet wide.]
Design overview
– Focal point of the design effort triggered by the original rendering for the building. [See Dick Wagner’s comments below – they are interesting.]
– Want to bring the architecture back, need to separate the 70s addition from the 40s building to accomplish that. That is what led to the idea of the grand stair. Improve access to waterfront.
– Supple says terracing effect was also built into original architecture of the old hotel. Trying to mimic that.
– Dunn says they have to demolish one structural bay of the building.
– Dunn says he thinks no one has been on top of the hotel.At this point, several people around the room hold their hands up to indicate that they have been up there.
– Majority of the space is lost to mechanical systems – not an inviting public space and majority of space is not usable.
– Supple says they have gotten alot of questions about where connections are being made into the building. She says documents submitted show the terraces and the doorways.
– Bob Dunn leaves the room to answer his phone (says he had to arrange to get his kids picked up)
– Shows Brigadoon room – general design of original project will be honored.
– Rooftop of 40s building – designed to go one structural level up – roof was party space of original hotel – big bands and dances and lounge seating area.
– They are proposing something similar only portions of it are social area – club for the hotel, banquets and function space and some outdoor area.
– Shows the view from the lake again – not mimicking the 40s building, but picking some design elements.
Constraints
– Says they looked at renovation vs. building.
– Shows challenges – says the floor plates in the old building are only 42 feet and they need 60 – 62 needed.
– Stairways and elevators in old building not up to code.
– Need to have larger rooms not meet standards of hotel from 10 rooms to 6 per floor. They went from 107 rooms to 60 or 70 hotel rooms.
– 70s structure facade is not the most appealing.
– Wanted to break the buildings up and give them a human scale.
– Opening up more of the capital view by pulling back the facade.
– Facade reclad and match better with architecture of the rest of the project.
– Says 40s building should stand on its own.
– Studied pulling the podium building. Worried about space lost for mechanicals but studying it.
– Can maintain the easement along the waterfront.
– Lakefront terrace, has more green space & fire pits on the terrace outside the banquet room.
– Expansion tower – first three levels is how people will interact with he building retail, cafe, outdoor seating, lobby, and bar restaurant.
– Scale where three stories and then step back – mid section and then step back for top two floors. Setbacks to relate to Kennedy manor and National Guardian Life which are most proximate and prominent.
– Building architecture was designed to have a prewar residential feel to it and mimic other buildings in the district.
– Materials are neutral stone tone and detailing – railings and flower boxes – not overly ornate – subtle classic feel.
– Looking at reducing the penthouse.
– Says it is sustainable design – green roof, stormwater captured off Wisconsin Avenue and improving shore line conditions.[That’s it, that’s what makes it sustainable?? Many odd looks exchanged around the room.]
One of the commissioner asked where the storm water captured went to.
Supple explains it goes to a basin and then storm sewer and then into the lake.
Barnett asks if they are improving what currently happens.
She says there is no control on Wisconsin Avenue and this brings it down and captures it and filtered into the storm sewers.
She says there are some swales on the roof.
She also notes that they are doing a tree survey.
– Dunn says benefits to neighborhood – waterfront access, neighborhood place, jobs, security improvements, tif provide economic stimulus, will correct the blight, strengthen Mansion Hill historic district strengthened, more of a destination and lastly, 27 people who want to live on the property. He says he asks people who want to move if they are moving to the neighborhood or the project and he says they say the project.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Much of the public was gone by the time they got to the public. At one point, I counted 50 people in the hallway waiting, but there were only about 25 in the room when they got to public testimony.
Registered, in support not wishing to speak: 17, including people representing Madison Environmental Group (working with Hammes) and Smart Growth Madison and the current owners of the Edgewater Hotel. These were not read off, but I happen to recognize these names, who knows who else was represented in those numbers.
Registered, opposed, not wishing to speak: 9 including many interested in historic preservation and several neighbors, not clear if they were representing any organizations.
What follows is some compiled comments from the speakers.
NEITHER IN SUPPORT OR AGAINST
One person, John Martens spoke.
– Not enough information. No opportunity to understand what is going on or soak in the moving target the plan has become.
– Complex plan, he has 40 years of studying, drawing, architectural plans, can’t figure out the reality of the plan.
– Says there is alot of hyperbole and innuendo and unprecedented marketing plan.
– Unclear what is the real plan, we still don’t know. Tonight illustrated that.
– Says tonight was just more hyperbole and innuendo and outright deception.
– They need consistent and complete plans.
– Has a list of questions/concerns that he shares with the commission
– Would like to see a final version and a reasonable amount of time for the public to react.
– UDC purview to safeguard the future of the city – defer so have a chance to understand.
Barnett says natural to be a moving target – ask for two or three things to be lost or not lost in the proposal.
Martens says the plans are done relative to the new tower – cut across at a plane wherever they intersect with the Edgewater – floors don’t line up – esp. at lower levels. Can’t tell what is existing and what is new. Roof addition is new, opening are vague. Need more detail on modification of the original Edgewater.
Barnett asks what he thinks has merit to build upon – hear alot about public access – put won’t be allowed if more than 250 people attending. Setback is not taken out of the public space. Alot of private space sold to us as public space. Pulling back the roof gives very limited visibility and takes currently public space and privatizes it. Gone over the top in looking at it because the more he looks the more he finds. Built it on a cad so he understands it. Alot of differences of what is being claimed and the realities of the project. This is extremely complicated, he is trained and can’t figure it out. Many are listening to the hyperbole – public has been sold on a myth.
IN SUPPORT
Were there but left: Erik Minton, Dan Burke (I think there were two more, but they didn’t make it clear when reading off the names)
Spoke: Scott Vauhn, Rosemary Lee, Jim Carly, Harvey Windell
Summary of Comments
– Says the project is greener and more sustainable, demolition is not green, rehab is better. Updated mechanical systems.
– Says that historic neighborhoods are dense, walk able, mass transit accessible all celebrated and promoted by smart growth and you can go green without compromising historic character.
– Says CNI does not represent all voices in the neighborhood, vocal people are only 5% of the group.
– Says the developer is honest and accessible.
– Thankful development team realizes we need waterfront access.
– This project impacts all of Madison, not just Mansion Hill, all Madisonians should have a say in the fate of the project.
– Likes the project because of public space, restoration and vibrancy it will add to quality of life.
– Looking forward to using the amenities.
– Historic preservation should be judicious, must be allowed to evolve and grow, each new development should be honestly reviewed on all aspects.
– Complicated and complex but worthwhile.
– Likes the evolution of the project and it will continue to evolve.
– Gives a better view of the lake than it did before.
– Likes restoration of the tower.
– Good destination point.
– Loves the idea of the stairway – 15 to 16 foot stairway is outstanding, wouldn’t want it any wider, loves the plaza and spreading out beyond that.
– Wonderful opportunity – the hotel is tired, opportunity to make it a first class property.
– Likes view from Lake Mendota.
– No problem with height or architecture, yes different and needs to be tweaked and revised – this is an opportunity to have a beautiful addition.
AGAINST
Were there but left: Alex Hitch, Tom Link, Jim Skretny, Barry Avery
Spoke: Adam Plotkin, Paul Shoeneman, Fae Draemock, Gene Devitt, Jason Tisch, Michelle Martin, Pete Ostlind, Ledell Zellers, Fred Mohs,
Summary of Comments
– Doesn’t improve Mansion Hill – it flattens the hill, replacing the natural topography
– Talks about the enhancing the beauty of the neighborhood and how beautiful the neighborhood is. This is destroying that natural beauty.
– Don’t think James Madison Park should be considered blighted, thinks that is decieving.
– Hotel tower is 80% in the R6H zone and that requires a 50 ft height limit.
– Suggests that they find a compromise to this 10 story building on a 7 story base or 17 story building from the lake.
– Recent developments have kept to the 50 foot limit.
– Already being built on land sold by the city for $1.
– Buildings on Wisconsin Ave with the exception of buildings on the square have a 8 foot setback from the sidewalk. The new building rises directly up at the sidewalks edge – cuts significantly into views of the sky and out to the lake.
– Losing view of lake and sky and more shadow.
– Balcony over entrance is still in public right of way.
– The Capital isn’t just a point between the lakes, it has 8 radiating arms and by focusing on Monona Terrace and Edgewater, it is making it into an dumbbell. This should compliment that design better.
– Points out how Monona Terrace also removed the lake view.
– The public access is not an improvement – there are many private areas in the area that appears to be public at first glance.
– Says the grand stair is more of a stair-ina.
– Concern about increase in traffic, doubling hotel rooms, quadrupling parking spaces, need a footbridge to get to the concrete plaza.
– Feels like tourists at the edge of the grand canyon – struggling on a limited platform to get a glimpse.
– Wrong place for this, neither values or enhances design of downtown.
– This area showcases alot of the buildings built by the founders of the City of Madison and has best collection of landmarks in the city in variety in styles and architecture.
– Have lost some important buildings in the downtown, but more people moving in and restoring the old homes.
– This is where 14 of the cities landmark buildings on its walking tour are located.
– Quisling clinic and Hart house was going to be a 14 story bundling there, neighborhood and city and developer agreed to put on an addition and stay within 50 feet.
– Scott Lewis and 1st Methodist Church worked with the neighborhood to build within the criteria.
– PUD says that even though they have freedom to make some rules, they still have to build basically within the zoning there.
– [There was a classic moment where one of the Mansion Hill Steering committee members asked for clarifications of how tall the building is. And Supple must have forgotten she was in public – she snapped, its in the drawings, and didn’t answer the question. It’s an indication of how the neighborhood is treated, despite all Hammes claims to the contrary, and Rosemary’s claim that they are open and accessible – perhaps just to supporters? Alder Maniaci stepped in and answered the question for the developer. The parapet is 187.2 feet and the penthouse is 199 feet. The speaker asked where they were measuring it from, and I don’t think he got an answer. The contempt for the neighbors is just palpable.]
– Speaker said this is the first time they had seen this level of detail about the project and it is nice to see important details being filled in.
– Likes the pulled back cantilever, isolation of historic section of the building and setting that off and highlighting that building.
– Madison Trust is not opposed to development in the area, but is concerned about violation of the zoning code – historic zoning code and Mansion Hill historic district ordinance.
– This is way out of scale with the historic district. Most of building in historic district are 2 – 3 sorties high, a few exceptions built before the district was established.
– Putting hundreds of hotel rooms in the middle of the Historic District will impact the livability of the historic district.
– Concerned that project of this scale will detrimentally impact the livability of the district.
– Madison Trust not opposed to the project, but would like to see compromise as to the scale of the project – main concern is integrity of the zoning and Historic District code and precedent set to violate it.
– This would be a great development somewhere else, and yes Edgewater needs help.
– Project is so massive it would change what we have.
– Unique opportunity – already a historic destination because people come to see the mansion.
– The project will draw so much traffic it will not be walkable.
– Mansion Hill landmark ordinance was put there to preserve the area and make sure whatever is built is consistent and this is out of scale.
– Supports reinvigorating the Edgewater.
– Could and should reject it just on height and mass and how it relates in context.
– Insufficient info to critique balance of the proposal – attachments referred to in the materials are missing.
– Text says all trucks and buses will be off streets and onto the private drive – says configured differently on plans than the boards they have.
– How will the truck get to the loading dock – how do they back in.
– Submission said trucks could be backed in and doors could be closed but there is only 30 feet and many trucks are 35 feet.
– Asks path of the bus – how do they open the door because it doesn’t face the hotel.
– Concerned unloading will block the only entrance of the parking garage.
– Elevations of the plaza – preserve and enhance the view in 1965 ord – but proposed plaza level is the same elevation as the parapets of existing roof – this is not flat blank roof, will have items on the plaza that will block and change the view – effectively much higher than the current building.
– Garden area has a fence and gate around it
– Stormwater retention not much of a plan.
– Setback on Wisconsin Ave doesn’t exist.
– Shifting private uses to public spaces – public space for private drop off is inappropriate.
– Height and mass does not fit in the urban context.
– 12 blocks around are primarily small scale 19th century homes, this would be a looming intrusion.
– View from the lake discussed some, it would be massively out of scale from the lakeside. Has illustration of it (see photo above).
– From the lake it would be the kind of building that would be out of scale – people on the lake would ask would how did the city ever let that be built.
– Precedent for other buildings. A wall of cap height buildings is not a plus.
– Historic architecture matters, lots of tours in mansion hill, hope city respects and honors its historic district and provide predictability.
– Stick with the PUD ordinance and make sure that it substantially complies with underlying zoning code.
– Protect views and aesthetics from ground and views from the lakes.
– Missed some comments here . . .
– Others will assemble and attempt to build to massive heights if this goes through. Will expect to build 17 stories a few feet back from the lake, this would be the end of the historic district, be realistic at long term impacts.
UDC MEMBERS‘COMMENTS
Rummel asks if they have more neighborhood meetings scheduled with the developer. Mohs says no effective meetings whatsoever planned. Would love to sit down anytime any place and work out objections with the plans and see what the alternatives would be – would love to do it – but it takes two sides.
Smith says he gave staff a number of perspectives of the building that they need to effectively evaluate the plan. Supple indicates they have that list, still working on it. Smith says they need that list to evaluate the project effectively. Supple says they are working off list form landmarks [I have to say, this just irritates me, they spent all that time saying that they did their due diligence and read the ordinances and understood what they needed to provide, but UDC and Landmarks haven’t gotten what they have asked for. And they’re presenting Landmarks information to UDC. Clearly, they don’t understand it or they are playing games.] Supple says they will have them in the submittal and that is part of the problem with why they need to refer. [I just want to make it clear for the record that they don’t have their information ready and that is why it is being referred so that when they come back later and say that they went to so many meetings and the process was delayed, it is clear that it was their doing.]
Smith asks question about why they need to exceed the height limit. Would be important to evaluate the project. He says if it is an economic reason he’d like to see them make their books publicly available so it can be evaluated. Supple says they can prepare something relative to both. Says there is program that makes the space functional – it will be in the submittal information.
Barnett says the project is complex, tight site, existing buildings, but when boil it down its just the exiting 40s building, stair, open space, 70s building modified and new building. Levels and views that make it complex – needs to be boiled down to those pieces. He thinks the following things are good: open space between buildings, view is going to be the same, working with existing 70s building to make it a little better but not great, how the public space is opened up and to who and when is a big question – what is a 250 person event, if the city really wants to give that up – needs to be truly public. Drop off area reduced its good, increase public space. Stair is ok – needs more work. Concern about width of stair – would love to see it splayed to open up and capture dynamic view – 10 to 15 degrees. The restoration of Edgewater is great. Pulling back 70s building is good. Needs to look at skywalks, they will not be transparent, it will be like skywalk that blocks overture – skywalk to the lake – use the terraces as activated and make them be the links instead. If have to come down to stair so be it, we can all suffer for a few seconds in the cold. Second, make the space that fronts the lake truly public – put private space on your property, not on the city’s property. Height is still a problem even with the separation, concerned about precedent. This not is going to be the only building. It would be unreasonable to assume that it would be the only building of that height. Set back is a concern. Less than 2 – 3 feet is a dangerous precedent.
Supple clarifies that setback is Wisconsin Ave right of way and the existing building – the setback is not off the street.
Barnett explains what people expect and the pattern of the buildings. Says that the architecture of a building this height, then it really needs to be something special. Draw upon the project and excite people – needs to be dynamic. Not a bad building, nice materials and details but doesn’t distinguish itself.
Supple asks to help her understand that.
Barnett says that it is a background building, solid that fits with rhythm and pattern and doesn’t distinguish itself. If that prominent in the skyline, not a compliment to what is there. Not saying put the Calatrava (Milwaukee Art Museum) there, but not saying not to either.
Supple says balancing act of fitting with the neighborhood.
Barnett says they often at this stage they are presented with alternative designs.
Woods uses the example of the Chrysler building – it was unique in its day and still a great building. Wants people to look at it and say “wow”.
Barnett says it needs a traffic study.
Supple says traffic engineering has asked to look at it and they have studies to show how it works.[If they have all this stuff and have studied everything, why aren’t they providing it?]
Weber says it needs to feel cohesive. Treatment of hististoric building is fantastic, but needs to be studied so it balances – they need to have a relationship – maybe it is pattern or materials or something to make it fit. You could slide it around, doesn’t have its site yet. Asks to look at the urban court and have a gesture with the new tower or massing, thought he massing creates a place. Less concerned about the height with 50 feet, but needs to fit with its neighbors. She says Hammes described the connection, but she didn’t see it. Not sure about drive – maybe depress the drive court – thinks view is enhanced. Maybe want to see more of the hill. Maybe really do want to separate pedestrian and car traffic. Tells them to look at the bay windows.
Rummel says it is an exciting project. Shows postcards of how building used to look. University cultural landscape is similar to what hearing from neighbors. Beautiful art moderne building, horrible 70’s addition – would like to get back some of what was promised. Why do you assume the 70’s building stays so much intact, peel more of the top back. Maybe better if in the space but not the longer range view coming up the street. Stair is supposed to be an intimate space, likes concept but thinks 15 feet isn’t enough. Talks about building they worked on in her neighborhood on 800 Willy Street – 15 foot corridor between historic building and new wasn’t enough and it didn’t succeed. Worried about the stair being in the shade. Not going to get the cool sense of space. Needs more info about the residential space – where does it go? condos? apartments? timeshares?, is it in old or new building? Wants to understand podium building, which is a new piece of the project. What would it look like if you had to fit all the ordinances. Can you work out something with NGL? In a way you aren’t even capturing the best views – 3 or 4 bays, need to turn it to face the lake – maybe shorten it. Final question is that she is hearing from alders and if they get TIF money, we need to justify what we are getting as the public.
Supple says that they need to better define programatically what is happening in the building and why certain things are doing what they are doing. She says every single inch of building is utilized and struggled to fit everything – constrained site. Needs a better explanation of why it is the way it is – she will do that in the next submission. [Again, why isn’t this information available if they have done so much work?]
Rummel adds that they should think about peeling more off the top and says they need to meet with the neighborhood.
Harrington says they need to see shadow study on the stair. Italian staircases don’t have plants – no light for them. Stairway has great potential. Tower mass and height is a problem. National Guardian Life building is set back and has trees and it is in the landscape – what you are doing is creating a big gash or wound. Not as concerned about view from Wisconsin Ave, but from the and looking at it from the union. The rest of mansion hill you have trees to wrap the building in.
Woods agrees about the height, penthouse should not go above the build line. Asks if they have submittted to DNR and do you have a date when that will be a yes or now, but they needs that before they can approve.
Supple says they have begun discussions.
Woods would really like to see corner of the building that comes close to the lake, maybe a rounded corner to get it set back a little bit – shouldn’t feel like you are right next to the building if you can ever walk along the shoreline.
Supple says the architects looked at it and that there might be too much of a zigzag. Then she says it will be in the new submittal.
Wagner says towers need to relate to each other. He notes that the rendering of the 1940s building they are using is not what got built – the rendering is better – really unique design features and the horizontality of the design and the building environment isn’t being carried through to the new building. If real architecture then they have to relate in a way we are not seeing. Sweeping curves and elongated stuff on the old building rendering is alot better than what is there but the new building is vertical.
Slayton is glad the auto court is an improvemed by being aligned. Would like to see traffic study about how they cars will queue and large vehicle conflicts. Need more objective numbers for stormwater, beyond the basics. Water should go through the earth if possible. Shadow study is important. Sunset study – who’s view will it block. As the sun goes down who will miss the view. Seems to be casting some huge shadows. Tree survey is important. Concern is that it is too tall.
MOTION
Slayton says this feels like expanded informational presentation and referral is appropriate. Got alot of info from us and they are moving too fast for initial approval. Wants to be fair . . .
Supple says that they agree – alot been said.
Slayton makes motion for referral.
Maniaci – interested in nightscape and lighting. Residents concerned about safety, esp. with stairway. Questions about design and width of the stairs. Interested in plaza and how that relates to 2 Langdon – how will it impact those residents? Will they have access to the urban garden?
Supple explains how it will relate, says they will try to screen it with landscaping. There is a gate, and that is public space and they can go there when it not . . . mumble, mumble. Didn’t quite catch that . . .
Maniaci wondering about subterranean areas and how landscape further blocks the light. Impact of condos to the design and height. If long term residents, does that change room counts and finances. What does the height mean, does addition of residential change those dynamics. Bike rack design doesn’t meet Robbie Webber’s standards. Interested in a substantial traffic study.
Barnett has two nutty ideas. Parking lot at NGL is not doing much, what would prevent them from doing something more substantial there. If buying the land, there is an access drive with nothing above it, what if built over the access drive, gain square footage and can take it off top or back.
Dunn says problem is double loaded corridor.
Barnett says he understands but suggests they look at shuffling some things. Auto court is going to fill up with cars, any feasibility to put it to the east and leave it out of the center – doubling green space for something that is not doing much – not sure how do drop off.
Motion is referral – passes unanimously.
NOTE 1: This will not be going to Landmarks on September 14th as planned, Hammes has not submitted the information necessary to make that decision – it has been postponed until October 5th
NOTE 2: Rough blogging week – I had a 7:30 meeting for work, so I finished this up during lunch.
