NOTE: For those of you wondering, Board of Estimates will start at 8:30. Not sure we’ll be done in an hour.
It’s all I’m going to have time for, which means that its real time, not as inclusive and subject to more gaps than usual. Kristin is live blogging both this the Board of Estimates meeting as she can, so you can check in with the Cap Times and join in for that news, I may join in as time allows. I have to be up and on the road by 5:30, so there won’t be much beyond what gets posted tonight on this subject if it goes late.
GETTING STARTED
The room is crowded, standing room only, media can’t get decent sound for their video, commissioners can’t find parking spots, the heat is going full blast and the windows are open . . . which means it will be hard to hear. They’re at least 5 minutes late, but due to the chaos, that makes sense to me.
The approve the minutes, no comments from the public for things not on the agenda, they as for staff to comment first, then have developer talk no longer than 20 minutes only on the changes, then they hear from the public. He asks for them to make their comments relevant.
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS ON THE STAFF REPORT
Stuart Levitan asks about staff report, page 2, related to the visually related area, he asks about two circles when the ordinance relates to “a” area and then asks about how the 200 foot area is calculated as it relates to the various parcels. He asks why the tower is excluded from the visually related area.
Bill Fruhling, Planner, explains the Visually Related Area or VRA, he says its not 5 parcels for purposes for determining the visually related area, they consider it one parcel. The law says you consider the street frontages and this is unusual because you have streets. He says the center point for the circle they looked at was the center point of the right of way, and it is unusual.
Levitan asks about not taking into account the tower.
Fuhling says they are looking at the VRA, to look at the building and the environment to determine it it is visually related.
Levitan argues that the tower is not included. Staff says yes.
Levitan asks about page 7, 2nd paragraph, they refer to elevations, they say that the elevator may not be obvious because of the way they are rendered. Does that mean it is inaccurate.
Fruhling says that they should look at the elevations, not the renderings. When looking at the elevation, you should see all the plains. Staff is just providing clarity.
Levitan asks about page 8, new memo breaks it down differently than the November 30th memo. What is the comprable number on the May memo. It was 1.69 cubic feet is 1.4 or 1.96 cubic feet. Rebecca Cnare says the larger number. Levitan says 200,000 cubic feet more than the original.
Erika Gehrig asking a question I can’t hear. Cnare answering and I can’t hear.
Levitan asks about page 14 the Murphy memo about the state, clarifies not adopted by the council, Cnare agrees. Levitan asks what happens if the council adopts it even with the memo. Fruhling says we’d see some changes to the 1940s tower.
DEVELOPER PRESENTATION
Bob Dunn says they will 1) talk about evolution of the plan, says there have been significant changes then 2) they will talk about the criteria, focusing on the volume, and then 3) Dunn has a few comments. He says that over the years people have said what he thinks and he thinks it important you hear it from him. They are trying to be responsive to all the concerns they have heard. There are many opinions on the project, but they have tried to listen, think through the issues, study the landmarks ordinance and apply best thinking, intelligence, thinking to bring the project forward to meet the criteria and objectives of many. Looked carefully at landmarks ordinance, its a complicated ordinance, with a complicated project, they will talk about that confusion, can’t find the absolute answer, and they will do their best. They feel they have good solid arguments, they hope they took a step forward.
David Manfredi, the architect, will try to talk about the changes. Spent a lot of time with Urban Design, they think the building is better. Biggest changes to smallest. The site plan, the most significant change is the footprint of the project. He explains the move in the parking towards the NGL (National Guardian Life) project. It increases parking and takes traffic out of the auto court. The third impact is that underground entrance raised up the entrance, and there were concerns about what it looked like, there is more green space and it ramps down, the visibility of the pedestrian is increased. The second biggest issue is the construction of the guest rooms. The moved the guest rooms and pushed them back 13 – 21 feet, the number varies because of the variances in the wall of the building. He shows computer generated views. He points out the podium and then the rooms that are pushed back. He says the key is to look at how much water you see today and what you will see. He talks about some important design changes, he says that the issue was that the building did not connect itself well to the site, the building didn’t recognize it had a city side and a water side. He agreed with that criticism. He talks about it like it is a diving board. They asked how the new building would have a sense of place. He shows elevation from Langdon, he says they made the building asymmetrical to connect it to the old building and to give it a sense of place. The other comment that came out of Urban Design Commission was that the building was too complicated, it should have three parts. The 40s building, the 70s building and the new tower. He shows the east elevation. He says the last part is about the 1940s building, they have more detail. Buzzer goes off, they have 5 minutes left. Levitan says they need to hear from Supple on the Landmarks ordinance. He wraps it up, stayed at the Edgewater and ate there this morning and they were the only ones there, and it was beautiful.
Supple says they got books today? (again?! or did they have them? Not sure.) Supple says that they looked at buildings in the neighborhood and says there is a variety of scale and mass. She says that this is not an area of single family homes in this area. That might be in other areas, but not here. She says that most of the time they spent on the criteria, they looked at 6 different metrics about how volume and mass relate to the area. They looked at elevation, says same height as NGL and 20 feet higher than Kennedy Manor. Looked at spacial relationships. Looked at the removal of mass. Says the changes they made moving the building, creating more open space, opening the views and having the most impact on the pedestrian. They did a ratio comparison of square footage on page 6-13. She says there is a pattern of square footage and you see a great diversity and it shows how different the visually related area is.
QUESTIONS OF HAMMES/EDGEWATER
Gehrig asks about the levels of the cafe, the rooms, and the ballroom etc. She asks if the cafe entrance is the same? Manfredi says yes. The ballroom level is the same. What has moved is the guest room floors, above the cafe is what moved, it is the upper floors, floors 3 – 8. She asks for him to point it out on the renderings. Gehrig asks to see the corner of the building.
Michael Rosenblum asks him to walk them through the building from the different points.
Manfredi shows them a photos. He shows them the floors from the lake view. They clarify the floors.
Rosenblum asks if they have a broader picture of the front elevation, that is what he wants to see, what will we see from Wisconsin. They only have an elevation, no rendering. He says the auto drop off is 10 feet below the cafe, one more level down is the ballroom. He says the level have stayed about the same, except the rooms have moved.
Bridget Maniaci asks them to show them on another photo they all have.
Robin Taylor asks about the measurements he is using, elevations are off the water, 71 means 71 feet above the water. Height is from the street to the top of the building. That is 85 feet. Or 159 feet off the water.
Levitan asks Amy Supple about the statistics 2.08 – 5that they are using, are they for the neighborhood or historic district. He asks about 2.0 – 10 buildings and if they were built before the Historic District. Supple says 5 of them did, not the Quisling. She says that speaks to the variances in the neighborhood.
Gehrig asks about the Masonic Temple, is it in the district. They seem to need to clarify that.
Levitan asks about the public spaces, are they consistent with the “city control” of the space. Supple says they will operate and manage. Levitan asks who will operate the hotel. Supple says not intention to ??? have a flag ????
Levitan asks about 5.0 pg 2, asks about NGL having an elevation of 157, how is that equal to the height. Manfredi says that they are talking elevations, NGL and new construction will be the same elevation – Levitan says you meant elevation when you said height? Yes.
Another clarification by Gehrig, I can’t hear. They are questioning numbers and why they don’t make sense to them. Supple says they may have made some mistakes in the numbers.
Levitan asks about $2M number for parking. Supple says that the renovations of parking and furniture and fixtures, they have put that money in. Levitan asks if they really spent $1.2M during that time. Why no building permits? Amy says conceivable to be all interior.
Maniaici asks about pages 7 & 8 – but I can’t hear what she said. Amy talks about comprehensive plan and spacial relationship and height and width ratios so this demonstrates the right of way between 40s building and new tower is 132 feet wide, same width as terrace, so this was meant to demonstrate that there is a large spacial relationship that is atypical of an urban setting.
Kristina Slattery asks why there is more square footage. Manfredi says it is an increase in parking, volume of garage space is larger. A little bit of more square footage in responding to Urban Design Commission and the 9th floor.
Levitan asks if page 8 of staff report include the parking? Staff says report doesn’t include parking area. Supple says that the extra square footage is from building being pulled forward, much of it is below grade as a result of the elevator towers.
Gehrig clarifies something they agree to.
Rosenblum asks again if the increase in square footage includes parking, Cnare says no.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
75 in support not wish to speak, 16 in opposition who do not wish to speak.
18 opposition and 10 in support that wish to speak. And one alder that would like to speak, not indicating support or opposition.
Julia Kerr, offers to let public speak, but would like to go to Board of Estimates. Thanks them for their services, feels bad they have been criticized, not always agreed, but appreciates their support. She is there to answer question about plan commission memo and Brad Murphy’s agenda. She says it was her amendment.
Levitan asks what she thinks the council and plan will do given the memo. Kerr says not coming back to Plan, surprised by the memo. She says she was trying to ensure the exterior renovations were done to proper standards, happy to use different standards. She felt that was the benchmark by which historic rehabs are judged. Restoring this is important, the question for us and the developer is what benchmark to use to measure it. Levitan asks if Council intends to modify the plan commission recommendation. Kerr says won’t speculate on what council will do, if Landmarks has a standard to use, she thinks Council will take that into consideration. Maniaci says that Landmarks Commission usually establishes this criteria so why did you send this to an outside body. Kerr says you don’t look at architectural drawings since they do. Gehrig says that in their previous motion they tried to give it more specific recommendations beyond having an adverse effect. Slattery says that if we are getting a restored tower, we should use standards we understand. Kerr says that is the basis for her recommendation. Didn’t mean to put the commission in a bind, meant for it to be consistent with Landmarks recommendation. Didn’t mean to pre-empt other speakers but has to go downstairs.
Peter Ostlind, says building is bigger, longer, wider and taller, was 10 stories, now 11. Closer to water and Langdon. Pedestrian entry to parking is right on Wis. Ave. frontage line. Building has shifted some, the center portion grew to the west as the upper floors moved to the east. The three story portion of the podium building has not moved, still sticks out on the right of way. Canopy on the cafe extends over the right of way. The 1940s building – sorry – missed the point, hard to hear. He says the new proposal is larger than one rejected in November. 1.8M cubic feet above grade, staff have another calculation. Talks about what you can see of the building. It’s hard to visualize even with the drawings and models. He says that Capitol West is a few feet longer, narrower than the guest portions, podium is wider, but it is 10 feet higher. He says that it is essentially on the same slope. It fits where it is because of the other buildings, but imagine the building at the Edgewater. Gehrig asks about the number of stories, Ostlind explains but I didn’t hear it all. Levitan asks about the cubic feet calculation, Ostlind points it out. Ask Cnare about the calculation, she says their number adds the podium part, they only counted volume above the podium. At least I think that is what they said. Gehrig clarifies. Cnare says that everything below the cafe was included in their calculations, if I understood them. Ostlind says three levels, cafe level, front entry 10 feet down and then another 10 feet another entry.
Ledell Zellers speaks in opposition. PR people are aware if repeat inaccurate info enough people will begin to believe it. She directs them to page 22 – 24 in their booklet. She goes over the top 5. Borders of the historic district, there is confusion between historic mansion hill district and the neighborhood. They residential in historic district is much higher. Many of the buildings shown are not in the historic district when showing context. The developer shows many non-confirming buildings. She says that intent of the ordinance was to prevent intrusions, not provide justifications for further intrusions. Two intrusions noted at the time were NGL and Verex. The developer misrepresentation on the height and elevation confusion is another issue. Height is what matters when looking at the visual relationship. The developer is not using a volume measure, he uses 6 other metrics to confuse. Gross volume of the building is 2.5 to 38 times the buildings in the VRA. It is 3 times larger in volume in NGL. Finally, if it owner occupied or rental should not matter. Some landlords in support so they can build bigger building. Vote for the history of the neighborhood, vote against neighborhood.
Camille Haney in support – resident of Monona, been a part of the neighborhood for 40 years from when student and lived at a sorority and got to Kennedy Manor and go to Edgewater if special occasion. Moved to Milwaukee and Washington D.C. moved back to Madison 20 years ago. Talks about moving back and when walked past Edgewater, thought it would be nice if soem would redevelop the dump to the former glory. Then along came Bob Dunn and she knew that he would do a great job for her old neighborhood. She said that she talked to her old friend Fred and heard all his talking points, then talked to Bob and said she would be interested in the condo, I’ll put you on a list, 30 families are already interested. She says that it would be good for economic development. If not Bob Dunn, who? If not now when? She doesn’t have 40 years to wait.
Maniaci asks something about new development. Camille says that role of development is to expand for the future and preserve the past. This enhances the future, for new residents, several people would love to live downtown on the lake, others have lake views. This will be great for the university and students.
Maniaci asks about massing and size and does it threaten historic houses. She says no. The NGL building is massive and it hasn’t hurt the neighborhood.
Kitty Rankin, former City Preservation Planner. She says 35 years ago, the Cap Times showed two pictures of the new historic district. The article says that the Verex building overwhelmed the Governor’s Mansion. It talks about the NGL and how it is in stark contrast to the neighborhood. These two buildings show the intrusions into the neighborhood and are examples of what should not happen. (That is HORRIBLY paraphrased.) She reads from her article recently printed in the paper. She talks about the neighborhoods with historic districts being in opposition. I think she’s still reading from her letter. Sorry missed the rest.
Levitan asks if it was the first historic district in the state. Rankin says yes. Levitan asks about using non-contributing buildings in the visually related area. She says when she was staff they did not include them.
Gehrig asks about maintenance being done on the historic building, did those come before the Landmarks commission or her. Rankin says only remembers that they did an addition on the roof, penthouse for equipment. Tuck pointing would not come to commission. She doesn’t remember that. Levitan asks if the roof work went to the Commission, she says yes.
Gene Rankin says opposition, involved in historic preservation for 35 years and land use attorney. Familiar with the ordinance. Economic development is not what you are here to decide. You are here to administer the landmarks ordinance. He says he won’t go over the promises made. He says that citizens have the right to expect the government would stand by those promises. Nothing against ambition, as long as within legal context established years ago to address situations like this. Says they can only issue a variance if they building is that they find it visually compatible. City attorney they can find it if it deals with the new building. He says that they have flexibility only for an addition, which this building is not. They can’t address hardship if this is not an addition. (Again, horribly paraphrased)
Gehrig asks what a variance should be used for. Adding a dormer, adding on to a garage are examples, they should be minor changes. Manaici reads from the ordinance about what should be considered for a variance. She says it conflicts with what she says. He says this is a new building. She says it allows for this. Maniaci questions the purpose and intent including those that relate to economic development. He says pie and motherhood statements in the front of the ordinance should not drive what you do at the other end of the ordinance. Levitan asks about the hardship, and the developer saying the topography and ?? are the reason for the hardship. Levitan asks if they meet the clause. Rankin says no. First the proponent doesn’t own the property, if they have a hardship because of the slope, then they can take an option on more land, but they haven’t done that. The fact that the land slopes is not a hardship, ZBA would never find that.
Chris VanWaggoner, live in Madison on the west side, short roots, 20 years, wife grew up in hotel in Wis. Dells. She talks about visits to Madison and she talks about 4 things Madison Club, State St, Camp Randall and Edgewater. Don’t go to Edgewater, it is a blight and an eyesore. Madison Club was built around and it was ok. Camp Randall building around it might be indiscreet. Some of the building on State St. is contributing to his kids shopping for clothes on State St. History in Madison is for the future, his children, they will only visit 3 of the 4. When looked at picture from the water, they will visit it with their grandchildren and say this is where my mom visited. He says he doesn’t know the lingo and doesn’t have the language of the criteria, but . . . he likes it. He wants it to be a beautiful place, where his kids will go and say my grandfather brought my grandmother there. This is the only project he thinks will revise the building. Wants them to make the city of Madison something other than the city of no.
Levitan asks why it got run down. He says that it was the current owners. I missed some more.
Maniaci asks about historic natures of the neighborhood. You’re bringing up something else, the history of the character fo why they go to the building, as an institution. (Shit, I can’t hear her voice.) He pulls up a picture of the hotel from the water, he says that this building looks like an older building that fits, the materials seem to blend in with the neighborhood, its not the least bit offensive, assume done to scale, but its beautiful and he thinks it fits in. His secretary has been giving him grief that it is too big, but he says the Edgewater was probably too big when it was built. Maniaci asks about what is more important, the site or the district. He says its the city as a whole. He says the greater good of the city needs to prevail over the individual current denizens of the neighborhood. He doesn’t see any consistency, walks and drives around downtown, doesn’t see it as large, looks comfortable, not inconsistent, cuz pulls old lines an old colors into the neighborhood to build a successful and profitable building, so that people can look to their next move with their buildings.
Levitan asks if Madison Club and Chancery were landmarks, I believe she said yes. What did they see? Cnare says they looked at it to determine how it was impacted, and they advised Plan Commission. They seem confused about if they had to issue a Cert of Occupancy cuz its not in a historic district.
John Martens has a handout. This isn’t a feel good kind of decision. We have laws, standards and ordinances and we need to abide by them. He says the most important part is the volume of the building. He sat down to compile data to figure out the information from the misinformation. He compiled a database, its included in the handout. 172 of 178 properties are residential, 86% 3 stories or less. 20 landmark properties in the area. He said something about VRA I missed. He says that he calculated based on the staff report. I missed a whole bunch. He says it is clear that in reference to the current proposal, the above grade volume is 7 times that of average volume in visually related area, including non contributing. He says the average height in stories is 3 times. The above grade volume is 30 times the average of buildings in the historic district. Average height is 4 times that of buildings in historic district. Resultant gross volume is 22% of gross volume of all of other buildings in historic district, including the non-conforming. Its wider, longer, taller, more square footage, closer to lake and Langdon than the project rejected by the commission. Dictionary definition of compatible means it is consistent and harmonious, this is not.
Levitan asks what would be appropriate, including NGL and Kennedy Manor and 40s buildling as the dominant cubic feet. What would satisfy the terms of visually compatible. Martens says that it could go beyond existing buildings, how far beyond would depend on design. Gehrig asks a question I didn’t hear, I didn’t understands his answer. She asks if he is getting paid. He says not a penny.
Marsha Rummel speaks in opposition. She says what John did was important, she says Dunn says that its complicated, use common sense. Don’t use what is underground. That is not part of the visually related area. She thinks about what happens if we don’t follow the standards, what would that mean for other historic districts, 3 of them in district 6. This isn’t just about this building, its the message to the whole city that is the key. She talks about the old Buy and Sell shop, developer wanted to add another story, we loved it, you made him change it to be more compatible to what that architecture is. You did a great job. She says that Jim Draeger letter adds a whole new level of complexity. It says new level on 40s building is not compatible, and its says that 40s building in relationship to the new tower does not work. You can look at the building compared to itself. If the developer is going to use those standards, why did they forgo the tax credits. She was on UDC and it was a divided vote, she came away thinking they haven’t see the pedestrian view, what will I see when I walk in the front door of the hotel. You can kind of sort of get at it, she wants to see what it would look like standing in front of it. Thanks for your hard work, truck went by, couldn’t hear.
Maniaci asks about Buy and Sell shop comparison and I just can’t hear her voice . . . she talks about UDC and asks where they take their marching orders from, should Landmarks be sharing those thoughts at what point? Rummel says what is historic preservation? Some of the old renderings are cool, but if federal law, which I respect, what happens if they say no. You should consider that. She was surprised by the memo, she thinks it raises serious concerns.
Maniaci says that the UDC process resulted in this project, now what?. Rummel says they have roles to play, she thinks it is too large, she was concerned about the auto court, she wanted to see the building be moved 30 feet, She respects what they did, but is that enough?. She appreciates their work, she voted for it, but it is bigger. . . I missed a whole bunch.
Levitan asking a question, Rosemary is talking in the hallway and I can’t really hear. Rummel says that they should apply for tax credits, Levitan is asking about the letter from the State and the plan commission recommendation but I can’t hear.
Gehrig asks about moving the building. Rummel says she wanted them to move it 30 feet. She said that 30 feet pillars was the way they had to move it, but the architects and engineers figured out a way to fix it. Gehrig asks about UDC and images that they requested. Rummel says that UDC still has to give final approval and they have to do that before the project moves forward.
My computer conked out, I missed what Phil Salkin said, but I’m back up on time to report that Levitan asks if he thinks it would meet the criteria for the variance or the certificate of appropriateness, he won’t answer.
David Mollenhoff, not testified on the Edgewater issue until now, very concerned about precedent your action could take on this matter. His outrage that the devleoper would have the audacity to try to pursuade you that the new tower was ok. You know and I know that is not true. He was intrigued about the Dunn statement about the “we’ve listened” comment, if so, why did the tower get bigger. That was not because he listened, it was an expression of arrogance. Dunn said it was time to move on to what this means for the city. Let me translate, lets ignore the Landmarks commission. His comments raised some sobering issues. He gives three reasons to follow the Landmarks ordinance. 1. It’s the law, you took an oath to uphold it. 2. Gross volume is not a mathematical history. 3. Failure to follow the law will create a new policy that will say, preferential treatment for projects given, exceptions gladly granted. If you look at the laws swept away for this project, it is a long and embarrassing list. Don’t change another law, uphold the one we have, it is the only right decision given your criteria and oath of office.
Levitan asks about what size of a building would be appropriate. Mollenhoff says to live within the ordinance. Height limit of 50 feet, that is a clear standard Dunn knew about when applied for the project, important thing for landmarks to do is to live with in the rules.
Maniaci asks something I didn’t hear. He says he hasn’t researched the history of the hotel, his book only goes to 1920, he would be happy to answer a question about the neighborhood. Another question asked by Maniaci which I really wish I had heard. He says he rejects the horns of the dilemma you postulated and they abide by the law.
Rosemary Lee speaks in support. I miss a bunch of it. Takes issue with Kitty Rankins comment about the neighborhoods being against the project. She says they were not surveyed. She goes on to rail against the neighborhood and say why it is great for the neighborhood. I missed the rest of her vitriol . . . I stopped listening and took a break.
Gehrig asks about stimulating the aid of the old and decrepit buildings. She asks how that will happen. Rosemary says that the business and amenities will provide incentive to people who have a cash cow for rental, might make it into a 2 or 3 flat condo. She says that once activity is spurtted, business will follow, people will go to those businesses.
Levitan asks where the commercial development will be. Roesemary says not in the area, but in general, she says there isn’t much land, but she says that the small shops in the hotel will be used, she will go to the plaza, she intends to be a great user of it.
Gehrig asks for comparable places where economic development was spurred. Rosemary talks about the county court house when it ruined her view, and she didn’t complain about nice houses knocked down to build the parking lot. Have lost most of her view of the capitol, but never complained about it, cuz its for the common good of the city, she can more somewhere else. This is progress. Would have no objection to a school cuz its for the good of the city.
Maniaci asks about fundamental difference between the court house and ??? Rosemary says that court house is to punish people, Edgewater will restore 40s building, more people will come to that part of the city and we’ll get more taxes, will be more jobs. She thinks it will help all hotels, unlike the hotel owners. Dunn has no thought whatsoever of being a convention center hotel and if other hotels are not up to acceptable occupancy rate, its the management and the amenities they offer.
Maniaci asks about architecture is appropriate for the neighborhood and the visually related area. Rosemary says she thinks so even tho she is not an architect. She’s happy with the changes, the new building won’t match the old building. The owner occupied homes are not in close proximity, since the tenants are students their longevity won’t be long. Many Kennedy Manor residents support the project. This building is appropriate for the site, can expect a developer to fix the 40s and 70s building and then not give them the economic engine they need.
Jason Tish, Local and National Trust for Historic Preservation. Back in November looked at compatibility, the key difference tonight is that the NGL building is in the NGL. All local ordinances allow for new construction to some extent. Ordinances use a variety of language to talk about compatibility. Universally, the intent of the language is to have new buildings not detract from the historic district. It should not be jarring or overbearing to the buildings that contribute to the neighborhood. Missed a bunch – are we going to let incompatible buildings at the edge guide new development in the districts. If you do, you’ll send a strong message that its ok to build something out of scale you will build a donut hole that will grow outwards using the new buildings as the reason for creating an exception. This is a horrible paraphrasing. Historic Trust is not agaisnt development, they would be in support if followed the guidelines.
Maniaci asks him how long he spent on this. He says he doesn’t know. She asks about contributing buildings, missed the discussion. She asks about cultural significance, he passes on discussing that, didn’t hear why. Slattery asked something I didn’t hear. Rosenblum asks what he would find acceptable. Tish says there have been other proposals and orientations in this process, shouldn’t be as overwhelming in height, mass and scale, should be more of a form based approach to the surrounding buildings. He says that he’d be ok with height of Kennedy Manor building, can get the volume needed by orienting the building or designing in a way that is not so jarring and overbearing on the rest of the district.
Maniaci talks about Gromacki has numbers that show that 6 or 8 stories would not work. She says city staff says this is important and we need it, how do you go about that, if you’re in favor of redevelopment. Tish says it may be so, but design the building in a way that complies with the intent of the historic district, orient or design it so it isn’t so jarring.
Maniaci asks where he looks in the ordinance for that. She asks about their intent and the economic impact. What do we do it we need to build the project to make it viable. I believe he repeats his answer, and then says it isn’t up to him to decide. They should look at zoning ordinance and determine what is allowable and design within that.
Maniaci asks what if there is a conflict. Are you saying no development. He says no, appropriate development.
Gehrig asks about letter from National Trust. Is this normal to debate new development. This says that it is a common issue when new buildings challenge the ordinances. Gehrig asks if National Trust regularly support local Trusts? He says no, unless it is a significant challenge to an ordinances and they feel it is.
Harvey Wendell speaking in support. Wow. I can’t hear him at all. He lives at the end of Pinckney and he’s talking about memories, but he’s hard to hear. He says people will come back and make this beautiful for our city and alumni. Wow, I really apologize, I really, really can’t hear him.
Bob Klebba says appreciates Levitan and his sunglasses. Thanks for the time, knows how much work it is to go through the details and evaluate the project in respect tot he landmarks ordinance. Last time you dealt with it, you evaluated the project, and I’ve read what Levitan wrote on Madison.com and at that time it hasn’t changed. Dunn says worked hard, did his best and studied the ordinance. He should have done before he came here the first time. I don’t think this meets the criteria that you are sworn to uphold. Manfredi showed us a very large building. This picture doesn’t show us the top of the building, driving husband to work this morning, and when turning onto Langdon and looked at the trees there (ok – now I’m freaking distracted by an asshole supporter sitting next to me laughing about the speaker being gay. I’m tempted to take a picture and post it.) He talks about Martens calculations. He says to look at Zellers arguments. Hammes statistics about the neighborhood, they say it is mostly renters, that disparages the community living downtown, we have a renter in that neighborhood who lives there. He thinks that he’d take issue with that, that is not appropriate. When you look at the details, especially with the conforming and non-conforming buildings, if you repeat the untrue data. Focus on teh details. Supporters have not addressed the issues you need to look at, the opponents have addressed the issues and provided data.
There are 24 speakers left . . . or 4 hours of testimony. They move a 5 minute recess.
8:05 – Stuart “Yo’s” them back to order. 81 in support, 81 in opposition, not wishing to speak. They move on with more speakers.
They call two speakers who aren’t in the room.
David Waugh lives in Tenney Lapham Neighborhood, a mile and a half from the project. He’s against, he believe sets a dangerous precedent for the city of Madison, they will point to other tall buildings, like this developer did, even when this is the reason the project is in place. He looks through old photos and he’s sad that those buildings are gone. You are the guardians of those buildings still here. He talks about Paris France, don’t make this a political decision, uphold the laws that the City put in place to protect the buildings. You are not elected officials, with their big pots of money, to over turn what you says. But please protect the laws in place.
