This as good as I could do while sitting there. Updates coming.
ROLL CALL AND GETTING IT STARTED
Mayor and Mo Cheeks absent.
Rules are suspended to take things out of order and introduced at the end of the meeting.
HONORING RESOLUTIONS
Honoring the Forensics team at Memorial.
Take a listen (tomorrow when I get the blog post up)
Congratulating the 2014-2015 Madison Memorial Boys Swimming and Diving Team on winning the WIAA Division 1 State Title.
Swim team couldn’t be hear, referred til 2 weeks from tonight.
RECESS
4 four minutes. Denise DeMarb and the City Attorney need a moment. Technically they aren’t supposed to take up agenda items until 6:45 for public hearings and they do the consent agenda. If they do the consent agenda minutes into the meeting the public has no way to register on items.
CONSENT AGENDA
Every thing passes as noted on the agenda or here, except items #117 (homelessness as a protected class), #118 (Portage Rd CSM). Mike Verveer asks for separation of item #116 (Anchor Bank CSM) as staff is researching an item.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – Item 3
Portage Rd. – Public Testimnony
Here’s the testimony from the public. Density, Height, parking, water infiltration/porous pavement, flooding, fence/berm, water retention, trees, setbacks, etc. are all issues by the neighbors and people from all over the city supporting Friends of the Starkweather Creek.
(will be posted tomorrow morning)
NOTE: Wow, this is kinda eff’d up. The developer spoke after an hour of the neighbors and Friends of Starkweather Creek testifying. They should have gone first so the alders could see what they have to say and the neighbors and Friends could respond to their presentation of information. And, the developer’s lobbyist is outlining all the things that have gone wrong with the process to date. It’s so odd that they let T Wall have the last word. And, he and his architect got extra time, no one else, of course, got extra time to speak.
Portage Rd. – questions of speakers
Marsha Rummel asks about if there is affordable housing in the project. (Yay!) T Wall says that we need more, multifamily is more affordable than single home. All housing is under 80% of the area median income, but they don’t develop WHEDA housing. Rummel asks if they would agree to 80% AMI as a condition. T Wall says not, he can’t guarantee it because he has to get a loan. He says that 80% is the “start” of affordable according to WHEDA.
Rummel asks about trees. Wall says that they are adding them to address the needs of the neighbors. Rummel asks about tree preservation. Wall says half the site is being reserved and there are trees in the half being preserved. They are developing in the open space and some trees will need to be taken down.
Rummel asks about the Friends of Starkweather Creek talked about the parking lot being too close. Wall says they have retention ponds, bioswales and other things in a system to protect the creek. One of his lobbyists describes further. They say 10 feet is all the is required by statute.
Larry Palm asks Wall about the specifics of the 3rd floor set back and how that affects the 4th floor setback. Wall says they go up 3 floors, its only the narrow end of the building, he says it steps back a couple units and then goes up to the 4th floor, you wouldn’t see it walking by. He says there is another option which I didn’t understand, but he says there could be 2 stepbacks. Palms tries to clarify what the agreement this afternoon was. Wall says that they can’t do a 5 story and 3 story building due to “code” and he says there could be a 2 story. Palm asks about other agreements, from today. Wall says the additional set back, the library (they have books they would donate to it). Palm wants to know how this is different than what they approved at plan commission. Wall is blanking on the changes besides the setback. Palm asks about the neighbors being able to come and recreate on the property. He says that they can use the open space and there might be a bike path. He says that they will have public sidewalks as well. He clarifies about where the creek is, and that it is surrounded by woods. Wall says they are improving the condition of the stormwater. Palm asks about parking, how many cars per unit. Wall says one car per unit, not including the public street, there is 60 on street parking spaces on the dead end street. They will have a ride share car and will be on the bus line. He says this will be a good place for . . . drum roll please . . . Epic employees. Palm asks about saying that Sun Prairie has more retail and he clarifies what Wall meant by that.
Amanda Hall asks Wall about density and the step backs, Wall clarifies it was just for one building. Hall says that the density could be rectified by having 3 story buildings. Wall says that isn’t feasible because of the improvements they are making, they would have to cut somewhere to make it work, some of the requirements would have to drop.
Samba Baldeh asks why they can’t come down to a 2 story building or do other setbacks. Joe Lee says that it is possible in the code, but not economically. It is doable says Samba? Joe Lee says yes, physically.
Baldeh asks Wall about the economics, Wall says it costs $110,000 per unit with wood, and 5 stories means concrete and that means $50,000 per unit, $2.5M more. That is why he sticks to the formula. He asks how much money they would lose if it was a 3 story building. He says it wouldn’t happen. They wouldn’t get the loan. Samba asks again about the cost. He says that they would have additional costs on the 5 story building and they would lose money on the units they lose on the 3 story building. Baldeh explains that he wanted them to act in good faith, he wanted to see compromise, bring the neighbors into the process. DeMarb interrupts him. Baldeh asks about a 3 story building, can they do it. Wall says no. He says he has to match the market rents so people can afford the rent, they have to work 2 jobs to afford it and they want a mix of those folks and Epic people too. Wall says they can do the step back and make it look like a 2 story building on Portage Rd. Samba asks if he is concerned about the density. Wall says this is one of the lowest density projects he has done, this is 19 units per acre. He has done one in Middleton at 65 and most are around 35 units per acre.
Eskrich asks Melissa Huggins to send them the response to the neighbors, Huggins says they are working on it now and they will send it.
Sheri Carter asks how many parking spaces are in the garage. Joe Lee, the architect, doesn’t know. Wall says the entire footprint is an underground garage, here is a potential to do some tandem spaces, but that would add significant costs. Carter asks if they have 1.5 surface parking. They figure out there is 160 underground. Carter asks if renters have to pay more to park underground, Wall says yes. There is no cost for the surface spaces. Lee says it is one total per unit. Carter asks about the fiber optics for the area. Wall says they always bring in high speed, they are starting to run it to each floor, if there is fiber optic in the building, the neighborhood could tap into Portage Rd, he’s not going to bring that to Churchill Heights or solve their flooding issues. Carter asks how far the bike path is from the creek. Wall says its hard to see on the plan, he shows a conceptual plan.
Barbara McKinney asks about the 5 of the 6 concessions. Wall says that is what Huggins said. McKinney asks if that will be provided to them. They put up an unreadable chart, they are emailing it now to the council members. McKinney asks about the additional agreements and changes, when were they made. Wall says that they made concessions throughout the process the last 3 months, some of them, like third floor tonight is new. Others were back in April and March. McKinney asks about the concessions today, have the residents had an opportunity to give input. Wall says no. Ideas continually come up and we didn’t have a chance to talk about the latest things, but they are based on their concerns. McKinney asks if they will have an opportunity to weigh in on them? Wall says that they are going back to Urban Design for final approval and they encourage them to email them. Wall says that different residents want things that conflict with others wishes. McKinney asks about the ride share car? Wall says you can sign up with Zip Car, the other way is for them to lease a car, a hybrid and provide it to the residents and they would reserve it on line and pay a membership fee for that. They can go to the grocery store for an hour or two and you can sign up for it in effect. McKinney asks if it is like B-bikes. Wall says yes.
Shiva Bidar says there might be an interest in referring the item, she asks Wall what the timeline is, and what would happen if they referred. Wall says that it is early June, they have been working with the city for a year. He says they have to have housing ready in the summer, July and August is risky unless renting to students. He says this would take 13.5 months and that they could meet the Aug 15th date, if they wait, they are looking at August 31st. He says that if they hit that late in the window a lender won’t lend to them. He says htye have addressed many of the concerns, they can never address them all. This was a private garbage dump off Hayes Rd, they are cleaning up the neighborhood, it looks pretty bad before we got there. He’d hate to see this fail and go away and never come back.
Ledell Zellers asks Wall about the agreements, rather than having everyone read through it, can you just tell us what those items are and what you are committed to. Wall says the height of the building, the concern was the 4 stories on Portage Rd, never heard anything about the others. He says they can step back the 4th floor and the 3rd floor, they won’t see the 4th floor. They are doing more landscaping. They can’t set the building back from Portage Road, its impossible, something would have to give. Flooding the homes is their fault for developing in a flood plain, they can’t solve the problem. The headwaiter of Starkweather Creek is a pipe from American Center and the run off. We their retention ponds and bio swales they will capture all their water from hard spaces and that will reduce water going across the street. The view of the building, a decorative fence is agreed to, they can do it. He didn’t see the new boards until tonight since they have been working on it. They are saving a vast majority of the trees, he’s not going to count them, there are woods there. There are some trees removed for the expansion of Portage Rd and the bike path, but they are also planing more trees, good trees, some of the trees aren’t hardwoods. Public library, they said they will put in a private library accessible by the residents. They can’t get into the clubhouse unless they pay a fee for that. Sustainability he says they have high efficiency, not vinyl siding, more insulation in the ceilings, fully isolated walls to the bedrooms . . . etc. He says that the concern about the park being over crowded is addressed because they rent mainly to singles, they don’t have a lot of children in their units. He says that they can improve the park with the fees he is paying for the project, there hasn’t been a lot of investment in parks in the area.
Rummel asks when the next Urban Design meeting is. Wall says next Wednesday the 10th, he says they are overlapping. Rummel says if there is a step back this will take more time. Wall says that they can’t do construction level plans until final approval. Rummel says that they can set back the building and they agreed to the fence, but the rest are ?? He agrees with Rummel.
Portage Rd. – Discussion
Chris Schmidt moves approval of the plan commission recommendation with conditions. Schmidt asks if the closed the public hearing. DeMarb and May say they expect a motion to refer and they wanted people to be able to speak when it comes back. Schmidt says that they usually close it and then re-open it if they have to. DeMarb closes the public hearing.
Samba Baldeh asks Rob Phillips about technical issues that Phillips told him about earlier. Phillips says that the subdivision is for 3 lots and those lots have a drainage easement over them, the technical question is whether or not the drainage easement has to be dedicated and then the density requirements are not met by the remainder of the lots left. If this is approved tonight, they need an additional condition to verify that the greenway is not dedicate in fee, they want it to be an easement, they have to verify that.
Baldeh moves to refer to the next meeting and back to Plan Commission. He says the issues dealt with tonight should be heard by them. His motion to refer to plan commission is seconded.
Bidar is clarifying when it will come back to council. Plan commission is next Monday, it would come back on the 16th to council.
Palm clarifies with plan staff what their understanding is of what plan commission and staff would do between the meetings. Heather Stouder says it is a tight timeline to review the changes by next Monday, but if they got revisions with the items discussed this evening, the magnitude of those changes could be reviewed and they would have a report by Monday, plus the legal issue that was raised. Palm asks if that is dependent on them getting the info. Stouder says they have not seen the changes or had a chance to review them. Palm asks what if the council approved it with the changes. Stouder says that the magnitude of the changes are relatively small, they would need clear conditions from the council, it would go back to Urban Design for final approval on the 10th and they would have the last look at it. Palm asks what the benefit of referral or not is. Stouder says she can’t guess what they will discuss, a lot was about parking, not much focus on the height issue, although the developer was able to show a 4th flood step back, not it is deepening and adding a 3rd floor, she is not sure if plan commission would add value to that discussion, (she says they always add value).
Steve King says that he wants to understand why it would be sent back after it was unanimous there, he thinks that can be added to the conditions and UDC can review it.
Bidar says that she supports it coming back to council in two weeks, but doesn’t think it has to go to plan. She thinks that would allow more time for things to be worked out instead of another public meeting. She wants staff to write the conditions and make sure that the conditions represent what people agree to. She doesn’t think all the issues will be resolved, rarely is there a major development that does, but she thinks there is room for much better dialog and resolution. She thinks the timeline did not allow for the neighborhood to be fully engaged.
Rummel asks Phillips about the CSM back to plan commission? And consider item 3 separately? Phillips says that the two are tied together, if you approve the development plan and later found the CSM couldn’t be done, then approval of the development plan would not be valid. City Attorney Michael May agrees.
Schmidt refers this and item 118 to the next meeting as a substitute. He agrees there isn’t a value to go back to plan commission, this isn’t about the standards, this is about the neighborhood and the developer.
Baldeh asks for clarification. DeMarb says two motions are on the floor. Confusion. May explains that they have to vote on the substitute and then they can add to it.
Motion to refer to the 16th, (item 3 and 118) passes unanimously on a voice vote.
Schmidt moves to re-open and recess the public hearing. DeMarb does.
Baldeh adds a motion that all the concessions made by T Wall be reflected on the document they are sending back.
Staff asks that they direct staff to work with the city attorney on issues identified by staff and the concessions, to have them draft the language. Baldeh says that is his motion. Seconded and approved unanimously.
The main motion, as amended is now before them.
They vote, Skidmore interrupts and asks if they can ask the developer since he said it was a deal breaker if it is even worth it.
David Ahrens says it is asked and answered and he gave a lengthy answer.
They vote again, only Skidmore audibly says no.
PUBLIC HEARING – Items 4 – 23
DeMarb asks staff to explain why they are seeing so many items.
Clear asks to stand informal while the room clears. They wait a moment.
Mark Woulf explains the annual liquor license process. These are the annual renewals for all liquor licenses and entertainment licenses. That licensing period is July 1 – June 30 by statute. The council must take action, they come all at once. ALRC reviews them in May. There is typically a separate meeting for any separations requested by alders, police, attorney or clerk for enforcement, clarification or other issues. He says a few items. 84 are entertainment license renewals, none were separated. 22 is the package of liquor licenses except for those separated and on the agenda. In addition to 4 – 11, there are many other alterations, they are change of agents or change or corporate control, those are done annually as well as the clerk audits the licenses for inconsistencies. The clerks office caught a bunch of inconsistencies and he thanks the clerks office for their work. Items 9, 10 and 11 are paperwork errors that are resolved. Item 11 is a nonrenewal where a hearing is required. They understand that since there is no premises they have to re-apply. 4 – 8, 30 and 31 area about a policy issue about single serve and high alcohol content products and small packaged items. He can answer specifics if people have questions. He says the important part of them, habitually intoxicated people that they are not allowed to sell to, there are 4 areas where this happens, they have standardized the language over the years. He says some licenses did not have those conditions and this makes it consistent. 4 – 8 were separated out for that standard language. The only one that is different is item 5, the question is if this falls within the geographic core downtown area. The items on the agenda, they are responding to issues of uniform language and habitual offenders in the core downtown. He says that single serve is not the same as years ago, the price points and quality are different. They are balancing the needs to end habitual offenders and allow new products.
There are no registrants to speak on 4 – 23, some available to answer questions. They open them all together, close the public hearing. Schmidt moves the recommendations of the ALRC, passes unanimously on a voice vote.
Public Hearing – Item 24
Sorry, missed what happened, I assume that passed with the recommendations.
Item #116
Missed it as well.
Item #117 – Homelessness as a protected class
Public Testimony. See below. Hard to get all the testimony, especially when I testified.
Rummel moves the substitute as the main motion, she explains it was an error for it to not have been included, it was the recommendation of EOC.
Passes unanimously.
Introductions from the floor
Verveer has 2 resolutions, the first is for Anchor Bank’s parking ramp. Expedited demoltion of Municipal Building for Judge Doyle Square.
Chris Schmidt, temp permit for archiological discovery in a rail corridor.
Phair has 2. One is for Rethke Ave funding for housing there. The second is the ETH funds (i.e. Carenet and others).
King moves adjournment.
