Not much interesting, but here it is for what it is worth . . . only an hour long meeting and really only one issue discussed – high end rental housing project (i.e. watch for the “not students so its ok” bias) that completely defies the comprehensive plan and yet wasn’t a complete disaster process wise, unlike the Edgewater. And it won’t be a 15 hour meeting! A few bk comments.
ROLL CALL
Excused: Sanborn, Schumacher, Pham-Remmele
OPENING REMARKS
Mayor dones the jersey o the Horned Frogs. Boos. Jokes. He puts is on backwards. He says he sent Bucky garb to Texas before the game and some say he jinxed the game. He puts on the hat. Then says they all know that the Horned Frogs cheer is “Go Horned Frogs” and he reads a statement, doing air quotes around “great victory” and explains this is part of the bet. Trek is also sending a red and white bike. Thanks the team. Brain Eagon then goes up there dressed all in red with a pink shirt, red tie, red vest, red jacket and Badger cap and they take pictures and then he asks them to applaud for whih looks better. No one claps for purple. He takes the jersey off and says “alright, enough of that.” Giggles, laughs, yuk-yuks.
SUSPENSION OF THE RULES
Clear makes more jokes and wishes people Happy New Years and takes a really long time to do a really simple thing. Time to burn tonight, I guess.
HONORING RESOLUTIONS
Elmer and Mary Currie Family Day
“Elmer and Mary Currie Family Day” Resolution is read by the Mayor. They are honored for having 6 or 7 sons who were in the military. They were supposed to receive an honor years ago, but didn’t, so they are doing it now. John and Tom Currie accept the plaque.
Tom makes a short statement saying they are proud to accept the award on behalf of their family and thank the Mayor, City Council and his grand niece and Mayor’s staff who worked on this.
John says that there were 6 in World War two and he was in Korea. There’s an error, he brother Harold was the last to enlist for WWII, not him. He thanks his mom and dad for giving birth and allowing them to serve their country.
Mayor apologizes and says he will correct it. Compton wants to be added, Mayor says they will add all council members if there are no objections.
Honoring Mark Habish for 36 years of city employment
He is not there, they extend their best wishes and adopt the resolution.
EARLY PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
CONSENT AGENDA
They exclude items 3 – 13 which are public hearing items
16 has a speaker from the public.
14 needs a 2/3 vote.
78 needs to be referred to Board of Estimates as lead.
They approve everything else on the agenda. No further discussion. Unanimous voice vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Recessed Hearings – Report of ALRC
Retro Tavern is placed on file without prejudice. No registrants. No discussion. Unanimous voice vote.
Public Hearings – Report of ALRC
Barriques and House of Brews are approved as recommended by the ALRC. No registrants. No discussion. Unanimous voice vote.
Public Hearings – Board of Public Works
Items 6 – 9 are approvals of plans and specifications for various projects. No registrants. No discussion. Unanimous voice vote.
Public Hearings – Plan Commission
– Hawks Valley Subdivision. One registrant in support representing Watermark LLC, in support and available to answer questions. There are none.
UNIVERSITY AND HIGHLAND PROJECT
still public hearing, but this is the only item discussed at any length at the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Brian Munson from Vandewalle and Associates on behalf of the Mullins group. They have been working with neighborhood and alder for the past year on the project. He thanks them for the discussion and input. They had a lengthy discussion and have been working on this for 4 years. They have been working to make it fit with the neighborhood plan. They moved from 14, to 8 to 6 to 5,4 and 3 stories. The project has been strengthened by a lot of discussion. This is supportive of the neighborhood plan and is economically feasible. The project was submitted in October and has moved through neighborhood association, you have letters of support and the process, but not unanimous. Urban Design approved and it was unanimous at Plan Commission and they support the Plan Commission final report. The full team is there to answer questions.
Craig Christianson in support. Lives in the neighborhood. In support because it was thoughtful and responsive. There was an interactive process and they worked through it with the neighborhood which resulted in improvements and it is appropriate because it is sized to take into account horizon sight lines and responds to fast thoroughfare on Campus Drive. He’s looking forward to welcoming those young entrepreneurs and those associated with the University and the Hospital that will live there. He enjoyed the process, it was his first cuz he is new to the neighborhood, so he wanted to see the process through and speak in support. He says that beyond the project, there is a strong financial feasibility to this and the Mullins have a track record of high integrity and financial viability to their projects. The condos on the square are full and their other projects have economic and long term sustainability and that isn’t always looked at. It’s the people behind it that isn’t always looked at. He thinks this is the right business for the neighborhood.
Darcy Foss(?), Regent Neighborhood Association not in support or opposition. She lives a half a block from the project. They are moving ahead with a development plan for the University corridor and they are hoping to present that in April. The Mullins project is a little ahead of the neighborhood, which may be part of the reason the neighborhood is not in total agreement. There have been many meetings hosted by the Mullins Group, they’d like to thank them for that, its a model for how development should proceed. The neighborhood is not in unanimous support, some really like it, some like parts of it and some don’t support it. The closer you get to the project, there are less and less in support. Which is consistent with how other projects go, but there are immediate neighbors who are supportive of the project. One of the things that the board noted is that there are still lingering concerns about the height. The comp plan says there are only supposed to be 60 unites per acre this is 130. [plus retail] This is twice what is allowed in the comp plan, so you can see why there is concern. She supports Alder Bidar-Sielaf’s proposal to limit hours of operation of the 6th level roof top terrace from 7 am to 9 pm. There will also be ground level outdoor seating and they want that limited. They support the outdoor seating, but they want to protect the quality of life of the residences within a half block and the new residents.
Troy Ross lives a block and a half from the residence. He’s the past president of the Regent Neighborhood Association and was president when they proposed the original project and the neighborhood plan for University Ave. He is in favor. It’s an appropriate building for the site and a good compromise with the neighborhood. He thinks the height is fair due to the challenges of the site and the underground parking. When he was President of RNA the biggest concerns he heard about development were height and parking, he thinks this is a good compromise between height and quality design and materials. He says that putting rental properties in here is the way to go right now and he knows because he has some rentals. High end rental properties are the way to go because the combination of the stressed housing market and influx of young professionals is creating a demand for nicer properties to rent. He thinks they will be great neighbors, they are reluctant to buy a house or condo right now and in general we will have more more transient work force. He thinks because they are nicer units, they will see less cars parked on the street because the tenants will be able to afford to park underground. He thinks they will see lower density than they would see with a more student oriented development. He likes the retail and is surprised they could get it into the development. This is the riskier part of the development. He and his wife will enjoy walking to the development.
Karen Christiansen of Lathrop St in support and available to answer questions.
Steve Holtshauer(?) from Epstein Uhen, Carol Mullins, Brad Mullins, Brian Mullins and Sue Springman all of the Mullins Group also in support.
QUESTIONS FOR SPEAKERS
Bridget Maniaci asks about the rents. She wants to know what the rental prices are.
Sue Springman says they don’t know yet, but its a market project, no Section 42 or New Market Tax Credits or any subsidy.
Maniaci says that $950 – 1000 to $1050 for a one bedroom in her neighborhood. You guys are off the Isthmus, the land costs are lower, when you say young professionals I’m wondering if this is young professional in a service job and will they be able to make it as a bartender or waitress or a researcher. Can you quantify that for me.
Springman says all ages, including empty nesters will want to live there. There is a very large employment complex across the street. You are probably in the right rent range because that is what they need to pay their mortgage. Most projects built in the city since the financial crash had section 42 which allows for them to have affordable rents. Or they have a commercial component like CVS or a library that allows them to have a different rent structure.
Maniaci says that their firm did other projects in the area in the last 5 – 7 years.
Springman says no they haven’t. She says those are student projects and those are very different rents and market. They pay alot per bed as opposed to bedroom or unit. This is a market project, they don’t have any assistance. The land use didn’t even enter into the project.
Maniaci says not even a range of what they will cost.
Springman says within the range you quoted. They did a study of the professional multi-family that has been built in the last 10 years in the City and what they were charging on a per foot basis and they have to be within that range to fit in the marketplace, to find out what the market place will bear and they are hoping that their construction costs will come in within that range. [Hoping? They don’t know?]
Chris Schmidt asks about parking, what did you do to mitigate parking? And transportation demand management?
Brian Munson says that they are fully aware of the parking issues, they did market research and most of the units are providing less than 1 parking space per unit and they are mostly student rentals. In comparable units on the isthmus they are at about 1 or a little less per unit. This project will have a minimum of one space and some surplus for retail employees. It is a closed, gated parking. They did a traffic study and it showed negligible impact. Many of the people in the neighborhood are driving to their jobs, we’re trying to fit the niche so that people don’t have to drive. It is also a group of people who will find the underground parking desirable, convenient and affordable. They have to pay for the spots if they want them, but they are restricted from getting an on street parking permit, and that is in their leases. They feel that is appropriate. They will have a shared use car in the building and they are close to bus stops and potential for future commuter rail. They think the parking demand fits the market and TDM aspects to get people to bike and walk.
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff asks about bike racks for residents and commercials.
Munson says 100 bike parking stalls. They will meet and perhaps exceed that. 90 in a closed area and there is potential for more depending upon demand. For the commercial they are in the process of refining the project plans. 10 stalls for visitors and users of the retail. Also working with city staff to see if there can be streetscape stalls that are installed during the University Ave reconstruction. Those are additional to the project and for others in the neighborhood.
Bidar-Sielaff asks about height and mass and the economic feasibility. Can you talk about the 3, 4 or 6 stories.
Brian Mullins says that the height has always been a central issues. They spent a lot of time talking to the neighborhood and it was a financially drive decision every time. [OK, How the hell can it be a financially driven decision if they don’t know what their rents are, I call BULLSHIT!] We worked on it to see if it was viable and got to the point where it was three storied on University Ave and 6 in the back and they reviewed it and they found that if they took another floor off, it reduced the number of apartments and revenue by 20% and reduced the cost of the project by 8% and it led to a swing from market rents to a one bedroom with underground parking and dealing with Campus Drive, the apartments would have been over $1500. The market won’t support that so they couldn’t take off a floor.
Marsha Rummel asked about trees and streetscape.
Brian Munson says they tried to preserve the trees, they are in the streetscape, but they are working with the city forester and they are doing an analysis of the impact from the building and construction of University Ave. On Campus Drive there is a regional flooding issue. The area between their building and Campus Drive they are going to work with them on that. There will be a pipe there and there will be a loss of trees due to that. They are trying to preserve where possible but replace where necessary.
Maniaci says its a beautiful project, she doesn’t have a problem with it, she wants to see it built, but she wants to know who your target market is and you talked about comparables. Is this comparable to the Isthmus or Hilldale.
Munson says urban vibrant market comparable to Monroe St or on the Isthmus, a building like this 130 units with a range of units with efficiencies to 3 bedroom and different arrangements, that will bring various folks in, but also have amenities of 2nd and 5th floor plaza space and first floor retail that will be targeted for the neighborhood and the building. It does match more with the urban areas of the city, close to University, right now there is a 3% vacancy rate [keep that in mind for future reference], its a healthy market, it is undeserved. It will bring a diversity of housing to the neighborhood, since the neighborhood is predominantly single family about a block in and this will fill the need for housing at a condo finish level.
Maniaci asks if renters will look at the property and say that they want to be where they want to walk to the bars and sit at the outdoor cafe til 1am and walk home. When she looks at the project she thinks that you will need to have a car to live here, you probably won’t work in the immediate area unless you are directly related to the hospital or university, its at least a $10 ab ride to the isthmus, so she’d like to see it successful, but she thinks that if given a choice o living downtown or living a mile and a half from the isthmus they will choose downtown. [Wow! Really? She can’t see that people would live there?]
Munson says he wouldn’t sell short the neighborhood node, he thinks it will enhance the neighborhood. There is only one commercial use there now, it will become 4. The ability to enhance the streetscape and replace some underutilized land will be significant. There is also access to transit and in terms of comparable market, going beyond the isthmus, there are comparable nodes that have been successful. They compared themselves to areas outside the downtown. He says there is a demand and they heard from folks in the neighborhood and the hospital. You do see along Kendall Ave, there is graduate student housing that is very expensive. He says that there is a need.
Mark Clear asks how bicycles will access campus drive path.
Munson says that they placed two lobbies, so they can come in from University or Highland for walking and biking. On Highland the sidewalk is on their property, they are expanding the terrace to have a walkable environment. The reconstruction of Highland may have a lane in each direction being shared bike and vehicle, like on Kendall. That would make the bike path accessible.
QUESTION FOR STAFF
Bidar-Sielaff asks if the comments from the November 8th neighborhood meeting were shared with Plan Commission.
Brad Murphy says that the comments from the neighborhood, which were 170 pages were provided to staff to Urban Design Commission meeting and in their legislative file. On December 17th planning staff entered those comments and a link to the council and plan commission file. They were available prior to the plan commission meeting. Unfortunately, staff were not aware the comments were in the file, otherwise they would have referenced them in the staff report so he doesn’t know if the plan commission read them, but they were available prior to the plan commission meeting.
Rummel asked about the development plan for the corridor and the comp plan, how do we reconcile that.
Murphy says that in an ideal world, the neighborhood or corridor plan would be reviewed and adopted and then we would review a project like this. That would be the ideal situation. Unfortunately, we have a project ahead of the plan. In reviewing the project staff looked at comprehensive plan, and the goals and objectives of the plan and there is the issue of the density being in excess of what is recommended but when you look at the unit mix, it is predominantly one bedroom and studios, there are just a few 3 bedroom units. If the mix had been different, the density would have dropped so they looked at the number of bedrooms. They looked at all the recommendations of the plan and a year ago the legislature clarified what “consistent with the comprehensive plan” means and indicated that those that are not in contradiction to the goals and policies and objectives of the plan, which means that you look at the entire document and on balance, we felt you could conclude that it is consistent with the plan. [Wow, so all those references to units per acre are essentially thrown out the window?]
DISCUSSION
Bidar-Sielaff moves approval with the additional condition that the outdoor eating areas and 6th floor patio hours o operation be 7 am – 9 pm, applied 7 days a week and may be revisited as part of a minor alteration. She thanks the neighbors and the Mullins group and Brian Munson for his facilitation skills. This has been a very contentious project, which was 14 stories in 2007, so we have come a long way. The RNA Board and President have been wonderful in their attempts to engage the neighborhood. There is not 100% agreement about the project, but overall they feel it is a good project and a step forward. The issues of height, mass, parking and the setback were what they discussed in the neighborhood meetings. The Mullins group were very responsive and the quality of the materials and architecture are very strong points of the proposal. It will add to the beauty of the neighborhood. Lombardinos is not going away. Might be hard to find parking, she’s not worried, she lives two blocks away, the rest can bike there, we’ll make sure you have bike racks. She thinks its a good project overall, there are issues related to the project she will continue to work on. One is the DOT parking lot adjacent to the proposed project, its in DOT surplus and they are trying to come up with a way for the city to purchase it. That would provide a huge relief as far as parking is concerned for the commercial properties in the area. They also need to work on additional bike racks for commercial area. Also will continue working on University Ave corridor plan and that will include additional beautification. They have been meeting twice a month on the plan and this project and it has been difficult because they are inter-related. She says that overall this is a good project, but it isn’t unanimous.
Larry Palm now has a question for staff. Plan commission was strong in opposition to changing the hours. And now this doesn’t exclude Sat and Sun.
Murphy says that they have the Plan Commission motions at their desks. One of the motions that dealt with the hours of operation and it failed on a 2 – 5 vote. The proposal was to limit it to 7 – 9 M – F. He says that instead they recommended a different recommendation which they can see.
Compton says that it has been a pleasure to watch Bidar-Sielaff shepard this project, amazed and proud and it was a delight. Thanks the Mullins, Brian Munson, Tim Cooley, Brad, Olinger, and all the people who saw what needed to be done and did it. The death of our city is about the little skirt that is missing the hem. That begins to fray around the edges and if we let it go the fray goes all the way up to the waist band and we lose a part of our city. [Ah, another gem from Compton . . . what will we do without her!] Giggles. Some of you it will be up to your arm pits.
Mayor remarks he is happy Alder Pham-Remmele is not here. [Ahem, sir, excuse me, your microphone is on.]
Compton says that this is an unbelievable charming neighborhood but there is functional obsolescence has begun to take over, but you come in and fix the hem on your skirt and you take away that functional obsolescence and you create the framework that protects the neighborhood. There are many neighborhoods where this is starting to happen. They have a fraying hem. It’s delightful to her that someone who loves the city, steps up to the plate and produces something that will help us and its very refreshing to watch young energetic passionate alders deal with constituents that don’t want anything to change. She’s the type that would tie herself to a tree on the square and don’t cut it down, I’m old folk. [What!? It’s become the goofy hour here at the end . . . ] But this is refreshing. Our neighborhoods have to embrace projects like this to save the city and to keep this the city we want to be. She was concerned about University Ave and the decibel readings, 70 is very high. She says she had an ordinance that for streets 45mph or higher that they use a product to designate it as a quiet street – they can mitigate the decibels. She thinks it should be changed to major arterials for commuters to be included. This is not fair to the neighborhood. She will support this strongly.
Mayor thanks her for not skirting the issues. Boos and groans.
Bidar-Sielaff says that the applicant is ok with the condition, so no controversy.
Julia Kerr says that she appreciates all the work of the neighborhood, developer and alder. She heard a lot o talk about compromise and the market and she wanted to remind people that the plan commission does not look at if everyone is happy or what the condition of the market is, we look at the standards, applied the standards and she thinks we applied them properly, she wanted to bring it up. It’s not compromise for the sake of compromise, but making sure the standards are met.
Motion passes.
Public Hearings – Plan Commission
Allowing Health Clubs in RPSM District – No registrants.
Allowing games to list o products that can be sold in SM District – No registrants.
Item 10, 12 and 13 passes on a voice vote, no discussion.
FINAL REPORT OF SISTER CITY AD HOC COMMITTEE
Frank Alfono speaks and says he checked the wrong box. He wanted to thank Ray Harmon and Karl VanLith and the alders, when you get people to agree on a report in short fashion, someone is doing a good job. We feel like the report can make happen what needs to happen without expense.
Passes on a voice vote.
ENDING THE MEETING
Mark Clear says they need more people on the bowling team for this Saturday. Jokes . . . chuckles . . .
Birthday Pham Remele tomorrow and Bidar-Sielafff on Friday
Introductions from the floor
– Easements for Edgewater referred to plan commission
– 5 year contract for escalator and elevator maintenance at Monona Terrace
– Labor agreement for Local 60
Alder Rhodes-Conway and Chris Schmidt introduces a resolution for an April 5 referendum on corporate personhood and money as speech.
Rhodes-Conway has to remind the mayor to vote on the referral and they do then adjourn.
