Council Recap – Live Blogged

Everyone is here. Rules are suspended. A small handful of people in attendance. Listen to the audio for the poetry reading.

Will insert audio for poetry here.

Wow. All the staff seats are empty! As are all the media seats.

They pass a resolution thanking the water utility staff for their hard work during the winter freeze. They hear from the worker with the broken leg.

Consent Agenda
4 – 21 public hearings
33 – additional recommendation to refer to March 18.
50 – Lamp House is excluded.

Public Hearings
#4 – Passes (I think it got placed on file, did not actually hear that but it was the recommendation on the agenda.
#5 – Will Sandstrom talks about why the city should not pass more liquor licenses. Sandstrom wants to talk about his issue with the city with his shrubs and trees. Mayor cuts him off, tells him he is out of order because it is not about the liquor license. Adopted.
#6 – 11 – Are all liquor licenses, basically there is no one registered except people in support here and there. Items 6 – 11 are adopted with their recommendations.
#12 – 16 – They move to adopt all the items under suspension of the rules.
#17 – One speaker. The guy was a firefighter for years and owns old fire station #8, is in a band and he wants to be able to park near his home during construction. He’s against pedestrian islands, thinks there should be radar instead. He talks about car parking over the crosswalks by Dexters, he says the solution is not to make the street smaller, the cars will park there anyways. He likes the island at Dayton and North and doesn’t want them to change it, he is against change unless it is for the good. He talks about all the roads that have been closed, he wants people north of Commercial to have a way to go east. He says we should rename the city “crane city” and we should stop ripping everything down, if we’re going to rip everything down we should tear down the capitol. They approve adoption without discussion.
#18 – 21- 20 is referred back to plan commission. They pass as recommended.

Item #50 Lamp House
Public Testimony
13 people registered in support and not wishing to speak.
Michael Bridgeman – Says preservation is not only about the past but it is about the future. In the future he hopes the building is restored, the top of the house is restored, landscaping restored, the building is occupied and there is regular public access through tours, events and activities. The buildings on Butler will remain but there will be new development around them. The buildings will be similar in scale and not overwhelm the house. The views will be somewhat preserved, at least of sense of them. This will allow them to tell the story of the owners. When they are done with the Lamp House they can go to other houses in the area. He points to the economic development paper he wrote. He says there is a good future for the house if this is a supplement to the downtown plan.

Richard Arneson – He was on the committee, the token developer. Overall he was pleasantly surprised by the open mindedness of the people on the committee in regards to development. He thought they would be adamantly opposed to development but that was not the case. He says that they struck compromises and that one of the main reasons he found the building to be important was the view of the lake. He says it would be a shame if tourists would come and tour the house and not see the lake because of development. He doesn’t agree with everything in the report, but he thinks that development can happen on both sides.

Bill Gates – Has a board with pictures on it. Lives at Capitol Point, the neighborhood representative. He says they ahve a good view of the block. He says he thinks the Common Council should change its name to the extraordinary council, he is impressed by their work and effort and the city is well served. He says the Lamp house was not built to be seen, but to be seen from. He says the Butler view is quite impressive. He thought that he should contribute pictures from his building, he goes through the photos taken on Dec. 1 during different parts of the day (off mic, probably can’t hear) He says that light is important to the house. He asks them to adopt. He wants to some day stand under the pergola on the roof and look at Lake Mendota.

Dave Mollenhoff – Served on the committee, wants to speak against the amendment they will deal with, the amendment takes away the only removing view shed from the Lamp House. View sheds have been important in the history of Madison. The most important one was from a man named (sorry missed it), he talks about the proposed height limit around the capitol. There was a firestorm of opposition from property owners. Your predecessors agreed with the height limit, it went all the way to the Supreme Court and it was the first time zoning was allowed ot be used for aesthetics not health and welfare. The council predecessors were visionary. Doty wants to link the city to the lake and preserved views from the corners of the capital. We did well except on King St. – that opportunity is forever lost. We have a 3rd opportunity and we need to preserve the view to Lake Monona – people in the future will say you were visionary if you preserve the views.

Jack H – Wisconsin and International Frank Lloyd Wright organizations are in support of making this part of the downtown plan. He talks about how this is unique, no other artist or architect comes close, his buildings are unique, and we have a unique responsiblity to preserve his work. He deigned this and other buildings with views to the Lake in mind. Other buildings have lost their views, only Lamp maintains a partial Lake View as intended, the city should preserve this unique view. There should be a historic district for the house and they should do shadow studies for any development. Please make it a supplement to the downtown plan.

Rosemary Lee – Tonight speaking from the heart, has attended a zillion meetings about it, she is appalled that the committee that has ignored statements by the owner. She says historic preservationists are making plans with no consideration to Mr. Bosben’s plans. She doesn’t understand why the views are important because there is no public input. She says there will be a stagnant area with no increased tax base or property value. She asks who would staff the house – who will pay for it. She wants to be proud of the common council, not embarrassed. She wants the item referred for a few months so more discussion with Mr. Bosben can occur to find something fair for the property owner and the citizens of Madison. Why are people proceeding without considering his plans for the future of the house, that is unconscionable.

Woman who’s name I missed. Happy to be here on Madison’s birthday. Says we need to remember past and honor the future. She says that they lived in student housing in Chicago next to a Wright House, it was an oasis in a cement city. There were lines and they couldn’t always get in. They hope the Lamp House will enhance Madison and maintain sense of history and place for future generations and celebration of many more birthdays. Madison is the Athens of the Midwest and it should remain with light, space and celebrated landmarks and we must pay attention to and include these priorities.

Nan Fey – she urges support as written. The substitute resolution is good and they should reject substantive changes, she says there was a delicate balance struck in the interests and there could be unintended consequences. She says the amendment is a radical change and there are unintended consequences the committee and staff can see. Alder Clear is asking you to remove portions of the committee’s vision. She says that normally they would evaluate matters before they come to you. She says this guts the report, the committee was extremely conscientious. She says the two targeted concepts are complex and they are important and nuanced. Normally preservation is about view of building not from it. She says most of the views are gone – including the capital, but we must preserve them or the damage will be done. What they propose is a couple minor changes to height with little or no impact. Also, the location of the building is puzzling, it is oddly placed on the lot, the story was meant to be a secluded environment and get the views. Their recommendation about the outdoor room leaves more room for development than the existing zoning has and that is a nuance that is easy to miss if you didn’t spend time on it. You can test the recommendations when the implementation steps happen. She says they didn’t go into implementation steps, but you will have staff analysis and plan commission recommendations when those come forward. She says that as a citizen who has volunteered 1,000s of hours in planning that the message to the community if you remove pieces of this will send a very strong message to the community.

Bruce Bosben (owner of this and surrounding properties). He talks about purchasing the propeorties, he says tha tpreservation of the Lamp House has been a priority, talks about doing work on roof, landscape, etc. They open it for events and tours. He served 6 years on Frank Lloyd Wright Wisconsin. He wasnt to restore the house. He wants to build affordable energy efficient housing that preserves the views. He says that with this report he will not be able to develop any of the Mifflin St. properties. He wants them to amend the report to support the Lamp House and the Central Business District. He talks about a handout he gave them, tells them to read it. Says there is a copy of a drawing by Tony Putnam that they proposed for the properties on E. Mifflin. The choice of Putnam was the mayor at the time. He gets extra time. He says they would be preempting any development on the block and they shouldn’t to that, he says this would be an unintended consequence. He wants them to keep an open mind for quality development for that site.

Questions of Speakers
Clear asks Bosben to tell them who Tony Putnam is. Bosben says that architect of Monona Terrace, the last remaining contemporary of Wright and something I forgot! 🙁 Clear asks about where the house is, Bosben explains. He says that the concept that he is showing allows for redevelopment of the site and that the recommendations would make the development impossible.

Mayor asks if Mr. Putnam’s drawings and looked at what would be cut out. Bosben says no, but it can be done visually right now, the lowest point of the building to the right is the design the committee has recommended and it doesn’t leave much.

Cnare asks Bridgeman about the tourism or how someone would live in a home that people want to come see. Bridgeman says the house has to be occupied, it is better for the house, gets more attention and its safer. He says the second floor could be occupied and the first floor could be for tours or offices. He talks about housing in W. Lafayette, owner lives there and still do events. He says there are inventive ways this can work.

Bidar-Sielaff asks Nan Fay to respond to the question the mayor asks. Fay says that this is the first time she saw this photo. Bidar asks about page 21 and the alternative plan, is that an example of what we are talking about. She says that if they had that drawing it would have added to the discussion.

Resnick asks Bosben if they can see the lake all times of year or just winter. Bosben says just winter.

Questions of Staff
Bidar asks Amy Scanlon about the importance of the views. Scanlon says that the view to the lakes is part of and one of the most significant aspects as a landmark and so having the committee come around that in the report was good to see.

Subeck asks about the drawing they were given, could it be built under current zoning, zoning says 6 stories and the drawing is 12 stories. Rebecca Cnare hasn’t seen the drawing either. Tells them to look on page 12. The simple answer is no. She says that there is hardly any buildable area on this block, this report wanted to allow development to balance with preservation. She says they would have to be rezoned but they wanted to give guidance to that. The height is limited to 6 stories.

Clear says asks Katherine Cornwell to talk about the Downtown Plan and how that is used. He asks if adopting the report it becomes a supplement. She says it woudl be used as a guide, if it was the will of the council to change the entitlements that would be another step. Clear asks if it doesn’t have the force of zoning, she says yes. He asks her how she looks at the block as a planner. She says this is a Frank Lloyd Wright resource and that is a valuable resource, it is very important to take the steps we have to look at this block. Adopting the plan as a supplement to the downtown plan as a supplement to the downtown plan is the right thing to do.

Clear asks Scanlon about the views and if it is in the ordinance. She says no, but they would have to develop this further. Clear asks if views form a house belong as part of the landmarks ordinance. She says she doens’t know if it belongs in zoning or the plan.

Zellers asks about precedent, are there other circumstances or examples of this in the city that would be another place where we might ant to preserve views from. Scanlon says that other than the state capital, no, goodness no. Rebecca Cnare talks about views from Bascom Hall to the Capital. She says that is the only one she can think of. Zellers says that this doesn’t seem to have an impact as a precedent citywide. Scanlon doesn’t believe this would be used as a precendent.

Cnare asks about the preendent setting issue, there are unlikely any other building so why would we change the ordinance? Should it be a notion in the ordinance? Scanlon says that they would have to determine where it fits best, in the landmarks ordinance or zoning, but they would need to look at the other landmarks to make sure there are no others, this one has the history and is inside out. She can’t think of another landmark site that has that importance.

Mayor asks about buildings in University Heights that are not landmarks but clearly built with intention to view the lake, now there is a series of building at Kendall and Princeton and they used to have views, do you anticipate problems with those buildings. Scanlon says no sir, the significance of the Frank Lloyd Wright house rises above it, it is multifactored, but no.

Cnare says the view is the stickiest part of the resolution, for those who are concerned about this being a precedent, and they aren’t convinced that it won’t be, what other opportunities do we have to address this. As projects come forward, what other opportunities would we have to fight about this notion of view preservation. Katherine Cornmwell says they would be adopting plan guidance – mic problems/feedback – the next step would be a zoning text amendment. She says that the thing she wants to answer that is not part of the question, but this is a Frank Lloyd Wright resource that is important to the building, she doesn’t think this will inhibit development or value of the property, she thinks they are ensuring a good return on the investment and that they can make considerable money off the property as a piece of heritage tourism. She thinks they are raising the level of awareness and creating a new path. She is confident they are doing the right thing. Cnare asks when would they talk about this again. Cornwell says zoning text amendment and that would follow the same process they just went through.

Rummel says the asset is rare and unique and the placement is the character to be preserved. She says that there are only three examples but it is not rare to preserve views around the country, we aren’t creating something new. Scanlon sasy that there are several sites around the country that protect the views like MOnitcello, Mt. Vernon. Homestead estate Olana in Hudson Valley River School painter named Church, his estate view is protected. It is rare, but it does happen to protect places that rise to that level of importance.

Rummel says the WEbster St. development did their duty to protect the view, they created a way to see the Lamp House. The developer it taking efforts to protect the Lamp House. How do we value the asset vs growing it all? (Not clear that was a question)

Bidar asks if the staff will recommend a change to the landmarks ordinance or is this so special that it is unique. Will they propose a change that views from every house will be protected. Scanlon says this is unique and it is the only one that she thinks should want that for. She is not planning to propose a change.

Palm asks about the site, it once had two views of the lakes, now it only has a skinny view of one lake. We didn’t think of this in the past, we accepted it once, so what has changed. Scanlon says that the awareness of how the effects of the viewsheds impact landmarks has become part of the discussions lately. It has become part of the conversation of late. Palm says that years ago there was the issue of the view form Bascom Hill. Mayor responds that the debate was within the same property owner, the UW building was going to obstruct its own view. Rebecca Canre says that the committee didn’t have the views on their radar screen, but through the study and references they learned about that they realized how important that was. That was one thing that came out of the committee.

Debate
The motion was for the original.

Verveer moves the substitute resolution that is at their desks. Verveer says the substitute language clarifies what actually is the appropriate next steps. He says there has been quite a bit of discussion through q & a about the next steps. He will make more comments later.

Mayor points out that they can only make one amendment.

Clear says he will not make his amendment. But they will have to listen to him rant. He didn’t think his motion was radical. He says that it was radical to preserve views from a landmark. He thinks it was radical to remove millions of dollars of air rights. He thinks it was arrogant to not include residents or owners on the block to be on the committee. We didn’t give any voice to the people who live there. He says he had a bad taste in his mouth about Edgewater – he says that the elected officials should sit down and shut up and do what the committes want. He says they are accountable to the voters. He is disappointed in hearing that they should not touch the recommendations of the committee. He says the other arrogance is that we don’t own the building, historic significance doesn’t convey ownership. Until we own it, it is inappropriate to talk about the building in this way.

Cnare makes a friendly amendment “Other relevant bodies and common council” language inserted in last clause – she says UDC and others should look at it. No one wants to talk on the amendment and it passes.

Resnick talks about the topographical nature of the project. He says if you look at the downtown plan, you see the difference base don the level of the land. We have several view shed corridors and many of them are already protected in the downtown plan. The zoning and height limit also limits the views. When we are looking at the new drawings, even something pitched to us tonight, there is something that could work and still protect the view sheds. We can talk about the height, but it is not the same impact because it is what the downtown plan already says.

Schmidt says difference in accepting a report and adopting a recommendation. He says they can change the later. He says that he takes it seriously when they put things in plans, they should follow them if they put them in there. The staff analysis should include the plan in the analysis.

Strausser wants to echo what Clear said. He says all the other view are public views, I can’t do that at the Lamp House, I can’t walk up to the 4th floor, this is a private person’s view. He thinks we are setting a precedent. The big one is that they are now preserving the private view. He wants Clear to make the motion.

Ellingson makes the motion. She concedes preserving the house, but she can’t see protecting the view. She talks about the movie Up – she says they can preserve the house but not the views, that is a step to far.

Weier is also concerned about preserving the outward view, its a bad precedent. She says that there is also another project where people are worried about views and they would not be a good precedent.

Subeck supports protecting the view, not a big preservationist, not instinctive to her. This isn’t just the historic significance of the home, but also the historical context. It’s unfortunate one view is obstructed, but we can’t go back in time. There may be some time in the future that the views are important – but this isn’t a slippery slope. Even tho it is a private view we have the right to recognize the full historical context.

Demarb was on the committee, she sent a note to council last time, not a preservationist, not sure why chosen to be on the committee, learned a lot. What she did get is that there is a story to be told and preserved. She says she has been to historical sites where she was asked to “imagine” and we don’t have to do that here, we can preserve the story, with the exception of the Odessa which won’t be raised.

Verveer urges rejection. Through their work they came to the consensus, even the token developer, that the views are critically important part of the home design and history. The views were critical in the Frank Lloyd Wright design, that is what it comes down to. He says the potential for heritage tourism is huge. He says that was a big part of the committee discussion. Yes the house is privately held, but the city should still protect the character of the experience of this resource. Perhaps our predecessors were short sighted in their approvals but at this point we should preserve the views. He says there will be more steps, we are not deciding the future of one property owner or any tonight, but we should reject the amendment and support the conclusions of the members of the committee – that it is critical to preserve the views.

Schmidt says there is a weight to the recommendations. He says that it will be the impact on the parking utility – which is the most impacted property, most of the view shed once you get off the block is already protected. He walked in being concerned about precedent setting, he doesn’t think that Montecello is not in the same character, but he is coming around to the uniqueness. He says we will hear about precedence in the future, but he thinks this property is special. He says the uniqueness is there. It is odd that we are protecting the view of a wealthy person and we don’t pay attention to other buildings and we are tearing down history from the 50s with the gas stations etc. His focus is frustrating to him. He opposes the amendment and supports the substitute resolution, but he can’t say he is without reluctance, he has made that conversion. He can blame some of that on the token developer.

King says he finds it utterly ridiculous to be talking about what we do to private homeowners and we do it all the time, some in historic districts cannot look at their brick funny. In his district we tell people where to put their chickens and bees, we do that for the public good, he doesn’t understand this issue. We have beat the horse into glue on the view thing. Andrewjeski eloquently discussed how we evaluate the view and hear that reimbursed tonight, its not a precedence. He defers to what Nan Fay said about the consensus and he was skeptical about the outcome, they did what they were asked to do and they did a good job, unless there is some ethical issue or they really screwed up, we should not change it.

Mayor says cuz of Kings remarks he will not say anything.

Clausius compliments the work of the committee, esp the chair, but he is in support of the amendment. He says that they are taking for a private property owner and tleling him what he can doe. View sheds on private property is an extremely slippery slope. He says if they go ahead, the issues of the view sheds will be brought up every single time in the future. This is the wrong vehicle to try to change the existing downtown plan. The plan has said that 6 stories will work in every case and we shouldn’t restrict to three stories. He supports the amendment.

Zellers says King was articulate about view sheds and the fact that we limit for the good of the city as a whole, what an individual owner can do. This is a FRank Lloyd Wright house, internationally known, we don’t have another situation like this. This is not a condo blocking view kind of thing. Authenticity, sense of place, we need to protect, that is why the committee was formed. This was above board, open to participation, the committee was balanced, she is a preservationist, she would like to save more, but the results are balanced. Development is coming through and they have paid attention to the recommendations and the view shed is a important.

Clear already says he disavowed his amendment. He says the disappointment as the to how this could have gone, he is not anti-preservationist, he is a FLW fan, he has visited other houses. He doesn’t want to be considered not caring about the Lamp House. He says everyone now knows where this is. But, like having unemployment being a protected class, we did not include the stakeholders and we missed that opportunity.

Strausser says he can’t get past that the view is more valuable because the architect was FLW. He has a great view from his livingroom, but his architect did not create the view. FLW did not create the lakes etc, he didn’t create the view. It’s not a better view because of the name that stamped the plans. He says that the slippery slope is about the private view vs the house next door. Says Knickerbocker was about the views, was he less entitled, he says no. That is the precedent they will deal with if they don’t pass the amendment.

Clears amendment as moved by Ellingson – roll call.
Ayes are Clausius, Clear, Strausser, Ellingson, Weier and I think Cnare.

The substitute passes with the only audible no being clear.

Subeck reconsideration on an item not on the agenda. She refers to council meeting on March 18th. Missed the item.

Schmidt has two introductions. Weier has resolution to support raising minimum wage to $10.10. Cnare has resolution on Grandview Commons library.

Mayor says federal government shut down yesterday over 3 inches of snow, he says we have more people biking to work than they had driving to work.

Adjourned.

(Sorry about the sloppy live blog, its all I have time for!)