Sorry for the delay . . . headache is better but not gone, and now I seem to have a fever . . . so, if this gets too goofy, you know why . . . 🙂
QUESTIONS FOR DEVELOPER
Jay Ferm asks about shift of tower, will it affect the amount of windows?
David Manfredi says they did the analysis, within 30 feet of property line they are allowed unlimited openings, within 15 feet, you have 40% of a single floor that can be openings and the elevation as drawn would qualify so would need relief of some kind with the regulation or need to make the smaller, relief could be code. [So, another exception needed for the project. I think I’ll count the unresolved issues. This is #1.]
Rummel asks about what the space that will be opened up due to the 15 foot set back will be used for.
Manfredi says that it will be part of the rented guest room space, the space will be occupiable, but outdoor spaces.
Todd Barnett asks how many parking stalls there will be.
Dunn or someone says 365 stalls. It was 235.
Barnett asks if that takes away for the need for valet parking. Someone sitting off to the side, off mic, I think said yes because Barnett says that’s great. [Room 260 can be a challenge to hear at times.]
Barnett asks if the number of rooms will still be the same? Someone says yes.
Barnett asks about the accessible route from Langdon, is it just from the drop off point?[I’d call this unresolved issue #2, better ADA accessibility to the lake.]
Manfredi says its the same, grade is to go to café then to entry of hotel.
Barnett asks if the space at the 50 foot grade is usable space? Someone says yes.
John Harrington asks how much above ground is the ramp?
Manfredi says it is 2 levels, option A upper tray exposed from extension of Langdon at some elevation, because of the rapid rise of the opography it would also be beneath a berm. Option B is below grade and put surface on it and plant lawn. [Unresolved issue #3.]
Harrington asks how many trees are there now?
Manfredi with an assist from Dunn says that there are some trees on the edge, but fairly open, heaviest amount of trees are by the water.
Harrington asks about the new drive through court, is it a temporary unloading zone? Yes, 15 minutes and move on, drop off, similar to Hilton across the street.
Harrington asks about the trees on the plaza, what size will they be.
Ken Saiki says that they will be small caliper trees. [At least that is what I think he said.] He says they will be 25 feet apart.
Mark Smith asks where is waterfront set back at with current zoning vs. what proposed in PUD?
Amy Supple says that they have to provide study with cantilever and where new structure is and to keep it within that area?[That’s funny, I thought the plan commission said 16 feet because that was where the front of the building is, not counting the cantilever. Issue #4 unresolved.]
Smith confirms, still no determination of setback under current zoning?
Supple says they submitted the info and still in discussion.
Smith remarks then it isn’t resolved.
Wagner jumps in and says that he’d like to hear a report on what the Plan Commission decided.
Tim Parks, planning staff, says that last Monday the zoning text amendment sponsored by Clear was changed not once but twice at Plan Commission and it will go to council next Tuesday. The changes would allow additions to existing buildings without meeting waterfront setback as long as not constructed closer than the current than setback of existing building. That would be the case for the Edgewater. Language coming out of plan and going to council will allow them to follow the law.
Smith confirms the proposal has not passed.
Parks says it is scheduled to be discussed on Tuesday. Discussion next week.
Smith presses on, so this item is not resolved?
Someone says not yet, but closer.
Dunn says that the language would be 10.5 feet.[Ok, really not resolved. Where did 10.5 come from, the plan commission talked about 16.]
Smith asks if there has been any discussion with DNR, anything back or finding or ruling about what you can develop on Lake Mendota?
Dunn says no further meetings, process is we will submit the application when have an entitled project and fair to say that docks are permitted, basic question is what is permitted, will submit the plans presented, would like to do the old configuration of the pier.[Can Dunn not hear, the UDC has told him repeatedly they want this issue resolved. It clearly is not. Item #5]
Smith says that item is not resolved.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
[This is going to be somewhat abbreviated. I missed quite a bit due to various things going on and the room being hard to hear in.]
Julie Aulik, In support
– Private citizen, historic preservationist, trained in economic development, people have asked, tried to put herself in your shoes, background in North Carolina as a state historic preservation planner, she has served on board of Wis Trust for Historic Preservation, Taliesin, and ?.
– Looked at mission of the commission and tried to put the ordinance to it and own sensibilities, says it is a good preservation project, good new architecture project, old landmark, new landmark, bring together capital lake and neighborhood and needs of all of us to enjoy a new public space.
James McFadden, In opposition
– Passes, says the changes are too recent to make intelligent comments.
Julie Kerr
– Says she represents 13th district and on plan commission, not representing plan commission or view of constituents which vary quite a bit
– Woods interrupts and asks her to explain where her district is and she does.
– 1) She says her first issue is well handled getting the drive entrance off the public plaza, as thought about it started to bother her more, commend Hammes, that’s great.
– 2) She feels like the depiction in the rendering depicting what you would see from Langdon the viewer was higher than in the actual picture, this could have been changed, bottom line for her is that she wants them to look at that and make sure the view is in fact what they will see and details of plan will bear this out.
– 3) She wanted to tell them that you should feel comfortable with info you have and take the time you need.
– Woods tries to cut her off because three minutes are up.
– Kerr says she’s an alder and can speak as long as she wants.
– Woods argues with her saying she says that she isn’t representing the 13th.
– She promises to wrap up.
– Make sure you have the appropriate information, thinks Hammes needs some good indication of where they are, but that is up to your judgment.
– She wants to make sure they have the fullest info available and feel comfortable, and they only act when they have it, wanted to share that with you , thought important for someone to say to you.
– Ferm asks if main concern is view from Wis and Langdon?
– She says yes, not so much the building too close to the right of way, it’s the elevation and how that works. As a plan commissioner no way to discern that. Not in plan commission purview to look the details of drawing. She’s not saying it is inaccurate, but would like them to look at that
– Harrington asks if they only see half of that, would that be ok.
– Kerr says she wants a drawing, wants to know what they will see, when she saw it it was a question mark and she wanted to bring that to their attention.
[I think we better call that item #6]
Peter Ostlind, In Opposition
– Appearing on own behalf
– Threw away remarks he had prepared
– Thanks the applicant for providing copies so we can see what is doing and have a chance to consider it. More than can be absorbed tonight.
– Says there is a number of things they can do with parking, opportunity to serve hotel and NGL (National Guardian Life) cuz timing of use will be different.
– Surface parking might be able to be eliminated, not clear if that would be connected to serve their purposes as well.
– Thinks service you can provide tonight, is to not make a decision but refer initial approval. But if engage in discussion on broad issues most in contention, such as height, mass, setback and parking, that is what people would like to hear and that is what Plan Commission and Council were looking for when referred a month ago. That is the discussion people would like to hear, he apologizes that puts you on the spot, but they haven’t gotten to that in previous discussions.
Gary Peterson, In support.
– I missed a bunch . . . this is what I got out of it.
– President of American Planning association, planner for 40 years, helped with 30 comprehensive plans and zoning codes in Wisconsin.
– This is a project of vision, this vision is the future in the sense of in the future and looking at the future.
– This can do for Lake Mendota what Monona Terrace did for Lake Monona
– Only constant in life is change, look at Edgewater by today’s values and standards and today’s world.
– Only question is does the zoning disctict allow it, yes or no?
– Setbacks are arbitrary and set in time, newest buildings built to right of way, why go backwards, when new buildings will not be visible by decades old ones.
Fred Mohs, In Opposition.
– When Schumacher proposed moving this back to the committees his hope was something would happen to make it a better project.
– In his opinion it is not perfect not ready to sign off, it has changed and that is good, it would be a tragedy to go back with no changes.
– Disagrees with Peterson that rules are arbitrary and throw away for future generations, this is historic district that is fiercely protected, not new rules all the time, they would not even start trying to protect the district if rules changed all the time
– Some good things on this plan, view is important, setback is very, very important, we have broad terraces we want to preserve.
– We have squandered or eliminated most of grand views from our grand avenues, this is to be protected.
– This can be ruined with trees, hopes they are bushes.
– Look at setback, podium, is it in the view, would be interesting to see.
– Parking is a huge improvement, moving parking is good, what about bus parking?
– Neighborhood will look at it carefully and report back.
Doug Kozel, In support.
– Speaking as an individual, architect in Madison, owns property in Madison, watched Edgewater from sidelines.
– Confident in strength of opportunity to make its way through difficult Madison process.
– Project corrects planning mistake in 70s, top floors, this will be world class.
– Addresses how to build in historic neighborhood and embrace design of building, good detail yet reference the original Edgewater,
– Two aspects appropriate, first it is simple, by neatly tucking vehicles underground most of development will be a complete pedestrian zone, absence of vehicles is public space is good.
– Second, this building has unity, monolithic masonry materials above the stone base is a traditional act, making it fit at the most basic level.
– Question isn’t if this is your cup of tea, question is does it repair our city, contribute to vitality, enhance lakefront and fit in setting – it does it well, don’t pass up opportunity.
Kitty Rankin, In Opposition
– Was going to ask to reconsider design of plaza, so people could see they could go down the stairway.
– Likes the setback, really important, urge you, can’t decide looking at this without walking down street again, if height will be a problem, its a big issue still out there.
– Don’t feel like have to make decision tonight, haven’t seen detailed plans, give them general ideas, tell them what is good and bad.
– Don’t feel uncomfortable – shouldn’t have to make decision based on what just happened.
Ledell Zellers, In Opposition
– Much of what said, partially addressed, that’s great, commend Hammes for listening to message.
– Ask you to refer until had an opportunity to address what you just saw tonight.
– Public should have a chance to look at it.
– Still concerned with height, can be successfully addressed by removing condo space that’s a wash.
– You need more time, I would need more time, lakefront setback issue not resolved, that should be resolved before whole thing is looked at.
– Parking issue addressed, concerned about bus and delivery vehicles, there are frequently more than two delivery vehicles.
– Only two delivery bays, are there more than that, how do you get in the drive now. Under current zoning, requires 4 loading spaces sand trying to get by with just two.
– One of the loading bays is taken up by a trash compacter.
– Appreciates your diligence in this, pushing developer to do better, still a say to go, urge referral and think more.
John Shehan, In Opposiiton
– Missed it.
John Martens, In Opposition
– Missed it.
– They ask Martens to do more work and analysis and get the info to them before the next meeting.
Gene Devitt, In Opposition
– Missed some of it.
– Worried about noise from outdoors area. He hears bands from Union Terrace and he’s a half mile away.
– Height and mass are still a concern
– Rest of people in historic district have to follow the rules.
– They should get a certified survey to find out what the height and mass is so there is a reference point, still thinks building is big.
– Project is going in good direction.
– Nice to get rid of surface lot.
Ferm asks about operational issues, where do those issues get taken up?
Brad Murphy, Planning Unit Director, says that there is a maintenance agreement for use of all public and quasi-public spaces and that maintenance agreement will include hours of operation and access to public spaces.
Ferm asks where will the public weigh in?
Murphy says the Council will have a resolution.
Ferm asks if there is a way for them to be addressed before going to council?
Murphy says it will be introduced and referred and then back to council for discussion. Some could be in TIF agreement.
Dick Wagner says plan commission will have continuing jurisdiction on the plaza.
Murphy says they made that recommendation in the report, some would argue whether condition is redundant because waterfront development is conditional use, would retain control over conditional use permit. Complaints of violations could be brought back to plan commision, could impose additional conditions.
3 others in opposition registered.
4 others in support registered.
Yes, there will be a part three . . . later . . . sorry, there is no reason to break this up except I’m under the weather.
