Ok, sorry to make you wait . . . here’s the rest of the meeting:
Read Part I and Part II for presentation and public discussion and some questions by the commission.
RUMORS AND GOSSIP
Two quick notes, Alder Bridget Manaici didn’t get there til 8:30, she was at the Tenney Lapham Neighborhood meeting trying to prevent them from taking a vote to express their concerns about the Edgewater. It was a tied vote, with Linster breaking the tie for them to remain quiet.
Second, I didn’t exactly see this but, rumor has it Amy Supple was, for the first time anyone remembers, taking notes on what the commission was saying. Typically, no one from the “team” is taking notes. Others dispute that and say that she was just passing notes. I didn’t see, so I can’t say which it was.
QUESTIONS
Jay Ferm asks could you show us the most accurate rendering to date from the sidewalk level, how close are they to agreeing on what the view would look like? They say they only have two with them and don’t seem convinced that they should show them. [I think this was already counted as an unresolved issue in a previous post]
Ferm says it would be helpful if on the rendering, they could list the specific height and relevant information so they could understand it. They could put this issue to rest.
Bob Dunn says that could use their help, discussion about this issue, going to great length of removal of upper floor of 70s building, he questions the value of removing that building maybe isn’t there, that seems to be where dialog takes us.
Bruce Woods testily says said “for the last time, that is not true”.
Dunn keeps going anyways and says that removing the 70s building greatly enhances the view corridor and enhances the public space but if not then they should address it differently, look at the photo and imagine the building gone, greatly enhances view to water.
Dick Wagner says that accurate view is raised, but this commission went on record says this project rectifies the mistake of 70s building and that was one of great things, accurate representation is a minor issue, already recorded as supporting that.[Minor issue? Seriously Dick?]
Todd Barnett says that we need something definitive to hang our hats on, if the lake is a little bit obscured that might be ok, what we get is result of gymnastics of the site, not end of world if we see less than we’d all like to see, key thing is that when we take action, we know what we are taking aciton on.
Marsha Rummel asks why they moved it 15 feet, why not 30? [Remember, they told us 15 feet was impossible, will this add money to the TIF, more than moving it the 30 feet?][I’ll call this unresolved issue #7 – is the setback far enough?]
Dunn says that simplest answer it that they spent a considerable amount of time with National Guardian Life (NGL), they had the opportunity to move entire building 60 feet originally, agreement was that east wall would come no further than west wall of NGL building, now come back and want to encroach on that, and they staked and measured and to come to the edge vs. 15 feet was more than they were willing to consider, view is being made more narrow, limit to where allowing to move the building, were at the limit and now some adjustment, but not allowed to move building 30 feet, if anything built to the east the would have to be a setback, [His concern over this continues to concern me, I wonder what he has planned?] eroding what rights they have, don’t think they have a plan, but only fair that they are allowed do preserve the rights they have. He says Rummel was well appraised on this issue.
Rummel says that “I told you I was going to ask it.” [Wow, Dunn is growing increasingly testy and argumentative with the commissioners. It’s not their fault that he didn’t submit the complete materials they need and it needs to be referred. He needs a whole new application with these changes, 3 little drawings aren’t going to do it. What makes him think he could get away with that?]
Rummel asks about the loading dock.
Dunn asks her to consider other similar properties downtown, Hilton has a 2 bay dock, not accessible by a semi, can’t get a truck to either loading bay, here two full loading bays. Concourse is no better than across the street, more capacity with this hotel which is smaller than other examples. As it relates to buses, [Note, he wasn’t asked about buses] go to any urban setting where they have a hotel where they come and go with any frequency, buses stage remotely, no hotel in the world puts all buses indoors, they can bring buses inside the building, he says if he gives them 2 then they need 4, [A running theme to his whining, he asks like if he does half of what people asked for they should be happy.] not a hotel in downtown that can put one bus inside downtown, buses will stage remotely.[We’ll call the loading dock unresolved issue #8 and the buses #9]
Dawn Weber asks about the loading dock, could that go below grade?
David Manfredi, the architect says it is incredibly difficult cuz of head height and length of ramps, also from a design point of view, they were trying to minimize the impact of the loading dock door which creates a 22 foot of hole in building, imagine 44 feet instead – conflict with good urban design and doors, most places municipalities are pushing it down.
Weber says she is excited to see ngl elevation. (I may have missed some here, couldn’t hear.)
Woods says thank for the storm water information, says the renderings are not helpful because you are not going to see this from a helicopter view from the lake. Wisconsin Ave and Langdon is the way to go, show us how buildings that relate as moving across the space, nice to see from lake but most people won’t see that and important that see that, when come back show us how parking garage fits on NGL is important, [I think this is unresolved issue #10] is it hidden from Langdon. Glad to see changes in last iteration – every time come back great improvement.
Wagner says what he hasn’t seen is the lakeshore from James Madison to Edgewater is one kind of lakeshore, and then get to Edgewater and then Langdon, two different districts, Mansion hill lake side different from Mansion Hill said, wants to see Mansion Hill Lakeside. [That sounds like #11]
They will see if they can get a reference from the lake that is useful to us.
Smith asks about underground parking – what is geology, how expensive, how deep, have you looked at it?
Dunn says they have not done a soils analysis, [#12?] they think they are in good shape based on NGL built their building and 70s addition and comfortable since higher elevation. Not like earlier concepts where had to go down 60 feet, feel comfortable.
Manfredi says NGL is 4 levels, not as far as they went down.
Rummel asks about parking will it serve NGL and surface parking lot?
Dunn says there is no intention to take the surface parking, it never discussed, but he is talking about the lots at end of Pinckney, the other end. After being redirected he says there is a portion they will lose with hotel expansion, were going to have to build new surface parking, now no more surface parking in the area.
Rummel asks will it be connected?
They says the will build against base of building, not sure if vehicular connection, minimum pedestrian connection?[Sounds like unresolved issue #13]
Bridget Maniaci apologizes for being late, she was at a neighborhood meeting, excited with steps taken, a lot of really good work, sense from committee is that there is great improvements and applicant would like a sense that everything is here for initial approval or what is needed to move forward? While there was a lot of discussion what needs the most work and what needs to move forward in the process? There was a lot of good work, a lot done in two weeks, and love to hear what you think needs to be worked on?
Woods says that so much new, no way can get initial in, can get positive comments on both sides so good direction, but without a full site plan we don’t have, we can’t even give initial approval. Can give direction one way or the other.
Maniaci asks about 15 vs. 30 feet, 15 foot is a good compromise that NGL shouldn’t have to move the building 30 feet, it goes to a lot of the concerns the committee has, she is encouraged and wants to know how to move forward.
Rummel asks Maniaci about referral, are they expecting to push out the timeline?
Maniaci says it is not ready to go, TIF agreement not in place, totally fine with it not coming to council on Tuesday, expect you guys to vote on it at the next meeting and time line has been part of the consideration, would like to vote early March to come together with plan commission, council and TIF is what they are looking at, there is no reason for it to stretch on to April – she’ll shoot herself if it does, we need decisions made in the timely fashion. [Sigh, nevermind. Here’s one of those spots I can’t really comment lest it look like sour grapes, I’ll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions about those statements. Tho, depending upon when they get their application in, it does sound like it will be April.]
Woods says they did a lot of good work, he suggests they don’t try to get work done in one week to get on to the next meeting, if council will push things beck, instead of one week, use the three weeks, so they are not running til late in the night and staff not running til late in the night and the commission can see a more complete package. That is what makes more sense to him, to do it in a week and not quite gel and is not what he wants to see it happen again.
Dunn says there was a big debate about if they should come tonight or wait til when they have something more concrete. Committee deserved to see the progress, work in progress not get to initial approval, two weeks is a long time, esp. cuz of what it means for the other committees and because of what has taken place and in next week.
They talk about if they would need to get the info on Wednesday, the commission gets it on Friday.
Maniaci says that was a discussion, worthwhile to have the discussion and not say sorry guys want it to be perfect and be back in a few weeks. This is not being held up because of you, it will continue on with other committee. [Staff has recommended Plan Commission refer until there is an application.]
Woods say up to applicant, he would rather see a fully developed package instead of a week late. He says he wants them to have the leeway to have the extra time.
I think [I waited to long, memory is starting to fade a bit . . . ] Maniaci asks if there is any other gap to get to initial, says it would be good to outline. She says she would like a good sense of where and how high hurdles are.
Commissioners like off things they need: Perspectives, site plan, plaza plan, everything has been improved.
Barnett says sections, elevations., plans, it’s the documents that they need for initial that they have shown all along. [I guess that is an unresolved issue – no application #14.]
COMMENTS
Ferm says applicant has specific understanding what the gap is and the other issue is that haven’t talked about is architectural changes, should they keep them separate?
They says to stick to the gap between today and initial.
Ferm has a question, what specific things do you have that need to be answered tonight?
Dunn says 3 or 4 key issues, most significant is framework of the building, mass, idea of shifting the building, center it on the podium, relationship to the site, that informs us on structure and architecture, hard to focus on architecture without knowing where to put the building. It would be helpful to see the framework. From there, context of site plan, which is really the plaza, more work has been done on that cuz fewer moving parts, if general ideas of plaza, and 70s building is consistent with building is important – elevation dictates everything, if base and elevation set then are we terracing or a stair, more detailed and then reinforces (missed some) while still conceptual, parking structure eliminates traffic, although more work to do to figure out elevations and how to landscape, [#15] have to better define how access, [#16] if that is a positive idea, that is “very significant” change to the design, if not moving in that direction have to deal with terrace and plaza. The one that has the greatest impact to advance the design does notion of moving tower 15 feet a positive response to their concerns. Then can give you detailed and accurate and thorough presentation. [Given what he said, he can’t have expected to get initial approval.]
Rummel thanks the Hammes company, listened to questions they posed, kind of thrilled we’re here, parking structure is a solution we were hoping for, affirm that is the right direction. Elevations, not put surface parking on top but green space, needs site plan, still wants to see eye level perspectives, what do I see when standing in front of hotel, café, what will parking entry look like, mass and façade, hoped to move 30 feet back cuz could get certificate of appropriateness from Landmarks, might get a variance.
Barnett asks if there are happy where it is at, do you have concerns?
Manfredi says comments to architecture are good and made building better, now that this is a different mass and composition you will get different response.
I missed most of the discussion about exposed and some underground parking and First Methodist temporary parking.
Barnett said they need to follow up that items he needs direction on is stair width, plaza elevation and design, drop off location, loading dock, setback for view corridor, height, architecture, parking – wonders if they should go through them plus others and give thumbs up or thumbs down, not much more hashing and some need more work – they have been looking at this since August, we need to give them direction.
Weber wonders if should add 70s building to his list.
Harrington likes what they done, liked project in the beginning, biggest concern was setback for view, if he had seen this last week they could have given initial approval, his preference is having the parking buried, really wary about the stairway (I couldn’t hear). Would like to see changes to the landscape plan. [Issue #16] would like to see changes, general layout is fine, can’t hear – happy with what seen.
Weber appreciates info coming today, but the ink is still wet, conceptually owe you a response, we can state what we think will happen, but as you move things you should have flexibility – setback sound like neighborhood is comfortable it, [I didn’t hear anyone say that?] she is concerned how does it relate to plaza, [Issue #17] generally think it moving in a direction where the siting of the building is more site specific.
Wagner says concern has been 1970s mistake rectified, thought we got things we didn’t, he was there, if find an acceptable project to solve that we should be good, thinks this does it. [What standard is he referring to here? That just sounds like a talking point.] Stair issues that Harrington talked about sound fine, really likes new plaza, lives a few blocks from the Elks Club, we live through weddings and dances etc, but he lives in a city, the city knows how to adjust to noise, that is why continuing jurisdiction and noise ordinances, let’s not solve everything before we begin. [????] Well heartened by staff report for plan commission, wanted to get plan commission going because reports help sift through the issues, clarity of written report, helps solve some of the issues we have been struggling with. Drop off and loading aren’t issues, likes the setback, massing composition, involved in NGL in beginning, knows what those buildings were, that is no longer what that district is, but some buildings are still here, but that district layered by history with lots of other things NGL and Verex and this addition to an existing building is another layer, no problem from historic point of view. [??????]. If city does the TIF right, think of things that part of the money will go for restoration to help Mansion Hill, this is a complex historic area, needs more than Historic District for preservation. Is that a chance, yes, but its a chance worth taking. They are close to initial – but they not have the information they need. [Wow, those were some interesting and disappointing statements from Wagner, I know he’s a supporter of the project, but I thought he was more thoughtful about what this means for future projects. At least he said that they don’t have the information for the initial approval.]
Smith says that he wants to remind them that we agreed late last fall in November to have joint meeting with Landmarks, they noved on the 18th and agreed to let Landmarks lead on height and mass.
Some disagree, Barnett says he agrees and that is his recollection.
Wagner disagrees.
Woods said due to scheduling we said you guys go first, not abide by what they do.
Wagner says they have criteria we don’t have.
Barnett says he remembers that too.
Smith wants to remind them of that conversation, feels like applicant is using the NGL building for precedent for the height of tower and NGL building was seen as being incongruous with the neighborhood to the point where they established the first historic district.
Wager [I’m just about getting sick of him interrupting, he’s done it more than anyone this evening] says Mapleside(?) was reason for Landmarks ordinance, says it was done under Dyke, Soglin sent Gempeler to a training after NGL, he was there, that wasn’t the reason for the ordinance. [That’s the first time I heard that version of history.]
Smith says that his point is that in his opinion NGL being on summit of hill is too tall and prominent for rest of district, we can’t go back, can’t turn clock back, however, if look at comprehensive design guideline, skyline or summits of the buildings should follow underlying topography of the isthmus, think about that a bit, he could be more supportive, particularly of the tower would be more in keeping if lower and step down to the water. He is still troubled by waterfront setback issue, he says it is unresolved [Issue #18], as long as unresolved, your proposal is not on the ground. Exactly what it should be, can’t tell you, can’t say it should be x. The other issue is the idea of the dock and having programmatic space on the water, having activity in rendering is false, eliminate it from the documents until you know what it is going to be, would be helpful. He says that much discussion since last August on vantage points, specifically located vantage points on map with dimensions at 5 foot view and it would be helpful to use those and be consistent from submittal to submittal – having that site plan located at a view point very helpful and typically done. Knows this is extremely early and it came late to our attention, but structured parking have you looked at opportunity to lower the building and elongate the tower 2 or 4 rooms as tradeoff of height and mass, along with 15 foot setback, if get that to work, think that would be an opportunity.
COMMENTS ON ARCHITECTURE
Ferm says the proposed parking structure resolves a lot of problems, much more public space on the plaza, is 15 feet enough to allay concerns about mass and setback, can’t honestly say had enough time to think about it, huge step in that direction, is it there yet? Maybe, need to digest it more. For the parking structure very positive. Stairway width is fine, it is defined by the 70s and 40s building, what will make that successful feature is going to be design and experience of that as you go down it, and what seen to date, not there yet. [Issue #19], can continue to look for the creative solution to make it special, lighting or interplay with 40s building, we haven’t seen that yet, if show us renderings is it going to be something special or just a way to get from top to bottom as quickly as possible. He says whenever they have a project that is a bottleneck, you can make that bottleneck a special feature.
Wagner said something I missed. [Interrupting again]
Ferm says they can’t make the stair wider, as you walk down it what you experience on the walls will make or break it – a little development but ways to go yet. Loading dock is fine, trash compactor needs to be addressed [Issue #19 – I don’t think that was listed already], in right place, tucked away out of sight, agrees with Smith and asks Al Martin (UDC staff) to pull vantage views asked for from past.
Martin says they have them – he says they provided them in the past.
Ferm says they should be updated consistently.
John says he has tweaks to architecture.
Barnett was wondering if build structured parking between hotel, would it be reasonable to assume you could hold a building on top of it? That is the only issue on his plate, nice to take one story off and lower towards lake, build a second tower, take off a story, another building to frame the edge.
Weber said that height of building in relationship to historic district is her issue, she is trying to determine if the placement of the building is site specific. Says the major cornice line has a relationship to Kennedy manor and is the strongest thing you can do to bring it to the scale of the neighborhood, that gesture is one that makes it seem where translate to neighborhood. The set back of upper 2 or 3 levels, that is where different, the cornice line establishes neighborhood relationship.
Wagner [interrupts again] says that the accepted Kenney manor building height might be ok, he says that the extra two stories are being traded for lake access and public space, doing this gives you other things, thinks things for city are good. [That were supposed to be there the whole time and weren’t]
Ferm says that it is still floating out there relative to the ground, 40s building goes all the way to the lake, still floating and not well grounded, and this could be a three part composition, this design improve it, go further, as they redo it, can you make part two and three more distinct. Bring the glass all the way to the ground.
Ferm or Weber is concerned about seeing great building with ugly penthouse on top, not see if from sidewalk, but whatever you do as you approach it you see a bunch of boxes up there, integrate mechanical penthouse to be as much of architectural point, people will see the top. [#20 is the architecture on the lake side, #21 is the mechanical penthouse on the roof]
Ferm also asks about bike parking, can’t see it, and mopeds, and this plaza really has to have good bike parking so not just strung up all over the place. Both inside and outside. Make it convenient.[Issue #22, bikes and mopeds – where do they park?]
Woods says park in the garage.
Barnett says he is willing to go to the closest rail, plan for people to do that.
Ferm says normally give comment on bike parking, even though not come up yet, will start hammering on it now. He says Tucker has some good recommendations, they have evolved recently, make sure you have the fresh stuff from Tucker.
Harrington asks if question have been answered?
Dunn says yes as to expansion, should be looking at it being shorter, parking deck seems positive, don’t feel terribly clear, we’re embarking on redesign number 5, significant costs with each of the efforts, we will try and assemble a sense of direction to design another building, but don’t know if up to the task to design 3 more.
Harrington says he likes the setback.
Wagner says can we approve it with that setback. He says the stair width – space between building sufficient.
There is discussion back an forth about the stair. They say it is 16 – 31 feet in various different places.
They decide to go through Barnett’s list and give everything a thumbs up or thumbs down. Everything was an unanimous thumbs up except the height, which they felt they needed more details. Here’s the issues and a few comments.
– Plaza elevation, agree they won’t see entire lake
– Plaza design, private, public or semi public, landscaping, pedestrian walkways – they clarify that this is just conceptually, not the details
– Guest drop off area
– Loading dock location
– New setback, given they haven’t seen clear drawing was unanimous. Rummel says that it has to be looked at with the topography and height comfort, not sure becuase no new perspective drawing but getting more comfortable and ok if parking doesn’t come back.
– New parking concept – they are excited about it.
– General direction on architecture
– – Woods says that 40s building is boring – look at what done not a lot to it – ok.
– – Ferm says that asks the fire department to speak to what access they need, is it too much
– – Barnett asks that they request fire dept show up
– – Tim Parks (staff) says that fire conditions would be in report, met extensively and they are comfortable with fire access.
– – Ferm says it not about compliance, but fire requiring things of applicant that not necessary for adequate protection, project improve if they are less stringent. They should defend the extended pavement.
– – Woods says fire will provide it. They did say would go in and back out.
– – Wagner says this is not a useful discussion
– – Barnett says they have done this before and it improved the project or reduced pavement or gave us an understanding so its not a hang up for us in the future. Has been useful.
– – Woods says if their recommendation in a report, we will get at next meeting, not sure if need them to come here.
– – Barnett says applicant should try to reduce pavement.
– – Maniaci says pavement is about getting a ladder to corner of 40s building, not just backing in and out.
– – They eventually decide that they are generally comfortable with the architecture.
– Height
– – Rummel uncomfortable to vote on it, it’s been so positive up to this point.
– – Smith says that they tried to give suggestions to solve it with parking change and curb cut on Langdon can look at adding two or 4 rooms per floor, as possibility, Smith is not comfortable, feels it is too tall.
– – Harrington says this is a harder one. It is a trade off.
– – Weber says it relates to the other parts of the project and how it relates and proportion, with the sliding it back, does it still engage the plaza?
– – Barnett asks what type of building material it is, it’s structural steel.
– – Barnett asks what the floor to floor distance is, 10 feet.
– – Barnett says that the building at Park and Regent is 6 stories under construction, he says he is with Smith and Harrington in terms of height, that is the big hang up. It doesn’t need to 5 stories, it is separated from smaller structures, if 200 feet to east it would be a different thing, PUD language is relevant for him, setback works with height somewhat, whether or not a discomfort with this outweighs other issues, that are so important, what is there is awful and what is here is better. Still wants an ice Skating rink, talks about one he just saw out east, thinks skating rink should be on the table.
Some think it is too hard to vote on this one.
Maniaci says that direction she got was look at mitigating height thorough design, they moved mountains to get the building moved, one thing you have to realize is the height of the building is not coming down, it is where it is or the project goes away. It’s that simple, recognizing that and understanding it, the work being done is the site specific and sense of mass, don’t want you to have them spinning in circles or false sense you will see it lowered. [No offense, but until Dunn says that, I’m wondering how true that is, after all, they couldn’t move the building back or build the parking on the side, but they did.]
Barnett says if true one story not coming off, if it’s a fait accompli a vote from us is irrelevant, so no need to vote on it.
Woods says that they can ameliorate that.
Rummel would be happy if look at what Smith said.
Barnett says she should look at Rummel’s nutty idea about moving the parking, look what happened in two weeks, it might get us to approval.
[Ok, here’s where I missed a little banter, but I’m told at this point Maniaci says something to the effect of “and it delayed the project” and someone else mutters “there was no project”. I missed all of it in the cross talk.]
Maniaci says/asks is this just initial review, not even gotten to final yet?
I don’t think anyone really responded, the meeting started to kind of fall apart and they adjourned at a very early 10:01.
