It was a 7 hour meeting . . . I missed the first three hours, which consisted of 1.5 hours to 2 hours of presentation, there were a 2 – 3 hours of public testimony which was 100% against the project and a hear I missed a few precious moments which I’m bummed weren’t televised (there was all audio recorded tho). Then, about 2.5 hours of discussion. By midnight there was still 15 members of the public there (I think two supporters and 13 opponents), 4 or 5 press, and lots of staff still there plus alders Bruer, Clear, Bidar-Sielaff and Verveer.
Apparently, the developers had directed their supporters not to speak. [I’m not sure if that was just good damage control on their part as their supporters wouldn’t speak to the issues before the Landmarks Commission or if they didn’t know how to instruct their supporters to speak to the issues or if it was so they can later claim it wasn’t fair somehow and discount the hours of public testimony. Or maybe, they didn’t think they had a chance and didn’t want to waste their time.] Later, staff does count the registration slips and says that it was about 50/50 for an against.
Since I was late, I was at a bit of a disadvantage, but one thing I noticed that was really peculiar is usually that when a developer is done with their presentation, they go and sit down in the audience with the rest of the public. In this case, the the entire 7 hours, the developers sat at the table with the commission . . .
allowing them to participate in the conversations in a more natural way than if they were like the rest of the public who were not allowed to participate. The chair did a pretty good job keeping it under control, but they were able to take advantage of that seating from time to time.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen this type of audacity by a developer before, not even from Veridian! 🙂 It was just odd, but this is project is full of unprecedented incidents. (Developers bussing neighbors to skyboxes at Lambeau, creating a new neighborhood group to support a project, $16M in TIF for one project practically approved before there is even a project, crazy misleading drawings, etc. etc. etc.)
The other annoyance of the evening was the huge submittal they handed out to the meeting without copies for members of the public. I did take a peak at it at the end of the meeting and I couldn’t tell if it was a “bury them in paper” type of document or if it was useful information. It was 11 x 17 paper with some pages having a single map or a blow up of a power point slide, others had 20 plus photos on it. The document had to have been about 60 – 75 pages, but there was also dividers and blank pages, so I just couldn’t tell if it had value or not. The commissioners did refer to it at several points, so it was at least a reference tool for them.
Anyways, I’m skipping the public testimony and the questions of the developers that relate to much of that testimony and just am trying to get the discussion of the commission. Much of it was confusing as they are referring to a confusing ordinance and without having it in front of you, it was hard to follow the discussion. But I will do my best . . . here we go!
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Around 9:25 Kitty Noonan, the assistant city attorney, after sleeping through much of questions that the commission were asking (I have a photo, but it didn’t turn out well), put on her coat, picked up her bag and left the room. She was promptly chased out of the room and dragged back by Mario Mendoza from the Mayor’s office. Mario then whispered in the chair’s ear and the chair asked if the members had any questions of the city attorney.
Levitan asked if they have to find as a finding of fact that it is visually compatible or is the finding of fact only relevant once it is in the variance part of the ordinance? Noonan says the later. She says all these things relate to visually compatible, but if they decide it’s not visually compatible, the whole variance is moot. She says the ordinance is poorly drafted, [there’s a dumb ass thing to say in public, on the record, if you have to later defend the ordinance in court] but there is a provision to apply for a variance, but can’t apply for it if you can’t get there. She talks about the ordinance and says they have to make a subjective determination in 15a but in 15c have to make specific findings of fact. Noonan says the authority is the general statement – she points to d of the ordinance and says you want to make c and d work together, you can’t read it to say if you have to find something is visually compatible you can’t ever get there. Then it devolves into some mumbo jumbo about the ordinance I didn’t quite understand without the ordinance in front of me.
Levitan notes this is likely to go to litigation and so he wants to be clear. He says they have to agree that 15 c applies, then make findings of fact that 1, 2 or 3 in 15c apply – you need to make factual finding that one of those three apply. Noonan confirms and also confirms for Gehrig that it is one of the three have to apply.
Maniaci asks about language in Mansion Hill portion of the ordinance, she asks about the guideline language.
Noonan says that other districts have better language [With friends like this, who needs enemies . . . perhaps she is trying to disqualify herself from this case if it ever goes to court?] – she says it is a pet peeve of hers about the language, but if it is in the ordinance and says shall it is mandatory and if it says may or should then it is different than mandatory. The use of the word guidelines muddies it. The criteria contain “shall” “may” or “should”. She points to page 53 and the criteria for review and points out how other district language is different. She says the use of the word guideline is not a “make or break” – guidelines should not be a “shall”. Noonan says you have to meet what is under (e) and look at if it says “shall” or “may”. Maniaci asks what the difference is between “shall” and “should”? Noonan explains “shall” is a requirement, “should” is the preferred way to go but not mandatory, that is why she wants to avoid the word “guideline.”
[My apologies, I’m sure I missed this here, but this is what I think she said.] Noonan explains you have to get through a to get to c – if there are grounds to deny on 1 – 5, then entertain the variance for the guideline that it doesn’t meet. If it is denied on criteria #1, then entertain a variance request on 1, if not granted, then can’t meet the criteria for the certificate of appropriateness. Noonan says have to meet 2 – 5 criteria as well.
Maniaci asks her to explaing 15(c)3. and 15(b). Can they avoid the whole issue by entertaining the variance under 2 as an “addition”. Noonan says you can argue new construction vs. addition but there is no clear use of the term in the chapter. Since it is an “addition”, you can avoid the whole issue and look at 2. She talks about how it was drafted and says they can’t just write (c)3 as if it wasn’t 2. there. If they call it “new construction”, they can only entertain request for “materials” variance on new construction.
Maniaci says that “new construction” doesn’t say “new building”, Noonan wishes they had used teh term “development” which is a broader term, “new construction” just means new construction – she says that has more of a meaning to her than changing a door, she points out that an “addition” where they add square feet is “new construction” – not mutually exclusive, if they do define it that way, can’t get to (c)3 unless for “materials”.
Maniaci asks about the reference to the plan, and asks if the plan is binding? She asks how they use it. (g) says the plan is the basis for creating the ordinance, so do we go with the document? Noonan says that the criteria are in the ordinance and that is where you should focus your attention. She says it is similar to the zoning ordinance where you have zoning and neighborhood plans. She notes that what happens after 2010 is less clear but that is her problem. She says one is a guideline (plan) other is a requirement (ordinance).
Maniaci asks about guideline criteria 1, what metrics do you use for “environment” in the ordinance language? Do you look at FAR? Noonan says not a legal issue, she doesn’t know the answer but you have to look at the visually related area. Stephans points out “visually related area” definition is in the ordinance. Compatible with the buildings and environment is not.
Stuart asks about “undue hardship” language. Noonan says they shouldn’t rest their decision on case law from zoning doctrines.
Rosenblum asks if it is a financial hardship. Noonan says no. She says it has to be a hardship create by the ordinance. Then you might look at if the property is financially useless as a result of the ordinance, then they might need a variance, but would not go much further with dealing with financial aspect, also not look at outcomes of case law. Can be informed by general concept and since it is not spelled out and because it is in the zoning ordinance don’t base it on that. [Funny, earlier she was wishing they had used the word “development” which is defined in the zoning code and would have used that as guidance, she’s being inconsistent.]
And with that, Noonan leaves and they go back to questions for the development team.
DISCUSSION IN THE QUESTIONS OF THE DEVELOPER
There is a little discussion sprinkled throughout the questions, and a few interesting points, so I’ll note some of it here.
– Taylor, in response to a developer comment that the building is timeless says that this neighborhood is littered with wonderful architecture, but you didn’t relate those pieces to the building, she understands a new building standing on its own, but this neighborhood is unique and special and deserves more respect, instead of timeless.
– Rosenblum says the project is light years ahead of where it was, that they listened to input, pieces of it are wonderful, restoring building and plaza are great strides, but asks them to make a case for how the building will stand out by its sheer size, how does it fit with the gross volume requirements.
– Gehrig asks section 5 page 26 of the developer materials. Staff notes there is a typo. The architect points out a second mistake. They say to look at the staff report for the correct numbers, not the developers materials.
– Gehrig asks about why they are looking at various parts of the buildings differently. The architect says that she makes a good point and they should have been consistent, he also points out that the materials should have been presented differently.
DISCUSSION
Stephans says he thought he knew what he was looking at when he got here – residential vs. commercial – but he is sad to see mansion hill ordinance, which is what they have to respond to, that when it speaks to volume and relationship of heights and doors and solids and voids it refers to “visually related area” which has a clear definition – but when get to variances, then look at all buildings “directly affected”. However from what he sees, when he goes back to mansion hill plan, he sees a historic district that was written to defeat further commercial development, but the ordinance does not do that. He is having trouble seeing it doesn’t comply with everything, believes development and those in opposition are speaking from intent of the district, but that is not what the ordinance gives them.
Slattery asks him to expand on residential vs. commercial discussion. Stephans notes the guidelines are about the “visually related area”, developer has responded to that. Some of them may be a stretch, but they substantially comply. The opposition to this project is an attempt at, as was the mansion hill plan aimed at, protecting a historic residential district. He would love to make comments to go beyond visually related are, but that is not what the ordinance gives them to judge the proposal.
Maniaci interrupts but chair makes her wait. [There is much grumbling and eye rolling and snickers in the audience, as this has apparently been a pattern for the evening. Including interrupting public testimony by the 30 year city preservation planner.]
Slattery says doesn’t say residential or commercial., but it talks about “new construction” – she asks if they can’t have a commercial building that meets the criteria. Stephans says he says this is commercial and meets the criteria, but it is completely different than what he thought when he came here.
Levitan says if Stephans comments relate to the certifcate of appropriateness criteria– including gross volume – Stephans says yes, when looking at visually related area, he says its arguable, if go outside visually related area it is more questionable. Certificate of appropriateness has something different – thought he had it figured out.
Maniaci says this is the first time she gets to weigh in so she has alot to say, this is her district. She says she is hearing from neighbors in mansion hill and district as a whole, many in Mansion Hill on her side of Wisconsin say they are in support, but they aren’t here tonight and you don’t get to hear that. She says 60 – 65% in her district are in support. [I can’t help but wonder what this is based on considering what I have seen from my neighbors and on neighborhood listserves and items I’ve been cc’d or bcc’d on.] She says that outside of her district the comment is “just build the damn thing”. She says she went through the ordinances and thinks there is a path to see this building built. Why build this building in my neighborhood, why here? She says there are a lot of benefits, we’re not tearing anything down, not affecting any historic mansion, doors on Gene Devitt’s house is 1856, this building doesn’t impact the historic character of that door or that house, this doesn’t come at cost of buildings in the district. This is buildable, one of few places to bring in needed amenities for the neighborhood [visible reaction from nearby neighbors], it has so much green space, given the lot sizes and the way it is built there is no other place for green space in the neighborhood. She talks about the view down Wisconsin Avenue – this is improved and helps historic nature of the corridor, this restores what was lost. She is excited to get rid of 70s “VCR”. She says she has heard a lot of the suggestions on this commission and at UDC and at private meetings. They were told to get the height down, open it up, that the stair case is too much of a wall, developer has listened to what they have said [well, except for getting the height down] and looked at the criteria and meets it. It’s a good building, she doesn’t believe they are there to stop change and new development, they are here to stop tear down of mansions, this hotel doesn’t do that at all. Building is residential in nature, comparable to lots of density that is in other buildings with people coming and going in the other houses. To echo Stephans points if looking at the entire neighborhood, then there less density and having knocked on those doors, there are a lot of people there. She has concerns about construction and traffic, but she can work through that, she wants to be in support of the building, but wants to come back in 50 years and say it is a great decision to make. You also have to acknowledge this is a commercial site, its is a hotel, there will be changes and additions – not stagnant. She has a problem with the suggestion of taking out the trees. She says she told the developer they need to build an efficient building [That was her major concern??] and the more they are pushed on that the building is better, doesn’t want to see massive stretched out building along the lakefront. She says she has lots of notes about language and ordinance, but thinks did a good job. [Psst, your job here is to read the ordinance language and express why it meets or doesn’t meet the ordinance – this is a nice speech for the council floor, but not for Landmarks.] She understands it is a big building, they will argue about a 4-story building down the road and people will say that’s too big, she points to a picture in section 5 – pg24. She compares Kennedy to 2 Langdon, it’s pretty relevant. A lot of the neighbors have been working hard on this, appreciates what they are working on, it made her and the developer go back and question things, this is better than 6 months ago. She has a problem with people coming in with proposals on cocktail napkins with their version of the site, she can’t do what ifs, this is the proposal before us. She stressed a lot of things along the way, haven’t talked about the design of the original intent of the building – she thinks they did a smart job with the rooftop glass, very excited to have that in her district, especially when look at success of Overture, might be a neat attribute that you look back in 50 years and say roof top gardens is what they built during our time. She is excited for the project, there are a lot of crummy things in her neighborhood and it can bring lots of good things to the neighborhood and will still respect the old mansions – the neighborhood is not compromised, if you have design suggestions on architecture they should bring those up. She is happy to be at this point, this is a project she can support.
[There you have it, seemingly unconditional support.]
Slattery asks about the gross volume requirement in the ordinance. Maniaci points to the “environments” language, the FAR, the site as a whole. She says there is no apple to apple comparison when you look at Kennedy Manor and 2 Langdon you are all over – she says she struggled with it as well. She asks how do we determine gross volume? She says it is arbitrary here, we need to figure it out. [Well good, it needs to be figured out to see if it meet the ordinance, but then how can you give it your unconditional support without doing that work?]
Stephans says that he likes what they are doing – the tower is too big, it’s his perception, but when reads the gross volume, its improved, developer listened and has been progressive, looks at site of development and gross volume of the site – and then the visually related area, which is what they are restricted to, can’t wander outside of it, when look at that area, gross volume is compatible with buildings and environment. He says the visually related area is not restricted to the buildings. You have developable area where they reduced volume, which contributes to developable mass for the entire site. He points out that when you look from the lake, original building is pretty bad and with the new building you don’t have same perspective impact. Doesn’t like the tower or its development, good architecture, if went into a residential neighborhood not good, but that is not what ordinance says.
Levitan asks applicant about difference in perspectives in the materials that they were provided. He points out that one is horizon at one level and the other at a different level. He asks them to look at the horizon where it meets the 40s tower.
The architect, to his credit, for the second time tonight, instead of making something up, says he can’t explain it. He says they built a computer model, which is accurate, the professional renderer did the pictures, so, it’s possible that these two are not at the same point. He says there are three variables, the model is accurate, if the rendered played with where he is in the model have to look at it.
Levitan asks about the stair and the tower – stairs are too wide. Again, for the third time, the architect says he’s not not sure about that. He says the building is 60 feet wide, stair is 18 feet average, is that more than 1/3 of that? He leaves that as a question, but notes, gain, the computer model is hard line wireframe model, that accuracy he will attest to, rendering and then you lose some accuracy, if lay computer model over it you might find discrepancies.
Dunn says that focused on the development of the images in the computer model, challenge for the model and in their rendering is that 2 Langdon is likely set too low in its relationship to the existing building in the rendering. He doesn’t have plans and elevations of 2 Langdon, working to confirm that, brick line says photo is one floor different.
Maniaci asks if the rendering was supposed to match the photo? Manfredi (the architect) says photo and rendering are hard to compare, one is a photo, one is a rendering, I don’t think we are exactly in the same place.
Dunn says they are relatively the same, one is not 18 feet up in the air.
Architect says you can rely on the two dimensional drawings, when get into the rendering, you have an artist, you lose some accuracy.
Supple says that the buildings establish and frame 132 feet says supple. [See what I mean about them sitting at the table and just being able to chime in? That’s awful.]
Slattery says that she is looking at the language in the ordinance more literally and at the size of the tower and the size of the buildings, when look at the numbers and stats, its bigger.
Gehrig holds up pieces of paper that she used to measure the volume of the buildings and holds up the extra pieces that represent the extra volume. She says she did that and used math, did comparisons and found that the new building is 3, 8, 16 and 10 times bigger than the other buildings in the visually related area.
Maniaci asks about the “environment”. Gehrig says she has been hung up on building’s volume and again points to the huge differences with her left over paper that demonstrates the volume of the buildings.
Levitan asks if there is any standard beyond #1 that is not satisfied – is it only gross volume people are concerned about.
Gehrig says she is concerns about #5 related to the 40s building. She says it is visually related – staff says that they looked at it the way it was interpreted before, other buildings in the area don’t count, but that is not what the ordinance says, the ordinance says buildings in visually related area – staff report didn’t include it, applicants saying it should be included it in their comparison,
Stephans says it is an existing building in the 200 foot area.
Maniaci says to look at the volume of 40s and 70s building volume.
Levitan says directional expression, not volume.
Only Gehrig is concerned with 5 so they move on.
Maniaci says that when it comes to the criteria in the certificate vs. variance, Maniaci says it’s the environment, open space around the building, excluding open space to the east which is currently all trees that people won’t interact with it. [Not sure what the point was, but that wasn’t her fault, I think it was mine.]
Levitan says she should assume a big building will be where the trees are in the future.
Maniaci says not looking at the right of way, top of 70s building and space opening up there as it relates to the building. She talks about the BUILD and TLNA plan where there are big buildings on East Washington and how they step down, given what they are doing on 70s building, there is space to step back and keep the right of way and view corridor open and not make people feel boxed in.
Levitan says he’s not sure why Stephans thinks variance and certificate criteria are different – why see as meeting certificate but not variance? All buildings directly affected by the project and visually related area.
Maniaci says NGL.
Staphans talks about a house in the neighborhood and comments from neighbors, he says it’s a residential district and intent was to project residential area, if no 40s and 70s building it’s a different conversation, but we have them, the three commercial buildings, they excuse the three buildings commercial buildings in the plan – not moving toward them, but accepted them.
Levitan says that last line in 15a, “directly affected” and “visually related area”. He asks what is “directly”? NGL is directly affected, but mansion 3 blocks away are not directly affected.
Stephans says it is arguable, based on intent of the plan.
Maniaci points out the purpose and intent statement on the district language – none of the residential language is there.
Taylor says that old Edgewater was a commercial building, there are 3 unusual buildings, reads from plan – they almost exclude them.
Maniaci says the Edgewater is also included where listed the buildings.
Stephans says they don’t address residential – intent not translated into the ordinance and the developer has responded to the ordinance and that is what they must enforce. Several arguable points, still like to see them.
Taylor is stuck on the volume, even tho the 610 building is there, in reality you do have (e).
Levitan says the tower is too big, but not perceived except from lake, for all intents and purposes it is the tower we are talking about.
Rosenblum talks about testimony from the skipper of the boat that talked about how one lake has an industrial feel and view from lake and if going to look at visually related area, have to look at if from the lake as well, it was a residential lake.
Gehrig says it has a soft shoreline vs. hard shoreline of lake Monona. She says that as much as they don’t like 70’s building, it has the horizontal expression that mimics 40s building. She directs them to page 1 in section 4. Tells them to look at the windows.
Levitan tells her to look at the existing towers, a fenestration treatment at the base isn’t the building, the 40’s building is vertical.
Gehrig says windows are horizontal. Levitan and Gehrig disagree and argue back and forth.
[At this point, I’m beginning to mutter to myself – someone make a damn motion!]
Maniaci asks a question I missed.
Rosenblum reads the broader language in the variance language.
Maniaci says need to determine what “directly affected” means. [But still unconditionally supports the project?]
Gehrig says all the buildings will be affected, people who live in the district feel threatened.
Levitan asks that all buildings in the district? Every building will be held to these standards. Council put two criteria, “directly affected” and “visually related area”. Levitan points out NGL is not “visually related” but it is “directly affected”. They would have said different if they meant it.
Stephans says that variance language is broader, also intent of the ordinance is broader.
Stuart asks if they are supposed to look at the district language or broader ordinance language? [Wouldn’t it be nice if the city attorney had stayed to help them work through this, instead of throwing them to the wolves . . . she is seriously neglecting her job by going home. None of the other staff do that in the middle of a controversial project, in fact, planning staff had three staff people there to cover all the issues. What happens if this goes to court and it is based on something that happens that might have been prevented had she been there. She just cost the taxpayer a shitload of money.]
Levitan points out that if you look at the general language, it meets the language requirements. The only questionable one is the property values, it meets other criteria.
Maniaci says she has no problem with a – g and pg 1 section 5.
Gehrig points out districts – have to protect the districts, feels responsible to protect them.
Levitan asks how you measure that, by how many people show up?
Maniaci says that neighbors that support don’t feel compelled to come out and sit through meetings for 4 hours, she says the same group of people coming to all the meetings, wants to hear from all her constituents, her job as alder ties to make sure everyone heard. [ooooo, the ol’ silent majority argument . . . seriously? If the silent majority is out there, and she supports the project, she should be encouraging them to show up and back her up.]
Stephans asks what the count is on who registered?
Levitan says overwhelming against.
Dunn says they asked supporters not to speak or come, because we’d still be on public comment. [Ahem, see, again, convenient he was sitting right there at the table.]
Maniaci points out that DMI and Susan Schmidt and others have shown up to testify and others have filled out pieces of paper, they are downtown stakeholders. They will come and at least fill out piece of paper, but they are not about getting up and grandstanding. [ooo, ouch. I’m surprised by how her and the Mayor so openly dismiss actively engaged residents of the area. It’s embarrassing.]
Rosenblum says that they should talk about #1 – which is the crux of the matter.
MOTION
Maniaci moves to grant certificate of appropriateness based on . . .
Staff interupts and says the registrations are about 50/50 in support and against.
Maniaci repeats her motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the project. Then she asks if this is the “initial approval”. The explain to her that is a term used at UDC not Landmarks.
There is no second for quite some time. Rosenblum finally seconds it, for purposes of discussion. [Can you see where this is going?]
Gehrig says that the motion should be broken up.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION
Levitan moves a substitute to grant the certificate of appropriateness for the 40s and 70s building.
Maniaci seconds. They point out that would make it friendly.
Rosenblum asks how does it get us any further? He says the developers know that they like those two portions of the project.
Clear [not on the commission, not sitting at the table, not participating up to this point] says point of order. He says they have to vote on if it is friendly to the body – or vote on the substitute. [On the one hand, I forgot to check to see if Mario had his hand up Clear’s butt while he was speaking, but on the other hand, if there was an alder on the commission that knew what they were doing, Clear wouldn’t have had to point this out and get them back on track.]
Rosenblum objects to it being friendly.
Levitan withdraws the motion. They are back to the original motion.
ORIGINAL MOTION
Maniaci now asks for a point of order. Do they have to vote on the certificate of appropriateness before they consider the variance. Can they vote on the variance first. [Damn, don’t you think you would have asked that before you made the motion – that is something she should have known and calculated before she got to the table and made the motion. I hate to point out how to do her job, but that was pretty basic. If you’re trying to get something passed, you should just know that. Sigh . . . ]
They say they could deal with the variance first. [but Maniaci doesn’t change her motion at all.]
Gehrig asks the commissioners if they feel there are sufficient drawings for the glass addition on the top of the 40s building.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT
Slattery adds to the motion that the rehab should be done to Secretary of the Interior standards and the staff can judge if they feel they can sign off or they can decide to send it to the commission.
Someone points out that two weeks ago they were “restoring” they project, now they are “rehabbing” the project.
Supple jumps in and says that staff used that term in their report and so that is what they used. [Again, convenient to be sitting right there at the table, and totally, completely inappropriate.]
Maniaci says that Slattery’s amendment is friendly.
Maniaci,[despite her motion and apparent unconditional support for the project] points out the need to discuss the entrance and the rendering on the Brigadoon room, which they saw for the first time tonight. She says they have to have a discussion on the details. She asks if changes to 1940s building should be approved by staff or come back to the commission. Maniaci still talking about “final approval”.[She doesn’t seem to understand that once they approve it, its done and doesn’t come back unless they make that a condition of approval. I’m not sure why she is confused on this point, but I’m curious as she seems kind of stuck on it.]
Gehrig asks about the entrance to the 40s building, are they going to build it as intended in the rendering or restore it as built. She says people are excited about the intent, and she wanted to know why built the way it is? She says the historic photos are different than existing building and she was hoping to see both options presented to them and thought she asked for that. [What, the Edgewater team was asked to provide information that they haven’t yet provided? What a surprise! eyeroll. Perhaps they should spend more time working on their submittals and less time on bus trips to see packer’s games.] Now that we are not restoring, don’t know if need original, not comfortable throwing it all to intent.
Stephans says that construction of original intent is ok, right now the Historical Society is building the reading room to the original intent based on renderings and that does meet the Secretary of Interior standards.
Gehrig asks where the rendering came from – she notes a picture she saw at the old hotel but it was done in ’78 – but cuz have a beautiful drawing we don’t know it is the intent of the architect.
Maniaci is talking to Gehrig, no one can hear what she is saying . . . so I missed a whole bunch . . . she says it was originally built as residential structure.
Dunn [seriously, I think he thinks he’s on the commission!] and maybe the architect chimes in and says that as researched it, the rendering is the original, plans and specs on page 12 of section 5 are more or less consistent with color photo – design work done is generally consistent with what was built there today. Primary differences are pattern of windows and far corner of building there are later renderings of the building like the one in the lobby 77, rendering building after the building was built. Keys on the original rendering because of the detailing. Dunn also says that actual photography to show what was built, if direction was to restore, the photos show what they would restore to, if you look at page 14, and better on 16 shows what was built on waterfront. Structure still exists, glass taken away, now are is more or less open below, interior façade that is relieved from the exterior wall.
Gehrig is concerned about approving it on renderings with drawings.
Maniaci asks how much goes to UDC and what they talk about? [I don’t think anyone answered her.]
Stephans says that if the criteria to build to is “as built”, then have to find a date of significance, need to be more specific than to just restore.
Maniaci asks about handing off design to UDC, which changes the building significantly handed off, then what happens?
Slattery says they are leaving options open to discuss these things later. That is what we are being told will happen. Bigger components should come back to us, entrance, roof top, Brigadoon room, then come back here.
Rosenblum says they should leave it to staff to determine if significantly different and should come back here.
Staff says they don’t know what the standard is, what does it deviate from – the original rendering, but they don’t have a solid image?
Maniaci says not enough to give final sign off on. Final construction drawings should come back, other minor design details approved by staff. If in doubt, goes to them.
Gehrig wants them to build to the rendering as built vs. intent. But, she doesn’t know what that means for the Brigadoon room.
Dunn [sigh . . . they’re getting a shitload of leeway here, unprecedented one might say . . . ] says can’t give rendering of as built of that portion of the building.
Someone says they want the 70s rehab and redesign and any major changes to come back.
Rosenblum says it will change after goes through process, so should come back.
Staff asks for clarification.
They determine they would like to see the later articulations to the plaza, minor changes to staff, major changes come back to commission. The changes should be to the Secretary of Interior standards.
Slattery says “environment” is not just that lot, doesn’t know where to go with gross volume. [There is confusion as they flip through paper, cuz that is the hard part . . . ]
Maniaci says looked at it in terms of the site.
Slattery says she is looking at it broader.
Maniaci says that what is in the circle in open and green space, and don’t count the right of way . . . there is a lot of space around this . . . doesn’t’ complete sentence . . . .
Taylor says looking this being at 2 times and 4 times size of other buildings, just way too massive.
Maniaci says a large part of Kennedy Manor has to do with the streetscape – the lower portion of this building does not do that. She says to look at Kennedy Manor in relation to neighbor, property is on the lot line, this lot at this location – that isn’t what the environment is.
Tayor says its not set back – neither is this.
Maniaci agrees. If Kennedy manor had a big back yard how would we look at it – open space weighs equally to how you read #1 – if no lot space, and trying to put tower next to 2 Langdon, couldn’t do it.
Levitan says that Kennedy Manor did.
Rosenblu says even from the green space perspective, this doesn’t look visually compatible, this is a big building, to say other small buildings are compatible doesn’t work, this is a big step up – that’s a big stair step.
Levitan says that every PUD is new. With respect to Maniaci and Stephans approving the certificate of appropriateness that is where we do damage to the landmarks ordinance, gross volume is where we get hung up the most on projects, it is where we are hung up on Holy Redeemer. As all speakers expressed, integrity of landmarks ordinance is important, district by district and landmarks ordnance itself. Even with incorporation of “environment” and FAR – if we say this is compatible, that defines our standards moving forward, that set precedent. When this building is built next NGL comes in and this will be visually related. The Certificate of Appropriateness is where we do damage to the ordinance, variance is different, intellectually this just damages the ordinance. Different analysis.
Maniaci asks about page 1, sub d – what is Levitan looking at?
Levitan says under 10(e) – 1 can’t be met. Its the Mansion Hill ordiance – can’t find that standard – approval of this would damage the integrity of the ordinance.
Maniaci asks about the variance.
Levitan says that approving it as a variance doesn’t damage the ordinance.
Staff reads motion . . . it goes something like this . . . they grant the certificate of appropriateness as submitted given the criteria subject to design details of 1940s building (top floor, Brigadoon room, front door) plus the 70’s plaza (designed to Secretary of the Interior standards) coming back with other minor changes to be approved by staff, major changes come back to commission.
VOTE
1 – 5. Maniaci the lone voice vote in support of her motion.
NEW MOTION
Maniaci moves a variance under . . .
Levitan interrupts her to tell her what her motion is so that it will be made properly. It takes a little while to get it right . . . but he tells her to make a motion that commission finds that the project will be visually compatible with all buildings directly impacted and they find that massing of the project which otherwise not permitted would enhance quality of design and otherwise complies with new construction criteria . . .
They stop and play back his motion, note that he is reading the language directly from c 3.
Maniaci says she makes that motion.
Chirp.
Chirp.
Rosenblum once again puts them out of their misery and seconds for the purposes of discussion.
Rosenblum asks if this is “new construction” or an “alteration”.
Maniaci says they are not mutually exclusive. They say its not clear.
Rosenblum asks if new construction is an addition?
Slattery says needs to be under 2 under d, not 3. That is what staff say. So aren’t we back to c2 vs. c3.
Levitan says they didn’t ask under c2, only need it on the massing, its under c3,
Muphy says the clarification was a reference to d2 as an “addition”, in addition to c3.
Slattery is confused.
Staff says motion made is correct – but also have to add d2, and under d2 would allow . . . and they read the ordinance.
Gehrig clarifies it is the whole project with the same conditions as before.
Staff say they would give it a certificate of appropriateness with a variance of criteria number 1 pursuant to c2 and d2 with same conditions as before.
Levitan says enhancement of 40s and 70s building is defensible because of new building. Says “directly affected” are just over limit of visually related area, you can either see the project or project can see you. He says that doesn’t address Devitt’s concerns, he will be directly affected.
Maniaci points to the Ambassador.
Rosenblum says ordinance is not clear.
Maniaci says they need to define it.
Levitan says they can adopt or not adopt and that will define it.
Levitan and Stephans have different interpretations.
Stephans says it “directly affects” the district.
Maniaci says “no”.
Stephans says not under ordinance, but under variance.
Taylor point to the “beneficial effect”, says that some will look at the green space, but looking at the large building by a 2 story mansion, is that “beneficial” to the ordinance.
Stephans says it refers to the intent of the ordinance.
Levitan asks if it is landmarks ordinance intent cuz then its ok, but not Mansion Hill ordinance intent. He continues making his argument, property values is the one he might have issue with – reads them – he says they have to find all that.
Stephans says if they address the mansion hill ordinance which is part of the whole ordinance, they can’t be in conflict with a subset. He argues what intent it.
Maniaci says 10 is the intent.
Stephans says it clearly states the plan is part of the intent, it says it is “derived” from this plan, this expresses the intent. [At this point, all I can think is LEGISLATIVE INTENT is NOT limited to what is written in the ordinance. I don’t think a court would ever limit it to just the strict reading of the purpose section of the ordinance.]
Levitan says no other intent besides to be a district in the Mansion Hill portion of the ordinance. He says 10 a refers to 6 d 1 thru 4. [My notes now say “where the hell is kitty”, because a city attorney would be pretty handy about now during this discussion.]
Gehrig clarifies what the motion it.
Levitan verifies that that was a class one notice. Staff confirms.
Staff reads the motion which says to grant the certificate of appropriateness based on variance of standard one, pursuant to c3 and d2 . . . Maniaci tries to help – Murphy says replay it – lots of confusion . . . Levitan tries to state the whole thing, Maniaci tries to tell him how to do it, he indicates firmly but politely he doesn’t need her help. I think they finally figure it out.
Levitan says that 80 years ago, the people here would have urged us to reject Kennedy Manor, but as we experience it today it is legitimate. He hopes in 80 years from now this will be too.
Sattery says that yes, but are you are finding that the they don’t need to find the gross volume, now we are saying it is visually compatible under the variance.
Levitan says notwithstanding the gross volume, everything else is compatible.
Maniaci says no definition of gross volume.
Levitan says gross volume out of compliance, this ordinance we have to find them visually compatible, someone would have to harmonize those concepts in their mind – motion is understood.
Maniaci says sub one, wants to tell them how it fits.
Rosenblum says it is the basic intent of ordinance.
VOTE
Maniaci and Levitan vote for the motion, everyone else against, including the chair, its a voice vote.
ONE MORE MOTION – A “COMFORT” MOTION
Rosenblum makes a statement about appreciating the efforts, if doing something on the spot, it has to be a signature building, so more work to be done.
Levitan says a signature building like Milwaukee arts won’t be visually compatible.
Rosenblum says the signature piece is the plaza, tower throws it out of whack.
Stephans says gross volume needs to be reduced is his interpretation.
Levitan tells us what motion Maniaci wants to make, a comfort motion, that the construction of hotel addition would be able to be given a certificate of appropriateness with an appropriate gross volume. He says it is a nice gesture but it doesn’t mean much.
Maniaci seconds Levitan’s motion.
Taylor asks about the height limit in the neighborhood.
Maniaci says no, don’t go there.
Gehrig says yes, Maniaci argues with her, Gehrig says its not a PUD yet.
Levitan says their options now are to go to council and get Landmarks overturned or go to Cincinnati – or for the sake of argument, we should say what is the appropriate volume. He lists examples of how they could indicate that.
Rosenblum says that even with clear direction he’s not sure it would change – we did what we are charged with doing, protecting a historic district.
Levitan says to get to iteration 3, we should have an acceptable range.
Rosenblum says he can’t do that off the top of their heads. [especially after 6.5 hours of meeting . . . ]
Gehrig says she wants more of a balance between the towers.
Levitan asks if that is the tower and pedestal.
Gehrig says she wants is more visually related to the historic tower, maybe as high as Kennedy manor, she says height is her concern, she is not answering the volume question.
Levitan says height isn’t the standard.
Gehrig says they need to make the volume fit the height.
Stephans says that they need to reduce height and not volume – need to tell them what volume is appropriate.
They clarify the motion, vote unanimously and adjourn at midnight.
