This is part of a post that starts here that is a recap of the neighborhood meeting held about the Edgewater project. [My comments are in pink/purple again.]
HAMMES GROUP PRESENTATION – BOB DUNN INTRODUCTION
[This is much the same as the presentation at the Landmarks Commission, so I’m skipping my notes from the Landmarks Commission but will insert a couple comments from that meeting that took place on Monday as well.]
Bob Dunn introduced the architect and explained how they were dividing up the presentation. He said he was going to describe the neighborthood context. He reviewed some history. Says he met with the Mansion Hill people last October where they didn’t haven’t any proposals but outlined their ideas, introduced themselves and tried to understand the needs of the neighborhood. Asked to work on ideas and present something concrete, that is what they did. Dec 14 they got a letter from the steering committee that outlined specific issues they were concerned about. [However, they never saw any proposals, they just tried to set out some expectations about what they would be looking for in a development proposal.] Dunn says that in the presentation they will try to show how they addressed those concerns. They said after the first of the year they were given a draft of the neighborhood plan to review. [I don’t know why he acts like this is a surprise, I’m sure staff told him about it much earlier than that and it was hardly a secret as they had been working on it for 6 years or something absurd.] He shows an aerial view of the area.
[Next he does something I don’t quite understand. He did it at Landmarks as well. He basically makes an argument that students don’t count as residents and that there are too few “real” people who live here, I guess he does it to say that he should just be able to do whatever he wants. I have no idea why he spent so much research time on this, but didn’t prepare the materials that the Landmarks Commission needs to review. He makes a real nuances argument here and yet can’t seem to understand the Landmarks Ordinance or Lobbying Ordinance – apparently those are just too confusing for him?? He just undermines his own credibility if you pay attention to what many have called “smoke and mirrors”.] I’m a bit unclear what the actual area boundaries of the area he is looking at, but he says that the area is 55% non-residential property [I think he includes the State St. and Capital area in this anaylsis] He says of the 45% residential, 94% is multifamily, 60% live in buildings that are 10 units or mores and that 56% have lived in the area one year or less. He says of the entire neighborhood there are only 35 owner occupied residents. [I think he excludes condos from this because they are multi-family, but again, I’m unclear as I don’t have access to his power point presentations that he keeps using.] He says that the neighborhood has diverse uses including civic and residential uses.
Next he talks about density. Points out it is a very dense neighborhood. [Again, he did this at Landmarks and I don’t know what relevance it had there, as they are looking at more of the visual impact of the buildinhg.] He the average density for the proper average density which I believe he said were 212 units per acre. He says that if you adjust for the number of hotel room that would fit in a residential unit the hotel is only 53 – 72 units per acre. [Of course, he counts all the open space on the plaza and waterfront in that calculation, so it seems kind of meaningless.]
He talks again about the demographics of the area. He says the area is very young, low to med income, percentage of owner occupied is very low and has been very low. Trend is that declining % of owner occupancy. Then he shows the blight study and makes an offhand remark that he won’t spend alot of time on it. Then he follows this up by saying he “doesn’t want to give message of decline”. [That was classic. It’s also why he makes it so hard to believe him. He plays too many games. He’s trying to be just a little too slick.] He says that they looked at the comprehensive plan and used several important guidelines from that. He notes that this is a collection of neighborhoods, says the plan considers this part of the Langdon Neighborhood Association and not Mansion Hill. [I don’t know why he makes this distinction – clearly Mansion Hill residents are stakeholders and he has spent almost a year rallying supportive stakeholders and holds them up as the more important voices, but seems to want to dismiss the stakeholders who live and own property in the area.]. He notes that in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan this project should be a regional attraction, have access to the lakefront, is infill development, is adaptive reuse, focuses on preservation, framing of street views and a creation of a neighborhood center. He says that the plan meets all those criteria of the comprehensive plan. [And he neglects to mention that the Comprehensive Plan took the dowtown area and set it aside for additonal planning that is not yet done.]
ARCHITECT
David Manfredi, the architect, then talked about the design of the building which again, was very similar to what they presented to the Landmark Commission. He says they find Madison to be an extraordinary place. He notes that is has a unique land form, he notes the relationship of the city and its core to the lakes, talks about various plans and says they are strong and powerful with the Capital at the center with bourlevard that connects the two lakes (Wisconsin Ave and Martin Luther King) and that this is the foundation on which they started. It’s about a civic space on the water’s edge. Knows street ends are important. Says its a mixed use neighborhood. Residential neighborhood with imporant axis through it, civic and cultural spaces. He calls Wisconsin Ave a “cultural boulevard” and says that the Egewater has a civic responsibility.
Manfredi says that the next most imporant planning principle is preservation. Art Moderne architecture was mostly in Miami and Los Angeles, not much in mid west. Shows the rendering of how they wanted the old Edgewater Hotel to look, not what was actually built. Calls it romantic, relates it to a cruise ship. Says much of that was lost with the 70s edition. They want to restore the view of the hotel and notes that the most sustainable thing to do is to reuse the bulidings that exist. Talks about Edgewater and Olin Terrace – publicly accessible space lined with civic building. Says this will get you directly to the water.
Manfreidi shows the site plan. Explains there is really three parts to the project, the the art moderne 1940s building, the 70s additiona and then the “expansion” [The 17 story building.] He says the roof of the 70s addition will stay the same height. Will have an auto court, plus publicly accessible public space, always open to the public but can be closed off. They will peel off the overhang on the 70’s addition. They will peel away the 70’s addition from the 1940’s art moderne part and will create a gap for the public stair. The public will have direct public access to the water’s edge 24/7. He shows building from the lake again and calls it an assembledge of buildings. He says the new construction will not mimic the as art moderne building. They will restore it to the original facade of the oldest part of the building. [He starts repeating himself . . . ] Elevation on top of plaza is elevation at Wis Ave. Not only will be able to get to edge of the plaza but also be able to walk down to the water. He shows a cut through of the building, ballroom and parking. Architecture is supposed to compliment old building, residential and personal scale. Not an office building. Its a building where there are hotel rooms – hence residential. He says people have asked him what style it is and he calls it – post war, beaux arts. Says materials are stone and brick and bronze colored metal. Shows straight on elevation from the water [Even tho I say the drawings from Wisconsin Ave last winter, they have yet to show them to the public.] Shows some elevations. Shows picture from bottom of Wisconsin Avenue that doesn’t show the building , just the view of the water with the building hidden behind trees. They then show a very distant view from the lake, where you can barely make out the project along the shoreline. Shows another cut through – 16 feet wide stair to the water. opening is up to 40 feet wide between the two buildings but varies. Shows two more sections of the current building and proposal. Repeats that there will be no difference in the height of the current building and the new one.
HOW THEY (ALLEGEDLY ) ADDRESSED CONCERNS
Dunn says he’s going to address the issues he has heard “over the past year” and what they have done to address those issues. He says there have been many meetings, worked slowly and deliberately to gain input to understand questions and concerns. He notes there is a tremendous amount of support but there are concerns as well.
Building blocking view of lake. Originally the building was 30 feet further to the east and in the Wisconsin Avenue right of way. [State law doesn’t allow the City to agree to lease them space in the right of way if there is a building built on it – but they can lease ground and air rights.] He says he secured the rights build on the National Guardian Life property [They are partners in the hotel] and has moved the building 30 feet and is now not building on the right of way. [But completely ignoring the required set back from the right of way.]
Preservation of the view out to the lake. He shows photos of the current view, then pictures with a tree or trees removed and says its an improvement. The building is entirely out of the right of way and view is opened up. He says you can now see the water’s edge from Wisconsin Avenue. [Wow, I didn’t understand that.] At edge will see entire panoramic view.
Precedent of the PUD and impact on historic district – He says the PUD in and of itself is a protective covenant. [Later, Brad Murphy says this is not true. Someone was counting the lies, said they got up to 15 and stopped counting, but I didn’t ask for the list, but this was certainly one of them.] In the future, the city has a process. If you read the zoning text, they drafted it to speak to precedent and that no future projects could do what they do only if they have land greater than 1 acre, are on a major arterial street, provide public open space of 1500 square feet or greater and provide access to the waterfront. He says not any other projects would meet that criteria.
Design. He said that they looked at pure renovation, expansion on existing propoerty and a much larger scale building. He says they chose the best strategy and direction in the proposed plan. [Best based on what?]
Public space. Public access to edge of building on terrace and waterfront “all the time”. [Well, except when they have private events and there is a narrow pathway that people can access but they won’t put up a sign indicating that the public is welcome there. Somehow, people are just supposed to magically know, just like people know now that they can access the stairs and roof of the hotel.]
Landmarks ordinance. Want to strengthen the historic district. He says this will stabilize and enhance property values and strengthen the economy of the city. [Um, that’s nice, but what does it have to do with the landmarks ordinance. The major requirements are as follows:
1. The gross volume of any new structure shall be visually compatible with the buildings and environment with which it is visually relates (visually related area).
2. In the street elevation(s) of a new building, the proportion between the width and the height in the façade(s) shall be visually compatible with the buildings and the environment with which it is visually related (visually related area).
3. The proportions and relationships between width and height of the doors and windows in new street façade(s) shall be visually compatible with the buildings and environment with which it is visually related (visually related area).
4. The rhythm of solids to voids created by openings in the façade of the new structure should be visually compatible with the buildings and environment with which it is visually related (visually related area).
5. All new street facades should blend with other buildings via directional expression. When adjacent buildings have a dominant vertical or horizontal expression, this expression should be carried over and reflected.]
Parking – can self park for everyone coming to the site. Highest ratio of stalls per room. He says the code is 1 stall per room and they are nearly twice that. [During the neighborhood presentation they said it is currently 1.6 per room and after they add rooms, they will still be at 1.6. I wonder if staff agree that the required parking is one stall per room, because downtown the parking regulations are pretty much thrown out and examined on a case by case basis in PUDs.]
Parking and Busses – He says 85 – 90% of traffic will come in E side of the building. Busses won’t stage on the terrace. Can be dealt with in management agreement. [Later, in the Q & A he says something different, that the buses will be located off site, which is different than the original plan where they parked the buses under the hotel. I wish he would just say these things up front instead of being so cagey about it. ]
Benefits – He says they are providing access to water front. [I continue to question if it will be any better than we have now, because without signage, it will appear to be private property and I’m not sure anyone would use it. After all, this is the current agreement with the Edgewater now.] He says they will be creating a place in the neighborhood, hotels across the country have become centers of the neighborhoods. He says they will be creating jobs, making neighborhood improvements, will help the TIF district, will make the Mansion Hill district more of a destination. They altered plan to add a limited number of permanent residential units to the plan. He says there are 23 people have contacted him ans say they want to live there – want to buy. He says there are only 30 owner occupied now. He says the vision and quality of the project has attracted them and he hasn’t solicited one of those calls. [Wow, the first time I saw the 17 story building I asked what they were going to do with the top floors and they had no current use, but were contemplating condos . . . its not like this idea just came from the grassroots . . . ]
