I’m getting spoiled, the meeting was only a little over two hours . . . Sorry this is a little late, I was playing with some recording equipment last night, to see if I could take breaks and talk to people and still not miss what is going on, it looks (sounds) like it worked, now, I just need to get more proficient at using it.
GETTING STARTED
They start 12 minutes late. I don’t know why it is so hard to get started on time.
There is a group of kids here from Glendale School and there are lots of people milling around. It was fun to hear the principal Mickey Buhl explain the Edgewater project to the kids and have Compton explain what city government does.
Eventually, when they get the meeting started, the clerk takes the roll call and everyone is here.
Mayor announces that Santiago David Mendoza was born this morning. (Mario Mendoza is a member of the Mayor’s staff.
Tim Bruer moves to suspend the rules so they can take items out of order and introduce items from the floor.
HONORING GLENDALE SCHOOL KIDS
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz reads the resolution.
Mickey Buhl says thanks, happy to get the kids here to see this, the machinery of democracy you might take for granted, he thanks the staff at Glendale (librarian and art teacher) and James Wautrous Gallery at Overture. Says the art teacher found out about the project the first week she was there. Pat Dillon here also. He says he was thrilled because if you went in the classroom when kids were working, you’d see the excitement you’d want to see each and every day. He says he wants to say publicly that Glendale is the best school he’s ever worked for.
The Council watches a short video on the project.
MOVING ON
That took nearly 25 minutes with the delayed start and honoring the kids.
There are no communications or petitions.
CONSENT AGENDA
(sorry, no links this morning, will need to look here if you want to see the links)
Tim Bruer reads off the changes first.
Item 59 (Bike Path Improvements on Verona Road by Cub Foods) needs an editorial change, should read district 10.
67 (1965 Ordinance Change for Edgewater) will be re-referred.
79 (Standard Specifications for Public Works Projects) is for adoption
80 (Grant for Dane County Parent Council) is withdrawn
9 (Removing someone from Allied Drive Task Force due to lack of attendance) & 26 (Grant for wildlife habitat restoration at Olin-Turville Park) they will record a unanimous vote unless there are objections, also 123 (Authorizing the Mayor to continue legal proceedings against Dane County over the 911 Center) on the addendum says Bruer.
They separate items 20 (MadiSun Grant), 72 (Appeal of Landmarks decision on the Edgewater)
Marsha Rummel takes off item 79 (Public Works Contract language)
Mark Clear says 72 does not need to be separated, just re-refer. There are no objections to that.
Thuy Pham-Remmele removes item 65 (Cannonball Run bikepath contract adjustments) for questions.
Mayor says number 123 (Dane County lawsuit) doesn’t need a 2/3 vote.
Clear says 123 does need a extra-majority vote because it is a late item.
There are no objections to recording an unanimous vote on 9, 26 and 123.
[Really people, not a single comment or discussion on the spat between Mayor Dave Cieslewicz and County Executive Kathleen Falk? You authorized the continued lawsuit without a question. I wonder if they knew what they were voting on since it was a late item. It’s also funny that the late information they received didn’t mention that it was an item on the agenda for that evening. I wonder if anyone had time to even review the information?]
Pham-Remmele abstains on items 7 & 8 (committee appointments).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item 2 (Edgewater PUD) is recessed and referred to a future meeting, which wasn’t indicated which one.
Item 3 – North and South Broom St resurfacing – Bruer moves adoption, and someone seconded.
Mike Verveer has a substitute, to recess and refer, says that there was an issue with the mailing to some condo owners, Board of Public Works had 2 public hearings and second meeting notice said the council meeting was the March 2nd meeting – he and city engineer recommend referral. That passes on a unanimous voice vote.
WATERFRONT SETBACK ORDINANCE CHANGE FOR EDGEWATER
Public Testimony
[Note, as far as I know, not one single person has appeared in support of this ordinance change. Makes sense, who’s going to show up and say, yes, we need dirtier lakes! Build more and closer to the lakes!]
Pete Ostlind is in opposition, speaking on his own behalf. He says he has spoken to plan commission before, but this change is bad public policy to separate commercial and residential. Some of the details of the proposed changes are also problematic. He says the ordinance is not based on zoning, but principal use. He says that it could be residentially zoned and have commercial uses. He also pointed out that this would apply to properties beyond commercial uses. He also says that the definition of zoning lot is problematic, there could be a series of parcels that are added on to. He says this ordinance was supposed to be about a few properties, but with the text, those properties could be expanded as Edgewater has done, he says there is a broader impact than initially conceived. He also says that lots can have more than one principal buildings on a lot, that could also could be a problem. He says the definition of a building is also a problem because they could be two buildings if portions of a structure are separated by a firewall. With that definition, the Edgewater tower is a separate building, and there are two buildings now, and if connected to parking garage and connected to NGL (National Guardian Life), there could be 5 buildings connected and one is principal buildings, NGL could be expanded to lakefront. Not clear that was the intention even if they wanted to only impact one site. Wording is open to problematic use. Suggests they look closely at wording and make sure only does what is intended instead of something broader. [Wow, that was a lot of issues and I hadn’t heard most of them before.]
Ledell Zellers representing only herself, in opposition. Wants to emphasize what Pete Ostlind said, is this really doing what you want it to do? Additionally it does impact on the lakes, this is a long standing ordinance you are attempting to change, it is limited to developments on the waterfront. The Edgewater tower is built quite close to lake. In the rest of Wisconsin, the minimum is 75 feet in cities if annexed after 1982, this was part of the city prior to that law. It does matter how close to bodies of water development occurs, disappointed that Madison is not environmentally forward thinking and not following best practices. The state says how close you build to lake is important cuz the impacts operate on a cumulative level. Laws are in place to protect lake water quality, aquatic habitat and beauty. She understands that there is mitigation that can take place and will help, but increase of buildings over time will negatively impact the lakes. This change is better than originally introduced, but will still put development pressure on the property to change residential to commercial. Nothing will preclude this ordinance from kicking in on residentially zoned properties, the National Guardian Life property is for sale, all that needs to happen is that it could be connected by underground parking or a walkway and they can build an addition, unless the firewall language is accurate and then this ordinance will not impact the Edgewater tower. She says that given this land is likely to be sold to Hammes Company if this all goes through, the value of land will be greatly increased if the ordinance goes through, and its inevitable that it will encroach on the lake. Some say conditional use will control development close to lakes, but that is not nearly as effective as is a clearly required setback, please protect quality of lakes and beauty of shoreline.
Charles Dykeman lives in Monona and wants to share with you the City of Monona experience. He is speaking only for himself, he’s on the board of Yahara Lakes Association and Wisconsin Association of Lake, he is on the legislative committee on both organizaitnos and is fortunate to understand benefits of the shoreline zoning and the science behind benefits of aquatic (missed it ??). In Monona has discovered once you allow it, there is no going back, without using eminent domain. Peter McKeever (an alder) decided that the meander line they were using to determine the setback was arbitrary because it had no relation to the shore, he proposed an amendment to use shoreline as starting point. Plan Commission heard the proposal and concluded that while their current process was arbitrary and required variances, the proposed change was worse, it moved the de facto building line that offers protections of view. Their Zoning Board of Appeals committee allowed changes it if it did not block views of the neighbors, the gave right them a right as a matter of law. McKeever asked for it to be shelved, still has its de facto building line. He says this ordinance will start a process of creep and it will be a matter of right and it will bock neighbors view and they will have to add on or construct new. There are several ways to achieved result you want, he heard them says there were several ways for the project to process, you should have an amendment that applies only to project at hand and then decide if Edgewater meets goals of City of Madison.
Fred Mohs says last night he watched Target, there were no negative appearances by neighborhood. It was a long process, this is how the process should work said Schmidt, long and the project is better cuz of neighborhood. He is envious, they were able to work with the developer. We are estranged from the developer and are as surprised as sanyone when a new project shows up at the last minute at Urban Design Commission. Can’t we sit down in good faith and try to reach consensus with some supervision by the planning department. There is no logic for difference in setback requirements between residential and commercial, creep is correct, inevitable results is increase in value of commercial properties. Is this a good idea? No, but if you could reach consensus on what this project doing, a lot of this would be easier. You could pass it and repeal it, name the property specifically or spot zone it. He is not saying there is no way that we could support modifying what is the lakefront setback for this property with the right project, that is not out of the question. Normally that is done through teh Zoning Board of Appeals. He says that like Target, once they agree on some things, it gets easy, we should work harder there. This isn’t the right approach, he admires Cnare for trying, but this doesn’t work well, but at least you tried. He is inviting the developer and plan to sit down and put some hard work in and with a lot of issues stirring up lately – this is hard to do.
Gene Devitt – very short (two or three sentences), missed it, I was playing with my recorder, sorry.
Martens not in favor of the Edgwater project in its current form, trying to separate that for now and speak to the issue. This would loosen lakefront setbacks instead of tighten it at a time when the lakes are in trouble with utrification, sedimentation. The DNR recognized it and is tightening up standards in our state. They have recognized that the urban lakes are in the worst trouble and yet we are loosening the standards for this project. I appears this is about one proterty and if it is, this is worse than spot zoning, this is spot legislation. The ordinance as crafted, grants more than necessary for the one property what we know this is not about. That property only needs 25 or 30 setback, this allows 16, by decreasing cutting down potential for bike paths, walkways and overall shoreline protection. The shoreline is the most sensitive part of the project and this encroaches on that worst part. This applies to all districts other than residential, the property this is not about is commercial. He says that they should limit the zoning classifications that it applies to. As Ostlind pointed out, ordinance as written is loosely crafted and has lots of loop holes. He is an architect and has played the role of developer and when in that role you are trying to maximize your own gains, you look hard for loopholes, they are always there somewhere or another and it would appear this ordinance crafted in haste and would allow loopholes, lets tighten it up somehow even if for just one property, would recommend referral, run it through zoning experts and ZCRAC (Zoning Code Rewrite Advisory Committee), perhaps already has been but not look like it in current form.
Scott Thornton – president of Marquette Neighborhood Assocaiton, not a whole lot to add about the environmental impact of this broad change to the zoning code as it relates to the shoreline setback. Primarily that is the concern of his neighborhood association. What would it mean in their neighborhood? They have commercial properties on Lake Monona that could be affected. Properties could be creeping into residential and historic districe. And know what some people think of historic districts, and that won’t save these properties so if you allow commercial properties to build randomly close, without looking at it closely, parcel by parcel, project by project setting bad percent for city, that is the neighborhoods concerns.
Fae Dremock (I missed a bit of the beginning) – We have a problem in this area, our lakes are not well protected. The surface water is not well protected, the aquifer is not well protected. And we are looking at a regressive change to allow for commercial development. This should not be done without environmental impact studies. But over and above that, the discussion at plan commission was to allow the Edgewater to develop up to 16 feet of the shoreline. The change in the ordinance, creep was not discussed, but supported by sponsor, this has implications beyond that and should be further discussed.
Eric Sundquist – neither in support or opposition – says he’s a plan commission member, wants to bring the perspective of one member. Some of what he will say is objective facts some opinion, he says that issue of the existing ordinance was that it clearly has some problems. In the zoning rewrite process has gotten to point where there is a hole in it for non-residential setback, they were not doing away with it, just not addressed. This project created an urgency, problem is that setbacks are random in non-residential areas, if you average it out and come up with number there is an issue of creep if average over time. The average goes down and gets more development over time – not noticeable in commercial, but they see it in residential areas. Another issue is that the ordinance addressed principal structures, not pavement and impermeable surfaces, that is what they were looking at at the zoning rewrite committee and they wanted to address lot coverage and vegetation, that is where they were, but not ready yet. There is a lot of work to be done, but the hotel project came and we had to deal with it. Some plan commissioners thought they should stick with the current regime, not change for one project, majority or himself thought it was reasonable if address irrationality in current system and be at least as protective of lakes as now, that is what their version did but it needed some work. It drew a line in the sand for existing buildings, drew a line but couldn’t go further, those with deep setback couldn’t move up until ZRAC was done. He supported it, but he has an issue with new version cuz it gives the weaker of two standards, existing or average whatever is last. Doesn’t meet his second reason for supporting the ordinance, not as protective as it is now, might be fine to amend the ordinance, they need a line in the sand to avoid creep and give a nod toward where going with ZCRAC with protection along the lake, maybe 75 feet should be the line. Should also have limit on size, perhaps 20% of linear lakefront, he is neither for or against, just some thoughts for you to consider. Thank you.
38 registrants in support, 1 in opposition
[Labor was here, the guys were busy telling dirty jokes as I was getting money out of the ATM in the lobby, they were instructed to just stay a little while and they could be out of there by 6:45. By the time the issue came up, there may have been 3 or 4 supporters left. I’d be interested to see the registration forms. Amy Supple was also there an left, I’m guessing they had people from Hammes register as well, but not stick around. As I said earlier, if there is so much support, why does no one actually come forward and speak about why they support it?]
Motion/Substitute Motion
Clear moves adoption, it’s seconded.
Lauren Cnare says she has a second substitute. She says hers is not a creepy ordinance. Thanks last speaker for helping fix this on an interim basis, like lapping of water, this comes and goes and covers and uncovers. Her amendment is as follows in 1 b) is should read “For all other zoning lots, the applicant shall choose, for the location of any additions, alterations or expansions of an existing building, a setback from the water that is not less than 75 feet or the setback of
existing building that is being added to altered or expanded. Several people second it.
Cnare says she recognized the creep factor, it was a close vote at plan, for existing buildings they did not want to punish them if just adding to or renovating the building, they are already there. Also, they are still subject to the conditional use, that is very important, this is not the only choice, not the final decision, it sets the mark to begin discussion. Planning staff recognize that setting this could hamper future development – thanks Sundquist for helping her. Not sure what is the right number, what is the line in the sand, 75 is a line, 75 is for smaller lots and not urban, she is comfortable with it, not a line in the sand for her, could debate it. She is not comfortable to do this for one property, if do that they could just go to Zoning Board of Appeals. This is a start for the ZCRAC discussion, something to work with, its protective and flexible, it recognizes we are urban with little commercial properties and opportunities for further development.
Clear supports and thanks Sundquist and Cnare, he is sensitive to creep factor experiences in own district and for the record, he’s anti-creep
Mayor says “as are we all”.
Rummel asks about why if they only need 25 feet are we allowing them 16. Rummel pauses to make sure it time to ask questions of staff.
Questions of Speakers
None.
Questions of Staff
Rummel asks again about Martens comments that what came out of previous substitute was 16 foot setback, how get to 16 when they only need 25 feet.
Brad Murphy, Planning Unit Director says he can try to answer that, he says it doesn’t set it at 35 feet, it establishes a minimum and that is the existing building, if that is 16 currently, then that is the minimum, through conditional use and through PUD it can be set further back than the minimum and given plans submitted for Edgewater, they would have a greater setback for large portions of the addition.
Rummel asks Kitty Noonan, Assistant City Attorney, about Ostlind’s comments about the definition of “building” in the zoning law, he suggested not separate building but firewall would determine if it was a separate building and we could have up to 5 buildings connected, with this be separate buildings or one?
Noonan says she was not there when he spoke,[One of our top 20 paid employees in the city and she can’t manage to do her job, great. I really need a some sort of symbol to let you all know when I’m rolling my eyes!] concern is about whether connected and put a number of buildings on the lake.
Rummel says that separation by firewall would be separate building according to Ostlind, would a new tower be a new building since all connections underground woudl be protected by firewalls, will the ordinance as written do what intended to do?
Noonan says she will let Tucker talk about what a building is.[You know, she should just go home, she’s not adding much here so far.]
Matt Tucker, the Zoning Administrator, says that it is very complex, the law is written with flexibility to have separate occupancies for separate uses, can be connected but separate spaces, lots can be assembled for one development, very technical question and needs technical answer, flexibility is there to enable these types of projects to have an end result of a single larger plan for the site.
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff asks about last 10 years, how many time apply has this ordinance applied to non-residential properties.
Tucker says that they talked about it several times with Murphy and they can’t recall any in last 10 years, water front in non-residential property.
Bidar-Sielaff asks how many properties this would affect.
Tucker says he did a quick analysis of city and generated some statistics, tho he says they can be misleading because he counts individual properties like home site that are 50 – 200 feet wide and university as well as one single lot from park to village of Shorewood. For institutional properties there are 13, but UW and state Mendota Mental Health are two large sites. For commercial, 12 lots, and of that, they are about 4/10 of lakeshore mileage. For parks and open spaces and conservancy, there are 70 lots or 22.5 miles of frontage. There are also 6 undeveloped properties, they think they are residential, but vacant. That’s about 1/100th of lake frontage. [That’s quite a bit of mileage of lakeshore that will be impacted, later they say there are 35 miles of lakeshore, so this ordinance change will impact at least 60% of the lakeshore footage.]
Bidar-Sielaff asks about fear that ordinance will increase commercial development on the lake – what does it take to convert and does this change that process at all
Murphy says that process to convert a residential property to non-residential zoning or use not allowed in current zoning would not change, in order to rezone, the Common Council needs to approve zoning ordinance, zoning map amendments, after plan commission recommendation, where they need to consider standards and have to look at adopted plans including comprehensive plan, the common council would decide based on those same standards and plans. Adoption of this ordinance would not impact that process. [I don’t think anyone ever thought that it would, so I don’t understand why that question was asked, the real question, is the part that he didn’t answer, the part where we need to know if this will encourage more conversions. And I don’t think we know, which is likely why he didn’t answer. Only someone with a crystal ball that works can answer that other important question.]
Discussion/Motion to Refer
Verveer says that moves a substitute to re-refer the Commission on the Environment (COE) [It’s actually the Committee on the Environment, that was one of the recent changes as Rhodes-Conway later points out in passing.] and Plan Commission. Seconded by Rhodes-Conway and Solomon.
Verveer says he appreciates Cnare’s second substitute and thinks it is a big improvement over original version as introduced, his concern is that process of how they got there. For the committees that we attempted to send this to 2 of 4 were inappropriate according to city attorney. [Sorry, I have to editorialize here, I have never seen that happen before. I’ve never seen the Common Council ask for a recommendation from a committee and have the City Attorney tell them they can’t get that opinion. Thereby essentially ruling them out of order out of the meeting process which he has NO AUTHORITY to do. This is just crazy. If the Council wants an opinion from a committee and they all agree, then they should be able to get it. This is a very, very, very bad precedent and gives the city attorney authority that he shouldn’t have.]. They do have the input of the COE who unanimously voted to reject. They had concerns for the environment, but they also looked at the original, not the second substitute. He is hard pressed to support something as meaningful as this in scope when expert committee says unanimously that this is a mistake. Plan commission grappled with it, and they had a difficult time despite expertise and experience, it was a split vote, tie breaking vote by chair. The proposal that we got over the weekend as emailed is different than plan commission looked at and here we have another amendment at the 11th hour, its last minute, and could be a tremendous improvement but he is not there yet. Given the gravity of situation, the unanswered questions about harm beyond Edgewater and what it will do for lakes and environment, and given Judge Dykeman’s testimony about Monona, he is concerns about does this do as intended, he would prefer, since there is no rush, he would prefer they have one more crack at it, as well as ZCRAC. Again, he believes that before reopen zoning code and potentially weaken environmental standards, they should not rush to judgment. He reads the statement of purpose from 28.04(19) that says:
This subsection is established to further the maintenance of safe and healthful conditions, prevent and control water pollution, protect spawning grounds, fish and aquatic life by controlling building sites, the placement of structures and land users and reserving shore cover and natural beauty for all waterfront and shoreland development.
He says it sounds like a big deal to him, I realize really want to give Hammes something to show moving forward, the sponsors have been very up front, especially Clear, this is about keeping them from going to the Zoning Board of Appeals, they are worried about the legal standards and it being appealable to circuit court, and he appreciates the transparency, but given the very positive movement of late for the Edgewater proposal especially in the last several days, there is a new timeline with new PUD GDP SIP process due to the new footprint, and given new timeline that puts the council meeting in April, why not ask Plan Commission and COE to take one more look. It won’t delay the Edgewater, urges them to let expert committees take another look, would feel more comfortable if COE says it will not do undue harm, support referral, it’ll come back in the near future. [I admire the way Verveer can say things that I would say, but when he says them, they sound so nice. I love that he thanks Clear for being transparent about his motives to help the Edgewater project and avoid ZBA and the courts as it is hardly admirable what is going on here.]
Larry Palm appreciates the referral to COE, he was not there,[If Palm had been there and if he was appropriately doing his job, the Commission on the Environment could have had a fuller more complete discussion.] was not able to express his concerns, as a representative of the Captial Area Regional Planning Commission, they have denied many projects based on the distance from water and his concern is that City of Madison would be modifying its ordinance with quick action. Appreciates opportunity to talk to the committee to see if they can mitigate this, everyone can agree that most of what we do, any construction along lakes will have a negative impact the environment, that’s how it works. They will try, there are engineering solutions to mitigate our construction and development impact on lake quality. He is supportive of Edgewater as a whole, but does not want to set precedence that we can avoid, appreciates another opportunity for committee to review especially with potential changes and plan commission has some good ideas too.
Clear says that cannot support referral yet again. [Um, this ordinance was acted on in one meeting by all committees and sent back due to the deadline of the 23rd, it hasn’t been re-referred once.] He says what Palm and Verveer are saying is a case against us ever amending anything. [My tolerance for pain is quickly eroding here, what the hell is he talking about? Referral is a case against amending ordinances? My head hurts every time this guy starts twisting logic.] We get the big bucks to make the decisions to move it forward, changes are good and proposal does not need yet another round of committees to make the changes. We are not losing the conditional use process, plan commission is still in place and can set appropriate setback. Second this is a temporary change, there will be a new zoning code and what the commercial setback will be we don’t know yet, even tho that was silent, and none of people who spoke tonight weighed in on that until suddenly the Edgewater propelled this before us.[Oh my aching head. I don’t know anyone who is happy with the zoning code rewrite process, its been hard to follow, the committee hasn’t gotten to discuss issues they wanted to discuss, the consultant is doing most of the work with little consultation with the committee, there are many changes and its hard to get your arms around and now ZCRAC isn’t even meeting. Who the hell would have know when to show up and what to testify about, the committee members and plan commission members didn’t even notice this issue at the time it came up. It’s a terrible sign of things to come, I’m afraid we will be reliving this scenario many times with the Zoning Code Rewrite unless something different happens.] Time for us to vote on this and decide on if this is good policy.
Judy Compton not opposed to referral when something to refer, we can throw around words like protect the environment and wildlife, if argue against something we can throw as many words as we can throw. The current building on his site is detrimental to the environment, we have an old standard, the runoff pis bad now, through design we can correct the drainage, protect the water table and deal with waterfront issues, these have been left undealt with since 1900 [She’s being really hard to follow, I didn’t type what she said so much as what I think she meant, kinda.] Even properties on lakefront now, I listened to man from Monona, we had a lot of problems with dead fish and environmental issue with Lake Monona that had nothing to do with waterfront property, had to do with drainage, this property we can start to improve environment – neaten it up – actually do what we know how to do in 2010 whether building is improved or not, as far as zoning issues, bandied about for several years, this isn’t a last minute quick fix.[Head. Hurting. Again. What the hell is her basis for saying that? The plan commission decided soemthing on the 15th, the new language was sent on the 19th, and new language presented again on the 23rd. That sounds last minute to me and hasn’t been vetted by any committee.] They are looking at one property, zoning code is changing, this won’t affect every property built on waterfront, we have a wise plan commission and UDC and people who are guardians of that are there and if they feel Edgewater doesn’t meet guidelines it won’t pass it. Clear was thoughtful,[Except that both is first ordinance change, and the second were both shot down because they didn’t work.] Cnare did a good job to amend to take care of concerns of committee[That, I’ll agree with] – don’t refer, move forward and deal with Edgewater.
Brian Solomon thanks Cnare, feels it is an improvement, closer to comfort, agrees with Verveer, torn does feel like if we are really doing this as a single issue for one project, we don’t know what broader implications and if not, what is the hurry? We have a Plan Commission that deadlocked and COE was unanimous against, it is up to us to decide on Edgewater and he’s ok with overturning commission and not abide by every decision, but with a a deadlocked Plan Commission and a unanimous COE it is enough to say hold off, what’s the rush, referral makes sense. Significant difference in what looking at now, would give us more comfort but wants to hear from the committees and hear that it won’t create long term damages for one of our most vital resources. If you had asked me what the most significant issue in city was when I ran, on where the vast majority of resident agrees but we are all almost powerless to effect it is the quality of the lakes and if even there is even the slightest change to have a negative impact wouldn’t we want to get it right.[No kidding.]
Cnare says that she has a questions, but prefaces it with a statement that she’d like to be able to say she is new [I think that might have been a dig at a particular alder, you think? There was audible laughter from a few of the alders] but she doesn’t know how the COE works, she asks if one of the alders on the committee could tell her, do they have standards, would they do research or a study that would help her decide what they need to do – she says she doesn’t know what they do.
Palm says he is the only alder and that they are not experts despite what Verveer said. They are citizens and have cross appointments with the Water Utility, Solid Waste and Board of Public Works. They look at issues, in his many years on the committee haven’t dealt with land use issues, prior to this they were working on the plastic bag ordinance, road salt, air quality due to coal plants. When you talk about expert notions, could ask for a more assistance from Plan Commission. If they did a report, that could be a time issue, he doesn’t want to hold back the project from moving forward, 3/15 is next meeting, timeline would be for us to come back quickly, just a discussion and staff or consultant input – not provide true assessment of issues in short time not able to be done.
Bidar-Sielaff says that she was on COE for Public Health when she was a citizen committee member, says that during her time there, no discussion of land use and zoning and she was not an expert. There are a variety of members on the committee – went to the meeting as attended most, and very little discussion about the item, did not foresee a referral will get much feedback, not a clear discussion about whether this impacts the lakes , not in depth discussion of the ordinance, they just said why fix something not broken. [Here’s where and alder doing their job would step in and tell the commission what the issues are even giving the pros and the cons so that the committee can make an informed decision. Staff could do the same thing.] She says that Sundquist just said ordinance is not good, he is an expert, [Wow. Plan Commission = experts. Committee on Environment = schmucks?]
has flaws that could create more issues if more non-residential development comes forth. [Sorry, I don’t understand my notes, so I missed some here, she was making sense, my notes do not.] She says it is not unusual to figure out when something comes up that we have problems, that is how we see problems with the ordinance and then fix them. Issue are very varied, towing, what we had in place was not meeting reality of our environment. There is an opportunity for number of kicks at cat to see what the proposal would look like, thanks Cnare and not foresee much change in discussion if refer again. Could seek more input, but having listened to discussion doesn’t see much change in the discussion, doesn’t see much value in that.
Compton asks Tucker how many feet do we have on our lakes that is commercial.
Tucker takes a moment, .4 miles of lake frontage, currently commercial.
Compton asks how many miles?
Tucker says 35 miles.
Compton says that a lot of people want to protect and beautify historic homes but every time it rains asbestos and lead flows into our lakes, can we do anything to change that? [Oh, wow. Seriously? I’m pretty sure my 1910 house isn’t washing lead and asbestos into the lake. Is yours?]
They could say that every house on lake has to be pristine pure, they are destroying our environment, if their roof pitches are not correct and lawn not manicured,[Oh dear, does she realize what she is saying?] they are jeopardizing our environment and lakes with property that isn’t new. Again going to say it, we have the ability to set guidelines on development of the building that will ensure that the property for generations to come will protect environment, enhance it, not continue to run sludge and ? to our lakes. If it (Edgewater) is too tall, too short, whatever, pass it and go on so intelligent committees have something to work with, will vote for it, will go forward wants to see it move and make something positive out of it.
Steve King says that this is another referral, they discredited idea that this should go back to COE. Plan Commission is very busy, language is superior to what Sundquist voted for and like them to dedicate time to Edgewater project itself, already deliberated this for a long time, this issue at hand is better, move this part forward and move on to project.
Rummel says that this is either about Edgewater or not, if its about Edgewater then might work, if not about Edgewater then of the 12 commercial props 2 are in district 6, Elks and Machinery Row is right at the lake, so right away, one could be in play any time, it worries her, can see why a bigger issue. We are moving positively on Edgewater and let this one go, I understand need to say moving, we are moving and hope that you realize that this existing setback isn’t the answer, this is answer for Edgewater, not policy, her Neighborhood Association is against it, people who didn’t care about the Edgewater were alarmed when they heard about htis, this has awakened other people who care about our lakes, Edgewater is not on the table now, why not refer, put it all in one package.
Satya Rhodes-Conway says that her strongest preference is to refer to ZCRAC where it belongs, and she says she will not give you the full version of the rant about how upset she is that they did not discuss this, and they won’t reconvene and they will never discuss this issue, but honestly we are talking about rewrite our zoning code, they committee was appointed to do that cuz they are knowledgeable and not letting them talk about it is horrifying. COE can talk about more, Plan Commission can and we can, note is who should be talking about it, that is outside of where we should be talking about it, she is upset about it, she has no options to vote the way she wants to, supports referral generally, but important for committee to deal with rewrite issues get to talk about zoning rewrite issues. [She should have given them the full rant, this is absurd. The committee was appointed to advise the council, they should let them do their jobs and the chair should call a meeting. At this point, alders, neighborhoods and developers are all unhappy with the process.]
Cnare offers amendment, she wants it just referred to the Plan Commission.
Verveer says that is friendly and there are no objections.
Michael Schumacher says as a plan commission member, we had a debate, it was a split vote, it was more a discussion of politics than substance, taking back to plan commission will not add more value, this has to end up with this body and be decided by this body.
Mayor getting briefing on Roberts Rules and procedure from the City Attorney. He announces the first vote is just to only refer to plan commission.
Clear says the timing issue is that UDC and Plan want the Council to determine the setback for the project and this ordinance amendment would do that and get them out of the round robin of referral to referrals.
The motion passes unanimously to only refer to plan.
Then they do a roll call on that:
AYE: Solomon, Verveer, Kerr, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Cnare
NO: Schmidt, Schumacher, Skidmore, Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Compton, Eagon, King, Maniaci, Sanborn
Fails, 12-8.
Back to Cnare Substitute Motion
Kerr says that given the last vote, she has a feeling not on prevailing side of the next one, feels strongly about this, voted against at Plan Commission and some of you have a couple motivations to support this, one is that belief that we need to make some decision in some dimension of the decision making process, understands that, others may also feel this is an improvement from environmental perspective, she respects that, she is not an environmental expert, but dhe doesn’t believe she has enough info to make that judgement, won’t support it. This is a work around, it is tailored to allow the Edgewater to avoid review by the Zoning Board of Appeals that would have been required under existing laws to that apply to all properties. This establishes a two tier development process along the lake, allows Edgewater to circumvent our laws, creates a dynamic to make our develop processes even less predictable, that is what we get criticized for. If a developer came in with 10 acres and wanted to do a shopping center and its just an ordinary run of mill project and the Wisconsin State Journal is not editorializing about it, it just a regular project and they go to plan staff and they say it is a problem cuz it needs a change to the comprehensive plan, it doesn’t have heat of the Edgewater. What happens when the developer turns to you and says you did for Edgewater and why are they special, we are setting ourselves up for that, she urges you to vote it down, our minds are made up coming in I know but feels strongly about it. She also feels strongly that this is not fair, people in her district who apply for variances and sometimes get turned down, they are good neighbors who pay taxes, volunteers in community and got turned down. We want to govern by applying laws even handedly from my neighbor to biggest developer in town with biggest project. She knows Edgewater has merit, wants good to come out of it, you are saying to mine and maybe your constituents that they are treated differently than Edgewater and that is unsustainable and wrong way to go, she’s not trying to put people on the spot, but she feels as strongly about this as anything. [Julia gets an A!!!! I’m not kidding, I’d hate to be a plan commissioner or alder with alot of development after this, everyone will be expecting laws to change to fit their project. It’s going to be awful.]
Clear explains genesis of the change was bringing forward change in new zoning code, they thought it would pass before the Edgewater came forward [No one in their right mind thought that!]and he says there was alot of discussion about timetable that zoning code was on and if it would be approved before this came before us and make the zoning appeal a moot point and when became apparent wouldn’t that is when he moved it forward, not a double standard, was going to be and could have been the law we would all be operating under, the new zoning code has different residential and commercial rules.
Mayor asks Cnare to repeat her amendment.
Rummel, asks Tucker about what Clear said, says she has heard both sides, were they going to address this or not in the zoning code, is what Clear said correct, or was it not discussed.[Good for Rummel for not letting that go, staff has been clear that CLEAR is wrong.]
Tucker says ZCRAC did not spend time talking bout commercial or non-residential development, they spent time on residential.
Rummel says that under the ZCRAC version they would still have to go to ZBA right?
Tucker says yes.
Compton asks what DNR recommended set back is?
Murphy says in unincorporated areas and lands annexed after 1982 its 75. For those annexed prior there is not a DNR defined setback, municipality has to determine mechanism to determine waht it should be.
Compton says less that 75 allowed?
Murphy says yes.
Compton says that if they don’t have the will or intelligence to turn down development or ask for more than asked from more before us, sorry to hear it, this is an intelligent body, we will look at every proposal independently, if you have a kid and they say “but you let so and so do somethign” you explain to them why this is different if you have to say no. They won’t say yes to every proposals just cuz doing what doing tonight, we need more credit than that.
Bidar-Sielaff agrees that on ZCRAC comment of Rhodes-Conway. Clarifies the amendment of Cnare, Cnare clarifies for her.
Roll call
AYE: Schmidt, Schumacher, Skidmore, Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Cnare, Compton, Eagon, King, Maniaci, Sanborn.
NO: Solomon, Verveer, Kerr, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel
THE REST OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS
#5 – Maple Grove development, they recess the public hearing until March 3rd.
Confirmation hearing of Rob Philips – no questions, vote voice unanimous.
Ooops, wait, there was not motion, Bruer makes the motion, someone seconds, it passes.
RECONSIDERATION OF #73, BOOTING PEOPLE OFF COMMITTEES
Someone moves reconsideration, someone seconds, it passes.
Mayor explains that removes people from committees and commissioners, David Tolmie of TPC did file paper work.
Move to adopt, no discussion passes.
ALDERS LEAVE
After the Edgewater, Palm and Maniaci leave.
MADISUN
Bruer moves adoption.
Jed Sanborn thinks this is irresponsible spending of money by federal government and city. Its solar power, already has billions in direct subsidies and more tax credits for business and individutals. $250,000 of our money in capital budget, $431,000 from feds at time when they face fiscal crisis, irresponsible, say no thank you to federal government.
Motion passes without further debate.
CANNONBALL BIKE PATH, PHASE 3
Pham-Remmele excluded to ask questions when read that, says that we agree to pay additional higher cost for the project, so would Phillips explain why lower and now 25K more.
Phillips says that they had a change in scope cuz traffic report required by DOT not required or newly required at time contract was out for RFP, resolution is here so they are transparent, initial project was $130,000, not $170,000 could have been done with an amendment to contract, but chose to to this route to get new contract, might have concerns but his belief is that the cost is extremely reasonable, budget for bridge is 3.2M for construction of bridge, would not be uncommon for project of this magnitude in 10% design so $320,000 so they were surprised it came in as low as it did and the price of $170,000 is in his opinion a very reasonable.
Pham-Remmele says appreciates that, but surprised, when May 21 2009 it was $130,000 and now accelerate design and pay extra, adding on, is it now we are within he $170K or will they be more hidden costs later, she wonders if $25K suddenly, have to find local funds to pay and $25K is a big amount of money yes when talking $1M for bridges, but the way she looks at the budget, 25K more since May and comfortable we just pay that, she feels uncomfortable.
Phillips appreciates that, consultant would not do it with the scope changes we id’d and he’s not pleased with the process either or time that has transpired but again, its $170K and that’s a fair price to complete the work. Scope changes occur and the way they approach it they define scope best they can and anticipate potential items that might come about and they are complex and occasionally there are changes of scope, can’t guarantee no changes, that happens form time to time but comfortable because it is a very reasonable price to complete these design services.
Pham Remm asks were 25K is found, where does it come from?
Phillips says that he needs to look.
Pham Remmele says saw it and has to ask, 25k here and there and it adds up and many times things like this on consent and people not even aware of that, not opposing it, knows good work, but wants some clarification and some kind of thinking about this so it doesn’t happen again in the future.
Phillips says funds available.
Pham-Remmele aks how the funds are suddenly available, if not needed for this what happened to that?
Phillips says the funds are in the in bike path account, not earmarked for a particular location.
Pham-Remmele says hard to determine how money is allocated, a few measly thousand dollars for district took her 3 years to get.
Bruer interrups and asks if the money was unanticipated because of state requirements which expanded the scope?
Phillips says yes, changes in scope – change is for state and federal funds that required more cost to the project.
Bruer says dollars in bike path account and budget line item and not taking away from other projects, additional funds from the bike path account approved by the council, right?
Phillips says yes
Pham-Remmele says mystery to her, how much re we putting in bike path account as of now?
Phillips doesn’t understand her question.
Pham-Remmele asks how much money in bike path account, what was currently in the account?
Bruer tries to interpret for her, tells her Rob is looking, tells Rob what her qeustion is.
Philips says $830,000 for cannonball, some for the construction of the path.
Phillips say that Eng other budget is $5.9M but includes sidewalks and some other miscellaneous items, would take him a minute to total it up.
Pham-Remmele asks if this is tax money or stimulus money.
Phillips says combination of funding sources.
Pham-Remmele says she will wait for exact number.
Mayor suggests they get it to her in an email
Brasser says bikeways are $610,000 borrowed and separate line for Cannonball bike trail of $830,000 of that $680,000 is borrowed and rest is from water utility for utility work on the project.
Pham-Remmele asks if that could be sent to her on email, would like to look at it and appreciates it much.
Schumacher says welcome to Phillips. Asks Brasser and Phillips if Pham-Remmele contacted you before the meeting about this?
They both say no.
Motion to adopt passes.
STANDARD PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS CONTRACT LANGUAGE – FOR THE TREES!
79 – Rummel wants alders to know that this includes the tree preservation policy. Says Skidmore and Palm might know that, but wants others to know. Thanks Phillips and Parks staff. Now forester and engineering will review trees on street construction and assess what trees impact will be, contractor will have to sign that they understand new policy, forester will oversee root cutting, better notification to property owners and fines if trees are damaged, soon will be another ordinance to deal with other issues. She is excited about this.
Verveer also thanks Rummel for leadership and advocacy, both Rummel and he have districts that were victims of street reconstructions with catastrophic tree losses, supports and thanks staff in engineering and parks and says this is a first step to avoid catastrophes we have experienced with reconstructions.
INTRODUCTIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Rhodes-Conway introduces the Wilco resolution, “because the Mayor dropped the ball”.
Clear intorduces a resolution to apply for Google Fiber. Asks who wants to sponsor, everyone does, and because there were no objections everyone is a sponsor.
And with that, at 8:45, they adjourn.
Clear wishes Schmidt happy birthday on Friday.
