They Urban Design Commission didn’t even get started on the Edgewater until after 9:00 and ended after 1:00. So, you’re getting a bullet point summary of what happened. I offered to let Bob Dunn write this morning’s blog if he got it to me by 5 am, he didn’t, so it looks like I’m stuck writing it! 🙂
GETTING STARTED
The chair Bruce Woods started by reading the ordinance. They asked people to stick to issues in ordinance (site design, traffic and architecture), not address landmark issues, economic development or TIF. Asks speakers not to repeat themselves and only talk about new things.
“20 MINUTE” PRESENTATION BY DEVELOPER
– Presenting for Landmark X/Edgewater were Bob Dunn, David Manfredi, Amy Supple, and new to the project Ken Saiki.
Bob Dunn
– Excited to get back to cored elements of design of project
– Hopes commisions will have a discussion with architect Manfredi landscape architect Ken Saiki.
– Hopes this is landmark for generations to come.
Chair Woods
– Asks them to do their entire presentation, then public will comment, then they will take questions.
– He gives them 20 minutes
Alders Mike Verveer, Chris Schmidt, Mark Clear, Shiva Bidar-Sielaff all in attendance, no Bridget Maniaci. The crowd is smaller, about 15 – 20 opponents of the project, one person neither in support or opposition, one person supporting. 4 or 5 reporters and City Channel crew, Mario from Mayors Office, 5 planning department staff, a traffic engineers shows up. Mark Olinger left after or during the Target discussion. No Economic Development Director.
David Manfredi
– Mentions that they just handed out “books” with last-minute new information [despite repeated pleas to not do that as it is not fair to the commissioners, not fair to the public and its hard to use the information if its 70 or more pages of new information.]
– He explains how they arrived at this architecture
SITE
– – Architecture comes out of this site, context of Wisconsin Avenue, civic boulevard, goal to design building of substance of civic building.
– – Building has certain timelessness, doesn’t mimic historic Edgewater, wants to take its own place.
– – Wisconsin Ave is eclectic architecture, history of american architecture and influences. That is what makes it an interesting street.
– – Wisconsin Avenue has a pedestrian context, base of buildings engage pedestrians, uses don’t.
– – They are trying to make an active public environment. Let architecture reinforce that.
– – Tells people to look in their books [Reporters and public have no access to the information] Section 1, page 6. They want to make connections, Edgewater is divorced from Wisconsin Avenue, want to connect with Langdon and water as well.
NEW BUILDING
– – Base of two buildings that line the plaza are connected.
– – Tried to create a series of outdoor space and outdoor patios. Begins on Wisconsin, steps down in a series of terraces, series of terraces along edges of building. Spaces that belong to a café, a pathway to public open space, serve restaurant, along stairway, space that is the natural termination of end of Wisconsin Ave. for vehicular traffic, purely pedestrian below.
– – Tried to design a building that subscribes to traditional street. Has a base, middle and top, but also has ins and outs in vertical plains and steps in horizontal, trying to activate the outside of the building.
– – Its about depth of urban wall, terraces and bays. Architecture coincides with the use. Wants people out on balconies in good and not so good weather. Creating a envelope of activity. Hopes to coincide with active public realm. Our primary urban design goal to create space that is an important part of public realm where architecture matches that goal.
– – Tried to design a building clearly distinct from Edgewater, not mimic it.
– – Create an assemblage of buildings that define an open space.
– – Says the book has information they have requested, but doesn’t say what, and says he doesn’t have enough time to go through it. [and of course since they just handed it out, the commission doesn’t have time to read it.]
– – Reviews some materials and says whey they are important, but it doesn’t make much sense to me without seeing it.
– – Says base of building has bigger openings on ground floor where bigger spaces are. Base is stone and detailed.
– – Middle of building, made up of smaller parts, goes from stone to brick detailed in a way so shows depth. There is a depth to the brick, it has ins and outs and depth and richness.
– – Top is lighter, more windows, opaque, building steps back, floor plate smaller, corresponds to program with residential uses. Trying to match inside and outside.
– – The buzzer keeps going off every 5 minutes or so, Ken Saiki hasn’t had a chance to speak yet and Manfredi says going to save time for him.
1940s BUILDING
– – Wants to restore Edgewater to the original design. Not a great history on what got built, but good history on the design intent.
– – Notes what is fascinating is entrance at top of hill, Brigadoon room at bottom. As pull 70s building away, create stair and restore base of the building, bring it back to the ground, intent is to rebuild the front entrance, build canopy as designed.
– – Says building has very horizontal proportions, fenestration of proportion of mullions, art moderne, horizontal and thin and curvilinear.
– – Says want to highlight tower on the building, uplight it, it has horizontal fins, make a feature out of it. Base of building will glow and be transparent, top of building with new story will glow and vertical connection between top and bottom.
– – Brigadoon room, same proportions, inspired by original rendering. When don’t have great record of what built, made choice to go to original intent.
– – Top of building inspired by entry and Brigadoon room, want it to be clear to guest and pedestrian what is old and new, distinct from old.
– – They used up the 20 minutes plus some already.
Ken Saiki
– Says just got in the project after last council meeting.
– Challenge was to make a space that would be used and active 365 days a year.
– Says that suggested that need some ice. Shows ice skating rinks and talks about sizes.
– Can’t flood a lawn space and have it freeze, space under is warm. This will need cooling coils etc. Wants to be paved as opposed to green.
– Changes open space from a rectangle to an oval.
– Says this allows them to begin to develop a division of spaces that correspond with what is in the building.
– Says there is a heavily landscaped area to separate the spaces and permeable space allows ballroom to come out, stair is public access to lakefront. Series of spaces separated by landscaped zones.
– If going to sit out there in winter, need heat, so part of design is placing a fire circle outside ballroom, divide pathways around, fireplace out on lakeshore, tonight you could be out there.
– His 5 minutes are up.
– Says looked at that space as the ice rink, Not the only idea, did some fit tests. Shows tables with umbrellas, says could do tai chi or yoga class there, the critical part is that we program it as much as possible daily, not always left to chance, on weekends or other times other things, shows 10 x 10 tents for art fair or vendor market. Wedding seating for 160 guests, 8 top tables, wedding party. Jazz at 5 or concerts on square idea. Engage upper level dining terrace. Dozens of different set ups, but wanted to explore flexibility of the space.
Amy Supple
– Interrupts to explain if programming happening, typical Friday afternoon, what happens when an event and how does the public access the space, so working back and forth on how to divide the space so when come down through the terrace, they can access the lake. Working on separations so people can flow through the project, activate it 365 day basis, but also how does space function when different things, how keep access paths and areas open tho the public. If wedding, still could have people access front area, which is an interesting space, great use of public realm. Wanted to make sure to make that point.[Seems odd to me they are first trying to figure this out, given they’ve been talking about it for over a year]
Ken Saiki
– Challenge is the public stair from Langdon to lake.
– Stair slices down through a canyon of sorts where 1940s building as descending parking structure and rooms create deep space that is rigid, buildings are there and exist.
– Says stair has potential to be deadly and not interesting.
– What makes the space humane is the details in the 15-20 foot high space on either side and modulation of the stairway. Don’t have luxury to meander the buildings, but wanted to meander the stair.
– Need to get snow out of the stairwell, offsetting snow dumping shoots on each side of stair.
– There will be signs above stairs so know where came from, hang lights off the building, capture detail and reflect what seeing in photos.
– It’s 9:55, Maniaci shows up, time is up yet again – they’ve now used up 40 minutes of their “20 minute” presentation.
– Talks about lakeshore area, briefly with little detail.
– Bruce Allison was out there categorizing and inventorying trees yesterday. Again, why are they doing this now, a year later, when that information was needed months ago.
– Idea for lakefront is to create a walkway completely accessible, devoid of railings, different experience, more rustic, more natural flavor to it.
– Create since you’re connected to lake. Tried to create a transition.
PUBLIC COMMENT
– It starts around 10:00
– Mary Pulliam, neither in support or opposition
– – Why the exterior is a white building, white limestone or marble, we have pretty stones, brown or pink, would look less shabby. If went to gold or beautiful stones, would make a huge difference in how relate.
– – Suggests that the bay windows are not appropriate because people will be able to see into each other rooms.
– – Hopes that they can arrange it so ADA alternatives are as dignified as the stair case.
– Can they turn a bus around in the driveway. Can people get to main building without going through the parking ramp.
– Peter Ostlind, neither in opposition or support. Has handout with comments
– – Concern about adequacy of car parking, originally well parked, now removed 38 rooms but 138 stalls, severely underparked cuz need to have up to 350 employees and space for public to use the space unlike other downtown hotels, no ramp adjacent for overflow parking. Looking at zoning standards would require 400 or more stall instead of 206 with valet parking. Need to see plans to see how functional and permanent that valet parking will be.
– – Discussions on the loading dock, purpose for loading in and trash going out, also stage buses, trash takes up one full bay, this is going to be problematic. Zoning text requires 3 loading ??.
– – Couldn’t find bike parking in the proposal, 10 in parking garage, if ride up there wouldn’t see anything and hard pressed to think they would go in parking garage to come up with one.
– – Public space, says there s a new version of public space, not one got tonight. Asks them to look at text to understand what text says. Need images of where public space will be and what will be public or private. Hard to tell from verbiage.
Next speaker went home.
Ledell Zellers
– Says Alder Schumacher said in email exchange about reconsideration, that he was making motion to look at more options and alternatives, and simply bringing back same out of scale tower proposals fails.
– This is proposed is in heart of Mansion Hill historic district, site design and building can’t be separated from that fact.
– Staff, landmarks came to conclusion too big, doesn’t fit.
– PUD ordinance allows some flexibility with compliance with basic intent. Too massive to be in substantive compliance with underlying zoning.
– Height is important for visual related area, comparison of elevations shows height of tower 3 to 4 times that of other buildings.
– Doesn’t comply with comprehensive plan directives to follow topography of the downtown.
– Materials misleading because makes it look like it is in a forest of tall buildings, doesn’t show homes around the site.
– Shows picture of inappropriate intrusion in the neighborhood and says that laws designed to make sure that doesn’t happen again.
– Ran out of time, hopes UDC prevents another mistake.
Next speaker went home.
John Martens
– Fact checker role. Will have a list showing remaingin irrelevant, incomplete and misleading statements.
– Bigger points
– – This project is too big
– – Connection to lake is weak and at utmost importance given place in city
– – So called public space is too private.
– This committee encouraged applicant to change scale of building, successful at doing that to some extent.
– Remember public context, public and alders are expecting changes, depending on this committee to facilitate those, scale is important.
– Public space is ultimately critical, right now it is public space, abused by current owners, is this going to be public space like a shopping mall, but feels like private space.
– Details in the public space are same as the towers, this is a hotel plaza not public space.
– Documents still not complete.
– Is this is a private space that once in a while public can come to, expects more.
– Connection to lake is weak. Stops at outlook, narrow connection down the stair but once there, what do you do? No place to sit, pier is in question, what kind of a connection is that really – will send rest of list.
Jay Ferm asks Martens if a picture they have on a board is more accurate than first pictures shown. Martens says it is not too bad, better than old one. Don’t need to be 19 feet tall to get that perspective. However he points out that railing not show on far end of terrace, wonders about if transparency is accurately reflected and says that it is still a minor telephoto view, not as bad as seen in the past.
Ferm asks what solutions Martens has? Martens says that it needs more greenery, more like a park than hotel plaza, far fewer restrictions, in documents before you there are many caveats not final, hard to judge, but direction of limitation of hours, quantities and access to public. Could you have a political rally there? Doesn’t think so, if public needs to be public. Details when use all high end granite and fussy European details does not feel public. It feels like if not part of the situation you are an interloper, details need to be loosened up and made more public.
Ferm asks about what suggestions he has for weak lake connection. Martens says that needs study. Connection needs to be wider but only in context of what is built and feasible. This is a big ticket project, with alot of public money in it
Bob Klebba
– Notes there is alot of new information.
– Surprised to see new developments with the plan, with the mayor expecting this to be approved in 4 or 5 weeks.
– As a resident and downtown pedestrian there is nothing to draw him down Wisconsin Avenue except to visit Fred Mohs house.Rosemary Lee, the eso-called 21st alder, continues to talk out loud and be a little disruptive, at one point staff asks her to quiet down, she loudly exclaims that others talk out loud when she speaks.
– The biggest obstacle to get to lake from Wisconsin Avenue is their driveway to the entrance of Edgewater, not a pedestrian friendly space, what is currently non-friendly space less friendly with larger hotel, more traffic, no reason that he as pedestrian wants to walk there. Needs to negotiate this space, not inviting.
– Ice rink space is interesting, funny idea given the budget issues that we’ve heard for the project – mechanically complex.
– All the rest of the proposed public space uses are private uses. Wedding, concert, not public space ideas.
– Largest issue he has with current presentation is the stairwell to the lake.
– ADA access, if friend just had a hip replacement, and walked from the capital in a walker, would they have to go through hotel?
– Also cut off.
– Compares stair to african casbah, don’t want to go there, will get pickpocketed. Exceptionally narrow. Became narrower with the snow shoots.
Ferm asks if he has any ideas for person in wheelchair. Klebba asks about an escalator or elevator access like bike elevator in Monona Terrace.
Fred Mohs
– First consideration here is the volume and siting of this tower. This originally was in the middle, then moved to edge of street right of way.
– Talks about various setbacks along Wisconsin Aveneue that are 10 – 18 feet, most about 15 feet. National Guardian Life (NGL) is 66 feet cuz of size of building. This block is 0 setback. This is pinching the view, this is what we don’t want to happen.
– NGL has many feet of vacant land, it is for sale, could be bought, needs to be moved back to 33 feet of setback.
– We already own the plaza, that is the public property.
– DNR says can’t build pier.
– Been walking up Wisconsin Avenue in the winter for 50 years, when you get to Gilman you get blasted by the wind, no one will want to skate here.
– He runs out of time, asks for extra seconds to give Dunn a compliment. Says entrance on lower level allows people to get out of car in comfort.
– Says neighborhood wants peace and quiet, don’t want rock bands or bongo drums around the firepits, people live here and will live right next to it.
Paul Shoenenman
– Need to widen the public stairway, not so much of a canyon, at least at bottom of the stairway.
– Wheelchair access is a concern, given terraces.
Missed some here
– Moving entrance to parking lot would be better.
– Likes seeing some landscape designs.
– Seeing the wedding there sounds like private use to me.
– Skating rink would necessitate something to block the wind.
– Seconds the elimination of 130 parking spaces in a hist district is of concern. Concourse and Doubletree said valet parking does not work.
– Would like you to look at 15 foot setback, in the future they can build to the sidewalk.
– What will happen on Langdon when residential propoety is sold for commercial development.
Gene Devitt
– Neighborhood is 164 years old, some parts older than Madison is.
– This is a residential neighborhood. You wouldn’t want to live next to Memorial Union.
– Mansion Hill in isn’t allowed to have drinking on balconies and no outdoor parties.
– Wonders why staircase is next to buildings where people live not on the other side.
– Notes that if there are 160 people at an event, that is 4 times number of people in the room, would you like to be next to that? Do you live next to a hotel in your neighborhood? Would you want to?
– He shows what it would look like when you have several buildings of same size on the huge model they had built.
– Missed a bunch . . . .
James McFadden
– A few reminders of what should be considering
– – This is a PUD, normally the whole site, including NGL and the vacant land would be part of that PUD. (Picture here.)
– – Second, you have incomplete information, rendering is in the center and cropped. Here is a pdf of what he shows. Please take a look, make sure to look at both pages.
– – Discussion is focused on deck, which becomes invisible half way up Wisconsin Ave, the building is visible from square and lake, can’t fail to consider the context, not considering it is foolish.
– Another picture taken from Langdon and Wisconsin, deck is invisible.
– Public purpose, its invisible.
– Importance of setback also shown here.
– Can see why the picture is cropped, can’t forget the massive piece. Importance of set back, look at how it expands the view.
– If NGL had to get plan approved 66 feet, just set it back 33 feet and get different view of lake.
Erika Fox Gehrig
– From Landmark’s Commission, here in solidarity with other unelected officials, wryly notes that perhaps you’ve heard that they failed to grant certificate of appropriateness.
– Talks about getting handed gigantic packet of materials the night of the meeting to help them make their decision, sees they got one too.
– Talks about criteria they had to look at.
– Says the gross volume of the tower is what really hung them up.
– Visually compatible is hard to stomach when you have a building 2 to 15 times larger than those in the immediate area.
– Says new tower is 3.25 times taller than the existing Edgewater tower.
– Proportion of height to width is something they should look at.
– Uses post it notes to show the differences in heights and width of other buildigns int he area.
– She feels that the direction expression is horizontal and lines on the new tower is vertical, architect feels differently. Since design is one of your things, she’d like them to look at it.
– She, too runs out of time.
Three others in opposition registered, didn’t wish to speak.
QUESTIONS/COMMENTS/DISCUSSION OF COMMISSIONERS/LAST TWO HOURS OF THE MEETING
– Q: Why is the driveway so wide. A: Fire department requirements. They may be able to play with that by paving it differently.
– Connection to lake was stronger with rectangle piece of grass than with oval ice skating rink.
– Would like to see green roof, concerned about storm water run off.
– Green pad was more of a public space, hard space does lead to more event space than urban public space.
– 10:40 Schmidt and Clear give up and go home.
– Saiki says that green grass surface would be hard to survive with the ice sheet.
– Q: Where will the snow go from the ice rink? A: In the planter area. Response: That sounds like it won’t work with the snow we have been getting.
– Not convinced ice skating rink is best use of the space.
– Q: Have you talked to DNR about the pier. You said you were going to last time you were here. A: They have not executed an agreement, can’t execute an agreement til know more about the project. Yes, project remains same with or with out the pier. Pier is not dead yet, several meetings with DNR, there are literally many examples around state where pier or dock for navigable use of water supported.
– Q: What are hours of operation? A: 6am – 11pm, same as parks department.
– Developers says that first starting to look at how public space would function and trying to understand and come up with best utilization of the space. [Really, first starting to look at that now?]
– Maniaci says asking parks to look at space and asks them if they want to see the comments, they say yes but explain they don’t need to see the operating agreement, they just need to know it exists or will be.
– Q: Could you do accessibility another way. A: It would take about 1000 feet of ramp to get to the lake, they’d have to switchback 5 times.
– Q: Can you locate the driveway somewhere else besides in the middle. It doesn’t look public. A: We’re looking at alternatives with traffic engineering.
– Q: What is the setback from the lake? A: 35 feet off water at widest point and that pulls back to the east with the shoreline.
– Q: Is it set back father with the new building. A: The cantilever that hangs out 8 feet is being removed. The set back is 0 with the original hotel, about 16 feet with the 70s building and 35 to 40 at the podium building with a 65 foot set back with the tower on top of the podium.
– Missed a bunch here.
– Question about if the public spaces are the appropriate size to be usable comfortably.
– Q: Is it the state or city that has the setback requirement. A: Staff says that waterfront setback established by city ordinance, average of 5 developed lots on each side, not yet established, they don’t have information from the developer. Also notes that these was an ordinance change introduced to change this.
– Q: How does city supersede state? A: For land annexed prior to 1982 city has control.
– Q: Architect on committee says he just did a survey for one of the properties he is working on and had the survey setback info in a week and a half, why is it taking so long? A: Supple says they will have it “tomorrow”. Brad says when the staff gets it, you can get it.
– Q: How is the 1940’s building set back from the right of way? A: Essentially
– Q: How much of a drop from lakefront plaza area to path below? A: 40 feet
– Q: How will people know where ADA access is through the buildings? A: It should be signed through the building, a wayfinding system from the door – won’t have to ask concierge.
– Q: Is it possible to widen the stairway to the lake? A: Interferes with ramping in the parking garage.
– Q: How handle parking? A: Valet parking for large events. Working with staff on that. Have capacity for 200 cars on site.
– Q: What happens when garage is full? Where does car go? A: It is managed within the deck.
– Q: Again, where do the cars go? A: Valet park in the drive lane, not self park.
– Why do you talk about liveliness of space and then have a blank wall on the stairway.
– Can you put windows, or faux windows in the stairway?
– Could have a nicer looking door.
– Manfredi says that one side is easy to animate, old Edgewater had round windows and can access different floors, other side is a parking deck. Could create openings, to animate it.
– Saiki says working on how to animate stair space.
– Q: If you came on a wheel chair up Wisconsin Ave, how do you get to the lake? A: Elevator in the new building. Also possible to go through parking garage.
– Lakefront space is rather narrow, can’t plant trees, is a walkway? Very few spaces for people to be on the lake.
– City has 6 foot easement, currently just has some planters on lakefront.
– Q: What happened to niche program functions on the stair. A: That disappeared when they took the two stories off the 70’s building.
– Missed a bunch . . . we (bloggers, reporters) were doing a little trade off with the electrical outlet, trying to keep all our laptops functioning.
– Q: What limitations of public access to they want? A: They discussed it, can’t answer it, working on it. [Sigh, seems to be the answer for the evening, “we’re working on it”. I don’t understand why so much is left undone until the end here and why we still don’t have a complete application.
– All space will be open to the public except the cafe area, the restaurant area, space by Brigadoon room and the area outside the ballroom and when there are events.
– Dunn goes off on the broader picture sayign things most of us have heard 100 times, they try to reign him in, unsuccessfully.
– Dunn says he’d like feedback on what they want the public space to be. Is goal to preserve the view or have public space? [I don’t think that is an either/or question.
– Dunn says city doesn’t want to develop and operate the space. [I don’t remember the council voting on that?]
– Q: How does it work when there is a public wedding. A: Public can still walk through.
– Maniaci says she wouldn’t want public walking through her wedding.
– Q: Who does the wedding party rent from. A: The hotel.
– Q: Will it be affordable? A: Market will dictate. Will need to pay for food and beverages.
– Dunn points out with noise issues they need to care for their residents and guests.
– Q: Do you know the lode capacity and the fire capacity of the space. A: No. Working on it. It’s better on lode capacity than old plan.
– Still concerned with height and mass.
– Question about design around Brigadoon room, looks harder than the original drawings.
– Architect asks if they want silver, brass or clear anodized metal trim.
– Comment that this needs to connect to the Quisling Clinic as they are sister buildlings.
– Another comment about massing being inappropriate.
– Don’t mimic the Edgewater 1940s building, likes references back to it.
– Still need to take one or two stories off it to fit in context of neighborhood.
– Concerned about setback from right of way, places on sidewalk line, obstructs view corridor.
– Plan needs to be more responsive to site.
– Consider losing a few rooms to set the building back and increase the view corridor.
– Suggestion to shrink the building and stretch it out.
– What does it look like if you are standing in the public space and looking at the capital?
– Top story makes an architectural statement.
– Concern about loading dock, brick or stone in future, punched openings or something.
– This is a building that everyone will see and he wants to be moved and inspired, appreciated the description, yet not awed.
– Building can be timeless, shouldn’t mimic, but doesn’t mean shouldn’t reflect other buildigns, this is a wonderful background building, stands there and everyone can see it, from the water, Wisconsin Ave and Langdon. Needs to be a building built today, needs to be bold. Other items like access to lake and public space are good, but building not there yet.
– Consider a different skin on the building.
– Suggest looking at metal finishings in rest of neighborhood for clues as to what the designer intended.
– Why doesn’t both sides of the building step back? Not symetrical.
– Beauty is timeless, one shouldn’t substitute for the other, will we want to rehab this building in 70 years should be the question.
– Discussion about civic boulevard and urban wall. Straight wall of capital square vs. back and forth of Wisconsin Ave.
– At nearly midnight, there are still four staff for the Edgewater project, no supporters except Rosemary Lee, 3 or 4 reporters, Mario from the Mayor’s office (who I thought was on leave), 5 city planning and traffic staff, Alders Maniaci, Verveer and Bidar-Sielaff, the camera crew for city channel, 9 commissioners and 10 members of the public still hanging in there, but most seem to be struggling. So, 35 or 40 people still in the room.
– I’m starting to miss stuff, partially because it is being repeated, partially because it is hard to follow without the book they handed out at the beginning of the meeting, partially because it is late and partially because some of it was a little too much architecture speak for me.
– Talk about making the project less symetrical, moving the door. It would make the building less rigid.
– Programmatically well planned, architecturally doesn’t respond to environment.
– Since reviewed packet last night, alot of comments are now unnecessary, plaza is big improvement. Hopes building can improve as well.
– Maniaci worried that they need to revamp and submit new materials by next Wednesday. [Seems like a near impossible task]
– Please bring a rendering from the plaza looking to the capital when you come back. Seems like parking garage will look like a big mouth. Need to pay attention to the garage entrance.
– Express concern that it is unfortunate that this discussion tonight was not help last August. Thinks some of the same things were said then.
– Architecture is still too heavy. Not inviting and engaging.
– Buildings should be more transparent, reflect the water.
– Top portion of tower too tall for the bottom, out of proportion.
– Praise for Verex building.
– Details are misleading as a period reference.
– Base makes new building look more massive.
– Consider it three buildings, not two.
– Looking at the lake view, what about view from the street. That is what most people will see.
– Building has a city side and a lake side.
– One thing odd I noticed, the Landmark X people never take notes at these meetings. Perhaps that is why the commission never gets the info it needs from the?
– They ask for feedback on the top of the building.
– If more transparent might feel like a cap and not look as tall.
– Suggestion to pull the glass piece down to the water.
– Likes picture showing night view.
– Need a strong statement for the top of the new building, like the top of the 1940s building.
– Notes progression in age of buildings as move to the east.
– This design should be newer chronologically. This is our chance to add something from our time as a major statement on the lake.
– The other building has tension and asymetry. The building is built on the edge.
– The new building feels like urban infill, not on the edge.
– This is the 5th or 6th presentation on the project, finally getting to the crux of the matter, doesn’t think that can be fixed in a week.
– Saiki talks about his view of the project as a city project. Says might be too much city beautiful, not enough 2010. But if go too far, he won’t know what to do with the landscape.
– Still looking at building from the lake, want to see it from Langdon.
– 12:30, finally asks the traffic engineer to share his thoughts. He basically explains there aren’t many options in this area. Driveway is slave to other issues like property line, stair, existing buildings, the grade and fire trucks.
– Maniaci says other option is to redo Wisconsin Avenue.
– Saiki says he will work on pedestrian connections with cafe and stair to take emphasis off the drive.
– Dunn talks about a bad idea they had.
– McCormick (Dan, from engineering) says that they might do something like the top of State Street for pedestrian interaction.
– Why not buy parcel in front of NGL on Wisconsin for the driveway?
WRAPPING IT UP/WHAT’S NEXT
– Next time, they will see more detailed plans.
– Q: At what point do we make comments on setback and larger land use decisions? A: That is for the plan commission, you could go there and make your comments.
– Q: Can this get done by the 23rd, how does that work? A: Two ordinances got introduced and sent to many commission, Common Council was asking for UDC and Plan to have this done by the 23rd. They laid out a schedule to accomplish that, but it requires developers to submit a complete application by next Wednesday so UDC can act so Plan can act. If they take action on the 3rd, Plan Commission can act on the 8th. Says a number of other acitons that also need to be considered on that same date, amendment to 1965 ordinance, waterfront setback ordinance, appeal of landmarks denial of certificate, might be missing something. [Psst, yes. TIF] Developers need to respond to your comments, complete the application and take action.
– Q: Maniaci asks if there isn’t two meetings this could happen at? A: Yes, but that has plan acting on the 22nd, the day before the council meeting. [i.e. Council members won’t be able to review their recommendation, it will just be placed on their desks when they get there.]
– Q: If issues are not resolved, can plan act. A: The ordinance requires Plan Commission to review UDC recommendation. Need more than just comments, need a recommendation. [Mario is shaking his head as if he thinks that Plan can act without a UDC recommendation. Brad Murphy is saying that is the law.
– Wagner suggests that they could make a recommendation, it might not be traditional, but if they only give plan commission one meeting to act, that would be unfair.
– Rummel sasy her sense of the alders wishes is that they want to do it right. They made the 23rd deadline to show good faith that they were trying to get it done. They should not feel pressured to move it forward if its not ready, but they can’t be slackers either. This isn’t a hard line in the sand.
– Someone asks if this can be earlier on the agenda. Discussion ensues and there is disagreement between staff. Murphy says the agenda is set by the chair. Al Martin the staff to UDC says it not fair to others. Can’t penalize others. The room just kind of exploded at this point, everyone awoke out of their slumber and got all chattery. It was hard to hear what was going on.
– Dunn suggests not letting the public speak.
– Staff explain required to have public comment on the agenda.
– Maniaci suggests they limit the time people can speak.
– Chair notes the speakers all stuck to their three minutes [unlike the developer] and on topic. They need to allow people to speak as there will be new information. Having them speak less than three minutes would be hard. Appreciates not have hordes of people in support. If nay sayers want to have their say they should, perhaps they can get together and not have so many speakers. On thing that is a shame about this project is how polarized it is.
– Maniaci says she will make sure they got the schedule Murphy prepared.
– Maniaci asks staff what is still missing. Staff says they have the list, its in the ordinance. Otherwise they should ask the committee.
– Chair says they have given them many lists. Next time when they are hear they can jsut tell us about the changes they made, need to be concise and not repeat.
– Maniaci asks if neo-classical is what they want? Or should they move away from that.
– One commissioner says that is not for them to say.
– Other says it is unfortunate that they didn’t have this discussion last August. Says the Dane County Court House had 8 or nine concepts when they came in, they gave feedback and worked from there and that process was good.
– Rummel says she doesn’t like to give initial approval without a neighborhood meeting. They meet on the third and the neighborhood meeting is the 4th.
– Maniaci says that they are working around the architects schedule.
– Wagner says they could do a special order of business. Staff says no. Public hearings have to go first.
– Discussion about what they need to focus on next time and what is required for initial approval. Site plan and massing. Skin can change. Others think it is all inter-related because of the heavy mass of the building.
– 1:07 – Move adjournment.
– Wagner says DMI worked on a downtown design plan he wants people to look at and get a presentation on.
