Bottom line: We need more info. Essentially, Urban Design Commission is requesting, in some cases for the third time, additional information they need to make a decision.
So, here’s the deal, this post consists of concerns the public raised about the project after an hour long presentation, followed by a list of concerns commission members had about the project. Overall, I think the message coming out of the meeting was that the neighbors do not feel, like the developer presents, that their concerns have been addressed. Everyone seems to agree that they want something to happen here, that the changes are improvements, but there is still substantial work to be done. And the Urban Design Commission was pretty clear that they don’t have the information they need on the project and that they feel the developer is not being responsive.
Just so you know, I got there at 9:30 and they were half way through their presentation. The public speak finally got to speak at 10:00. And, it was often hard to hear the discussion.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
3 or 4 people spoke in support but didn’t really address issues that would assist in Urban Design’s decisions, they spoke more generally. The remaining 8 – 10 people spoke in opposition or neither in opposition or support. 14 registered against and 26 registered in support.
Concerns I still am hearing from the public based on public testimony:
– No, this project will not bolster historic preservation, it will detract from it.
– Precedent is a problem, by adopting limiting language (acre, etc) it doesn’t matter because all the rules were ignored except the capital view limit.
– Height is 116 feet, more than double what they feel is the limit for the neighborhood.
– The point of a historic district is to make a special environment for the special structures and contributing buildings and this harms that environment.
– The lakefront development set back ordinance requires they average the setback of 5 adjacent properties. That is a fairly sacred ordinance, can’t even put a screen porch on the front of a house on Sherman Ave. Why hasn’t the city calculated that and why no surveyors hired to find out if this will meet that ordinance requirement.
– This is a historic district and we (neighbors) have to go to landmarks to change a spindle on the porch or add a planter or change color of shingles, but this project doesn’t try to comply with the historic district standards.
– Bus traffic is still a concern.
– No street parking and no meters in the immediate area, there is free parking and visitors will park on our streets and if the parking is full, where will they go.
– Some neighbors will support TIF to do it right.
– Madison context, this doesn’t capture the feel of Madison. When you look at this in context, this disturbs the aesthetic feel.
– More and more concessions are being made and eroding the protections in place to protect the feel of Madison and the historic district.
– If you build it, it is a precedent. National Guardian life and Kennedy Manor were built before the historic district. The historic district was put in place to protect the neighborhood from projects like National Guardian Life.
– Large hotel in a residential neighborhood and detracts from encouraging more homeowners downtown.
– Homeowners in historic districts want predictability. They want to know an 8 story building won’t be built next to their house.
– This is about a sense of place for visitors and residents. There is essentially a national historic district form campus to Tenney Park and that is worth protecting.
– Tall buildings don’t limit sprawl. Families don’t want to live in downtown condos and this won’t prevent hotels from being built on the edge.
– There is a concern that the picture they keep showing of the old hotel doesn’t represent what they plan to build. There is no intention to restore to original image that is presented. [That isn’t even what was built – it is the original rendering for the project.]
– Defer vote until Landmarks vote and have a chance to absorb it.
– Plans have had discrepancies, distortions and outright fabrications and in new version there are even more. These are renderings, not architecturally accurate drawings.
– Grand stair is 29 feet in the rendering, but it is 16 feet three inches, actually and once you add the planters and handrails it is 5 feet 8 inches.
– The view from Wisconsin of the plaza is misleading. Dunn stated that the two photos of before and after are taken from the same vantage point, but there is actually a 12 foot difference in height.
– Items in the application are missing such as sustainability details and details of restoration of the old building.
– The developers have info in 3-D, but they are showing renderings of everything, ask for the CAD 3D renderings.
– This is not downtown, you have to walk blocks to get cup of coffee, go to a museum, etc. This is a residential neighborhood.
– View is still a concern.
– Half of landmarked buildings in Madison are in Mansion Hill and that has to be respected.
– Set back from right of way impedes panoramic on view.
– Practice is to go to Landmarks before Urban Design and that is the pattern they usually follow.
– We originally gave this land to Edgwater for $1 and now we are paying $16M to get it back.
– Hasn’t followed the neighborhood protocol to review a project. Steering committee shown concepts, very little time for neighborhood review. Not on paper.
– Public session for the neighborhood will be in a week and a half or so, so we can get broader public input.
– No drawing or perspective from Wisconsin Avenue. Can’t see the whole building from Wisconsin Avenue.
URBAN DESIGN DISCUSSION
Here’s most of the pertinent comments. Many commented they liked various aspects of the project and that this shows great improvement and some have hope we will get to an acceptable project. But there are many things that still need to happen, they need more information.
– This can’t be approved tonight, they need input from the Landmarks Commission.
– They need a paper copy of the power point presentation so that they can discuss the project.
– There are no boards available to the commission to discuss the project.
– They need information and details on the changes to the restored building.
– They have asked in the previous presentations that the building design be site responsive. What have they done to respond to the site>
– Public spaces need to be defined.
– Need to know what the DNR says about the pier and they should get it approved or remove it from the drawings.
– Floor Area Ratio is not appropriately calculated.
– New building doesn’t respond to the renovation.
– This project doesn’t seem like a part of Madison, all of the context photos are other places, not Madison, if this is uniquely Madison tell me why, or just tell me its not.
– There is not relationship between the two towers, need an architectural dialog.
– Need perspectives from Wisconsin Ave and Langdon that were requested at previous meetings.
– They previously requested eye level perspectives from important and typical vantage points and they still don’t have them.
– The architect hasn’t appeared before the commission and they need to have a dialog with that person, that is valuable and critical.
– How will the bus and trucks turn around?
– What is the width of the stairway?
– Likes the space but not sure it fits with the historic neighborhood.
– The public space stepped down almost makes the space more private than before, can they move the public space to make it more accessible to the public?
– Why haven’t they gone to the Zoning Board of Appeals to address the lakeshore development issues?
– They are putting us in a position where we can’t give you what you want, not up to us to let you go forward.
– They volunteered to do a tree survey and they would like to see that.
– With no preservation planner, the City should go hire a consultant to look the project in a critical way as an outsider. [Mario from the Mayor’s office was shaking his head no as they were saying this.]
– This is a good project, but it has to be right.
– Wants to make sure it respects historic and neighborhood plans.
– There is a “pile of ordinances” that impact this district and we need an evaluation of how the project fits into those.
– Until Landmarks and Zoning Board of Appeals meets and makes decisions, we don’t know what the parameters are that Urban Design is looking at.
– As soon as they build it, it will be a precedent. This is a big building and it will impact the future of the neighborhood.
– They need to get traffic engineering staff to do a formal analysis before initial approval.
– There is no landmarks application yet.
– They ask for specfic views from Gilman/Wis., Langdon/Wis. and panaoramic/180 views.
They decide they should have a joint meeting with the Landmarks Commission. They want staff to do a presentation on the various layers of the project, zoning, landmarks, PUD etc.
It was unanimous to refer.
