Note: I had some technical problems this morning, I have my team of IT people and editors currently working on piecing my post back together after my computer crashed and hopefully I can finish this post in a couple hours, but enjoy what I have done for now! (Ahem, I don’t really have a team of IT people and editors . . . for those of you who don’t get my sarcasm.)
Last night’s neighborhood meeting on the Edgewater was one of the most counter-productive, divisive and disturbing “neighborhood meetings” I’ve ever seen. In talking with neighbors, community leaders and concerned residents who attended the meeting, I think everyone, pro and con, walked away disgusted. Somehow, I think the meeting made things even worse for our community.
This isn’t going to be the typical recap of a meeting. I’m just so worn out from hearing the same thing over and over and over and over with no progress or productive discussion I’m not going to type the same things I’ve typed many times before. This meeting was more of a debate or presentation of varying points of view than it was a neighborhood meeting. It was a press event not a conversation. Plus, if I did it as I typically do, it would be more purple print than black!
“FACILITATED” MEETING
A city facilitator, Karl VanLith was present to facilitate the meeting. Tho, he admitted himself, he was more of an emcee than anything, there was very little facilitation of discussion and much more traffic directing of the various speakers. He explained that we would hear from the alders, hear from city staff about the process, the neighborhood would present, then hear from Hammes. They planned a short break, then they would take questions from the audience and we would spend 3 minutes on each questions with answers from multiple people. He did ask people to respect people’s opinions, thoughts and ideas, but that didn’t work out so well. He also noted that in the last public meeting in August, they ran out of time and they were going to try not to do that.
ALDER WELCOME
Alder Bridget Maniaci thanked people for coming, said she was working hard on a contentious project that had alot of opinion and passion. She says they were looking for feedback to make it the bast proposal that could get to council. She noted there were comment forms for people to let them know what they were thinking. She said that feedback was important and was glad there was a broad crowd tonight.
Alder Mike Verveer also thanks people for coming, said that he found neighborhood meetings meaningful in the past. Notes this is likely the most contentious project he has ever had, or perhaps the city has ever seen. Says project been around a long time and it has been hard to follow as it ebbs and flows. Noted he feels for everyone that has put so much into the project from developers to neighborhood steering committee and everyone in between including city committees and commissions and staff. Thanks other alders for coming. I only saw Shiva Bidar-Sielaff, Bryon Eagon and Chris Schmidt, but there were over 150 people there so I very well could have missed someone. Whatever he said next, I missed. He ended by saying that they really needed to keep this meeting tight and run smoothly.
Comment: What struck me as bizarre about the statements from both alders is that they expressed desire to get input, but the meeting didn’t do that at all. The meeting was focused on presentations and questions. The only input was on written pieces of paper, which could have been collected without a meeting. If they wanted input, they could have solicited comments in a variety of other ways and saved everyone alot of time.
Comment: Even tho this was billed as a “neighborhood meeting” it was anything but. My guess is that less than 10% of the audience lived in the area. Another 10% may have owned property (landlords or other business interests) in the neighborhood. The rest of the crowd was either there to watch the trainwreck or were rallied supporters or opponents from throughout the city and county and perhaps from even beyond.
PROCESS
I’ve heard this presentation by the Planning Unit Director Brad Murphy on more than once, most of it is summed up here. I’ll point out the new or different information.
– The goal is to approve the TIF, the rezonoing, appeal of the Landmark’s Commission denial of certificate of appropriateness, change the waterfront setback law and change the 1965 ordinance to allow TIF funding, condos and remove the right of way set back requirement on the 23rd, but that won’t be the end, there are several other things that will have to happen after that.
– The Urban Design Commission has reviewed the project on several occasions and at 1:30 this morning recommended referral and asked Plan Commission to proceed with the public hearing for next Monday and included some commentary on the project and asked them to help resolve some issues. (Well, there’s staff’s answer to my question about what happened last night . . . )
– City requirements and review standards for various land use approvals can be found here.
– Plan Commission won’t take action on the land use approvals on Monday. They may discuss the ordinance changes to remove the waterfront set back requirements for commercial properties and changing the 1965 ordinance
– After explaining everything the that needed to happen and what would all be considered on February 23rd, he quipped. “That’s a lot”
– Information the Plan Commission will be considering regarding the land use (not the law changes) should be found here and it includes new information in staff reports and comments on the project.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
Adam Plotkin, President of Capitol Neighborhoods did a presentation. He explained Capitol Neighborhoods covers Mansion Hill, James Madison Park, First Settlement and Mifflin West neighborhoods. Notes he’s on the neighborhood steering committee for the project and has met with developer, residents, city staff and others on the project to understand the project. He says the steering committee members have day jobs and have donated hundreds of hours to keep pace with the full-time development team. He notes that major concerns are the height, volume and street setback
Comment: There seems to be some confusion about the term “street setback”. Many assume that this means how far the building is back from the corner of Langdon and Wisconsin Avenue. That isn’t the concern. Instead, imagine if Wisconsin Avenue continued all the way to the water, over the top of the 1970s VCR-looking portion of the building. The portion of the end of that street that is closest to the water that has the building sitting on it is the right of way that was given to the Faulkners for $1 in the late 60s, early 70s. The portion closer to the street with the drive down to the front of the hotel is still owned by the city. That right of way or imaginary street includes space for the sidewalk to continue there as well. The requirement is that the building is set back 10 feet from that imaginary extension of Wisconsin Avenue. So the setback doesn’t run parallel with Langdon, the setback is from that imaginary street to the water. I hope several members of the media are reading this and help clarify that, because reports of the project seems to get that confused.
Plotkin goes on to explain that the Urban Design Commission wanted a model of the area and the neighborhood paid for and provided that model. The list of other concerns beyond height, volume and setback are listed here and briefly, they include:
– Historic District. This is the first and most important historic district in the City of Madison. It contains half of all Madison landmarked buildings. The development must meet the visually related test in the ordinance. Staff and the Landmarks Commission determined it does not. This project is 2 times the height of underlying zoning and they are concerned about precedent. Madison Trust and National Trust for Historic preservation both against the project because of impact on historic district.
– Precedent. The National Guardian Life Building should not be consider an excuse for another out of scale commercial building in the neighborhood. It was built before and the reason for the historic district being formed.
– Traffic, Parking and Urban Context. Unlike other hotels in the downtown area, this isn’t surrounded by several streets so there can’t be usual traffic circulation. There isn’t a nearby parking ramp like other hotels. This is a residential neighborhood and this commerical building will create more traffic.
– Jobs and Need for a Hotel. This is the wrong building in the wrong place being built for temporary jobs. This won’t create 1,000 jobs, but more like 200 – 300 for one year, or 100 – 150 jobs for two years according to independent analysis using national construction standards. If we need the hotel for tourism, the other side of the Isthmuse is more appropriate.
– TIF. We gave the street end away in 1965 for $1 and now we are buying it back for $16M in TIF. All the things being promised by Hammes now were promised in the 60s and required by that ordinance. It is being implied that the Edgewater will pay back the TIF in 5 years, but that’s not true. The project will pay back $8.5M and the other $7.5M will come from University Square and other properties in the district. The project was cut from a $109M project to $90M yet the the TIF remains at $16M, taxpayer funding has increased form 15% to 18%.
– Process An attempt is being made to change the watefront setback requirements for commercial projects, they are pushing for approvals without proper review often dropping 70 page documents in front of decision makers at the last minute. 2.5 weeks ago they finally provided information for setbacks which contain a number of critical errors. And if the waterfront ordinance passes, it will eliminate the need for review by the Zoning Board of Review. Finally, the main drawings consistently shown on the project is misleading and distorts the width of the stair by twice the actual width. Additionally, you’d need to be 18 feet tall to see the building from some of the perspectives shown. Finally, the pier shown is unlikely to be approved by the DNR.
Plotkin wraps up by asking people to think about the long term affects of not only the physical changes proposed, but the fundamental changes to principles in our city process.
PRESENTATION BY HAMMES
The introduction, alders, staff and neighborhood were allocated the first half hour, Dunn talks for the next half hour. I have to admit, when Bob Dunn starts talking and I can probably just type what he’s going to say without listening becasue I’ve heard it repeated so often, so my brain kind of shuts off and his voice begins to sound like the teacher in the Peanuts cartoon. To be fair tho, the same thing happens when Fred Mohs speaks. This might be a good time to point out that several people noted to me their frustration about this being about Fred and Bob. Later on, Ron Luskin who sits on the Urban Design Commission but has recused himself from participating in this discussion will submit a question that asks “How do we get to win?”. I think the “win” could be that we all agree to discuss this project without Bob and Fred speaking – it might be more productive to focus on the project instead of the personalities.
Dunn starts out by thanking people for coming, says he knows most of the people in the room. Says its been a long process, he’s going to review that process, says its a large complex project, appreciates what Adam Plotkin has to say, they agree on some things, not others. Says there has been an overwhelming amount of feedback and it is very much in favor for vision of project. Explains his vision for the project to create a unique place in Madison at the end of a civic corridor on Wisonsin Avenue that is the gateway to the waterfront and doorstep of university, We should have something great here.
Comment: Many people and organizations jumped on as supporters very early on in this project, before there was much thought put into the design and issues involved with this project. In fact, it was a different project when many signed on. However, the vision is likely something everyone agrees with. We all think that the property needs to be revitalized and that is should be a great place for Madison. The issue is, the devil is in the details. And many of the supporters haven’t been following along with those issues like the opponents have. They like the vision, but I wonder how many actually know what it is that they are supporting. And I suspect, many supporters cringe when they see the way this is being handled/pushed by our local politicians in ways that violate just about every notion we have about being an open and clean government.
Comment: I find it kind of funny that we are all saying this is a large complex project. The project is important to Madison, somehow I don’t think that the actual construction of a building here is that big of a deal. This is the developer that builds NFL stadiums and the Kohl Center and many other larger projects. The issues that make it complex are that it doesn’t fit in with planning, zoning and neighborhood goals. It’s complex, because they are trying to do something that isn’t allowed to be built there.
Dunn spends a significant amount of his half hour reviewing the history of where we have been. I quite frankly, don’t have the heart to type it all out, but here’s a few items of interest. I’ll have to say as well, I’ve worked closely with Dunn in the past and one-on-one he’s not bad to work with, but there is soemthing about his presentation style that comes across snarky and condescending. He was definitely playing to his audience tonight and I think it brought out the worst in him.
– He notes that mistakes were made when drafting the 1965 ordinance that was supposed to guarantee the view, access to the rooftop and access to the waterfront. The view was compromised by the 70s building.
– He complains that at the end of October of 2008 when he met with the neighborhood they didn’t share a vision with him for what they wanted to see there. They asked for him to present something they could react to. So he “began” planning.
– He says by January 5th, 2009, about two months later, it was clear they were on diverging paths. The neighborhood said they were opposed to any horizontal or vertical expansion of the hotel. At that point, he understood the challenges ahead. [I do think that he was well aware of the challenges well before then.]
– Started with a building that encroached on the right of way by 24 feet. [This is the same right of way people are trying to get the building pushed back from another 10 feet.] Spent “a year” working with National Guardian Life (NGL) to buy property to move it out of the right of way. Says this was the main issue.
– In May 2009 [not a year later], he got a letter from a Mansion Hill Steering Committee member that said with the street view preserved possibilities of project approval was possible. That gave him a “ray of hope” of working with the steering committee.
– On August 19th of last year the submitted the Planned Unit Development (PUD) land use approval application. This is the “old project” with an 11 story building and no removal of portions of two floors of the 70s building. Then they had a neighborhood meeting and had to take a step back and they spent “three months” redesigning the project and reduced the height of the tower by 3 floors and improved the view by removing portions of the 70s building. [Note: A new plan was presented by October 27th, not “three months”. It’s only irritating, because it seems everything that is said is off by some degree and it makes it hard to trust anything that is said. This gets even worse with the renderings and distortions in the drawings. My favorite is the four story tall sailboat.]
Next he goes over the current issue as he sees them . . . part two here.
