Kinda Sorta Lazy-ish Live-ish Blog of Common Council Meeting

Cheryl Elkington
Speaking against demolitions for environmental reasons – they decide that must be item 24 or 25. They try to get her to address the item she is registered on. She talks about being against demolitions because the buildings can be used for the homeless. She tries to talk about antibiotics, mayor says they already voted on that item. And then there was a bunch of random thoughts. Mayor is snarky and says “I think we will try to get to the agenda now”. I found it very rude to treat a clearly struggling person with a clear disability in this fashion. But then I guess he’s kind of a jerk to a lot of people.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
The public hearings items 1 – 5 pass as on the agenda with a statement by Anita Weier on item 2 and speaks about concerns about having houses by a quarry. 4 & 5 are adopted. No one understands the motion on 3, Steve Cover tells them to just adopt it. They adopt number 3.

Alcohol Overlay District Susan Schmidt from DMI speaks in support. Greg Frank, on board of Chamber of Commerce, supports it. Rosemary Lee thinks this is ridiculous, its too complicated. Mary Carbine (BID) does her cheerleading, supports it. Retailer support what Mary Carbine said. Retail and food and beverage go well together. Ahrens asks about selling alcohol in movie theatres, which is allowed. Rummel asks about conditional use permits outside the downtown area. Mark Wolff says the ALRC will act first, plan commission will act second. Rummel asks for the city to be more coordinated in their notices from various departments. Rummel asks how they will promote retail and mixed uses in this district. Matt Mikolajewski says that its in the BID plan. Verveer makes some amendments. First one is about brewpubs. The definition was requested by the plan commission at request of central police district. Second amendment is to be consitent with te second. ALRC doesn’t grant licenses, the Common Council does, this is more accurate. Unanimous, no discussion. Third is nightclubs shall hold an entertainment license and adds language that they have to have entertainment 2 nights a week and can’t open or close more than 2 hours before or after the entertainment. That amendment passes after a clarification by Nark Clear. Verveer does his thank yous. Talks about 6 years experience with ALDO and questions if it was as effective as it was promised to be, but the calls for service are down, but it is unclear as to why. If we were to continue this, we needed to move it from alcohol licenses to zoning code. Lower State St. and University Ave are where police calls are limited to so the area impacted has shrunk. Most of the issues have come from live music venues, so nightclubs are now conditional uses citywide. There’s another 5 year sunset and he expects that there will be amendments. He said a bunch of other things I zoned out on. Bidar assures Rummel that the process should be clear. It passes.

Items 7 & 8 re-referred.

Item 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 18, 19, 20, 21 – 9 & 10 grant, plan commission recomendations on 11 – 21 is the motion. Weier separates 11. Mayor makes a Dr. Strangelove joke no one gets. They all pass. On item 11, Weier says they shouldn’t make the change, Larry Palm asks to be recorded as voting no, Clear asks why they’re doing it. Mayor says he doesn’t know, it was at staff request. Matt Tucker explains that the requirement is being invoked for lots of instances where its not needed. Skidmore votes no. Motion passes.

Item 22 – Edgewood Campus plan. 2 registrants. King clarifies that a plan commission member is not on the group. They adopt with conditions. Mayor does a round of thank yous. Phair says as a grad he supports it.

Item 23 – Bedford/Dow Court. Two registrations. Adopt with conditions.

SUSPEND RULES TO TAKE UP 58
They open public hearing, Move to approve, they pass it.

121-127 W. Gilman St. Appeal of Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness
Mayor says they should open 24 and 25 at the same time. Clear clarifies they have 5 minutes to speak on both items. Mayor has a fistful of registrations. Schmidt says if registered on both items get 10 minutes, mayor says yes. Subeck objects. They are now back to taking them separates.

ITEM 24
Public Speakers
Stuart Levitan talks about the laws that have been in place for 38 years and how the project fails the test they have been using that whole time. He goes over what the council has to find to overturn the Landmarks Commission. THere are no conditions special about this project.

Madison Trust for Historic Preservation President talks about heritage tourism and the potential for rehab in the district. Tax credits will likely triple due state law changes, putting more money in our economy. Talks about creating jobs and how they are better, local jobs. Greenest buildings are those that are already built.

Dan Stephens also talks about the requirements of the law and the zoning code, he sat on the Zoning Code Rewrite committee and he talks about what they were assured there. He says they are not saying no to development, just bad development.

3 people from development team speak after the first three speakers against, which is really odd, usually they go first.
They want the council to set aside the Landmarks ruling due to their broader role. They go through the standards. They say the Landmarks commission found that met all but one of the criteria. They say the council should decide if it is visually compatible. I kinda didn’t listen to the rest of the sales job. Woman says that the Landmarks Commission approved demolition of the Highlander, that they can’t reasonable rehab it and they say that they have a good business plan and have been there for 30 years, she talks about hardship and that they didn’t create it. I’m laughing so hard I can’t listen to this, she talks like the teacher from South Park, mmmkay. Sorry, I’ve heard this argument so many times, I’ve never bought it. They say it is not demolition by neglect. They say they meet the standards. They should look at the economic interests of the neighborhood moving forward. Third speaker finishes off their powerpoint talking about how beautiful the project is and its architecture. I think their argument boils down to “it looks pretty”, look at it, don’t do math. Funny, they end by showing buildings they are not allowed to consider. They argue the council should look at the broader visual area than the Landmarks Commission could look at.

Bill White (on behalf of the developer) addresses comments they have heard. This is not just an offer and there is no room to negotiate, this is what we can do. He talks about what Landmarks has already approved. They could do a 10 story building here, but they are opting for 5. He says this is not a mathematical issue, it is how it visually relates. Its a visual impact not volumetric. These are guidelines, not standards. He questions the neighborhood steering committee that was formed as they were not part of it. They say the neighborhood was compromised when the Highlander was built and they will make it better. 127 is not salvageable. This is 80% rental in their neighborhood and they want to life it up and attract young professionals. They think this meets the standards.

Vikcy McCallaugh (sp?) Lives in the neighborhood, she wants a better place to live, a place to call home. If she had the opportunity to live in this area would make her dreams come true. She just wants a condo to live in. Would like to be able to go to farmers market and not look for a place to park.

David Waugh wants them to uphold the landmarks ordinance. Says council members might come to a different conclusion, but he says that his customers seek out the historical Madison. He says the project is pushing the limits and they were turned down, you go back to the drawing board and redo it. Do we need more apartments? Devlopers showed you noncoforming buildings and this will be precedent. Don’t udnermine the historic district and landmarks commission.

Carole Schaefer from Smart Growth Madison says that they are not saying Landmarks acted egregiously, this is to use the appeal to have them look at a broader level. Developers need to get banks to lend to them, this housing is shuttered, not being used they way it used to and one house that is being moved. THis will take 60 cars off the street, they are building a better building and it complies with the zoning code, she understands landmarks trumps the zoning code, but the council can decide otherwise.

John Martens says the decision should be made not on emotions but standards. You need to look at the balance test – is the value of the district or the needs of the owner greater. He says visual compatibility is subjective, but you can address it with mathmatics. He talks about specifics of the proposals as submitted and what you will actually see – says the numbers are hard get and he walks them through how he calculates the numbers. He says the proposal is 17 times the volume of the neighbors. There is no way you can consider that visually compatible, so that is a very heavy weight in the balancing test.

BREAK
Mayor says they have 4 hours of testimony left if everyone takes their time. They take a 10 minute recess.

CONTINUING ON WITH TESTIMONY
Not sure how much of this I can blog, I’m just going to hit the highlights (even less than before) so I can get my other work done)

Franny Ingelbritson from the neighborhood talks about the downtown plan and how broad it is. She talks about the economic value to the downtown as the developer claims, and ignores the historic district economic benefits. She goes into much more detail. I missed a bunch figuring out what to do with my dvr . . .

Craig Christianson, has 3 degrees and has a relationship with SBA and is an investor in multiple properties downtown. The only other time he came to a council meeting was to support another developer. They bought 4 properties on the Mansion Hill block. He knew the rules when he bought his properties and his investments rely on upholding landmarks. The investion $100,000 and they are now cashflowing. He says they should not ignore demolition by neglect, etc. Honor their investments.

Jim Skretny, from First Settlement Neighborhood, representing them. They are concerned about this appeal. They applaud the landmarks unanimous decision. If the math doesn’t convince you, look at he models and the context. The SBA appeal is troubling as it would undermine the key standard in the landmarks ordinance. It would be a golden precedent.

Scott Resnick asks if it is appropriate to have the models sitting up in front of the council, the mayor asks for them to be removed.

Arlan Kai talks about the economics of historic renovations. He says the report says that restoring a foundation of a building is not workable. Tearing down an old building and building new is better. That is the old paradigm. It doesn’t take into consideration the new rules. He says that foundations can be fixed, raise the building, put in a new foundation. They do it. It works. He says its a $450,000 renovation, round it up to half a million. If they could do that, that is expensive, but they can justify it with a 20% investment tax credit at both the state and federal, then it becomes a $300,000 project. That is feasible. Don’t follow the old economic model. It can work, he’s done it before, it can be done.

Kitty Rankin, the former Preservation Planner for the City, for 29 years. She says that they should look at the requirements in the ordinance. She says they have not shown special conditions that preclude any and all use of the property or create serious hardship, not self created. A hardship is not a lesser profit. She says it is seriously a case of demolition by neglect, she had been through the building and if it deteriorated since she went through it, the responsibility lies with him.

Susan Pastor says the argument by the developer is disingenuous, she says she hears them saying that they aren’t diminishing the landmarks, but being asked to override for reasons that don’t have anything to do with the law. Its pretty, we want it, we think its better, etc is what they are saying. It is a good rhetorical device to conflate your interests with the public good. The government has to balance the different perspectives in what is the public good and improvement of the status quo. The law represents the balancing of counter interest. The reason we have lost buildings in the 50s and 70s is becaus ethere wasn’t the counter-balance at that time. Less than 1% of our city is in a historic district. People who buy into that know what they are getting into. She says the former mayor’s comments about this being anti-democratic was dismaying. You can’t advantage on perspective just because they want you to. She talks about other economic opportunities. A vote to override sends a signal you don’t have to follow the rules, you don’t have to follow the building inspectors orders, etc.

Judy Karofsky says its all complicated, where you can’t follow it, there is legislative confusion all over. Change is inevitable, 127 is an unsafe building. That is unchangable. Highlander was obsolete when it was built. Its ADA noncompliant, that is all she needs to hear. She asks if there will be change or no change. She says there are good landlords, that she lives my meanmegalandlords and if you say no, you give in to them.

Ross Luerenburg, Mary Jo Walters and Matt Kozlowski spoke, but I missed it, fixing internet connection. First guy’s mom used to own one of the houses, Mary Jo asked where the affordable housing was and Matt said students like the historic buildings, that people don’t live in the Highlander because it has fallen in disrepair and students can’t find affordable housing – people take second jobs to pay their rent.

Lawyer for Mansion Hill Neighborhood Steering Committee goes over the legal requirements again.

Susan Schmitz representing DMI says that there has been more conflicting information on this project than any in her 16 years, but Steve Brown’s presentation was professional and honest (implying others weren’t I guess). She says that historic districts are an economic development tool, she says they should invest in the district and attract people who want to own homes there. This is a fabulous project and it has all the upgrades, its an investment in the neighborhood. There are no condos for sale left in downtown Madison. She asks them what the strategy is for the district if this fails and they will help with a strategy for investment. Support this, it will be beautiful.

Rosemary Lee. (sorry, working on my spreadsheets, but I think she accused the Mollenhoff’s of being unethical for not disclosing they have a building in the area)

David Mollenhoff – goes over the ordinance requirements, specifically from the Mansion Hill ordinance and the handbook that it refers to, that was written in 1975. This contains the legislative intent. He reads the definitions used at the time. He shows pictures that show their intent.

A woman who owns a home in the neighborhood talks about how she came to appreciate her neighborhood and the historic district, she says that ordinance levels the playing field and they wouldn’t make these proposals in her old neighborhood. Honor the plan commission and the 3 5-hour long meetings they had to reach this decision. He husband spoke afterwards, he says buildings should not be allowed to fall into disrepair and then tear them down. He says this isn’t anti-development. They looked at developing their carriage house, but it didn’t work out, but they should all have to follow the same standards. He asks them to stand up for the history of Madison and uphold the decision and follow the laws. To not do so, would discourage investment there.

Steve Holtzman says its the first time he’s been back in 9 years, he sat on UDC and spent hundreds of hours looking at projects. He takes people on historic tours of the city. He came tonight because this vote guts our hsitoric districts and the standards. If this appeal is upheld and the project moves forward it means there are no historic districts any more.

Fred Mohs says he and his wife moved there in 1961. Talks about being worried about living in a historic district, but Mary convinced him to give it a try by pointing out they visit historic districts elsewhere. She pointed out that they can develop elsewhere. And she was right. He talks about how it allows predictability and its about trust. He shows the book that was written when the ordinance passed and how it shows specific homes and what can be built in their place if they burn down. He says we have a chance to do something good here, its a product other big cities take advantage of, this is a highly valued housing option.

Jason Tisch, Director of Madison Trust for Historic Preservation. Talks about investment in historic district and how they can get 40% historic tax credits. He talks about this being a complex project, and how the individual decision matter. He says if they overturn this, it will encourage other houses to be jeopardized. He points out when standards conflict, they are supposed to look at the higher standard. He talks about the importance of historic districts.

Leigh Mullenhoff says you know that she and her husband own the building next door and she has told many of you that. She says the building has 3 flaws, its private dorm rooms, has 8 foot cielings and it doesn’t market well. These are dorm rooms, there are 52 apartments – she says small apartments are sometimes micro apartments and very hot right now in the real estate industry. She says many people live with 8 foot cielings and that the reason they don’t market well is because the rents are high. She talks about saving the building being green and what it costs the environment for new construction. She talks about the pluses of the building.

Phil Salkin of Realtors Lobbyist fame. He says they usually don’t advocate for individual projects unless they exemplify principles on which they stand. He says its not about economic tax base. Its about housing options, especially for young professionals in the downtown. These are condo quality apartments. They usually don’t support projects that make it less dense, but in honor of the historic district they support it. He says this is not cut and dried, we need to discuss it to understand it better. He says the Highlander wouldn’t qualify for the historic credits. He says the question is do the three buildings contribute to the decertification of the district. He says demolition by neglect was thrown around too loosely. He says we need a discussion communit wide so we don’t see cartoons about the landmarks commission that does good work
(Wow, they must smell blood in the water . . . )

Sorry, missed the next two speakers. One talks about 127 W. Gilman and how this is simple to move and restore the foundation compared to other projects people have.

Mike (Silbach?) – a contractor. Family been doing this for 65 years. On Board of Curators for Wisconsin Historical Society. He says the building can be restored, this is a simple fix. He crunched the numbers and came up with mostly the same thing. He wonders who these people are that say it can’t be done. He says the highlander was there before the historic district. He talks about working on condos that aren’t sold downtown.

Gene Devitt. Great joke about having the same tailor as Fred Mohs (he’s wearing a plain red hooded sweatshirt). He talks about the buildings he owns in the neighborhood, the work they had to do and how everyone has to abide by the rules. He says that they use the house for storage and he went through it in 2003 and it didn’t need foundation work.

Joe Lusson – president of Tenney Lapham Neighborhood Association and he knows that they have gotten letters from other associations because historic districts are important to them. He says that they voted overwhelmingly and that surprised him because they are pro-development and density. They support density where appropriate. They supported the Landmarks decision because it is in a historic district. They were worried about demolition by neglect. On a personal note, Landmarks begged Steve Brown to scale down the project. Not opposed to change, but this is not compatible. New construction is not the only way to add value to the city.

Brian Busse – also a contractor and works on old buildings. He has been in this building for many years. He asks them to think about how they built buildings 120 years ago. He says that money is an issue in doing repairs as well, the building hasn’t been neglected. Work has been done on it.

16 in support, 9 against for registrations.

QUESTIONS FOR SPEAKERS
John Strasser asks the architect about the building materials. He explains the type of stone.

Bidar asks if there is an increase or decrease in density. Woman says there will be 122 less beds. There are 52 units now, the new project has 60 units and xx beds. She says for dorms there are single and double rooms. Bidar says she is asking about the bedrooms. Architect says 88 beds in the new development – bedrooms. The highlander has 150 beds in 52 unis, so 122 less beds.

Cnare asks about bringing back another project. Why this size? Woman says that bringing down the big uglies is expensive, there are additional costs in moveing the Queen Anne is expensive. He owns 11% of the district and he wants to save the house. The also are going from one building, so they listened to what Landmarks said and now they have three buildings, with more brick and stone, three elevators, three mechanicals, moving the parking, etc. They added a lot of costs. There are additional costs for this project. They say they are here because they did the best they could. Cnare asks about the rental rates, they are not sure what they will be because the market is changing. She says that the supply (there are cranes everywhere) and they need cranes in Mansion Hill too. Cnare asks about affordable housing, woman says they are market rate apartments now and they will be in the future.

Joe Clausius asks about a different parking configuration and going back to one building. The woman explains it would not meet zoning or landmarks.

Mo Cheeks wants her to clarify capacity for beds vs current bed. She says Highlander has 79 people living there and it used to have 150. When she managed the Highlander there was 150 students living there and now freshmen don’t live there and they only have 70 – 80 renters, the market demand is not there. Less people, its declining. Mo asks if they are at 80% capacity. 50% rented units or rented beds. She says they put one person in the apartment instead of two. Cheeks asks if they market for one or two, she says both. People take it as one bedrooms.

Rummel attempts to clarify, the units are all rented, just with one person instead of two. They struggle with the answer. They can have single or double occupancy. The rent is different if one or two people live there. Yes, they are occupied, but in a manner based on market demand to manage the yield.

Rummel asks about microunits being trendy and hot. The architect says that the cielings are low and the slab construction is difficult to remodel. He talks about the elevator that starts on the 2nd floor. Largest piston elevator in the state. He says you couldn’t get funding to do all that.

Rummel asks about funding to fill the gaps, like TIF. Woman says they don’t qualify for it, there are too many students there. Bill White says a subsidy won’t work, if students live there it won’t work with TIF. What are you offering asks Bill. Rummel says that Bill is challenging her by being lawyerly and says the question is for them.

(tv glitch, missed it)

Zellers is talking to Stu Levitan now, he is explaining how it didn’t meet the standards. They met 80% of the standards and not the most important. Levitan says that its not 99%. And Levitan talks about the vinyl siding it had – Mayor interrupts and tells them all to settle down and answer just the questions.

Clear asks about an offer to purchase the property during one of the meetings, by Mr. Mohs. Levitan doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Mayor asks how this is relevant. Levitan says that did not affect our decision.

Cheeks asks for the development team to sit down. Mayor agrees.

Clear asks about a mention by Levitan if the demo permit is turned down Zellers has the votes on the council to sustain us. Levitan says that is not what is before them. Mayor says Levitan can do whatever he wants. Levitan says its not relevant.

Mayor asks about the demolition of the building at 127 – part of the conversation leads him to believe that if the design of new building was better, Landmarks could then change the demolition of 127. How does the contributing building get impacted by what is replacing it. If this was only the demolition of 127 what would be consider. May says demolition standards are in 33.19(1)(c) ??? One considers what will be build there along with significance of building, failure to maintain and some other issues. May says that if the building demolition would have been approved then the condition of the building was never a factor, it was the size of the building. May says the demolition permits were never ruled on and considered denied by passage of time.

Rummel attempts to clarify and ask questions.

Schmidt calls a point of order says they are in a public hearing and there is no motion and people are debating. Mayor says it was a quesiton, but they go back to questions.

Cnare asks what the serious hardship is. Woman says that if they don’t go forward with the project 127 would get paint and soffit fixed and would eventually fall down. The Highlander is not moving in a direction the market is interested in, it will be vacant at some point. The Highlander is not economically viable to remodel, it will preclude any and all use of the project. They looked at all the options, they have a solid business plan and they will have two vacant building.

Cnare says that is the hardship for the city, but what is the hardship for Steve Brown? She says they wouldn’t be able to rent the lots. Any owner has the right to rent their property and they wouldn’t be able to do that.

Cnare asks how much money they invested in pursuing the project. She says is has been 10s of $1,000s and it has been worth it, but that is a hardship too.

Subeck asks why its not feasible to develop something else. And on the hardship can they sell the property and recoup the value. She says they need a higher bar for hardship. Woman says that they looks at just building on 127 and 123, but they still have problems with the Highlander. They tried to sell it in 2004, they sold all their private dorms. In 2008, (Steve Brown is an amazing man) he said he wanted the buildings back to do something better for Mansion Hill, he wanted to add value to the district. They have looked at all the other options, there is a business plan that works if you allow us to do it, if not, there will be a lot of hardship.

Subeck says she can’t tell when the hardship comes in to play, she is trying to understand why this has to be developed together. She says if 127 had a different owner, the structural defects would be still there, she says no one would get a loan from a bank for the rooming house. Same with the Highlander, they haven’t had an offers on it. You have an owner who owns 11% of the district that has come with something that is good for tax base and district and it will rid th e district of an ugly building and replace it with better buildings, it will do all these great things and we can’t do that if you preclude the use and that is a hardship.

Mayor asks what the cost is for 127 to do the foundation. The architect says that its not a renovation, it would be a replica. Mayor asks for a number. The woman says they have letters saying its a safety hazard and they don’t want to risk lifting it up. The structure will fall in on itself. Architect says they don’t have a cost to rebuild it.

Subeck asks about the estimate from Busse of $50,000. Is that still a viable option and why or why not? He says in 2000 they didn’t address the foundations. Subeck says it was 2011. He says that it didn’t include the foundation work. Subeck says in 2011 they did that work it would have been helpful. He says this doesn’t address the overall problem. It was to get it to hold on, could that be done today, yes, but it won’t solve the problem.

Subeck asks how many more years this repair would get you. Busse says . . . he talks about apartment he lived in in college that still stands . . . he says that it would just be holding on, how long will it last, no one knows. It won’t be within our lifetime that the sandstone crumbles.

Mayor says if he got an answer to his question, he would have asked about cash flow. Woman says that the numbers were a band aid, it will not cash flow.

Busse says this is a result of the city inspection and to fix their issues.

Zellers asks if John Freiburger is still here. He isn’t. She asks another contractor to respond. He says that they ran the numbers to see if it will cash flow and it will, he doesn’t know why they didn’t do this, they had another plan in mind. He says you can repair the building, raise the building, put in a new foundation, $30,000 and then remodel, $30 – 40K per unit and fix the roof. The building is as straight as can be. There’s not much escavation, there is already a whole in the ground. They did the church for $7K. This is done all the time. This is residential construction, we know what it is supposed to be to hold it up- this isn’t the Edgewater, this was a single family house at one time. You can put the money in this and make it cashflow.

Clausius asks where are they going with this, they said they don’t want to.

Mayor says its about hardship. City attorney says wealth of the owner has nothing to do with it, its the building.

Rummel asks the speaker to talk about Arlan Kai’s report. $354,000 to do the building.

Scott Resnick asks if city staff should be answering these questions. Mayor says yes or no.

Rummel asks the speaker about what he thinks about the numbers. He says the numbers are realistic, and he thinks he figured it on the high side and he’s a union contractor and his numbers are always on the high side.

Cnare asks about the numbers he ran on the cash flow. The city assessor is $334,000 for the value. $452,000 is the costs involved, plus 40% credits, that makes it feasible, that is why the credits exist otherwise people wouldn’t do it.

HEARING IS OVER!

MOTION
Chris Schmidt moves to reverse certificate of appropriateness and that it will cause hardship not created by the owner. It takes 14 votes. To go forward you vote aye and to sustain landmarks you vote no, if nos prevail, 25 is moot point. If yes, move on to 25.

Bidar asks building inspection to summarize what they found. Kyle from Building Inspection says current conditions are poor, very poor. It is not salvageable, the foundation is shot, the roof is in poor shape, significant fire damage in there, there is damage and rot from exposure to moisture and deterioration over time, there is a hole in the roof, those are they types of things that destroy buildings, it is not going to be repaired, it has to be reconstructed.

Rummel about the walls not being bowed so its not hard to fix the roof and foundation. He says interior inspection shows significant rot on the inside.

Rummel asks about neglect in the last 20 years. Kyle says everyone is wrestling with the old vs current owner responsibility. He says the foundation was probably poor when purchased. Also, the roof was probably in poor condition too, based on those to items the building probably needed to be reconstructed. Additional damage was done due to lack of maintenance, it was occupied until 2002. It is much worse than then.

Rummel asks if they had done work, would it have changed. It could have been kept in a habitable state, but not sure if the repairs vs reconstruction would have been different.

Resnick asks Katheryn Cornwell about recommendation about the reasonableness of the proposal. Originally it didn’t work with zoning or landmarks, they revised it. In the late stages of the project they addressed the visual compatibility to the volume.

Resnick asks about the economic statements with the developer to see if other projects would fit in a financial model. Cornwell doesn’t understand the question. Cornwell says they did not work through a proforma with them.

Palm asks how staff thinks they should ask about volume. Cornwell wants to show them a picture.

Cnare asks Building Inspection about letting a building collapse and letting Highlander by a shell. What tools do we have to deal with this? George says that the Highlander is a concrete bunker and will be therefore a long time. You’re not required to keep them occupied. 127 if it stays there they will fix the roof, paint, soffit and facia and they will use the tools they have to get that to happen.

Cornwell shows page 19 of the images in the plan for the district. She talks about the words on the page to describe gross volume. SHe talks about the visual impression of builk. She reads that to mean it is about the visual front of the building. THey used the image as used there, they just did street elevation, not full visually related area. THey say its 2.2 – 2.7 the size of the building.

Palm asks about the variance on the other houses, what were they comparing to get to the 2.7. She says thye used the average of the structures excluding the current structures to be demolished. She says the average is not correct for the visually related area. Palm asks if there is an exaple of what the average would be. She’s pointing at something we can’t see cuz its not on TV . . . She talks about setbacks at 5th story.

Palm asks to respond to the analysis of 17 times the volume. She assumes that the numbers are in the ballpark but they didn’t do that and verify it. They don’t think that is how it was intended to be reviewed.

Rummel asks why they look at only the facade instead of the whole coverage of the building. She says its the street elevation, street scapes and they read that as the front facade. Rummel asks if it is a one dimensional standards. She says this will be news to her neighborhood.

Rummel asks about the other ideas to develop the site for 3 and 4 story, what else did you think of that might fit the compatibility. Cornwell says she loved the turducken explanation (sorry, i skipped that) of downtown plan, zoning and landmarks regulations. She says there is not much clarity in all this.

Rummel says the city attorney explained it for them. Cornwell says the combination of things is what determines it.

Rummel asks if there were other ideas that might have been different. Cornwell says they did not suggest a 6 story version or replacing the highlander like the downtown plan says.

Rummel clarifies, staff never presented other ideas. Cornwell says that they worked what was in front of them.

CLear asks about the gross volume and visually related standards. He says the standard is not unique to Madison, can you explain what those standards are trying to accomplish.

Cornwell says that in other cities they use a combination to make it compatible with a visually related area – height, proportion of windows and doors, massing, doors. She hasn’t been accustomed to pulling out one criteria. She shows and example of a huge building in a historic district as an example (didn’t say where it was from). She says its the combination of things that makes it compatible. They focused on that instead of going in a direction not presented by the applicant.

Clear asks about this standard being “the most important one”. She says no, but its the one they based their decision on. They Landmarks did their job in this case, this is an example of the downtown plan, zoning and historic district working to make it better. It’s come a long way. Clear asks if it met the criteria, she says Landmarks did not find it met the guidelines. (See the not so subtle shift there)

Clear asks about a building in existence, Cornwell says it would not meet the standards now. Sorry, missed a bunch.

Clear asks if the report had anything about getting rid of the buildings that were not conforming. Cornwell says that the properties were considered underutilized. They established priority buildings and landmark buildings but it is about the whole of the district. Landmarks took a pretty constrained view of what is in the ordinance and you get the appeal and you have a more broad view you can look at and can look at other things in the interest of the city. She is concerned about the comments in the press and weakening the commission, that would be disastrous, but there is room for the council to make a different decision on this. The commission could have too, but their decision was acceptable and appropriate.

Zellers asks if the buildings are 2.7 the average? Cornwell says yes of the street view but not visually related area. Zellers asks why not use the visually related area. Cornwell says that is not what the ordinance says. The is no prescribed structure and open to interpretation. Zellers asks what average means? Cornwell says its the relationship of the area. I’m honestly a little lost in this conversation. It’s 2.7 the average, if it was equal to the average it would be a 1. They are not using the step backed part. Zellers asks about the downtown plan and the 5 story height and how they interpret the language in the plan about more subtle height restrictions from the historic districts. Cornwell says she stands by it and a 1 to 2 story difference in height is minor. Cornwell is trying to justify and just making it confusing to me. Zellers says she is not clear – is page 19 saying that the averages – grrrrrr . . . I’m not sure if its me and its late or this woman is making no sense at all. I think I”m beginning to understand the nickname some of the staff have given her. Awesome, now we are talking about the perception of the volume.

King asks to go back to page 19, on the criteria it says its not about volume, but streetacape and overall facade. So, landmarks said that he doesn’t see 2.7 as acceptable. You not arguing with that. King says we are not here to debate landmarks again, they did their job and that is wrong according to the standards and to overrule it we need to find special conditions or hardship not created by the owner. Schmidt says King should be asking questions. King says its appreciative questioning.

Subeck is asking why they can’t ask about what could be there if they have to talk about hardship. Schmidt asks May to answer. May says what could be there is one way, the other is what is the hardship – King is right, look at that one paragraph. Will it preclude and and all use or cause a hardship. You could ask about what else could be done.

Subeck asks if there are any other reasonable uses. Schmidt says this was only on the hardship, that was the basis for the appeal.

DeMarb asks Aaron Olver about hardship, Steve Brown needs to demolish 2 buildings and move one and in order to make it work, to cashflow they need to build three buildings. Could they use IF for smaller buildings. Olver says that you can’t use it for operating money, can’t make up for lost rents. He says its conceivable that an elevator might be TIF eligible. Can it be used for demolition? Yes. She says so it could be used for demolition.? He says he hasn’t seen a proforma.

Subeck says that they weren’t shown any level of evidence for hardship. Do we need evidence or do we just make a judgement. May says he thinks they did give evidence. He says it says “serious” hardship. He doesn’t agree there is no evidence but what weight you give it is up to you.

Subeck asks if anyone has seen any numbers to show a gap. No says Cornwell.

Discussion
Subeck says no proof has been presented, no evidence that demonstrates a hardship. She thinks Landmarks made the right decision. There is no proof or evidence so she will vote to uphold.

Phair says a tough argument to make, cuz if disagree and think it was a subjective decision, then we have to meet standards to overturn. There is no hard evidence, we have to make a judgement. If you are being honest, there is no evidence that show for surethere is a hardship or there isn’t. We have heard from them that there will not be more use to the property than right now, but that is also a judgement. In the end, he is giving it the eye test, it is better than what is there, its good for the city. If you show residents the two pictures, they would say they like it. That is how he will judge it and will vote for the project and the appeal.

King says that if that is true, I would vote for every shiny object put before him. That is not why we were elected, if you don’t think the economic hardship is proven, that is what you should vote on. That is the standard, not that it looks pretty. King says that this is the root of many issues, we want to talk about specific projects, we talk about root cause of evil in the world. If the Landmarks ordinance is the root of evil here, then someone should change it, otherwise we have to make the decision based on the rules before us.

Zellers thinks the Landmarks Commission got it right, the language talks about volume (as defined) in the visually related area and they are 5 times and one is 11 times the one it sits next too. That is big, and more volume than the Highlander. If you just look at streetscape, its still 2 times the volume. She thinks they made the right decision. She has not seen evidence on hardship, agrees with Subeck and King. She says the self created issue is very disappointing that a landlord/property manager would allow this building to get in the state that it was. Don’t dispute there was something wrong with the building when he bought it, anyone who buys a property there will have issues, that is part of it. It was habitable when he purchased it, because SBA would not have rented it for 8 years if it was uninhabitable. They had the 2000 report and continued to rent them for 2 more years. She believes that anything to do with 127 the preponderance of the problem was during SBA ownership. Hardship was not proven and it would be self created on 127. In regard to balancing they heard so much testimony from people who are committed to making this work and we need to honor our historic districts since they are less than 1% of the property in the city. This decision is important just for Mansion Hill, but it is really important in that district.

Palm says this has been a quandary. Alder Phair said many of the things I would, there are many definitions of the word volume, he doesn’t believe in the 3 dimensional, especially with the chart on page 19, so he isn’t sure that the Landmarks decision was right. But there is question of issues for the applicant. He says they are talking about the three buildings being appropriate, he feels they have a visual appropriateness. But he doesn’t see the hardship. They have a dinosaur building that they don’t know what to do with. It was for student housing, they could be micro apartments, does this council want to allow two buildings to slowly slide into something. Paint and soffits are not a fiscal burden, but no revenue. What is the burden here? He wants someone who thinks there is a burden to help him understand.

Cheeks thanks the people who are still there and he applauds their passion and dedication. Everyone wants what is best for the city and we come to that from two different ways. He also thanks the staff. He thanks Zellers as well. He says he wanted to be persuaded today, granting the appeal on the basis of hardship is not something he can get to despite the fact that SBA has been honest in their desire to make something great and improve the neighborhood. The buildings are aesthetically desirable, but that is not what is before us.

Strausser says that the discussion tonight, we have talked a lot about averages and they are deceiving. They reveal nothing. Bill Gates can come in and our average incomes all go up. He says that they set themselves up to fail when they set up having to prove harm to SBA, you have to prove a negative. Is there harm? How do we prove it? Does he accept that there is harm, yes.

DeMarb thanks staff. And Landmarks and Zellers. We all come at this differently, she has nothing like this in her district, they are all passionate about the city. Alder King eloquently put it, there has been no proof of hardship. She tried to stretch on how they could have investigated making it not a hardship. She says that the residents who live in historic districts, there could be hardship on them if we make bad decisions. If they are going to live there, they need to know that the city supports them. She says Landmarks is the strictest interpretation so she is voting no, not to overturn.

Resnick refers to transcript, 2/17 Levitan asked how do we make it economically feasible, how do we get to yes. He says at some point the Highlander will go vacant. Making it ADA accessible is not possible. The hardship is having to hold on to the Highlander. He asks what the applicant has left after this? Yes they made changes and it was made vastly. The economic hardship is what we leave the developer. There were competing interests. There are serious challenges in Mansion Hill from how the buildings that are run down which is the norm. He thinks there is hardship. He will be voting yes.

Clear says that he understands people struggling with hardship and he talks about the Edgewater and the balancing test of public interest. He says the tower was not being used and the way to save it was to have the new part of the project, there was strong public interest. He says there is strong public interest in getting rid of the Highlander it is an offense to the historic district and one of the reasons it was created. WE have the opportunity to get rid of that now.

Ahrens says he is voting no. Its not just the implications of hardship, but nothing substantive. We can phophesize something might happen, but it is based on lack of action by the owner. He says that every community organization and neighborhood association support is a very powerful statement. They are on board with the spirit of preserving the neighborhood as it is. One of the other tests, in that district, there was no district so focused on this issue during the election. He was particularly interested in Tenney Lapham representative.

Clausius says that Landmarks did their job, followed the ordinance based on the guidance that they have. But we have a job we have to do, it should be in the best interest of the city. He thinks that the SBA proposal would work, bottom line is maybe this isn’t a hardship, they are stuck, he sees it deteriorating and going downhill. Any developer that would come in the area, if SBA can’t make it work, neither can any other developer. He says we are not doing the district a favor, he is voting yes.

Subeck says she heard people say it doesn’t matter if it is a hardship. Appellants have burden of proof, there is a difference between hardship and cost, there are questions about recouping the cost. When she thinks about hardship it implies something unexpected. Will they be worse off than now? She doesn’t see the hardship, there are other options, if the options are all gone then it is different. We can’t make the assumption in this district that this has to be developed in a large and highly profitable development. They need look at these properties separately, you shouldn’t have to tear something down based on what is next to it. Volume has one definition – height times width times length.

Zellers says that SBA owned the building, sold it then bought it back. He knew what he was doing. She says that we need to honor our commissions and think about that. All the neighborhoods with historic district stood behind the Landmarks Commission, urges them to follow the ordinance.

Rummel says Edgewater was different, there were not contributing buildings to be demolished. Hardship means there are no alternatives. Alternatives were offered. In another location this might have been beloved, but it is in this district. There were alternatives. Demolish Highlander and build a smaller footprint. Someone offered to build 127. They could try to fix the building. She pushed on the TIF to show there were ways to preserve a scale and volume. This debate is going to repeat itself. We are all going to have a zoning, a plan and a historic district. The turducken is going to be with us for a while. The condition of the houses is a concern, there is demolition by neglect.

Weier says she did not find a hardship like the Edgewater and look, they built that.

Cnare says to the developer that they need to show the numbers, to help us understand. She encourages developer to keep working on it. She tried to find the hardship.

Chris Schmidt says that this is a subjective test, how do you perceive it. That is a key part of the ordinance. He thinks it is ok, he thinks Landmarks erred in that. He says that the subject that hasn’t come up is that the public had no interest in the Highlander. Do we have an interest in keeping 127 repaired. His issue with hardship, zoning requires certain things, once you factor in costs of demolition, that is pretty high and it is higher with parking. That is pushing the economics of the project. Also, it has to be marketable. Two other things, the TIF question of TIF on restoration there was not enough increment. If we forced a gap in the project, it is debatable if they could get it. He says they can come to different conclusions and not destroy historic districts or undermine the Landmarks Commission.

Bidar says we can come to different conclusions, the hyperbole has really bothered her, and the focus on the language in the ordinance is where we need to decide, it is hard, but the language is there. She voted to appeal on Edgewater but is voting no now, it is very different.

Palm has a question. Asks City Attorney about the public good of removing the Highlander, is that a valid argument, since we approved that. Is that appropriate. May says the construction is before you. May says yes becasue getting rid of the hIghlander won’t happen

Clear Aye
Cnare no
Demarb no
King no
Palm pass
Phair aye
Resnick aye
Rummel no
Skidmore aye
Strausser aye
Subeck no
Verveer no
Weier no
Zellers no
Ahrens no
Bidar no
Cheeks no
Clausius aye
palm ?? (couldn’t hear)

ITEM 25
The open the public hearing, no one wishes to speak, they place it on file without prejudice.

Item 29
Move to adopt by Resnick. No discussion. Passes on voice vote.

Item 55
Move approval, no discussion. Passes on voice vote.

Intros from the floor
They are listed on the consent agenda.

Palm moves reconsideration of item 42. Reconsideration passes. He moves net occupancy inside and out is 80 persons. Passes. And passes again . . .

Resnick has an ordinance change for a typo, no referrals, back to the council on the 29th.

King move adjournment.