12:55, 26 more speakers . . . no breaks!
Dennis Davidsaver lives and works downtown, asks them to follow laws and look at benefits and approve it. Lives in a neighborhood with large corporate neighbors and they contribute to safety and upkeep of neighborhood. They create economic development and ability to live and work in same neighborhood. Monona Terrace was a split issue too, but can anyone argue the positive impact they will have. Time to take another bold step forward. Edgewater is a landmark, but well worn, its a unique site, needs complex plan, fortunate to have Hammes to solve these issues to bring Edgewater back. We have an experienced and capable developer. Your approval will bring economic development. Gary Gorman sends regards from China, thinks it should be passed as well.
Bert Stitt and one other person went home.
I spoke – can’t say what I said . . .
Rosemary Lee talking . . . missed it as I returned to my seat and talked to others.
[IT WAS JUST POINTED OUT TO ME THAT ITS GETTING LATE, MAYOR DAVE TOOK HIS CONTACTS OUT]
Camille Haney nothing to add, sat here for so long going to get two cents in, and she does, repeats testimony from Landmarks essentially and I’m not retyping it, saving my fingers for the actual debate, if we ever get there.
Mayor says all the rest of the speakers are in support it’s 1:15 and I’m just taking a break, you’ll have to go check out Kristin’s live blog . . .
Those who spoke in support include:
– Melissa Mayer
– Allen Arntsen, Hammes paid lobbyist
– Amy Supple, Hammes paid lobbyist, passes
– Ken Saiki, Hammes paid lobbyist, left
– Steve Beitlow, Building Trades council, of course they, too, have skin in the game, but they don’t want a PLA
– David Walsh, from NGL
– Michael Engelberger, Labor speaks
– Susan Schnmitz DMI passes
– Paul Davidsaver passes
– Kelley Star King – went home
– Mark Hoffman – Labor
– Tom Bergamini passes
– Ryan from labor passes
– Erik Minton went home
– Erin Freeburg left
– George Kampersorer left
– James Tye pass
– Michael Christopher passes
– Paul Davidsaver passes
– Dan Cornelius left
[HEY ALL THOSE GUYS IN THE ORANGE SHIRTS THAT WERE IN HERE WHEN ONLY SPEAKERS WERE SUPPOSED TO GET SEATS NEVER SPOKE . . . WAY TO GO LABOR GUYS. I GUESS THE RULES DIDN’T APPLY TO THEM.
QUESTIONS OF SPEAKERS
None.
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING/RECESS
They decide to take a break, 9 want one, be back at 1:50
[IT LOOKS LIKE ABOUT A DOZEN PIZZAS WERE CONSUMED, THE MACHINES ARE OUT OF DIET COKE DOWNSTAIRS, THE CHOCOLATE COVERED COFFEE BEANS ARE KICKING IN, ITS JUST ABOUT 2:00, ALL ALDERS STILL PRESENT, NOT ALL IN THE ROOM]
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON TIF
They give people 4 minutes since they pared down their speakers
Robert Hundun, Hunden Strategic Partners, they did the hotel studies, he talks about what changed since they did their studies, but the Edgewater is still the best bet for the downtown. He was asked to review additional analysis, they have the HMI study and they looked at it and also looked at other documents to provide their opinion. His role is not a proponent or against a project, but his analysis is that this is a compelling project. The HMI study, their methodology, they did not see the Edgewater as a near luxury hotel and we see it differently, they didn’t think it would perform differently or as well as the Hilton, they think the Hilton is great, when you have a high calliber hotel come in with marginal or moderate space . . . 30 seconds, says adr is off, the occupancy rates are off, the jobs impact is off, Mayor cuts him off
Bob Dunn – 4 minutes, different perspective than the market study, this is a very useful study, they did market research and all come to a number of conclusions, in looking at the analysis, with respect to the market, they exclude 107 rooms there, ignores the mixed use nature of the development, doesn’t seem to be consistent with current design, rate for their hotel is at 110% or 115% of the market, could go on, also talks about what happened when Hilton entered the market, 23% market increased at low point in industry on heels of 911 and the results weren’t that bad. He says the revenue is off – non-room revenue after spending $100M only grows by 15% so it takes absolute most conservative approach to the analysis that you can take. It represents a 9% decrease from the revenue. He’s rattling off numbers . . . .he gets cut off.
Michael Hule, did the study,
[I MISSED WHAT WAS GOING ON BECAUSE A WHOLE BUNCH OF US WHO REGISTERED TO SPEAK WERE NOT LISTED AS SPEAKERS, WE HAD TO GET THE CLERK TO FIND OUR SLIPS, I DON’T KNOW WHO AGREED THAT THE SPEAKERS WOULD BE LIMITED, BUT IT WASN’T THE SPEAKERS]
5 Hoteliers speak . . . I’m sorry, I didn’t blog it, I was making sure I had my testimony ready on TIF.
Lucy Mathiak here as an individual member of Board of Education, elected for last 4 years, on finance committee, spent 2 years as liaison on common council school board liaison committee. On Joint Board of Review. Not opposed to TIF. This is not private money, TIF decisions have profound impacts on other taxing authorities, the public schools are a major partner and you are loaning them our money as well. This affects all of us. The schools are here to educate kids, not to be an economic development engine. She says state and federal decisions have eroded support for education. They lost $18M in state aid in one year. In the first 8 years they have had many cuts adding up to $22M, they have more kids that are hungry with little or no support with home and with little health care, including mental health. We have some schools at 90% or more poverty level. We can’t tax to the max, cuz they can’t afford it, but keeping TIF open, money won’t come back to schools and cut off . . . says thank you Mayor Dave, I know you care. [I THINK THAT WAS SARCASM]
Gary Peterson speaks, supports Edgewater, has done blight studies and TIF studies, did blight studies in the 60s, talks about the issues he ahs seen, Mansion Hill area is blighted under state law. We need it to assist with development of Edgewater, problems area wide, the alternatives they were shown should have had other options and
Robbie Webber says she wouldn’t vote for it, huge amount of money, breaks many of our policies, we looked at TIF policy and made rules for a good reasons. The 50% rule was put in place, this is 240%, it will not support itself, won’t pay it back. It breaks the policies, when you add these things up and doesn’t that raise soem red flags, she voted against a popular good project when she was on the council, this is far beyond that, this is not a good use of $16M. The public amenities and public use they are going to be able to close the plaza for 15 days of the year, when, every Saturday in the summer, if approve it, put serious restrictions on when the plaza can be closed and make sure you get real public access. Urge not to approve it, if do restrict number of weekends and summer nights that they can close the publci access.
I spoke, most of it was in my previous post on the TIF meeting last night, well, Monday night.
Pete Ostlind says that the costs in the report from the expert don’t add up to $16M and many areas included in the public access are items that are not public access. He talks about the Brasser numbers, he says the conservation easement is where we preserve what was already supposed to be preserved. We’ve sold it and paid for it many times, this doesn’t pass the smell test. I missed a bunch.
Ledell Zellers speaks, public plaza can be closed any time, except from 7 – 8 am, that is not a public plaza.
2:40 QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Bidar Sielaff asks about jobs and hotels, what ratio do you use per room, what is the industry standards.
1.5 – 1.75 per room
So fair to say for 200 room hotel?
It would be 150
Eagon asks Dunn, on the condos and public access and what $16M will go for?
Dunn says that total cost is $34M, he repeats himself he says $16M are the public access areas, there are other structural things that need to happen. In the city’s analysis, they deleted costs that still have to be paid for, he can go through it in great detail if they would like. You are contributing $16M of the $34.
Eagon asks about condos and how they benefit the project.
Dunn says that per TIF policy no recognition of the condos, they didn’t like the city’s approach, that aspect of the program is not eligible, we are looking at the total new construction, basing value of hotel on . . .
ooops, interrupted . . .
Verveer asks about the condos, how many condo units will this be on the top two floors?
Dunn says you could have 10 small units, they will not have that many units, will have small number of larger units, he thinks 6 or fewer.
Verveer asks how many suites.
Dunn says 10.
Verveer says he thought it was 17 per floor.
Dunn says they would be suites.
Verveer asks why if they are condos why will it have no impact on hotel revenues.
Dunn says city looks at it and assume new construction is fully occupied. They think of it as 6 floors of hotel room and 2 floors of condos. If they built it as hotel suits, it would generate extra income. Condos are important because the profit from the condos will go to the public access part of the program.
Verveer asks if they approve land use but not the TIF, what would you build without it.
Dunn says there is no project?
Verveer asks if it is for the PAC?
Dunn says we can’t take it apart and put it back together without dealing with the PAC, he thinks that in order to pursue the project, removal of the 70s addition, its all tied together, with no TIF, there is no project. With the redesign from UDC, there is $8M more in costs, no additional rooms or condos, $8M of costs and worked hard to over come it, a portion covered by NGL for parking. PAC has gotten more expensive with each iteration, if more expensive and take TIF away.
Dunn shows the slide that shows the changes from each project. He says the public access piece is getting more expensive.
Verveer asks about management agreement, he says they got the different versions of the public access agreement, it doesn’t have the word draft on it, told there will be a process later, is this document negotiable, or is the negotiation done? Is this something to be further negotiated.
Dunn says it has been negotiated, one thing that is important is that when first started the negotiations, not clear who would own and operate the space and the concept of that agreement was that we would negotiate something that would work no matter who owns and manages it. He says it is reciprocal. You have to look at both sides of the agreement, he thinks it is the principle terms, but there is more work to be done.
Verveer asks what that means, room for refinement?
Dunn says the basic terms are agreed to, but work to be done, this is a partnership, both parties need to find good solutions. They have looked at how Monona Terrace operates, more work to be done, but it will take to work through it.
Verveer asks what are we getting for $16M and he has concerns about specifics in the May 12 document, you’re saying that the basic tenants of this management agreement have been negotiated, is that right, and the council will look at the specifics later. Would you object to major modifications?
Dunn says he’d have to understand a major modification. We could end up on either side of that agreement and city could too, what is a major modification. Is it hours of operation, event space.
Verveer says its all of the above. He has concerns on page 3, certain areas could be open 1 hour a day.
Dunn says that is not accurate.
Verveer asks if would negotiate it further.
Dunn wants to speak to one hour per day, he says on the plaza there is the right of way, that is what the city has today, In last iterations, they expanded the public space to include more, they get benefit of private space owned outside the right of way. He says the way the agreement is written there are three areas to be used for events, when there is an event, the public still has full access rights, they can still go down the stair and to the waterfront. I missed some, he says that it will be open more than one hour a day, 15 days a year they can close it completely, for instance 4th of July [GUESS THE DUDE WON’T BE WATCHING RHYTHM AND BOOMS] He says they should also have 8 days for community based organizations with no cost to them. He can’s see how people interpret the document any other way.
Rummel says sorry she missed yesterday, she had a neighborhood meeting planned for a long time. Right now, public access can’t be closed, with this they can.
Dunn says that they should clarify closed, he says if there is a wedding 4 – 10 in one area, what we were striving for was to bring those events downtown and be open to public, that event would take place in one area, but the public has access to the other space.
Rummel says people say we are paying for what we already have, what do we have now with the 1965 ordinance.
Dunn says rights of the public today, you could go there right now, almost all space is controlled area for mechanical equipment, there is 16 of space available, the majority is not accessible.
Rummel says she wants to know waht the spirit was, not the poor execution. Assuming you will charge to close off the space, is that part of the non-room revenue.
Dunn says you give 16m and we give 18m we take on operating costs forever, so yes, we generate revenue, they said city could own and operate and we could rent it, and response was that city won’t put $34M in and maintain it, but we would like the rights for the public which led us to where we are today. Missed some.
Rummel asks how much time do they need for the event space to generate the revenue they need. Totally open to public or partially open to the public, neither is bad.
Rummel says she wants to know changes so they know what they are getting. The trades guy says that they don’t need a PLA but heard you they have PLA can you explain.
Dunn says there is a PLA, but there is no project to sign it around.
Rummel asks about the jobs. How many at the living wage.
Dunn says look at packet from last October or November, they haven’t changed, but been greatly distorted. He explains the numbers are on and off site jobs, missed a bunch again . . . lots of negotiations and side conversations going on, very interesting, don’t know what they are about, but its 3:15 and people are looking weary.
Rummel asks about Landmarks and tax credits, would that reduce the cost of the project.
Dunn says not the cost, but becomes a source of financing, they do account for that on their side of the ledger. He says these conservation easements are used, if we can’t do all that, its our problem.
Rummel asks about what happens if you don’t have the money, will you give up parts of project for tax credits.
Dunn says he can’t say.
Rummel asks if they would forego it.
Dunn says that they have to explore it.
Kerr says there was negotiation, who on the city side invovled.
Dunn says Gromacki and Zellhoefer.
Verveer asks Hule to finish his tesimony.
Hule talks about Hilton, says the Hilton was necessary to make Monona Terrace successful, that was one of the main driving points, this project is across downtown, not terribly far, but not attached to or adjacent to the convention center. It won’t be participating in the convention business, if it is going to hit 70% occupancy they would need to lower rate to participate and also lower rates to get state business.
Verveer asks him to respond to Hundun’s claim your study is flawed.
Hule two different experts with different points of view, can have a luxury hotel, the projections on this hotel will not reach the rates, the Pfister doesn’t.
Pham-Remmele asks one of the hotelier, she asks at this time with the economy how well is the business doing. How successful?
A guy says room tax for 2009 was down 2009 and now see the room tax for first quarter up a little bit, so no where near 2008 and won’t be there until 2013 at the earliest. 2010 will be above 2009 and it will take a while to get back.
Pham-Remmele says rarely pay rack rate, wonders how many of the rooms are taken for rate asking for, can go to hotwire and get cheap rates.
Guy says that that is what most people do. So, all hotels at one level or another, we participate in Orbitz, Hotline etc, also do government business, $70 is the state rate, we do it ta fill room and keep employees, room rates are down and will continue to be done. Travelers know the deals are out there.
Pham-Remmele says used to book rooms for conferences in 90s but now have to do teleconference, she can’t afford it. Many peopel she knows people can’t afford to travel, concerned how many would pay $300 to stay in the hotel. She asks about the restaurant, nice waiter, but within a few minutes, he couldn’t wait on their table, like him and glad to tip, he was called to work, but told to go home, when talk about jobs, she feels bad, person shows up for work, he didn’t get paid for the night. [PEOPLE ARE LOSING IT . . . ]
He says that happens in all restaurants.
She’s still talking and repeating herself.
Mayor closes the hearing on 22.
LAND USE/PUD
Cnare makes motion of adoption, and recommendations of plan commission with an amended condition. She talks about the letter from Brad Murphy on Secretary of Interior language is struck, with the exception of the entrance, the one story addition and some other area, the design has to go back to Landmarks’ commission.
QUESTIONS
Rummel would like to see it, it was alot of words. Clear is going to get it printed.
Bidar-Sielaff asks Murphy about the memo and the conversation, did he say they don’t have purview over this project.
Murphy says yes, he didn’t talk to state, Tim Parks did, they don’t have jurisdiction unless they apply for tax credits. They can’t review it, the city can’t compel them to do so.
Bidar-Sielaff says no jurisdiction. Murphy agrees. She asks Parks to confirm, she says yes.
Mayor asks if while getting copies should they take up 5.
CONDITIONAL USE
Mayor asks May to explain.
Clear moves to accept the appeal.
They vote wihtout discussion.
Cnare moves to uphold the decision based on materials and what they heard, she reads the items they need to find. I audio recorded this, and can type it later.
It’s seconded.
She hopes that they read the 120 pages of the transcript, she says look at the standards, they had three motions they take at the same time, she says that if you look at the meeting, they had a report from staff, they went through step by step and we have discussion and it doesn’t always touch on each point, instructions say if approve and you agree standards are met, then move to council, they only say to say why not if they feel it does not meet it. If denied, they tell developer what they can do to get approval. They acted like they do. 7 hours of public testimony, they asked questions, this was not taken in order. They heard that it would improve the area, improve the tax base and parking. Also discussed waterfront setback. There were 67 people registered in support, 11 in opposition. She tells them to look at the staff report. staff report says the standards “could be met” she thinks that going through the experience, reading the minutes etc, if you return to plan commission, it won’t change anything, it wasn’t unanimous, shouldn’t stand in way of looking at transcript and move on.
Kerr says she id defensive as the maker of the motion, she felt the conditional use standards had been met, heard testimony, read the report and felt standards were met, if she felt they weren’t met she would have made a different motion. Hard not to be defensive, feels like plan commission did their job and wants to reassure her, political pressure wouldn’t have an impact on her, if she felt she should, she’d deny it.
Compton says she would bet the ranch on that statement. She asks about why they are using the verbaiage about it being better for public welfare instead of not hurt it.
Murphy says he didn’t make the motion.
Kitty Noonan drafted the motion, lets heard form her says the Mayor.
Noonan says it comes from testimony from the transcript.
Compton asks if that is how to address?
Noonan says the standard is negative instead of positive, but that is the way it was in the testimony.
Compton is uncomfortable with the language, not taking a pill that will make everything wonderful and beautiful instead of it won’t harm me. Is there a reason.
Noonan says that without the finding being noted, that this was a way to highlight the testimony and findings that underlay the decision they made.
Cnare says this isn’t an executive summary, if you want to list the standards, they plan commission did its job and it should be passed tonight.
Schumacher says not on plan commission as long as Kerr and Cnare, he is grumpy, this appeal stinks. The same group that doesn’t want us to overturn one commission but wants this overturned. Plan commission has great members and staff. Given we had 7 hours of testimony he find audacity to come after us, appreciates what Cnare did.
Rummel says she understands that nothing should change, but plan commission should have better best practices. UDC doesn’t have this kind of staff, we are encouraged to be clear when we find it meets standards. There was 7 hours of testimony and maybe someone felt the case wasn’t made and you didn’t talk about it, maybe you felt like it, but you didn’t deliberate in any verbal way. You should be more mindful.
Bidar-Sielaff says she is clarifying info about the Standards if the they apply for tax credits.
Motion passes on voice vote, seems unanimous.
TAKE 3 BACK OFF THE TABLE
They all have copies now, the rest of us don’t.
Compton asks a question I missed.
Murphy says that as they read 1, 2 and 3, the condition says that those elements must be submitted for review by the landmarks commission, doesn’t require approval, just review. If you want landmarks to approve it, you should add the word “and approval” in 2 and 3.
Compton appreciates the recommendation but she does not want to.
Murphy says that all it requires is review. If PUD approved that is all that is required.
Compton asks if they could refer it many times, is there a reason it needs to go to Landmarks.
Murphy can’t answer it.
Cnare says this reflects what the plan commission wanted, can’t do what they wanted, they think historic renovation is important to the project and it should be looked at someone who is an expert. If state won’t do it, would like Landmarks to do it, its comfort language to say they think historic preservation is important.
Compton asks if it is just a review it?
Cnare hopes they will offer concrete advice and developer will think it is helpful. She would ask Noonan what is in their purview. She says that landmarks asked to see it, it shouldn’t be a big problem for them or the developer.
Noonan says not formal construct for the review, doesn’t know Landmarks well, knows they do review things from time to time and these conditions were put on the conditions of appropriateness, staff and commission would review to see if they met.
Verveer moves separation of the 1940’s language. They can vote on the rest of the motion.
Verveer asks Murphy about the suggested language change.
Murphy says when they send something back for final approval it is for the approval of the final details, not just review, if you want to be consistent, you would require approval.
4 AM . . . sigh . . .
He says that in number one might want to say that it has to be conducted to Secretary of the Interior standards for the exterior only.
I missed a bunch of Murphy explanation of adding language to the extent possible as approved by the Landmarks commission in item one.
Verveer makes motion to include approval and the language for one. Compton says it is not friendly.
DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT
Hopes not controversial, he says he support it, appreciates Kerr’s attempt to respect the integrity of the tower. Landmarks commission can take care of the details, it was their intention to see the details later, they were not presented to them, this is the minutia they deal with regularly. This isn’t controversial.
Compton says she has a problem cuz Landmarks opposes the project, woudl like ti to go to another body. She realizes not popular.
Calls the question.
Mayor ignores them and calls on Rummel.
Rummel says something I didn’t understand, my bad.
Bidar-Sielaff support this, if modify decision of landmarks, this should be in the language, they need to review it. There has been a collegial conversation with the 40s building and there is an interest with the applicant to work with them, this is how we do the process.
Maniaci asks if this would jeopardize the the Certificate of Appropriateness.
May says no, these are common conditions, its a completely different opinion.
Manaici says that this will not hold up the project?
May says it shouldn’t this is routine.
Clear says that they can’t issue the building permit until cleared, they would still have veto approval.
Murphy says that they can appeal to the Common Council if concerned, this was staff’s original recommendation. Missed some.
Bidar Sielaff asks if this was added to COA (Cert of Approval) would . . .oh, I don’t know.
Rummel asks if we just leave it off, what would it do, we are granting and exception, can they delete the last part.
Murphy says the exception were based on conversation with state, those three exception that wouldn’t comply with secretary of interior standards, that is why they are there, we are certain those elements of the project, even tho desirable, they most likely would not comply with the Secretary of Interior standards.
Rummel says he’s willing to find out more.
Verveer assures Compton that the landmarks commission agreed and loved the 1940s buidling renovation, so I don’t want you to think they don’t want the project done, Manaici can confirm it, they won’t put up road blocks to that. He also wants to address Rummel that if they pursue tax credits, this language won’t preclude that, they still need the full review by the State Historical Society.
Clear says can support most of it, but can’t support approve, cuz ti will get us back to where we are today and they could reject it out of spite, he is concerned they are handing them a loaded gun. [REALLY?]
Kerr says the front canopy as designed is better than built, but Secretary standards require to restore what was built. She think people on landmarks would agree.
Compton doesn’t’ doubt integrity of landmarks, but we should remove cloud or question, she wants to have it reviewed by landmarks and approved by staff.
Bidar-Sielaff says this is not a group of obstructionists, they will provide feedback and review. They have seen them work, they don’t seem concerned that it will stop the project. Has been through hours of meetings, the 40s building is collegial, this is the usual process, she doesn’t see that as problematic.
Clear agrees with Bidar-Sielaff, he thinks the could review, wants to go back to Maniaci’s language at Landmarks, gave discretion to staff or landmarks commission.
Compton wants to rebut – city attorney says this is three – they give her leeway after she argues with them.
Compton says that no one is challenging the integrity of landmarks, it might sound like it, we’re dealing with a business and millions of dollars, can little thinks happen, minor things could slow things done, she wants to remove a cloud, she thinks they can be successful, its not her $100M and need to protect all parties, we have a history of referrals, if we pass all this tonight, then move it forward, doesn’t want it to trip on this language. Staff should approve.
Mayor re-reads the motion. Have audio, can add it later.
ROLL CALL
Passes 12 – 8
Nos are Clear, Compton, King, Maniaci, Pham-Remmele, SAnborn, Schumacher, Skidmore.
Amendment passes on voice vote, some nos.
AMENDMENT ON CHANGE TO PAC
Verveer has another amendment
Any change to public access component shall be considered a major alteration, especially any change which would include fencing or gates, to be approved by Common Council.
Verveer says that it wouldn’t be minor alteration changed by alder and staff, major alteration has a public process and can have public input.
Eagon asks if it is any change, he asks if it could say any non-minor alterations.
Verveer says that it is no disrespect to the process, but it is his intent to have ti be a major intent, asks Murphy to give examples about what the alterations would be.
Murphy says the physical site plan for the area, not the use and maintenance agreement for the public space that will come back later.
Verveer agrees, he not talking about the agreement yet to be approved.
Murphy says if there is a proposal to make the spaces less accessible, that is not minor and should be considered by plan commission or common council as major alterations. There may be some minor changes between now and when building permits are issued. If the project is approved, the plans will have to meet all conditions of approval and city engineer says we need to ensure the areas are accessible. There will be some evolution of design between now and final sign off, if staff can approval things that are minor and consistent with conditions of approval.
Eagon want the language to be changed.
Verveer says there would be no point, its not a hardship. If it is minusculely minor, they can approve it.
Maniaci asks if it includes snow fencing, is it temporary or permanent.
Verveer asks if it si during the construction phase?
Manici says any at all.
Verveer is worried about fences for events, even if erected and removed every Saturday during the high season it should be approved. If it is for repair or maintenance or during construction it is ok.
Maniaci asks Murphy if he agrees with the assessment given the language.
Murphy’s only concern is the one Eagon expressed, “any change” to the plans reviewing this evening, there will be changes, some will be minor or major and this suggests any deviation is a major alteration, and approved by plan and council.
Maniaci says a snow fence would go through three committees.
Murphy thought temporary fences would not be covered, but Verveer said it would.
Manaici asks if they would have to approve every configuration for temporary fences.
Murphy says that is not a practical solution, maker of motion should explain.
Solomon makes motion to say, after any change that limits accessibility or freedom of movement shall be considered a major alteration. He says that defines major, and gets to what Eagon gets it.
Verveer says it is friendly, and yes it should be approved by the common council.
That is friendly.
Clear and Schumacher say things I missed and Murphy answers questions as we contemplate at which point they lose quorum because people have to go to work. Rumor has it some have to leave at 5;30, 6;00 and 6:30. We have also heard that they have to be out of the room at 7:00 for municipal court and they have room 260 reserved for if they go past 7:00, which could happen if they don’t lose quorum as people leave to go to work . . .
Compton asks if they word permanent can be added, Verveer says its friendly.
Solomon calls the question.
Chaos as they decide how to word it.
Eagon reluctantly supports it, not much more micromanaging, seems like we are designing bike lands on Midvale Blvd. (or Monona?) Mayor re-reads the motion.
Passes on a voice vote, appears unanimous.
MAIN MTOION
They tried to call the question, ala Clear, motion failed 11-9, Rhodes Conway out of room, those who did not vote for it were:
Cnare, Kerr, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Rummel, Solomon, Verveer and Bidar-sielaff
ANOTHER AMENDMENT
He reads a really long thing I missed, he says it attempts to inhibit current plans as proposed in March, that this won’t undermine plans recommended by plan, but memorialize the 1965 ordinance and what they got us for the view, is permanently preserved, he is hoping that in the future that view shed will be reserved. Hopes this condition will amplify that important statement. He says the language should not conflict.
It’s getting light out, 4:50
Murphy says that he isn’t sure about the elevations in the motion. 75 feet and 5x? feet and staff had not verified that this is consistent with the existing elevation at Langdon and Wisconsin Ave. He says the intent of the condition is clear, with the understanding that portions of the tower already encroach into the area, they can’t confirm those two elevations. Murphy says you could take the specific elevations out and refer to a point on the plan.
Verveer asks how to do that.
Pause to figure out the language, Mayor says we have to move along, Murphy says they are not capable at this point of figuring it out – but he says it more eloquently then I just summarized.
Verveer asks for alternative language.
Murphy says that it is not meant to apply to elements on existing plans.
Verveer says the language would work.
Murphy has some language, they table it for Murphy to work on it.
Compton asks Dunn to speak to it.
Mayor says no, public hearing is done.
