I started a new blog, cuz the other was going on and on . . . so here’s a new part.
I missed the speaker’s name, he’s been here before, he talks about “the guy” who asked you to uphold the laws. He says that many of you are at the table, because there are cameras and you are soliciting public testimony, you are making judgments. This is a unique partnership where the city will get the public space and you will hold the toes of the developer to build a great space. He lives in the Kennedy Manor, this is a gateway to Madison, don’t think all developers are evil. He thinks there are around the table to make decisions. He says that he has heard the building is too tall, he has no problem with the size and lives closer than anyone in the building. He loves the picture of the building. He says now when you stand at Wis Ave and Langdon you get a PHD in heating and air conditioning. He thinks the space can be better. He gave sail boat rides on the pier, its hard to land there if there is a north wind. There might be some compromises in the height, its a value judgment, he won’t stand by and watch it become a Hotel 6 next to a swamp.
?? St. Francis, he hopes it will get a variance. He says he wants to talk with them about the architecture, he says that the moving of the parking is important to their decision. He talks about the insurance building and the details of it. He says they need to compare those details to the proportions and designs of the new building. You need to respect the differences of the building when you compare them. You also have to consider the topography and geography. I missed his point, he was hard to hear . . .
Gary Gorman in support. (I’ve been razzing him all night about why he’s wasting his time.) He says he’s a developer that does historic renovations. He stayed out, but he developed the Quisling, he goes through timelines starting in July 97, he says there is precedence for a larger building to be compatible with the neighborhood. The project was passes, alder supported, the landmarks commission and alder reverse their position. April 99, the plan commission passed it and the neighborhood liked it cuz tax credits excluded the students from living there. He asks not to use the project as a good example of process. He shows pictures of the building there before the Quisling. He asks about consistency of original building and the 40s building and if the landmarks postilion had taken the restrictive position you are being asked to, the Quisling would have never been built. He also says it was negligence that 40s building is in bad condition. He says they had the same problem with the facade, even tho he could draw great curves, but the mortar was bad and it cracked, they had to take down 90% of the building to restore it. Process with Quisling was a mess. Be flexible to bring in architecture for the future. Don’t blame the current owners.
Levitan asks about Landmarks approval on the timeline. Gorman says right before the plan commission.
Gorman says the volume of the building today is 4 times the building there before, increasing volume has a precedence.
Gehrig asks if there were three projects? Gary shows the second and says there were two hours. Gehrig asks if you were familiar with landmarks ordinance, he says yes, but it was a negotiated process, some of the issues we hear tonight weren’t even mention, it came down to what the neighbors liked. He says that the new building took more elements from the neighborhood than what you see today.
Maniaci asks about massing on his project, what was the breaking point when it came to massing. Surface parking vs underground parking. You need volume to generate revenue, they couldn’t afford underground parking with the design approved. Maniaci asks Landmarks originally approved. He says two different buildings.
Gene Devitt says he was around when Quisling was in planning. He says that there were buildings going to be destroyed. Those buildings would be gone today without the neighborhood and without landmarks. He points out where he lives, he asks if they would allow Verex today? He says they have been good neighbors. He points out the model, the reason they are zoned R6H, not a place to park high rise buildings. Average height is 2.3 stories high. R6H is there to protect more buildings like the ones that were built. You have made this neighborhood a true historical neighborhood. These are laws that you have to abide by. This is an 11 story building, it is massive, there are ways to put up buildings to blend, like Quisling, which we all agree looks better, and we didn’t lose the Hart House. The way Bridget talks about it, the building will fall in the water. Well, call the building inspector. He talks about Scott Lewis project, moved a Queen Anne, in 1960 they tore down houses for surface parking, they replaced surface parking with a house, and then he built an apartment building and they hid the parking and the church got to stay downtown, you can build to conform to the rules. He points to the Highlander, calls it a mistake, its the mass and height that will change this project, it has to be smaller, this is a neighborhood where people live and walk and enjoy it. He says that Bridget, went to prom there, nice building, in response to saying need retail, it only takes 5 minutes to walk to State St, not 15 minutes and that is with the dog doing his duties.
Julie Aulik, says she has no skin in the game. He has experience, she was on board of Wis Turst of Hist. Preservation and Director and Taliesin and worked in N. Carolina and wrote opinions for all commissions in the state. There was more I missed. She says that she comes to supplement the staff report, with a different point of view. Thought she’d come to same view as preservationists, that new development was not appropriate. But she went through the criteria and come to conclusion that she thinks ti merits a certificate of appropriateness. She wants to focus on volume. She says don’t focus on the qualitative analysis. How you put the volume together is what makes it visually compatible She says it works as terminus of Wis Ave, ties together the diverse architecture and the landscape. This is a unique site. She says the mass as it is put together has room to breathe. She says that is stronger than visually compatible, it enhances the environment of the site. This is a different point of view and respects everyone who has given so much thought from preservation and economic development community. She wants you to see the third way.
Maniaci asks about if it meets the standards or could be granted a variance, she asks her to talk about it. Can it meet the standards outright or is a variance required. She says she wishes she brought the ordinance with her, tried not to feel too much, if voting she could grant a CoA, she feels like it meets it outright, she spent less time on the variance issue. She says if you conclude you can’t grant a CoA, then could arrive at a variance, it will hinge on acceptance of definition of hardship, including inherent conditions of the building and the site, and everyone would have those same conditions, they are not self created. Project meets the intent of the ordinance without a doubt.
Maniaci asks her how she came to her conclusion. She says it is the site, and how the building is assembled and the relationship to the other structures. The new construction is separate enough from the other structures and set back enough that while the volume is not insignificant, it works in the context it is in, it has enough room to express itself. She says it pulls you in and draws you down Wis. Ave. It’s not an offensive part, she had a different reaction to it. Maniaci asks about the residential nature of the buildings of a certain era and then this meeting, she asks her professional opinion to the district as a whole and the 2 story residential structure. She says she doesn’t want to go all David Mollenhoff on you, but she doesn’t want to answer the question. She sees it as an amenity and thinks it won’t encroach on the homes. In the visually related area, doesn’t want to repeat herself. The scale works because of how it is sited on the project site.
Gehrig says in favor of the purpose and intent, but not the criteria. Should the commission not pay attention to the gross volume if the purpose and intent is met. She says no. Absolutely not, she says she thinks it meets both, the intent and the criteria.
Gehrig asks if the gross volume is ok with the visually related area, it is visually compatible, she says yes.
John Shehan speaks in opposition. He talks really fast, so this is hard. He talks about common sense and practical and how the height and volume are unsound. The design is out of scale proportion and character and defies common sense. He says that the developers are using technicalities to prove it is compatible, not common sense. They don’t talk about the impact on the neighborhood, just waht is economically good for the city. Do the uncommon, deny the certificate of appropriateness.
Victor Rodriguez, lives in University Heights, works downtown, knows Bob Dunn and Fred Mohs personally, listened to alot of what is going on. Some gentleman said it wasn’t about feel good, but it is. Julie Aulik did mention some of the things, when he went down to Langdon and looked at the street, he says that the area has breath-ability. its a fallacy to think someone will come in and renovate, take care of the addition put in and do it without trying to get return on their investment. He says in University Heights its similar, the word average has been used, can mean alot of things, when talk about average size of the building, talking apples and oranges. If you look at periphery, you will see structure. He talks about the monstrosity across the street from his house, he was in favor of it, he could see the end product. It went form 3500 to 6000 square feet, its an absolute beut. He says developer has done a good job to look good and make a profit, that is the bottom line. Someone just isn’t going to come in and do it without a profit. Not sure what the key legal issues are, if there is some gray that can be put to this, think about what could happen for downtown and city of Madison. They go to Chicago a lot and if this is built, they will stay a weekend in Madison instead.
Michael Bridgeman, in opposition. It’s bigger, doesn’t meet Certificate of Appropriateness criteria. He doesn’t live in Mansion Hill, has developed walking tours. Some say it won’t be a precedent, but he is certain it will. He says in First Settlement, we have faced proposals that would have been disasterous, stick to the standards, don’t grant the certificate.
James Tye, in support. Use to live in Kennedy Manor. He says the hotel deserves a Cert of App. because the project as a whole adds to the area. He talks about a house he bought, garage didn’t fit his car, needed two variances, and I missed the rest, ordering dinner at 9:00.
They ask the speakers to move because they can’t look into the glaring lights any longer.
Jim Skretny, can’t hear, they’re moving the model around. He says that the reason Madison’s first historic district was created, you were created to best protect teh character of the historic districts. You are being asked to vote to put a commercial project in a residential project, or say no again and face being stripped of your commission. The facts haven’t changed, if you vote for this the scale and mass will irrevocably be undermined, you commission will be remembered as the reason there are future intrusions, this isn’t about this one building, this is about proposals developers are thinking about, we are at a turning point, like those in history books, high drama, late nights, etc, and questions about due process and fair play. He quotes from Stuarts book. The past matters, you are in a pivotal, don’t vote for large commercial project.
Leigh Mollenhoff, member of first Landmark’s Commission, the years when the historic district was formulated. Appalled you are being badgered to abandon the landmarks criteria. We adopted them after long and careful thought. The ordinance has worked well for 40 years. She takes pride that you and your predecessors have abide by the criteria. The ordinance is not broken, it is working. When a project is grossly out of scale, its your job to call a spade a spade and reject it. This is so far out of scale, you cannot approve it. You can’t hide it by planting vines on it. She talks about the Highlander next to one of their 3 story buildings, it is out of scale, like NGL, the Edgewater will be out of scale. The landmarks commission is responsible to protect historic districts, you need to finish what we started 40 years ago.
Levitan asks about the preservation plan and development document. Was that adopted by the council at the same time the ordinance was adopted. She says yes. Levitan says the booklet says that they should come to Landmarks first, it is a mandatory requirement to discuss. He asks how long ago that stopped? She says that was the intent. She presumed that was still in operation and that is how a developer would start out.
Jim Carly – lived in Mansion Hill, developed Pinckney Place with Fred Arnold and now lives in senior project on west side. In favor, its appropriate, great architecture. Has built projects around the united states, thinks the project is appropriate especially with the building next door, its well integrated with the neighborhood and this large project is the only way to find enough dollars to justify the restoration of the building that is already there. It will help city attract new business, conventions and tourism, it will give us public space. It will bring increased value to other properties in the area.
Gehrig asks if his project replaced something in a historic district. I couldn’t hear his answer, but he something about it being ok being torn down. She asks if it had to go to Landmarks, he says no. He did for a restoration in Unversity Heights.
Don Sanford hands out pictures, he live sin a historic district, he is about to publich the cultural history of Lake Mendota, he is an ice boater, has spent alot of time looking at the Edgewater and researching it. He says the reason for the photos is the shoreline as seen from the lake. He is still concerned that it will be the first step in a visually hard shoreline. He compares Monona and Mendota shorelines, he shows how they are different. Monona is like the a class picture, tall people in the back. Mendota is softer, its parkland and wooded, buildings are residential, that is the scale of the shoreline. He shows the 1962 or 63 pictures before the 70s addition. We all know it needs an upgrade, but the new tower will rise above everything else on the lake. He says that new construction on that shoreline should comply with neighborhood. The view form the lake should be respected as much as from Wisconsin Avenue. He is worried about the view of the capital, people want to see it and we are supposed to protect that capital view, that is what people want to see. There are only two places you can see it, alley from James Madison Park and here. Lake Mendota is a special place, and state capitol is an icon and we need to be careful before our kids wonder what happened to the capitol.
Cedric Price in opposition. He talks about how the photos and drawings are misleading, I missed his analogy. He shows the buildings, and says you can’t see the entrance. He says the views are important because they are being selective about what they are preserving. He says that National Parks determines what is a historic landmark, this redevelopment would make it inconsistent. If this were a landmark, should be taken back to the original design. He says the proposal is damage control as far as historic preservation is concerned. He says the thing that stands out about the project, is the old Edgewater Hotel.
Maniaci asks which architectural firm he is with. He says that he did the ones at Urban design, he is not compensated, he doesn’t know where they came from, didn’t wish to give his name. Maniaci asks where the data came from, he says they were prepared from the materials from Hammes.
Dennis Davidsaver, in support – I needed to take a break . . . sorry . . . when I came in Stuart and David were arguing about something I missed.
Pat Sheldon, a renter in the area for 20+ years I think she said, she has lived all over, she has lived in various types of housing, lives in historic and new houses. Lots of exposure, ended up in Madison because of a job, and ended up around Mansion Hill. She’s been to 20 months of meetings, you can take any of the information and twist it to how you support it. One person says that if you live downtown and in a city, then you should be used to change. The next meeting it was used to show how far from downtown they lived that they had to walk so far to get to amenities. It’s an exaggeration, but you can use anything you want to support what you want. Tonight you heard people ask if this is too big, what are the other options, consider there are many architects and developers and in 6 month they could come froward with something good. You aren’t the only ones struggling with this, they all have, I just ask that you keep in mind, nothing is written in stone, its not night or day, if this doesn’t’ happen, its not the end. There is an impatience here that it has to get done, but there are other options.
Richard Taplin, lives on E Wilson, Union Transfer. He says he has no financial stake in the outcomes, encourages them to approve. It will have a positive impact on downtown Madison. They were first to move into their condos, property taxes were less than $20K per year, now its $355,000 every year to support schools, city and county. The vibrancy of the King St area is reflected in the residents living there. The Union Transfer and Marina Condos over objections of CNI were instrumental in revitalizing the neighborhood. The rest of us living downtown will enjoy the revitalized space. From his wife’s perspective working for the last three chancellors, this will help the UW with potential major donors. It also doesn’t seem logical that a precedence will be set, each future project will be reviewed by its merits. He asks why the Economic Development Commission can’t force a 2/3 vote. Don’t further delay. Let it go to council with a simple majority vote.
Bert Stitt left.
Patrick Corcoran lived in Mansion hill, family owns property there, he’s owned property there for 10 years. He points out his building. He says not a voting member of Mansion Hill, not his choice, must be a resident. He learned that a neighborhood is made up of people who live there, if you go to church or own property that is what makes up a neighborhood. Rosemary Lee says there are many people in the neighborhood in support. Many of us want to be involved more in the neighborhood. Someone made reference to alternative neighborhood association but it is not an alternative that can’t live there. He says that the report was done by people who don’t live there. He says it has been selective about who they want to represent. There were comments earlier by Zellers, if you put out misinformation enough it will be considered a fact. He says it is a two way street with the view corridor and stair. He complains about person who came in and won’t say who did the renderings. Its secretive. Apparently you have to be of the same opinion to be involved. He talks about 40 year old laws, they need to be reconsidered, that is why there is a variance and a commission, he thinks its appropriate, he has seen it from every angle, form lake, top of his building, not a case where it is not appropriate. It’s next to the NGL building, you can’t ignore it, so visually it makes sense.
Levitan asks about it being on the fringe, Stuart says its in the middle of the district. He says if you north you are in the lake. Stuart says seriously?
Maniaci asks him as a direct property owner, do you have concerns about the building being closer to your building, do you have concerns about the massing. He says no. He went out and walked it, the information circulating doesn’t seem to be consistent with what the developer is trying to put out there.
Gehrig points out his building is backwards in the rendering.
Alexander Hitch in opposition. A student graduating in a week, being a transient student, big misconception, UW and City is vital to the students, it stays with you and you look back with pride and honor. This strikes him which is why he is here. He wants to talk about what a landmark is. He says that there are city state and national landmarks. Its not just a building, it is something in a much greater landmark, not just the historic district is being impacted. This is an endangered old neighborhood, is it appropriate to put that landmark in endangerment. No. He says that the one thing you are thinking about is that this is not about economics or cultural value, but what this is in the context of judging it as a landmark. Please, as someone who is leaving in a week but taking this experience with me, think about it.
Judy Karofsky everything has been said, but not everyone said it. She hasn’t said it in every venue. She supports the project. Has an advanced degree in history, bachelors in economic and masters in business. She was a student of Grasskamp. Not sure what side he’d be on, he’d be crying about the amount of time and effort expended. She served on ZBA, some cut and dry decisions, but there are variances. Also served on Downtown Historic Plan Task Force and they recommended the appeals process that was not appealing to you. That was put in place for some decision some day, not every project. She says that at one of council meetings, Compton talked about Phildelphia, old buildings with new buildings, in vital historic and fun and family oriented building. She talks about her trips to Washington DC and historic hotel she stayed in that is an elephant in a historic district. Its in high end gated houses, multifamily, commercial development, import to schlock stores, bistros to McDonalds, point is, they co-exist. She says to ask about historic tax credits. She says some people think we should barricade historic neighborhoods and keep people out. Says she went to breakfast with mother a few weeks ago and they were the only ones there. She says that some homes will stay, but the rest will deteriorate. In order to save the neighborhood, you need new capital investment.
Gehrig asks her about tax credits.
Karofsky says don’t make decision based on if they will apply for tax credits. Its hard to get equity for the tax credits right now. That has to be weighed too.
Scott Thornton, LAST speaker!!! Or maybe not – Fred says he wants to speak.
Scott Thornton president of Marquette Neighborhood and lives in Mansion Hill for years. Familiar with area. He printed off the landmarks ordinance, but you’ve heard that over and over. His neighborhood has two historic districts, there is concern with landmarks commission considering this in any other light than the landmarks ordinance. There is a reason why the city established a historic district, a building of this size and height does not fit with visually related area. We’ve been told ok cuz of NGL, if the next project is near the Edgewater it will be a precedent. The reasons this is in the ordinance is to stop the creep. He points out the cartoonish capital building being too large in a drawing, he says it is not that big. He says there are other places for the UW to put this. Thank you for doing what you do. This is not worthy of a certificate of appropriateness and it doesn’t fit with the variance, this is not that spectacular.
Fred Mohs – his registration slip was lost – Levitan offers him a variance to speak, the crowd yells precedence. Mohs says that the Edgewater is a nice place to go to eat, its a wonderful experience, lots of bad things have been said about it. He wants to talk about the neighborhood he lived in for 50 years. People stop by and say how happy they are that we are trying to have the Edgewater fit into the neighborhood better. To go back and see what it was like 40 years ago, you’d be amazed, it was a wreck. Since that time they have been doing rehab and bit by bit its being improved. He talks about neighborhood projects. They made great strides, no historic district comes out of the block making no mistakes, but they are doing well and on a good trajectory. When the district was created, he was dubious. He feels good about where they are now. He points out the handbook that was created when the historic district was created, it has never been revised. He reads from it. He talks about visual compatibility. He talks about the scale and bulk and using averages to compare. He says it encourages additional set backs. So he asks what will happen if we do this, will we abandon 35 years of progress and go into unchartered territory. We need to meet with developers early on.
Maniaci asks about the Mansion Hill report, she noticed that Sherman Hackbarth’s name is not listed. Mohs says he has career changes. Maniaci asks about how steering committee was made and how selected. Mohs says August 20 2008 and they met with Dunn at the Edgewater and they were concerned and they talked to the neighbors who are the elected representatives to CNI, told Bob Dunn to look at 1965 ordinance it protects view over Lake Mendota. He heard Mario Mendoza was fast tracking it with the plan department, they had a meeting with the Mayor in September of 2008 and the Mayor said he was surprised they were opposing it. Mark Bugher told him you were in favor. Maniaci asks him to get to the point. Fred called Mark, Marks says he told the Mayor that, he said Bob Dunn told him that. Maniaci interrupts to ask him to get to the point. Fred says its important. Dunn was told to go back to neighborhood, Mayor met again and . . . ok, I lost the story . . . they had a neighborhood meeting, in September, at Edgewater, there was a slide show, showed European studies and ball parks, chaos erupts, chair says they’re done, Fred still talking, says they selected a steering committee and from time to time they added people. Chair asks if her question is answered.
Cnare says there were several communications that she put at their places and that they got via email. She reads off all the correspondences sent it, I didn’t get them all.
Levitan says if you get direct email, you should forward it to staff, otherwise risking your email being subject to a search.
Maniaci suggests a 5 minute recess, they read items into the record. I didn’t listen.
Break time!!!
