I hope there is a decision sometime tonight, I had to get Rob to set the TiVo longer. My understanding is that at about 10:30, Board of Estimates is still questioning staff, haven’t heard from the public. At Landmarks there was 5.5 hours of testimony. I asked a bunch of people what’s going on downstairs, I was told they were droning on . . .
MOTION
The chair reviews the staff report and the motion for the Certificate of Appropriateness and if that fails, they should consider a variance. Would like a conclusion at the end of night.
Maniaci moves approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness. Rosenblum seconds after debating with Levitan.
Maniaci says they have had a lot of discussion. Was in support initially, thinks standards are met, still thinks they are. Staff report left it open to be legally met. A lot of what Julie said was more eloquent than what she said. They have had a lot of discussion on visually related area and with the changes and how the environment around it she finds that the standards are met, especially number one.
Levitan asks if the essence is to take out the Plan Commission recommendation about the Secretary of the Interior standards, and leave it up to staff of staff and Landmarks.
Maniaci says that is not what she said, but that its up to them about if they want to apply for tax credits.
Levitan asks again.
Gehrig says that Secretary of the Interior Standards, did Plan Commission decide who would decide if the standards were met.
Levitan says that staff report takes us out of it, that is their recommendation.
Maniaci says that they should not try to tie Plan Commission recommendation into it.
Levitan asks if that was part of staff’s recommendation on page 13?
Fruhling says they had the info in Brad Murphy’s memo at the time they did the staff report. He says that the staff report talks about the landmarks ordinance and Secretary of the Interior Standards were not in the ordinance, they knew the issue came up and wanted to make sure you knew that. Their staff report only looked at the ordinance. They have to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness, the plan commission is a recommendation to the council. Landmarks has a final say over Certificate of Appropriateness absent overturn by Council, Plan Commission is advisory to the Council and that is the Council’s issue.
15 members of the public, several staff and Rummel and Bidar-Sielaff still here.
Maniaci asks for Kitty Noonan to talk about the memo she sent. Maniaci has to hand her her own memo. She asks about the letter and intent of the law and what standards and criteria mean. Noonan is talking softly, she’s talking about the visually related area and how to measure it and what the speakers said. She says something about the ordinance being inadequate, but I couldn’t here, an airplane added to the difficulty.
Maniaci asks about the purpose and intent, she says that the purpose and criteria are in conflict. Noonan says there are not, but I couldn’t hear. Maniaci asks another question I can’t hear – and Kitty answers with something I can’t hear.
Stuart asks about the variance and the standards. 33.19(15).c. Is the tower an alteration. Noonan says no, it is a new project. Levitan says they need to find 1 or 3 – Maniaci has to give her the ordinance, she agrees with Levitan.
Rosenblum says he seconded for purposes of discussion, similar to where they were in November, larger massing in front of us, came away with new nuggets based on what people said, still too large, too much massing, compliments Manfredi on the design, its just too big. We need to apply ordinances as given to them, its straightforward, the massing is too big. He doesn’t think Hammes tried to hide it was too large, tipped around massing as you approach the building, still clear its a very big building.
Slattery says that would like them to consider an amendment, if go forward with Certificate of Appropriateness or variance would like staff to bring it back to them. They have seen so little detail on the project, some of it should come back to them, especially the 1940s tower. She understands all the criteria cannot be met, but repair instead of replace and standards of care should be looked at to get a true restoration. Ordinance does a good job, would like to see not the whole standards be kept, but certain elements retained for the project. Chair asks if staff or commission be enforcer? She says yes. Chair says not the state agency, right.
Manaici asks about points 1 and 2 not be staff but come back to us. She says yes.
Gehrig suggests they review the criteria. Slattery suggests they send them around. Gehrig says just use the language. Chair says if they are going to review they can use any standards they want. Maniaci says its friendly to strike the staff language and put in Landmarks Commission instead, strike staff discretion on points one and two. Slattery says that would be consistent with how they treat other projects. Levitan makes a procedural change.
Taylor says that wait, may charge is the ordinance, my charge is to preserve and protect the neighborhood and that is what she has to look at and that is the most important thing. The project has merits, exciting to have it remodeled and plaza is beautiful and keeps re-reading the ordinance.
Gehrig agrees.
Chair says that he agrees with Julie Aulik, he thinks the streetscape complied with the standards based on the environment. He says that the solids and voids and how it relates is, the new development ordinance protects the neighborhood. I missed some.
Rosenblum says that addition of NGL bolsters the point? Chair says that when the project moved to include NGL it didn’t help that much, moving the building, if moved from the base, would have increased the void, but moving it into the neighborhood now, including a building larger than others, helped when look at mass, but had nothing to do with the streetscape. The way it was looked at and how it fits on the street is what is important.
VOTE:
AYE: Maniaci (had to be prompted to vote)
NO: Levitan, Rosenblum, Chair, Gehrig, Taylor, Slattery.
MOTION
Levitan says sense of Landmarks that newly constructed tower of 800,000 cubic feet would be visually compatible with the area. Taylor seconds.
Levitan sasy process flawed in that developer did not come to us at the outset, this started summer of 2008, we saw it in 2009 and he is convinced if developer is considering making a substantial investment in a unique property in a uniquely regulated are, they should come and talk to the Landmark’s ordinance, that is what the handbook says, its mandatory. There were $100,000s of costs before they came to us and they should direct what would be appropriate, if we’d have said something back then, work back from that, instead the developer worked up from the budget. I can afford a $93M project and I’ll build the gold standard. This site might be only silver or bronze. They could work the economics backwards to meet something that meets the ordinance. We are not against all development on this site, just that which is out of compliance with the ordinance.
Maniaci asks how Stu’s motion squares with staff policy in the historic districts. Cnare says they encourage them to come for informational meetings, they did in 2009. She says when they have a project that looks necessary they encourage them.
Maniaci asks if that happened in this case, with that project. Cnare says they came here. Levitan says it was a year later. Cnare says that was the first she saw it. Fruhling says not required by ordinance. Levitan says the document requires it.
Maniaci asks about the role of the handboook. Noonan says that the ordinance is the law, everything else is advisory. Noonan says when the ordinance is put together, that is the rule, there is no mandatory requirement for the meeting. Maniaci says that even if in handbook not on the books for the committee.
Fruhling asks to read back the motion. What does 850,000 cubic feet refer to. Levitan says it is 1.45 number should be compatible. New tower above the plaza grade. He says stretch to include NGL, and explains how he got to that number. Mario giving Manaici instructions about what to do next.
Missed the rest of Stuart’s explanation. Maniaci ask for clarification. Levitan sasy this says what would satisfy (e)1. Slattery asks if it is ball park. Levitan says it says “about”. Slattery says design matters. Levitan agrees, its a ball park. Chair says like motion made in November, needed a better design, this attempts to answer what is too big.
Motion passes 6 – 1, Maniaci votes no.
Motion for variance
Chair asks for motion. Maniaci makes the motion. Levitan seconds.
Levitan clarifies they are talking about the substantial hardship. He helps her make her motion. c(1) or (3) is the variance she is asking for. Levitan says she can’t do that, you need to make finding of fact. They decide the variance is for (c)1. More confusion. They don’t know what the motion is.
Levitan says he tried to argue to allow the variance, Kristina made a good rebuttle and it knocked him off the feet, subsequently he decided how to make the argument, and he was prepared to come to the next meeting and move reconsideration cuz he thought that he could change their minds, he thought this was a good idea. They read me the riot act, we have the votes, we can handle it by Mayor and Maniaci. He is convinced that majority of city doesn’t want it defeated on historic preservation, may have questions about the TIF, or other things, but don’t want it killed on preservation grounds cuz don’t understand it. As a recovering politician would like to make people happy. Then had the distinct misfortune of reading the handbook. Our charge is not to do good for the city, its the protection and enhancement of Madison landmark buildings and site. This is from the first ordinance int he state of Wisconsin. The council voted unanimously. In all matter of Certificate of Appropriateness they are supposed to work in the best interest of the existing structures. That is their charge. To grant the variance would require them to make a finding of fact that the fiscal characteristics would be a substantial hardship, not mere inconvenience – provided the hardship created by the ordinance not others. Even if you give them their arguments, failure to maximize profits is not a substantial hardship. I missed some, he is not a recovering politician, he is a landmarks commissioner, has to vote.
Rosenblum says he’s glad he came to that point. Our charge is clear, the only way I see this leaving here in a positive manner is by granting the variance. Lots of people talked about the greater good, that is not part of our ordinance, the process is working correctly, others will look at that. We look at project in front of us with the criteria in the ordinance.
Gehrig says that the only way preservation harmed is by misinformation about what this body is supposed to be doing. Thank you Stuart.
Slattery says argument for hardship is not met, we need to look at the ordinance and our charge as commissioners.
Taylor nods in agreement, feels the same way.
Vote
Fails 6 – 1. Maniaci vs everyone else.
Motion
Maniaci moves to have a vairance based on c(3), the beneficial . . . ??
Levitan seconds.
Maniaci says the proposal that comes foreward is striking visually, the new project allows the restoration that needs to happen. Missed part of it.
Levitan says he’s scared to death of what will happen if this goes to the council, he thinks there will be long term damage, but that isn’t the questions before them, they have to reject it based on the facts.
Gehrig says that massing is in the list of items that this variance is for little details, massing is still the problem we got hung up on and it did not get fixed.
Rosenblum says that there is an AND that they have to read. He didn’t hear a persuasive argument this would have a beneficial effect. He appreciates their effort. But the massing was the issue in November and its an issue to an even greater effect now.
Slattery agrees, might have a beneficial impact on 40s tower, but not all the buildings in the area.
Taylor says the 1940s project, she doesn’t think that this is the only way it will be renovated.
Maniaci looks at Gromacki’s numbers and says to bring it up to modern standards won’t happen without the expansion and given the site constraints doesn’t think anything will happen with the property.
Levitan says that on that point, Monona Terrace, if we built the one he proposed in 1938 ti would have been a disaster, if we built the one in 1959 it would have been a disaster, but the Monona Terrace we ended up with was the right one. This is not a municpal project, this is not about what Madison can and can’t get done. Not willing to say have to do this or nothing else will happen.
Maniaci says that difference is that major structural issues, we can’t sit on the designs, like Monona Terrace. She gives him ADA 101 lecture, won’t debate the point to death, existing building, historic and contributing and this is the only real proposal to come forward in decades. Given state of the building, 6 months from now, its been almost 2 years, in 6 months another developer won’t come along and propose something. Gromacki’s memo he wrote gives a map where he lays out the financials. That was the thing, why not take two floors off, so if look at long term success of site and structure, she has to be aware of this. She doesn’t think a year from now . . . .
Gehrig says that is not our role, that is not our job. Its unfortunate.
Maniaci says she is off point.
Rosenblum says you frame it as an either or, that is not our question. We have our ordinance, you as an alder have another question.
Gehrig says we can all have breakfast there tomorrow and support the place. Its a great place for breakfast, you can go to the pier, you can support the Edgewater.
Vote
6 – 1. Maniaci only one again.
Adjourn. 11;29.
