When is a 10 story building not a ten story building. . . you figure it out.
Here is the audio:
Developer Presentation
They have been working on this over a year, they had 6 informational presentations including one 2 weeks ago, they showed the design changes since initial approval. At plan commission they got many comments and they pulled back and went back and looked at design to address concerns and what they brought back 2 weeks ago is something they are excited about. They have gotten favorable comments across the board about the program and design, people are by an large happy with the changes they have made. The neighborhood steering committee had liked the design, they had favorable comments according to the alder. He says that there is an issue with exceeding the downtown height standards. He says there are three issues, parking (valet operations), sidewalk and pedestrian experience on Webster and the design aesthetics. He says that they set the building back and took the drop off and put it on the site instead of the right of way, that was favorable by traffic. Also they more than doubled the number of parking stalls on site, they will still negotiate a lease with the city in the Capital North plan, but they will be able to accommodate all their guests including the restaurant. It shortens the valet time and allows people to park on site instead of at the ramp. He says the pedestrian experience on Webster, there were concerns about how close the building was to the sidewalk, they pulled the building back at least 4 feet and the entrance to the underground ramp is pulled back 10 feet and the loading dock was pulled back 30 feet. He says traffic has asked for a 1 foot easement along Webster so the sidewalk can be a foot wider on their property.
Josh Wilcox with Gary Brink and Associates says that the public amenities were taken from the first and second floor and moved to floors 9 and 10 including the restaurant and bar. They have a monumental stair that takes you down to the patio space on 9 that expands that public amenity. They were trying to enhance the guest experience and simplify the facade and create a 4-sided architecture. They tried to expand and have more transparency along the base. The have a hub wall that is a focus of the project, art is a major part of the project, local art. This will be on of the most public art pieces on in the downtown core. He says it is like going to the library at dusk, this will be even more visible with the glass. There will be a 2 story art experience there, they added some planters out front and the glazing is continued all the way through. They have a wall to stop the lights from the traffic coming through, but they have a storefront there. The goal for the project was to create a unique experience with art. The second part was the simplification of the facade and to have a consistent 4 sided architecture. They have a C shape that has a consistent look from all sides. They looked at a curtain wall and had a fulcrum before. There was more articulation in the last plan. They added more columns. There is a large floating mass, the eyes go to the public spaces on the 9th floor or the ground floor, the middle part is more gray. They also were trying to create a more residential experience for the Lamp House and the Rouse Development. They have a 3 story element on the back of the building. There is a step back with the larger mass and they pushed the tower back. They did that by changing from queen to king rooms. The look is more consistent as you walk back to the heritage path to get to the Lamp House. He says that is also art and a green built element, they have a green roof on the canopy and main roof, it is also green by handling the storm water on site. Some other changes since last time is the shadow study, it wasn’t part of the packet last time, it was also presented to the neighborhood and as part of the staff report they ran their own shadow study which shows the same thing. The big picture is that the shadow is on the roof of the Lamp House, it is 95 minutes a day and it doesn’t cover it at 100% at any time, so they think they are providing adequate light. With the capital height encroachment, he says that the mechanical equipment, kitchen vent, fire department stair and elevator go over the limit. Mechanical is 1ft 8in and 3ft 3in feet above the height on different sides and the elevator and stair is 2 feet over, it is a small portion of the roof it is set back 9 feet from the edge and people won’t see it particularly when they are on the square. They also looked at the issue on the materials in the middle part of the building they think that the limestone is heavier but it adds character and warmth to the building. They think they hit on the big points and can answer questions.
Testimony
Bill Gates says he is a neighbor, he says that they addressed some issues, but not all are adequately addressed, there are a lot of contingencies that need to be addressed, still too tall, doesn’t add to the Lamp House. The Rouse House also seems to impact the Lamp House. He doesn’t think that this is exceptional. He would put much stronger restrictions in the Lamp House report than were acceptable, he wasn’t in the majority, so he went along, but there were compromises there. He says that he is concerned about the delivery process and schedule, 3 garbage disposal pick ups per week, where are the dumpsters, and he wants to know about he overflow parking, where will deliveries go (UPS, FedEx etc) and how will those queue up. He thinks there are operational issues. Page 4 and 8 is what he thinks they should pay attention to in terms of the height.
(21:56) Nan Fey (former chair of the plan commission and member of the Lamp House Committee) says she is back because the UDC asked the developer to address two particular issues, one was economics and the height of the building and there appears to be nothing in the packet and nothing said thus far that really addresses those any further or discuss it and furthermore the building has only grown taller and now they need a conditional use to exceed the state capital limit which has been a state statute for years. She says it feels unresponsive and disrespectful of the plans we have had in place for a long time for a building in this sensitive area and she feels they should reject the project here and at plan commission. She says this developer continues to ignore the state goals of our community for the height, massing and character of buildings on this heritage block. Starting with the comprehensive plan with the downtown core, the downtown special area plan which had detailed recommendations in 2012 and then in 2014 the Lamp House Committee studied this one block for 4 months, 7 meetings and all this history of planning in the area should tell us how seriously we take this and he was here at the meeting with the mayor when they looked at how the commissions react to one another and she went home and sent info that she pulled together for the plan commission for its policy and procedure manual and she sent that to the mayor and sent you excerpts for this evening. She says it feels like by asking for planned development zoning, which is above and beyond all these plans, plus the conditional use, no matter how beautiful the building has become, it doesn’t belong on this site. It may be iconic somewhere else, but here is not the right spot for this building. The developers minimize the impact of the shadows and we can talk about 90 minutes or 2 hours at the equinox, but that would probably increase during the winter solstice and if we are imagining a heritage tourism operator who might come in and try to make something of the Lamp House, like by putting a year round usable space on the rooftop garden, that would be in shadow all winter, so it is potentially a very significant impact to the future of the Lamp House and yet there has been no effort to minimize the shadows and comply with the 6 story height limit that is required on the Webster St. parcel. She gives them relevant portions of the Lamp House report. She knows there is no standard for policy makers on the UDC or Plan Commission to consider the economic feasibility of the project, even if a developer is willing to discuss the financials it is not the community’s responsibility to rescue a developer that paid too much for the land, that they should have known they can’t develop to the level of intensity that they promise their investors. Any new development on this site will increase the tax base for the city and we should not accept a development that claims it can’t proceed without special dispensation when there are plan elements they should have known and respected since the beginning. Her last comment is on the staff report, she was on that commission for years and read hundreds of these reports and whenever she saw the word “may” or “if” in a staff conclusion about a project that signaled to her “caution, caution, caution” and she took special note of that. If the planning staff has enough reservations to use language like that on the approvability of the project, we should proceed carefully. The plan commission is a quasi-judicial board and has a special responsibility to make sure that its decisions can be reviewed by a court and that the standards were adhered to, which is different than what you have here. She urges them to go carefully as well because their decision will be part of the process and while some might see our citizen committees as making choices on plans in the absence of a particular project, the results of the planning process are statements of our community vales and they are the legal underpinnings that we need to make decisions on and it is her view that they should to their best to adhere to those whenever we can. In her point of view the concerns about the height of the building have not been addressed in the entire process and she strongly urges they recommend rejection.
One more registration in opposition, 3 others in support (I think from the development team as they were available to answer questions)
Staff report
Al Martin said that Matt Tucker the zoning administrator wants them to consider the signage separately, he has some issues with what was presented that need to discuss more. This is in Urban Design District 4 and it has additional requirements, the use of metal requires the finding of exemplary design.
29:15 Kevin Firchow, planning staff says that he wants to speak to the standards. He says that it is Urban Design District 4, those standards need to be found, they are an approving body in that item, but appeals would be heard by the plan commission. The other items are a planned development, but because of the additional height, in staff report top of page 2, when applying the standards if they exceed the height in the downtown map, the plan commission has to find 2 conditions otherwise they can not grant the additional height, the height is compatible with the existing or planned surrounding area including the scale, mass, rhythm, setbacks and relationships to street fronts and public spaces. And second the excess height has to contribute to a higher quality building that couldn’t be achieved without the additional stories. That is the standards for plan development, he asks them to make that specific finding for those standards. He says that is for both 15 N Webster where the plan calls for 6 stories and a portion of that is proposed at 10 stories and the bonus stories on E. WAshington, that is a 8 story limit with the possibilities of 2 bonus stories. The plan commission will also be considering a conditional use for the mechanicals that exceed the capital height limit, there is no specific standard, but he requests that they make a finding to be advisory for the plan commission. He says the staff report summarizes the plans.
Martin asks if there there needs to be a finding that it meets the downtown design guidelines. Firchow says that is only for the UMX districts in the downtown core, but because this is a planned development they don’t need to look at those standards.
Dick Wagner asks if there is a recommendation from the plan staff? Staff agrees that this should be considered very carefully, in looking at the standards, they might be met, “however” (pause) portions of it are not consistent with an adopted plan that is less than a year old, particularly the 20 feet on N Webster that is planned at 10 stories where the zoning map and downtown plan require 6 stories, it should be considered very carefully. They push the staff to make a recommendation, he says the standard might be met but they are different than the adopted policy. Melissa Huggins says that they have to be very clear and make sure that they don’t set precedent. Staff says that the standards need to be met.
Someone asks if the elevator overruns are permitted? With conditional use. Mechanical screening is allowed on an existing building but not a new one? Staff says that they can be approved with conditional approval and Al Martin says it is required in the Urban Design District.
Alder input
Ledell Zellers says that the 15 N Webster is a recommendation for 6 stories by the Lamp House Committee and it requires shadow study over 4 stories, that was more of the expectation for the building to be 4 stories. She says that the developers have done a lot of really good things, the building is attractive, they resolved the traffic problems, that said, trying to squeeze and awful lot into a third of an acre piece of land that when you consider the price of the land, it pushes that up to try to make it a viable project. Her understanding of the UDC responsibilities is to look at the project holistically and consider the entire block because it isn’t being dropped down in the middle of a cornfield, it is important because this block was pulled out and studied separately because of the importance of the heritage block and building, this is a special block, she also urges caution. She also wants to mention that they talked about meaningful sunlight reaching the roof, she thinks that it is important about how the other buildings are impacting the Lamp House as well, there are some things we can’t do anything about. The Odessa (shit, that’s my fault) affecting the roof 8% of the time, the Rouse building which didn’t have to adhere to the report but they did make some adjustments, that impacts it 44% of the time at the equinox, and there are further developments on E. Wash that are likely to go to the full 10 stories because everything is “exceptional” and that is another 12% impact and this project is 12% impact, so that is 76% impact that the roof of the Lamp House is in shadow, not fully impacted. This is a special block, she cares about the value of the block, it is a lovely proposal, so this is a difficult decision, but they need to look at the whole block, that is part of their responsibility.
Questions for design team
41:36 Cnare asks about the height, are you saying you can’t make it shorter and have it be economically feasible, even to assist the Lamp House? They say they have, they have reprogrammed above the 3rd story and made the room shallower. Cnare says that it is not as fat but still as tall. The standard is if they are compatible with the surrounding uses. He says that they have tried, they have not been ignoring the plans or the comments. They worked hard to address those comments, they genuinely challenged the architect to incorporate the residential scale and materials in the design, once above the 3rd story they have 20 foot set backs and it is only 33 feet wide lot. When looking at the plans, he thiks the ideals and goals of the plans, they have used the step backs, when they look at the plans, they feel like the step back addresses it. They are only using 33% of the site above the 3rd floor, they made made an effort to pull the height back and used horizontal residential scale. The other standard is about the higher quality of the building, they have eliminated the ptac units, they have limestone and glass and high quality metals and as far as incorporating those materials and design, he thinks they have addressed the height. They have reduced the scale of the height on 15 N Webster.
Someone asks about unpresented rendering that have different glass and its metal in the packet. They say the packet is correct. They say they show the interaction of the street better. The commissioner likes the other plan better.
Cnare asks about the shadow study, that is for the equinox and a speaker asked about the impact during the solstice, even tho the study is only required during the equinox. They haven’t run that, during the solstice there will be more, in the summer they will have less. Commissioner says that use of the equinox is misleading, one time study is not accurate. He says they did what they were told. Commissioner says it is about the characterization that is not accurate.
Melissa Huggins asks about the Webster St. site, the Lamp House would like 4 stories, the downtown plan and zoning allows 6 and what you are saying is that for that narrow site they are only using 33% of the site, so in essence, it is less than half of the actual property. They show additional plans. It is about the set backs, in essence it only exceeds the height limits for less than half the property. The look at the details of how much of the site exceeds the height limit.
Huggins wants to talk about exceptional design barbs, she says that this needs to be addressed, staff tried to put language in to define it and then things get stripped out and we have to deal with it and they end up with things that don’t work. What they have to do is subjective, but they are relying on their professional judgement, she thinks that they need strip that language out and make developers donate to the affordable housing fund. We know what we need, we need affordable housing.(Nan Fey who was on the plan commission with me at that time, mumbles “we tried that, its called IZ”) She wants people to stop making comments about exceptional design, this is a city, we need tall buildings and we have them on tiny sites, so she thinks that we need to put this in perspective, this isn’t only about the block, but the perspective of the entire city and downtown and if she looks at it in that perspective, this building makes sense, despite all the issues we need to address, that doesn’t take anything away from the Lamp House, but as an urban planner, this is the kind of building she wants to see in her city. It would be great if you donated to the Madison Development Corporation, but we don’t have those policies yet.
Dick Wagner says he is also tired of the barbs. The city needs exception design, we see too much unexceptional design here, and if you don’t have something that encourages exceptional design, you’re never going to get it because it is easy to give us the dreck and we see a lot of dreck. Part of the reason we are having this long conversation is because there is something that is exceptional design near it, in terms of the Frank Lloyd Wright house, it would be more exceptional if the rooftop garden were still there, but its still the work of a master architect. He doesn’t want to give up on exceptional design, we need exceptional design.
John Harrington says that tall buildings can’t be done just to have tall buildings, it is about context. He doesn’t think this is a good fit for this corner, he will vote no. Huggins asks if he looked at the last page, he says yes, she says that is what the zoning calls for (I believe they are talking about the glass). Harrington says it calls for exceptional design, he thinks this is too massive for this site, he doesn’t mind tall buildings, he has voted for many, but he thinks the context here is not appropriate, he is concerned about the bike and ped conflicts, people do use the bike lane and they have studies that show it should be here.
Dawn O’Kroly says that the height has always been the issue. She doesn’t find the plus 2 compatible with the adjacent context or the context of the downtown core and beyond that, she would not support this having merit to break the capital height view shed, which is seen from farther back. She says there has been a lot of thought put in to the composition of the building but she does not feel it would be weaker if it was 8 stories, she can’t support the plus two without addressing Webster.
Tom DeChant says he can support the 10 stories. He thinks it meets exceptional design. The Webster St height, the top two stories on the Webster St., on the 9th story is the suite and 5 king rooms critical to the program? He thinks that the relief of the top two stories will improve the sunlight issue. It is only 33% coverage but it might improve. He thinks it is a blocky facade. John clarified that in the summer when the roof garden was restored there will be more sun, the wintertime is the issue. He thinks tourists will visit in the summer. He talks about a hotel that is a heritage site that is next to 70 story buildings (Singapore?)
Richard Slayton asks to see a drawing to see the Lamp House view, looking over the Lamp House. He says that Trinity Church in Manhattan comes to mind, he wants to know if they can take a corner out, it won’t add much sun, but it would be a nod to the Lamp House so it is not so imposing. He isn’t saying the whole two floors, just the corner. Huggins asks about different materials. Slayton says it is imposing to the Lamp House. He says ideally there would be a portion notched out and a green roof. The building on E. Wash is fine, but the height in the back is the issue with the Lamp House. He says it is unfortunate that the Lamp House is in the middle of the block (I thought that was the whole point of the Lamp House) (1:02) He says that ideally everyone would take a little less money in the profits that they are making and it can go lower, but given that we all have to grab our chunk, that might help. You have to get your own soda at the submarine show because they don’t want to waste their employee time on that.
Cliff Goodhart wants a motion.
(1:03) Cnare wants to ask a question of staff, she says not all of the building is 10 stories, but she would still call it a 10 story building, she has never heard a 10 story building being described as being 1/3 of a 10 story building as if that was a mitigating factor that would reduce that. When we wrote our plans did we think about height on only part of a lot or is a ten story building a 10 story building. She has never heard this before, it is an interesting interpretation. Staff says that only a portion of the building is on a portion of a site that is zoned at 6 stories and its not about the building but that there are two sites here zoned differently. The E. Washington is 8 plus 2 stories and on Webster is 6 stories. Cnare says that even tho they are arguing it is just a little bit, it is still a 10 story building, whether it is just a tiny portion or the whole thing, its still 10 stories. Dick Wagner says no one is denying that is is 10 stories, the question is when the decision was made, they weren’t looking at changing parcels. The zoning is based on lot lines. Developer says they were asked to incorporate that portion so there wasn’t an orphan lot. They also say that they are not trying to deny it is a 10 story building, they just are trying to make it more residential (do your residential areas have 6, 8 or 10 story buildings? how is that residential?) Wagner says staff recommended that they incorporate it, they will combine the parcels and if they were combined before the plan was made, they wouldn’t have this problem. Firchow says if they look at the standards they can look at the amount that is being requested, if that changes someones finding, that is how the standards were written, you have to look at if it is compatible.
Developer addresses the corner issue, he says that they tried to make it so the eye stops at the 3rd floor, you won’t be able to see the top of the tower, so when they set up the shots they were showcasing the scale of the 3rd story. They have no lighting above, they tried to soften that view to 3 stories instead of 10 stories. He talks about how the materials they used will mitigate it. The simplicity and set back helps to minimize it and that is why they changed the materials.
Dick Wagner says he had a coworker that lived in the Lamp House, he says this view (on the board) is not anything that anyone will ever see. The genius of this house is that he squeezed it in and it will always be squeezed in, the questions are how much is appropriate.
Kroley says this will be viewed from a distance, with the height guidelines, this will project above the capital height limit.
Cnare says that we are not just preserving visitors views to the Lamp House, she thinks it looks like hell right now, if we decide this is a destination, are we equally concerned about what they will see from the Lamp House, what would they see from the rooftop area and could we improve that. Wagner says that he only went up there once, if it was restored and the garden was there is would be more intriguing that the later addition that was put up there. It seemed tucked in and given how Wright came up with the design, it doesn’t look as presented today, with all the stuff torn down on Webster you do wonder if that is what everyone is talking about, and he doesn’t think that this decision one way or the other saves the Lamp House. We try to regulate instead of get positive investment, preservation seems to be a negative instead of a positive in this city. You see out glimpses in the house, but you don’t have a sense of the surrounding. Kevin Firchow says views to and from were part of the report and that wasn’t one of the concerns – the view to the south. He says they were more concerned about the views to the lake. There are several members of the committee there and they confirm that with them, but one person says “we didn’t all agree”.
The buildable heights have been adjusted through the code to lower them as opposed to the downtown plan says the developer.
Motion
Move approval (Slayton) note that the findings are met and that it is final approval. The motion is as staff recommended. There is lots of talking about what the motion needs to include, the approve the metal panel and signage has to come back. Passes 5 – 2 (Harrington and O’Kroley)
