This was kind of “live-blogged” until the end when my typing skills didn’t keep up, so, I didn’t post the final until I could correct the end this morning. The big news here is that when the agenda says something is going to be referred, it really means they are going to discuss it anyways. And Alder Bridget Maniaci appears to be a pathological liar. Minimal editing below.
First, the agenda had a bold, large type note on it that read:
Agenda Amendment #2: This matter should be referred to an upcoming Plan Commission meeting at the request of Ald. Maniaci, 2nd District. The first amended agenda was incorrect.
When I read that, I assumed, like most items it would be referred and not discussed, but not so, as you can see below.
Second, what’s up with Maniaci? The agenda says one thing. Emails over the weekend and yesterday and conversations reported to me said another thing, or two. And then Maniaci testified that she always intended referral. Does she think we are that dumb? Or that she can get away with talking out of both sides of her mouth?
Third, just a funny note . . . I didn’t see/hear this clearly because I was on the other side of the room, but I heard about it from many . . . apparently, Maniaci got a animated, not to subtle thrashing from Amy Supple because she gave in and agreed to referral. I did know they we having a loud discussion and did look up, but didn’t pay much attention beyond that as I was trying to pay attention to the meeting, but I guess I wish I had paid attention, it might have been more entertaining.
Nan Fey says there is an amended agenda and the current recommendation is to refer.
PUBLIC TESIMONY
Amy Supple speaks on behalf of Hammes Company, she is here to request that they take the matter up. They have worked on it a long with city staff, to define various aspects, it has taken them more than a year to come to terms and conditions. This was first posted on legistar in March 2010, they were asked to add community events, they did that. Posted again in May, since the time the PUD has been approved, they have worked to further define things and hope to move it forward. Brad Murphy asked us to provide more access on ADA routes, but that should not cause delay. She is not sure how we ended up with this confusion, but it was not because we did not follow the process. Very clearly on this agreement it was posted on 11/22. It was referred in due course. She would ask that they take it up and consider, she will talk about the agreement in as much detail as you would like. Heard a lot of reasons for referral. Just cuz there is a lawsuit, she has heard it wasn’t urgent, she doesn’t know what that has to do with referral. She thinks there would be a decision in the next 30 days. Not sure why they would refer. If decide to refer, would like to better understand why.
Olson asks what consequence there would be if they referred.
Supple says it is a matter of trying to move the process forward in a timely manner. So they can understand the recommendations and get back to council in December and move forward. Not sure what a referral would do, how does it benefit anything, the information is the information and it’s been out there a long time.
Kerr says she is confused. There are three kinds of events. General, which is attached exhibit C and that is the legal description. Then two different exhibits showing the public access components, but is she supposed to understand that D1 supersedes D? Why are they two. She says at one point D was because A had some conditions, B had others and C others.
B-1 shows areas of terrace in the public access areas, from elevation 70. That is the whole plaza says Kerr.
Supple says B-2 is the water access.
Kerr asks about the dock.
Supple says that is not approved by the city, we were requested to take it off, several times.
Kerr asks if the dock will be public?
Supple says yes.
Kerr asks how they would be governed.
Supple says she has to defer to Brad, DNR reviews it, Plan staff and this body and council asked us to remove it.
Brad Murphy says it is not part of the public access component.
Kerr says that is different.
Supple says it is not different.
Murphy says that the pier and the dock are not referred to in the agreement.
Kerr says difference between what is out of our control and what is permitted and what the public has been told is part of the public access.
Anne Zellhoefer says dock not included because not part of the 1965 ordinance.
Supple talks about ADA access.
Kerr says that is not her question, why are there different attachments, what are we approving. Is Exhibit D? stops asking the question.
Supple says D is where the general events can occur. The special events can occur anywhere on the terrace. Those are event days that are larger, like 4th of July. When we need to secure the space.
Kerr says B1 is the whole terrace. Exhibit D is not the whole terrace. What you are saying . . . what are you saying? Do the General events happen on A, B and C.?
Supple says yes.
Kerr doesn’t think it is.
Murphy says that the exhibits were prepared based on discussion this morning. The one in legistar and available up until today was ??? Exhibit C was exhibit D. C morphed into D. It is essentially not changed, just the order of the exhibits changed.
Kerr says difference between . . .. confusion.
Supple says B 1 is the entire terrace, on an average day all of that is open and accessible to the public. Exhibit D is where they can do general events, it is smaller, because we wanted to, that something was open at all times.
Kerr says that is a simple concept we get it. A B and C can take place in community and general events. Special events can occur . . . doesn’t complete thought, explains why they need to control the space for special events. She says they exist for those type sof events, 15 days a year.
Kerr says that manager shall close and/or secure the entire public access are/terrace for special events.
Supple says that is correct.
Kerr asks if they will charge.
Supple says there could be situations where they do charge for those events.
Zellhoefer talks about legistar exhibit C. Kerr says she doesn’t see it in her packet, she’s talking about the text, now that she understands the maps.
Murphy tried to explain again, says it’s hard to read in the packet.
Kerr asks where it is clear that general and community events are in A B and C and special events which is the whole terrace. She says there is no reference to the exhibits.
Zellhoefer refers to 2 a.
Confusion.
Murphy says exhibit D should still be C as in legistar. She explains how the language ties to each other.
Gruber asks about sound from events coming from the spaces and how it would affect the neighbors. Doesn’t see anything about that. Wonders how they will control that. Missed some.
Supple says the noise ordinance will limit the noise.
Bowser says we need to decide which documents we are working from. If working form the new one, should reference exhibit D.
Murphy says that colored set of hand outs, attached to the resolution also handed out, exhibit C should come out and D should be labeled C.
Supple says that would cure the confusion.
Kerr and Supple continue to discuss what is and is not included in various maps . . . they, quite frankly, lost me, but I got distracted. Then mad, and registered to speak.
Fred Mohs, question was asked, what good would referral do and is there time. Mohs said there is time, no oral arguments yet and likely appeal, there is time. Working on this is a good thing, we haven’t had much discussion of this since August 2008, rarely have we sat down and talked with the opposition. Neighborhoods and historic preservationists, this has been unique, operated out of the mayor’s office to a large degree and strategy is to not involve the neighborhood and historic preservationists because they cause problems. This could be a step towards resolving the problems, perhaps the whole thing. Many things were put off to the agreement, we made our issues known, but we didn’t work on it. When I finally saw it this afternoon, this is the first time we saw “it.” And what “it” is, is a broad laying out of what parts of what and who can be where when, but this is not enforceable, this doesn’t give anyone the opportunity or tools to deal with it if there are problems. What can we do about it, what are the limits, can we have rock banks here or not? How bad will it be for the people living here. This could be worked out, there are ways.
Cnare asks if there would be a dispute resolution process in here?
Mohs says how would resolve disputes, let’s say a wedding party wants a rock band, that could get real old if trying to write your dissertation in your apartment, we don’t play music that can be heard outside our apartment, it is a nice quite place to live and we developed that over 20 years.
Cnare asks what he is asking for?
Mohs says no rock bands.
Cnare asks about tubas?
Mohs says no rock bands.
Cnare asks if no music outside?
Mohs says that is what we need to talk about, it needs more work. Are we going to sacrifice standards of living for this, if there are rules, how will they get enforced.
Steve Breitlow, from the trades, well vetted, no surprise we are here, this is product of hard work and vision of many. It has positive results for the trades, its needed for jobs. Encourage you to approve the resolution, appreciates hard work put in by the city. Hopes people who need to work showed higher appreciation than those who sued the city. Keep this on the road to approval, hopes it keeps moving.
Ledell Zellers says it is hard to know what to say, given information wasn’t available, your confusion illustrated how good solid information was not available, it’s part of a pattern. Unclear how you can proceed with this. This inability to be organized enough to do things in a timely fashion is unnerving when this same group of people will be managing this, we need to nail the management agreement down. The neighborhood should have at least been talked to, when there is such a huge impact on the quality of life. The number of days this supposedly $16M public space can be closed is too much. Community events should be the same number of days with an equal number of weekend days. Despite the promise to be able to use private caterers, now only to be catered privately.
Gruber asks if this was not on legistar and not available.
Zellers says not til last week, so to know what was going to be considered, unless going to guess it was the same as before, there have been changes. and to have it change today and the thought that it was not noticed, to have you even consider, considering it is startling.
Gene Devitt says he just heard about it and the neighbors most impacted by it have concerns about the regulations, why haven’t neighborhood and property owners had input. If you had bands in your neighborhood, there would be input. What happens when it is loud. These folks were here way before the project, they should have input and respect. He points to map and explains which properties should have input on the agreement, he just heard about it today, why didn’t the city attorney ask us our input. Lighting is another issue beyond noise. What is the lighting restrictions. When can the neighbors walk down the center. Look who is here, in the past it was well publicized.
Pete Ostlind, says that if they are working on it over the year, new documents downloaded at 4:00 and when got here, new documents, year isn’t enough. Speaking on his own behalf, on exhibit B1, public restrooms on public terrace level, ADA routes should be shown. On B3 ADA access from inside hotel, is to an area that can be closed off. The section under maintenance, in perpetuity and 100% for the owner. Within the May term sheet, from months ago there were hours of operation and time limits, they are now gone. There is a residential building right next door, why were they dropped. There was also a section on temporary structures, since part of what the city is reserving is the view across the lake that is important and that was deleted. On the methodology on feedback or enforcement, continued plan commission jurisdiction is a methodology that would be a venue.
I spoke next. Too hard to report what I actually said, obviously, but I think I said:
1) I have Edgewater burn out, I look at the agenda, saw the note and assumed I didn’t have to pay attention and went about my weekend, until I started getting all the confusing emails about if it will or will not be discussed.
2) The Edgewater, like the Overture, has eroded the public trust, and they should do more to correct that, like letting us actually see the agreement that will be signed. (The attorney’s for the Edgewater drafted it, there was only one copy, and it had her notes on it, so she couldn’t share it.)
3) The agenda said this would be referred, and I think that comes dangerously close to violating the open meetings laws for continuing to discuss this, and its not fair to the public to do so.
4) Although the Hammes Company and the city attorney have been discussing this item for a year, the public has not had an opportunity. There were many issues discussed, but this kept getting put off til later. This is important, this is allegedly what we are getting for our $16M.
Adam Plotkin, asks for it to be referred, ongoing discussions and revision were as late as this morning and 9 am there e was a broken link, hasn’t seen the document, none left Referral does nothing to delay discussion. Keeping process on track is not enough to ignore unanswered questions that people still have.
Joe Hoey, in opposition, “doesn’t think it should be discussed tonight, it wasn’t listed that way on the agenda”
Verveer says this is in alder Maniac’s district, I certainly urge to unanimously refer tonight, not even sure if it will be ready for prime time with next meeting given the holidays. Ms. Supple proved it is not ready for prime time with her testimony and the lack of information, but more over, I just cannot imagine any of you thinking of any action besides referral given the way the agenda was written and hanging outside the room. He is not saying it is a violation of open meetings law, but that it violates the spirit. Staff wasn’t planning to have it on the e agenda, Maniaci wanted to make it clear that it would not be discussed, there were several versions of the agenda, I speak to you as representative as people who live across the street, his constituents at Kennedy Manor are concerned about what is in this document and you don’t have the document before you. I asked Zellhoefer for a copy, she said she only has one and her notes are on it, it was prepared by the developers attorney and it is draft, he would like a copy, whether it is custom or not to approve these items, this is far from routine. There is no rush whatsoever, forget about the litigation as a reason to delay. The addition of a a series of easements need to be granted, they all have to be introduced and referred and come back, they are one month away, much staff work has to be done. He and Cnare are needed downstairs in an Overture meeting instead “wasting time on the Edgewater”, this resolution should be on same track at same time with easements, which won’t be introduced at the next meeting on the 14th. This hasn’t been out there, it was just introduced on the 30th, the original version was in legistar, but it’s not fair to the public, there is not enough information, forget the philosophical discussion on access and $16M,. but think of the standards that you use at each of your meeting., those health, safety, welfare and enjoyment of neighbors. There were clear end times that had some predictability in previous documents, that is lost in the resolution, and he hasn’t seen the agreement. Lastly, a regularly pre-scheduled meeting of the neighborhood is tomorrow evening, he asks for a personal indulgence to talk about it at the meeting tomorrow. Not sure that meeting will be enough, it would be great to meet with Hammes, tomorrow is likely too early, but he clearly believes they need more neighborhood input, the fact that you saw residents here on this short notice is compelling testimony to that, urges referral.
Maniaci says “ditto to everything Mike just said”, she says “they chatted after council meeting”, and given the work load of the alders (of course, she complains about that first) and given the neighborhood meeting on Tuesday and that there was only 6 days notice between introduction and coming here, discussion needs to happen. On the “zoo on the amendments to the agenda”, it was a mistake, it was not on my part that referral was pulled, there was miscommunication between staff and alders and other parties and she apologizes if anything she did made them scramble. She felt it was important to have the time to talk with folks. In talking with Amy, they are not available on December 20, so you might want to ask the stakeholders about when they could come back, she has no preference, she would prefer January given alders time taken up in next couple weeks and to try to schedule many more meetings would be difficult, it will give them more time to talk, she wants to reach out to stakeholders.
Bowser asks Maniaci to see if the Edgewater folks are available tomorrow night.
Maniaci says that Dunn is not available, but someone else might be able to come. Missed some.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Kerr asks Zellhoefer. She asks about at one point there were temporary structures and time limits and they are not there, is that in fact true and what is the rationale.
Zellhoefer says that in their term sheet draft in May there was language, there were no hours of operation but there were on items.
Kerr asks if it was the term sheet or resolution?
Term sheet.
Kerr asks about hours.
Zellhoefer says they would be good to add.
Kerr asks if it is possible to change the resolution to include items form term sheet on temporary structures or time.
Zellhoefer says no discussions about time of the temporary structures.
Kerr asks about enforceability, what if just let insurance lapse? What is the city’s recourse and is that in another document.
Zellhoefer says dispute resolution process, no third party right to enforce the agreement, its between the city and owner of property. If an annoyed neighborhood being disturbed, they can call the police or zoning administrator.
Kerr asks bout insurance and default
Zellhoeffer describes the process and mediation.
Kerr asks if that is in the agreement?
Zellhoefer says no, that hasn’t been distributed yet.
Olson says asks how changes to the agreement would be handled if a need to change the agreement and Ostlind’s suggestion that plan Commission retain jurisdiction over it, how would you respond.
Murphy says that part of the approval of the PUD, including outdoor uses as conditional uses, he thinks they are subject to continuing jurisdictions, but he has to check which uses were subject to conditional uses.
Olson says she meant that question for Zellhoefer, but second part is, if need to change terms of agreement, what provision is there for that.
Zellhoefer says any material term would come back to council cuz it would require an amendment.
Cnare says that there are a series of easements and there is paperwork, what is the status and projected date and will they be bundled.
Zellhoefer says omnibus resolution, termination of two easements and acceptance of new easements
Cnare asks date and should they time them together
Zellhoefer says rational idea, last meeting in December is the 14th, won’t have a resolution prepared by then
Fey asks about the 20th for plan
Zellhoefer says that the easements have not been introduced
Cnare asks about introducing first meeting in January and one referral to Plan commission then can take up this and the easements as a package.
Cnare asks when first plan commission is.
Murphy says Jan 10th, if act on that, could be at council on Jan 18th.
Cnare asks if people sees any issue in that, would be referring to the 10th and everything can come together.
Bowser asks about conditional uses for the roof top events, are they date specific.
Murphy says no, just an acknowledgment that certain uses were conditional uses, but he’d have to check that. Use of rooftop of tower, that conditional use permit not approved yet, will come back with specifics for that area.
MOTION
Cnare moves referral to plan commission meeting of January 10th, she wants to , share that this was a complicated process and lots of work at the moment to have it come together, but one of the things the project has is an aura about it, maybe because there is an aggressive developer that can respond quickly but people should get to see it and think about it, and look at the document and I think we identified the issues and we need to look at easements and this all at once, so she wants to assure people that we are close, she would rather be there at plan instead of not be there at council meeting.
Kerr seconds it, she has a few comments, whatever is in the new agreement she thinks it should give more specificity for A, B and C for the community, special and general events. She would also like to see time limits for events, she says she can repeat that for Zellhoefer if she’d like, she would like to know if fees are attached to these, it might not be as important as the perpetuity, she would like to see the agreement and resolution on pier access. She says for the neighbors, the land use discussion is over, it really is, it happened at city council, she appreciates that many people disagree with it, I have a project I don’t like in my neighborhood, but we have to move forward. She was under impression there would be a robust discussion about the public access, that is still an open discussion for many Madisonians, with due respect to labor council, she was under the impression alders would lead that discussion and from what she can see that hasn’t happened.
Gruber says he wasn’t going to comment, but what he would like to see, he is fine with special events for roof top terrace, but closing the lakefront which could be a path in the future, he opposes that. The discussion on music, he wouldn’t want it excessively loud, but he would be careful, we should continue to allow music, clearly he is biased as a musician, but music does not have to be loud to be good, and it shouldn’t be, we could reference the noise level and decibel level in the agreement and he also supports having hours of operation.
Olson asks a question, should these items be added to the motion as amendments? Her items have been covered.
Kerr would be happy to draft something quickly.
Basford says his items are covered, he would be very interested in learning more about the agreement, the enforcement mechanisms and what would be covered under conditional use permits, more detail about what will be allowed here, echoes Gruber comments about music, when we provide conditional use permit for a coffee house, we make some detailed rules, we need to see those sorts of things here as well. On the last page of the resoultion, it refers to asking people to leave for violating rules of the site, he wants to know what those rules are. Needs more input from community at large, as long as that input doesn’t revisit the land use.
Kerr makes and amendment to the previous motion requesting the following items included in revised agreement: conditions of pier access, specificity of area to be closed in 2, temporary structures, hotel operators rules, hours of operations for special events, noise provisions, and that covers it.
Cnare asks about adding general and community events as well.
Kerr amends to all events and add any allowable fees. Attached to the revised ordinance, are the operators rules for the site and the management agreement between the city and Hammes or Landmark X. Is that what backs this up.
Zellhoefer says not a copy that can be released right now.
Kerr wants it when it comes back and she wants the name of the documents.
Zellhoefer asks since city has no access over the pier it isn’t in the management agreement, if you wan tthat in there, what do you want.
Kerr says that if DNR approves the pier, people talked about the pier as something they look forward to using, it is a signature piece, how do we then assure that happens. While acknowledging it might not get permitted.
Zellhoefer says not a public access component, but open to the public.
Kerr says yes, this only refers to the public access area, but it has to happen.
This is the public access s agreement says Zellhoefer
And that ends discussion, the motion to amend as well as the main motion passes.
