Public Access to the Edgewater

Yup . . . still talking about that. It was at Plan Commission last night, here’s the scoop.

TABLED
They had to table the issue because the neighborhood and alders were all in another meeting about the Bethel Lutheran Church house, the Steensland house. It was tabled, they still didn’t arrive, so they started without them about 45 minutes into the meeting, because they had finished everything else.

STAFF EXPLANATION OF PUBLIC ACCESS AND THE EASEMENTS
Anne Zellhoefer went over the documents that were before them for agenda items 4 and 5. She says that the public access management agreement was discussed at the last meeting. She says they asked for the draft agreement, it was put in legistar yesterday, nothing changed. A few blanks were filled in. Lighting, noise, signage and the pier are all addressed in the agreement. They will be addressed by other ordinances or the DNR, the agreement now includes more protections for the city. The dispute resolution clause is included for their review. There is default language and insurance language approved by the risk manager. Also indemnification language. She says that exhibit D is now attached and that is where the general events can occur. It hasn’t changed. Neither have hours of operation or the terms of when the public access area can be closed. She says what is new is the easements. There are mulitple easements, 5 are referenced in the public access management agreement, 2 are not. Those are the conservation easements, because the conservation easement is not a public access agreement issue. The other issue is the 4 public access parking stalls, because they will not be owned by the manager. She goes through the easements.

Easement One – Public Access Areas
The first is the public access easement. It will be perpetual, it is recorded, it is an encumbrance against the land. It provides for the use of the public areas on the map. The areas are upper terrace, the stair and improvements along pathway including greenspace and that will be governed by the public access management agreement. Those spaces are all responsibility of the manager to maintain and improve.

Easement Two – Path to Shoreline
This easement is the path to the shoreline. This replaces the 1975 easement, it was the stair on the east side o the building. The old easement will go away. The new easement is the right of way down to the walkway along the shoreline.

Easement Three – Walkway along shoreline
This easement is the walkway along the shoreline. It’s the 6 oot path along the shoreline. It replaces teh easement from 1975, the path will be improved and also improvements along that path. Also ADA access easement is provided, over the property and through the building, for those with disabilities.

Easement Four – Public restrooms
This is for the public restrooms. They are provided along the lakeshore in addition to the ones on the upper terrace. The one’s on the upper terrace will be open when the public access area is open. The one’s along the shoreline will be open when the restaurant is open to the public, during those areas. Either one or the other will be open during the hours that the public access is open to the public.

Easement Five – public parking
These are the 4 stalls of parking in the parking ramp, right now there are 4 spaces available, those will go away and then there will be 4 new stalls available. The owner of the parking ramp will be responsible for ensuring that the public can use the 4 stalls for one hour each per day at no cost.

Easement Six – Conservation Easement
She says the easiest way to think of this one is as a no-build area. This easement is granted to the city, recorded across the property and there can be no permanent improvements in the conservation area. It preserves the view that was part of the 1965 ordinance. What these easements do is provide definition and security for the public and the city that the original terms that were ill defined and squishy have some definition and protect the city.

Termination of 1975 easement
She says the last item is the termination of the 1975 easement. And partial termination of easement of National Guardian Life, which is now covered by the Edgewater because they acquired the land from National Guardian Life.

QUESTIONS FOR ATTORNEY
Julia Kerr asks about fees being charged, with the exception of in the agreement. She says in the agreement, for the community events, that the fees would be wavied. Does that mean for the general and special events when the terrace is closed the operator can charge fees for those?

Zellhofer says that yes, they can charge fees for those events. She says that a nonprofit might be using it as a fundraiser, like an art fair and they might be charging fees and then it is the sole discretion of the manager to decide if there would be fees.

Kerr asks what a general event would be.

Zellhoefer says it could be an art fair or concert.

Kerr reads from the document, pointing out that even for general events, some areas may be blocked off. So, people could be charged to go there, right?

Zellhoefer says that it could be an event where they get tickets because they purchased tickets from the event sponsor.

Tim Parks, staff to the commission, points out that general events are in areas A B and C.

Kerr says she knows that.

Parks says that there are areas around area B that would remain open in a general event, but could be closed in a special event.

Kerr says that was clear but Hammes says that there may be occasions like 4th of July where they close the terrace, would that become an event where you have to pay.

Zellhoefer says that would be a special event, the entire terrace would be closed.

Kerr says that boat race on the lake, the whole terrace could be closed except to ticket holders, or fourth of July.

Zellhoefer says yes, for special events.

Kerr asks about lakefront path, it is excluded from A, B and C. Meaning that the lakefront path is exempt from the closures.

Zellhoefer says no, as part of a special event, it could be closed.

Kerr asks where that is included, its not clear on the diagram.

Eric Sundquist follows up, for a special event, it can all be closed.

They confirm that.

He asks what happens in the future if this becomes a connected path – a throughway – would it still be subject to the closure.

Zellhoefer says that they included a provision that i it becomes connected they will have to meet and further negotiate that. Right now the city either owns the paths or has an easement so there would need to be changes in the agreement if it gets connected.

Sundquist asks if they considered treating the lakeshore path separately from the upper areas.

Zellhoefer says yes, but the developer was concerned about the health and safety of the public, they needed to make sure they have maintenance and security over the entire area.

Sundquist asks how that will change if it becomes a path, won’t they have that same concern?

Zellhoefer says she can’t say, you’d have to ask the developer about it.

Judy Olson asks about the definition of weekend. Is that Friday, Saturday, Sunday?

Zellhoefer asks what areas she is concerned about.

Olson says that it is how the events are defined and how often it can be closed.

Zellhoefer says Friday, Saturday, Sunday.

Mike Basford asks about page 8, G – Demonstrations prohibited. He says it says that the public access areas shall not be used for public or political rallies, protests or demonstrations at any time unless sponsored by or approved by the manager. Does that mean they get to decide what rallies or demonstrations can happen there.

Zellhoefer says yes, its private space.

PUBLIC COMMENT
I”m skipping this for now . . . it goes on for about an hour, including the two alders and one candidate. This kinda sucks, cuz you’re missing the flavor of the issues that are still out there. I’ll try to do it for tomorrow.

QUESTIONS OF SPEAKERS
Also skipping it, it goes on for anther 15 minutes. Ditto.

QUESTIONS OF STAFF
About 5 minutes. Ditto.

MOTIONS
Public Access Managment Agreement
Tim Gruber moves approval of item 4. No second that I could tell, but then they make amendments to the motion, so I guess that is the motion on the table.

Judy Olson says she’d make an amendment that plan commission strongly recommends that the developer, staff and neighborhood and alders meet to discuss and review the management agreement. It’s friendly.

Eric Sundquist makes an amendment to special events portion of the agreement. He says that after the words “after all or any portion of the” insert the words “upper terrace as shown in exhibit B1” and on their third line after “components” insert the words “excluding the main stair way and ADA access routes” and on the 6th line after “occurring.” Insert a new sentence saying “During said event, manager may restrict the shoreline public access area shown in exhibit B2, to 200 people.” He says that he is concerned that the way the special events is written that the area by the lake is excluded more often than is necessary. He understands the safety issue, but he doesn’t want an absolute cut off. Even if a private event, the public should still have some access to the shoreline and this might help if it ever becomes a through route.

Gruber asks if a motion to amend is in order, or do we recommend to the parties and common council.

Zellhoefer says it is a recommendation.

Fey clarifies that yes, but it is an amendment to a motion to recommend. They agree with her clarification.

Michael Heifitz recognizes Sundquists concerns but doesn’t support the amendment. He thinks that the applicant addressed the issues, but sympathetic to the second part of the argument, maybe we can reopen at that point.

They vote on the amendment. Only one no I heard, it became part of the main motion.

Bridget Maniaci wanted to speak to that amendment, she wanted to clarify the 200 person restriction, is that the walkway or the stairway.

Sundquist says the B2 area, the lakeshore path, but the reference to the stairway is just because people have to get back and forth.

Michael Basford moves to strike section G on page 8, regarding the public demonstrations. He says he’s uncomfortable with ceding to manager and operator which public rallies and demonstrations can be held on the property, we have a rich tradition of this in Madison and he recalls 20 years ago the Speaker of the House Tom Foley spoke and there was demonstration at the Concourse Hotel, those things can coexist in the close proximity, and this will give the alders and stakeholders something to talk about between now and the meeting. He thinks this could be better drafted to provide protections, but more freedom. Anarchy won’t break out.

Motion considered friendly.

Judy Olson adds that she would recommend that there be an amendment procedure added to the document. That is friendly as well.

It seems to pass unanimously.

Easements
Kerr moves, Gruber seconds.

Kerr hopes they will support this, but wants to thank the city attorney’s office for their work.

Motion passes seemingly unanimously.