There is just no end to the insanity. This project is turning nearly every city process on it’s head. Here’s two more silly games that people at the city are playing.
RECONSIDERATION
As you might imagine, Alder Marsha Rummel has gotten a fair amount of grief over her vote at Urban Design Commission. While I think she had her reasons for her vote and articulated them well, it was stunning to many of her supporters. To follow up to her speech she made at UDC, she wrote the following memo to the Plan Commission:
Dear Plan Commission members-
I will miss the middle part of your meeting because of a work commitment from 7-9p. I hope to make it back in time to participate in the discussion about the Edgewater.
The unusual 5-4-1 vote last week was the first tie vote since I was appointed to UDC in April 2007. In my experience UDC commissioners generally agree about most projects after working with the applicant over the course of several meetings so initial approval usually means there is agreement on the mass, scale, height, site plan and landscaping for the project and context. This project has been an exception because many of the concerns UDC has noted and requested to be addressed have not been done in a timely way.
Overall the Commission agreed that there were many positive features of the Edgewater proposal such as restoring the 1940s Art Moderne building, enhancing public access to the lake, removing the top of the 1970s building to construct the public plaza and restore the public views of the lake as promised in 1965 ordinance but we were divided over whether the mass and height were appropriate for the site and while we narrowly vote for initial approval, the majority of members thought the building was too big. When we asked Hammes to respond to requests to reduce the height, they repeatedly said removing floors and “program” would make the project financially infeasible. It is not UDC’s charge to review this but I would urge Plan Commission to follow up and make a determination.
In late January, I requested that the developer work with NGL to move the building 30′ to the east in the hopes that it would address the mass and volume and conform better to the setbacks along the majority of Wisconsin Ave and to relocate the parking garage entry off of the city portion of the ROW. The March 17 submittal shows they did both things, not completely, but the result is a positive change, and I voted for initial since I felt I was instrumental in pushing for these changes. But I still have many concerns about the height and mass of this building.
At the March 17 UDC meeting, I asked the developer to present the new proposal to the Landmarks Commission. I would like Landmarks to review the changes to the architecture of the new tower, the relation of the plaza to the historic hotel, tower step backs from the right of way, and street setbacks and apply for a new Certificate of Appropriateness. This is an FYI and I understand it is not in Plan’s charge to make this recommendation.
UDC is somewhat at a disadvantage because we are the front end of the application process and don’t have the thorough staff report that addresses standards to help inform our decisionmaking like Plan Commission does. So the next step is in your hands.
The Mansion Hill historic district plan and Comp Plan both address the unique character of this district and area. Consistently I have seen residents from several neighborhood associations, not just Mansion Hill, raise concerns about the economic stability of the historic district and integrity of standards for approval for new development if the Edgewater Hotel is permitted to intensify it’s mass and uses so dramatically. This consideration weighs heavily on many of us and I hope that Plan Commissioners will take these concerns seriously since you have a broader array of standards to apply including economic impact and compatibility.
Aside from a reference to the TIF application process, in reviewing the standards for economic impact, staff did not discuss the addition of a luxury hotel to the market- both as it impacts existing establishments and potentially derails/delays a convention center hotel that would benefit Monona Terrace as recommended by the first Hunden report. Based on the initial Hunden study I think a case could be made that the economic prosperity of some hotel owners in the downtown may be adversely affected. Another subject that has had very little discussion in the staff report is the request to allow residential condos as part of this project. Additional elevators and other features to accommodate residential users add to the cost of the project. Some argue that the income from condo sales offsets the construction costs and so why not reduce the height by two stories? As you are probably aware, one of the discussions swirling in the community is the impact of extending the life of this TID and borrowing for the Edgewater will have our schools. This will be taken up by the Board of Estimates and the Council. But the economic impacts of this proposal are far-reaching and extend beyond the addition to the tax base, the provision of temporary construction jobs or mostly service industry jobs at the hotel.
Plan Commission will need to determine if the increased setback from the right of way is sufficient enough to offset the scale and mass of the new tower, or if an additional setback is necessary or the height of the building should be lowered. The latest plans add a penthouse lobby that “causes the tower to exceed the uppermost limit recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for the Langdon sub-district”. I don’t think we should exceed the uppermost limit of the Comp Plan. I urge you to determine if there is a way to reduce the mass of the building.
I also urge you to refer the PUD until you see the final configuration of the public lakefront easement access along the entire lakeshore of the development to accommodate a pedestrian/ bicycle path and ADA access; the use, maintenance and delineation of the public versus semi-public versus private spaces, and; the execution of the maintenance agreement between the developer and the City. These are the public community benefits the city will be receiving with TIF subsidy if this proposal is approved. I want Plan Commissioners to see and discuss the details considering the plaza management, outdoor cafe and use of alcohol and address it at the front end of the approval process. You requested it at your last meeting and I think you should have it before you approve the PUD.
Thank you for your service-
Marsha Rummel
After watching the stunning vote of the Plan Commission and feeling that they did not address many of the issues that she thought they would address before it went to council, she wanted to find out what her options were, one of them being a potential reconsideration.
So, guess what. Even tho she has reconsidered items at UDC before, the City Attorney said that she could not. You want to know why? Because they follow Robert’s Rules of Order and it does not allow reconsideration of a motion when its results have been even partially carried out. Because the Plan Commission, the body to which the UDC provides a recommendation, has acted, it is too late to move for reconsideration.
I personally think that’s a little weak. Since UDC also informs the Council. And I’m getting sick of the city attorney’s office constantly limiting the voices of the committees. I don’t understand why they are so afraid of letting the council get advice from citizens. I guess they just want to waste more time with people showing up at council meetings to tell them in person since they can’t make an official recommendation?
Well, UDC didn’t take that lying down. Last night they passed two motions at their special meeting:
1. They adopted sec MGO 2.21 for their reconsideration procedure. That reads:
RECONSIDERATION OF QUESTION. It shall be in order for any member who voted in the
affirmative on any question which was adopted, or for any member who voted in the negative when the number of affirmative votes was insufficient for adoption to move a reconsideration of such vote, at the same or next succeeding regular meeting of the Council. It shall be in order for any member who was, due to an excused absence, not present at the time the question was considered to move reconsideration of such vote at the next succeeding regular meeting of the Council. A motion to reconsider having been lost shall not be again in order. A motion to reconsider shall not be in order when the same result can be obtained by another motion. (Am. by Ord. 5188, 10-20-75)
2. They requested staff to draft a policy for consideration at next months special meeting that empowers UDC staff to prevent applicants from getting on UDC agenda if packet is incomplete and establishes a policy that all materials presented day of meeting might not be considered except for informational purposes
They did this because the new(ish) ordinance about committees/commissions requires that every two years committees must review policies and procedures.
THAT CITY ATTORNEY MEMO
It came out just in time! Now that it is useless, tho the City Attorney seems to think otherwise:
Attached is the opinion you requested regarding the Edgewater Development and the Landmarks Commission. You will get a paper copy of this, but most recipients will get only this electronic version.
I understand that earlier today, the developer announced they would go back to Landmarks for approval. This opinion will still be useful for future projects.
And it wasn’t even Friday . . . guess it wasn’t really bad news given recent developments.
