Clearly, it is a landmark. Clearly, the demolition permit has been issued by staff. Now what?
Last night’s Landmark Commission meeting was a classic showdown between staff and policy makers. I’m certain I did not understand everything that was going on. The wrong staff was in the room to ask the appropriate questions. And the ordinance, sucks.
I’m spoiled, because on the plan commission, despite how horrible our zoning code is, at least we had some guidelines and rules to follow. Last night, we were faced with making a decision based on this:
(6) Procedures.
(a) Designation Of Landmarks and Landmark Sites. The Landmarks Commission and the
Common Council may consider nominations for landmark status. An individual or group
may nominate a property for consideration. If a complete, accurate application is
submitted and the Commission decides to consider the nomination, a public hearing shall be scheduled At least ten (10) days prior to such hearing . . .
That’s it. It doesn’t say what we consider or why we would or would not have a hearing.
While it is clear that under the ordinance, once we get to consider it, how to make a decisions (MGO 33.19(4)(a)):
(a) For purposes of this ordinance, a landmark or landmark site designation may be placed on any site, natural or improved, including any building, improvement or structure located thereon, or any area of particular historic, architectural or cultural significance to the City of Madison, such as historic structures or sites which:
1. Exemplify or reflect the broad cultural, political, economic or social history of
the nation, state or community; or
2. Are identified with historic personages or with important events in national, state or local history; or
3. Embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen,
inherently valuable for a study of a period, style, method of construction, or of
indigenous materials or craftsmanship or
4. Are representative of the notable work of a master builder, designer or architect
whose individual genius influences his age.
Stuart’s right. It’s clearly a landmark. To do anything except allow the hearing on it would have been abdicating our responsibility as the Landmark’s Commission. And to say the “application is incomplete” was appalling. In any other circumstance, the staff would have worked with the applicant to make sure the application was complete.
We decided to hold the hearing and allow the applicant to amend his application. It was an interesting, odd, meeting. But we made the only decision that a Landmark’s Commission could have/should have made. Heh, Stuart and I were even on the same side of the issues!
