The 700 block of East Washington Gebhardt project gets initial approval from Urban Design and a recommendation for spot zoning/change of ordinance for a taller building . . . did anyone notice? Why isn’t it controversial?
Well, two things. First of all, it got overshadowed by the 100 block of State St, it was on the agenda for the same meeting. Second of all, the area was planned and discussed and the project mostly complies with previous plans, so it makes it easier to get approval. That is the real issue with the 100 block of State St and the Edgewater, the projects don’t comply with plans and there wasn’t community discussion about what should go in these places. Plus, this developer was open to suggestions from the neighborhood and actually worked with them to answer questions instead of playing silly games. The ordinance change is a little odd in this case . . . especially from an alder that “respects zoning” and won’t make an ordinance change for a Bed and Breakfast to go in a place that was a Bed and Breakfast for 20 years. But that’s a different issue . . . There are two items on the agenda, first the ordinance change and then the project. This is the discussion – about an hour long.
THE ORDINANCE
Dick Wagner, the chair of the Urban Design Commission asks Bridget Maniaci to explain the ordinance revision.
Maniaci says we are finally to the point where we have developers at the table in a very long process on East Washington Avenue. Before you, you will notice what is currently on the books and what is proposed. She is proposing on the 700 block to divide on the East WAsh side to be 2(c) of that, it would allow 10 stories plus 2 bonus stories with the criteria already laid out in the Urban Design District. She was not part of the process, Marsha (Rummel) was a part of the discussion and it is an evolving process. There has been a lot of interest in the project in the neighborhood, very very positive feedback. Basically to throw out why this is ok, this is acceptable, it is within in the plan and in the spirit of the discussions. If you look at it in context of what is going on and what is across the street, what was approved, across the street was 12 stories plus two bonus heights and her side of the street was approved at 8 stories plus two bonus heights. The reason behind all that was we want jobs and commercial development and on the residential side we understand that there are single family homes, 2 flats, 3 flats and apartment buildings close at hand and that is why there was a difference between the two. As the conversation has evolved, we have found very quickly that when it comes to the commercial side of the line, you need a lot of parking for office workers compared to if the same space was taken up by residential which is a less dense use and to get those densities we were envisioning, we have the plan flipped. The residential is what is able to be built and it requires less parking so there is easier financing on that side. Since this was done many years ago and there has been continued conversation on this, she is comfortable with this, the neighborhood has really thought about this, and talked about this and we have a proposal that meets, she thinks, the only criteria it doesn’t meet is on the height. It meets all the set back requirements, it meets all the mixed use and the envisioning that was done in this plan and the realities of the market is that they are not capable of doing a shorter building and there is new information about the soil conditions on the site, not only is the water table about 4.5 ft down, but the soil boring conditions are very poor. (BK note: This should not be a surprise to anyone!) So, what it takes to build a building in this spot , in this corridor is not an insignificant amount of money and to do this project effectively, the height of a building not currently envisioned when this plan was put together is required. She is keeping this very tailored and specific to the site in question, she is not looking to open it up for the entire corridor but to deal with the folks that have come to the table as a part of the city process. The city has determined they are going to make an investment here and spend taxpayer dollars with the intention of making it happen but there are realities to making it happen and this is one of the realities we have hit against. (BK note: buildings can be value engineered, costs can be cut, I don’t think that happened in this case and we haven’t seen any numbers on the rents they are charging or the financials to make any determination about what the financial realities are – having said that tho, I’m not too concerned about the extra stories, but it is odd to make an exception in ordinance for one project – we should have the broader policy discussion about the entire area.)
Richard Linster, President of the Tenney Lapham Neighborhood Association says he isn’t well prepared because he just found out about the meeting at noon. He is neither in support or against because he is representing the neighborhood association and we have not made a recommendation, however he believes there is strong support for the project and for raising the height. Initially he thought there would be a great concern, but he attended the 5 public meetings on the project and at the UDC meeting and there might be several people that have a concern, but that has not been stressed at the meetings. People are more concerned with traffic. He thinks it will be a boon for Tenney Lapham, the corridor and the City of Madison.
Marsha Rummel asks Maniaci why she chose to amend the ordinance the way she did? Why is it split that way?
Maniaci says the planning process was clear about the step back to the Mifflin St. facade. Because the Mifflin St. side is supposed to be a lower density and more residential use even in the mixed use buildings. She says that is a consistent issues. Also, the proposal is meeting the guidelines and boundaries and she didn’t see the reason to amend it.
Rummel clarifies her question, why did you exclude other frontage on E. Washington?
Maniaci says it was to be as narrow and tailored to the project before you, she would be interested in expanding that if the committee wanted to do that, she is open to it. She didn’t want to open up the entire thing and ask where is that point we should draw the line. But she is open to their suggestions.
Rummel asks Heather Stouder from Planning staff to talk about Urban Design District 8 and why we would do this in this manner.
Maniaci says it is because that is where she told them to draw the line.
They clarify among themselves, Rummel says she was surprised that this was subdivided just for this project.
Maniaci says that since they don’t know what is happening with Reynolds she only wanted to address what they have here.
Rummel says that we can always change it, I guess.
(I just gotta ask, what is the point of plans and ordinances if they just get routinely changed for projects an alder supports – but not for the ones an alder might not support?)
Todd Barnett says that the heights are based on a story and we need to be conscious of the height in relation a story. If you have a project that is 9 feet floor to floor, which I am sure this project is not, that is 9 x 9 is 81 vs 9 x 12 = 108, that’s 2 stories, so we need to talk a little bit about what the real height of the building is. The second issue is that we often see projects that are quite tall and they get scaled back, that’s just the normal process, was there a discussion about this being a precedent and what if the next project needs to be 13 stories and what if that is the same height. He doesn’t have an objection to it, but you all know its a process.
Maniaci had discussions with staff and wanted to know if she should give herself some room to maneuver and then I thought why put you guys through that, why not just ask for what we need, compared to having the discussion about 14 or 16 stories. We have a project before us, by doing it this way the project coming forward will have to make the case for what they are doing and given the current dynamics, this is what she thought was simplest and straightforward and honest to bring to you.
Barnett looks at the project.
Maniaci says in the floor to cieling heights.
Barnett clarifies floor to floor.
Manaici says it was very much a discussion early on in the process and when the developer get up . . . she has a a procedural question, the developer could present and they could work these two together.
Wagner says that is possible, the conundrum is that if we don’t recommend a change in the height in the ordinance it is hard to recommend the building so the logical sequence would be to approve the height. You could do it subject to the presentation of the project and initial approval of the project pending. The other thing on the height, the heights on teh other side were 12 and the other side was lower because of the concerns of the neighborhood and if they are no longer concerned maybe it isn’t a big deal. There was a lot of your side vs our side of the avenue kind of discussion.
Maniaci interrupts and says there has been a lot of discussion looking at the context of the site and further down – you can see how the Mifflin St side is right on top of the houses on Curtis Court or Mifflin itself, but these blocks with Breese Stevens, Reynolds Park and Reynolds – you are looking at truck storage, a surface parking lot, the water utility building, so the conversations in the neighborhood are that where we are looking the height is not a concern.
Rummel says the real key to the residential approach is the 30 degree angle and the development respects that and that is where is steps down dramatically to the Tenney Lapham side and she thinks that was the main success of this plan for Tenney Lapham.
Wagner asks what they want to do. Rummel moves approval, it is seconded.
Rummel says they should comment about the floor to floor issue.
Al Martin, Urban Design Commission staff says that if you look at the table it gives you average story heights. 9 – 12 feet excluding the first floor and if in total it exceeds those parameters you are sent back two stories.
Barnett asks if they can have a penthouse on top of that?
Yes.
Wagner says all these issues were approved, they are not newly before us.
Barnett asks about the zoning definition of a story, architects are different than planners, what defines a story?
Stouder says that a story has a broader definition in the zoning code, they can include messanines etc, it allows for a greater height than you might normally think of as a story.
Wagner says we will not solve that broader issue tonight.
Manaici says if there is something they want her to bring forward to this body she would be happy to, if you see something that is in need of work.
Barnett says no.
Martin says that non-inhabitable space does not count.
Barnett says that . . . lots of talking . . . but a penthouse or mechanical floor would not count. So if a large building had a full floor of mechanical space, that would not be a floor but the building would be 13 floors.
Staff and Wager says this is the ordinance not the project.
Passes unanimously.
THE PROJECT
Developer says the changes since last time include:
– When they presented last November they made assumptions about the project and soil conditions, at the end of the December those assumptions were challenged in regards to the soil. (DUH! Again, they should have known this – I’m pretty sure I told them and have brought it up repeatedly – we learned this on the Gorman project which is why they couldn’t build a 16 story building.)
– They salvaged the tower with some structural changes, there are some minor changes on Mifflin St.
– The courtyard is rotated, the gardens are moved to the center of the block.
– They made changes to the rendering, similar materials and massing.
– They updated the lighting
– Materials is a discussion internally and with staff
– The height issue is a big one
– They think that the meet all of the Urban Design guidelines except the height and on Mifflin, there is a 5 – 20 foot setback requirement, there is a 10 foot MG&E easement, they can’t meet it in some areas. There is one area that is 35 feet set back adn the ordinance allows them to request that if there are gardens
– As of last Thursday they got bumped up to a higher seismic category and they need extra bracing in one area.
– They are looking at the treatment of the Livingston entrance but have not figured out how to break that up any better
Commission Discussion highlights:
– Are they confident that there will not be many changes to height and massing? Yes. They have some structural changes internally. The exterior should look the same.
– Privacy issues on the balconies have been addressed. They have had other projects where the balconies weren’t used or people put up screens. At least one bedroom separates each balcony in this case.
– Barnett says the scale of the first floor/base of the building might be too much. The architects explain their thinking.
– Several questions about the materials and the changes
– No plans for the community room yet, concern about the accessible route to the community rooms – they say that there are a lot of things that they are working through. Maniaci says “we’ll add it to the list”
– Lots of architechty talky-talk on details most of us don’t consciously notice.
– Concern about street lighting on Livingston – there is none currently on Livingston or Mifflin. They are trying to figure out why Livingston is not lit. They are doing ambient and building lighting.
– Bike parking is an issue – how will that work and impact circulation. What will it look like when parked full. Currently bikes are chained anywhere they can find in the neighborhood. How do they make it not look cluttered? Also concerns about bike storage inside.
– Maniaci says that when the expand the TID some infrastructure changes can occur and they can put that in the city budget.
– There are questions about who uses what elevators and which are public.
– Moped parking is also an issue – Maniaci says she doesn’t want them, it is different than on campus, but there might me more in the future.
– They have electric car, community car and moped parking in the garage.
– Community gardens are moved, daylighting was better elsewhere. They don’t want community gardens with jugs of milk, but they want to work with the residents to program it. They have true garden space, but can they spread kale, tomatoes as an ornamental. Also working to retain storm water to water plants. They might have rows of apple trees. They might have a restaurant that would do gardening but neighbors were concerned about pets.
– Some discussion about the types of trees they put in and the soils.
– A request to buy local.
And with that, initial approval is granted. Just that simple when you pay attention to plans and ordinance and neighbors – no one seems to even care that the building is a few stories taller, because they complied with the vision for the area.
