Stuart Levitan fired off a letter to George Austin last week, the staff sent out a damaging report and tonight Landmarks Commission and Urban Design are holding a joint meeting to discuss the Frautchi/Rowland Plan for State St. and the destruction of a couple Madison Landmarks. Meeting is tonight at 5:00 in Room 260 in the Municipal Building (215 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.)
LEVITAN LETTER
George Austin
Overture Foundation
Block 100 FoundationNovember 7, 2011
Dear George
In the five weeks since you worked with local media for the promotional unveiling of the State Street Redevelopment project, members and staff of the Landmarks Commission have sought to understand your proposal in the absence of any direct information. So we are glad you will finally be coming to the Commission (meeting jointly with the Urban Design Commission) to make your first informational presentation on Nov. 14. I write to let you know about certain information we will need in evaluating your proposal.
As you are aware, in determining whether to issue the Certificates of Appropriateness you will need to demolish the designated city landmarks at 125 State Street and 120 W. Mifflin Street, the Commission will apply the terms of sec. 33.19(5)(c), and other ordinances incorporated by reference. In addition to the subjective tests of 33.19(5)(c)3. a.-e. and g., 33.19(5)(c )3.f. has an objective standard concerning the economics of the project and the actions by applicants, as follows:
f. Whether the building or structure is in such a deteriorated condition that it is not structurally or economically feasible to preserve or restore it, provided that any hardship or difficulty claimed by the owner which is self-created or which is the result of any failure to maintain the property in good repair cannot qualify as a basis for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Also, sec. 33.19(1)(c) declares that among the purposes and intents of the Landmarks Ordinance are:
(c) Stabilize and improve property values.
(f) Strengthen the economy of the cityIn light of the ordinance, I note that records in the city assessor’s office list Central Focus LLC as the owner of the six properties involved in the proposed development. I also note these records indicate that Central Focus LLC spent several million dollars more than the properties were assessed at in assembling the parcel over the past decade or so.
Accordingly, in evaluating your proposal against the standards of 33.19(5)(c)3.f. and 33.19(1)(c) and (f), the Commission will need to know the nature and details of the relationship between Central Focus LLC and the Overture and/or Block 100 Foundations. In addition, please provide the following information about all six properties involved in the project:
1. Purchase price;
2. Assessment as of the date purchased;
3. Whether the property had been listed for sale at time of initial Central Focus LLC inquiry/offer;
4. Whether the building was occupied at time of purchase;
5. If the building is currently vacant, the date of vacancy;
6. Any engineering studies that have been done on the condition and structural integrity of the subject buildings;
7. The actions Central Focus LLC has taken to maintain the various buildings in good repair;
8. The change in assessments on the subject block since Central Focus LLC began assembling parcel;
9. The projected assessments of the four remaining properties upon completion of the project;
10. The projected rents at the four remaining properties upon completion of redevelopment.Thank you for your timely response to this request. I expect commissioners and staff will have additional questions about other aspects of proposal, as well.
Also, please provide to Amy Scanlon copies of the material you will be using on the 14th by noon on Wednesday, Nov. 9, so it can be distributed with the packet for that meeting.
I look forward to your presentation on the 14th, and at subsequent meetings. Please feel free to contact me with any questions about this letter, or other aspects concerning commission consideration of the project.
Very truly yours,
Stu Levitan
Chair, Landmarks Commission
I don’t see this information in the file. Yet.
STAFF LETTER
There is this tho!
November 10, 2011
Mr. George Austin
President, AVA Civic Enterprises, Inc.
2316 Chamberlain Avenue
Madison, WI 53726RE: Proposal for the 100 Block of State Street
Dear Mr. Austin:
The purpose for this letter is to provide you with some initial comments on the concept plans you have recently presented regarding the redevelopment of six properties in the 100 block of State Street. Although no formal submittal has been made, due to the significant amount of public dialog that has already occurred, I wanted to provide you with our initial thoughts. Staff from my department recently met with Eric Lawson and Doug Hursh from your team and reviewed the proposal and the required steps in the development review process.
Based on that meeting, we understand that the project involves completely demolishing the buildings at 117-119, 121-123, 125 State Street, and rebuilding their State Street facades. The project also involves demolishing the building at 127-129 State Street and building a new structure in a style reminiscent of the original building. The project further involves demolishing the buildings at 120 and 122 West Mifflin Street. A new 2-4 story commercial building is proposed behind the State Street facades oriented towards a proposed private open space at the corner of West Mifflin and Fairchild Streets.
As you are aware, the buildings at 125 State Street (the Castle and Doyle Building) and 120 West Mifflin Street (the Schubert Building) are City of Madison historic landmarks. Buildings are designated as landmarks because their architectural/cultural contributions to the community are unique and should be preserved. Demolition of landmark buildings is something that the City takes very seriously and should only be considered in rare instances for truly extraordinary projects. In the case of 125 State Street, the deconstruction and reassembly of one building wall is not considered preservation as the entire building is designated as a landmark. However, there may be opportunities to adaptively reuse a more significant portion of that structure in a new project. Additionally, staff believes that there is also an opportunity to use all or a portion of the Shubert building at 120 West Mifflin Street as part of the larger project. The Department does not support the demolition of these landmark properties, and strongly suggests exploring ways to incorporate both buildings into the project.
The building at 122 West Mifflin Street, although not presently a landmark, is a classic limestone structure that staff believe is clearly eligible and worthy to be designated as such. The building appears to be in good condition and does not seem to be a candidate for demolition. It also holds the corner well and relates to the limestone façade of the historic Yost-Kessenich Building that was incorporated into the Overture Project. The Department does not support the demolition of this building.
In addition to the historic preservation issues, staff has a number of design-related concerns. Any new construction, addition, or major alteration in the C4 (Central Commercial District) shall conform to the Urban Design Guidelines for Downtown Madison. According to these Guidelines:
“While new buildings and major additions should possess their own character, design solutions that are obtrusive and present extreme contrasts with adjacent structures should be avoided. By respecting the proportion of window openings and doors of existing buildings, new structures and major additions will possess an appearance of „belonging‟ rather than „intruding.‟”
Our staff feels that the site plan, and the massing, scale, rhythm, and proportions of the proposed development disrupts the existing urban fabric along both its West Mifflin Street and Fairchild Street frontages. The structure‟s design that is pulled away from the corner disrupts the pattern created by the surrounding buildings. Creating a private plaza at the corner also diminishes the sense of enclosure that is created by buildings that are close to, and oriented towards, the sidewalk.
The Urban Design Guidelines for downtown Madison and the C4 zoning recognize the special design challenges presented by the diagonal streets approaching the Capitol Square. These guidelines and the zoning on the property establish a four-story limitation for buildings along State Street but allow taller structures, up to eight-stories in the right angle portions of the blocks (i.e. the Fairchild/Mifflin Street corner) where no building is currently proposed. From a design perspective, if the desire is to create an open space for an outdoor eating area for a restaurant on the block, this could be achieved while still holding the corner of Fairchild and Mifflin Streets with the existing building. The guidelines recommend that new buildings should respect the existing scale, rhythm and proportions along State Street Mall.
Finally, the project is inconsistent with several recommendations in the draft Downtown Plan (scheduled to be introduced to the Common Council on November 15), such as:
– Establish building setback and/or build-to lines requirements that reflect the character of the areas in which the property is located…as a general rule…buildings in mixed use or nonresidential areas should be setback between 0 and 10 feet from the front property lines (rec. 45);
– Preserve and rehabilitate significant older structures, including flat-iron buildings (in the State Street District) (rec. 65);
– Preserve and restore landmark buildings (rec. 161);
– Preserve triangle blocks and associated flatiron buildings and ensure that new development on parcels with acute angles follow that building form. (rec. 175).In a previous meeting I have requested the floor plans of the existing buildings and elevations of the ground floor with notations noting the bearing walls within the structures. I would also like to know what other alternative design solutions you identified and evaluated which led you to arrive at the proposed alternative. At this point, we are not convinced that you cannot utilize the existing buildings on the block to achieve a desirable project.
In conclusion, staff does not support the project in its current iteration. I strongly encourage you to reconsider your approach. We would be happy to discuss this project as the design evolves to arrive at a project that achieves your goals while addressing the concerns outlined in this letter.
If you have any concerns or would like to discuss this project further, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Steven Cover, AICP, Director Planning and Community and Economic Development
Cc: Landmarks Commissioners
Amy Scanlon
Anne Monks
Ald. Verveer
BOB DUNN PLAYBOOK IS DEAD?
Hmmm, staff came out strong, as did the Landmarks Chair. Think they are smarting from the last time someone came out and played out a project and got support in the media before going through the city process.
Should be an interesting meeting tonight at 5:00.
