The Urban Design Commission and Economic Development Commission both had this item on their agenda last night. I was the only member of the public to make it to both, and only two staff did, which is a shame, because I think the UDC was grossly misrepresented at EDC.
URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION
This was partially blogged at he meeting til my computer battery died . . .
STAFF OVERVIEW
Steve Cover (new Director of Planning, Community and Economic Development) gives a brief introduction, Brad Murphy (Planning Unit) and Matt Mikolajewski (Office of Business Resources) join him. He says the document is from EDC (Economic Development Committee). He says it focuses on process and forms, training, more information being available and creating new review and a permit center, consolidating all their people in one area and giving better service to everyone. He opens it up for questions.
DISCUSSION
Here’s the document they are discussing, which is kind of necessary to follow along.
Dick Wagner, the chair, asks the process. Murphy says resolution was introduced, but this is back. Wagner says that the resolution wasn’t in their packet. Murphy says that it asks the council to approve and have staff start working on the recommendations. Murphy says your recommendation will also be in front of the Common Council as well as the Economic Development Committee.
Wagner says if they recommend approval, then it would be these recommendations and if we don’t like them we should modify them. Murphy says they should recommend amendments or removal.
Al Martin, staff to the Urban Design Commission, explains the confusion over what was in the packets, there was an amended agenda and they originally used the old legistar number.
Wagner says that the issue of Landmarks only looking at the projects in Landmark Districts ignores the dual role of the committee. (page 29) He says that if it is in a Urban Design District the criteria may not be the same as Landmarks. Urban Design does not look at the same elements of a project that the Landmarks Commission does and they have different areas of expertise. Dawn O’Kroley agrees and notes they have a different mission. Mark Smith says that they talked about joint meetings to help make the process more efficient.
Page 32 Item G – Todd Barnett feels strongly that projects that seek city funding should come to UDC for review, as talented as the clerks are, the design features are critical. Wagner says he isn’t that concerned about these projects. Barnett says there are fewer of these types of projects, it could be a subcommittee. Rummel says that the Stop-n-Go at State and Gilman is an example of where staff didn’t push the owner to take air conditioner above the door that drips on people’s head out of the plan. The door is part of our goal, even tho staff is sympathetic to the developer, we have the public interest at the front, its important that they review it because of those types of issues. Smith says that he agrees. Barnett asks Percy Brown, who runs the Facade Improvement Grant program his opinion. Brown says that we have about 75 projects that have came to the UDC over the life of the program, there are many advantages, he just would like to see the process streamlined, to get him on the agenda as soon as possible, it goes to council then Board of Estimates then back to council and this takes 6 – 8 weeks, this would only save a week or two if they did not review it. If they removed themselves it would be quicker. Rummel asks why it goes to council twice if in the budget. Percy clarifies it is the referral. Barnett asks if the Board of Estimates pretty much rubber stamps it, they say yes. [BK comment: So maybe there is a solution there?] Jay Handy asks if they are contentious items? Barnett uses the example of instead of using a standard aluminum door, they ask for a wood door as would be appropriate for the neighborhood. Smith recommends to delete this item.
Page 32 E – Wagner says this is about how UDC does its business. They would have to approve a project as presented, approve with conditions or reject with reasons and it would end their initial and final approval process. Wagner says they are advisory to the Plan Commission, and it becomes a condition of approval if they don’t have final approval if the item goes there before final approval. Wagner says he thinks their process works, they give initial quickly, they have cut down on multiple presentations and this change restricts them in a way that is not useful and may result in more rejections. Wagner asks if that is the intent. Murphy says yes, he remind the commission they had this discussion and there was a fair number of comments about this recommendation and there was not agreement on this item. Al Martin said that there was a concern that items are usually not ready at initial. Barnett says that if they come in with the full project, that is a lot of work that gets wasted if they ask them to move the parking lot to the other side of the building or if a project is marginally ok, we will compromise our standards if we approve it. Smith asks if they would only see the project once, Wagner and Murphy says yes that appears to be the intent especially combined with another item. Handy asks what that would mean? Wagner says we send it with recommendation for rejection. They ask if Plan Commission could send it back to them if they don’t like the rejection recommendation. Some say yes, but then they realize Plan Commission is supposed to act in one meeting as well. Wagner says “Plan Commission is under a lot of pressure to decide top.” He points out that Page 33 number 10 says that all projects would be covered. Wagner points out ordinances would have to be changed to do this, this is still a report. Murphy points out that all projects would need to be done in one meeting regardless of the size of the project. Barnett says that staff would have to reject applications because they are not complete because many projects are not complete when they come to Urban Design. Murphy says that they would make a recommendation and they only have one shot at it as well, so plan commission would only have two options to approve or reject. Wagner points out that they have many projects that come for informational presentations and that “dry run” helps them bring in better information when they officially apply. Murphy says landmarks made modifications to this item but they didn’t eliminate the item. Murphy points out that with plats they have 90 days to approve them by statute and they have to recommend rejection if the project is incomplete unless the applicant requests referral to get needed information. Rummel reads John Harrington’s email that points out that last minute changes won’t be able to be considered and they will have to reject more projects. Rummel says that there are many projects that would have been rejected that are now built. We would have just said no to the projects. She says that it would hurt the developer as the end result. Smith says that we wanted staff to have more autonomy to reject until the projects are complete, and it is very important. He says once more submittals are complete, more applicants could go to initial instead of informational and that would save them time. Wagner says informational is the developers choice. Murphy points out that staff may need more time to review for completion, currently they do it in one day. Wagner says one stop is not going to help the developers, it will result in more rejections . . . . computer battery died . . . probably missed some here. . . . but here is my summary . . . Handy suggests a process for small and large projects. Staff and UDC members note that it is hard to define a large and small project. Rummel says some of the small in-fill projects affect the neighbors the most. Richard Slayton says they looked at that but it was complicated.
Pete Ostlind from the Capitol Neighborhoods Inc Development Committee hits the highlights of their extensive written feed back. He reminds them that of the development that staff looked at, 10% of them were in their neighborhood area, so they have lots of experience.
– He says that in many cases, the goals are laudable, but the examples are not.
– He agrees that if there are city funds, UDC should provide input, you have skills for that.
– Annual review is plenty, you have a lot to do, don’t need to look in the mirror twice a year.
– F1 overlapping jurisdictions – the goal is good, examples for proposals in downtown core are not. It should not only go to Plan Commission or UDC, you provide benefits to the projects. Murphy says that it’s the other way around, plan commission wouldn’t see it. Ostlind points out that they look at different standards and they should just recommend to remove it.
– G 8 b page 31 – recommendation to improve Urban Design District wording in ordinance, he says they have the most specific and objective criteria and it’s not clear to him what is being asked for.
– Agrees with them that separating “small projects” and not having them review it is not a good idea, you provide great input. Above and beyond what neighborhood did, you should reject that recommendation.
– G 8 e on page 32, do everything in one meeting, agree with the comments, not efficient, which was mayor’s objective, you wouldn’t find many development teams think that is really useful for all the reasons you discussed.
– He says he wouldn’t volunteer to be on UDC and Plan Commision, you do enough already, its not clear it would really help, staff can send minutes and can convey they sense of group, it would be difficult for one person to communicate that.
– G10 also referral only if applicant asks for it, that is a poor idea, almost leads to new norm, criteria would be “almost good enough” is good enough. If a proposal needs a tweak would you refer it for that? Almost good enough should not be the new standard. A project typically get presentation and public input and then discussion then when rejection is likely to come up the applicant is now sitting in back of room raising their hand wanting to give input and how do you negotiate this at that point, that doesn’t really function well.
– H 1 – more information and checklists are good, they agree with discussion here.
– To make it all work you need complete applications before it is put it on the agenda, they should add language to that effect.
– The criteria in the ordinances can bounce back and forth and it’s hard to follow and a layman’s guide that gets rid of legalese would be helpful. That would help the public and development teams and commission members.
– When they make motions, presenting rationale for how it meets the standards would help all parties.
Barnett says that if they make the Urban Design District language more specific they may end up with something like the big box ordinance. It has specific standards and they got formulaic buildings instead of creative projects, he would like to investigate this issue, but without seeing the standards, he is leery.
Todd says serving on UDC and Plan Commission it would be burdensome, but to allow flexibility or to encourage a representative on the commission for critical projects might be valuable. It doesn’t happen often, but if we had the capacity to say within themselves when they should have someone attend that would be good. They point out Paul Wagner used to go, they say they don’t need to be appointed, but they could take that up as a group, a registered speaker when important. He can think of projects that should have been accepted by Plan Commission and were not.
Wagner says the CNI document has criticism about having developers fully present their project, other speakers only get three minutes but an organized group can arrange themselves to be more equitable, he asks for cooperation for that. Ostlind says they have been gracious, but they are looking for equity. Wagner wants equity but not to create rules that are too broad.
Ostlind says that the annual review one of the goals is a tour of what has been built, and in addition to matching specifics of what you asked for, there is a sense of going out and grading the paper, a member put together pictures of projects presented and pictures of what was built. They passed it around, he shows an example of the first picture and what gets built is different – It’s an example of why it might be useful.
Al Martin says that they used to do a tour and all commissions were invited, they went on Plan Commission tour.
Rummel says that applicants get more chance to talk, she often follows projects to plan and at those other bodies don’t get the depth that we do, and by the time it gets to plan commission they don’t do the same thing we do, I don’t know how to make it more equitable. Maybe there are not enough people to get all the issues out. There is a value to it if we can keep them less rambly.
MOTION
Wagner points out what he thinks he heard would be in the motion.
– Resolution be amended to delete items they talked about – pg 25, 2, façade grant program page 26, delete the example, the second sentence.
– Page 29, the example is the problem, they have different jurisdictions not overlapping jurisdictions, he says takes out F1.
– Page 31, G 7 c – they haven’t talked about this one, they have a meeting scheduled to do that – Landmarks review preceding Urban Design, Wagner says he has s strong feeling that they change design and then does it have to go back to Landmarks, it’s a procedural problem, they have a special meeting to talk about it – he prefers to delete it as a requirement. Murphy says that there is no ordinance amendment recommended here, this is more of a n administrative decision. Wagner points out that if a project changes and certificate of appropriateness is no longer valid they have to go back. Barnett says that there are not a lot of overlap projects so one of them might attend the Landmarks committee, that might help, they could get input early on, but one person has a big voice for the udc. O’Kroley points out that is the value of a staff report as they generally point out the issues. They recommend to remove it.
– Page 32, items e and g – and 33 10 – delete these as well, that is their recommendation. Barnett says that he would like to bold and underline the E portion, they feel very strongly about, all are important but e undermines what we are supposed to do and compromises the developers ability to do their project.
– Wagner says he leaves the UDC/plan commission recommendation in – Murphy says if no one wants to do it and ordinance is to be drafted, it will be a problem, if it is really a burden, you should say that, so we don’t end up with an ordinance drafted. Barnett wants to amend it so they only do it for critical projects – Wagner says that they don’t need to put that in ordinance, Barnett wants it just recognized that they could attend, and it’s not important for 98% of the projects. They recommend to remove the ordinance language and point out the mayor could do it if he wanted to. Rummel says that they might some more structural relationship so it doens’t matter who the mayor is, they oculd be an ex officio person, nonvoting but have a seat, not the full tilt boogey, but someone would go and do it. Rummel says she thought about it. Wagner says in old days Parks and Board of Public Works had a member on Plan, and that changed, so it’s a larger discussion. For most projects Wagner thinks it is not necessary. I’m unclear what their end recommendation was because they seemed split, but I think they were against it.
Barnett makes the motion to adopt the list as the motion. Passes unanimously.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
DISCUSSION BEFORE STAFF CAME TO THE TABLE
Doug Nelson, chair of the EDC, from M&I Banks says this is on the agenda to be accepted.
Mark Clear says that this is not our final action, we will do that next week (he meant month), this is just an update. Clear says they will wait until other committees act.
Aaron Oliver, new Director of Economic Development says that after leaving this groups hands, it got referred to several committees, they have copies of the schedule they pass around, he says the report went to Landmarks on Monday, they had a good discussion and good testimony, they made a couple recommended changes, the two big ones were F1 and F2, but he doesn’t have the minutes yet, but they had changes related to overlapping jurisdictions and recommended to delete f2 which was their compromise on supermajority. UDC has heard it tonight, Steve Cover and Matt Mikolajewski just walked in so they must be done, so they can get an update from them. The plan commission considers it Monday, the Board of Estimates and the it comes back to EDC, then they consider feedback they got.
Ed Clarke says there is a contradiction in the document, also in the zoning code, regarding the neighborhood plans and comprehensive plan. He points on the contradiction. Page 12 first paragraph second sentence, they may or may not be adopted as part of the comprehensive plan. On page 38, K1, they are supplements to comprehensive plan but not adopted as part of the comprehensive plan, the same issue is in the zoning code. There is confusion about this, he thinks page 38 is accurate, but urges them to address that confusion. He has raised the issue before and Mr. Murphy said page 38 is what it is. Aaron says Ed Clarke emailed him about this and Brad Murphy sent some suggested language that he will bring next time. Doug Nelson says that there is only one answer.
STAFF UPDATE ON UDC MEETING
Steve Cover says UDC took a little longer, more comments than landmarks, they are not interested in facade grant review by staff, they recommend to drop page 29 F 1, overlapping jurisdictions, delete it, they like the way it is going. Page 31 g 7, recommended deleting it. Page 32 e and g – they want to maintain the reviews required to process a project whether small or large, some discussion about small and large projects but nothing came of it. Cover says G 7 c was dropped, page 33 10 they felt that it wasn’t necessary to amend the ordinance they can do it. Mikolajewski says they needed to strike it, most of the discussion was on the single review, they didn’t think it was appropriate and they want to take it out. Clear says they essentially want to take everything out that impacts them? The group jokes about it. Cover says yes, they want to maintain the status quo. Selkowe asks if they will get that in writing, Peggy Yassa, the staff, says that the actions will be in legistar.
LANDMARKS DISCUSSION
From Monday is here. It was live blogged, so I might not have explained things as thoroughly, but it might make more sense now if you have not been following closely.
UNFORTUNATE
I was at both meetings and it is really sad that the rich discussion, that lasted an hour at UDC was not very well conveyed to the EDC. They essentially go the message that UDC was intransigent. Instead, I thought I head UDC saying that some of the suggestions would have unintended consequences of having more rejections, have developers waste time on complete information that would all need to be changed and that they were willing to talk about some of the issues. I don’t know where the disconnect happened, but either Cover did a poor job conveying the information or the EDC just heard what they wanted to hear. So, all in all, very unproductive. Perhaps a member of UDC should be on EDC! Perhaps they should not have had the meetings at the same time or they should have met jointly.
I was at both meetings and it is really sad that the rich discussion, that lasted an hour at UDC was not very well conveyed to the EDC. They essentially go the message that UDC was intransigent. Instead, I thought I head UDC saying that some of the suggestions would have unintended consequences of having more rejections, have developers waste time on complete information that would all need to be changed and that they were willing to talk about some of the issues. I don’t know where the disconnect happened, but either Cover did a poor job conveying the information or the EDC just heard what they wanted to hear. So, all in all, very unproductive. Perhaps a member of UDC should be on EDC! Perhaps they should not have had the meetings at the same time or they should have met jointly.
