I missed all the public testimony, but have it tivo’d. I will do the questions the plan commission asked next, but I know people just want to know what happened and who voted how, so here it is. Problem is, some will only read this an not the rest, which will fill in more of the blamks.
The discussion started at 1:12 and lasted only less than 50 minutes. They voted and were out of there by about 1:57, so the actual discussion only lasted 45 minutes.
EXPLANATION OF THE VOTES
Nan Fey, the chair of the plan commission says that she is going to explain the three decisions they need to make.
1. Agenda item 10 is changing the zoning to Planned Unit Development [Note, she does not indicate that it is PUD-GDP or PUD-SIP and there seemed to be some confusion about that. PUD = Planned Unit Development. PUD-GDP is the General Development Plan, PUD-SIP = Specific Implementation Plan]
2. Agenda item 11 is the approval of the waterfront setback conditional use.
3. Agenda item 12 is the recommendation to the council on the Wisconsin Avenue ordinance.
She says they should take these up one at a time in the order they appear on the agenda and make the decision based on specific standards that apply to each. These standards are different than those that have been applied by other commissions. For example Landmarks and Urban Design. The standards are for zoning map amendments, planned unit developments, waterfront set back and conditional use permits. References to the standards and where they can be found are all set forth in the staff report.
The plan commission has several paths it could take tonight that were laid out in the staff report. She goes over them to remind everyone and educate the viewers. They can approve the conditional use and PUD with staff recommendations, it should specify any additional conditions of approval to address concerns they would like to see addressed and state the findings of how they find the standards are met. [They didn’t do that on the on the conditional use that they didn’t even discuss and I doubt that they did it on the PUD as well.] Alternatively if they cannot find that the standards have been met, they should state that, and refer with specific recommendations to the applicant about what they can do to meet the standards or recommend that the project be placed on file.
Finally, they should make a recommendation on the ordinance about the vacation of Wisconsin Avenue.
Fey says in order to avoid the confusion of double negatives, she suggests that they make a motion to approve, and then propose, consider and vote on the conditions that they would like to add on items 10 and 11. And when there are no other conditions to be added, they will vote the entire motion up or down.
Fey takes a moment to clarify the role of the chair, on the voting obligations of the chair, she says the chair’s primary obligation is to ensure a fair process. As a result the chair does not express opinions or engage in discussion, but the chair is a full member of the commission and has a right to vote. According to Robert’s Rules which the plan commission follows, the chair only casts a vote when their vote would be consequential, which means that it is either to make or break a tie. A tie vote means a motion fails.
BREAK
They took a five minute break and then came back.
PUD OLSON MOTION ON ITEM 10
Item 10 – Olson moved approval of 10 with conditions of staff and additional condition requiring developer to remove 2 full stories of the tower, seconded by Bowser.
Judy Olson says it is her belief that the tower is out of compliance with PUD standard 1(a) and not compatible with context of the project.
Judy Bowser agrees with motion, she says she has not been talking with Mr. McFadden but ever since first round of plans she has been playing with moving building over, taking off top two floors and it looks to be in compliance with comprehensive plan as I underhand plan.
Tim Gruber (alternate, not voting tonight) says on the issue of height, he is in favor of taller buildings and this building in particular is at a prominent place at end of one of most important streets in Madison and with comprehensive plan and PUD standards height is appropriate, he heard from applicant that the project will not be not built without two floors, [Only one problem with that, we haven’t see the TIF request yet to see if it is true.] if motion to take two floors off, they might as well place on file, no point in going through this exercise at this point. He reads from the downtown design professionals document created by Downtown Madison Inc – reads from downtown design professionals document – he says it says it better than he can. It talks about the scale of the building and the height. “It is often asserted that buildings should match each other in terms of scale, the charge of incompatible scale is difficult to dispute because the claim is so subjective. Maybe it is just as valid to think in terms of contrasting scale, to build some things larger than others so we can experience a difference rather than the sameness. Cities are full of buildings large and small standing side by side successfully, it is the skill of the designer that makes the difference.” [I might agree if we were talking 2 and 3 story buildings vs 4 to 6 story buildings, but this is 8 or nine stories which is 4 or 5 times the height of the other buildings. And, don’t forget, there are standards and laws in place, but the commission just seems to be ignoring them and going with what they like.]
Lauren Cnare asks a question of the maker of the motion, she says that they talked about the elevator as a story, when you say two story do you mean the roof top and just one floor, or do you mean two full stories?
Olson shakes her head to indicate it is two full floors, people don’t hear the answer, Cnare says that she doesn’t mean the imaginary story.
Cnare says this criterion 1(a) is interesting, there is a very literal way to look at it [You know like you’re reading a law or something] and there is a philosophical or figurative way when think of Mansion Hill and the topography, it’s a big place, its a dramatic place cuz its surrounded by a lake, and when she thinks about compatibility, you want another big and bold and memorable project, she wants a secondary downtown, an important downtown node, another big piece of our city, she does think that project as it stands at 8, 9 or 10 stories does, she says it is saved by its architectural design, or UDC would have said it was nasty or uninspired, she could find it doesn’t meet 1(a) – it is compatible, won’t be able to support with two stories removed.[That was a creative twist, take the zoning ordinance and a building and instead of seeing if it is compatible with the surrounding buildings, compare it to the lake. Somehow, I don’t think that is what compatible was supposed to relate to.]
Michael Schumacher is also not in support of the motion – Gruber hit nail on the head, he is not a developer or expert in hotel management and to sit here and decide a project is 2 floors higher or lower is borderline absurd [That Schumacher is such a swell guy, he really knows how to play in the sandbox well, doesn’t he?] and they should just place it on file. They are going into financial decision making and if it is viable or not is not within the domain of plan commission expertise. [wow, that is a new interpretation, plan commission now can’t decide how tall buildings are going to be?] When the Eiffel Tower was being built, there were doom and good statements, this was the worst thing ever to be created, they went as far as to make associations with suicides, he highly recommends looking up that discussion and now it is one of the most attractive places for Paris and Edgewater has that potential to be that for Madison, [He gets the exaggeration of the night award for that, the Edgewater is going to be the Eiffel Tower of Madison? Barf. It might look nice when it is done, and Eiffel Tower it is not.] He can’t support – he says they are speculating if two floor work or not.
Olson say not intent to kill the project, intrigued by McFadden efficiencies of design and redesign to accomplish same economic plans, that is the motive behind the motion.
Boll appreciates the motion, and need to put it in the affirmative to discuss, problem he has, based on what the applicant indicated, its not economically viable, [Oh no, not you too Jim! Where’s the proof! You know better than that.] if we passed the motion we would not achieve anything, not going to be beneficial in the long run – when it comes to compatibility, there is a subjectivity and we see that based on who testified, if we use the standards others may have different view, this is not a bright line.
Michael Heifetz says he is not voting unless someone drops from fatigue, and he doesn’t as well. He agrees with Boll that this is subjective, Mr. Austin talked about the inherent contradiction in what we are seeing, this thing falls through the cracks, it is in between two historic districts, it doesn’t fit in our boxes, Murphy and staff outlined the comp plan, it aligns with it and he concurs, is it subjective, Ledell Zellers said it was an assault to the eyes, that is pretty subjective, he respectfully disagrees, not enough to chop it down.
Motion fails 6 – 2 with Olson and Bowser voting against. Cnare, Schumacher, Kerr, Boll, Basford and Sundquist in favor.
[It just occurred to me, that the school board wanted a school representative on here to represent their point of view and I don’t see him and haven’t seen him at the meetings. What was the point?]
BASFORD MOTION TO REFER ON ITEM 10
Michael Basford moves to refer – he says he couldn’t vote for the previous motion despite the fact that he agrees the project does not meet standard 1(a) but he certainly didn’t think this would be the proper time to say do x and meet standard 1(a), he needs more time to chew on this, applicant has heard our concerns, esp. height and this might give him a chance to come back with something to meet the standards, he wants to see something, he doesn’t get up in the morning to come here for an 8 hour meeting to impede progress, that is not why I signed up for this gig, he wants to chew on it longer and perhaps get closer to yes.[Based on this comment and comments later, speakers must have been giving the plan commission a rough time about impeding progress, I didn’t see that part, I was at the Board of Education.]
Kerr appreciates the Olson motion, she understands what she was trying to do, its not absurd, [As abrasive as Kerr can sometimes be to us midwesterners, at least she doesn’t cut down people.] She supports the motion, would like to see benefit of city attorney opinion on landmarks, many people feel badly about the way Landmarks has be characterized in the debate and she is having trouble putting blinders on. She understands the legal opinion but fact remains we have relied on them for some input in historic districts in the past and coupled with fact that what landmarks did and their conclusion is unfortunately characterized, makes her uncomfortable, The second thing is that she would like to know to what standard the exiting tower is going to be rehabbed, those in favor who testified talked about the restoration of a landmark and she would like to understand if this is a historic renovation or rehab, the measure of that is by the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. She would like to have the State Historic Preservation Officer look at it, if they had initial look she would be more comfortable and get a better sense of it, its an important part of the project, it is information we still need. Third, she believes that the maintenance and use agreement is an important factor in this and it speaks to PUD standard 1(b) a lot of folks who have concerns have spoken about potential disruption, those may have been overstated or not but they are legitimate concerns, they actually exist and are important and she would like Verveer to have seen it since his district is across the street. [The Maintenance and Use Agreement draft for the plaza was handed out to commissioners after the public spoke so that they could not see it, there were no copies available to the public, or even to the other alders in the room. You’ll see reference to this later.] She would like to see Sundquist’s TDM issues addressed, these are elements that need more work, and would want to see that as well. Finally, like Basford she did not join the committee to impede progress, she is disappointed by the characterization of speakers in support – the whole “business community watching what you do” comments – that this is a bellwether for Madison’s economic viability its not tactically a smart thing to do but really is troubling to those of us who work on economic development in our districts and throughout city but who may not support Edgewater for various good reasons so she is very disappointed to hear that talk and hear it consistently and its disturbing, reasonable people can disagree and not point fingers and call each other names, finally she has thought a lot about the project and height and mass and they are two separate issues, height and mass issue and I have concluded based on discussion here today and testimony and staff report thinks standards can be met.
Gruber would like to point out it is not the role of the commission or public to design the project, ultimately up to applicant and us vote up or down, but do think that we get a vote on the basic parameters of projects, he talks about GDP, says they should decide if the scale and mass move forward or not, and then that is the way some of the other approvals have been done, landscape architectural grounds plaza are excellent, sidewalk access concerns to look at those things. [I think these comments lead people to wonder if they are voting on PUD-GDP or PUD-SIP, he made is sound like they were voting on PUD-GDP but I think he was merely intending it to be a suggestion but it is not clear. At least one plan commissioner who voted for the project remarked after the meeting that they thought it was GDP cuz there were no details and didn’t understand how they could have approved SIP.]
Bowser supports referral, excited about the prospect of the Edgewater being renovated but also wants to see a compatible companion building built, it is necessary to expand capacity but think that as presented too tall.
Sundquist says Kerr said many things only add on the TDM that they need to address employees, it is a good reason to refer on that issue, although be also open to Mr. Gruber suggestion of GDP and come back for SIP – if this were not the Edgewater, this is our first crack it and it is not unusual to push off for two weeks for a question like this. [Interesting, cuz I don’t think this is how he votes in the end.]
Cnare asks if they refer, will we do this all over, with a public hearing?
Brad Murphy, Planning Unit Director, says the public hearing was closed, they would put it on under unfinished business, tho Murphy notes the Tim Parks is shaking his head and asks him to speak.
Parks, one of the planners and staff to plan commission, says if they closed the public hearing if they reopen it they would need another notice.
Murphy says not reopen it, just put it on the agenda under old business, then put structures on what testimony would be allowed, Murphy says will need to decide how to list it on the agenda, schedule new hearing or proceed with considering action of the project at the next meeting.
Cnare says there will be new materials in the TDM, height of the building, Secretary of Interior Standards and they would decide based on that, not testimony.
Murphy says they will need to discuss that.
Cnare asks if take 5 and do it now, concerns are valid, they did find some holes in the TDM plan, likelihood of developer offering a shorter building is like zero, but they can hold that out there but change, if not referral, they could do approval with conditions that the State Historical Preservation Officer give guidance and TDM is improved, might be a way around it, not put anyone through this again, all folks sitting here and people sitting here but not make decisions without public comment. [I don’t understand the need to take short cuts on this project, there are soooooo many unresolved issues in their project that have not been addressed.]
Murphy says that public hearing closed practice to allow comment on items on agenda for 3 minutes and would agree that if new materials submitted, people should have ability to review and comment, that is the normal practice of the commission – that would be how listed and handled if referral occurs.
Heifetz says this reminds him of the health care debate at the federal level, some say time for vote its not perfect but a good proposal and it passed on a close vote, I don’t think they care if it was 216 or 219 vs. 300 votes. Opponents criticize process as being rushed and want to slow it down and are concerned about precedent, he sees similarities, if voting not support referral, this doesn’t fit into box and we will all be happy with what comes out – historic preservation doesn’t mean you can’t change anything,[I don’t think anyone ever said that, did the?] they may even be against the project with two floors off, even if we come back in two weeks or two months it still won’t fit in a box that works for our process smoothly, we already heard the applicant gave their reasons for the building shape etc vs. McFadden – not a making a judgment call an either/or, we heard where people stand on it, don’t think reducing building by a couple stories but I could be proven wrong if the body goes to in that direction. To Alder Kerr’s comments about the business climate and this being a bellwether he shares the cconcern, but we are here fair or not and people are watching this closely, even if it isn’t that unusual, we have seen many large proposals go through here quickly with a different type of process. While he shares the concerns, and either way they have a problem now because this is the one they are watching. Would not support it if he was voting, time to vote it up or down.[I don’t get it, they hardly spent any time on this project, 3 hours of testimony and 4 hours of questions and debate and they act like they have to rush. They have one more meeting before the council meeting and lots of unanswered questions.]
Boll says that Alder Kerr has articulated a few things traffic report, city attorney report on landmarks and historic preservation issues but would any of those issues change your mind on how you would vote, they heard 7 hours of public testimony, those are not the three significant issues with the public so when take a look at the motion that additional info requested to decide if those are issues that would sway your vote, his 6 years with the plan commission ends next month and we don’t reduce or limit public testimony if refer it, we will have robust testimony, don’t make this decision based on thinking we can just come back and have a discussion. Take a look at the idea about referral and think about if it will sway you vote so it is a referral with productivity. [hmm, what standard in the PUD was he considering there. I don’t remember a standard about not wanting to listen to public testimony. Or if referral will be fruitful.]
Clear points out that it 1:45, plan commission is not the final vote so there is another opportunity for other conditions and when they come to council there will be robust public testimony and council will beat plan commission on lateness of the hour.
Kerr says that she had four issues, TDM, city attorney memo, level of historic rehab of existing tower and access and management agreement, wants to make sure have all 4 – appreciate being productive in referrals, it is 2:00 and people want to move things along, for her, these four issues are determinative with me, could live with motion to approve GDP and have them come back at SIP and management and access agreement is important issue, many members of public brought it up and it related to 1(b) – urge you to support referral, don’t just refer for whatever reason, but do it because we need additional info or more work to be done.
Gruber says the condition in 14 says TDM submitted needs work, feels like we need to trust Director of Planning and Traffic Engineer. Says condition 13 also deals with final approval of UDC and they can deal with the stairway issue there. City attorney said access and management plan will come back either way, thinks wehave enough info to make decision tonight, but its not for him to vote – also condition 5, talks about the use and management agreement.
Basford comments on Heifetz comment on health care reform, they had one year of very serious wrangling and a lot acrimony and in the end success, we should be so lucky, in addition to what Kerr already asked for, I would like to see corrected shadow study, and remind everybody to refer to April 12 doesn’t slow it down, council, that gets the final crack at it, doesn’t meet until April 13th, we can afford to do this.
Murphy says public hearing at council is April 20th.
Olson says Boll did a good job of telling us why we should vote for referral, nothing critical to come back, council will deal with it or come back, so she will vote on referral.
Murphy reads the motion back.
The vote is 2 – 6 (Kerr and Basford for, Cnare, Schumacher, Olson, Boll, Bowser and Sundquist against.) Motion to refer fails.
CNARE MOTION FOR APPROVAL
Cnare moves to approve #10 with conditions in report and them to contact the state historic planner for ideas tips and standards, but asks Kerr to help her on the motion.
Kerr says that didn’t quite do it. She would have preferred the condition to be rehab of 1940s building be reviewed and approved by the State Historic Preservation Officer.
There is no objection to that condition.
Maniaci says that serving on Landmarks would like Noonan to weigh in on role of role of state, this is in a national district and city and she thought city approved.
Noonan has no idea.
Fey calls on Olinger, he says that for state tax credit purposes, the state historic office and National Parks standards.
Maniaci argues with him saying the design standards are our local ones.
Olinger says no, they are the National Parks Standards.
Sundquist says that would like to move additional condition on 14 to make more specific what expect in TDM, since no standards except for big boxes, strike word hotel in final sentences, directed to all employees and add a sentence to say TDM shoudl include measures to set price signals and provide support for transit – signals are parking cash out or direct charges to employee.
There are no objections to adding that to 14.
Kerr asks city attorney or Murphy – may be missed something that maintenance and use agreement for plaza coming back no matter what, someone explain.
Zellhoefer, there will be a resolution to set forth terms of agreement and then referred to this body for recommendations.
The motion is to approve with staff conditions, plus historic issue and 14 amendment.
Motion to approve passed 6-2 Basford and Bowser vote no, Cnare, Schumacher, Kerr, Olson, Boll and Sundquist vote aye.
MOTION ON CONDITIONAL USE ON WATERFRONT SETBACK
Motion is made, no discussion. I think there were two no’s but I wasn’t clear who they were. [So much for talking about standards and finding they were met.]
MOTION TO CHANGE THE 1965 ORDINANCE
Motion to approve made, no discussion, I think Bowser was the only one to vote no.
And with that, the wrapped it up and went home.
I’ll try to go back and do the questions that they had as well, as that portion went on for a good three hours.
