having uh arrived I will call to order the common council meeting of Tuesday January 9th 2024 and ask the clerk to please call the role thank you Alder rier here Al is pres Alder viver here Al viver is presid Alia here Alia is present Alder Bennett here Al Bennett is present Alder Conlin present Alder Conlan is present Alder Curry here Alder Curry is present Alder Duncan here Alder Duncan is present Alder ever here Alder ever is here Alder field here Al field is President Al fig Cole here Al fig Cole is here Alan here Alder gind Rajan is here Alder Harington mckenny here aling mckenny is here alter KNX here Alder KNX is here Al ladim burus here Al burus is here Alder Madison here Al Madison is here Alder Martinez Rutherford here Al Martinez Rutherford is here Alder Mii present Al Mii is here Al Al RL president Al rumel is President Alder slack here Alder slack is President Madam Mary oh sorry Alder tishler I apologize that's all right I'm I'm here Al Tish is here as well mad M cor thank you um I just want to start the meeting by thanking uh our street staff who are out uh plowing the roads as we speak um for their hard work um and their continued hard work across multiple shifts they I'm sure will be at it all night um doing a general plow and I also want to thank everybody else uh on team City who's um been a part of responding to the snow today um Andor continuing to provide the excellent Services they provide despite the snow um and thank everybody who was able to stay home and and off the roads to make easier uh for all those folks to do their jobs um I hope all of you were able to stay warm and safe today and we'll be able to not have to go out in the snow um going forward um just want to remind folks of some of the zoom etiquette um please do use the raised hand function um if you wish to be recognized um if you are able please do keep your camera on um throughout the meeting there's a couple ERS that have notified me that that's not possible tonight but they will be there for purposes of Quorum but for the rest of you if you need to go off camera um please make it be brief or let me know um in case we approach the the magic Quorum number um we have a number of honoring resolutions tonight and we will start with item one which is legistar 81269 honoring the 50th anniversary of the Madison Arts commission Alder rumel would you do the honors please thank you mayor and greetings to your cat um I'm going to edit this one it's kind of long but you can read it the whole thing in legistar whereas on January 8th 1974 the common Council passed resolution 255-8387 and whereas in 2024 the Madison Arts commission Mack formerly called the Madison cultural Affairs committee Madison committee for the Arts and city arts celebrates 50 years of integrating supporting and advancing arts and culture as an essential part of life in Madison and whereas through Mac the city helps sustain our creative sector by providing funding and other resources to support thousands of artists and arts organizations who provide the art music cultural programs events and arts education that make Madison distinct and whereas over the last five decades Mac has served as the city's cultural representative for Community initiatives and entities wishing to advance cultural goals such as the creation of the Civic Center and subsequent Overture Center the Madison Public Library Bar's efforts to establish the bubbler program and partnering with Madison metropolitan school district and others to create even any given child Madison and whereas in 1977 Madison became one of the first municipalities to have a poet laurate in the United States and in 2008 the Madison Arts commission assumed responsibility for the poet laurate program broadening it impact through programs such as bus lines poetry and sidewalks and the youth poet laurate program and whereas in 2019 the percent for art ordinance created a designated funding mechanism to further the city's commitment to embed public art and placemaking as part of the city building process thus enriching the experience of living in or visiting Madison whereas in 2014 July of 2014 the Madison Arts commission authored a music Equity report raising strong concerns related to audience and artists access to hip hop and requested that the city establish a task force on equity in music and entertainment to develop a plan to address inequities in our music sector and whereas the work of the tax task force on equity and music and entertainment accepted by the common Council in nov of 2018 has evolved into a broad Collective impact project called greater Madison Music City which continues to Champion equity in music and entertainment and whereas the Madison Arts commission continues to make arts and culture accessible to all and champions policies of cultural Equity by encouraging supporting and sponsoring diverse artistic activities by emerging in professional artists and arts organizations now therefore be it resolved that the mayor and the common Council recognize the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Madison Arts commission be it further resolved that the mayor and the common Council recognize the work of the many individuals including staff members of mac and other volunteers for their dedication and community service in developing the city's arts program over time be it further resolved that the mayor and the common Council acknowledge the creative sector for advancing arts and culture as an essential part of life in Madison be it finally resolved that the mayor and the common Council hereby renew our commitment to support arts and culture in Madison through the work of the Madison Arts commission for the next 50 years and Beyond thank you thank you Alder rumel we will take that as uh moved by Alder rumel and seconded by President Curry um and we have with us uh I believe the chair of the Madison Arts commission Nick and the staff person for the Madison Arts commission Karen if the two of you want to uh turn your cameras on you're welcome to say a few words in receiving the uh the honoring resolution yeah thank you so much I um have been chair now for since this past April and I was actually the individual who took the photo that's the attachment on the lisar item um that was the original um the original establishment of mac and in my time as chair it's been really amazing to dig into the history and find the ways in which arts and culture has been part of city government as the resolution stated with the creation of the Civic Center in 1974 when um the resolution was adopted to establish what is now known as the Madison Arts commission there are literally like 50 different items that are specifically talking about arts and culture mostly related to the Civic Center the acquisition of the um you know former montg Ward building and I guess I am just extremely um honored to be a part of this part of city government I'm excited for the continued ways in which we can make sure that arts and culture remains like a top priority because as we all um know as people that live here the Madison is like home to so many great artists and creative people and it's really one of the things that makes this place such a great place to live when you think of M when at least when I think of Madison I think of the Lakes the our Parks arts and culture our libraries and that quality of life piece is just so vital and why so many people you know are able to um view this as a place to call home and so thank you so much I am grateful to accept this resolution on behalf of the Madison Arts commission and look forward to our continued work together to make this a great place for Creative people to live and call home thank you very much it's been moved and seconded is there any objection to recording unanimous vote in favor seeing no objection we'll record a unanimous vote in favor of item one we'll move on then to item two which is legistar 81348 expressing appreciation to retired uh police department Captain Kelly Donahue and for this I will turn to Alder miad to do the honors uh thank you mayor where ask Kelly Donahue first joined the Madison police department as officer in 1997 and whereas Kelly dongh recently retired from MPD and served in many capacities and include the promoted position as sergeant beginning in 2008 Lieutenant beginning in 2013 and Captain beginning in 2019 and whereas retired Captain danu specifically served the Northside District in many roles during her career incl including the position of patrol officer and Northport neighborhood police officer Patrol Lieutenant detective lieutenant and last as a captain of the Northside district and whereas retired Captain donu also served the entire Madison Community as SWAT negotiator for several years and held leadership roles with MPD honor guard and whereas retired Captain donu volunteered as a mentor and volunteer coordinator for over 15 years at the concerns of police survivors cops kids camp in Wisconsin and whereas retired Captain danu was active member of law enforcement United and rode a bicycle a thousand miles over 10 days to honor the fellow Fallen police officers who were killed in the line of duty Across the Nation and whereas retired uh Kelly danu also led her fellow members of MPD with distinction dedication and reliable Comm leadership and most recently awarded the 2023 madison.com People's Choice law enforcement officer now therefore be it resolved that the mayor and common Council of the city of Madison Express their sincere appreciation to retired Madison police department Captain Kelly danu for years of dedicated service and particularly for the past 3 years leading the north Police District thank you Alder we'll take that as moved by Alder miad and uh seconded by President Curry uh I believe we have Captain donu with us Captain would you like to say a few words thank you mayor I will make it brief but uh thank you Alder Mii uh for this honor and to all the city staff who supported challenged me and continue to support the work of MPD sorry thank you to my co-workers commissioned and non-commissioned they made my job easier and more enjoyable the officers serving this city are the bravest and and most selfless people that I know the 911 Center thank you to The Operators and dispatchers who helped keep me safe and accountable for more than 26 years the biggest thanks to my family for the missed holidays wonky work schedules and countless interruptions finally to the people of the city thank you for the honor and privilege to serve you thank you Captain thank you for your service um we have a number of Alders that uh wish to speak but let's uh just first well we'll go ahead and and go through the queue first Alder Knox thank you um Captain I just want to congratulate you on your Welles deserved retirement and thank you for your years of service thank you Alder Alder RL thank you mayor thank you Captain Donahue you served as the Central District captain during a really difficult period and we were able you and I to not necessarily agree on everything but really have oh now I'm getting emotional some really deep conversations and I really appreciate you and I wish you the best and um I'm so I'm sort of sorry you're leaving but you go do what's best for you and thank you so much thank you Alder Al Madison uh thanks mayor I just want to say thank you definitely as a new udor who came on to the party side because I think it was really helpful to have you and Captain Gary like you know you both both are very reachable accessible coming to meet me in person uh for unexpected meetings and taking walks of things but also really giving me your unbiased I don't know you know I just feel like you were easy to talk to giving me your opinion about things and helping me better understand what's happening what's happening you know in certain parts of the district so shout out to you for these 26 years I hope you have like super like elevated fun you know over this next uh year or so and don't try to come back to work cuz you know retired folks love coming back to work give yourself at least a half a year before you try to come back thank you Alder Alder ladimir burus yes Captain Kelly I know uh I am equally so a new Alder and I I barely got to know you but I think all of the oh size and everything that came about anytime that you reminded us that you're leaving including the last meeting that I saw you at just I saw how you connect with community and you really care so um those are rare qualities uh it's not about you it's about the community so we appreciate it thank you Alder Alder V thank you mayor I I too want to add my voice to this course of praise and accommodation to you Kelly for your wonderful career with the Madison police department I can't tell you how much I personally appreciated work especially through some very difficult times including your last year working in the central police district uh given all the civil unrest and so forth that we experienced in 2020 I know one area where I enjoyed serving with you but I don't think you'll probably have missed the last few years as your service on the alcohol license Review Committee that was never really all that much fun for for most of the the MPD representatives to that that August body um but you always did so you know with with with great cheer and and uh always stuck with us on those Wednesday nights uh but anyway seriously Kelly I I want you to know how much I personally appreciate on behalf of all of all of the um those that worked with you during your career in the Central District certainly well before you became a a commander even uh how much we've appreciated working with you your tremendous service to the community uh is is is just such a lasting Legacy that I hope you're very very proud of so I wish you all the best and you're welld deserved uh time away from from law enforcement and God speed my friend thank you thank you Alder Alder miad hopefully uh sorry mayor I know we're supposed to keep it the two so hopefully being the aler of the district you let me to say my peace if that's all right all right uh Captain I just wanted to show my sincere uh appreciation I mean for a person to be so loved by so many constituents and I I'm just overwhelmed that and honored to actually known you and and for you to be the captain of the district um every meeting we had I loved it I loved uh just even the uh every concern I had you were very responsive responsive to constituents uh every email so I really appreciate working with you um I always think about this when I think about public service and uh uh people that do your job um there's a saying saying there's no greater love than somebody to lay down their life for a brother and I think about that when I think about uh officers because to wake up every morning for so many years 20s something years and to put put your life on the line I just appreciate it so just wanted to say that and and uh wish you well thank you so much for your service thank you Alder president Curry hi I wasn't planning to speak but this was a comment that I don't think was made by any other alers but Captain Donahue even though we didn't work as closely just know that coming from a human or homeless service background I really appreciate um all that you and your staff do and have will continue to do um to take care of our unhoused population um considering all that Encompass that in the North District so thank you for your service period but thank you especially for that thank you president Curry of no other alers in the queue it's been moved and seconded is there any objection to recording an enthusiastic unanimous vote in favor of the honoring resolution seeing no objection we'll record that vote and thank you again Captain congratulations on a exemplary career and we wish you all the best in your retirement uh do take Alder Madison's advice and actually go have some fun and relax thank you all right uh we will move on then to uh item three which is lestar 81360 it's awarding the 17th annual Jeffrey clay earlinger Civility and public discourse award um the request is to uh refer this item so that we can present it in person um so president uh Curry would you make a motion please yes mayor uh move to move to move the presentation of the Erlanger award to the common council meeting of February 13th I believe yep is there a second second moved and seconded to refer item three to the February 13th council meeting are there questions is there discussion is there any objection to recording unanimous vote in favor of referral seeing no objection that item is referred takes us to item four which is legistar 81383 celebrating Monday January 15 2024 as Martin Luther King Jr day and for this I will uh turn first to Alder Herrington McKinny Alder you're muted whereas Dr King was born January the 15 1929 in Atlanta Georgia to the Reverend Martin Luther King Senor and Alberta Williams King and whereas Dr King married ketta Scott on June 18th 1953 and whereas Dr King obtained a doctoral degree in 1955 from Boston University the same year he had a 381 day nonviolent demonstration that became known as the Montgomery Bus Boycott and at the age of 26 whereas Dr King combined mahat nand's precepts of nonviolence with Christian social and gospel ideas to expand the Civic rights movement and become a national civil rights teach leader and whereas Dr King was elected president of the Southern Christian leadership conference and organization at the Forefront of the Civil Rights Movement rooted in nonviolent direct action and whereas Dr King authored and delivered many well-known Publications books and speeches including letter from Birmingham Jail Beyond Vietnam and I have a dream all of which are among the most Reverend or orientations and writings in the English language and whereas in 1963 Dr King organized the March on Washington for jobs and freedom event with over 250,000 attendees in Washington DC and delivered one of the most quoted speeches of all times and whereas after police attacks with tear gas and clubs on demonstrators Dr King awaited federal court approval and carried out the march across the Edmund Pettis bridge on the Selma to Montgomery March and I'll pass it on to Alder Kno whereas Dr King was awarded the 1964 no no peace prize and recognition for his efforts and at the age of 35 was the youngest man to receive the Nobel Peace Prize and whereas through his work and Reliance on nonviolent protests Dr King was instrumental in the passage of the N of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and whereas Dr King's life was cut tragically short when he was assassinated on April 4th 1968 yet his legacy remains strong and whereas Dr King is considered the most influential spokesperson of the early 1960s helped achieve more progress towards Racial equality in his 13 years of activism than in the previous three centuries and is one of the greatest leaders in Advocates of nonviolence in history and whereas in the face of hatred and violence Dr King preached a doctrine of nonviolence and Civil Disobedience to combat segregation discrimination and racial Injustice and believe that each person has the moral capacity to care for other people and whereas on the national holiday honoring Dr King and throughout the year madisonian should remember his message recommit to his goal of a free and just nation and consider each person's responsibility to other people now therefore be it resolved that the mayor and common Council of the city of Madison celebrate Monday January 15 2024 as Martin Luther King Jr day be it further resolved that the city of Madison thanks all of the individuals and organizations throughout the city that have dedicated themselves to carrying out Dr King's dream work and Legacy thank you Alders we'll take that as moved by Alder Harrington mckin and seconded by Alder Knox um we do not have anyone here to uh accept this um honoring resolution but I would strongly encourage all of you to join me at the city county celebrations on Monday evening um if you don't have other plans it's an a beautiful event and uh there'll be an inspiring speaker and an excellent choir um and it's always a good time so encourage folks to to join us there Alder hering mckenny uh thank you madam mayor for allowing me to um to say this at the end um I'd like to thank Alder with Haley for this privilege um it was my honor to read this resolution and it was a privilege to read it because I had the opportunity to walk across the Edmund Pettis Pettis bridge on my own Selma to Montgomery journey and it changed my life even remembering that still brings emotional uh chills through my body and so I also thank you for this resolution so that we can remember how Dr King lived um so thank you for for allowing me to add that Madame mayor thank you Alder right it's been moved and seconded is there any objection to recording a unanimous vote in favor seeing no objection record a unanimous vote in favor of item four um is there any objection to taking up item 60 which is the appointment of our next poet laurat um so we can uh do that appointment and hear from the poet himself seeing no objection uh we'll take up item 60 which is listar 8121 naming Steven espat Dawson as Madison's poet laurate president Curry a motion please move to adapt second moved and seconded to adopt uh we do have Stephen here with us um if there are any questions or any discussion uh Stephen would you or Alder rumel first then well if Stephen had remarks to make I would defer to that Stephen would you like to say a few words yes absolutely please hi everyone um thank you for having me here um I'd first like to thank you for the opportunity to speak and and for considering me for this role um it's an honor I don't take lightly uh Madison is a city I've learned very quickly is easy to love um it's a city that has offered myself and my creative work room to learn and grow and I think that City's connection to poetry speaks loudly about that City's heartbeat uh its capacity for empathy and love and as an ambassador for the literary Arts I I promise not only to nurture creativity here but also empathy and also love um in the last 15 years I've learned a lot about who I am via the act of writing uh if poetry is some reflection of the subconscious then writing poetry is an exercise in believing in yourself and I was not always good at believing in myself um I I know what it's like to be an underdog and and yes I am lucky to have been awarded for my writing to have been published to have taught poetry uh at venues across the country these are concrete things I can quantify but I do think it is is that Underdog spirit that informs my ability to take on a role like this uh because it's The Underdogs I intend to help most in this role uh and I know that not every city has a poet laureate it is a special title that I am privileged to be considered for so I am thankful for that chance thank you Alder RL thank thank you mayor and thank you Stephen I just want as a member of the Elder who serves on Mac you had overwhelming support from our outgoing uh Poet Laureate and and really a positive and exciting response from Mac and we look forward to working with you and what you bring us thank you thank you Alder all right I have no other in the queue wishing to speak it has been moved and seconded is there any objection to recording a unanimous vote in favor of naming Steven ESP Dawson as Madison's poet laurate seeing no objection we'll record a unanimous vote congratulations Stephen thank you for your service uh we look forward to hearing from you in these meetings um and to seeing the work that you do in our community thank you all so much all right so that will take us then to disclosures and recusals are there any disclosures or recusals on items on tonight's agenda alderfield one disclosure on item 63 legistar 81315 I work at W Madison and that won't affect my vote on that item thank you Alder Alder Knox yeah I have a reclosure on item number 79 I work for the uh Overture Center for the Arts thank you Alder Alder Vier uh disclose on number 85 legister 81 368 I'm an employee of the Department of Health Services Division of Public Health that will not affect my vote on this matter thank you Alder Alder tishler I also want to expose I've been working for the University Wisconsin Madison for almost uh 30 years now thank you Alder any other disclosures or recusals seeing none then we'll turn to the presentation of the consent agenda president Curry thank you Madame mayor and please bear with me y'all it's a long document that got added to so a consent agenda is moved with a recommended action listing for each agenda item including public hearings except one items which have registrants wishing to speak and two items which Alders have separated out for discussion or debate purposes this document lists super majority items agenda items with recommendations different from the agenda agenda items for exclusion items for introduced from the floor and a agenda items with corrections agenda items that are super majority and super majority vote items will be recorded as unanimous unless a roll call or exclusion is requested agenda item number 58 legislative file number 8116 amending a section of the Madison General ordinances related to salaries of officials to update salaries for Alders 15 votes required agenda items with recommendations different from the agenda agenda item number three legislative file number 81360 awarding the 17th annual Jeffrey clay ER eranger civilan public Discord award to Dr Fabu Carter um as Madame mayor mentioned we are re-referral that to Common council meeting of February 13th agenda item number 48 legislative foul number number 8671 amending sections of the Madison General ordinance related to filling common Council vacancies to amend the process for filling those vacancies it's listed on the agenda that CCE would meet today and make a recommendation we did the recommendation is to adapt the amended version which was emailed by vice president figuroa Cole to all Alders at 5:35 p.m. this evening but in brevity uh the amended vers eliminates the rank of top two preferred candidates but keeps proposed change to having a special election if the vacancy occurs before November 15th of the first year of an interim alers term agenda item number 63 legislative file number 81315 amending section of the Madison General ordinance to amend campus institutional District master plan for the portion of U campus generally addressed as 1410 through 1550 and 1415 Engineering Drive as well as 159 through 1513 University Avenue to include specific plans for the College of Engineering the correct it we need a correction on the referral dates so uh the appropriate referral dates are joint campus area committee meeting of January 25th followed by the plan commission public hearing on February 5th to come back to council at its February 13th meeting agenda item number 76 legislative file number 18333 authorizing the payment of goods on a Cooperative contract of an automated absentee ballot mailing system for the city clerk's office prior to the delivery of all Goods a correction on the referral dates will be referred to the finance committee of January 16th and and return to Common Council it's January 23rd meeting agenda items excluded by either request of Alders or speakers registered by 6:30 on January 9th agenda item number six legislative file number 8871 an appeal of the Madison landmarks commission decision granting a certificate of appropriateness for new construction on a site at site of a designated Landmark at 3701 count ccil Crest we have speakers registered agenda item number 45 legislative fou number 81395 amending a section of the Madison General ordinance related to nominations to the police civilian oversight board to modify the process for Community organizations to nominate members of the of the body um requested for exclusion by aler wiili agenda item number 52 legislative file number 80 422 a landmark nomination for 2229 Eaton Ridge in District 5 has speakers registered agenda item number 83 legislative file number 81366 providing Fringe Salon Spa alone to purchase commercial property at 1423 South Park through the commercial ownership assistance program funded by the tid 51 Small Business Development programs and using tid 51 incremental Revenue as authorized in the project plan and adopted by the common Council on March 7th of 2023 um requested for exclusion by Alder W for the purpose of adding the an additional referral items introduced from the floor legislative file number 81393 authorizing the mayor and city clerk to execute a parking lease agreement with Will wlon residential investors for 30 parking stalls at the Wilson lot located at 499 East Wilson in District 4 this is being introduced by Alder Rivier to be referred to the finance committee meeting of January 16th Transportation Committee of January 17th and return to Common council at its January 23rd meeting legislative file number 81433 a resolution authorizing the mayor and finance director to sign forms and agree to legal terms necessary to register and file for tax credits and deductions under the inflation redution reduction Act of 2022 introduced by mayor rhs Conway to be referred to the finance committee meeting of January 16th and returned to Common Council on January 23rd legislative file number 81437 authorizing a one-year competitively selected good and services contract between between bountry medical and the Madison City city of Madison fire department for the provision of medical supplies for E EMS and provision of support of the operative IQ Inventory management system introduced by Alder field to be referred to the finance committee of January 16th returned to Common Council on January 23rd legislative file number 81449 authorizing the execution of a purchase and sale agreement between City and the state of Francis J music for the city's acquisition of property listed at 346 east east L Lakeside Street for assemblage with Olan Park in District 13 introduced by Alder Evers to be referred to the board of parks Commissioners meeting of January 10th then to the finance committee of January 16th and return to the common Council on January 23rd and finally a legislative file number 81466 resolution to authorize the non-competitive purchase of goods from printelect as a sole source provider of election security cards CS for the city clerk's office introduced by myself for referral to finance committee of January 16th and return to Common Council on January 23rd There Are No Agenda items with corrections thank you president Curry are there other items that Alders would like to have separated from the consent agenda aler field I'd like to separate item 58 item 58 will be separated thank you Alder Alder rumel I was gonna ask for 58 as well thank you mayor thank you Alder there any additional items that alers wish to have separated from the consent agenda seeing n I'll go through it uh briefly uh items that uh have recommendations different from Sor right just getting things on the right list they have uh recommendations that are different from the agenda but will be part of the consent agenda item uh 48 the motion is to adopt as amended by ccec item 63 we're correcting referral dates uh which will be joint campus area committee 125 plan commission 25 and common Council 213 and item 76 again uh correcting referral dates to finance committee on 116 and Council on 123 the following items are excluded from the consent agenda items 6 45 52 and 58 if there is no objection uh we could add the uh referral on 83 on the consent agenda so the proposed referral is to add the economic development committee on uh January 17th back to Council on January 23rd is there any objection to leaving that item on the consent agenda alil no objection all right so we will leave item 83 on the consent agenda with that additional referral so the items that will be excluded from the consent agenda are 6 45 52 and 58 um and then we have a number of items being introduced from the floor uh questions or additional exclusions for the consent agenda Alder Weil thank you Madame mayor for item 45 I my questions are answered but also there was a minor uh Amendment and I sent to All ERS so if it's that's okay then we can remove from the exclusion um I I think we have to go through the process of amending Alder if if another committee had done it uh we could just follow them but uh we I think it has to be voted on but I appreciate the the sentiment Alder thank you anything additional on the consent agenda seeing nothing then um president Curry a motion move to adap consent agenda is there a second second thank you uh moved in seconded to adopt the consent agenda is there any objection to recording unanimous vote in favor seeing no objection we'll record a unanimous vote in favor of the consent agenda and just make sure that I am annotating my papers correctly here um we will move on to public comment and the first item that we have public comment on is item six which is an appeal of the landmarks commission decision granting a certificate of appropriateness for new construction on the site of a designated City landmark at 3701 Council Crest our first registrant is Rick Chandler of district 10 representing the Madison trust for historic preservation to be followed by Carly Levan to be call followed by Stu Levitan Rick do we have Rick uh Rick just needs to un oh looks like they did can you hear me now yes sorry good evening I'm Rick Chandler president of the Madison trust for historic preservation with more than 500 members throughout the city we support the appeal of the landmark's commission decision which approved a new 4200 sqt house at 3701 Council Crest we urge the council to send this matter back to the landmarks commission the proposed house is incompatible with the landmark Tavern and makes unacceptably large changes to the landmark West yard our opposition is not based on nimbyism but on a desire to preserve a unique Landmark which includes the 1854 Tavern built as a stage coach in and the historic yard this is one of the city's most important historic sites we want to preserve the best of the past as we help shape the city's future protecting historic sites like this preserves our cultural history and helps make Madison an attractive place to live the proposed house fails to qualify under MGO 41.8 which requires it to comply with the the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation it violates standard one because it makes more than a minimal change to the site and environment including damage to the historic 234 year old black walnut tree it violates standard two because it does not retain the historic character of the property it violates standard n which requires it to be compatible with the massing size and scale of the tavern because it's much bigger than the tavern it violates standard 10 because its environment would be significantly impaired also the homes in the adjacent neighborhood have an average size of 2,255 square ft much smaller than the proposed 4,200 ft house no other Home in the adjacent neighborhood is larger than the 3573 ft square square foot Tavern we recognize that the landmarks commission reached a different decision on a 3 to1 vote with three members absent or not voting reasonable people can reach different conclusions on this however letters and testimony in the legis file show that many respected preservation experts believe the proposed house does not meet the standards the preponderance of opinion is that it does not under the ordinances the council has full legal authority to review and modify commission decisions the council should decide that the proposed house is incompatible with the Historic Site then the landmarks commission can give this further review and approve a smaller compatible house there are ample legal grounds to reverse the decision any suggestion that there is no legal authority to change this is incorrect this property has been preserved in its historic form for almost 170 years it's important to take adequate time to review this carefully and to require a house that meets the standards thank you thank you our next registrant is Carly Len of district 10 to be followed by Stu Levitan to be followed by Brenda Furlow Carly I'm Carly Lin Conway my husband and I own the Old Spring Tavern and I respectfully urge the council to approve the appeal and reverse the decision of the landmarks commission to Grant the certificate of appropriateness the proposed construction is 4,200 Square ft significantly larger than the tavern and would Loom 37 ft high on the side facing our front door 7 feet taller than the tavern even taking the Steep incline of the Hill out of the equation on a property just 65% the size of the tavern property a proposed construction of this magnitude is not compatible in scale with the tavern The Tavern is actually a much smaller structure than the applicant's proposed construction to claim parity of scale the applicants in their fact sheet compare the scale of their single proposed structure to the scale of the entire Tavern plus its detached garage plus the landscaped area in between the two even disregarding the change in elevation the applicant's proposed structure is 7 feet taller more than 20% taller than the tavern on the side facing our front door even if when were to accept the scale comparison the spatial relationship between these structures and the respective Lots is not equivalent the applicant's lot is only 65% of the size of the tavern's lot a structure that fits on a large wide parcel does not fit in the same way on a smaller narrow parcel in this case the proposed construction cannot fit on the applicant's lot without looming over the tavern's front door it's only 26 yard from our front door and we would have a three-story 37t tall house looming over the two-story front of our home we're talking about our front door this is a very different impact than building a new house close to the side or rear of an existing house for the proposed construction to fit on the applicant's lot in the same way our home fits on our lot it shouldn't be more than 65% the size of the tavern around 2400t I emphasize that the front door of the house is on the West Side facing the alicant lot because comments were made to the landmarks commission that said the front of the door was on the east side facing Nakoma Road this may have affected their decision to approve the COA but anyone who walks into our home can see from the floor plan that the front door is the first floor on the West Side since its construction the owners of our house have used that door on the west side as the front door and as the main point of entry and exit as the owners of the Old Spring Tavern we take our role as stewards of this Historic Landmark very seriously we have a right to have the adjacent property developed in a way that complies with the historic preservation ordinances and maintains the historic nature of the property we expected a house to be built on the west yard but also expected that any building would have to be compatible with our home in the Old Spring Tavern on the issue of water drainage we do appreciate that the applicants created a proposed Water Management plan to direct water away from the tavern we'd ask that the council instruct the commission to require the applicants to record a maintenance agreement with the register of deeds against their parcel to ensure that the water management plan is functional as implemented and remains functional going forward we must continue to protect the Old Spring Tavern and that's time thank you our next registrant is Stu latan of district 10 to be followed by Brenda furo to be followed by John furo Stu good evening I'm here to support the appeal both as a longtime resident of Noma and also as someone who had the privilege of serving 12 years on the landmarks Commission including several years as its chair and first to be clear by a simple majority vote you have the explicit legal authority to reverse modify or refer with instructions in fact as Alders rumel verier and Harrington mckin will recall the council felt this Authority was so important that in 2016 it made it easier for you to act by changing from a 2third vote to majority it did that for a reason because frankly sometimes the commission gets it wrong as it did here and you have to be able to make things right as to your analysis I think it's pretty straightforward as you've heard the ordinance states that is certificate can issue quote only if a project meets certain standards one of which is that it must be quote compatible with the massing size scale and Architectural features of the property and its environment only if now whether you interpret the words and its environment to mean just the historic lot or to include adjacent properties as some Commissioners did the owners of the Old Spring Tavern and many neighbors have provided documentary evidence that their houses are significantly smaller and cover far less of their Lots than the proposed development and that nowhere in the neighborhood nowhere is there another structure of such size and mass so close to the front of another property let alone and historic property that is the very definition of not being compatible with a massing size in scale that is the evidence in the record that is why we believe the commission's decision was contrary to the ordinance and cannot stand moreover the commission's decision was contrary to sections 41181 D and 4101 because it does indeed in the words of the ordinance quote frustrate the public interest in the protection promotion preservation conservation and use of the city's historic resources a standard so important it is listed first I know that many of you oppose efforts to use historic preservation as a tactic to block necessary developments especially for affordable housing and you are right to do so but this development is not affordable housing please do not be the common Council that says this 4200 foot house is compatible with the massing size and scale of the historic oldring Tavern and that its environment and it does not frustrate the public interest in the protection promotion preservation and conservation of the city's historic resources it is not compatible and it does frustrate the public interest this appeal should be granted and the COA should be reversed or referred back to the commission with instructions for something that meets the terms of the ordinance thank you for your consideration I'm happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time thank you thank you our next registrant is Brenda furo of district 10 to be followed by John Furlow to be followed by Kevin pomy Brenda thank you um good evening um with my husband John we are the owners of the lot that is located at 371 Council Crest John is going to follow me and speak speak more about the process that we followed in designing and getting landmarks approval for our home but I wanted to give you some background on us um we actually lived in Madison and infect in Noma for 22 years we raised our family there our kids attended and graduated from the Madison Public Schools and we've all been very active in the community in Madison in 2014 we moved to Minneapolis for a job opportunity but we're now both retired and we want to spend our retirement years back in Madison where we have so many friends we were tremendously excited when we learned in the fall of uh 2022 that a buildable lot had been approved on Council Crest and that we now had the opportunity to buy the property in the coma and build a home that would allow us to age and place um why does all this background matter I think it it's not directly related to our proposal and whether our design meets the land marks criteria of course but it has everything to do with how we will carry out this project and how we will approach construction of our home and how we will maintain it for those who care about preserving and protecting the tavern home how we build and maintain our adjacent home should be as important as the design we're not planning to build a speck house and flip it we're not planning to build a rental property that we can post on Airbnb we plan to live in the home and to be here for the foreseeable future as some of the prior speakers have acknowledged a house will be built on this property who best to build than a family with deep roots in and a commitment to the neighborhood and to the city we ask that you reject the appeal and affirm the landmarks commission decision thank you thank you our next Edition is John Furlow of district 10 to be followed by Kevin pomoy to be followed Follow by Drew vogle John John you may need to unmute John you should have a prompt to unmute it may be hidden underneath a window there you go h we see you unmuted on this end but we can't hear you uh are you using a headset or can you check your mic uh is that any better there you go excellent thank you awesome thank you uh yeah thank you um I have a visual that perhaps Heather can put up uh Brenda and I own 3701 ccil Crest so we've been working on this project now for over a year we've worked with the city through two landmarks public meetings there have been over four hours of public hearings um on our house and on on design uh all the comments that have been made so far uh have been already vetted thoroughly by the landmarks commission over multiple meetings uh the city preservation planner uh the expert the city is hired or retains to review these things has twice looked at this project and concluded it meets all the standards uh during the process the landmarks commission did ask us to make some changes we made all the changes requested by the commission to our house plus more to make sure it was compatible with both the tavern and the surrounding neighborhood um so we're asking that you deny the appeal so that we can go ahead and build our home there are two things I want to highlight um Heather can you give us our next slide please um Mass size and scale um here are side by side drawings West elevations of the tavern next to the home we propos to build our house is about 2 feet shorter than the tavern uh and it is actually narrower than the tavern um in fact our garage is smaller than the tavern which in Nakoma is um quite something um true our house is on a hill every house on Council Crest on that street is on a hill and it overlooks the house Downs slope any house built on this lot is going to be taller than the tavern by definition it's just a matter of geography so our house is consistent Mass size and scale with the tavern and the surrounding neighborhood for sure in fact our house by square foot is smaller than the tavern Heather next slide please I want to talk a little bit about the what has been referred to as the historic West yard um that is really not a thing the landmarks nomination when the tavern was nominated as the Historic Landmark nominated only the building the landscape was not nominated as significant to The Landmark at all there was a place to check that on the nomination form it was never checked in fact the only landscape feature mentioned in the land name landmarks nomination was the duck pond across Nakoma road which is the other side of the tavern than the lot that we're talking about now so uh we ask you to uh deny the appeal and let us go forward and build our home uh thank you very much thank you our next registrant is Kevin Pomo of district 10 representing the Crawford Malboro Nakoma neighborhood association to be followed by Drew vogle to be followed by Bob kba Kevin yeah I have some images as well that I'd like to show if I could uh thanks uh to Mayor rhod Conway and all the alers for this opportunity to speak this evening I'm Kevin pomoy the president of the Crawford marbor Noma neighborhood association which represents the uh neighborhood of the oldring tavern our organization supports the appeal and we strongly recommend referring this proposal back to the landmarks commission since several important aspects of the secretary standards were not considered during the review by the commission I have degrees in architecture and urban planning and 35 years a professional practice in historic preservation and city planning something to note about this typical View shown here of the Spring Tavern from Noma Road as this has always been the back of the house next slide please this illustration which was provided by the applicant shows the significant differences in the massing scale and size between the proposal and the Spring Tavern now the proposal on the right is 4218 ft and the Spring Tavern on the left is 3573 squ feet next slide please here's uh the top image shows the front of the tavern on the left compared with the back of the proposed house on the right all the images on this slide are of the same scale it's important to remember that the top right view showing the proposal is what you would see from the front door of the Spring Tavern the top of the proposed rof would be 57 ft higher than standing at the front door of the Spring Tavern the body the bottom image shows the side elevations from Spring Trail which show the more massive larger and taller proposed house compared to the Spring Tavern on the left next slide please uh this shows the front door of the Spring Tavern on the left and the location of the surveyed lot lines illustrating that the proposed house would be built only 13 yards away from this line it's easy to visualize how intrusive a three-story house would be in the front yard of the Spring Tavern next slide please this view from Council cres shows the centuries old walnut tree and the view of the Spring Tavern in a rural landscape this view would be completely obliterated by the proposed 4200 ft house the public deserves to know that the letter and spirit of our historic preservation ordinance has followed and that our historic resources are protected and preserve for future Generations please refer this uh proposal back to the landmarks commission and I think thank you for your time and consideration thank you our next registrant is Drew vogle of district 10 to be followed by Bob kba to be followed by Arnold alanen Drew hello um I live two doors down I can see the property from my window now uh the proposed uh building is twice as large as my home I'd call that incompatible with surrounding buildings I've attended each of the landmarks commission's meetings uh I would encourage you all to closely review the uh record of those meetings uh the propi owner said that all of these issues were well considered by the committee I think anything but that is true um the final vote was determined by Commissioners who stated that this seems incompatible but they would vote in favor of the property owners due to sympathy for having spent money on a property that was only available because everybody else valued history more than their own hubis thank you thank you our next registrant is Bob kba of district 6 to be followed by honoral alanan to be followed by Alex saludos Bob yes um uh thank you mayor uh Alders and staff in my opinion there are two reasons to appeal the approve the approval of the certificate of appropriateness for this proper property first is the context for review defined by staff was the neighborhood not the landmark Tavern and you've heard much about how important the oldring tavern site is to our City's cultural heritage second and more importantly for me is that the landmarks Comm landmarks commission's essential role is to review the historic value of places and buildings in our city and to Prov provide feedback to the owners of their properties on maintenance and changes this is the majority of work that they do however in the case of the proposed building for the second lot on this historic property the landmarks commission was put in the role of defining the placement and massing of new construction this is a role that is totally unfamiliar to the landmarks Commissioners if this proposal had gone to the urban Urban Design commission they would have commented on the fashion materials the mathing articulation and location of entrances but landmarks doesn't do that kind of review which was required for this inappropriate proposal so close to a locally landmarked building if the common Council chooses to refer this issue back to landmarks it must be done with clear instructions on how to modify this development proposal in order for it to fit in with and complement the historic Tavern however I strongly recommend that the uh the approval of the certificate of appropriateness be appealed thank uh and um and uh and denied thank you very much thank you our next register is Arnold alen of District 13 to be followed by Alex saludos and that is our last register wishing to speak Arnold thank you I'm speaking as a cultural landscape historian and resident of the dudgeon Monroe neighborhood I was a professor in the department of landscape architecture at the W Madison for 35 years where my professional work centered on documenting cultural landscapes throughout the Upper Midwest I speak here tonight urging you to support the to support the appeal to deny the certificate of appropriateness for new construction on the landmark site I oppose granting the COA because the size scale and massing of the proposed house will adversely impact the landmark properties Integrity diminishing the historical significance of the 1854 Old Spring Tavern one of Madison's earliest designated landmarks The Landmark significance related to 19th century architecture and history is in enhanced by an appropriate setting both the immediate landscape and the longer view shed to the west of the tavern when the property was first documented and listed landscape related issues are rarely considered and are not included in the nomination in 1995 however the Secretary of the Interior published guidelines for the treatment of cultural landscapes since that time the setting of buildings and their components have been given important status when reviewing proposed alterations to Landmark property in this case that includes preserving the in existing Integrity of the entire Landmark site specifically the feeling of an open rural setting that has been shaped by the property's use as a Tavern and in during Madison's early euroamerican settlement you are being asked to approve of COA for a residence that fits in the design characteristics of the Noma subdivision planted in the mid 1910s the Old Spring Tavern is not part of this historical period of Building Development and new construction should not be in evaluated within that context over many years the tavern's position at the base of a steep rise has effectively screened out some of the surrounding neighborhood and preserved a measure of its mid 19th century setting this setting will be eroded by the construction of a large and imposing house at the northern portion of the site respectfully all other experts have expressed different opinions on this issue yet it's my strong belief that your foremost consider ation in reviewing this appeal should be mitigating the loss of historic character by requiring a lower profile smaller scale residents on the landmark site I urge you to prevent the proposed construction from proceeding by supporting the appeal to deny the COA thank you thank you our last regist wishing to speak is Alex saludos of District Five uh sound good yep all right uh I don't know if uh thank you um perfect um I have almost 40 years of experience in real estate and historic preservation uh as a volunteer I was on the Madison trust board for six years uh the oldring tavern as you can see tells an important story about her history it possesses a high level of H uh historic integrity uh that can't be replaced uh the most judicious and legally sound approach is to refer this back to the commission here are two reasons why one the commission didn't consider the comprehensive and detailed Guidance the secretary provides on the use of the standards for rehabilitation that are of vital part of the standards the standards are guiding principles there are 10 16 sentences and 331 words that take up less than a page there are hundreds of pages of guidance and recommendations on what to do and not to do in almost every imaginal situation so a project complies with the intent of the standards the recommendations can be used as a checklist to Aid in determining if the new construction meets the standards the commission did not consider any of the guidance in their dations two the commission didn't consider the effects of the new construction on the site or the landscape features contrary to seven of the 10 standards so I ask you tonight respectfully do you want to relitigate the commission's decision tonight and if you do will you be able to make a fair and impartial decision with the information you have based on the missing and incorrect information and the fact important aspects of several standards weren't considered is there any reason not to refer this back to the landmarks Commission in closing whether you vote to approve or deny the appeal it sends a message to the public and the commission it's okay to make decisions like this without important information based on inaccurate information and without considering important aspects of the standards in conclusion I know everyone is doing their best I appreciate their efforts to preserve and protect landmarks sincerely let's preserve the Integrity of the process maintain the Public's confidence and ensure our landmarks have a voice please refer this back to the commission thank you so much thank you that's our last registrant wishing to speak on this item there questions for any of the registrants on item six seeing none oh Alder Bennett I had a question for um I'm not sure of his name but he is one of the um people proposing to make this to build their home John furo possibly do we do we have John with us still I'm here go ahead Alder hi Sean thank you for your time I'm would I recalling your comments that you noted you made several changes to your design that the landmarks commission asked for in more would you um mind just briefly um characterizing though sorry those changes for us yes absolutely thank you for that question um the during our first commission hearing uh it was uh concluded that our house that as we proposed it was too wide in other words if you look from Spring Trail which is the north side of the property um you really don't see a view of the tavern and the request was that we actually take uh the house in further away from Spring Trail so now we're I think 20 ft from the setback in order to have a view Shed from Council Crest directly to the tavern and we did that uh we narrowed the house by 10 feet to allow extra room on that side so that people on Spring Trail could have a clear view of the tavern as they've always had plus we also had the roofs changed from a gable roof to a hip roof which actually reduced the massing of the house so that it um the roofs came in at an angle as opposed to being straight up so those were the two changes we made they had asked that we actually move it back from the line further which we did and we added the gab or the hip roof to actually make the profile even smaller great thank you so much on that note of changes uh it seems like one of the major changes that uh neighbors are asking for is changing the size and massing of your house uh it seems like you were amenable to other changes what is the hold up with this one um what is your hesitation with making that changed well again thank you for that question so the size of this house um so size is a funny thing right this house is actually smaller than the tavern um we are shorter and we are narrower um we there's a lot of talk about square footage out there um and the question that needs to be asked is how are you counting square footage for example um if we had a total unfinished basement the square footage of our house would be about a th000 feet less so it really the square footage isn't really the question it's what the house looks like um The Tavern home actually if you count all the space and the gigantic kind of attached porches is over 5,000 square fet it's huge um so really it's not about size or square footage it's about what it looks like relative to the houses around it and I think I had a slide up that showed that we were actually narrower and shorter than the tavern and if you look at houses near this there were at least two perhaps three that are well over 4,500 Square fet um so it fits in the neighborhood in terms of size for our standpoint uh we're retired people so we need a first floor that's accessible with uh accessible bedroom uh so that sets the footprint for us as retired people uh when you build a house that means that the basement has to be the same size as the first floor so that really drives it now to mitigate that problem what we have done is we did not put an entire second story on the house we only made the second story about a third the size of the first story so you're not looking at three full stories you're looking at two and a half from the back which includes the basement and one and a half from the front um from the first floor and we've actually built the house into the roof so that we get the living space we need but we keep the profile low is that helpful very much so thank you you're welcome thank you Alder thank you John Alder ladimer burus questions you're muted Alder thank you so much on this um so first of all I have a couple of questions for for the furlos um if you would um so first of all I want to say this has been a tenuous um situation and I I feel terrible for you guys that you've had to spend so much money and time on uh these errors um um but and uh you know you do want your dream home and uh you know be able to enjoy your retirement um but I wanted to ask you about you had said that um where is this um the house the house is uh not larger than the um Old Spring Tavern uh do you think on its face will it appear that it is smaller than the old Spring Tavern that you share the historical property with that's probably a question for you John but uh Brenda you're welcome to to weigh in if you'd like to as well uh should I go first go ahead yeah so yeah so it's it's a really good question because the perspective on Alder is it's on a hill so if you look at the front of our house and you look at the front of the Spring Tavern um or at least what they say is the front it's exactly the same size if you look from Nakoma Road our house is exactly the same size actually smaller than the tavern from Nakoma road so yes I think those houses are absolutely equivalent in size the only thing that makes them different is what makes every house on Council Crest different than house on Nakoma road which is it happens to be on a hill which almost probably 50% of the houses in Nakoma are in the same position the house we used to live in Onida place was on the top of a hill it was not bigger than the house below us but it was on the hill so from that perspective geography has an impact but any house you build in this lot is going to be affected by geography there is nothing you can do about it unless you decide to build a house into the landscape so you basically look at Council Crest and see a roof and that's it but that's really not compatible with anything so I think that from your perspective my perspective yes our house is equivalent in size actually small of than met okay thank you so much and um just a quick followup to that do you think that the uh the appearance of it would be small would uh it would be smaller than the Old Spring Tavern if the house was 2500 square feet what effect would that have it would have no effect whatsoever square feet doesn't tell you anything really I mean I could have a 2500 square foot house that's two stories on Council Crest and it would actually look bigger than the house we're proposing so square footage doesn't tell you anything and it's how you count the square footage for example they're counting finished square footage I could just unfinish the basement and have a 2,000 foot house but it would be exactly the same house it's just finished versus unfinished so I think that's a little bit um I think when people talk about square footage you have to ask the question of what are you really counting um because it really doesn't say much okay thank you um the next thing that uh we uh that I wanted to talk about although um it wasn't um it wasn't an issue that the landmark commission was looking at the time uh uh at least when I was there which is I came in after April 2023 but I do want to talk about the the application um from what you were told by the developer who you bought the lot from um do you know um who why the one of the boxes was or was not checked of of referencing The Landmark Commission in other words uh do you know why the box was not checked that would say from my understanding that would say uh why that to make the lot non historic preservation property or you know that requires it to be under uh that this ordinance yeah so I I I mean I wasn't around in 1972 um but what I can tell you is this is that someone spent a lot of time putting together an application with extensive narrative about the house all of its aspects all of its history and the nomination form allowed them to say that landscape landscape architecture uh was something that was significant to The Landmark nomination and they chose not to say that in fact further what they did decide to say in the narrative is that the landscape relative to the tavern that was relevant was the duck pond uh which having been longtime residents of Nakoma we know is across Nakoma Road uh and not on our property and I do know that when the landmarks commission decided to divide the property uh the notes from that meeting say that the only reason that the landmark status was kept on that vacant lot was to allow the landmarks commission to review exactly what the house would be not because the actual yard itself uh had Landmark independent significance okay so did you when you bought the property from the developer did you understand that this was a Historic Landmark in the entire lot so uh lot one or plot one and plot two both of them were subject to the historic preservation code and the stand the secretary's interior standards yeah absolutely that thank you for that question we totally knew that in fact um before we bought the property uh we had reviewed the July 11 hearing we understood exactly what the neighbors comments and concerns were so we were aware of this uh before we bought the property we talked with the city about what the zoning would be to understand what the zoning constrictions were and before we bought the property we talked with the landmarks uh people to understand what the landmark standards were and how they would be applied in a situation like this with new construction on this lot so yes we knew it was subject to the landmarks restrictions but we had done it tremendous amount of work um tens and tens of hours understanding exactly what the requirements were so that we could design a house that was consistent with those standards and did our very best to mitigate concerns that the neighbors had raised in fact you know we have taken pains to design a house in a way that would that would minimize impact on the on that big tree the big tree is not part of the landmarks Commission purview um it's our tree we can do whatever we want to do with it uh we have a black walnut tree in Minneapolis where we live now it's not a particularly nice tree to have I'll be honest with you but we had decided out of respect for the neighbors that we would respect that tree we would design around that tree to keep it so yeah we were aware of the restrictions and we planned very carefully to design this house around that so you were uh a aware of the restrictions and you understood that these restrictions would go through the process of the Secretary of interior standards for the treatment of historic homes uh you know you know basically what I call you know criteria number one through number 10 well we we absolutely knew that but we also knew that this lot was zoned residential which meant that the city has decided that this is a residential lot that a house will be built on this lot um and we bought that lot in reliance on the fact that it was zoned residential for a house okay and when you talk about the uh the the process for um the zoning process and and whatnot um can you walk us through um um can you speak to you know your knowledge of how it how it get cut cut the plot get cut into two lots and uh you ended up buying Lot number two and was did you also I want to add on to that question if I can did you um was it planning that did you know I'm trying to ask you the question about planning versus landmarks um referral so did you know that that might be a better question for staff Alder okay but I want to get his understanding mayor please did you did you know that there was two different departments and when you called the landmarks commission did they say yeah you're going to be able to BU build anything you want as long as it fits the standards uh from the planning department no let me be clear uh about this so uh we didn't work with the planning department at all uh that was not part of this process as I understood it uh I understood that once this was divided and that went through the landmarks commission I think that went through planning to approve the certified survey map and that's certified survey map was then approved by the common Council by a vote to 17 to1 or 17-2 overwhelmingly uh now when it came down to what approval is necessary to build the house that we understood would be looked at by the landmarks commission we would have to file an application which we did and from there as I understood it it would simply be subject to the process of the landmark ordinance which would be an appeal which you are now hearing at the council um and as we thought through that and looked at that we understood exactly what the standards were and as I said did our very best to meet all those standards and I think the city's preservation planner has now twice looked at this and thought that yes what we have approved what we have suggested has met those standards okay thank you so much I appreciate it you're very welcome I have a couple more questions if I could please uh let's see if Alder tishler has questions for the furlows Alder tishler yeah no questions for f okay thank you John aler buris go ahead uh who is your next question for yeah so I would like to talk to Carly the um uh owner of the Old Spring Tavern it's actually a house that um is is shares and is subject to um the fur um house please do do we have Carly Len yep I'm still here go ahead Alder okay thank you so much could you um uh just a second I have my questions I wrote it down while you're speaking just bear with me a minute here we are Could you um first speak about the comments that were made um you know about the Old Spring Tavern being 5,000 square fet and that when you look at it it's going to look like it's the same height as you you are right there on the property it's actually you know a plot with two I'm sorry it's a lot no it's a plot with two lots it's a plot with two lots so can you talk not only two things can you speak about the the concept of 5,000 square feet um including the porches um you know how that works and then can you also speak a little bit about your perception um you know when you drive into your your Shar driveway what would become your Shar no it's not shared driveway when you come home let me leave it there sorry yeah absolutely so you know I think when you consider the size of a house you don't generally consider outside space sort of like our our porch space and so I I think what we would consider to be the square footage of our house would be finished space um but even just looking at at the first and second floors of our house taking aside the actual um finish basement I think there were some helpful numbers in the record there and you can see that even just comparing um those figures it the the applicant's house is is still much larger and in the the images that uh Kevin pomoy presented which were from the the application you can see that the side of the house um the applicant's house that faces our front door is it's 37 fet to the 30t of our Tavern um and that doesn't take into consideration the change in elevation that's just a side by-side comparison there is a change in elevation which makes it appear taller but it's still much taller regardless from the side that actually faces The Tavern and so when you're coming into our driveway you're sort of looking into the space between the tabern and then the applicant's house and so that's the view that you're looking at you're looking at the exposed three stories of the applicant's house the 37 ft um and you're looking at the front of our house which is the side that sort of faces Council Crest and Spring Trail not the side that faces Nacoma so that's that's the front door and it's sort of a unique positioning because usually you don't have a house immediately in front of your front door there's usually a street there but just because of the nature of the tavern and because it was so early in the development of Madison that's the orientation that thinking about okay and I want to ask you this question before I forget it but I do have two other questions for you um you were the first owner um you know that in this process you know this new process um uh that that shared I'll call it the shared home process um you were the first new owner what did you understand um when you bought the your house that's finished what did you understand about the history of the house as far as the perspective of the other owners and why there was never anything else put on this property that at the time was uh you know you know well no not when you bought it but you was one lot what did you know about the history what was that pass down because we haven't been able I haven't been able to reach the other owners I understand they're retired and yeah yeah it's an interesting question and thank you for that I so we also have lived in aoma um for a while we moved to Wisconsin in 2015 and we moved on to Manitou so you know we've been in Nakoma for a while and we were familiar with the old Spring Tavern um and you know just in February we were expecting to grow our family we had a little boy named Harry and we decided that we wanted to look for a larger home and we saw that the the Old Spring Tavern was um available again and we've always loved historic homes it's what Drew us to Noma and you know we we really do take our role as as stewards of this Historic Landmark seriously um I've always loved old homes I grew up in an old home they're a lot of work they take a lot of upkeep um and you know especially something that's a landmark you have to jump through a lot of Hoops um and get get certificates of appropriateness for any change to the outside and we took that on because it you know we thought it was important to us it was important to the neighborhood and so we knew that the lot was divided of course um and we knew that a house would be built on the adjacent lot but we expected that you know whatever was built there would be held to the same standards that we held ourselves that the landmarks commission has been holding us to um as we maintain and sometimes improve the tavern and so our expectation was just that something of a compatible size mass and scale would be what would be built there because you know we understood that that was the standard we certainly didn't think it would be anything as large as 4200 square feet or 37 Feet Tall or you know whatever whatever um measurement that you want to use whatever metric we didn't expect anything of that scale we were surprised um and somewhat disappointed because we did think that it was detrimental to you know all the time and and money and effort that we put into maintaining the historic character of The Tavern okay and I'm going to stay right on that point there if you would um I only have two more questions I know I said two before but I saw this one that I wanted to ask you the same questions that I asked the furlos um so when you talk about the front door um versus the back door um can you you've talked about that it's always been uh you know where people have come and gone and can you just describe for the Council of like you know the front and like why nobody ever uses the front door I mean the back the back door which is yeah the reverse the back door which you consider the back door and uh this one you consider the front why why is it yeah could you talk about why nobody goes through that yeah absolutely so if you are coming to our front door which is the side that faces the applicant's lot um so you're you're coming into the driveway you know you park your car your carriage or whatever it is and and there's a main walkway that leads you to the front door and when you walk into the front door you see um the original banister is actually still there but you see a staircase up to the second floor as you would in most homes you walk in you've got the staircase to the left you've got a hallway down the center and to the right is the living room and I I think that's a pretty common entrance to a lot of houses houses in Noma and elsewhere um whereas if you were to approach the house from the Nakoma road side which is the back of our house you'd see there's three small doors sort of in series excuse me and so if you walk through the first one you end up in our laundry room if you walk through the second one uh you end up in sort of this middle room at the bottom of the basement stairs um that's close to two storage unfinished storage rooms and if you walk through the third one um you'll walk into what's we use as an office or an extra bedroom um and so none of those really present themselves as main rooms it's all sort of to the basement level you have to walk upstairs to get to the main living space and these are you know the original um Living Spaces when it was an inn and a Tavern this was the in section so it has the the kitchen and um The Living Spaces the living room that everything is sort of oriented towards the front door being the side that faces the app lot towards Spring Trail and and Council Crest and away from Nakoma okay and then I want to give you my last question so I'm going to wrap two questions into one can you talk about um the impact of essentially walking out your front door really close or almost right next to another house and then I want you to also talk about if you could when you bought your property from the developer did you understand it was subject to the landmarks commission did you understand it was subject to the secretary interior standards for the treatment of historic properties and what did you know about the uh box not being checked that would have referred it to uh Landmark because the entire property is is historic historically preserved that's my last question so I'm going to mute last question for you sorry thank you Al um yeah so I I did not know about the Box not being checked my understanding when we started this I I certainly knew that our Tavern was subject to those standards and that um you know we would have to get certificates of appropriateness anytime we were to make anything that might alter the outside appearance of the tavern and that we also had um we had an obligation to maintain the tavern and so any little thing that goes wrong we we have to immediately mend uh to make sure that we're preserving its historic nature so we were familiar with that we we took that on willingly but my understanding was that the adjacent parcel was also considered a Landmark property and therefore any any home that was to be built on it would also be subject to the same standards in order to get a certificate of appropriateness for the build and I did not think that's something you know where you walk outside your front door and there's something that's just sort of looming over your home home again it's it's very unusual to have a home that close to your front door as opposed to the side door or back door it's just it's it's very invasive it's very close by um you know it's it's hard to imagine um how that could maintain the historic character when it's something that is so overwhelming to the original structure uh and so even though you know we certainly understood that a house would be built there and we were welcoming to have new neighbors um we were disappointed that that that ended up being the proposal um because we didn't think that it it met those standards that we had expected that it would okay thank you so I just had questions for I guess either um uh Rick or Alex could take the question or let's pause and see if Alder rumel or Alder tishler has questions for Carly Alder rumel no Alder tishler questions for Carly no all right so Alder burus your next questions are for okay um I guess we could go to either um you know they can decide as I ask a question um either uh Rick or Alex um of the Madison I think it's the Madison trust um my main question is could you speak to Rick Chandler is representing the Madison trust is that who your questions are for either a Alex or Alex saludos is representing himself okay so can for either party mayor for either party okay I'm gonna ask a question and they can you know jump to the bit um can either of you speak about the process um I'm sorry can either of you speak about um as you've spent uh decades in historic preservation can either of you speak about um the Secretary of generally about the secretary's um secretary uh inter I'm sorry the standard for the treatment of historic preservation that's put forth by the secret Secretary of Interiors W it's a lot it's it's like from what I got it's it's almost like a binder like this big you know can either of you talk talk about you know what happens when you know you know we get those 10 points that we got to follow and how are those Leed um we got those 10 points that we are to follow and then how do we what's typical of if if you're at an impath you're like oh you know this is one page but here's everything that we have to consider can you talk about that I'm happy to uh I'm happy to answer that question um it's the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation uh they're codified in the Federal Register uh what you've seen in this uh in City documents is just a part of the the uh uh standards for rehabilitation um uh the standards for rehabilitation those 10 points are sort of the guiding principle and also you in the section on the standards for rehabilitation right after the standards um it says um to interpret these consult uh the guidelines for rehabilitation um uh the and all of the other technical bulletins um that they produce there are hundreds and hundreds of pages of what is generally called guidance I set the Council um a list of the guidance with links to all the stuff before the meetings tonight but uh the standard of practice and as stated in the standards for rehabilitation codified in the Federal Register is that when you apply those 10 guiding principles you use um the secretary's guidance and they're really thorough and exhaus of there's chapters on just the site chapters and Publications on landscape features chapters on the setting um it it's really detailed extensive and I will have to say it's easy to follow it's not it's it's written in plain language so it's easy to follow and when you apply the standards it's pretty easy um to get a project uh approved and one of the issues here unfortunately is that the landmarks commission did not have any of this guidance um uh to consider when they deliberated um on this and it's really unfortunate to all the parties involved because that would have you know in watching their deliberations and seeing them struggle with different things it's really easy when you turn okay let's look at this aspect of the project in the guidelines it's real easy to get get a clear picture on this would uh this meets the intent and would be approved and this uh wouldn't meet the intent is that helpful yes that's helpful thank you so much I appreciate that and my last question is for uh mayor is for St please uh Alder RL or Alder tishler do you have any questions for Alex no okay then let's have Stu latan please yes Alder what can I do for you Ahad Alder yes and I I apologize for the way that I ask questions I have a list and I stutter a little bit so I'm always trying to control that that's I'm sorry that that that sometimes it's hard to follow um you talked about being the former chair of the landmarks commission and you spent 12 years in uh on the landmark commission and I understand that you have Decades of experience in historical preservation when you look at the the um the the the the videos the zoom and and learn what we did um why do you think um why did you make why are they making the statement that we did not thoroughly vet all of the 10 standards um that are required in effect and then I also want to ask you so I'll close out with this is um in your 12 years did you did you ever have a historic property that we're you just so like um I'm not sure about this how this is going to go down this feels like it's on a fine line what's the normal process uh to get clarity and then did it ever happen that there's a building torn down or a building put up and an irreparable harm is caused then what well as to the first question you know I I I don't want to criticize citizens who devote their time and energy to serve on boards and commissions because it's a it's a great you know it it takes a lot to do so but I was I thought the I thought the analysis at the landmarks meeting frankly was was not really comprehensive there were some statements that were factually untrue I know I recall one commissioner explicitly stating that the houses in this in this part of the neighborhood are big um but statistically that's not that's not true they're 2300 square feet the 23 adjacent properties I thought there were certain aspects of the commission the Comm the commission did not address all the standards um I think if you go back and re I mean you were there I was there on on zoom and if people review the video they'll see that there were findings that in order to approve this certificate the commission should have made that it did not make um I think there is an absolute lack of evidence in the record that this property that this project is compatible and there is ample evidence in the record that it is not now evidence record is something that that matters um a as to the second question you know once once some once something's torn down it's gone now I I I will say that there there were instances when I was on the commission I whether I was chair or not there were instances when I understood that what was consistent with the landmarks ordinance especially of denying something might not be consistent with the overall City policy that maybe there was a larger interest to be served by by the commission by by by the council overturning us because we did our job and upheld the commission and upheld the ordinance and the council looking at the broader picture decided no Citywide we're going to reverse it um as I say the the council in 2016 made it easier for the council to reverse the commission um I don't take particular pride in the fact that I was chair at that time but that I I think that is what the record shows and they did that because there are times that for whatever reason either inadequate information or people were missing I mean you will recall that there were shifting memberships of the commission at that time and the and the very first meaningful action the division of of the lot line uh was approved on a two to2 vote with the chair voting I when several veteran members were were absent now we understand that that's gone that that can't be reconsidered but the process of the commission deliberation with all due respect to the to the Commissioners uh I I think could could have been more comprehensive and more analytic okay and may I just had one question um just because uh Su has such an expertise because he served as a commissioner um chair of the landmark commission I wanted to ask you um well really two I'm gon sneak one in can we consider items that are not considerable when we are on the the landmarks commission can we consider statements and evidence that that is not can't be considered and then I want to also ask you what would you suggest as a council as a council that we do so that the record is proper could you give us your opinion okay um could you clarify the do do you mean but I understand the I understand the second question I'll answer the first question is a question for the attorney which we'll get to okay let me just clarify it though let me clarify it Ste so like if I was like you know and I'm just gonna make this up you know it's like you know I just want to consider something like you know like you know it's really this has gone on a long time this has been two years or you know okay I got it I I got it I got it um the the the furlows have pursued this plan with diligence with dedication with hard work they've obviously spent a lot of money they are very focused um I know John's a good lawyer I mean they they've they've done a very good job but a bad plan pursued with diligence and dedication is still a bad plan as to your second question of if I were in a position of making a motion or or advocating a position personally I mean personally I believe the evidence record justifies reversing the commission action and being done with it however I think an a satisfact resolution at this point in the process would be to refer back to the landmarks commission with directions to analyze this under standards 1 2 3 5 and nine and to consider approval of a new proper new new development no larger than the old Spring Tavern and comparable to the adjacent properties I think that is something that historic preservation Advocates and the neighbors would accept as okay we lost on the lot line there's going to be a house built there that seems a reasonable resolution of the matter if if I were in a position to make a motion that is probably the motion I would make thank you Alder Alder rumel questions for Stu yes go ahead Alder RL thank you um first I should disclose for all my colleagues that I sered for many years with Stuart on the landmarks Commission and he was always like very detailed and thoughtful and steered us a lot of times I didn't always want to be steered by him but you know he thought about it and my question to you Stuart is the standard one although which the landmarks didn't really take up at the last meeting but there's a the this notion of the minimal changes to the building it site and environment and I'm wondering if if you could help us understand because we've seen testimony that says the environment should only be the landmark site or the neighborhood and what your thoughts are about that uh well first of all Mara thank you for those comments I think um I appreciate I enjoyed serving with you as well uh there is a a difference I think a strict interpretation of the secretary standard the phrase um property and its environment refers to the subject property however it's clear from the record it's clear from Dr Bailey's memo that references adjacent properties it was clear from the uh discussion at the commission level that certain Commissioners did rely on a misunderstanding of how this how the furlow's proposal related to the um adjacent properties uh that they did take that into consideration so I I think I think we've got a a problem here in that most of the experts in understanding the Secretary of the Interior standards do believe it is limited just to that property um but that's not what the commission did um so that's something that that should be resolved but within whether whe whether or not the application that was submitted in 1972 as I believe the 14th or 15th landmark in the city of mass and that's how significant this property is that's how high it ranks but when that the fact that it did not discuss the landscape 53 years ago 5 51 years ago I I think is not as significant as the fact that it is part of the environment and and whether or not the at the very least the phrase subject property and its environment includes the existing land and that includes that that Walnut that tree um you know I I I would defer to a definitive statement by someone expert in the Secretary of the Interior standards as to the definition of the phrase and its environment but either way this this proposal violates that standard and thank you steu one more question more of a historical one and I know you've been out of uh landmarks realm for a while and maybe the ordinance changes added this new construction for a landmark in more detail but do you recall that how how frequently if ever a landmark site had a proposal to add new construction I I I can't think of a time there there were lots of instances where we had consideration of adjacent seats a new construction next to a landmark which I should note when when the property to the west of the oldring tavern was built in 1974 the landmark ordinance did not give the commission jurisdiction over adjacencies even even from a commentary perspective I do not recall um there there there were instances of course of new construction in historic districts I can think of some new construction in University Heights I can think of new construction elsewhere I do not recall new construction on a landmark site okay thank you um and so then part of that answer I would think is that we're not really uh conversant with the secretary of interior standards in our normal work as a Larks commission this is tabular Rasa we we are to my Rec to to my memory fairly Uncharted Territory perhaps Dr Bailey recalls some other instance um but as I said we've had properties built next to historic landmarks I do not recall properties on on registered Landmark sites thank you um mayor do I have the floor now to ask another person a question or are we still we we'll we'll just see if Alder tishler has questions for Stu yeah I won't I won't pass up the opportunity to ask Ste a question all right so I'll keep you in the queue Alder RL go ahead Alder tishler yeah Ste you you you talked about the um this is kind of an unprecedented it's kind of uh new um you know so the the we know we need to get we need to make this right get this right um but I guess you know and you talked about historic preservation I just wanted to um you know I guess just uh reaffirm um that when you know there's a lot of been emphasis talking about the building but can you talk about the importance of of this you know also of the site its related components and also you know give your your you know your knowledge of Madison history just remind us how how this fits into the larger tapestry of of of Madison's history well thank you Alder um one of the that that was the reason why preservationists oppos the division of the lot or or the the moving of the lot line in the first instance because we knew that it would at a very minimum all alter the historic landscape of of the property and diminish its historic significance which was as a stage coached as as a Tavern house to you know for people who are going on down to Verona um that this be this is one of the remaining properties that that goes to our you know our founding period this this is you know contemporaneous with our becoming a city this is when my goodness this was way out in the outskirts you know this this this is one of we've torn down most of the buildings from the 1850s we've still got Grace Episcopal and a couple of others but this is this is one of the very few buildings that hearkens back to our earliest history and any house that is built on that lot is going to diminish the historical significance of it a house this large that's so overwhelms the the the the tavern itself that will will compound that historical insult uh by by economies of scale it will it will it will it will be a a degradation of the historic landscape on steroids any house there is going to be problematic but a house this size in this location is is just going to be um as I say incompatible and will frustrate the public interest as defined in the ordinance thank you Alder and one one last followup um because you know we're talking about the you know the size um but uh looking at the you know this the city of Madison um we're talking about historic properties that are we're talking less than less than 1% um of of our city so again you know I guess in your opinion you know the I guess the importance of of preserving this you know the last remnants um you know of of of Madison's uh early early history and U and I guess I really don't have much of the question I guess re just reaffirm that we're talking about a really small percentage of of the entire city that we're we're talking about and then and then on this lot and so and yeah so that's not so much of a question I guess in there more more just a a statement I guess just to re reaffirm that so perhaps if you wanted to frame it as a question you could ask Mr latan what percentage of the city is is a city Landmark um well you know I think there let me call up the number here I I don't know the actual number you know the the the size but there [Music] are there areund there 182 Parcels in the land in the city of Madison that are historic landmarks I think you know that's a minuscule percentage of the land mass in the city of Madison as as you note I've I've spent I spent 12 years doing what I could for landmarks and historic preservation I write history books because I think it's important and I think that this is this is why the ordinance was created was to protect properties like this a property that was so significant it was landmarked within one year of the adoption of the ordinance that's how significant this is um and there it will it cannot be fixed once it is degrad once it is degraded this is the kind of thing that you can't go back for you you can you if if you take the time to do it right perhaps you can minimize the the damage but if you don't take the time the damage will be irrevocable thank you thank you Alder uh Alder rumel back to you you're muted Alder thank you stu sorry thank you everyone um I have questions for Rick Chandler do we have Rick I'm here go ahead Alder thanks for sending so many emails to the commission and us it's almost hard to keep track of all the really good correspondents we've had in the last couple days but today you sent an email to all Alders this late this morning talking sort of about like the neighborhood and the massing of the neighborhood could you just remind us of some of the elements that you discussed you opened it with like the standards that may not account for the wider area but if you look at the wider area because it was in the record you what did you find yeah thank you for the question because I think it's a it's an important Point um as you talk about the whole issue here um and I think the most important things in deciding about whether uh the certificate of appropriateness should have been granted are whether the house is compatible with the oldring tavern under standard nine and what it's impact is on the historic environment and the character of The Landmark West yard under standards 1210 and possibly others um so that's the most important thing and there's been some discussion of that and as I said in my testimony I think the preponderance of testimony from experts is that it is not compatible with the tavern and it makes unacceptably large changes to the West yard however there's another issue of how does it relate to the rest of the neighborhood and actually this point was raised by the furlows in their memo to the council that they sent recently they said the proposed house was consistent in size and scale with adjacent homes well it just isn't um the size of the proposed Furlow house is 4,218 square feet and if you look at the average size of the 23 homes on adjacent properties it's 2,255 square feet much smaller and the definition of adjacent properties was provided by the furlos they showed a map of what they considered adjacent properties so we did a calculation what is the average square footage of those 2,255 obviously much smaller than the 4,218 and the size of the Old Spring Tavern is 3,573 square feet um so and that that right now is the biggest property uh in the area and it's a uh it's a landmark it's on a very large lot the Furlow house um would not be on a very large lot it would be on a small lot so it would consume a lot more of a lot and I think John furo said well you really shouldn't look at square feet for a number of reasons and I think that just doesn't make common sense I everybody who's bought a house looks at how many square feet is it and the size of the house the visual impact whether it's compatible with the other buildings around it especially Landmark properties is determined by how many square feet it it is so it's just not correct to say that you should ignore square footage that's probably the most important indicator of mass size and scale which are the standards the elements that you should look at under standard nine um so I think whether you're looking at it in comparison to the Old Spring Tavern in comparison to the lot or in comparison to the adjacent houses in the neighborhood as defined by the furlows it's way too big for the site it's located on now there's a solution to that um you could build a house that is much closer to the neighborhood average 2,255 square feet um there's lots of people who live very comfortably in those houses so um that would be a solution that would work very well um just the one other thing and this gets back to some of the testimony from Carly and from Kevin pomoy um the Furlow show the west side of their house compared to the west side of the tavern as Carly talked about the real comparison is the east side of the furlow's house compared to the west side of the tavern and their their house is 37 feet high compared with 30 feet high for the tavern and it's located on that slope um 10 feet above so that exaggerates the impact and it's only 26 yards away so that exaggerates the impact even more as Carly said when she steps out her front door if their proposed house is approved she'll be looking at something looming 40 some feet above the front door of her house uh and I just don't see how you can say that that's compatible um and um there's lots of detail in the standards but um some of it just comes down to Common Sense is a 4200 plus square foot house located 26 yards away much bigger than any other house in the neighborhood is it compatible with its setting and I think the answer is no well thank you so much Rick um I that's the end of my questions for Mr Chandler thank you Alder do you have questions oh Alder tishler do you have questions for Mr Chandler uh no I don't I have I have questions for another another speaker another presenter Alder RL did you have further questions no go ahead aler tishler yeah I guess if Professor um alenin is still with us do we have Professor Allen can you hear me now yes yeah go ahead aler yeah um you know there there was discussion about checking boxes um but in my understanding that checking checking boxes does not take away the fact that the site is is it's a landmark site um you talked about uh about cultural landscapes and how you know that was introduced uh you know you know 95 um but can you can you speak about the the importance of of of uh you know we've we've we've heard about the importance of of The Landmark uh historic building but the can you speak more about the uh the cultural landscape and the components that that are uh tied to to The Landmark site and I guess also maybe you know since I'm we have a landscape retired landscape architect um the importance of the tree and and the um the Topography of of of the landscape well yeah thanks for the question um the Secretary of the Interior standards really were didn't weren't even introduced until 1995 and I the nomination for the entire property of Noma is really based on that plan that comes from the early 20th century so we're looking at a place that uh has a much greater context which was provided by the the bill and I think in the you're you're breaking up on usit oh sorry I can't help it from this end I guess but anyway cultural landscapes typically haven't gotten much attention and if we consider the the context of this place the building the fact that it represents so many layers of history that have occurred in the city and yet it it stands there is this one of the very few remaining pieces of evidence of this part of Madison's history so this is all then wrapped together into this um package which is uh now being discussed and um one of the things is also of course as I said earlier is that the feeling here that mean the feeling is sometimes a very you know difficult term but it had includes the view shed the feelings of the buildings the openness that all goes back to that original period when the structure was built and if uh we forget that part of it uh we really do lose so much of the Integrity of this site okay thank you thank you any further questions Al tishler uh no no I just want I just want to thank Professor allenon for for for speaking on this um I yeah it's good to hear your voice again thank you Alder Alder Martinez ruford did you have questions I yeah I think I would like to hear from uh attorney Kate Smith we we'll get to staff in a minute okay all right I'm yeah thanks all right are there any further questions for registrant on item six seeing none that was fine honey yeah then we will go on to sorry much scrolling involved gone over that a little bit yeah um you so our next item is item 52 uh which is the landmark nom ation for 2229 Eaton Ridge uh we have two registrants wishing to speak starting with Gary tippler of District Six and to be followed by Lynn bjorkman Gary uh yes good evening I prepared The Landmark nomination for the kathern clarenbach family residents a tribute to Katherine clarenbach so that her exemplary Works would B easily be remembered she was a principal leader in the development of the second wave of the feminist or modern women's movement in Wisconsin and in the US she worked as University instructor Civic volunteer and mother of three children often working from home writing and planning activities in 1961 clarenbach volunteered for a University extension project on continuing education for women that began her career of planning to improve to remove uh impediments to women's professional growth that were imposed by policy and laws and to expand women's contributions to society and the economy in 1962 she began work to create the organization's structure and the basis for a Wisconsin Commission on the status of women patterned after the national commission established by President Kennedy as a result of her year-long effort she was offered a position as the first director of University education women and Governor Reynolds asked her to chair the new commission which included women representing all areas of the state all walks of life and minorities in 1966 at the National Conference of commissions on the status of women Claren Bach and others founded the National Organization for Women now to lobby for change she was elected as chair over several years in the first year the organization was housed at the clarenbach home on Eon Ridge for the organization she supported the simple founding criteria that prospective members reject racism and sexism in 19 1968 under her guidance now persuaded President Johnson to issue an executive order to prohibit discrimination based on sex in the 1970s clarenbach helped organize faculty and staff to develop a women's studies program at the University helped establish the national women's political caucus to trade and elect women to political offices and her work on marital property reform and divorce reform eventually secured passage of state laws that were models for other states in 1975 clarenbach served as executive director of the national Commission on the observance of international women's year and subsequently served as Deputy coordinator of the National Women's conference committee held in Houston in 1977 for that she had planned 56 State and territorial conventions to identify issues of concern to women and elect delegates during the two-year-long planning effort she committed between DC and her home home each week to be with her family and to write in 1980 she was founder of the women's Wisconsin net or the Wisconsin Women's Network to advance women's right presently a coalition of over 100 women's organizations and in her career Claren boach producing Publications two documents and 40 speeches thank you Gary thank you our next registrant is Lyn borkman of District 13 representing the Madison trust for historic preservation Lynn thank you mayor I'm Lyn Berkman vice president of the medison trust for historic preservation the Madison trust commissioned the nomination for the Katherine clarenbach resident as a city of Madison landmark and strongly supports its designation the motivation for the trust sponsoring this Landmark nomination was the city's 2020 underrepresented communities historic survey report as you may know the report focused on community groups whose history was not yet recognized by Landmark designations namely the africanamerican First Nations Mong Latino Latinas and lgbtq communities women's history was the sixth focus of the report the clarenbach house was prominently featured in the report as eligible for local listing for its association with Katherine Claren as you've just heard a national figure in the women's rights movement this designation can show that important history even on a national level in this case of the clarenbach house can reside in our his City's common everyday places the Madison trust believes that these places are worth preserving It's Our intention to continue working with other individuals and organizations to designate additional properties called out in the survey report for local Landmark status this will help ensure that the important stories of Madison's many and diverse communities will be recognized protected and preserved thanks to Gary tippler the author of the nomination who worked with preservation planner Heather Bailey on the nomination and especially the property owners who supported the landmark designation thank you thank you those are are the only registrants wishing to speak on item 52 are there questions for either of the registrants on this item seeing none those are all the items we have uh regist wishing to speak on so Alder Vier he we have a 10-minute break please Alder Vier moves a 10-minute break is there a second moved and seconded to take a 10-minute break is there any OB objection to recording unanimous vote in favor seeing no objection we will take a 10-minute break uh we will be be back at 906 minutes back I back to their computers and turn their video on when they're ready you yes Al I I'll turn my on soon as I finish taking the insulin shot okay I'm here I'm present thank you Alder Knox appreciate it we are less than a minute out from coming back that is 10 minutes plus a little bit so if I can have everyone come back and turn their cameras on or wave at me to make sure that I know that you are in fact there let's see all right uh I will call the council meeting back to order and ask the clerk to please call the role thank you Alder R here Al R is presid Al vver here viver is presid Alia here Alia is present Alder Bennett here Alder Bennett is present Al Conlan present Alder Conlin is present Alder Curry here Alder Curry is present Alder Duncan here Duncan is present Alder ever Alder Evers is present Alder field here Al field is President Al fig Cole here Cole is President Al gind Rajan here Al Rajan is presid Al Herington mckenny pres alingon mckeny is presid Alder KN pres Al Knox is present Al ladimir burus here alad burus is present Alder Madison here Alder Madison is present Al Martinez Rutherford present Alder Martinez ruford is present Alder MI present Al Mei is present Alder rumel present Alder rumel is present Alder slack here Al slack is present Alder tishler I can see Alder tishler yeah just a little slow on button there so I'm still here no worries Al tishler is President mad mayor we have a COR thank you all right yeah so we are on to item six which is listar 8087 one an appeal of the Madison landmarks commission decision granting a certificate of appropriateness for new construction on the site of a designated City Landmark at 3701 Council Crest and unless there's objection I'd like to actually start here with a presentation by staff um so that we can make sure that we are making the appropriate motion um before we get into then questions and discussion seeing no objection we'll turn first to our preservation planner Heather Bailey thank you mayor um good evening Alders Heather Bailey preservation planner for the city she her go ahead and pull up my presentation okay so up on the screen we have a relatively recent Google street view of the property in question so what we're talking about is an appeal of the certificate of appropriateness which is the long name for the landmarks commission's approval um for new construction of a residence on what is currently a vacant lot so for history of the project this is about a new principal structure which is our planning way of saying new house um so in August Lamar's commission uh reviewed the proposal Lam Mert's commission uh completed their review uh said that they found that all of the standards for approval were met except for standard nine of the Secretary of the Interior standards with the finding that the building was too large it was um out of scale and character and massing with uh the historic resource and its site and setting so they gave specific guidance for how to go about meeting that standard and referred the item to a future meeting so that the applicant could make the necessary changes lamri commission saw this project again in November where the applicant went through um how they had gone about following the guidance from the lam mer commission Lam Merks commission found that the project was is now in compliance with all of the necessary standards of approval um later the neighbors filed an appeal of the certificate of appropriateness and then um this was filed for introduction and we are here tonight so here we have a site plan showing the uh two lots that are a part of the landmark site um there were always two lots that were a part of the landmark site um and one of them happened to be vacant so this shows the guidance from the landmark commission which wanted um an additional 20ft setback going from the end of Spring Trail so you see this radius here we've got the area showing the uh where the previous footprint had been and the new design in relation to the guidance that the landmarks commission had given about how to modify the design um and then here we have on the leand side we have what the project originally was proposing and then how they went about modifying the design both uh making it not as wide and modifying the roof form and here we have a couple of images showing the uh proposed new construction in relation to the historic resource that is on the adjacent lot just going to quickly go through those you see the historic resource and the um garage which is relatively uh recent new construction in terms of the overall history of the site but these uh two resources in relation to one another and coming a little further down Spring Trail so for what we're dealing with here um with the way the city's historic preservation ordinance is currently set up when a property has a local historic designation then it is subject to a design review Lamar's commission engages in design review at every single one of its commission meetings that is its business that's a large chunk of what it does in terms of its regulatory obligations so for designated landmarks and we do have have currently 182 maybe we will have 183 at the end of this meeting um the standards that we use for evaluating the design is the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation um for why we use those as opposed to developing our own standards um from the intro to the Secretary of the interior's guidelines for rehabilitation they have uh this statement up here one of the things the federal government likes to talk about is that they developed this Federal preservation program and an end becoming the most successful local preservation program in the country um many certified local governments we are certified local government and historic preservation commissions have adopted these standards as their own for use and evaluating historic preservation projects so we are one of the municipalities who have done that we have a lot of experience at this point with applying those design standards to projects so for ethical standards um that the lam merts commission was dealing with with the August meeting they uh it was a longer meeting and they looked through the different standards that were in the uh staff report and talked through the proposed project and the sticking point for them was that while they thought all of the other standards were met standard nine they didn't think it was there yet particularly as related to the massing size and scale so they gave detailed guidance to the uh applicant in order to meet that design standard for app other applicable standards the petition for the uh appeal of the Lamar commission decision also cites um this standard in the Madison General ordinances which we call the frustrate the public interest uh portion of the ordinance and what we Define as the public interest in the ordinance are the policy and purpose section of um the MGO and I I will not repeat all those those are in the staff memo that's associated but for our policy about why and how we do historic preservation in the city the historic preservation ordinance again deals with design standards so that these places are able to continue to convey their historic associations it is not meant to prevent development it cannot prevent deel development but we are going about the practice of engaging in historic preservation so that these places continue to be integrated into our city as it continues to grow and change um so that we can continue to have a place that still reads as Madison and it's not just a place where we are scraping away our past and only doing new construction we want to sensitively integrate new construction into the existing historic landscape so for the matter before us tonight um for an appeal um there's the standard there that I've got the full thing I won't read it at you you all are uh more than capable of reading this yourselves but the uh conclusion of that uh standard is really sort of what you have to start with this is organized kind of backwards that way um the lammar the common Council can overturn the decision of the landmarks commission if it finds that the landmarks commission made its made a decision contrary to the applicable standards here in our ordinance and so I just left in 41.18% of the other possibilities that could be appealed so that is what we are dealing with tonight um there was one question that came up as part of the testimony about um this being entirely new territory for the landmarks commission as I said lammar's commission does design review at every single one of its meetings throughout the year in terms of design review for new construction on a landmark site we do have um an annual report that we do that details the types of approvals and work that are happening on both properties that have a local historic designation so individual landmarks and properties in our local historic districts um for the time that I've been here I've now officially been with the city for five years um we have looked at every year except for one um new construction on designated landmarks uh in 2021 it was uh demolition of a park shelter in Tenny Park and construction of a new Park shelter so that was about looking at where is this located on the property there was archaeology involved um and so Lamar commission has a lot of experience with applying these standards and looking at them on designated Landmark sites and also dealing with new construction although most of the new construction they're dealing with on Landmark sites are garages they do have experience with new principal structures as well so that is my quick overview of what we're dealing with tonight it's about the Lambert commission gave an approval for construction on a developable lot that is within the boundary of a designated Landmark site um at this point I think I'm supposed to conclude my portion so that Kate Smith can speak to the legalities involved thank you heather attorney Smith do you want to speak to the um the law here and also uh perhaps suggest a motion to get us started um sure so I'll just kind of pick up from um where Heather left off um Heather I don't um she she had kind of highlighted that language in um the ordinance and when you are discussing um making a motion and then and then making d liberations or or asking questions um the threshold issue here is whether or not the landmarks commission decision was contrary to the standard set out in MGO bit 41.18% I would encourage you not to just make statements such as like just saying that like um it was contrary to the ecal buers I would like you to explain why in the record and you can examine the materials presented to you the staff report um the record of the landmarks commission deliberations all of those things um to create a record of why you why you believe the decision to be contrary or to not be contrary right but we want to try to provide the um a clear justification for your vote and that's because whenever I I feel that whenever I come in front of you and I'm like you guys need to be a quasi judicial body it's because we're worried about getting sued sometimes and we're wondering like what happens next and the what happens next is for however the decision goes it's going to be reviewed through the process C of ciari and that is the exact same process that I've talked to you about before for conditional use permit reviews appeals um things that are decisions that you make as a body that then go to Circuit Court and um the Circuit Court reviews your deliberation and your decision and the record that surrounds it to see whether or not it was unreasonable arbitrary or capricious um if it finds that it was it reverses it and sends it back to the council or here like kind of a landmarks decision I'm sorry the landmarks commission directing a different decision um and so what that means when we say things that are um unreasonable arbitrary or capricious um I want to remind you that you should stick to what is in the ordinance right and you're justification should be based on the um the facts in the record that apply to the standards before you so what is not up for debate for example is whether or not um the property line is appropriate or if the um certified survey map um that was voted on like a year ago was inappropriate that is that is just the context which you're making this decision right like that's settled um but instead you need to look at the standard set out in 41.18% and so let's pause on that for a second and say that um when you make a motion um whoever makes the motion and the motion is um for an action the first part of the motion would be let's just say either that the commission's decision is contrary or it is not contrary for these reasons and as and so that's kind of the threshold and then you direct it to whether or not you are upholding it reversing it or sending it back to the landmarks with or without conditions what I also want to touch on very briefly um is to remind you that there is some there is some risk analysis that we're asking you to make when you make your right um or RS to consider I should say it is Undisputed that this lot is zoned single family residential that means the city has already made a determination that a house can be built here the way that it looks and the rules that apply for example here you need to have a COA you can and I know that that isn't something that comes or I'm sorry a certificate of appropriateness I know that that isn't something that comes before you very often so think of it as the rules like a setback or in any other residential neighborhood right the lot is subject to these certain rules that we can impose on them but it does not change the fact that the property owners have by right um property rights to build on this land so when you are making a decision whichever way that it goes you are make and that could be to um to reverse it to uphold it or even the action of referring it back to landmarks commission to put another kind of step in this process you are making a decision as a governmental body on an individual property rights and so that has the potential of having an outside lawsuit come to you come to the city that the city is infringing on the p on the private property rights to build you know spent some time developing it all of that and while that isn't a standard by which you consider it under the Secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation um it is my responsibility I think to alert to you that this is part of the mix here right and on the one hand um you know however this moves through whether or not it moves through a ciari review by either party um you know I don't bill you so you don't see that bill I mean by like Legal Services still have a have a cost to them but property rights private property rights and um the government's ability to infringe on them that's a monetary damages suit I don't know if that's going to happen but I don't think that any of you are um benefited by not being told about that just when we're talking about private property rights okay um so let me just check to see if I had anything else that I wanted to bring up um [Music] um I think we're I mean obviously I'm available to take questions um Heather is a fantastic Resource as well um so I'm going to mute myself for now thank you Kate are there questions for either Heather or Kate uh at this point and then we can move on to other staff if there's questions for them Alder Knox questions yes for Kate go ahead so okay what I heard you say is our decision should be based on the facts of the ordinance as it relates to the standards is that what you said generally yeah so great question so right because what we're asking you to do is to apply the facts to the law so the facts are going to include um public testimony either at this meeting anything that's in the legistar file from past meetings the presentation the staff reports um I think there was a couple different staff reports here all of that provides um the basis for why you might think that the landmarks commission made a decision that was contrary to 41.18% aligned with the standards in [Music] 41.18% should we not consider the fact that you know you had a commission that made a decision they had a quorum and a majority but it wasn't the total body that voted is that a factor to consider or not absolutely not it was a the committee had a quorum it does not matter what the vote total was or who made which vote the landmarks commission approved the certificate of appropriateness was in well yeah yeah that was my question because you had literally three people not voting from what I understand and that does not matter and that doesn't matter got it you answered my question thank you thank you Alder Alder viver yeah Dr Bailey I'm wondering if you could tell us um the many of the registrants tonight talked about different standards that they didn't feel that were met um based on the um Department of the Interior standards and yet you didn't discuss any of those in what the um landmarks commission found and so I'm wondering if you can kind of just walk us through what the claims are from the folks that we heard from tonight versus what the commission actually considered so um for this particular project um there's all 10 Secretary of the Interior standards for the the original staff report uh provided for the August meeting um I provided uh a background and Analysis there were several different uh moving parts and components um and after the uh overall big picture discussion then I got into a discussion of each of the standards of approval so there's um detailed analysis for each of the Secretary of the Interior standards um the landmarks commission discussed some of those um just because they didn't discuss each one point by point that does not mean that they did not take those into consideration um I am unaware of any of our planning bodies that requires a discussion by the uh given Commission of a point by point for the standards of approval they did have those um as part of um the discussion I know at one point the chair said that she was she believed that all of the other standards were satisfied it was the standard nine that uh she was stuck on and the rest of the commissioner said yes they agreed that it was well some of them that it was standard nine that uh was the sticking point in terms of the mass and scale so the all 10 standards were dealt with at the August meeting um the standard that they did not believe had been met we then did a deeper dive in at the November meeting if you would like me to talk through each of the standards I can if you think that would be useful I was more just trying to understand the disconnect so how is it that this group of very learned individuals in our community are saying hey we don't think that the commission actually addressed these standards whereas the commission is like yep we did so like that's what I'm trying to understand is disconnect I I think there is definitely a disag well as we've seen there's disagreement in terms of the conclusion about um if any of the particular standards were met the Lamor commission had a very lengthy discussion um so for well for some total I looked at uh the times on both of the meetings um they for both of the meetings it was a little over 4 hours half of that time was um spent in public testimony and then the other half so a little over two hours was spent in deliberations they took this very seriously thank you other aler hearing to McKinny questions uh yes thank you madam mayor um Heather took a lot notes but I want to zero in on just a couple of things um and you reference standard number nine um but you lifted up massing size and scale and so when you look at massing size and scale when you are reviewing the standard nine and the deliberations that went back and forth um the alignment or the question was that that answered in terms of massing size and scale specifically and I'm talking about standard uh nine but that's what I'm I'm looking at and so if that's what you lifted up and elevated it and were those standards massing size and scale did that fit the um the mg 41.8 was there any variance from that I think that's that's my question right the applicant did not ask for a variance um that would have been MGO 41.1 n um so this was just about the standards of approval which are the Secretary of the Interior standards for this giffen project um and there are 10 standards of approval within the Secretary of the Interior standards which is what we use for um work that happens uh on a landmark site does that answer your question Alder I'm sorry Alder you are muted I'm sure that one of my colleagues will expand on that but but specifically um I don't think I it got to my question but I'll keep listening thank you thank you Al aler rumel thank you mayor I think my question's for attorney Smith um could we ask the applicant or direct if we okay if we referred this back to Landmark saying we didn't believe it met all the standards I would say standard one2 and N could we and give reasons for that could we also ask the applicant to build a smaller house or is that out of our purview well the landmarks commission is ultimately the granter of the COA so you could give direction and feedback on how you felt how the council found that the mass or the size was incompatible with the standards in 41.18% more about this if if there's a follow-up question um like if my answer doesn't doesn't doesn't fully articulate this I I from you know from the record um we know that the landmarks commission gave that feedback to the applicant the applicant then modified their um their application and and I will say is that when we say that we didn't just say that I mean when I when I tell you that um and I Heather could probably prer the specifics um but it wasn't the feedback to the to the applicant that you know your house looks too big it was like we think you should reduce the mass on this side of the house by this percentage like it was quite specific um and then the applicant made specific changes according to kind of the metrics landmarks commission gave them so I wonder if it would be kind of confusing to landmarks about what direction to go to if there were not more specific metrics since they did already tackle that but under the language of the ordinance you can give the council can provide direction to landmarks through this referral um but if they've already tackled it or with a with more specific specificity I I I don't know if they will know what direction to go in okay to make sure I understand you attorney Smith so some of the testimony and I I can't verify that exact number is correct say the second iteration was 5% smaller overall than the first iteration and and so to me I raises the question is that really a compatible size and it's really not that different from the original size which was Steed not quite right at least I'm not sure all the elements that were in the first meeting but I just want to get it can we you're saying we could tell them that the mass and scale is not um compatible and then let them figure it out or do we need to give them more Direction like you know some of the public testimony was the surrounding properties are between 2,000 and 2500 square feet you know we don't want to direct them to the exact size of a parcel or do we I mean how would you advise me if I wanted to go in that direction my advice is that I take a look at this record or this kind of how the how this has proceeded and what our record says is that the landmarks commission provided specific feedback and I'll let Heather pipe in a little bit about how they should reduce the size of the house the at and they reduced it by let's just say like the 5% on this in the specific area that they were supposed to reduce it that that the landmarks commission asked them to reduce it and so um they then went to landmarks commission with a new proposal and they they use the secretive the they use the standards they talked about nine and there was a finding that the certificate appropriate would now be granted because of this specific change like that was in the record they said you've come before us with the change we asked you to make you made that change we believe that we can we should Now Grant the certific of appropriateness so my concern from a legal risk perspective of property rights is to then send it back to landmarks commission with not specific metrics for how the project could be changed I worry that that is going to not have a justification that we are not as a city continuing to put unreasonable and um arbitrary um another kind of stop Gap to the project that they are going to move forward in so I don't I mean this is the great I don't know what's going to happen but there was a fair amount of spec specificity on how they should move forward so then if there's not um a specificity on what should happen next and it becomes more opaque um then I'm going to advise you that I start to get worried about the private property rights of the owners of the lot if I could follow up on that the discuss at landmark's commission was when they said it's too big and I said well you need to provide too big how and they did talk about maybe we should talk about a percentage and I said let's not talk about percentage because that can that doesn't provide detail guidance in terms of the design um if we went a square footage route um John furo has already said if they make their uh basement into unfinished basement then that cuts in half their square footage they then meet uh the if you're going with a square footage requirement so Lam Mer's commission said it's too long on the North side it needs to be stepped back away from the side and they provideed guidance for how to reduce the length of that building so they gave design guidance not just a um arbitrary percentage or a square footage that can um be played with in ways that doesn't ultimately change the overall mass and scale of the building thank you heather you're welcome Bailey um so you know when I think about when I look at the standards you know I'm not on the landmarks commission I did didn't go to the last meeting but I do have a question about that but when I look at standard one which requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment I I don't believe that standard is met given the size of the second iteration so as a council member you know I know what landmarks directed I know what the applicant did based on what you've just said and what you know I've read but if we still don't think it meets that standard one and standard nine then what when we want to refer it back then what do we tell landmarks to do about it that would be reasonable and you know have some outcome that might be something that is you know not just FR total frustration aler would you like me to respond either one of you or both I would say but the discussion at Lamor commission is about what is the defining characteristic so it's not just that the site needs to remain unchanged it's that the defining characteristics of the site so lammer commission's discussion was about well what is the defining characteristic um this property went through a really dramatic change in the 1920s uh where it really shifted from and that was part of the staff presentation at the time where shifted from its rural Stage Coach feel to the changes like the chip Andale porch That's now facing out at Nakoma the uh Stone uh fence that was designed and partly laid by Frank Lloyd W out front where this became a Suburban property fitting into this developing neighborhood so the character defining features of the site was part of that was that the context of this house became that it was part of a developing neighborhood so lammer commission was looking at the construction of this new house within the landmark site its both relation and its sensitivity to the historic resource but also the neighborhood context in which this historic resource has been in again for about a century well I guess for me I focus on the minimal change and not the defining characteristics but I'll let that go I have one more question for the attorney um I recently watched the November 6th land Mark's meeting that um I that aler figuro Cole sent out a link to the meeting and I she had it start at the end of public testimony so I didn't really watch that right away but I watch the rest of it the presentation by staff um the questions and the vote and I honestly and I'm trying to say this respectfully have never seen a a more irregular vote taken at a committee meeting in since 2007 honestly the vote started um then the chair asked the speak the M maker of the motion to explain more but meanwhile someone else had voted but that person also asked it questions and I I'm sorry if if this were to go forward and and the applicant or the neighbors appeal to Circuit Court which is another lawsuit that could happen I'm really convinced that that record that would from that meeting was would be really um unpersuasive and problematic do you have any um did you view the site or other alers did you watch that meeting and I wonder if if if even if you think that it's probably a good thing to let them build a house wouldn't you want to get some better kind of um process and onto the public record than what happened at that November six meeting who who is the question for that's for attorney the attorney go ahead okay um I'm not sure I can respond to everything because it's not my decision to make whether or not I think the house should be built um I want to also remind you that that's not whether or not a house should be built is not an issue they it's always been zoned single family they but what the um you know IDE deal with the record as I have it and so um I I watched the meeting the vote was take I mean there's not the um I I don't think that there was a question about whether or not an action was made at the meeting so um I I mean I'm not sure if you're looking to refer it back for them to make the vote again um but the um whether or not this goes back to landmarks or doesn't go back to landmarks um like that record exists as it as part of the as part of it it doesn't get um eliminated because it goes back this just kind of continues the timeline of what M what how how it just this is this it just adds chapters to the story right like it doesn't take away the beginning chapters so I'm sorry I'm a little like hard of hearing so I want to make sure I heard what you said you're saying that you that's just part of the entire record and maybe it's sloppy but that's not everything and you're kind of not too worried about it is that a fair hearing what you said if not please restate it a little louder thanks sure so what I'm saying is that that exists and I don't think at this point I am any more um that let me think it doesn't matter really if I'm worried about the record um at this point because it exists and they have and their deliberations um are going to be part of it regardless of what h of what happens next so either you have a time you have a story where there was a vote here to return it to landmarks and it's a bit of like it's I mean it's a Choose Your Own Adventure story right like it goes in this direction and I like and maybe the delay in in in allowing them to build results in some in in in a in a damages suit to the city or maybe the um maybe it doesn't go back to landmarks and just goes to Circuit Court on this record and I I write about that like there it just it there isn't um I I don't think it's really my position here to tell you that I'm worried about one record or the other because the I that doesn't eliminate the landmarks commission like it was a they made the vote that they made it there was a final action on it I watched it I don't think that there's a I'm not concerned that there wasn't an actual vote that was taken at the landmarks commission meeting and one more question and I'll give up the floor so if you were making if you're the landmarks commission looking only at standard nine and I do recall like the architect on the commission saying yeah you Chang the setback and changed from the gabled root to the hip root that's what we asked for and more but it doesn't that's just to me in my interpretation is the setback is not really itemized in the list of item nine which is massing size scale and architecture features so in my view the the architect definitely address the architectural features and acknowledge that you know the the applicant was responsive but should in an Ideal World should they have gone through each of these elements to say you know this matters this doesn't matter they did this whatever because that didn't happen and I I wonder about that so aler I I think that that's a another way of asking the question which was already answered with which is did the landmarks commission actually consider all 10 of the standards but Heather you do you want to address the specific like whether they need to address the subp parts of each standard uh sure so there was a more involved discussion of standard n at the August meeting and they talked about the architecture and the materials um and how it uh would both read as a property of its time but also that it was using a similar architectural vocabulary um to the surrounding setting so they didn't go back and reiterate that discussion at the November meeting that's true they didn't thank you Heather thank you mayor thank you Alder aler slack questions um yes I think this is could be for either Dr Bailey or um attorney Smith so is there supposed to be consideration of neighborhood properties or not or within 200 ft at all just can can you answer that question first in in this particular case so yes um in terms of the within 200 feet that is a that's language that comes from our historic district standard so there's nothing that specific for designated landmarks um the Secretary of the Interior standards um are written in a way where they can guide a wide variety of projects and a wide variety of sites so the lam Mer's commission was looking at particularly there with standard one for character ring features of uh the site and the setting Integrity of setting is a big deal for properties with historic designation and the discussion was about what is the setting for this property and uh while it was originally a rural Stage Coach it hasn't read um that's the language we use meaning it doesn't look like uh a rural Stage Coach stop um anymore and it hasn't looked like that since the 1920s so I'm not talking about the the state's coach house though I'm talking about other neighboring properties are they supposed to be considered or not so in this particular instance they did take that into consideration Lam's commission both had to look at how the new construction related to the historic resource the stage coach um but also the setting of the historic resource and the setting of the resource was this Noma neighborhood and the surrounding houses so they did take that into uh consideration as part of review of this particular project does that answer your question Alder well I I heard earlier something about decisions were based on on making reference to there's a lot of big houses in this neighborhood is that is that the kind of statement that's supposed to be influencing the decision um so the uh comment and question one of the Commissioners said that um and you can go back and see this as part of the November meeting that he thought the um uh public testimony had been misleading about the size of the buildings um in the neighborhood that he had driven through the neighborhood and that there were a lot of big houses in the neighborhood well I'm trying to find out if if that should be a consideration or not like is that grounds for a lawsuit if that was built into the decision making of the landmark commission but it wasn't supposed to be ah in this instance it was supposed to be the landmarks commission was talking about what are the character defining features for the setting of The Historic resource and the setting is that it's in a Suburban neighborhood so it could be that there's big houses anywhere in a Suburban neighborhood like there there has some parameters around that it is and they talked about the surrounding houses so just surrounding houses so it is within 200 feet they did not do anything specific like 200 feet they looked at the context of the houses surrounding uh the historic site I'm just I'm just I'm sorry I'm just having trouble understanding is there any um requirement or um exclusion from considering houses a certain amount of distance away in size the standard is not that specific okay thank you you're welcome thank you Alder Alder Bennett questions yeah I have a couple of questions for sorry Heather and then a couple questions for Kate um I know that I just wanted um I know that we had a lot of people that have a lot of experience in this community but I really wanted to touch on our own um historic preservation this experience so Heather would you mind walking us through your credentials um and experience sure um so I've been working in this field for about 20 years at this point I have a master's degree in history with a subsp specialization in public history my phds in public history with an emphasis in historic preservation and Heritage tourism I have worked in preservation planning since then um both at a state level for um the Colorado State historic preservation office um and at local level doing local government work um most recently I worked at the uh city of Durango before I came here um I give uh presentations and trainings both at the local state and National level about historic preservation and including the Secretary of the Interior standards um I most recently a couple months ago gave a presentation with the National Alliance of preservation commissions about how we do historic preservation in Madison um in terms of understanding the secretary the interior standards and um how to use that I do have a certification uh for completion of the essentials of section 106 as provided by the federal advisory Council for historic preservation does that cover what you were looking for period queen go you thank you that's amazing um it's great to hear you are so wow well hooked um and then like would you mind walking us through the landmarks commission expertise and credentials for doing this work sure so this is this is a design review board um and so there's specific requirements about the membership for landmarks commission um well so there's there's an alder um there's also three members at large one of those members at large needs to have some type of experience in the construction trades that's almost always a developer uh currently we have an affordable housing developer we also require a historian an architect um oh and a realtor um so with that everybody all of those very specific uh requirements for occupation and expertise all of these people are then supposed to have uh experience in historic preservation as well um so for instance uh knowing our chair uh she got her Masters in historic preservation from Cornell she is the historian for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation she does compliance work as related to the Secretary of interior standards as part of her daily work um all of these people have uh expertise and guidance for how they go about uh doing this work yes that's amazing thank you so much for sharing that Heather you're welcome Alder yeah um so sitting on that um would you mind putting me in the room so to speak because I know all of our meetings are virtual still um of this meeting uh did they hear did the you and the L Mars commission hear the testimony that we heard today or is there like new information you heard and how do you think like that was then interpreted to uh the decision that they made um so I can answer part of your question uh did they hear the testimony that uh we heard tonight yes um those parties have um spoken at uh of the times that Lambert's commission has uh considered work related to this property in the last two years at this point um in terms of how did they uh take that or how did they use that uh at this point this would be um my read on what was going on in their heads um they did respond to uh some of the statements and asked questions of the parties um that provided public testimony thank you um and then I'm gonna shift to a couple questions for Kate um Miss Kate Tai uh I would like to understand I know an alder mentioned that there could be also like a legal appeal by neighbors is that something that you're concerned about and are there is there language that we should use to uh sort of think about if that's a possibility um you know it's a hard question asking an attorney if they're worried about something at four of a public hearing I don't know I'm worried about everything what are you talking about um look I think that based on um how involved all parties have been the owners the neighbors historic trust um you know on the one hand it's really great to have this much public engagement and on the other hand that that can often mean it continues to be appealed to um circuit court because there's a lot of involvement so um I don't think that I am any more worried about this than any other decision you make at any given moment of any day um no I I don't think I I think that though um the advantage here is that we are having a very robust um and engaged conversation which provides them the record that I can like work on if it goes to sers Shar review so um I will say I think I think it's really good that you are all asking the type of questions that you're asking and talking it and then we'll move to the discussion because it just provides more of a basis but I mean you pay me the big bucks to worry about you I don't know stop getting us sued folks and then I'll stop worrying no we want to continue paying you money um and I just have a couple more questions um I just wanted to understand should we um support the appeal what precedent does that set for other properties uh of of this type or other decisions that the landmarks commission might need to make um Heather might talk a little bit more about how much they rely on past decisions when they're when they're making future decisions um but it's not um that uh I think that that's really more of a policy decision a kind of a policy analysis um okay not really legal analysis because you're not creating like binding precedent from a legal perspective oh maybe I should shift that over to Heather then Larks commission does uh frequently ask about precedent as related to projects for um how did we go about this previously um in terms of the precedent for this particular project um I suppose it depends on uh the motion that you make and the findings and guidance that you include in your motion um but the lam Mer's commission will certainly take that into consideration for how they go about uh making future decisions most certainly thank you um and then my last question which oh it's like escaping me oh uh I know that you had mentioned that the L marks had tried to review like oh can we reduce the size and can you just explain to me like is there even like a good way that we can like request the owners to reduce the size it seems like there isn't a way we can do that without potentially putting out some In Harm's Way of legal recourse I I suppose I will jump in since um in terms of I I would give you the same guidance that I gave to the landmarks commission this is a uh if you want to reduce the size um you need to do so in a specific design way and um that's why with the Lamar commission it's very helpful that we have an architect on the commission um if it is too big too big how um if we need to make it less wide how less wide if we need to make it less tall how less tall um I would encourage you to be very specific in the ways in which you want it scaled back as opposed to um percentages or square feet again because all of those can be squished in ways that can have unfortunate impacts on uh the design and then it doesn't end up meeting the intent of what it is you are trying to achieve um if there is an end that you have envisioned please provide specifics for how you want to reach that end amazing thank you so much thank you Alder Alder ler bur questions Alder ladimer burus if not Alder tishler questions I begin to worry about Quorum Alder miad questions I'm not quite questions uh just waiting uh for the time to make a motion so we're not anywhere close to that yet Alder aler ladimir burus are you back with us yeah I was with you I just am having to work you know it it doesn't you don't always touch the buttons and they work all my questions are for the attorney so could you come to me last please may Alder tishler questions you're muted Al there sorry about that I have a teenage daughter who's asking me if she can drive her car tomorrow morning uh so um yeah my question I do have a question for uh for Kate uh if if I may go ahead Alder um okay you talked about uh property rights um I guess I wanted to ask about what are the property rights um for the the other owner of this Historic Landmark site I mean you know uh how do we take that into consideration since she brought up the topic of of property rights sure so when we think um generally speaking you don't have a right to like not have a house next to you if it's um you know a residentially zoned thing so while um her her lot the lot that she actually owns has to follow all of the sections of chapter 41 she does not they do not have the property right to like open their door and not see a house next to them if it's a another person's property so that's not um you know I don't know how much more specific you want me to go I'm just trying to think about what um they were talking about during the the testimony that you heard um and trying to ground it in that um so I I would say that the um you know you for example like you don't have the right to a certain view right like those things are not like they don't have a right to have a vacant lot next to them that's owned by someone else to not to remain vacant and Pur Pursuit I mean part of this is like you're living in a in a relatively dense Suburban neighborhood so the the home next to you is going to be next to you as long as it's complying with you know setback requirements that type of thing and in this case there's also the requirement of the COA right I mean and what I was alluding to earlier you know and I maybe I didn't express myself well enough um but you know what what's unique about this is that we have one historic site that had been own by owned by one person one parcel two lots and only recently now it's been been sold and sold and so now we have two owners and I guess I guess if maybe you could speak to um I mean do the since we have one Historic Landmark site that has two owners I mean you know they need they need to work together is there any requirement they need to work together I mean there there is no there's no requirement but one person does one to one site one one lot and it affects the other one so you're saying it's just completely completely seate no you know because I mean if if somebody owned a tree and it's hanging over someone else's lot you can't just go and cut it cut it down if it damages that tree I mean so there are there are times when there's you know you know even though something on the other side it it does have an effect I can we also there are you know situations where someone builds and they block um you know I mean I guess I don't know if Sun rights or something you know uh so I I just wanted to kind of stress that we we have another property owner you know and I just want to make sure that we are taking taking that person that owner into consideration as well and I guess does you know has the record you know does has a record that that has been presented um I mean let me just ask this question bear with me uh mayor uh because you you're asking us to create a create a record um and and to provide you know clear justification you know for for how we're uh how we're you know going to be be voting um but I guess you know and and uh Alder ruml points out I mean with you know with with the kind of irregular process I guess is is a a question Alder yes with the UN with the irregular process I mean how you know do we have a higher standard for the for the council now than what the what the landmark commission had to make to make their decision I mean we're being asked to create a create a have a clear record I mean and I guess my question is is all of what we're doing right now talking this is this is a clear record as clear as a record can be at 10 o'clock at night um I mean the the all of this is the record um I would say that um so in your example of if a tree falls on someone else's property that would then be a private property like issue between those two parties it is not the role of the government necessarily to go in and say hey neighbor you should sue your other neighbor because their tree fell on their house right so so there is yes there is this other there is this other private property and if they could I mean they could have bought the vacant lot next to them right like we couldn't they were were always they were sold as two separate things and so the role and the sphere by which you need to base your decisions on are the standards in 41.18% both Lots together that didn't happen and so as a result you have to play Within the context of the other property is owned by somebody else and while it was originally owned by one person that doesn't have to remain the case forever I don't knowy Smith let me let me say a few statements and please correct me if I'm wrong because just because I think it is after 10 and Clarity is important the property rights of the owner of the tavern are not a concern here okay and the record that the council will be creating H is certainly while the entire meeting is part of the record the important thing is the motion and the justification for the motion so the questions are important Alder but right the the record is the motion and the justification for the motion and then the vote so that's what's of concern here Al Tish did you have additional questions um I I did I'll just I'll just come back I'll give I'll give uh Alder buris and a chance to speak Alder burus do you have questions yes thank you these are all for the attorney um and I appreciate um all that's been said and I really do appreciate Dr Bailey I think in my statement I'll make that clear um so I'll just go backwards just a second please um is the Planning Commission under the same standards as the landmark Commission in regards to building the lot and uh the ability to do things I don't know what you mean the plan commission wasn't part of this um this nothing went before the plan commission right so what I'm trying to get at is um with the land in the lot um you know I'm trying to get at the right to build because everybody keeps talking about the right to bill so I'm wondering if the right to Bill build is different from under Landmark commission is different from the Planning Commission which the Planning Commission correct me if I'm wrong if you know I want to go ahead and split my lot into two lots as long as I meet the basic conditions and it's it's an administrative action so I'm trying to ask you that question does that clarify it don't think so but maybe I'll try to see if this is the answer so the the lot has always had a permitted use of to be a single family home so permitted uses typically aren't reviewed by anyone unless someone is asking for a variance um or unless there's this additional imposition of here a COA so for example if you had a single family home and you were trying to build a porch in the setback even though you have a permitted use that would be reviewed by the zba so the underlying zoning board of appeals yes thank you mayor um the zoning board of appeals so the permitted use is universal um but that's not the same as like a conditional use that would have standards that would be reved by the plan commission that's a conditional use not a permitted use okay so um yes so you answered the question that we have to pay attention to the COA um so I was wondering if we can we send this issue back to Landmark commission without comment yeah so if you read the um section of the ordinance that talks about appe heals it says it doesn't um I can pull it up again but um if you look at it it's that um so the common Council May I'll just flip it for your understanding first if it finds the commissions decision is contrary to the applicable standards then it can send um in your case refer the matter back to the commission with or without instructions so yes you can do that [Music] um I based on the um history of this project it's um my recommendation to you that you provide instructions because it did already go before but it is not a requirement of the ordinance by the Plain reading of the ordinance okay thank you so much um so do you think that um we have created a record Beyond creating a record in other words if I speak three sentences a record is created that doesn't mean it's a full record that the court can make a decision on other than to send it back are you following me on that question am I making that clear so the question is do you think we created a record Beyond just making a record by virtue of these conversations well it's not complete yet it's it hasn't really happened because there hasn't been a motion with with um with with with um findings or or or specificity in it okay and then I want to ask a question and again I completely respect and appreciate Dr Bailey um so I want to ask this question is do you think based on what we've discussed tonight we are equipped to deal with Dr Bailey's suggestion that we deliberate the size and mass and give specifics on uh what should be done I think that is not a question that I really can answer for you okay thank you so much um do my next question is upon your review do you think that there is substantial evidence that supports the different findings one through nine and um I I worry that if I answer that in the affirmative or the negative that that would be maybe putting the finger on your decision a little bit more than is appropriate for me as a City attorney okay perfect and then just in general when we are deliberating and uh including covering deliberations at Landmark commission um do are we allowed to uh consider information that is irrelevant or outside of the you know are we yeah I'll leave it at that irrelevant uh um no you're supposed to not consider of information that's irrelevant um but we can't control what everybody says so um but that but when you're talking about making um a vote I oh you know we've all encouraged you to kind of look at the look at the standards that are in front of you as guidance for why you would make a vote in any in any direction so just to follow up on that and you may not be able to answer this but can we uh you know consider and base our decision uh based on on what the furlos paid for the property and the unfortunate circumstance that this has been really long in hard for them I imagine for the whole neighborhood can we consider things like how much they paid for the property and how long this has gone on and if you can't answer it just say you can't answer it that's fine I don't think I can answer that without maybe Heather could talk more about the standards I don't have them I don't know them as well as she does it doesn't sound like it that is not one of the standards of approval for a certificate of appropriateness okay um then um yeah I'm just going back to ATT uh attorney Smith please um what if our justifications now I'm going over to Landmark Commission because I was a member I am a member of it um but what is our what if our justifications or findings for both of the meetings the one in August and the one most recently were not actually considered on the record so I'm looking at the standards 1 through 10 and what if justifi the justification of our findings for both the meeting in August and then the one that was WR most recently happened were not considered or they're not on the record anywhere anywhere how does that affect things and that's for the attorney and if you can't answer that I I totally understand um so I think um often times it would depend on the spec I don't remember where the specific wording of landmarks that if they talked about the staff report um which as Heather said included more analysis of all of the standards um and it um and as Heather talked about the standards um were discussed at more length at the in the August meeting and then they narrowed in on number nine um for the the follow-up meeting um so it I think that given that trajectory um it's fine that there was Less Conversation at the second meeting because it was rely it was building upon the conversation that was our that that took place in the earlier meeting okay thank you so much um just a couple more questions um in your legal opinion and if you can't you could just say you can't what if when you reviewed it or just in a review that we as a landmark commission um did not tackle um the Secretary of interior uh interior standards for the treatment of historic Pro uh properties with specificity specificity and then I ask a follow-up question how would you know if we did did uh you know think about it with specificity so I can break it go into two questions if that's easier and if you can't answer it please let me know um I'm not sure I completely understand there's not like a metric for what's specific and what's not specific um so I think I'm gonna say I I don't know the answer to that okay so let me ask you a different way when you reviewed the record and you know what the standards are and you know each of them you know generally has to be met what is this is it a problem that there's not specificity on each one not a pro I'm not asking you in this case right now I'm just saying what if you review the record and you know it's supposed to say these are the standards and they're not pointed to the reason that we're doing something and the evidence that's in the record that supports that decision what happens then and if you can't answer it Alder I think these questions have been asked and answered I want to ask them mayor if you don't mind Madam mayor with just Clarity uh I understand you're seeking Clarity all but this you you've now phrased the question three different ways and the attorney has declined to answer it um Dr Bailey did answer it uh to other alers questions and I just would remind you and everyone here that we collectively have agreed to limit the the num the amount of time that we take up and the question period so that we can actually get to a motion and to discussion and there are additional alers in the queue still waiting to ask questions okay so I just have one maybe two more questions um what motion could we make to send it back and if you feel like we've gotten enough information uh please just say that respecting what the mayor is saying what motion could we make to send it back what would your be your recommendation I can't make a recommendation for what your motion should say but you should follow what is in 41.18% um when we get into discussion everybody will have a chance to do so thank you uh Alder Martinez Rutherford are you declining to ask a question um I'll ask it real quickly um and this is for attorney Smith um we know that the current owner has the right to build a house we've asked them to do things multiple times and they've accomm ated the requests from landmarks and I'm just curious is there a specific threshold or guideline to to what would be considered unreasonable no great thank you thank you alter H and I just want to say thank you uh to Dr Bailey and to attorney Smith um for their presentations and answering so many questions um and just want to remind the council um of a couple of things as we move into motions and discussion um you have before you three options tonight in terms of actions to take you can reject the appeal you can uphold the appeal or you re can return the item to the landmarks commission um in each case you need to um State essentially two things um and the first is uh whether you believe the landmark decision was or was not contrary to the standards and the more specific you can be about uh particularly if you believe that the landmark's decision was contrary to the standards the more specific you can be about which standards you believe that was contrary to is very important um and uh if you choose to move for referral while you're not required to refer with instructions um given that landmarks has considered this item twice already um and voted on it it would be I think very useful to them and to Future deliberations to refer with instructions again as specific as possible um so just would like everybody to keep that in mind and it's probably helpful to have the if you are planning to make a motion it's probably helpful to have the ordinance standards in front of you um in order to be guided by them um and then as we move into discussion I would just also ask that we stay uh very close to discussing those first of all those options and those standards as the basis of our discussion um and not bring other things uh into the conversation that are not legally uh part of the basis of your decision-making process so with that said uh president Curry a motion please move to reject the appeal based on not finding conditions that violate MGO 41 .8 is there a second second moved and seconded to reject the appeal discussion Alder KNX um that wouldn't be my motion so I have no discussion on that thank you Alder Alder Romo you're muted I'm going to send out a motion to refer if you just give me a second okay Alder there discussion in the meantime and here it comes oh and I'll send it to the mayor and the what the clerk yes please and then I'll ask you to read it for the record as well thank you I'm sorry um so I move that I move referral um hopefully it's showed up in your inbox and the the landmarks commission decision and support of the COA for 371 Council Crest is contrary to the applicable standards under Section 4118 the Secretary of the Interior standards 1 and nine were not met and the council refers application back to the landmarks commission to reove the projects using standard s SOI standards 1 and n and to use this SOI Rehabilitation guidelines to Aid in the interpretation of the secetary standards in addition the landmarks commission should review how the proposed new construction could become more compatible in scale size and massing with the historic Tavern and Sur surrounding properties and then I give motivations which I could read but I'll stop thank you Al is there a second a second I think Alder Herington mcken beat you to it okay um so uh there's a motion on and a second the motion before us now is referral back to the landmarks commission um you should have uh the motion and the justifications uh in your inboxes Alder RL do you wish to speak to the motion thank you mayor um so whether you think that this should move forward because you're satisfied with the debate or if you don't think it meets the standards either way I think we should refer it back to Lark's commission as I stated in my questioning to the City attorney that November 6 meeting was one of the sloppier meetings I've I've witnessed as an aler about the vote the vote for um and so and to protect the city I think we should send it back to if nothing else to complete the record or to have but that ask them to look at addition the standards one and nine and and okay let me go back to my notes and standard one is the one that talks about the minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment and I would say suggests that the new construction is not a minimal change to the site it's significantly larger in the square foot and massing than the historic Tavern and if we accept the staff report allowing the definition of environment to include the surrounding neighborhood not just the historic property then through the public testimony we've have been you know told about that the proposed new construction is significantly larger than the surrounding neighborhood for standard number nine the landmarks discussed the architectural features and setback but did not review all the elements of standard nine in this for the new iteration for in November so they did not say whether the new iteration the massing size and scale and Architectural features whether it protected the historic property I the relationship of the new construction to the historic resource and and the surrounding neighborhood thank you um I will try not to speak more on this oh so maybe I should just do it now um so first of I want to say this is a really unusual situation you know the president is like this probably will never happen again hopefully not would because it's a two lot Landmark I don't know that we've ever had a landmark that is now divided and two people own pieces of it so that's of itself very unique um and again I I really think that the record for the second meeting was is incomplete and if we want to have a complete record to justify either the landmarks decision as they made it or as they po might potentially change it that we have a more um a less sloppy process to do that thank you thank you Alder Alder Knox discussion on the motion to refer yes yes first of all I want to thank um a RL for her U motion you know I totally agree with the sentiment of it um I guess what I would say is even though it appears that the owners complied with the uh Landmark commission's recommendation I really think it's appropriate for the commission to re-evaluate particularly the issue of size mass and scale I'm not an architect I'm not a uh uh a landmark preservationist or anything like that but it just seems to me that um from what was presented here tonight the fact that this property is on a hill it tends to dwarf that Historic Site and so I think really and I don't know if that's item nine or one but I think they need to re-evaluate that um and all of the Commissioners need to weigh in and vote on this issue so I'm very happy to I'm GNA vote and support of this uh this motion thank you Alder Al ler burus discussion on the motion to refer um actually I wanted to U make a motion a friendly Amendment um I wanted to um just a second here I wanted to um add that we charge the commission with re-evaluating also 2359 and 10 reevaluation in the whole context and then I'm going so if I could do that and then I could I'm just going to speak once on it so so I'm sorry aler your motion is to I just want to the basis of referral uh a request to the landmarks commission to re-evaluate the project under standards 2 three 5 and 10 um so let me be real clear reevaluate considering also considering 2359 and 10 so Alder rl's motion already includes nine Alder okay oops I missed that you're right thank you Mary found that 2 three5 and 10 is there a second for Alder ladimer bur's motion I'll second to this one all right so what's before us now is an amendment to Alder rummel's motion to add additional requests for landmarks to re-evaluate standards Alder L bur do you wish to speak to the amendment yes I do mayor go ahead okay so I just wanted to say to my colleagues that this is not about Dr Bailey um what it is is about the process what I see it as I see it about the process um the value of our ordinance how we get to asking the right questions and making the right decision and our training so as you guys know I was elected to Council in 2023 and ail and I was assigned the landmarks commission I did not want to be on it I didn't feel like you know it was my expertise I knew these people were very detailed and everybody around them were going to be detailed uh the they have to consider you know property details historic elements they have to know about architecture so I guess sometimes a God puts you where you need to be even if it's a challenge because after the first meeting uh with with um at Landmark where I asked a ton of questions even more than I asked on this floor um and said I you know on the record I didn't understand the stand standards of vocabulary vocabulary how one makes a decision how one makes sure that nothing is left out as we are dealing with history and um what should I be asking uh you know uh what were the historic reservation code um which how does that re relate to the Secretary of interior standards and you know I could go on but why um so Dr Bailey Heather Heather um met with me and she's actually the one who trained me she spent months with me really first it was every week and then we went to bi-weekly and then to monthly and and Dr Bailey you know can can correct me if I'm wrong with my statement there but we met a lot we just didn't it wasn't like I just went through one time um so in our meetings you know we went on her history which is incredible how she thinks you know how does she get to the understanding what are the standards uh in fact uh then what is our job what what is our job and she said you know um our job is to check over and check check over her work and the issues and the standards to make sure that we are in Partnership as peers that we don't miss anything that we raise the right question that if anything appears off that um you know we help the staff we help the city we help the neighborhoods we help the the historic uh uh uh trucks make the right decision so it's a very weighty uh position to have so uh she has a depth of knowledge and so do a lot of other people in her Department which is very small by the way I got to know that there's not too many people uh it's small uh and I realize that no one is at fault or perfect or knows everything no matter how long you're in this field so the the bottom line is as we are meeting and we're getting to you know really know one another and I'm getting to know her expertise you know I realized myself that you know this staff does not have enough time resources you know the process to do the Deep dive that comes with considering all that we are consider considering as we are pushing forward for housing in a growing city but they do the very best that they can do now that said I want you to know after months of us getting together she is also the one that told me Point Blank amanii you are free to disagree I don't take it personally she said she didn't take it personally and she knows that there will not be 100% agreement she has to make a decision at the minute that she makes the decision and we the commission The Landmark commission are responsible for making a record for poting to specific things that are not in compliance and do a record in the level of this is not in compliance this is why we think so and with evidence so that was not done I also want to let you know that as part of my training we did not he Heather and I did not discuss Old Tavern I I read her staff report and and one of the questions that I had is you know I'm still not sure she showed me the Google um the Google Map and I just I felt like what else should I do so per her suggestion I went to visit the site and I came away after visiting two and a half hours I spent on that site walking around talking to the neighborhood talking to the owners going down the hill trying to put the context of history as we as we are going to make a decision that is irreversable and I came away with a sense that there is no way no way the standards have been met there is no way that we have made an appropriate record there is no way that we have pointed to evidence in in the record that supports things so and we considered stuff that is IR relevant because we started to conflate our job with our emotions so that's all I have to say and I I hope that this Council sends it back and requires the lmar commission to set a tight record because it is a hot mess and the more I asked questions about it including to the um Alder of the district it's even more egregious thank you thank you Elder what's before us is theer buris amendment to add standards for consideration to the referral Is there further discussion seeing no further discussion on the amendment to add additional standards to the referral all those in favor I those opposed no as your name is called called and the clerk will please call the role uh I'm beging the indigence from the uh from the body my computer kicked out and I had to switch computers here uh which standards are being added to the uh the amendment yeah the amendment uh is to ask landmarks commission to reevaluate standards 2 three five and 10 great thank you very much alrighty and on that let's start with uh Alder r no Alder r no Alder viver I'm sorry hold on a minute clerk uh Alder rumel and miad did you have additional discussion or you have a question about the motion I think on number nine Alder miad we're not on the main motion to refer we're on the motion to add standards okay all right all right thank youor so one more time the motion before us is the ladimir burus amendment to Alder rimmel's motion to ask the landmarks commission to in addition to standards 1 and N consider standards 2 3 5 and 10 is everyone clear all right all those in favor I those opposed no as your name is called and the clerk will please call the role okay just for clarity sake Al could I have you again no Al no Al v no Al v no will Helia come back to me please very well Alder Bennett no Alder Bennett no Alder Conlin no Alder Conlin no Alder Curry no Alder Curry no Alder Duncan no Alder Duncan no Alder Evers no Alder Evers no Alder field no field no Alder F Cole no Co no Al vajan no Al vajan no Al to mckenny no Alder to mckenny no Alder Knox I Alder Knox I Alder l burus i al burus I Alder Madison no Alder Madison no Alder Martinez bford no Alder Martinez bford no Alder me no alad no Alder rumel I Alder rumel I Alder slack i al just s i Alder tishler um I tisler I Alder Helia i a h i I count six eyes 14 nose with six eyes the amendment fails and so we're back to the main motion made by Alder rumel which is refer uh to refer back to landmarks commission uh to consider um a standards one and nine and I'm not going to go into all of the language but again you should have it in front of you in your email so the motion before us is to refer is there additional discussion seeing no additional discussion on the motion to refer all those in favor I those opposed no as your name is called and the clerk will please call the role thank you aler r i aler r i al no Al no Al h i h I Alder Bennett no Alder Bennett no Alder Conlin no Alder Conlin no Alder Curry no Alder Curry no Alder Duncan no Al Duncan no Alder ever no Al Evers no Alder field no Alder field no Alder F Cole no Al fig Cole no Alder gajan no Al go Rajan no Alder Herington mckenny I Alder Herington mckenny I Alder Knox I Alder Knox I Alder burus I buris I Alder Madison no Alder Madison no Alder Martinez ruford no Al Martinez rord no Alder miyi yes Alder Mii I Alder RL I Alder RL I Alder slack I just SL I Alder tishler um yes Al tishler nine eyes 11 nose with nine eyes the motion to refer fails um and that I believe will return us to the motion made by President Curry which is to reject the appeal uh Is there further discussion seeing no further discussion on the motion to reject the appeal all those in favor I those opposed no as your name is called and the clerk will please call the RO thank you Alder r no Alder r no Alder vver hi Alder viver I Alder Helia no Al helan no Alder Bennett yes Alder Bennett I Alder Conlin I Alder Conlin I Alder Curry I Alder Curry I Alder Duncan I Alder Duncan I Alder Evers I Alder Evers I Alder field I Alder field i al fig call i al fig call I Alan I Al gajan I Alder Herington mckenny um could you come back to me please I have a question Alder kn no Alder KNX no Alder burus no alad burus no Alder Madison I Alder Madison I Alder Martinez Rutherford I Alder Martinez Rutherford I Alder MI like to come back to you oh no I'm sorry a no Alo rumel no Al RL no a slack no Al select no Alo tishler uh no Alo tishler no Alder hton mckenny no Al to mckenny no I see 11 eyes nine no with 11 eyes the motion to reject the appeal passes uh so the appeal is rejected Alder hering to mckenny Madame mayor I think I got my answer with the votes thank you Al there all right so that will take us on to item 45 item 45 is legistar 81395 I'm sorry Alder hangy is your hand still up or up again thank you uh so item 45 is legistar 81395 amending sections of the Madison General ordinances related to nominations to the police civilian oversight board to modify the process for Community organizations to nominate members of the pcob uh on item 45 president Curry a motion please move to adopt is there a second second moved and seconded to adopt H Alder thank you Madame Madam Madame mayor I would like to request to adopt the the amendment and it's the only language instead of uh MERS instead of three members uh for organization to submit for recommendation it's uh two uh members second so the amendment from Al the way hilly is to change the number three to the number two are there questions about the substance of the amendment seeing none uh Alder Madison uh yes I'm just curious from three to two only because sometimes there's such a challenge to get community members on similar kinds of bodies so I'm just curious as for the reason from three to two so it the I don't want to speak for the aler but this would actually make it easier because Community organizations only have to submit two names as opposed to three names oh gotcha oh thank you for the clarifying because I am tired no that's part of my job uh seeing no further questions about the amendment is there any objection to incorporating the amendment into the main motion seeing no objection that's what's before us is there questions or discussion seeing no questions or discussion Alder knocks want to say as someone that's familiar with this process having served on the inaugural um PC um there is even a problem with getting one person recommended from these agencies so where I think this makes it easier um you know just letting you know that there are a lot of agencies who you know were having trouble even coming up with two so just a comment thank you Al KN vice president figure call you're muted aler not sure if attorney has still on the room but to that point the other change that they were requesting is in case that there's no the nonprofit organizations cannot submit two people to two three people then they are able to collect from a to select people from a separate pool from a general pool of of applicants so point taken but that's like the Safeguard they're adding to the whole ordinance thank you thank you Alder Alder Knox for the second time yeah I just want to comment if I just feel if an organization has someone from their organization that they want to recommend why not take that recommendation it is their organization it is the person that they are are you know requesting to represent their organization so why would it go to a general pool when you can take the whole intent is to take that organization's recommendation um that makes no sense to me that's my commenter attorney house do you want to just clarify the changes that are before us please yeah thank you mayor uh just quickly that last point about uh applicants being taken from the larger pool that is not changing from the current ordinance the amendment would just allow that to be done um only if the organization has not submitted two names rather than three names the other part of this ordinance amendment was actually requested by the civilian oversight board and that is to allow organizations to renominate the current incumbent whose term is expiring rather than submitting multiple names there are some of the original members of this of the CB have terms that are expiring they would like to continue the organiz the sponsoring or organization would like them to continue so rather than finding additional names to submit that probably would not be appointed the civilian oversight board is requesting that those incumbent members be allowed to be renominated by their sponsoring organization thank you attorney has uh Al figure call did you have additional no discussion no but thanks for clarifying um the change I appreciate it thank you Al all right I have no other alers in the queue uh wishing to speak what's before us uh is item 45 uh as amended by Alder is there any further discussion seeing none is there any objection to recording a unanimous vote in favor seeing no objection we'll record a unanimous vote in favor of item 45 and and move on to item 52 item 52 is legistar 80422 uh a landmarks nomination for 2229 Eaton Ridge um on item 52 president Curry a motion please move to that is there a second s uh I I believe Alder R will beat you to it if you are okay with that Alder fig call that's that's okay thank you for having my back on that one thank you uh so it's moved and seconded Dr Bailey I believe has a couple of slides on this item yes very quickly well if I can get screen share to work okay so the property that we're talking about is 20 2229 Eaton Ridge um this is up for landmark designation under Criterion B for the uh standards we've got five standards for um five criteria that we could designate a property um as a local Landmark um this is for association with lives of an important person um so this was the home and workplace for Katherine clarenbach and it it says could be at the uh national state or local level she was significant for women's history and uh the women's movement at both the local level the state level and the national level this nomination is a really good place-based history talking about the ways in which uh she did this work and did this work from this property and that this is the best place to tell her story the work that she did for uh women's rights locally and then how that expanded out to the state and then how that uh ended up playing out for her influence at a national level it's a really solid history and does uh a good discussion about why this is the site to tell that story so for the landmarks commission's report because this shows up on your agenda as a report the landmarks commission revealed the qu reviewed the quality of research and also the strength of the argument this is really about are you able to make a successful case that this meets the criteria for designation um and Lam Mer's commission is recommending to Common Council that this meets the criteria for designation um for applicable standards um the for uh what it says in the historic preservation ordinance uh the instructions are for common Council to consider the report of the landmarks commission so that is attached um and consider the standards for historic designation so it's about is it Associated uh with the uh live uh life of a a significant person um and then you vote to designate or decline to designate the property as a landmark it's all I've got thank you thank you Dr Bailey uh Al Conlin questions for staff yes thank you mayor and this is a question for Dr Bailey um right now currently is there anybody living in this home yes and so this nomination is coming forward um with the support of the property owner uh the uh Madison trust for historic preservation reached out to the property owner shared the history of this property the property owner was enthusiastic about it and so the Madison trust paid for the nomination and uh so this is coming in at the request of the property owner the property owner is well aware of what a uh local historic designation will mean um and the property owner thinks that it is important to continue to uh preserve this site uh on behalf of the city of Madison um could you explain to all of us what that would actually mean if we do approve it then if this is marked as a a landmark then Landmark so what that means is um as a designated Landmark any exterior work on the property will need to meet the secretary the interior standards Rehabilitation um for larger projects those go before the landmarks Commission um for smaller projects those are approved administratively we um see about 200 to 300 certificates of appropriateness every year and about a quarter of those go to the commission anywhere between 40 and 60 go to the commission so it's not saying that this has to stay exactly as it is we are not in the business of making museums this design review is about the ways in which these sites evolve so they are able to continue to convey their historic Association so we expect that these sites will evolve for new and ongoing uses the way that we lived in properties a century ago is not the way we live in them now um people want to add additions to their buildings they want to make changes those are allowed that is the work that the landmarks commission does does that answer your questions Alder it does and I just have one more question so will there be any type of acknowledgement of if this say passes is there going to be anything outside of the folks home acknowledging that this is the space this is the area where she lived or how does that go notified to the public then sure so um this will in several ways one of the requirements of the ordinance is that once a property is designated as a landmark that the city will supply a plaque um for the property owner to display on their property um so we will do that um in addition there is a site on um my program's website for designated landmarks and so it's got a list of all the landmarks the date of designation the reason for designation and it's got a link to the nomination itself so we have this list of designated landmarks that are available publicly on our website for people to have access to okay one last followup I'm sorry how many uh how many Mark landmarks do we have in the city of Madison currently we currently have 182 okay thank you so much Dr Bailey you're welcome thank you Alder Alder Rumble questions for staff no oh you're are you on to discussion all all the rumble thank you mayor I just will thank the trust for the work on this project um it takes a long time to do one of these you don't we don't see them very often so it's kind of ironic that on one night it's I guess it's our historic preservation night but so we'll remember this night for a while but what I raised my hand for is to ask Dr Bailey to send to all alers that under represented survey and I'm probably getting messing with the name um I was on the historic preservation plan when our consultant prepared this um survey and I don't know I got really excited when I read it and I think all of you will too just to see all the people and places that are in our city that if we had the resources in time we could honor him more formally and I think you'll really appreciate uh poking at it if Heather could send it to everyone thank you thank you Alder I no other alder's in the queue with questions so uh the motion before us is to adopt is their discussion seeing Alder tishler yeah on that same vein that that Alder r m is just if Heather could also send us the complete um city of Madison historic preservation plan that does complain that does contain a summary um of the underrepresented communities uh but it also gives a real nice overview of the history uh historic preservation how we got to this this point so thank you Alder seeing no further discussion the motion is to adopt is there any objection to recording unanimous vote in favor of adoption seeing no objection we'll record a unanimous vote in favor of adoption on item 52 uh and we will move on to item 58 item 58 is lestar 8116 amending sections of the Madison General ordinances related to salaries of officials to update salaries for Alders on item 58 president Curry a motion please move to adopt is there a second second moved and seconded to adopt I will note that this is a 15 vote item um Alder Vier question or discussion it was a request to see if we could refer to the next council meeting but perhaps moves referral is there a second for referral second it moved and seconded to refer this item to the next council meeting uh which is3 is that correct yes uh on the question of referral is there discussion seeing no discussion on the question of referral uh the motion oh Alder knocks why that's my discussion thank you Alder I think we're all exhibiting it uh folks I know it's late but only 11 you still have to ring in to be in the queue H and please don't speak until you're called on Alder Harrington mckenny uh thank you Madame mayor um I am going to vote for referral um and when we look at the hour and this is going to be a very intensive conversation and we want to be all of us want to be really engaged and understand and give it all and um terms of where I am now um it's we have to look at the time of the hour and I think it would be prudent that this discussion is um is a fresh so that we can have our input whether supporting or not but this is going to be a very detailed uh conversation and I think it deserves more than uh an 11 I don't know what the time is um 11:00 p.m. discussion so I will be supporting referral thank you Alder Alder tishler on the question of referral I just want to ask a question if if we will have 20 alers at at for our next council meeting uh Al there I'm not sure of the answer to that but I don't Al are alers are not required to no let me let me finish I'll just give me will will we with Alder slack will this will she be is this her last night and will it is um there is a as you will have noted on the introduction list for tonight there is a by title only uh item to appoint a district 19 Alder okay okay that that was my question all right thank you yep thank you aler further discussion on the question of referral seeing none the motion before us is to refer to the 123 common council meeting is there objection to recording unanimous vote Alder Knox would you like to be recorded as voting no yes so with the exception of all right I like we voted no too I we'll do a roll call than all those in favor of referral I those opposed no as your name is called then the clerk will please call the rooll thank you Alder verier I Al I Alder Vier I Alder Vier I Alder Helia I Helia I Alder Bennett was that Alder Bennett no I that was a yes oh I'm sorry yes Alder Bennett I thank you Alder Conlin I Alder Conlin I Alder Curry hi Alder Curry Alder Duncan hi Alder dun I Alder Evers hi ever I Alder field i al field I Alder figero Cole I Al figer Cole I Al Rajan i al Rajan I Alder Harrington mckenny I Alder her to mckenny I Alder Knox no Alder Knox no Alder L bis I alus I Alder Madison I Alder Madison I Alder Martinez Rutherford hi Alder Martinez Rutherford I Alder miad I Alder miad I Alder r i Alder Ral I Alder slack I Alder slack I Alder tishler uh no a no 18 eyes two nose with 18 eyes referral passes and the items referred to the next council meeting that brings us to the end of our it tonight uh Alder River I believe it's your turn thank you mayor I'm sorry president Curry thank you Madame mayor I'm sorry I'll be brief um but considering it was just brought up just wanted to thank and acknowledge that this is Alder Slack's last time with us um and thank her for her service and wish her the best and her family thank you Alder slack we appreciate your service been my honor so uh Alder rier perhaps in honor of Alder slack that was my intention all along mayor all night so I formally move to adjourn in honor of the Public Service of our departing colleague Alder chrisy slack she will be very missed is there a second second moved and seconded to adjourn honor of Alder slack and her service is there any objection to recording unanimous vote in favor seeing no objection we record a unanimous vote in favor thank you aler slack and thank you all have a good night that