| Notes: Mr. Levitan began by telling the Commission that he asked the chair that this be placed on the agenda so that historic properties / marquees may not have to pay encroachment fees, as the City would likely not allow them tear down the marquee.
Mr. Michael May, City Attorney, stated that this is a matter of State law, and that due to equal protection clause under the law, that they have to treat every encroachment issue equally. Mr. May noted that the City Attorney’s Office pursues prosecutions depending on what is referred to their office.
Ms Gehrig asked when the State law was passed, and suggested that perhaps the Majestic Theater’s marquee predates that law. Mr. May believes that the law was created in 1913.
Mr. Stephans asked about other City restrictions, and jurisdiction over non-historic buildings. Mr. May noted that through the Urban Design and Plan Commissions, the City often restricts the demolition, or partial demolition of non-landmark buildings.
Mr. Levitan asked if we could make the payment a nominal fee? He noted that the previous owners of the Majestic were not required to pay. Mr. May replied that in this particular case, there was no previous encroachment agreement, so it had never been paid.
Mr. Levitan asked how the fee was calculated? Mr. May said that it was generally based on the amount of encroachment on to the City’s property. Mr. Rosenblum asked about how other cities, like Milwaukee, deal with historic buildings/marquees like this one.
City Attorney May indicated that he was not inclined to follow the Landmarks Commission’s request to suspend prosecution of the Majestic Theater, or to support a new ordinance that proposed to reduce the encroachment fees for designated Landmarks.
Scott Leslie, 316 S Broom St, registered in support.
Matt Gerding, 115 King Street, registered in support.
Mr. Leslie and Mr. Gerding are the current owners of the Theater. Their only options are to pay the fee, or remove the encroachments. They feel like the marquee and architectural cornice add to the historic fabric of the building, and the city. Mr. Gerding added that since they would not be allowed to remove the marquee, or the cornice, that the fee should nominal for both.
Joe Lusson, 627 E Gorham Street, Madison Trust for Historic Preservation, registered in support. He is supportive of a nominal fee, as the city gets a lot of other benefits for the presence, aesthetics, and historical significance of the marquee. Mr. Lusson also noted that there are other encroachments into the right-of-way that do not add to the qualities of Madison, noting in particular the street ends along Lake Mendota Drive that were are being encroached upon by residents. Are they required to pay a fee for obstructing lake views? Mr. Lusson added that the policy should be changed for existing landmarks, identified potential landmarks and all buildings in Local and National Historic Districts.
Elizabeth Cwik, 2303 Willard Ave, registered in support, and noted that she is also supportive to exempt Landmark buildings from encroachment fees.
Paul Schoeneman, 1108 E Gorham St #3, registered in support. He is concerned about enforcement, and how there could be a bad result if owners tear down marquees and other features instead of paying the fee.
Ledell Zellers, 570 N Carroll Street, Madison registered to speak. Ms Zellers agrees that protecting viewsheds is important. She also has less sympathy for newer buildings where owners are aware of encroachment issues. She said that it is essential to keep the public good of historic structures, and encourages exemption, or a nominal fee.
Ms Slattery asked about buildings that are not designated landmarks, but are in historic districts, or are potential landmarks? Mr. Levitan thought that including the districts may have some programmatic issues, and that he would like to keep the issue simple to start with. |