After many months of debate, the long-awaited Edgewater vote at the Common Council meetings next week may finally seal the fate of Hammes Co.'s proposed redevelopment project.
But the lengthy process the project has gone through to gain city approval has officials questioning whether the system is conducive to new development.
The council had hoped to vote on all the committee actions necessary for full approval of the project at its meetings Feb. 23 and 24, but according to Ald. Bryon Eagon, District 8, the final decision will be postponed. The council, will, however, vote on whether to overturn the Landmarks Commission decision.
Following the Common Council's inability to overturn a Landmarks Commission decision to deny a certificate of appropriateness to the project in December, Mayor Dave Cieslewicz criticized what he deemed to be a ""broken system.""
""There was widespread support for the project on the council. No member of the council actually spoke against it,"" Cieslewicz wrote in his blog.
Cieslewicz said the council's inability to overturn the Landmarks decision with a supermajority vote could be attributed to their need to address a ""narrow legal question"" about whether the ordinance imposed ""significant hardship"" on Hammes Co.
Eagon said there is room for improvement in the city's approval process for development projects.
""It's important to maintain that quality and character [of Madison] but also support new investment in the future of the city,"" he said. He said one possible way to attempt to strike the balance is by offering economic incentives such as tax breaks.
""But there's also intangibles of the quality of life that Madison provides,"" he added. ""Stressing some of those other less tangible benefits of the city itself [adds to] possible direct incentives in the form of economic issues to specific projects.""
Conversely, Ald. Bridget Maniaci, District 2, said, ""On paper I think [the process] is fine. I see us run into problems when commissioners start asking for a lot of ancillary items.""
Although it is clear that a project needs to get approval from multiple city committees to go forward, there is no one specific path for a proposal to take when attempting to gain city approval.
Maniaci suggested streamlining the process by limiting the number of times an item comes to committee.
""You see applicants come through for informational meetings, and then they come for initial approval, and that usually takes a couple meetings,"" she said, referring to the Urban Design Commission. ""And then they go through the Plan Commission and the [Common] Council, and then they come back to Urban Design for final approval, so that's a lot of meetings.""
The necessity for developers to gain approval from multiple committees becomes not only time consuming, but expensive.
Hammes Co. President Robert Dunn has repeatedly expressed frustration with the process, arguing that the Edgewater project's controversial tower will make it financially feasible for Hammes Co. to restore the original 1940s building.
In the end, it appears as if Madison is engaged in a balancing act between preserving what is deemed historic while attempting to remain a viable community by attracting development projects and, consequently, jobs.
""There's arguments to be made that the current process for development can be too drawn out or lengthy and it may hinder projects,"" Eagon said. ""But there's also arguments to be made that the current structure strengthens projects because it allows for so much input from so many different citizen experts and policy makers.""
