City of Madison staff outlined their concerns about preserving the historical integrity of the buildings on the 100 block of State Street in light of a proposal to rebuild the area.
Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4, said the report was drawn up by Amy Scanlon, a preservation planner on the Landmarks Commission. He said the report is intended to educate the Landmarks Commission on the plan before its meeting Monday.
Verveer said the report gave somewhat mixed results to the developers. It supports what is proposed for the renovations on State Street, but sharply disagrees with the treatment of West Mifflin and much of North Fairchild.
He said the disagreement centers mainly on the proposed demolition of the landmark Schubert building and the historic Stark, or Fairchild, building.
There will be a vote on the plan Monday afternoon at the Landmarks Commission meeting, as well as several other committees who will be presented the plan before voting on it.
Ald. Marsha Rummel, District 6, said this last round of plans has definitely raised numerous questions from city staff, especially at the Landmarks Commission and Urban Design Commission.
At Monday’s Landmarks Commission meeting, the committee will need certificates of appropriateness to determine if it is acceptable to demolish the buildings on Mifflin and the Vallender building on State Street, Rummel said.
“Initially when they proposed to demolish and rebuild on State, for me it seemed like a waste of money and a loss of potential landmarks,” Rummel said.
However, she said they did step back and they are no longer proposing the demolition of the Castle and Doyle building, which will probably go over well with the Landmarks Commission.
Verveer said some members of the commission say they will vote on the aspects of the proposal they support, like the renovations on State Street, but will likely delay a decision.
“[They may] encourage the developers to go back to the drawing board on the controversial aspects of the proposal,” Verveer said.
He said he predicts there will be a partial vote on the topic, as well as a fair amount of testimony and discussion. Both Verveer and Rummel said they expect a long meeting on this controversial issue.
Rummel said the original plan was not well received at the Urban Design Commission, but the committees have not been back to meet since the developers have changed their plans.
Overall, Rummel said she is not sure how it will play out, since each commission will have different approaches to the proposal.
She said the buildings have all been purchased over a number of years, and some of the properties have not been well taken care of, which becomes the owner’s responsibility.
“At some point, I think it is fair to say what is the best for this block and what the goal is,” Rummel said.
Verveer said the staff report that was released will serve to assist the Landmarks Commission and the Urban Design Commission in their deliberations.
He said in addition to the vote at the meeting tomorrow, there may also be one at Wednesday’s UDC meeting.
