Linda,

 

Could you place these e-mails on legistar in regards to the proposed Marriott Hotel project on Wisconsin and Milwaukee.  

 

Thanks much.

Paul

 

 

Paul,

 

See my answers to your statements in red below.

Tom

 

 

You have’nt told me just what it was that Doug and Moira told you.  Furthermore, I am not the only person in city government that told your representatives of the possible outcomes of yesterday’s meeting.  The information that various members of our team received from other City officials was inconsistent.  This is the problem.  In meetings that our team had with various Aldermen, staff, DCD, the Mayor’s office and outside interest groups, we received conflicting information.

 

I do not want to engage in any further conversation unless ALL of the involved parties are present.  That is the best way to straighten this out.  I agree, this is why I want to meet with you.   My plan is for you and I to discuss the process this project must follow in order to be ultimately approved or disapproved by the City.  Once you and I have agreed to the process, I will prepare written document that you can approve and we will then send to all parties for their review. 

 

As for your questions, you will be on the agenda December 13, 2010—a public hearing and not a public meeting.      The commission was very clear on that point and voted to that effect.   This was our understanding, I just wanted to clarify this point.  Your application is requesting two actions by the historic preservation commission.  One is to approve demolition and the other is to construct a new building or complex within the historic district. No mention or insinuation was made that your application was incomplete.  You have not stated that our application is incomplete in any manner, but others have stated we have to do two applications, one for razing the buildings and one for the new construction.  Thank you for your clarification on this item. However, approval of demolition, for example, does not constitute an immediate approval or even conditional approval for new construction in the same spot. Can you please clarify what you mean by this.  This is similar to the procedure followed in  virtually all of the country’s big cities when a matter such as this comes before the HPC.   

 

As for the December 13, meeting, I have stressed CONTINUALLY that I am not the commission.  We understand this and we are not looking to you for final a decision.  I do make recommendations, but not final decisions. And yes, the commission does have a few options including those you mention below.   This is something I wanted to clarify in our meeting.  As I read the Ordinance and Bylaws, the ONLY actions the Commission can take at the December 13, 2010 meeting is to approve, deny, approve with conditions or continue the issue for up to one year.  If, as you say, the Commission can take other actions, what are these other actions?

 

Saturday would be better for me.  I could make it no earlier than 10.30 am due to prior meeting commitments.  Tomorrow I could possibly make it at 4.30 pm. I would prefer to meet today at 4:30 PM if this is still good for you, otherwise let’s meet Saturday at 11:00 AM.

 

Lastly, I actually prefer e-mails as there is now a permanent, public record. This way we can prevent any future misunderstandings.   We fully agree, we want a written record of the process.  As I stated, after our meeting, I will prepare a written summary of our meeting which I will send to you for your approval.  Once you have approved the summary, I will send it to all of the other parties involved in this matter.  I just think it would save a lot of time if we had a free flowing conversation about the process and then everything in the future will be in writing.

 

Paul

 

 

Paul,

 

Unfortunately, I just cannot meet today.  I have a Board meeting for one of my clients starting at 5:00 PM and we have a dinner planned with the Board after the meeting.  Please let me know if you can meet tomorrow, I am available most of the day except between 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM.  If we cannot meet tomorrow, then we will have to meet on Saturday.

 

I would rather meet with you then start an endless stream of emails about the process.  That being said, I asked for clarification on 3 points in my email to Ann Pieper and  I would like confirmation form you on the following three points:

 

1.  Are we on the Agenda as a public hearing for the HPC meeting on December 13, 2010 and, if not, what other steps do we need to take to make sure we are on the Agenda?

 

2.  Is our application for the COA which was accepted by your office on November 3, 2010 at 10:45 AM complete and does the COA sufficiently request HPC to either approve, deny, conditionally approve or continue our request for demolition and construction of a new building in accordance with the plans attached to the COA?  If not, what additional items are needed?

 

3.  At the meeting on December 13, 2010 will HPC either approve, deny, conditionally approve or continue our COA or will there be some other action taken by HPC?

 

You indicate in your email that our representatives were clearly told what would happen yesterday and there would be no surprises.  Unfortunately, this is not the case.  Both Doug Nysse and Moira Fitzgerald met with you prior to the meeting.  Both Doug and Moira relayed a much different scenario to our group.  There seems to have been some miscommunication at these meetings.  It was also our impression, based upon the lengthy discussion between the Commission members at the beginning of our item, that there was uncertainty as to the process that should be followed at the meeting yesterday.  This is why I would like to meet with you and  City Attorney so we can clearly discuss the process and  a timeline so we do not have these issues in the future.  I plan to follow-up that meeting with a letter to everyone which lays out the process and timeline and I will ask all parties to agree to the process and timeline.

Thanks.


Tom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do take issue and offense with your statement that “”no one seems to really understand the process.”  Your representatives were told in advance and very clearly of what could take place at the meeting..  There were no surprises and I have been as open and transparent as possible.

 

If a later time today would work for you—up to 10 pm, I would be happy to meet with you.  You may also meet with Ald. Bauman who is an attorney.  Thursday is out for me and tomorrow leaves little room for any additional meetings. 

 

I would suggest that you write down your questions and forward them ASAP to me so just in case there is something I can’t answer I can consult a source that can. 

 

Also, in your message below you have confused a public meeting with a public hearing.  They are two different meetings with different procedures.  Yesterday’s meeting was NOT noticed as a public hearing.    The Ordinance is very clear about the need for a public HEARING if HPC is not prepared to grant the approval for a demolition. Proper procedures were followed.  I will not engage in a legal debate because that is up to others,  but I do have a knowledge of the HPC ordinance.  

 

Finally, I am also available late Saturday morning and Sunday afternoon. 

 

Please let me know what, if any times will work for you. 

 

Paul    

 

 

Paul,

 

Thank you for the email.  Unfortunately, today is a busy day for me.  Would you have time to meet on Wednesday or Thursday?  I think, as you suggested, it would be good for you to have an attorney present during our meeting.  However, I would suggest that you contact the City Attorney’s office and have someone assigned to this matter.  As I stated in my earlier email, we are simply trying to determine what the process is for this project.  At the HPC meeting yesterday, it was evident that no one seems to really understand the process. 

I apologize for contacting the Chair if that was inappropriate, no one had communicated to me that I was not to contact the Chair.  I have known Ann  for many years and have always respected her work and her dedication to the City.  I welcome Ann’s involvement in this process.

Tom.

 

 

The appropriate course of action at this point is for you to meet with me ASAP.  You may also have the deputy City Clerk or City Clerk (who by the way is an attorney), if you wish.  

 

Meeting with the chair is not appropriate, as we stated earlier.

 

Finally, your COA was clearly identified as a request for demolition and new construction.

 

I would be happy to meet with you as soon as possible.  You may call or e-mail at your earliest convenience.  I will not be here Friday.  Given the urgency of your request I suggest that we meet today.  I will be available until 8 PM today.

 

I look forward to hearing from you early this afternoon.

 

Regards,

 

Paul Jakubovich

Preservation

Office of the Common Council/City Clerk

200 E. Wells St.

Milwaukee, WI  53202

414-286-5712

 

 

Paul,

 

Below is an email which I sent Ann Pieper.  Please review the email.  I would also like to request a meeting with you by the end of this week so we can discuss the process and timeline for this project.   Please let me know when you are available.  Thanks.

Tom.

 

 

Ann,

 

I wanted to follow-up on the meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission yesterday.  As I stated at the meeting, we are very confused by what transpired and what happened seems contrary to the Ordinance and Bylaws as well as what we were told by staff prior to the meeting.  My clients spent tens of thousands of dollars preparing for the meeting yesterday and   WAVE Development is prepared to make a $50,000,000 investment in this City, at a minimum they deserve the respect and consideration of all involved in this process.  We understand that there are those who do not support this project, but simply to delay a project of this nature reflects very poorly on this City. 

 

It became evident in the meeting that I was not going to be able to convince the Commission to reconsider its decision so I thought it would be best to discuss the issues after the meeting.  There are a couple of questions that I wanted to ask, but did not.  First, it was stated by at least one Commission member that the meeting yesterday was not noticed as a public meeting.  I disagree with that statement; if it was not a public meeting, then, according to State law, your Commission could not meet as it did.  Second, it was also stated at the meeting that the Commission could have voted to approve our COA yesterday, but could not vote to conditionally approve, continue or  deny the COA yesterday because, once again, the meeting was not properly noticed as a public meeting.  This is contrary to the Ordinance and to the Commission’s Bylaws.  Also, it is irrational to think that the Commission could approve a COA at a “non-noticed” meeting, but cannot vote to approve with conditions, deny or continue the COA.

 

Finally, based upon the comments of the staff, there seems to be some confusion whether our COA is a request for demolition or approval of a new building or both.  Let me state definitively, the request being made pursuant to the COA is for demolition of the existing buildings AND construction of a new building in accordance with the plans submitted with the COA.  Section 6(c) of our COA states, “ we request a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a new building in their place.”

 

At the end of the meeting yesterday it was stated that the COA would be reviewed at HPC’s next “public” meeting on December 13, 2010.  We are relying on this statement and assume that we are automatically on the agenda for the December 13, 2010 meeting, please contact me immediately if we have to take any additional steps to be on the agenda.  Also, the staff accepted our COA on November 3, 2010 at 10:45 AM and we are relying on the staff’s statement that the COA is complete for HPC to rule on December 13, 2010 on both the request for demolition and to build a new building in accordance with the plans attached to the COA.  If additional items are needed to complete the COA, please contact me immediately.  At the meeting on December 13, 2010 we expect HPC to either approve, deny or conditionally approve the COA. 

 

I would like to request that you and I meet by the end of this week to discuss the procedure and time line for this project.  I know you were reluctant to meet with me prior to the meeting yesterday and I appreciate your position.  However, the meeting I am requesting would be limited to a discussion on the process, not the content of the COA.  As a developer I think you can probably appreciate my request.  My clients have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on this project to date and we are simply trying to define the steps which are necessary to ultimately have the City approve or deny this project.  Please let me know when you are available to meet.

 

 

Tom

___________________________________________

 

A Limited Liability Service Corporation

731 North Jackson Street ● Suite 900

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-4697

 

Thomas  P. DeMuth

414-727-6277 Direct Dial ● 414-271-8678 Facsimile

tdemuth@mzmilw.com ● www.mzmilw.com

 

The City of Milwaukee is subject to Wisconsin Statutes related to public
records.  Unless otherwise exempted from the public records law,
senders and receivers of City email should presume that the email are subject
to release upon request, and to state records retention
requirements.  See City of Milwaukee full email disclaimer at
www.milwaukee.gov/email_disclaimer.