Linda,
Could you place these
e-mails on legistar in regards to the proposed Marriott Hotel project on
Thanks
much.
Paul
From: Thomas
DeMuth [mailto:tdemuth@mzmilw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:43
AM
To:
Subject: RE: Marriott
Hotel
Paul,
See my
answers to your statements in red below.
Tom
From:
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 6:16
PM
To: Thomas
DeMuth
Subject: RE: Marriott
Hotel
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
From: Thomas
DeMuth [mailto:tdemuth@mzmilw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 4:55
PM
To:
Subject: RE: Marriott
Hotel
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.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 2:58
PM
To: Thomas
DeMuth
Subject: RE: Marriott
Hotel
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
From: Thomas
DeMuth [mailto:tdemuth@mzmilw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 1:46
PM
To:
Cc: Ann Pieper; Mark Flaherty; Randall
Erkert; Ed Carow; Moira Fitzgerald; Evan Zeppos
Subject: RE: Marriott
Hotel
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.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 12:37
PM
To: Thomas
DeMuth
Cc: Ann
Pieper
Subject: RE: Marriott
Hotel
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
414-286-5712
From: Thomas
DeMuth [mailto:tdemuth@mzmilw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 11:54
AM
To:
Cc: 'Ann Pieper'
Subject: FW: Marriott
Hotel
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.
From: Thomas
DeMuth
Sent: Tuesday, November
16, 2010 11:50 AM
To: 'Ann
Pieper'
Cc: 'Mark Flaherty'; Ed
Carow; Randall Erkert; Moira Fitzgerald; Evan Zeppos; 'Nysse, Doug'
Subject: Marriott
Hotel
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
Thomas P.
DeMuth
414-727-6277 Direct Dial
● 414-271-8678
Facsimile
tdemuth@mzmilw.com ●
www.mzmilw.com
The City of
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
www.milwaukee.gov/email_disclaimer.