Housing Ordinance Changes ahead...

Information source:  Blog of Alder Marsha Rummel, District 6th District6@cityofmadison.com

Alder Amani Comment:  The following ordinance changes have been proposed by the City.  I haven't had a chance to dig down into this as it was recently introduced to Council but I saw that Alder Rummel had summarized the information on her blog.  

Today, I spent some time reviewing documents and will do again tomorrow.  I asked Alder Rummel if she would mind if I posted her blog on mine in an effort to make sure people were aware of what is happening.  As an aside, Alder Rummel has been one of my faithful mentors during my freshman year at Council.  We don't always agree or even think alike, AND I appreciate that as a mentor 1st, she teaches me what I need to know not just what she thinks I should know or wants me to know.  There's a difference.  

Thanks Marsha, I appreciate it.

From Blog of District 6 Alder Marsha Rummel

Upcoming Landmarks (February 10) and Plan Commission (February 17) meetings will be reviewing a package of two zoning text amendments introduced on January 14th and sponsored by Mayor Rhodes Conway and several alders.  Press release with more info. The proposed amendments to the zoning code in Legistar 86650(link is external) relate to single-family homes, accessory dwelling units, and small residential infill projects with the goal to make the process more flexible and appear to me to be mostly benign improvements. I do have concerns about removing open space requirements.

My biggest question is why the fundamental changes to the purpose statement of the proposed demolition ordinance 86649(link is external) are needed instead of merely amending MGO Sec 41.28 and related areas in Sec 28.185 to allow administrative approval of demolition of non-historic demolitions where the building has no known historic value according to a finding by the Landmarks Commission. That would eliminate review by the Plan Commission which meets the goal of sponsors to streamline the review process. Additionally, if the new building proposed to replace the demolished building is a permitted use, not requiring any review by the Plan Commission, the timing of the review process could be further reduced.

Changes to the standards in the proposed 28.185(6)(c) appear to prioritize the new purpose statement over adopted plans and include four factors instead of the current seven standards that Plan Commission can apply that could outweigh the public interest in historic preservation. Next week I will blog more info about the new standards for demolition.

The new demolition ordinance removes the existing statement of purpose language that “ensure[s] the preservation of historic buildings” along with five other goals including “aid in the implementation of adopted city plans” with language that only requires “careful consideration of requests to demolish principal buildings with historic value” and balancing the city’s “general interest in preserving buildings with historic interest with its need to accommodate the growth of the population and built environment.” In my opinion, the proposed changes to the purpose statement are not consistent with the adopted strategies of the Comprehensive Plan.

The balancing test in the Comp Plan is between “encouraging redevelopment and infill with protecting the qualities that made existing neighborhoods appealing to begin with” (Comp Plan amended 12.05.23(opens in a new window) , page 32). The Comp Plan does not prioritize new housing over protecting the qualities of older neighborhoods. During the Imagine Madison process, residents prioritized infill over greenfield development at the edge of the city. In fact, both the goal to “preserve historic and special places that tell the story of Madison and reflect racially and ethnically diverse cultures and histories” (Culture and Character/Strategy 2) and to “increase the amount of available housing” (Neighborhoods and Housing/Strategy 3) are part of the Comp Plan’s 59 adopted strategies.  See the Draft 2025 Comp Plan Progress Update(opens in a new window) for the full list of elements, strategies, and goals.

The Comp Plan recognizes there are often contradictory goals between infill and historic preservation but also promotes a strategy for growth that addresses these goals: “Directing redevelopment and infill to existing auto-oriented commercial centers and other areas identified in the Growth Priority Areas Map, Generalized Future Land Use Map, and sub-area plans will help accommodate needed growth while respecting the historic character of older neighborhoods.” (Comp Plan amended 12.05.23(opens in a new window), page 6)

I am still absorbing the meaning of all the changes to the demolition ordinance in Legistar 86649 but I want to make sure residents are paying attention and have the opportunity to weigh in before the proposals come back to the Council on February 25,