And More on Ordinances Changes

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

Alder Amani Comment:  This is part 2 of  what Alder Rummel has summarized regarding this issue.  See my previous blog post as to why it's on my blog.

From Blog of Alder Marsha Rummel,  District 6 

The demolition ordinance 86649(link is external) is at Landmarks on Monday and at Plan Commission on the 17th. The more I dive into the proposed demolition ordinance changes to MGO 28.185, the more questions I have.

Amending the ordinance to allow the administrative approval of demolition of principal buildings with no known historic value meet the goals of sponsors to streamline the review process but the proposed changes in 86649 are much broader and deeper than merely adding an administrative tweak. I do not support the draft as proposed.

If we are going to review the demolition ordinance, I think we should consider amending the purpose statement and standards of approval to consider the impact of the demolition of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). We do not track the demolition of these affordable units which are generally replaced with market rate housing. Since this type of housing would likely be included in the C category of no known historic value, I would propose creating additional process for PC review.

As I shared in my blog last week, the changes in 86650(link is external) that relate to single-family homes, accessory dwelling units, and small residential infill projects may make the process more flexible assuming there are no other hindrances to adding ADUs like homeowner association restrictions, etc.

At last Wednesday’s Vilas Neighborhood Association forum on the proposed zoning and demolition changes, planning staff made presentations on both ordinances. Here is a link to VNA meeting(link is external), the passcode is 2fi@@$5C. Planning Director Meagan Tuttle explained the reasoning for the open space requirement changes I mentioned in my blog last week.

The existing ordinance does not hinder demolition or growth. According to staff, since 2021, 94% of 144 demolition requests (including the approximately 20% Landmarks found to have either significant or some historic value), were approved by the Plan Commission.  Upon appeal, the Council upheld PC’s rejection of four demolitions (two projects) in the last year.

The proposed changes to the statement of purpose will no longer include language to “ensure the preservation of historic buildings” only to require “careful consideration of requests to demolish principal buildings with historic value.” I think this change is inconsistent with the goals and strategies of the Comp Plan. See my February 3 blog for my initial comments.

The proposed standards of approval for Plan Commission review only need to be consistent with/aid in the implementation of adopted plans or be consistent with the new statement of purpose. The existing ordinance includes seven standards, several of which should be maintained: to consider reports on building condition, the cost to relocate and impact of relocation on street trees, to make findings based on the report of the Preservation Planner or Landmarks Commission, and allow the PC to consider how demolition and redevelopment of the property relates to the implementation of the City’s adopted Plan and to the health, prosperity, safety and welfare of the city.

One thing neither the existing 28.185 nor the proposed changes consider is the impact of demolition on naturally occurring affordable housing. Earlier versions of the demolition ordinance did consider affordability in the statement of purpose: “It is hereby declared a matter of public policy that the good maintenance and rehabilitation of existing buildings, the preservation of safe and sanitary housing available at reasonable prices, and the careful consideration and planning of changes in the urban landscape are a public necessity and are required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety, and welfare of the people.” The language was deleted in 2021, along with references to proposed future use, see legistar 67074(link is external). At the time, the Plan Commission did consider adding a standard to review NOAH buildings but did not adopt it, concerned with the question of future use.

The existing ordinance, as amended in 2021, kept standard of approval language that allowed the PC to consider future use – they could consider how demolition and redevelopment of properties determined by Landmarks Commission to have historic value or significance related to the implementation of City’s adopted plans, see 28.185(9)(c)4.a. A consideration of future use was retained, and I think we should consider the same approach to properties defined as naturally occurring affordable housing:

"The applicant has engaged in reasonable efforts to minimize the impact of the proposed demolition on the existence of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing, including, but not limited to, comparing the quality and affordability of existing housing with that of any proposed housing, and exploring options for maintaining or replacing any affected Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing."

It would require policy makers to review the efforts of the applicant to minimize impact of demolition but not require options to maintain or replace naturally occurring affordable housing that could trigger state preemptions. The PC could and would still approve demolition but would have to balance the construction of new housing with the loss of existing affordable housing along with buildings with historic value.

The proposed standards of approval include a list of four factors that the PC shall consider which would outweigh the public interest in preserving historic resources. For example: The building is found to be in such a deteriorated condition that it is not structurally or economically feasible to preserve or restore it. Or evidence of potential structural or fire hazard, unlawful use of the property, public nuisance ... that supports demolition. But in both instances, there is no requirement for proof from a licensed architect or engineer on building integrity/public health and safety or evidence that the cost of repair is an unreasonable burden. Unlawful uses or nuisances found in a building do not necessarily require the building to be demolished. A third factor: The applicant will implement a creative mitigation plan, which could include relocation or reuse of portions of the structure, but it also could mean an interpretive sign or salvage of historic materials and that would be enough to outweigh the public interest. An interpretive sign is enough, really? And finally the historic building has been so altered it cannot convey its historic significance. Again, there is no requirement to prove that the building is so altered that rehabilitation is not an option.

In my view the new standard and four factors will make upholding the public’s interest in preserving historic resources easy to override. Is that what we want as a community? As I wrote last week, the Comp Plan includes preserving historic resources as one of 59 strategies along with increasing housing and points us to a way to address growth and preservation of historic resources. I see the following approach as the win-win:

“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).”

You can send comments to landmarkscommission@cityofmadison.com or pccomments@cityofmadison.com