2 more new Madison housing reports

Table 3: Population Projections 2015-2040

• 2015
  • Population 245,788
  • Households 106,827
• 2020
  • Population 257,461
  • Households 113,167
• 2025
  • Population 270,631
  • Households 119,885
• 2030
  • Population 284,147
  • Households 126,274
• 2035
  • Population 297,582
  • Households 132,900
• 2040
  • Population 313,721
  • Households 140,269

The report has additional charts showing the following on page 6:

• Land uses in Madison (non-right-of-way) changes between 2005 and 2017
  • 20% increase (809 acres) for commerical use
  • 14% increase (1868 acres) for residential use
  • 11% increase (926 acres) for parks and open space
  • 2% increase (82 acres) for industrial use
  • 2% decrease (52 acres) for institutional use
  • 22% decrease (1,681 acres) for agriculture and vacant
• Projected land Use Demand 2015-2040
  • 1377.3 acres for residential single family use
  • 877.4 acres for street right of way
  • 787.7 acres for commercial.office/services
  • 676.6 acres for parks and open space
  • 377.7 acres for residential multi-family use
  • 155.5 acres for commercial residential
  • 135 acres for institutional
  • O acres for industrial
• Projected Residential Land Use Demand 2015-2040
  • 32,180 new households
  • 22% new single family units = 7015 units on 1,377 acres
  • 78% new multi-family units = 25,165 units -10,833 infill units = 378 acres of land

Additional Charts

• Page 7
  • projected number of units needed per year
  • parcel creation 2013-2018
• Page 8
  • Equalized value (land only) 2008 (74.7 sq miles) to 2018 (80.9 sq miles)

Meeting Housing Needs – Affordability

You can read more information, but this is the best I have seen in terms of breaking down the housing needs.  Housing is considered affordable when people pay 30% of their income towards their housing costs.

• Households making less than $10,000
  • 7,460 renter households (13.2% of renters)
    • 5,514 (73.9%) pay over half their income towards rent
  • 776 owner households (1.5% of owners)
    • 643 (82.9%) pay over half their income towards housing
• Household making $10,000 – $19,999
  • 7,535 renter households (13.3% of renters)
    • 5,879 (78%) pay over half their income towards rent
  • 1,703 owner households (3.3% of owners)
    • 1,040 (61%) pay over half their income towards housing
• Households making $20,000 – 34,999
  • 11,477 renter households (20.3% of renters)
    • 5,235 (35.6%) pay over half their income towards rent
    • 6,265 (54.6%) pay over 30% of their income towards rent
  • 3,101 owner households (6% owners)
    • 903 (29.1%) pay over half their income towards housing
    • 1,188 ((38.2%) pay over 30% of their income toward housing
• Households making $35,000 – 49,999
  • 9,069 renter households (16.1% renters)
    • 3,286% (36.2%) pay over 30% of their income towards their rent
  • 4,895 owner households (9.5%)
    • 1,827 (37.3%) pay over 30% of their income towards their housing

Includes 63% of renters, 20% homeowners.

• Households making $50,000 – 74,999
  • 10,028 renter households (17.7%)
    • 1,408 (14%) pay over 30% of their income towards their rent
  • 9,572 owners households (18.6%)
    • 2,723 (28.4%) pay over 30% of their income towards housing.

ANALYSIS OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

This information is provided again with many of the same caveats about the costs not being comparable, plus this section requires financial information known only to the developer.

• New Construction
  • 1583 dwelling units
  • Total fees collected $6,259,303.51
  • Permits issues/fees collected = 15,247
  • Fee amount per permit = $410.52
  • Fee amount per dwelling unit = $3,954.08
• Remodel/Renovation
  • 4526 dwelling units
  • Total fees collected $2,402,039.95
  • Permits issued/fees collected = 10,422
  • Fee amount per permit = $230.48
  • Fee amount per dwelling unit = $1,517.40

STRATEGIES TO LOWER COSTS OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

NOTE:  Reminder – all of this work would be done to reduce the cost of new housing by $3,954.08 per unit.  Is it worth it?  And at what cost?  Our taxes go up because the fees no longer cover the staff time that goes in to development? Also, its a shame that the public and the Common Council were not consulted when coming up with these strategies.  But, kudos to staff for reporting that part of the issue with creating affordable housing is the pre-emptions placed on us by the state.  Hey, the state asked for the report.

State statute requires this report to identify ways in which Madison can modify construction and development regulations, lot sizes, approval processes, and development-related fees to reduce the time and cost necessary to approve and develop a new residential subdivision in the municipality by 20 percent.

Strategy 1 – Reduce Minimum Lot Areas

Land is a significant contributor to the cost of housing. As seen in Table 7 of this report, the 2018 equalized value of land in Madison was approximately $132,000 per acre on average. The equalized value for residential land only was approximately $300,000 per acre, while the average assessed land value for residential land developed with new construction between 2010-2018 was $429,000 per acre. The average assessed value for all vacant land (lands with no taxable improvement value) in Madison is $39,000, and agriculturally zoned land within city boundaries is assed at $8,000 per acre on average. The market value of vacant or agriculture land can change dramatically depending on plan recommendations, changes to zoning, adjacency to existing development, and proximity to roads or utilities. A review of 60 residential lots listed for sale on Zillow.com within the City of Madison in August 2019 averaged $444,000 per acre; the least expensive lot was listed for more than $100,000 per acre, and several lots exceeded $800,000 per acre.

Because of the impact of land costs on the total cost to develop and sell, the amount of land required to develop housing can have an outsized impact on the cost. Table 14 compares the minimum lot area per dwelling unit required by the zoning codes of various municipalities in Dane County. The City of Madison enables denser development than all other communities reviewed, often by a considerable margin.

Strategy 2 – Limit Architectural Requirements

The City of Madison enforces almost no specific architectural requirements for single-family homes or small multi-family buildings beyond basic building forms and typical building code requirements consistent with other municipalities in Wisconsin. The limited requirements for one- and two-family house design regard orientation of the front door and orientation and width of street-facing garages. The City of Madison does not review exterior materials or architectural style for permitted-use single- family and small multi-family buildings. As such, it cannot further reduce or streamline review in this regard.

Strategy 3 – Establish More By-Right Development

When the Madison Zoning Code was completely rewritten in 2012, it allowed a wider variety of development to occur in conventional zoning districts, but not much more “by-right” development. Nearly every mixed-use building or significant multi-family residential development approved before 2012 required a zoning change to Planned Development zoning, which was negotiated on a case-by-case basis and reviewed by the Urban Design Commission, Plan Commission, and approved by the Common Council. Under the new zoning code, a majority of such developments can be approved in conventional zoning districts, but “by-right” multi-family residential development is limited by thresholds such as height, number of dwelling units, or building size, that trigger conditional use approval by the Plan Commission. The zoning code has many thresholds for conditional uses, meaning that most development proposals involve discretionary review with opportunities for the Plan Commission to ensure that relevant standards are met and any appropriate conditions of approval placed on them. However, conditional use approval by the Plan Commission is a shorter and simpler process than a zoning change, which must also be approved by the Common Council.

By allowing more “by-right” development, it is possible time and direct costs (holding costs for land, costs for consultant time at meetings) and risks (uncertainty regarding timing of interest rates, construction costs, and whether and under what conditions a proposal will be approved) inherent to the approval process could be reduced. However, by-right development may create adverse impacts on sensitive neighborhoods and populations, potentially impacting existing affordable housing, as it would occur absent input by residents, neighborhood associations, City staff, and the Plan Commission.

Single-family homes are permitted by-right in most situations, though new plats creating lots for single- family houses must be approved by the Common Council in accordance with State statute.

A specific type of housing development that could be targeted for additional by-right construction is the “missing middle.” Missing middle housing is a range of housing types scaled between single-family detached houses and larger apartment buildings, and includes duplexes, triplexes, four-units, attached rowhouses, and cottage clusters. Missing middle housing can be compatible in scale with most single- family residential areas, and can help meet ever-growing demand.

The City of Madison Plan Commission is scheduled to review modifications to the Zoning Code in 2020, and may consider some of the suggestions of this strategy. Upon further consideration by the Plan Commission, Common Council, and other stakeholders, strategies and actions such as the following could be further considered by the City of Madison to establish more “by-right” development to reduce the time and costs necessary to approve and develop new residential subdivisions:

• • Adjust thresholds (number of dwelling units, building size, height, etc.) between permitted and conditional uses.
  • Adjust the requirement for Plan Commission approval of the demolition of all existing buildings.
  • Explore making the demolition of single-family houses to build a new single-family house or another permitted use a staff-level site plan approval.
  • Adjust the zoning code as necessary to maximize potential for permitted context-sensitive density increases in residential and mixed-use districts by right by supporting “missing middle” housing types.
  • Explore modification to City ordinance to eliminate the conditional use requirement for small (two- to four-unit) multi-family structures within close proximity of one another.
  • Explore additions to the zoning code, such as maximum height maps to increase predictability and better ensure protection of the public interest.

Strategy 4 – Streamline Permitting Processes

By streamlining permitting processes and shortening timelines, the direct costs and risks of the approval process for development that requires discretionary review could be reduced, resulting in a faster and less expensive pathway for residential development. Without accounting for initial due diligence and planning by developers prior to approaching the City or the time it takes to actually construct a building, there are essentially three stages to the land use approval process: pre-application, formal review, and post-approval/permitting. These three stages can vary between 4 and 18 months for larger developments – a timeline heavily dependent on project complexity, the types of approvals sought, and the development team involved. The first two stages of the land use approval process apply only to proposals involving discretionary approvals. “By-right” development, which includes nearly all single- family homes, involves only the third stage—a much shorter process. An expansion of “by-right” residential development would shorten the approval process for some developments.

Pre-Application – The pre-application stage requires written notice to the area Alder and any registered neighborhood or business association (unless waived by the Alder) 30 days prior to formal application, and usually involves one or more meetings with staff and neighborhood groups for input as the proposal evolves to a detailed submittal to the City. Meetings with neighborhood groups are not required, but are expected by many Madison residents and Alders for larger developments. Developments that go through this process are more likely to be approved than those that forego this process. The timeline for the pre-application stage can vary from a few weeks to several months based on project scale and complexity, level of interest by neighbors, expectations and procedures of a particular Alder or neighborhood association, the developer’s urgency, and the design stage at which stakeholders are approached.

Formal Review –The length of the formal review process for land use approvals (rezoning, conditional uses, demolition, and land divisions) is already optimized for the need to provide statute-required public notices, review by City agencies, preparation of staff reports for commissions, and distribution of reports to commissioners and applicants. Depending on the type of approvals requested, most proposals are reviewed within 6-11 weeks of the formal submittal. Proposals inconsistent with adopted plans, those missing important information, or those changed significantly by the applicant after submittal likely involve longer formal review processes, but these delays are caused by and controllable by the applicant. Land Use Application materials have very recently been updated to include more specific instructions for applicants to minimize changes and missing information that result in delays and extra costs during the formal review process.

Applications for conditional uses and demolition permits are the most common discretionary approvals, accounting for nearly 60% of all applications reviewed in 2018. The median review time for these approvals was 47 days: only five percent of these reviews took more than 61 days from submittal to Plan Commission approval. Other review types took more time, with preliminary plats usually taking the most time, a median time of 101 days. Table 15 shows the typical review period for the most common types of review.