The Chair of the City’s Zoning Code Rewrite Committee and Planner with Vandewalle & Associates, Mike Zlavney sums up the issues up as follows:
I had some thoughts about the relationship between our Committee’s emerging challenging topics and neighborhood association and citizen participation. Please feel free to share this with your staff, Cunningham and the Committee. Specifically, I currently see five key issues that Cunningham and the Committee should start focusing on ASAP because they probably have to be solved (rather than deferred to a later, special study) to move the Ordinance process forward.
1. Neighborhood Involvement: The preservation of neighborhood character throughout all existing and yet-to-develop neighborhoods in the City. Here the challenge focuses on Tear-Downs, Large Additions and preserving the Unique Character of each neighborhood. This issue is emerging in the Midvale Heights / Westmoreland Neighborhood Plans. If “white bread” Midvale Heights (which by the way, I have lived in for 33 of my 51 years) is concerned about these issues, I think every neighborhood would be. These are very tough issues everywhere on the planet. I think the City CURRENTLY generally has most of the right zoning “tools” to address these concerns – although I think fine tuning is worth considering.
1. The potential new tool could be a REQUIREMENT for neighborhood and neighbor input in advance of the formal public hearing or public meetings associated with all rezonings, conditional use, PUD and demolition proposals. Given our community’s emphasis on involvement, perhaps the new Zoning Ordinance should require this step. If required, the new Ordinance could establish clear requirements for advertising, staffing, conducting and providing information about the submittal for such a meeting.
2. Tear-Downs: The City’s current requirement for detailed case-by-case review and approval seems very appropriate. I am not aware of a pattern of abuses or bad examples – perhaps there are some. A public hearing process, consideration in regard to both surrounding character and adopted Neighborhood Plans, and the need to see what is proposed in detail, all seem very appropriate requirements. It seems to me that this issue is ideal for the Conditional Use process – with the review being judge against both zoning standards and adopted neighborhood plans.
3. Minor Additions: The existing Area Exception review seems to be working well, according to the general reaction of our Committee members when discussing this issue.
4. Large Additions and Relation to Unique Neighborhood Character: The combination of the Area Exception review, plus, perhaps Conditional Use Permit review once a scale trigger is exceeded, seems most appropriate. To me, the existing Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District is the typical effective approach to apply detailed standards specific to each neighborhood or sub-neighborhood – as informed by adopted Neighborhood or Sub-Neighborhood plans.
I think we will see a lot of interest in our re-write effort incorporating the detailed standards for certain neighborhoods required to address the above. I think this could potentially be accomplished through the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District approach where we have adopted neighborhood and sub-area plans that make clear character-related recommendations. I do not think our re-write process has the time or budget to identify such standards where adopted plans do not yet exist. However, our re-write process should address the process for integrating the character standards for both existing and future neighborhood and sub-area plans into the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts, and the zoning procedures that the NC Districts would inform. Again, our Committee and process needs to focus on finding the right zoning tools and processes, and not on doing neighborhood and sub-area planning.
Finally, it seems to me that our process could hold an Open House Workshop to address these four issues, and related neighborhood character preservation and enhancement issues, at several locations in the community early this Fall – perhaps facilitated by City Staff and attended by interested Zoning Ordinance Committee, Plan Commission and Common Council members – and promoted well in advance to neighborhood associations, home remodelers, developers and other key stakeholders. I think Cunningham’s most effective, and cost-effective, role could be to provide several examples of how other communities that prioritize neighborhood association and public involvement are addressing these issues.
2. Redevelopment Areas: A second important emerging theme is the balance between impacts and economics, and between project review involvement and project review process costs, associated with redevelopment activities – particularly in the potential Redevelopment Areas identified in the new Comprehensive Plan. The new Zoning Ordinance should identify and require the best procedural and submittal requirements for striking these balances. Again, this topic could be addressed in a series of Workshops hosted by staff. Perhaps these workshops need to be distinct from those in Item 1 – due to the much larger scale of project within these redevelopment areas.
3. PUDs: Yes, we rely heavily on PUDs, and yes, they involve (in theory) a wide-open range of possible land uses and intensities, and yes, they result in a unique set of zoning rules that may be difficult to track over time. Yet, they seem to work well in Madison. I am very interested in Cunningham’s advice about potential alternatives. Perhaps integrating review procedures associated with 1. a. above, could constrain the wide-open potential of PUDs to be consistent with adopted Sub-Area Plans for the redevelopment sites, and could require the more direct involvement of neighbors sooner in the process. However, I am stumped as to how to avoid the creation of a site specific zoning district that balances the interests of all stakeholders and the ever-changing market conditions. I am looking forward to learning about other communities’ experience from our consultants.
4. Pallet of Zoning Districts: Obviously a key issue. We should get to this ASAP. In my experience, having a few extra zoning districts oriented to both character and use, can substantially reduce the need for PUDs, Overlay Districts, Area Exceptions and related procedures. This can be an especially effective approach for addressing areas where “Overzoning” is currently present – actual development is far less intensive or diverse in use than current zoning would allow.
5. Sustainability: How proactive is appropriate? Let’s get a handle on this ASAP. Our community will always be pushing on this issue – and I am proud of that reality. A special Workshop and/or subcommittee on this issue may also be the most effective way to get a good head start.
Other important issues will emerge, but I think these will be among the most important. Please work with the Consultants to consider how to effectively integrate their expertise with neighborhood, developer and other stakeholders and the Committee.
