You’d think that the recent proposal for Neighborhood Conservation Districts said that nothing could ever be demolished or built anywhere in the City again, ever. But if you read it, you’d find otherwise. Don’t believe the hype! Or everything that someone says in the Wisconsin State Journal.
Residents and taxpayers and supporters in the City of Madison from multiple neighborhoods waited until 11:00 (5.5 hours) to address the Plan Commission and support the Neighborhood Conservation District ordinance. They had the following to say:
1. Conservation Districts have been discussed multiple times and the Comprehensive Plan that was passed by the City says that we should pursue this ordinance. Conservation districts also are in other plans like the East Rail Corridor Plan and were part of the agreement to approve the E. Washington TIF District (Capital Gateway). This has been a long time coming and is in high demand with many different neighborhoods.
2. They understand this isn’t going to prevent the demolition of houses. What it may prevent in some cases, depending upon the characteristics that are trying to be preserved, is the assemblage of many smaller homes to build a huge building that is out of scale and character with the neighborhood. This will not be the case in all Neighborhood Conservation Districts, but it certainly will be in others.
3. This will help send a message to developers about where neighborhoods want to redevelop and change and where they want to preserve a certain character of the neighborhood, instead of doing it on a case-by-case basis.
4. Zoning is kind of irrelevant in the downtown areas because it’s so outdated and everything becomes a PUD, and this would help direct the PUDs.
5. Neighborhood plans are hard to defend. Often they are not specific enough to address individual properties or areas of a neighborhood. A Neighborhood Conservation District is a more specific layer to the Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood Plan. These overlay distrcits outline more specifics to the goals set out in the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood plans. They help define things like “compatible scale”.
6. This will help the City economically. One of our biggest assets is the strength of our neighborhoods and the quality of life that we have. That is due in part to the design and composition of our neighborhoods.
7. We can’t wait for the downtown masterplan because this effects much more than the downtown, this is a city-wide ordinance and many other neighborhoods are interested as well.
8. If this is drafted correctly it may benefit developers if standards are clearly laid out. It should lead to predictability. This will be a useful tool to help facilitate the process between the neighborhood and the developer. This is a proactive approach to how we design and plan our urban environment instead of reacting to development plans.
9. This isn’t a radical notion, its done elsewhere. (Sorry, I missed the list of places that they gave as an example.)
10. This will not stop development. What it will do is preserve the character of neighborhoods. We are trying to create “new urbanism” in cornfield (my word, not theirs!) development, but we have “old urbanism” that currently exists and we should work to keep it where we can.
Alder Olson had some additional comments and observations:
1. The Landmark ordinance is simple – and yet that ordinance adopted in 1973 has created 5 historic districts – that have served Madison very well. There’s “a little bit of hysteria” about this proposal and it won’t lead to a blanketing of the city with neighborhood conservation districts. Neighborhood conservation districts are for unique areas of the City.
2. In order for a Neighborhood Conservation District to move forward, its going to have to get neighborhood support before an alder will be able to convince the staff and council to go through the efforts to get a study for the area.
Alder Verveer also added:
1. This discussion has been going on ever since the mid-1990’s and its over a dozen years in the making.
2. If something like this were in place, we wouldn’t have the problems we had with a recent development in his district on Dayton St. (See the end of this article.)
3. This should lead to more predictability. A developer won’t waste time assembling property only to be turned down. This is a way for neighborhoods to make their intentions known prior to a development project and prevent “unpleasant surprises”.
4. The point of this ordinance was to “Keep It Simple, Stupid”.
Some of issues raised by the three professional paid lobbyists for the REALTORS, Smart Growth Madison Inc. and Downtown Madison Inc., all opponents of this proposal are as follows:
1. Unlike Historic Districts, politicians not professionals will make this decision.
BK Response: Yes, you are correct, it’s called guhv-ern-muh
nt. That is how these types of decisions get made. Politicians are elected to represent the people. However, in this case, we will be requiring a “Neighborhood Conservation Study” that will be done by professionals to guide the decision-making of the elected officials. (The great irony here is that the person grumbling about the dumb ol’ politicians is a former politician himself!) FYI – The entire 2nd page of the ordinance is currently devoted to discussing that study.
2. Property owners should have a say in if a Neighborhood Conservation District can happen or not. In fact, they should have a vote.
BK Response: See number one. Additionally, property owners do have the chance to influence the process; this isn’t something that is decided by some rogue alder to screw some property owner. (I’m repeating the snarky tone of these comments, not the actual words) This is something the alder and the neighborhood work together on to decide to propose. Then you have to convince the city staff to put time and effort into the study. Then the plan commission and the entire council has to vote to approve the overlay district at which point there will be additional public hearings.
3. The process is unclear. How does the request originate?
BK Response: This can originate from a property owner, the neighborhood, the alder, the staff or as a result of planning activities. Any which way, it will probably rely on city staff or the alder taking the initiative to help make it happen.
4. City staff will be the “arbiters” of what the characteristics of the neighborhood will be.
BK Response: Wait a minute, the same guy who doesn’t want the politicians to decide now doesn’t want the professional staff to decide either? Additionally, remember this takes a study, then an ordinance, which means it has to go through the City Committee process. And most developments still will need to get city approval through the public process.
5. 11 alders can “freeze” a neighborhood.
BK Response: Huh? 11 alders can do alot of different things, however, 2 years later, 11 alders can decide something different. These decisions are like any city decision, the can be repealed or changed when the votes change. Again, that’s how it works. I’m curious what the alternative might be? Additionally, the neighborhood won’t be “frozen” in that development can still occur; this just determines what the characteristics of that development might be. It could be something that has very little impact on the development but maybe requires benches and bus stops and pedestrian scale lighting.
6. This will prevent affordable housing.
BK Response. Hmmm . . . so ripping down rental housing and building high end condos is a good plan for affordable housing? As far as I can tell, everything new being built costs more than what currently exists. Well, except for that little ol’ IZ thing, but if the court finds that IZ doesn’t apply to rentals, we’re not going to create alot of truly affordable housing.
7. This is a way to “nibble away” at neighborhood plans and the comprehensive plan.
BK Response: Actually, it is just the opposite. This is a way to add clarity to the comprehensive plan which is quite general and more clearly defined in the neighborhood plans.
8. There is no need. We have a process with checks in place.
BK Response: See Verveer’s comment above about how it didn’t work so well with the Dayton St. project.
9. Neighborhood boundaries aren’t appropriate for making these decisions because the characteristics don’t correspond with the neighborhood boundaries.
BK Response: Um . . . you are right, but nothing in the ordinance refers to neighborhood boundaries. I’m not sure where this notion came from, but this ordinance is likely to apply to small portions of a neighborhood that are unique in some kind of way.
10. This belongs in the Comprehensive Plan. This needs to be in the comprehensive plan before you pass a zoning code revision.
BK Response: Um . . . it is. We said that the City should adopt a Neighborhood Conservation District Plan in the Comprehensive Plan.
11. This should apply to commercial areas as well.
BK Response: Um . . . it does. Nothing in the ordinance says this is residential only.
12. We should do the downtown plan before we pass this ordinance.
BK Response: The Downtown plan is a small piece of the city and this can apply to other areas that shouldn’t have to wait.
13. The ordinance is too vague.
BK Response: And so is this comment. As usual, I’d like to see a proposal about what is too vague and how they would change it. (I won’t hold my breath.)
14. We already have too many restrictions on development and we should wait for some of our newer policies (IZ) or policies in progress of revision (TIF, demolition permits, zoning code re-write) to be done before we do this.
BK response: It will be years before the zoning code re-write is done. TIF doesn’t have anything to do with the character of what is developed, its a financing tool. This isn’t something that has to wait; this is something that should apply to small, very localized areas.
16. We need to clearly define what characteristics make something unique.
BK response: Um . . . isn’t that the point of something being unique?
Unique:
1. existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics: a unique copy of an ancient manuscript.
2. having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable: Bach was unique in his handling of counterpoint.
3. limited in occurrence to a given class, situation, or area: a species unique to Australia.
4. limited to a single outcome or result; without alternative possibilities: Certain types of problems have unique solutions.
5. not typical; unusual: She has a very unique smile.
6. the embodiment of unique characteristics; the only specimen of a given kind: The unique is also the improbable.
17. There are too many questions to move forward. (examples given: Can this be repealed? Can neighborhoods ask for this to be over-ridden? Does it have to overlap with the neighborhood boundaries?)
BK Response: And there are plenty of answers to those questions. Yes it can be repealed. Neighborhoods can lead the charge to change a district if it no longer meets their needs. And no, it doesn’t have to and probably won’t overlap with neighborhood boundaries. (Where did they get that idea?)
18. Areas where there are already other restrictions in place (historic districts, capital height limits, etc.) should be exempt.
BK Response: Why? This makes no sense. A capital height limit doesn’t address setbacks and building features and streetscape criteria.
Sorry if I got a little snarky. It’s just that some of these arguments are pretty ridiculous. That’s not to say that there aren’t some improvements that can be made to the ordinance proposal and hopefully we can meet and educate the misinformed and address some of the questions that were raised. When it comes down to it tho, it seems the “process” issue is the one that needs to be addressed, not the content of the ordinance. It seems that education and a careful reading of the page and a half ordinance clears up most of the concerns.
Note: The plan commission referred this for 45 days to talk to the lobbyists who had these concerns.
