Another Demolition

To expand Farm and Fleet

Please be advised that Neal VanLoo will be filing a demolition permit application on May 12, 2010 for Plan Commission review that calls for a Commercial Building located at 2126 S Stoughton Rd Madison, WI 53716 to be demolished. For more information regarding this forthcoming application, you may contact the applicant, Neal VanLoo, Blain's Farm & Fleet, PO Box 391 3507 East Racine Street Janesville, WI 53547-0391 at nvanloo@blainsupply.com or (608)758-5190.

Applicant's Comments:
Demolition of existing Drexel building to provide space for renovation and addition of the existing Blain's Farm & Fleet store immediately to the south of the Drexel property

Read more!

Demolition

Tear down a laundromat, put up parking lot. Hey, this is Madison, can't it at least be a parking ramp, or pervious pavers or bike parking or something? :)

Please be advised that Jim Luedke will be filing a demolition permit application on March 31, 2010 for Plan Commission review that calls for a Commercial Building located at 102 N Randall Ave Madison, WI 53711 to be demolished. For more information regarding this forthcoming application, you may contact the applicant, Jim Luedke, 1419 Monroe Street Madison, WI 53711 at gotooak@aol.com or (608)256-2544.

Applicant's Comments:
Demolish existing laundromat building to expand parking lot.

Read more!

End? of the Week Round Up

This may be my last post for the week. I have the rest of the week off . . . but then again . . . maybe not.

UPDATED COUNTY BOARD INFO
I updated yesterday's post with websites and facebook pages I could find. Please feel free to forward any info you find. I also updated with info from the clerk's office yesterday at around 4:20. I also corrected a few errors, there are now up to 20 races possible if everyone files their paperwork.

THIS GUY IS RUNNING IN THE SECOND AGAINST VEDDER?
Yeah, screw child labor laws, who needs em? Department of Labor press release. He also gives money to this PAC that gives mostly to Republicans. Wanna place bets on if this is the realtors candidate? (Um, when I say "realtors candidate" I do mean the association and leadership backed candidate. Some of my best friends are realtors, and they don't vote for many of the association candidates, if they are informed.)

STATE TO TAKE OVER CITY SNOW REMOVAL POLICIES?
It's hard to take anything Glen Grothman does seriously, so this did make me smile. He's such a tool. Yeah, our snow plowing policies suck, maybe our legislative branch of government should take a whack at it first. I wonder if anyone will step forward and get this to the council floor as a discussion. I know we tried in the past . . . but there is great resistance to that. We got accused of micromanaging and were told to stay out of it. So, I appreciate Soglin's comments about the alders not making any conscious decisions. It's all those pesky details people got upset about me paying attention to. They matter. This is why.

DEPUTIES UNION APPROVES AGREEMENT
Finally. More information and press release to follow . . . . uh, when?

HEARING MORE ABOUT WYOU
It was an active year . . . and more changes coming in the new year! Stay tuned! Channels 95 or 991. Consider donating today! It's your public television stations, and yours to lose.

MORE BIG BUILDINGS FOR DOWNTOWN
No official notice of demolitions yet, but here's the addresses:
1208 Spring Street (1880 building)
1212 Spring Street ($1M property)
1214 Spring Street ($.65M property)
45 N. Orchard St. ($1.2M property)

EDGEWATER, DO-OVER, DO BETTER?
Wow. This is quite the dilemna. No one wants to hear all that testimony again. But, there are three members who will make or break this decision, and they haven't heard it. So, if you care alot about the issue, you kinda gotta show up again. No one wants the meeting to go until 5:15 again. So here's some suggestions to do this better this time around.

1. Schedule the issue for a special council meeting, where this is the only issue.
2. Don't let Fred Mohs and Gene Devitt talk for 25 minutes, but not other opponents. That was an ad hoc decision made by the Mayor.
3. Don't take questions after every 10 speakers, especially the developer and neighborhood folks, if they are going to be there til the end, ask them questions at the end after other speak and go home.
4. Have the Mayor pay attention and actively chair the meeting, especially during the council discussion, keeping people on task.
5. Use staff time efficiently and don't make that many staff people sit there for 11 hours. (4 planning staff, 2 clerks, 2 economic development staff, 1 city assessor, 1 city engineer, 1 comptroller, 4 Mayor's staff, 2 city attorneys there well after midnight. And after 2:00 only lost one Mayor's staff. I'm not sure, but we may have lost a few more along the way.)

More comments and critique here. There must be other ideas as well, I just hope they aren't limited to limiting public input. (Yeah, you only get 3 minutes this time around, not 5. Problem is, I don't think the public was the issue. It was the questions from council that dragged it out.)

GROAN

Schumacher is hopeful the council will approve revisiting the matter, and isn’t daunted by the prospect of another all-nighter.

Of course he isn't. He wasn't there for the first 11 hour meeting. And, if there is that many staff there again, is he going to pay for all that staff time that will be used. Or, pay for the 11 hours they wasted the first time around? I wonder how much that cost us? And what the human cost was - I wonder how miserable they all were if they had to go to work the next day.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY
I find Bruer's comments interesting. Could the council go through all of this, for nothing?

Bruer met with representatives from Hammes last week and says the project is now seen by the company as more of a long-shot. He says Hammes had lumped the project with several others around the country to secure financing. "Now that that door has been slammed," Bruer says, "This project is a stand alone competing with hundreds of projects nationally with only a handful of banks able to finance a project of this scale."

If this is true, Cnare's motion was crucial to saving the project. I don't know why supporters insisted on voting against that motion. That may have been the vote that killed the project.

AYE: Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Solomon, Verveer, Cnare, Kerr, Palm, Bidar-Sielaff
NO: Sanborn, Schmidt, Skimore, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Eagon, King, Maniaci
ABSENT: Pham-Remmele, Schumacher, Compton

DANE COUNTY REPBULICANS TAKE A STAND!
Against plastic bag restirctions. Hmmmm . . . it might be more effective to show up to the council meeting when the decision is being made, instead of writing a letter to the editor after the fact. But it is good to see a name connected with the party here, not many are willing to do that. And I liked the first comment after the letter. The commenter forgot to mention cost to the taxpayer as well.
Read more!

Demolition for Parking Lot

House torn down to create parking lot for nearby condo owners . . .

Please be advised that John Sveum will be filing a demolition permit application on January 11, 2010 for Plan Commission review that calls for a single family home located at 3514 Dennett Dr Madison, WI 53714 to be demolished. For more information regarding this forthcoming application, you may contact the applicant, John Sveum, Park East LLC, 1480 Oak Opening Stoughton, WI 53589 at jsveum@yaharabuilderts.com or (608)287-1445.

Applicant's Comments:
We haqve a letter of approval from the Eastmorland Community Association to demolish the existing house and replace it with green space and surface parking for the building at 3502 Dennett Dr

Read more!

2 Upcoming Demolitions

A single family house and a UW Building . . .

One . . .

Please be advised that Karl Lang will be filing a demolition permit application on March 1, 2010 for Plan Commission review that calls for a single family house located at 2528 Waunona Way Madison, WI 53713 to be demolished. For more information regarding this forthcoming application, you may contact the applicant, Karl Lang, 2528 Waunona Way Madison, WI 53713 at karl@mac.com or (608)658-0822.


If you have any questions about the Plan Commission demolition permit approval process, please contact the City of Madison Planning Division at (608) 266-4635.

Two . . .

Please be advised that Gary Brown will be filing a demolition permit application on January 6, 2010 for Plan Commission review that calls for a University of Wisconsin Dinning Hall located at 717 W Johnson St Madison, WI 53706 to be demolished. For more information regarding this forthcoming application, you may contact the applicant, Gary Brown, University of Wisconsin, WARF Building 610 Walnut Street Madison, WI 53726 at gbrown@fpm.wisc.edu or (608)263-3023.

Applicant's Comments:
The State of Wisconsin will be building a new dinning hall for the University of Wisconsin Madison to take the place of the existing Gordon Commons which was built in the 1960's. The new building will be built behind the existing building. Once it is completed the existing Gordon Commons will be demolished and replaced with a green space. The demolition is anticipated to occur in 2012.

Read more!

More Demolition

Downtown Demolition . . . there's no explanation and I'm blanking on what might be going on here. Seems odd to be demolishing one single family home.

Please be advised that Brandon Cook will be filing a demolition permit application on March 1, 2010 for Plan Commission review that calls for a single family home located at 432 W DAYTON ST Madison, WI 53703 to be demolished. For more information regarding this forthcoming application, you may contact the applicant, Brandon Cook, PO Box 694 madison, WI 53701 at brandon@johnfontain.com or (608)279-7962.


If you have any questions about the Plan Commission demolition permit approval process, please contact the City of Madison Planning Division at (608) 266-4635.

Read more!

St. Raphael's

Clearly, it is a landmark. Clearly, the demolition permit has been issued by staff. Now what?

Last night's Landmark Commission meeting was a classic showdown between staff and policy makers. I'm certain I did not understand everything that was going on. The wrong staff was in the room to ask the appropriate questions. And the ordinance, sucks.

I'm spoiled, because on the plan commission, despite how horrible our zoning code is, at least we had some guidelines and rules to follow. Last night, we were faced with making a decision based on this:

(6) Procedures.
(a) Designation Of Landmarks and Landmark Sites. The Landmarks Commission and the
Common Council may consider nominations for landmark status. An individual or group
may nominate a property for consideration. If a complete, accurate application is
submitted and the Commission decides to consider the nomination, a public hearing shall be scheduled At least ten (10) days prior to such hearing . . .

That's it. It doesn't say what we consider or why we would or would not have a hearing.

While it is clear that under the ordinance, once we get to consider it, how to make a decisions (MGO 33.19(4)(a)):

(a) For purposes of this ordinance, a landmark or landmark site designation may be placed on any site, natural or improved, including any building, improvement or structure located thereon, or any area of particular historic, architectural or cultural significance to the City of Madison, such as historic structures or sites which:
1. Exemplify or reflect the broad cultural, political, economic or social history of
the nation, state or community; or
2. Are identified with historic personages or with important events in national, state or local history; or
3. Embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen,
inherently valuable for a study of a period, style, method of construction, or of
indigenous materials or craftsmanship or
4. Are representative of the notable work of a master builder, designer or architect
whose individual genius influences his age.

Stuart's right. It's clearly a landmark. To do anything except allow the hearing on it would have been abdicating our responsibility as the Landmark's Commission. And to say the "application is incomplete" was appalling. In any other circumstance, the staff would have worked with the applicant to make sure the application was complete.

We decided to hold the hearing and allow the applicant to amend his application. It was an interesting, odd, meeting. But we made the only decision that a Landmark's Commission could have/should have made. Heh, Stuart and I were even on the same side of the issues! Read more!

Are these the biggest issues for the Zoning Code Rewrite?

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.

Read more!

Demolish St. Raphael's?

Unfortunately, this could just be done without City Council approval. Here's a chance to give your input!

JUNE 2 PUBLIC MEETING ON DEMOLITION OF ST. RAPHAEL CATHEDRAL

Alder Mike Verveer has organized a public meeting at 7 p.m. Monday, June 2 on the proposed demolition of St. Raphael Cathedral. The City of Madison and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Madison want to demolish the remains of the church which was damaged by fire in 2005. To hear the plans and express your thoughts, attend the meeting at Capitol Lakes (formerly Meriter Maingate), 333 W. Main St.

Read more!

Common Council Recap

A three hour meeting took care of a 839 page packet of information for the meeting . . . not too bad. Here's the gory details . . . .

We kicked off the meeting with a minute of silence for the people killed in the med-flight crash. We suspended a bunch of rules like we do in the beginning of each meeting and then honored the Memorial High School forensics team - complete with a performance from one of the students. And then we passed a secret. We had some questions about a project on the northside in Cherokee Marsh which passed.

#11 - Amending the demolition ordinance to address demolition by fire.
Next, we did another "do over". Should the fire department be able to burn houses to demolish them and provide training for firefighters? I think we all think yes, but how the public is notified and when they do it was of concern. Alder Gruber came back with a "compromise" that we voted on. I love it when we have a "compromise" that one side of an argument comes up with. The "compromise" was that the fire department would be the only ones to do demolition by fire and limit it to three times a year. And then they removed the restriction prohibited them from burning on days where the DNR had issued Air Quality Warning or Watch for particulate matter.

I moved to keep the language prohibiting burns on days when there were Air Quality Warnings or Watches. The fire chief was out of the room and couldn't answer questions, so there was a motion to table. Believe it or not, we had to have a roll call vote on this.

Those those voting "NO" to table so we could ask the fire chief questions were: Schumacher, Brandon, Clausius, Compton, Plam and Rummel.

Those voting "AYE" were: Sanborn, Skidmore, Solomon, Verveer, Webber, Bruer, Clear, Cnare, Gruber, Judge, Kerr, Konkel, Pham-Remmele, Rhodes-Conway.

While we waited we moved on to:
Alder Pham-Remmele wanted to make a statement about our "secret" we passed earlier. Her point being that someone shouldn't be honored for helping Southeast Asians if they only work with one population - the Hmong as there are 55 other groups included as Southeast Asians.

Then, we reconsidered item 162 - which is Alder Kerr's appeal of the hotel on Monroe Street. We set the public hearing for the June 3rd council meeting.

Then we made the following staff appointments:
#18 - New Parks Department Superintendent - Kevin Briski and
#19 - New City Treasurer - Dave Gawenda.

Both passed with no problems. Kevin Briski made the rounds introducing himself to staff prior to the meeting. Alder Judge remarked that since he had no parks, they wouldn't be working together much and others had their lists of things ready that needed attention. Kevin Briski will be starting on June 2 and Dave Gawenda remarked that he was looking forward to moving on to "bigger things ahead". Interesting that City Treasurer is considered a move up from County Treasurer. Welcome to both of them!

#11 - Amending the demolition ordinance to address demolition by fire.
Then we went back to the demolition by fire issue and took it off the table. The fire chief was back in the room and we learned that last year there were 18 days that the DNR issued warnings or watches for particulate matter. However that was based on only 65 microns and the standard is now 35 microns and so they are expecting that will double the number of days that watches and warnings are issued. We also heard testimony that they would stop a burn exercise if there were conditions that put the firefighters at risk (high winds, etc.) even tho they said they couldn't stop a burn exercise because of a watch or warning. I think that the health and safety of the public and the air they breathe is equally important to protecting the safety of the staff.

However, only Verveer, Webber, and Rummel voted "AYE" with me to keep the language that would prohibit them from adding particulates to the air on days when watches and warnings were issued.

Those voting against for staff training over clean air and public health were: Sanborn, Schumacher, Skidmore, Solomon, Brandon, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Cnare, Compton, Gruber, Judge, Kerr, Palm, Pham-Remmele and Rhodes-Conway.

The final vote on the ordinance, that limits training to three days per year, which doesn't address the concerns that I and others had was 14 - 6.

Those voting "NO" were: Sanborn, Compton, Judge, Konkel, Pham-Remmele and Rummel.

Those voting "AYE" were: Schumacher, Skidmore, Solomon, Verveer, Webber, Brandon, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Cnare, Gruber, Kerr, Palm, Rhodes-Conway.

At some point during this discussion, Alder Pham-Remmele was talking and was cut off. Alder Brandon approached the Mayor and the Mayor announced that our "AV Club President" wanted to inform us that if we talk too loudly into the microphones they automatically shut off.

Also of interest, the fire chief took the moment to remind us that if they had a $6.5M state of the art training facility, they wouldn't need to do the training exercises on buildings being demolished.

#44 - Noise outside the 7 am - 7 pm restrictions for construction on E. Washington Ave.
Bottom line here is that there will be no pile driving and the public is notified of the noise if they are within 300 feet of the street and they will be notified next spring when the work begins. This item passed unanimously on a voice vote.

# 87 - Moving $8,000 from the Far West Library to buy a copier.
We then moved on to our other "Do Over" of the evening, where there was a long, and I think unnecessarily drawn out. I have to admit, I think I tuned out as some folks were talking. After a particularly long comment by Alder Palm, the Mayor once again called on Alder Palm, er, I mean Alder Brandon - who used the opportunity to scold us yet again. This time it was his "Politician" speech, which I think the gist of it was that if we don't show up to meetings where items are discussed we lose the right to have an opinion on those issues and are being bad elected officials if we don't participate at the committee level. Alder Pham-Remmele responded with explaining that you can't be in two places at once and she was at a meeting for a committee she sits on (CDBG) when this issue was discussed at the Library Board and that was why she wasn't there to participate - a situation many of us are often faced with.

The staff person (sorry I didn't catch his name) from the library gets extra brownie points for working "The Natural Step" into his comments on why we were buying this copier.

After all of that, this item passed unanimously on a voice vote.

#89 - Cherokee Marsh plat
Kumbaya. Lots of technical talk . . . but it passed unanimously on a voice vote.

#98 - Changing the Snow Emergency Rules
Hopefully we will never have to use this, but, now if there is more than 3 inches of snow (from policy) before November 15th or after March 15th - they can still call a snow emergency. And the whole city will have to alternate side park - except streets with one side of parking and a long list of other exceptions. It passed unanimously on a voice vote.

#101 - Will there be jobs for Allied Drive residents in the public works portion of the project?
I'm not sure which item contained this information, but, there will be 3 Construction Craft Laborer Apprentice jobs for people in the Allied Drive area in the public works bid that we approved. This item just moved the budget money around to allow it to happen and it passed unanimously on a voice vote.

#104 - Report on gender, race and people with disabilities appointments to City committees
This was referred as there were still errors in the numbers.

#105 - Report on gender, race and people with disabilities and hiring for top management positions
This report showed that women represent 47% of the labor market but are only 34% of the top managers across the City. We fall short in 5 of the 6 categories of top management positions as follows:

• Police - 33%
  
• Fire - 11%
• Management and Professionals - 37%
• Agency Heads - 21%
• Metro Management and Professionals - 24%
  

The study also showed that there is a 6% wage gap, which needs to be studied further.

The study confirms what I've been saying and will require follow up to work on the recommendations in the report, but things have started to change internally with the recruitment and certification process and it will take some budget and policy changes to continue to make progress. Thanks to the staff and committee that worked on this! The report was unanimously accepted/approved/received or whatever, on a voice vote.

#106 - CDA Workplan
We finally got the budget and workplan on the same agenda and got an update on the 2008 plan that was due before we did this year's budget (last May or June) but we didn't get it so last year in the budget we had to ask for it. We got it at the end of January/beginning of February but referred it to consider it with the budget. So, there were many changes and they have to get the 2009 plan ready in the next few months.

My major issue with the report is that it has a list of projects, but doesn't really state our broader goals of what we are trying to accomplish.

Updates and questions include:

• Allied Drive got the tax credits and they are moving forward.
• The American Exhange Bank Redevelopment District has been removed from the plan.
• The CDA will consider the request by WARF to waive part of the $600,000 fee for the $180M bonding for Wisconsin Institute for Discovery/Morgridge Institute for Research, but they are likely to not waive the fee if I read the vibe correctly.
• Lakepoint. Lots of questions, not alot of firm answers. We're stuck in a bad situation and they are trying their best to make sure we don't lose more money. Clearly, they are not going to want to try to get any money out of the council! However, if I read the numbers correctly, with my back of the envelope calculation, its not looking good. I look forward to a fuller analysis.
• Our public housing reserves are building back up. They have $600,000 where they should have $1M.
• The Truax plan was adopted
• And, they didn't offer much when it comes to the Truman Olson Army ROTC Facility. While it was clear to me that they want it to be economic development and not a facility to serve the homeless, no one would say it.
  

The plan passed unanimously on a voice vote.

#107 - CDA Budget Template
Yes, the CDA does not pay for Mark Olinger's time. Or any staff time spent working on the Villager Mall. Allied Drive staff time is being charged to the TIF. It's not clear where some of the other items are in the various line items, but we're making progress. At least we have the outline of an operating budget for the CDA redevelopment activities. (We've always had one on the Housing Operations side of things.) This passed unanimously on a voice vote.

With that, we adjourned to the Great Dane. Those partaking were: Gruber, Webber, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Judge, Verveer, Clear, Bruer, Schumacher and eventually . . . Palm. Also joining us was an Amy Westra and, of course, the lovely Rosemary Lee. (Hey Mike - nice talking to you!) Next time, Alder Judge will finally be legal drinking age. Read more!

Council Recap: March 18 - Updated

It's somewhat of a mystery to many how we managed to make this meeting last until 10:00. Instead of making a snarky comment about how it happened, I'll let you figure it out as I explain, tho it loses something if you weren't there to experience it. Here's what we did. (Sorry, no links, looks like a city server is down again.)

Mayor Dave, Ald Kerr, Alder Pham-Remmele and Alder Solomon were all missing from the meeting. Solomon and Pham-Remmele were expected, Mayor Dave and Ald. Kerr were both sick. So, with Verveer in the chair and Bruer making the motions, we started the meeting about 5 minutes late.

1. We declared next week Community Development Week.

We went to the consent agenda, passing everything except the public hearing agenda items 3 - 10 and items 27, 28, 32, 33 and 60.

27. Since it wasn't 6:45 yet, we couldn't do public hearings, so item 27 - the Habitat for Humanity project in Larry Palm's district that was a controversy during budget time. Alder Compton brought up the issue, claiming that we didn't have enough information about what Habitat's plan was for the site. After many words, a few questions for staff and adding a few co-sponsors, the item passed, despite Alder Compton's objecitons.

3. It being 7:00 now, we went on to the public hearings. The first item being the demolition ordinance. Only one person was there to testify, neither in support or opposed was Carole Schaeffer from Smart Growth Madison.

a. The first issue we discussed was changing Alder Compton wanting to change 1946 to 1940 for which buildings needed 60 days notice to the neighborhoods when doing a demolition. Since not much was built during WWII I'm not sure it made a difference, and it was accepted unanimously.

b. The second issue we discussed was Alder Rummel making a motion precluding demolition by fire. This sparked (sorry) quite a bit of discussion. After questions of the Fire and Health Department about the effects of the first on surrounding neighbors, and then more "questions" of the Fire Department from Alder Compton and lots of talking, Alder Gruber made a motion to not burn on Clean Air Action Days. Since those days are about ozone issues, not particulate issues we tabled the issue to come up with some appropriate language to properly address the issue.

5 - 7. The next issues were about resurfacing Eastwood and E Gorham. Eastwood was a bit of a controversy as the neighbors would like to see it closed permanently. There was one question about the E Gorham assessments and a little bit of discomfort and laughter as I announced that E Gorham from Butler to where E Johnson and Gorham split at Baldwin will be closed all summer. There was an acknowledgment that while right now people are concerned about potholes, this summer people are going to be wondering how to get from here to there with the near East Side on again, presenting an extra bit of a challenge.

10. We approved moving the Conklin House to 101-109 N Franklin/500 Block of E Mifflin. There was one property owner there in opposition, but we passed the motion without comment. Keep your eye open for a house moving down the street this Sunday.

28. After a few brief questions, we approved double-filling the Department of Civil Rights Director position until Lucia Nunez returns to work.

32. We approved giving a potential homeowner in the Bassett TIF area additional money beyond the program rules because there was a mistake in the brochure. They say there are only two loans that have this problem and we won't have to do this again. There was much concern about the program in general. Giving $60,000 to a homeowner to convert a home from rental to owner-occupied seemed inappropriate to many. It only passed 12 - 5 with Sanborn, Schumacher, Skidmore, Claussius and Konkel voting no. Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Verveer, Webber, Compton, Cnare, Brandon, Bruer, Clear, Gruber, Judge and Palm voting aye, despite several of them, including Alder Compton expressing concerns about the mistake as well as the program.

33. Fixed some contracting that didn't comply with Best Value Contracting in number 33.

60. Alder Compton had more issues with Habitat for Humanity. This time on the northside. Same objections, same result. We still approved the funding.

It was now about 9:00 and we took a break.

About 9:15 we went back to the tabled demolition ordinance.

c. After some more discussion about demolition by fire. We approved the Gruber amendment restricting burns to days when there isn't a Air Quality Warning or Watch issued by the DNR. Alder Rummel then made another amendment extending the area where people get notice of the burn from 500 to 1000 feet and requiring the developer to pay for the notice. That, after some more bizarre comments from Alder Compton, passed. I attempted to say that you couldn't burn if there were other houses within 500 feet of the proposed burn. That failed.

d. Schumacher then made an amendment, which appeared to be a brokered deal between "the boys" specifically Brandon and Gruber, without talking to me at all. Which I found rather insulting. The amendment allegedly was designed to all more dense urban infill. The amendment was about the proposed future use of the property. The first part said that the proposed future use had to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the neighborhood plan OR (instead of AND) a neighborhood conservation district plan. Theoretically the neighborhood plan and neighborhood conservation district are consistent with the Comp Plan so I'm not sure this did a whole lot. They also changed shall to should. Also, not sure what the legal impact of that was, but probably not much.

The second part of the amendment was to eliminate the sentence that said if no neighborhood plan existed the proposed use had to be "compatible" with the neighborhood character, massing and density. The stated purpose, as I said, was to provide for more urban infill. Unfortunately, what the boys failed to understand is that the plan commission found that Nolen Shores was compatible with the Bassett neighborhood. So, I'm not sure that was even a necessary sentence after we said that the proposed project had to be compatible with the intent of the zoning classification and the Comprehensive Plan. It seemed to be a huge victory to them when I agreed it could be a friendly amendment, but I'm not sure it will have any real impact.

e. Then, Alder Compton wanted to change the 60 day notice to neighbors and the interested parties register required for buildings built before 1940 to 30 days. After Alder Cnare explained why that notice helped to make the process smoother at the Plan Commission, her amendment failed.

I quickly thanked the Plan Commission subcommittee, most of whom are no longer on the plan commission (myself, Kelly Thompson-Frater and Brian Ohm are all gone, Nan Fey and Jim Boll remain) and staff (Tim Parks and Matt Tucker primarily as well as Ed Ruckreigel from Fire and George Dreckmann from Streets) and explained that the ordinance fixed several issues the plan commission had to deal with including putting teeth into the reuse and recycling plan, allowing some demolitions when we don't know what the proposed use is, allowing demolitions for public safety hazards, better notice to neighbors and other interested parties, clarifying that the ordinance applies to moving houses as well as demolitions, puts the City under the same rules as developers and essentially giving the plan commission better guidelines and the developers more predictability overall. The ordinance passed unanimously and mercifully, the meeting was over and we all needed a drink!

After the meeting, we went the Local Tavern. Joining us were Gruber, Schumacher, Clausius, Clear, Bruer, Rummel, Rhodes-Conway, Webber and . . . drumroll please . . . both Judge and Verveer sans attachments. It's the first time most of us talked to Mike Verveer after the meeting in a very, very long time. Several people ended up doing a food run to the Argus since we missed the menu because our meeting went so long. For entertainment, we made up mixed drinks that described the personalities of our fellow council members. Best not to repeat them here. Read more!

Demolition Ordinance

It's finally done. (Well, its in legistar now, but it may not make it on the agenda for Tuesday and the timeline below may be wrong, will write a new blog when I know more. Note: I found another hidden benefit to blogging, this should have been done and in legistar days ago, and when I went to link it, it was missing. Since I noticed it now, it still has a chance of getting on the agenda for Tuesday, maybe.)

According to staff, the schedule is as follows:
Introduced at Council on July 17.
Plan Commission on August 6th??
Back to Common Council on September 4th??

The committee also asked for it to be referred to landmarks commission, so that will need to be added to the schedule and that may change things.

Sounds like a fast track, but we've been meeting for months and months (8/7, 8/21, 9/18, 10/9, 10/23, 11/6, 11/20, 12/4, 12/18, 1/10, 1/22, 2/5, 2/19, 3/19, 4/9, 4/23, 5/7, 5/21 and 6/14.), and 4 Plan Commissioners served on the committee, so I'd expect few changes, but that doesn't mean we don't want to hear from people.

For background, here's some of the previous thoughts I've had on demolitions and demolition related-items.
Read more!

Tearin' Down the House!

Are there any houses in the downtown area that are worthy of saving? Or should we just flatten the downtown, kiss the house good-bye and build large zero lot line buildings with no backyards, no trees and no open space? Or are there some individual houses worth saving? Are there some areas of the downtown worth saving? And how do we decide what and when to save a house? Or a neighborhood?

Should this house be torn down?

Or this one?

Or this one?

Do you care what year the houses were built? If it was built in the 1800's does that change anything? How many houses do you think we have in town that were built in the 1800s? Is an individual house built in the 1800's worth saving? Are they more worth saving is someone who helped found the city lived there? Does the architecture have to be important? Does it matter when the houses built around it were built?

These are issues facing the Old Market Place Neighborhood, recently renamed the James Madison Park Neighborhood. Cliff Fisher has proposed knocking down the three houses above to build a 35 - 38 unit apartment building with underground parking. The houses are on Butler St. but the underground parking would be accessed from Hancock St. And the building would be built all the way to the end of the lot line on Butler and the underground parking would be under the Hancock St. properties. The building proposed is much better looking than it used to be, it fits in better with the neighborhood than the original proposal, but what is to become of this neighborhood? Is it to be flattened to make way for height and density? Or is there something worth saving? Consider these buildings and the other buildings on this block:

Picture 1 - 119 N Butler - Built in 1894
Picture 2 - 123 N Butler - Built in 1937 - Katherine P Regan House - Designed by Ed Tough
Picture 3 - 125 N Butler - Built in 1874

Based on some research I did several years ago, the other houses on this block include:

103 N Butler - Built in 1854 - Hiram G and Annette Dodge House
129 N Butler - Built in 1900 - Chester W and Hortense Constantine House - It's a Claude and Starck
133 N Butler - Built in 1897 - William W Herrington Apartment
141 N Butler - Built in 1900 - William J and Emma Teckmeyer House - Also a Claude and Stark
(I used to live here.)
145 N Butler - Built in 1887 - Berger Olson House
149 N Butler - Built in 1909 - Charles L Pryor House
305 E Johnson - Built in 1892 - William J and Elizabeth Oakey Residence
317 E Johnson - Built in 1891 - A.N. Fjeld
319 E Johnson - Built in 1891 - Andrew & Karen Fjeld Residence
323 E Johnson - Built in 1914 - R.A. Fjeld
310 E Mifflin - Built in 1926 - A. J. McCann Apartment Building - Designed by M.P. Schneider
314 E Mifflin - Built in 1857 - A.H. Campbell House
318 E Mifflin - Built in 1854 - A Noyes House
322 E Mifflin - Built in 1900 - Anton Hebel House

Houses across N Butler St. and to the west include:

128 N Butler - Built in 1904 - George W and Lydia Kindschi
130 N Butler - Built in 1916 - George Kindschi residence
134 N Butler - Built in 1913 - Sophie and Frank Fleckenstein Jr
136 N Butler - Built in 1909 - Mary Roland House
140 N Butler - Built in 1886 - Henry B and Sarah French residence
203 N Hamilton- Built in 1857 - George Paine Residence
205-207 N Hamilton - Built in 1894 - Meyer Roberman residence
213 N Hamilton - Built in 1909 - Wayne Apartment Building
217 N Hamilton - Built in 1853 - E. J. Oakley residence

Houses one block to the east include:

107 N Hancock - Built in 1899 - Ole Knutson
125 N Hancock - Built in 1899 - James H Cummings
133 N Hancock - Built in 1900 -
139 N Hancock - Built in 1869 - Luke Gilligan House
143 N Hancock - Built in 1892 - Chris and Caroline Jaeger Residence
402 E Mifflin - Built in 1922 - Gloria Dei Church, Swedish Lutheran

Houses two blocks to the east include:
101 N Franklin - Built in 1857 - William F Reiche residence
111 N Franklin - Built in 1850 - George Baker House
119 N Franklin - Built in 1899 - George H and Dagmar Ambrecht residence
129 N Franklin - Built in 1890 -
(I also used to live here.)
153 N Franklin - Built in 1887 - JJ Van Keulen house
515 E Johnson - Built in 1877 - JJ Van Kenlen/Patrick & Bridget Conlin House
216 - 218 N Blair - Built in 1911 - Elizabeth McCormick Duplex
516 E Mifflin - Built in 1919 - A.L. Weaver Commercial Building

Houses on the three blocks to the north include:
301 N Hamilton - Built in 1893 - Christiah F Rinder Grocery
303 - 309 N Hamilton - Built in 1904 - W. J. Oakey Apt Building
321 N Hamilton - J A Stein House
308 N Hancock - Built in 1890 - J A Steinle House
310 N Hancock - Built in 1897 - Samuel Todd Residence
324 E Johnson - Built in 1867 - William Manning House
506 E Johnson - Built in 1872
512 E Johnson - Built in 1872
518 E Johnson - Built in 1877 - John Leyden House
308 N Blair -Built in 1877 - RR Smith House
312 N Blair - Built in 1886 - Alfred Smith House
316 N Blair - Built in 1885 - Al Smith House

Of the 139 houses in this area, 69 are listed in the Wisconsin Architecture and History Inventory. And there are another 33 on the 5 blocks to the south between E Mifflin and E Washington.

Is none of this worth saving? Is any of it worth saving? If the individual homes are not worth saving, are they worth saving because it is a group of buildings and an intact neighborhood? Or must we get rid of it all in the name of progress? Is some history of Madison worth preserving? Read more!

The Hype about Neighborhood Conservation Districts

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-muhnt. 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.
Read more!

Nothing is Ever Easy!

No good deed goes unpunished. Last night, I tried to be "pro-business" and move reconsideration of a demolition permit. Silly me.

Last week at the plan commission we had three demolitions before us. I was troubled by the fact that the information we had before us in the written materials was not sufficient to find that we met our standards, so I asked the applicants to supplement the information through their oral presentations.

We approved two (one, two) of the demolitions and denied a third. By all accounts, despite my efforts to draw information out of the applicant, they just did a lousy job with their presentation and we couldn't find that the standards for demolition had been met.

CONTROVERSY NUMBER ONE: Was a motion to reconsider in order?

I'd argue yes. Last June we passed a resolution saying that boards, committees and commission would follow MGO 2.21 and a motion for reconsideration could be made at the meeting where a decision was made or at the following meeting.

First off, the chair thought I needed to make a motion to recind because that is what is required in Robert's Rules of Order, but our rules say that we follow Robert's Rules of Order unless we pass something that addresses the issue and then we follow our own rules. That's typical of many bodies. Since our rules indicate that a motion to "reconsider" is appropriate, that motion would be in order.

Second, at least one Assistant City Attorney and some staff think that the motion is out of order because it did not appear on the agenda. I can tell you that has not been the practice in the past. But with revolving City Attorney's no decision is ever final. So I await an official decision from the top. Meanwhile, I requested the motion to reconsider in time for it to appear on the agenda, however, the staff did not amend the agenda. Should a member of the body's efforts be thrwarted because a staff member doesn't act on time? That doesn't make sense.

CONTROVERSY NUMBER TWO: Just cuz someone made a lousy presentation, should they get a do over?

Well, I feel like I'm on a little shakier ground on that count, but here's my argument.

A) The applicant could appeal our decision, go to the Common Council, do the presentation that they should have done in the first place and win the argument and get a 2/3 vote by the council, making the plan commission look like fools and giving the WSJ and all the critics a huge "I told you so" moment; or

B) The applicant could be forced to re-apply, pay an extra $500 and waste another 6 weeks.

I made the second argument at the plan commission, but not the first. I tried to be "pro-business" and not create unnecessary obstacles to getting a good decision. I'm not certain that the decision will be any different, but I'd like to be sure and have the correct information before us and know that we made a good decision and then have the applicant go through the motions in A) above and have a good defense of our actions. I think this is the right thing to do, lousy presentation notwithstanding.

The motion to reconsider barely passed 3 - 2. Stay tuned to find out if I was successful in my efforts or if the City Attorney finds that I was out of order . . .

Sigh. Nothing is easy. Read more!

It's not just the WSJ . . .

So, I was intrigued by the Cap Times reporting of the Plan Commission discussion on demolitions we had at the Plan Commission the other night.

The Cap Times reported:

Commission member Ald. Brenda Konkel said she wants the city to take a tougher stance on older structures, including requiring information on what will be built, the historic context and the cost of rehabilitation vs. demolition.

I'm quite certain, I didn't say anything to that effect. What I was talking about is the CURRENT law. I said we need to either have the information before us and follow the law, or we need to determine how to change the law. The CURRENT law requires us to consider what will be built. The CURRENT law requires us to consider the historic context of the building and the CURRENT law requires us to consider if the applicant has tried to rehabilitate the home.

I recently wrote an op-ed for the WSJ Business Journal that explains what I was talking about at the plan commission meeting the other night:

Why is there a special subcommittee set up to look at demolitions? One word: predictability. Currently we have an ordinance that simply doesn’t work for the Plan Commission or applicants. The Plan Commission has been approving demolitions that don’t technically meet the requirements of our ordinance but are good planning and development. We need to bring our ordinance up to date, making it consistent with current practice.

The current ordinance requires us to find, in part, that any demolition meets the following requirements:
- Encourages preservation of existing buildings that are structurally sound, economically productive and suitable for rehabilitation and repair
- Encourages voluntary compliance with building and housing codes
- Aids in the preservation of residential neighborhoods
- Requires the Plan Commission to evaluate proposed alternative uses of the property before existing buildings are destroyed or removed

Clearly, we have allowed demolitions that do not meet the stated goals of the ordinance. If the applicant doesn’t provide documents proving that the building is not structurally sound, economically productive or suitable for rehabilitation or repair, should the application be denied? We currently do not receive such information with the demolition application. When applicants submit pictures of buildings that don’t appear to meet basic minimum housing codes, should the application be denied? Since we started asking for pictures of what is to be demolished, I’ve seen many minimum housing code violations. If residential properties are to be demolished to make way for a commercial property, should the demolition be denied? And when a building has outlived its usefulness or is creating a safety hazard (e.g. abandoned and being used for illegal activities) should we require that we know the details of the future use prior to allowing the demolition?

There are times when a demolition is desirable, yet it doesn’t meet the requirements of the ordinance. This puts the Plan Commission in the difficult position of choosing between making a good decision for the community or following the current law. The choice is further complicated because the Plan Commission is an administrative body that must base our decisions on the criteria outlined in the law. Lack of consistency opens the door for potential lawsuits.

Additionally, our ordinance does not address such issues as:
- Demolition by fire (used as a fire department training opportunity) and requirements for notifying neighbors
- Consistent conditions for approval of demolitions without a known future use
- Requirements for a reuse and recycling plan

We’ve also had a few demolitions without a permit in recent years. The owners subsequently asked for a retroactive permit. Additionally, some residents have expressed concerns that the ordinance does not adequately spell out criteria for denying a demolition permit based on historic preservation.

Clearly, there are multiple complex issues involved and the Plan Commission has been struggling with this ordinance for the past few years. Hopefully the subcommittee can accomplish our goal of writing an ordinance that leads to more predictability and clear expectations that updates the ordinance to reflect our current planning goals.

Read more!

Demolitions and Conservation Districts

This morning's WSJ has a half-way decent article about our demolition ordinance (yes, that was a compliment) and an upcoming conservation district ordinance. I'm currently sitting on a subcommittee of the Plan Commission that is looking at the City's demolition ordinance. Our goals of that committee are to create a new ordinance that is more consistent with our current practices and create some clear, understandable criteria to make decisions and create more predictability for the folks you are trying to demolish buildings.

While we have decided to scrap the current ordinance, we have decided to try to create criteria that would be different for residential buildings and non-residential buildings. We are also going to have additional criteria for buildings over a certain age. In addition to these issues, the committee will be thinking about how to deal with some additional issues:

1. Demolitions by fire - and notice to neighbors.
2. How to deal with lakefront property demolitions
3. How do deal with mixed-use buildings and what criteria we will use for building with both residential and non-residential uses.
4. How to reuse and recycle buildings
5. Demolishing buildings that create a safety risk
6. Replacing affordable housing that is demolished
7. Moving houses
8. Penalities for demolition by neglect
9. Penalties for asking for a permit after a demolition has occurred
10. Requirements for the propoerty if a new use is not imminent (seeding/landscaping and grading)

At the same time that we are talking about the demolition ordinance, we should soon be seeing a Conservation District Ordinance that would:

1. Seek to preserve the essential character of unique neighborhoods in the City of Madison.
2. Have different criteria for each district that tailors the regulations to the attributes of the built environment that make the place unique.
3. Allow neighborhoods to prevent insensitive development, and promote better harmony between new and existing structures.
4. The Neighborhood Conservation Districts criteria would apply to all new construction, exterior alterations, additions and demolitions of structures on all zoning lots located in such districts.
5. To be considered for designation as a Neighborhood Conservation District, an area must meet the following minimum criteria:
a. Be of a minimum size.
b. The proposed area must possess consistent, identifiable built environment characteristics to be conserved.
c. The proposed area must contain at least one of the following features:
- Distinctive building attributes: scale, mass, distinctive architectural characteristics, e.g. front porches, height, roof styles
- Distinctive land use patterns: mixed uses, parks/open spaces, or unique uses or activities
- Distinctive streetscape characteristics: lighting, street layout and materials
- Distinctive lot features: lot layouts, setbacks, alleys
- Location near designated historic landmarks and/or districts.

The biggest battle over the conservation district ordinance will likely be the neighborhoods fighting to get the City resources to create conservation districts in their neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are lining up at the moment . . . Read more!

What's Historic?

So, as the downtown continues to thrive and we see very little end to the onging redevelopment, we are running out of vacant land or obvious spaces to redevelop . . . which means we have to tear something down. But what?

Is the only reason to resist tearing something down because it is historic? Or when deciding to tear something down, should we care if it is still structurally sound and economically viable? What type of recycling should be required when demolitions are allowed? Should we be encouraging moving houses to make way for redevelopment?

Does it matter what will replace the buildings when deciding if they should be torn down?

Is a building historic/worth saving because it was built more than 100 years ago? Does it make a difference if it is brick or wood? Does it matter what neighborhood it is in?

Is a building historic/worth saving if it is listed in the Wisconsin Historic and Architecture Inventory? Does it matter if we know who lived in the home or used the building?

Is a building historic/worth saving if it appears in a City document as possibly historic? Or only if it is in a historic district? Or if the Landmarks Commission has previously determined a building is a City landmark?

Is a building historic/worth saving only if it was made my a famous architect or a noteworthy person lived there? (And who decides who was noteworthy?) Or what if it just holds fond memories?

Does it make a difference if there is a whole collection of houses to be torn down? Is a look and feel to a neighborhood worth preserving?

Should commercial buildings be treated differently than houses?

Should there be a better process for demolition by fire?

Should someone have to own the buildings before we approve the demolition?

A subcommittee of the Plan Commission will be reviewing the proposed demolition ordinance changes and discussing these questions and much more in the upcoming months. And there's lots to think about . . . Read more!

Demolition Ordinance Needs Revision

Seems odd to me that we treat deciding about the demolition of a home built in the 1800's the same as the demolition of a greenhouse building or a cinderblock garage. Tonight on the plan commission agenda is the demolition ordinance. Truth is, we've been bending the rules on the demolition ordinance for some time. Or . . . if you want to side with the staff, our ordinance is really weak. Several plan commissioners have been reading the ordinance differently than the staff has been interpreting it and we've been struggling with most demolitions that come before the plan commission.

In thinking about our demolition ordinance, I met with several people in the community who gave me some very interesting ideas about things that other cities do with their demolition ordinances and I hope that these can be part of our discussion . . . um . . . tonight (shit, is it that late already!) . . .

Anyways, here's some ideas that I think merit discussion:

1. Have a "demolition delay" ordinance for any building over 50 years old.
2. Have a strong "demolition-by-neglect" ordinance.
3. No demolitions of buildings in a national and local historic districts that has an age that is greater than x years or within the same range as the contributing buildings in the historic district..
4. No combining lots for new development in a national or local historic district.
5. Require buildings that are proposed to be demolished that have historic value to be put up for sale for a period of time before a demolition can occur.
6. Strengthen the recycling requirements in the ordinance.
7. Require the replacement of affordable housing units that are demolished.
8. Have different demolition requirements for residential and commercial properties as well as based on the age of the buildings.
9. Require an inspection and report of all buildings being proposed for demolition.
10. Require disclosure information for homes in historic districts or homes over a certain age when the homes are sold.
11. Define what a partial demolition is.
12. Have standards for relocation of older homes.
13. Put a time limit on the demolition permit.
14. Have standards for demolition by fire.

I'm sure there are more things to talk about, but this is a start . . .
Read more!

French Battery Factory Replica Considered Historic Preservation?

Last night at the plan commission we approved the demolition of French Battery Factory in order to make way for new development (Union Corners). The French Battery Factory was the birthplace of what eventually became known as Rayovac . It was one of the city's largest factories in 1924 and was said to have helped "spread the fame" of Madison Wisconsin. It is also where Charles F. Burgess worked who is the founder of UW-Madison's Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering (Sorry, I'm sure there is better and more complete history somewhere, but that was what I was able to quickly find. A few photos here.)

Despite testimony from the Madison Trust for Historic Preservation and other testimony from the community, the plan commission decided to remove the building because it had a better site plan if the building was removed - not due to cost. So, we lose another historic building despite media reports early on to the contrary which stated:

He also plans to preserve the historic three-story, 330,000-square-foot former French Battery & Carbon Co. building on Winnebago Street. French Battery was renamed Rayovac in the 1930s.

When McGrath got his grants from the state, even Governor Doyle said:

"My Grow Wisconsin plan calls for investing in infrastructure and strengthening our cities," Governor Doyle said. "With this grant, we will help McGrath Associates rehabilitate the former Rayovac French Battery building on Madison's near east-side to create residential and commercial space."

Anyone else feel cheated by early promises to save the building?

Sadly, I'm not surprised. What did surprise me was . . . the plan to save materials from the building and other buildings torn down and to build a replica/similar building on another portion of the site. Not move the building, not save major portions of the building, but build a replica with some of the same materials.

Why? What's the point? And could people possibly consider this historic preservation? Granted, its a nice reuse/recycling of materials and that is to be commended. But can this possibly be considered historic preservation? If this is to be considered historic preservation by the community, we've sunk to an even lower low than the historic preservation-lite facadectomy. Read more!