Council Meeting: Limiting Poll Workers and Passing Neighborhood Conservation Districts

Here's the recap (the second writing . . . grrrr, I lost the first verison) of what happened at the Council meeting last night . . . As Mike Verveer noted we started with the "B Team" and it was a bit rocky, but we got it together. The Mayor and the clerk (Tammy Peters) were both late and Tim Bruer was stuck in an airport somewhere, so Mike Verveer, the Council President took the chair and I made the motions from the floor. After we got the roll call down . . . we got things under control.

In the first 15 minutes of the meeting, we dealt with items 1 - 9 and 63 - 127. Then we went back to the public hearings which start at 6:45. We dealt with Neighborhood Conservation Districts (that took two hours), and finished all the alcohol licenses. Then we passed the consent agenda with all items being dispensed with quickly with the outstanding issue of the poll workers and appointing a lobbyist to be a member of the Urban Design Commission. A quick synopsis of the three issues of substance that we discussed are below.

The only other items of note were that it was freezing in the room and the electricity wasn't working so many alders who count on using their laptops instead of paper had some trouble following along. After the meeting, we adjourned to the Great Dane. We were a little lost without our "cruise director" Tim Bruer but there was quite the crowd again: Rummel, Clear, Rhodes-Conway, Schumacher, Konkel, Clausius, Webber, Gruber, Solomon, Judge, Kerr, Verveer . . . and we were joined by or we joined with City Atty Michael May, Rosemary Lee, Michael Jacob, Dane Guerra (Common Sense Coalition) and Carole Schaeffer (Smart Growth Madison). I hope I didn't miss anyone.

Anyways, here's the items of substance from the evening.

NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
As predicted, Phil Salkin of the Realtors showed up in support of the Neighborhood Conservation Districts ordinance that they formerly opposed. Downtown Madison Inc did not show up in opposition. Only Smart Growth Madison appeared in opposition and there were several neighborhood folks who showed up in support. Many thanks to everyone for sharing your thoughts with us.

There were several questions of staff and Ald. Compton attempted to make four amendments and all four failed. The discussion was at times ideological, at times just plain silly. There was much cause for laughter and the meeting was a little raucous. Most of the entertainment coming from Ald. Compton during the two hour discussion.

The major votes of the evening were about whether tenants, both commercial and residential, should be allowed to petition their government to create a Neighborhood Conservation District. There was some hysteria about property rights and who the stakeholders in the community were, followed by some discussion about if this really prevents density or not. When all was said and done the motion to prevent tenants from helping to create a Neighborhood Conservation district was shot down. Voting no were Rummel, Schumacher, Solomon, Verveer, Webber, Clear, Gruber, Judge, Kerr, Konkel, Rhodes-Conway. Voting yes were Sanborn, Skidmore, Brandon, Clausius, Cnare, Compton, Palm, Pham-Remmele. Bruer absent.

The next vote was even more preposterous. They wanted to prevent tenants from even being asked what their opinion was. They wanted to prevent tenants from being included in a neighborhood survey and reporting the results to the Council and Plan Commission. That failed on a voice vote.

The final vote on Neighborhood Conservation Districts was 13 to 6, with Tim Bruer being absent. Voting against were Sanborn, Skidmore, Brandon, Clausius, Compton and Pham-Remmelle. Voting for were Rummel, Schumacher, Solomon, Verveer, Webber, Clear, Cnare, Gruber, Judge, Kerr, Konkel, Palm and Rhodes-Conway.

POLL WORKERS AND POLITICAL OPERATIVES
The Zach Brandon ordinance introduced as a result of the Mike Quieto issue that got way blown out of proportion was referred. Zach did his best to try to prevent it from being referred. He asked for reasons why it should be referred. He was apparently under the impression that Tim Gruber and Mike Verveer were referring it just to delay. Tim explained that a constituent of his asked for it to be referred to the Madison Advisory Elections Committee. Mike explained that if it wasn't introduced at the end of a meeting instead of being printed on the agenda, we might have caught the referral. Zach persisted and so I gave him some reasons to refer including:

• There is a conflict in the wording that makes it unclear if volunteers are included in the ordinance.
• The term "officer and director" isn't applicable to some of the committees included in this ordinance.
• The ordinance misses several types of groups or individuals that influence elections including Legislative Campaign Committees, Political Groups that are involved in referendums, Recall Committees, Independent Committees and Individuals.
• The ordinance lists 527 s as a way to capture some of the above, but 527s only have to register with the IRS if they spend over $25,000.
• The clerk's office will spend hours, or possibly weeks, verifying that the 1,000 poll workers are allowed to work for them under the ordinance. This is not required in the law, but they will have to do it because they will be criticized if they don't and they miss someone.
• There are 338 people registered with the Wisconsin Elections Board that would be considered "political operatives" under this ordinance and not be allowed to be poll workers in the all of most of the City of Madison. There are at least another 100 when you count people registered with the County Clerk and City Clerks office. Then, there is the whole issue of the 527, so this ordinance will likely mean that over 500 people will not be able to be poll workers in the City of Madison.
• People may be registered with a group that has an open account but has not been active for years, but they would still be precluded from serving as a poll worker.
  
• When you fill out the conduit registration forms, there are no "officers or directors" listed, only an "administrator". They do, however, list a "sponsoring organization" and it seems that officers and directors of the "sponsoring organization" should be excluded in this case.
• This ordinance does not preclude campaign mangers, chairs of political party elections committees, staff from the Republican and Democratic parties from being poll workers - in fact, about the only people precluded are the treasurer for various committees and the candidate.

In short, this whole so-called "laser point" is not a laser point. It's take a broad swipe and misses those that most would consider "political operatives."

After listing all these issues, Zach persisted and said that there still wasn't enough reason to refer. However, he realized he didn't have the votes. Eli Judge, who was one of the original signers of the letter, said he had concerns, Marsha Rummel brought up some additional concerns about the definition of an "election employee" and Alders Schumacher and Rhodes-Conway discussed the the perception of a problem and how to make the process more transparent and to allow more public discussion on this issue. Eventually, Zach conceded that it should be referred, but he only wanted the committee to have one month to discuss it. There was no reason given for the rush job and I think it was ridiculous given that we don't have any elections coming up, but we'll see what the Elections Committee can do. They meet on June 12th.

LOBBYISTS ON COMMITTEES
After all the discussion about open and clean government and all the accusations being hurled at people, Zach had an objection to me referring an appointment of a real estate third party lobbyist to the Urban Design Committee where she would make decisions on projects that may be in competition with the projects she is hired to be lobbyist for. The Mayor had no objection and it was referred.

Note: I don't know what I was thinking, there was no way I was going to take a "lunch break" and be able to do this at work . . . sorry, I'll add links and check grammar/sentence clarity/spelling etc when I get home tonight after my last meetings around 9:00. 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!

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!