e e e everybody here um I will will uh call the meeting to order and um I'll ask consistent with our discussion last week we'll have Megan um call rooll uh for the commission as well so that um folks on the line know who's here all right great um commissioner Mendes has registered I'm sorry commissioner Mendes is absent this evening uh commissioner mckill here Alder here Alder yuger here Alder Duncan here commissioner solheim commissioner Sim was here we'll come back to her uh commissioner heck here uh commissioner Sanders here uh alternate bazine is absent alternate wisuki present and chair n gam here and commissioner solheim here all right your mic heard you but vaguely yeah your microphone's very soft Nicole I don't know if that's yeah after we just told you it was working well sorry is it perhaps that your microphone oh her headphones are off now all right very good um so uh Jesse is our technical facilitator and if if you would share the technical information about the call tonight that would be great all right Welcome to our virtual plan commission meeting we're going to cover a few basic items before beginning if you lose connection at any point during the meeting you can reconnect by clicking the link or calling the number in your original email to members and City staff members if you are able please activate your video and keep it on for the duration of the meeting staff if you are able please activate your video when you are speaking use a raise hand feature when you'd like to be recognized to speak or ask questions staff click raise hand when you are asked a question the chair would do the best to call on committee members in the order in which their hands are raised lowering your hand will take you out of the queue members of the public who have registered to speak the name you entered in Zoom must match the name you entered in registration you will remain muted until called upon the clerk will tell you when your time is up after all register and speak a member of the body may ask you a question if you need to share documentation with the commission please send it to the email list in today's agenda chair the floor is yours thanks Jesse um our first uh agenda item is our time for public comment on items not on the formal agenda Megan did we have any registrants for public comment there are no registrants on this item great thanks um we will then move to Communications disclosures and recusals um do any members of the commission have any uh disclosures refusals or Communications to share about uh tonight's agenda under the ethics code seeing no hands I will um take that as a no um and we will then move to approval of minutes of the February 3rd 20125 regular meeting um is there any um are there any additions or corrections to the minutes to the draft minutes that were shared with the commission all right um seeing no raised hands is there a motion in a second to approve our last meeting minutes all right uh commissioner HEC I'll get you in as a mo mover and commissioner solheim as the second um any further discussion on the motion to approve uh the February 3rd minutes um seeing none any objection to unanimous approval for that item very great thank you um we will Mark those as approved um we next have time just to confirm our schedule of upcoming meetings um Nicole if you want to well actually I can walk through those um so today's February 17th we will meet again on Monday March 3rd um and Monday March 17th and then we will um have a two week pause and meet again on April 7th and 28th uh all at 5:30 p.m. all virtual um did I get all that right Megan we're only only two meetings in April as well all right yeah all right um so we we'll now um talk about our consent agenda um and I will read as background it's been the custom of the plan commission to remove from the agenda items on which staff believes an application has been efficiently reviewed to support approval with all the conditions placed upon it by the various City departments and in which the applicant accepts those conditions and there are no individuals who have registered to speak in opposition to those items um so we have uh previously shared via email a list of proposed consent items um and we will walk through those if you look at your agenda um the first item for consent would be the referral of items six to our next meeting on March that's March 3rd right um Nicole uh yes that should say March 3rd thank you very much yep so we'll refer so the proposed consent item is to refer item six to March 3D um then also item seven item eight and item nine um would be approved on consent if if they stay on the consent agenda as well as items 10 and 11 um relating to the Hill Valley Flats um of those items which uh we have before us are there any requests for separation from consent or are folks comfortable with having those stay on the consent agenda just looking for hands up all right seeing no um request for separation we'll read um our consent items into the record for the meeting um so item six is legistar number 86 523 relating to 3915 lean Road in District 3 and that item which we will refer to our next meeting is consideration of a conditional use in the commercial Corridor transitional cc- district and Transit oriented development overlay district for for a drive-through window to allow construction of a coffee shop with a drive-through window um item seven is legis 86 729 relating to uh 2530 DOL Street I think is how that's how I'm going to say it in district 12 um and that is consideration of a demolition permit to demolish a single family residents um item8 is legistar 86730 at 6 11 femite Drive in District 16 and that's consideration of a demolition permit to demolish a two Family Residence um item nine is legar number 86731 relating to 6213 Countryside Lane in District 19 and that's consideration of a demolition permit to demolish demolish a single family residence um items 10 and 11 um are related to each other and our followup items to previous action of our plan commission and the common Council item 10 is legister number 86 737 approving the revised preliminary plat of Hill Valley on property addressed as 940 to 1050 South Highpoint Road 1051 South Pleasant View Road and 902 Landmark Trail all in District 1 then item 11 is is legistar number 86 738 approving the final plat of Hill Valley on portions of the properties addressed as 1050 South Highpoint Road and 1051 South Pleasant View Road in District 1 all right I will now open the public hearing and close the public hearing on our consent agenda and we'll move to a vote um is there a motion to approve the consent agenda um thank you Alder Duncan um and a second from Alder uger thank you um and then is there any objection to unanimous consent for items on the consent agenda all right seeing none we'll record those as unanimously passed thank you all right um we will now um move to the public hearing section of our agenda and um we'll start with um so items 2 three four and five all relate to tax incremental financing districts and amendments to um some of the plans for those and so we will um start out with um a update from staff from our Economic Development Group to help walk us through this hey Dan welcome okay Dan your mic is really there we go okay thank you y um thank you for having us um Commissioners uh we've been asked to provide just a very brief overview of the role of the plan commission if that would be your pleasure I can continue with that okay thanks thank you so we've been asked to provide just a very broad overview of the role of the plan Commission in reviewing and approving tax increment District so uh your role as plan commission is laid out in Wisconsin State statutes and uh a lot of it is covered in the actual resolution that you are being asked to consider So the plan commission has a role whenever a tid is created or amended uh in the case tonight we we are proposing to amend uh four separate Tiff districts that's tid 36 tid 44 tid 46 and tid 51 um the items that you're asked to consider if is if um the uh tidt itself is either 50+ 1% to found to be blighted or suitable in zone for either mixed use or industrial use uh the tid project plan uh usually will always cover that you can uh go into the PDF that's attached to every resolution and look at the project plan and it will uh tell you whether it is a bladed area tid a mixed use tid or a industrial tid um the two that are based upon zoning mixed use and Industrial tids these are set forth in statute and this is simply just us as staff looking at the zoning and telling and look saying is this area suitable in zone for either industrial or mixed use uh for folks who I'm sure are all in the plan commission you know the city so if we're bringing you something that's zoned industrial I you probably can count on that it's zoned industrial um the one C the one sort of uh part that's a little bit different here is that um areas that are bladed area tids uh bladed area tid is the the requirements for that are set forth in statute we can go into them but they are generally very broad anytime that we create a blighted area tid it's based on what we call a blight study this is a study done by a uh outside to remove any potential for um real or perceived conflict of interest and those blight studies are available for review if anybody wishes to review them uh and if we find that an area is 50 plus 1% blighted we will make that determination as well and provide that to you in the project plan second item is uh whether the Improvement of this area that's uh proposed to be a tid or in a tid Amendment whether the Improvement is likely to significantly enhance the value of a substantial portion of other real property in that tid so that's where there's some judgment and then the final is whether the aggregate value of the equalized property within the tid plus all existing tids does not exceed 12% of the total equalized taxable property value within the city so that is in the resolution uh by Statute we cannot amend or create new tids if we have gone over that 12% cap uh we can talk about the why behind it but that's the the number that's in State Statute so that's what we work with um that is a very very quick overview of it we could talk about it for another hour or two um but that's maybe not what you want to do with the balance of your eBay so that is a very simple overview of the role of the plan commission uh I would note that just um call it editor comments maybe um our Tiff project plans tend to be very um basic in that we don't talk about items that are covered by planning staff we don't talk about things that are uh covered by comprehensive plans or neighborhood plans or zoning we simply try to report back what already exists and what's out there uh as a an adopted policy or or process or plan that's already been done by the common Council and directed by other staff so our plans are I hate to say it they're kind of boring uh for most folks but they cover the meat and potatoes that we need to from a statutory perspective I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have broadly about Tiff or if you'd like me to go into the districts and just give a brief overview I can do that as well that's at your discretion of course Dan could you just talk a little bit about the amendment process for these project PL and sort of what you know what our understanding that you know that a fifth amendment might have been approved and now we're approving a sixth amendment certainly so uh in the last four to five years we have done more and more project plan amendments uh a good portion of that is because we are essentially most times moving Dollars around either we have uh a tax increment District that is doing well enough that it can support additional expenditure that might be improving a road that might be buying a piece of property that might be investing in small businesses it might be investing in larger businesses it might be any one of those things and more uh so as we do these projects and as we have our tids that grow over time and they grow in value and if you we can talk about how our tid Pro portfolio has done it has grown in value enormously as they grow in value we oftentimes have requests to do more in those districts to do that we have to amend the project plan and get approval from not only the common Council but from a body called The Joint review board uh The Joint review board is a creation of State Statute it is a member it is a five member committee and consists of representatives from the overlying taxing jurisdictions so that's the city the county the school district and the technical college and then one public member that is selected by those other four members that joint review board once the council acts on a tid creation or Amendment The Joint review board reviews and takes action on any uh proposed amendment the reason it's there sort of broadly speaking is that when we create or amend kids we are using the overlying taxing jur jurisdictions Levy to fund projects in the city and we take very seriously as staff that we are using their dollars to invest in the community now the theory is those projects would not happen but for Tiff and that the overlying taxing jurisdictions receive a benefit so if we improve a street or we redevelop a property or we assist a small business or we assess a larger business or any of those things and more the theory is that those overlying jurisdictions are for lack of a better term our investors our fellow investors in those projects that we then uh accomplish to improve the overall community so when you're looking at that your one step in that process as the plan commission that step is laid out very uh I won't say clearly in State Statute because it is not clear at all uh but there is a very formal process that is that we're required to follow every time we create or amenda tid and one of those steps in that process is to come to the plan commission and have a public hearing where folks can comment on anything that we're going to uh do in that project plan creation or Amendment thanks Dan um maybe just one more quick question and that is projects that are on the amended project plan are kind of in the conception phase and not necess they might be approved and underway but they might also still be kind of being I don't know very early on is that fair to say uh that depends upon the project plan the items in front of you tonight the four project plans here um so tid 36 those things are pretty well I don't know if agreed upon is the right word but they're they're pretty well baked those are things that are going to happen the same thing with tid 44 those are um the the lighting along ston road is ready to go um the small business assistance that's a little bit more I won't say nebulous but it's something where we work with small businesses to provide them with assistance um the 46 Amendment those are all things that are slated to move forward um with the one exception of the again the small business assistance that's just our U business resources staff working with small businesses to help them grow like we want them to uh and then last but not least tid 51 um what's Happening Here is we are essentially moving around within the tid so some projects are costing a little more some projects are costing a little less uh we're adding one project by sort of combining it with another so there's nothing really that's uh a question in these districts uh when we do create tids there are sometimes projects that are ah we think this is going to happen but it's five years out and we're not sure so it's in there and sometimes they happen and sometimes they don't and sometimes we come back and amend the project plan to take into account new new uh new projects um new proposals any number of things uh We've responded to the Great Recession we responded to covid we've responded to all manner of things over my 20 plus years at the city thanks um before we um start with public hearings on these items does anybody have any general questions any other commissioners have any general questions for Dan all right um I think we'll start and take up um item two which is legistar 8 6995 approving the amendment to the project plan for tax incremental uh District number 36 Capital Gateway um which en which encompasses parts of District Six and District 12 um we will so um we will start Megan do we have registrant on item two or a yes chair um if you are ready to open the public hearing we do have an item or we do have someone registered on number two okay so let's open the public hearing on item two okay the first speaker on or I guess the only speaker on item two is Linda Leonards uh registered in opposition and wishing to speak right thanks um Linda welcome um to we have quite a few we have a pretty busy agenda tonight so I'm going to try to be strict on our three minute time limit for public comment and I might just interrupt you to give you a minute or 30 second warning if that's all right okay thank you y okay um I'm gonna be ready for me to okay um I'm going to be very brief I sent in a short comment letter and the amendment to tid 36 talks about a million dollars for Bree Stevens that was authorized via resolution 24357 that resolution was a resolution to apply for a $4 million Grant from the state which the city did not get and where this other $4 million would come from in matching funds well if the city doesn't get the grant um there really is no authorization there for these other funds to be expended and under the capital budget for 2025 the parks department doesn't think it has the money it says um if the grant is not awarded the project will need to be reconsidered in the future capital budget request and may be added back to their Horizon list so I I'm at a loss to understand where this money is coming from who approved it when they approved it because it all rests back upon a grant that was not received um staff said that for I believe I understood correctly that for 1036 that this is already set in motion and this stuff has been approved um and there really has been nothing approved so anyway that's all I have to say thank you thanks Linda right um does anyone from the commission have questions for um our registrant all right seeing no seeing no raised hands I'll close the public hearing and ask if any of the Commissioners have questions for staff on um this item this item two only the uh Capital the tid number 36 is Dan called it for us all right um Alder Fel thank you chair I was wondering if staff might briefly for us describe the relationship between the grant funding for this project the grant funding that we applied for and the amount proposed to come from Tiff instead I can talk generally about this uh Parks staff are a little more um able to provide specifics uh we were asked if the tid had dollars that could be used as a match for this project um I will say in the past we' provided funding for Brie Stevens Field improvements which have been completed and uh it's it seems strange to me but when I first started we created this tid and did improvements to Brie Stevens Field and uh it's been long enough that those improvements need to be essentially reim proved because the facilities that were there have been utilized by the public uh to um to an extent that they need to be revitalized so the tid Tiff staff was asked to look at whether or not tid 36 had dollars that could be used as a match for this Grant and uh this is a feasible thing at this point so we are including this in the project plan amendment in 2025 thank you yep thanks any other questions are we ready to move to a motion on item two just to be clear Megan is our or Megan or Dan is our motion um our motion is the plan commission's approval and then would there be another uh step in the final approval at Council go ahead Dan so it the plan commission's role in these uh processes is to recommend either approval or not to the council um the state state statutes outline that there is a plan commission resolution quote unquote uh the city does not have uh that function and that process in its legislative process processes boards committees and commissions including the plan commission generally with a few exceptions make recommendations to the council to approve reject or approve with conditions anything so uh you could take any of those three options as you consider these matters tonight and then what we would then provide to the Department of Revenue assuming that this is or any of these tids are approved is the resolution and then any uh recommendations or amendments that the council then adopts and the review board accepts so that's a very long explanation I hope that's clear yes it is thank you thanks very good Al do you again I recommend uh or move that we recommend approval to the common Council thank you is there a second uh alderfield seconding Alder yar's motion thank you um any other any further discussion on this motion to recommend approval of the amended uh plan as moved and seconded all right is there any objection to unanimous approval for uh the this recommendation all right seeing none will'll record that item is passed unanimously um and it did we do need to do these separately as opposed to in a bundle so um the next item is item three which is legistar 86 996 approving the amendment to the project plan for tax incremental District number 44 on the Royster Clark area um covering parts of District three and district 15 um is that so uh I'll open the public hearing Megan do we have any registrants no registr item three okay thank you um I will close the public hearing and um ask the commission if they have any questions for staff on uh on this item for tid number 44 commissioner shim thank you thank you Dan just a quick question um this tid and I think one or two of the others had uh funds set aside for potential small business loans that you mentioned and I just wanted to clarify so for example the fund set aside in this tid 44 would that be available just to businesses in the tid or within a half mile of the tid that's correct so those dollars would be available to any business that qualifies for the various loan programs that we have uh there's a facade Grant there's a commercial ownership assistance program building Improvement Grant those things it would only be available to businesses within the tid or within half mile of the tid okay thank you thank you other questions for staff on item three um if we're ready to move to a motion Alder field thanks chair I will move that the plan commission forwards this to the common council with a recommendation to approve thank you is there a second to uh Alder Duncan thank you I'll take that as a second any further discussion uh any objection to unanimous approval for this item all right we'll record it as unanimously approved we'll move to item four which is legistar 8714 approving the amendment to the project plan and Boundary for tax incremental District number 46 Research Park uh city of Madison covering parts of District 11 and District 19 um I'll open the public hearing Meg in any registrant on item four no regist okay thank you um then I will close the public hearing and um uh ask if there are questions for staff from any of the commission on uh this item on the research part or tid number 46 all right if there are no questions are we ready to move for motion on this item aler you thank you I move that we recommend approval to the common Council all right thanks Alder field thanks for the second any discussion any objection to unanimous approval for this item all right seeing none that will be unanimously approved item five is legistar 87015 approving the amendment to the project plan for tax incremental District number 51 in South Madison um city of Madison covering parts of district 14 um I will open the public hearing um Megan any registrant on this item all right we will close the public hearing and again uh offer time for questions from the commission for staff on this item commissioner H thank you uh Dan uh I I noticed in this one that uh five million do and the plan is being uh put towards uh I think affordable housing on the south transfer site and $5 million being taken away from land banking uh and I wondered uh I mean I I in my mind the South transfer point was already owned by the city and the land banking fund is sort of uh paying the price for doing you know much needed Housing Development on that site what's the rationale for for removing the land banking given that that desire to build on this South transfer Point staff was asked to look into options to ensure that the project could move forward this is uh and will be a large a large development that will have a a heavy affordability component which brings with it a commensurate need for additional Capital dollars so that is one place that we found that we can move money from one pot to another to to fill this need I would note that this is only one place where we have land banking uh in the project plan it calls out land banking under the Community under the CDA and those funds are simply being allocated from essentially one CDA line item to the one above it if you look further in the project plan under um um I think that's page yep page seven there's additional land banking funds in other places in the plan so um as far as I understand we have been told to go and acquire and land bank and find properties so that we can build more affordable housing and build more housing in general so we will continue to do that it's just sort of moving one money from from one line to the next to allow that project to proceed uh but there's still a large amount of dollars set aside for future land banking um so I hope that answers your question um yeah I think it's kind of uh it does it I I I guess uh I'm not a policy maker so uh I I find it a little bit curious though but uh I I'm I thanks for the explanation I appreciate it very good thanks any other uh questions from the commission on item five all right are we ready for a motion on this item Al you get uh I move that we recommend approval to the common Council thank you is there a second Alder field thank you um is there um discussion um from the Council on this item there you you can make an amendment commissioner HEK if you wanted to um all right thank you um is there any objection to unanimous approval for the motion all right seeing none we will record that as also unanimously approved um and we will move on to item 12 um which is legar number 86 649 repealing and recreating section 28185 and creating section 41.2 of the Madison General ordinances related to demolition of buildings to update the approval processes and then yeah um Megan just to be clear we're going to we have separate presentations on 12 and 13 that's correct yep okay very good all right um so I think we'll hear from planning staff um before we open the hearing and and start discussion on this item okay thank you um in just a second I'm going to share my screen and present an overview of what this proposed ordinance does uh but first I wanted to note that uh just to make sure it's clear for everyone who's participating uh we're going to speak to the proposed ordinance version two which is a substitute which was placed on legistar on Friday um for anyone who's interested in opening the text of the proposed ordinance um under the attachments for legistar file 8 6649 body version 2 this is the original proposed strike and replace language plus some additional edits that make up the substitute that we'll be talking about tonight um we do have some additional comments that have been sent in um as well as a staff addendum a staff report addendum and um I'm going to share some slides now that also help walk us through this item um I'll start off the presentation we also have here tonight um uh Katie Bannon who's the City Zoning administrator Heather Bailey who's the city's preservation planner and Kevin fow a principal planner uh who works with our development review staff and welcome any of them to join in this presentation as we go along we want to start by sharing some information about why this ordinance has been proposed to you um first in the course of the business that you all are involved in there's been a recognition that most of the proposed demolitions that come before you are for buildings that are not historic and in that recognition um policy makers had asked us to consider a simplified demolition process when we've talked with you about this ordinance and this process in the past we've also heard feedback from some of you and other alers past Commissioners that the current standards of approval that are used by the commission can can be unclear and difficult to apply in the course of your decision-making um as well as a recognition that some of those standards are more administrative in nature and therefore not directly helpful in your decision-making process um we also know on rare occasions there have been uh buildings that have been an imminent threat to Public Safety and we're not able to wait for landmarks review so we want to make more explicit that there's um rare circumstances where that situation can occur and make sure that's addressed in our current demolition process so for a reminder for everyone the current demolition process includes um an application for a demolition that is submitted first to the landmarks commission for their review for historic value the commission provides a recommendation on that historic value and whether or not there is a finding of value all of those demolition requests come to the plan commission after you hold a public hearing the plan commission can then either approve or deny those demolition requests if the demolition is not approved by the plan commission uh an applicant cannot proceed to the city agencies to seek other permits that are required to advance a demolition if it is approved um they can proceed with those applications some of you have been on the commission for a while but just a quick note for those of you who haven't uh the city has had a demolition process in its zoning code since the early 1980s and it's been changed a number of times over the years to address uh specific changes either to um uh the application of this code in our processes um clarifications in making sure that we know what to do with it and making sure that it's representing the types of information that we need in order to support our decision-making I won't go into all of these changes but just to note here that there have been several changes um even within the last few years um that the commission has and the city council have made to how this demolition code Works back in March of last year you all had a work session where you discussed this demolition ordinance again uh this process again um in response to some alers requesting a simplified demolition process obviously I wasn't there but I understand that this conversation included a discussion about this current process whether or not it was possible to add or remove update some of the standards that you use for your review and you discussed some options for how we could approach the creation of this more simplified or administrative process for demolitions for non-historic buildings and so coming out of that um even though it has been a while we did consider the feedback that we heard from the commission to move forward with creating that administrative review path for non-historic building and removing some of the procedure related standards we also spent some more time thinking about the feedback that we had heard about how the standards can be difficult to use um so this ordinance that was proposed in January of 2025 is uh proposes some changes to this process to help you better work through these requests for Demolition and to ultimately simplify that process for um requests for non-historic buildings a couple uh stats here for you by way of background about the outcomes of this process um since a a larger code change to this demolition process in October of 2021 the commission has reviewed 143 requests for demolitions that covered almost 250 individual buildings 96% of the buildings that were requested for demolition were approved um and you can see here from the chart on the screen that 74% of those buildings were found to have no known historic building uh no known historic value some of the individual requests that you in uh that you considered included buildings that might have fallen into each or some of these categories um for example uh right at the end of the year you saw several applications that included both buildings with no known historic value and maybe one or more that had either um some historic value or a more significant finding of historic value um it's important to note though that um this kind of information we're just providing for context doesn't re uh doesn't share the full picture of the considerations you make for example uh some of the approvals for demolition include conditions related to uh the demolition request and particularly related to mitigation of the impacts of those demolitions so in the proposed ordinance um there's a number of things that are not proposed to be changed about how the demolition process works the first is that we're retaining a balancing of interests that you consider when you look at demolition requests including the interest in uh preservation as well as the interest in implementing our plans um often related to the growth needs of our community uh we are proposing that this retains The Landmark commission review for all proposed demolitions before any decision about whether they should come before you is made um this retains an existing process that the landmarks commission uses to issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition requests only for locally designated Landmark buildings or buildings that are within locally designated uh historic districts this would retain your review of any building that is found to have historic value um and that's whether that's the sort of big finding the red category that we showed on the last slide or the yellow where there is some historic value we are retaining the ability for um a demolition to proceed directly to its administrative review if it is an accessory building so think like a garage in the backyard um or if the building demolition was already included in a council and BCC reviewed and approved campus institutional master plan and it retains the existing appeals process for demolition decisions uh to the common Council so the main things that are proposed to be changed are here on the screen um you can see process-wise this orange arrow on the right side is the biggest change to the process uh that we're proposing to allow uh the administrative review and approval of demolitions that are found to not have historic value after they're reviewed by the landmarks commission this means they would not come to the plan commission this also proposes to allow building inspection to approve the rare circumstance where a building um is a truly imminent threat to the public safety um and issue an approval for a building demolition without going to the landmarks commission first and then finally um right now there is nothing in this code um that prevents someone from um not having a demolition be approved and reapplying for reconsideration um so we are proposing that that uh for applications that are denied for there to be a one-year waiting period before an applicant can resubmit uh a demolition request in terms of how the historic value review is Incorporated in this proposed ordinance uh this utilizes a very similar methodology to what is already used by the landmarks commission um to give you the recommendation about historic value for those of you that have been following this you may be familiar with the terms no known historic value regrettable loss or historic value sometimes called the green yellow or red lights um we are proposing to largely bring these categories into um the proposed ordinance out of the landmarks commission's policy and procedure guide and into actual city ordinance into the historic preservation ordinance in a a section that stands on its own um for the landmarks commission's use and retaining those categories we have heard some questions about whether this would change um or treat all sorts of um historic buildings the same it really doesn't um in well it doesn't change the fact that the landmarks commission looks at all uh demolition requests whether there's historic value or not including ones that may be in local districts or other honorific districts like National registered districts um but it does not not require the landmarks commission to now start issuing a certificate of appropriateness for uh buildings that are just in um National register districts for example that process will still continue to apply only to local landmarks and local historic districts but they will continue to provide recommendations to you about the historic value of the property and any other information that is relevant um from their review including things like um notations of archaeological sites um on a property that is proposed for demolition some examples of what these categories mean um as I mentioned before 74% of the buildings that have been approved for demolition in the last several years have been found to have no known historic value you can see a couple of examples of images of these buildings uh they range in size location uh use age um these are the types of uh projects that have been found to be no known historic value under this proposed ordinance would be considered category C demolitions and could proceed administratively after the landmarks review 9% of the buildings that have been approved for demolition in the past several years have had a historic value finding um and these this set of images represents the sort of range of decisions that can come after the plan commission's review that I mentioned earlier these are all demolitions that have come before you in um recent Years starting with the project on the left um on Gilman Street you saw a proposed demolition for um the other portion of the habad house um this building was found to have historic value was approved for demolition by the plan commission after review uh the building in the middle is one of two single family homes on Jeff per in Edgewood uh just saw this in one of your very recent meetings was found to have historic value and was not approved for demolition by the plan commission and the collection of buildings on the far right of the screen in the hundred block of West Mifflin Street um a series of buildings that were found to have historic value they were approved for demolition but with conditions and those conditions were related to um the finding of historic value about some of the significance of the architectural material and the conditions had to do with the Salvage of those materials so they could be reused so under the proposed ordinance these would all continue to be considered um or they would be considered to be category a demolitions and would continue to require the plan commission's consideration the current ordinance um includes seven standards of approval which are not written verbatim here but are summarized um and the the ordinance currently says that the plan commission shall not approve a request un let it unless it finds that each of these are met uh the four on the right have to do with um some of the things that I think we've heard feedback um about being more administrative or kind of more of a checklist um that there's information about any consideration on relocation that there's a certificate of appropriateness from the landmarks commission if it's applicable and that there's reuse and recycling plans and reports from theity Forester if applicable the three standards on the right have to do with more of the kind of meat of some of the um considerations that you make including the preservation planner and landmarks commission's reports and recommendations to you which uh the ordinance says you may consider how those Demolition and Redevelopment plans relate to the implementation of the city's adopted plans um you can look at con uh condition of the building um and this may include although um I don't know how often this does any reports from City agencies about conditions that may support Demolition and then based on all this information um a finding that the proposed demolition is consistent with the purpose of the ordinance and with the General Health and Welfare of the city um the purpose statement includes a number of things it really reflects uh all the different uh pieces of information that are considered here on the screen um but really is helping us look at things like preservation and aiding in the implementation of City plans the proposed ordinance um moves or the proposed ordinance proposes to move um those four more procedural and administrative standards into other parts of city ordinance including in some cases part of this new uh demolition ordinance you can see that the information related to relocation is now an application requirement um and there are a couple of pieces of that application uh required application material that relates to this issue um there's continuation of the certificate of appropriateness process by the landmarks Commission in the review for historic value section of the proposed ordinance and then the ReUse and recycling plan and the report of the city Forester are both um contemplated under separate sections of city codes of and ordinances um either as part of the application the preliminary application or as part of the post uh plan commission approval process the proposed ordinance then moves these other three um topics into uh a different kind of arrangement in the next uh in the proposed ordinance in terms of the report of the preservation planner um this is proposed to be um moved to a section that's called submitted materials that would be required for the plan commission to receive and review uh prior to its public hearing and then in terms of thinking about the uh Redevelopment and ad uh implementation of City plans as well as the condition of the building we've moved these sections into two proposed new standards which ask the commission um to use the information that's been provided to it and find that both the demol the proposed demolition would Aid in the implementation of City plans or the purpose of this section and that it finds that there are factors that outweigh preservation those factors could include but would not necessarily have to be limited to things like condition of the building the loss of any historic features that made the building significant uh plans that have been proposed for the mitigation of the loss of that uh building on the city's you know cultural landscape um or other factors that you may find um that would outweigh preservation of the building itself so I'll stop there um and happy to speak on any more of this after you hear public comment um but wanted to share that as context thanks Megan um I'm going to open the public hearing on this item and as um noted we have a I know we have a few registrants and we'll try to try to keep track of time and and give you a warning that you're um close to the end um and Megan maybe uh if you want to read the first uh registrant and then let the person behind them know that they'll be next um all right that sounds great ready to go you're all set yep okay uh the first speaker is Rick Chandler and Rick will be followed by borkman welcome I think good evening I'm Rick Chandler president of the Madison trust for historic preservation with more than 500 members throughout the city we oppose a number of the proposed changes in the substitute Amendment and support others overall the changes would reduce protection for historic properties even though staff has said that the intent was simply to stream line and clarify with a neutral effect on preservation unfortunately the changes would put a thumb on the scale in favor of demolition compared with current law the landmarks commission recommended that the common Council re-refer most of the changes back to the commission so they had adequate time for review after the landmarks meeting a substitute amendment was introduced which made some improvements however further work is needed to achieve the goal of being neutral there isn't a strong need to change the review process to facilitate development denials of development requests have a very minor impact on housing but provide major benefits by preserving the best parts of our heritage as noted over three years there were 143 demolition requests and only two per year were denied the number of proposed housing units affected by these denials is very small when compared with the very large number of housing units built on property where demolition were approved and on vacant property at tonight's hearing several of our members will describe important amendments I'll start with the standards of approval and you can see them listed on the slide the proposed revisions have four new factors that can outweigh the interest in preserving historic buildings the first three one two and three cover the same items as the current seven standards deteriorated buildings loss of historic character hazardous buildings however there is a new factor four which says demolition can be approved if there's a plan to mitigate the loss of the historic building which could be as minor as Salvage of materials or interpretive installations this is a big concern if very minor mitigation steps can be used to justify demolition applicants will rely heavily on this Factor mitigation plans should be discussed only if there is a a decision to demolish based on the other factors 1 two and three a mitigation plan in and of itself should not justify Demolition and could you put up the next slide Rick have a little less than a minute left what we would propose is that language about mitigation should be moved to the conditions section where it says the plan commission may stipulate stipulate conditions for a proposed demolition in conclusion it's important to Main main current protection so that Madison can retain the character that residents value we urge the plan commission to review and amend the current language thanks rck okay sorry about that uh had a lot of screens open okay next speaker is Lynn bjorkman followed by Sam Brien Bach thanks Lyn you're unmuted on our end um you may have a prompt that's either behind a window or a prompt that says to unmute yourself there you go thank you thanks Lenn welcome thank you I'm ly Berman a dudgeon Monroe resident and Madison trust for historic preservation board member I have several concerns about the demolition ordinance changes as proposed like others testifying tonight but most importantly overall I feel that the process related to the request before you has been highly problematic for the public specifically the speed of scheduling the required steps to enact a new version of the ordinance has frustrated The public's important role in this issue at the expense of potentially losing properties of historic value which is certainly an unintended consequence of the changes specifically as was mentioned earlier last March the plan commission at a closed working session formulated ideas about how to streamline the demolition process then in January of this year as you heard a recreated ordinance 281 85 and a new section 4128 were introduced to the common Council the schedule proposed for consideration and approval of these changes was set for three successive weeks this month February the 10th 17th today and the common Council on the 26th after last week's hearing at the landmarks commission meeting planning staff made additional changes to the proposed ordinance to their credit in response to commission and public comments I found today in the legistar file date of the 17th an addendum to a previous staff report which explains a new substitute version to be considered yet tonight evidently this substitute version was placed in legistar only on Friday in response there are many citizens who have a sincere interest in ordinance changes but have been unduly burdened by the haste to which changes are proposed such as a substitute version I personally have other concerns about section 4128 streamlining that allows category C demolition request to proceed administratively questions about notification procedures adequate time for public input and an appeals process I trust that about 30 seconds left will be also addressed at future public hearings so in the interest of fair and constructive public CR public involvement I ask you to accept the landmarks commission's recommendation to send the proposal for ordinance changes back to the commission for further consideration and public comment and thus I urge you to reject the proposal that's before you tonight thank you thanks Len okay the next speaker is Sam Bach uh and Sam will be followed by John Rowling good evening my name is Sam badenach longtime resident of Madison and I would like to address specific concerns I have with proposed changes to the ordinance my first concern is that the overall process of these changes is moving much too fast this is very important work and should not be rushed my second concern relates to proposed revisions of the standard of approval the existing language in standard 6 states that quote the Planning Commission shall consider the condition of the building or buildings proposed for demolition or removal unquote it then goes on to Define how this standard is met the proposed standards of approval set forth four new factors in this rewrite I will focus on factor I which States quote the building is found to be in such a deteriorated condition that it is not structurally or economically feasible to preserve or restore it unquote this new language does not specify how and who defines the structural or deteriorated condition nor for that matter how the term economically feasible is defined although the original language in standard 6 is lacking at least it provides a process to Define how the standard is met the proposed language does not in January the PC reviewed a request to demolish two homes in the viol neighborhood as many of you may recall the applicant submitted a home inspection report that listed minor structural concerns that were used in part to justify demolishing the structures a similar situation occurred with the buildings at 440 446 States Street at a March 2024 PC meeting the appin on that project submitted a condition report that implied imminent collapse of one of the buildings due to minor water damage both applications lacked either a professional engineer or City Building Inspector Inspector qualified to assess the structural condition of the properties fortunately these properties were spared the wrecking ball these two projects illustrate the need to define a process for how the stand is met if a project uses the deteriorated condition standard to argue for demolition then an assessment of the structure must be a requirement in the new standards and it needs to be objective professional and ideally performed by city building inspection who has no conflict of interest lastly I am concerned about category C buildings falling through the cracks for example buildings in under repesentative neighborhoods outside any historic district or for which the city preservation planner has not evaluated may be hastily approved for demolition in situations like this at times sorry I didn't get a chance to get a warning but yeah if you could W close close up that one there are also sea buildings um in neighborhood enclaves such as Monro Street Shanks Corners Atwood Avenues and others that Define the individual local character and for which lacking other protections demol may be approved Administration administratively which would be a terrible loss to our most important historic properties please reject these um um please consider these and other unintended consequences in your amendments thank you thanks Sam okay the next speaker is John Rowling and John does have some slides we're going to show um and then after John we'll be Kurt sty and Jean Parks who are going to pull their time good evening uh thank you for this opportunity to comment I'm speaking on behalf of Madison trust I hold a PhD in history from W my professional life has included work as an historic preservation consultant and as a real estate appraiser uh first slide please or I should say the next slide please other speakers have pointed out that deteriorated condition is typically claim to justify demolition of historic buildings and most often you have only statements from the interested party as to the building conditions applicants often exaggerate condition issues or conflate the cost to repair problems with cost to make betterments we propose strengthening the existing standard for judging condition by requiring a condition report from City staff most appropriately the building inspector's office the language we suggest retains the standard for judging condition from the current demo ordinance but changes plan commission may consider to shall consider condition reports from impartial City staff experts second SL uh next slide please well if you were to adopt the language in in one you don't need the proposed revisions uh on this one no longer needed thank you third slide please Bri Chandler pointed out earlier the danger that as proposed mitigation factors can be used to justify demolition of historic buildings well there may be cases where relocation adaptive reuse salvaging materials commemorative signs and so forth can be a lesser evil it is inappropriate to rush to demolition based on mere palea lives we suggest moving the language about mitigation from standards for more approval to conditions of approval and last slide please thank you the first paragraph on this slide is the same as in The Proposal before you simply move to the more appropriate conditions of approval section the additional paragraph adds a condition applying to all historic buildings approved for demolition that we document the buildings physical details to leave a permanent record for the benefit of future madisonian there are strong precedents for this condition Wisconsin statutes 66.0 413 sub3 subc requires that where a municipality orders demolition of a recognized historic building the State Historical Society be given an opportunity to assess and document the building prior raising moreover this plan commission did impose this condition suggested here in a recent case that is in its approval of a demolition permit for Fen house at 1617 Sherman Avenue in 2023 thank you thank you for your I'm done all right well done thank you okay sorry um next speakers will be Kurt sey and Jean Parks welcome thank you thank you very much uh I'm Kurt sty co-chair of the Madison trust advocacy committee you've already heard comments indicating the statistics of nearly 95% or 95% approval of demolition by this uh Commission already um you've already heard that uh this would be the third revision of the same ordinance in the last four years suggesting maybe um there should be a additional closer look uh you've also heard about the substitute language that was just proposed three days ago and fact that the landmarks commission which who are the stewards of manison historic resources have concluded in the first um version of the ordinance that they were not provided sufficient time to review that proposed legislation um you've also heard about some suggestions from the trust in terms of changes to be made and I asked the question if I have applied to tear down a building should I also be the source of the information about the building's condition surely you don't want to rely on me the demolition applicant obviously I will try to convince you that it is in terrible condition and passed its useful life regardless of its actual condition now there are still uh number of issues that remain with the substitute legislation um in terms of the the statement of purpose uh both is still a reference to Historic interest in instead of historic value even though historic value is used consistently elsewhere in addition the statement of purpose should also reflect that um in addition to its wide ranging economic benefits historic preservation and historic resources has a positive effect on the quality of life in Addison um in terms of subsection 48 18853 it establishes what is required of an applicant who wishes to Rel relocate a building um and as previously indicated only refers to uh indications of structural and legal pH feasibility nowhere is there discussion of the context of where the building will be um relocated to in some instances relocation will destroy effectively all of the building's significance while in others much significance can be retained the relative success of a proposed relocation should be considered before it is approved um you've heard comments about the standards of approval uh uh currently it says that um the planned commission should approve an application for demolition unless it finds that both subsections one and two below are met and then the second subsection identifies four different broad circumstances any one of which justify granting the demolition application three of the four categories won't provide the plan commission with sufficient information in paragraph I uh as in one uh it suggests that the applicant assert the building quote is in such deteriorated condition that it is not structurally or economically feasible to preserve or restore this again as I indicated previously relies on the demolition applicant as the sole source of uh relevant information um recently the uh Masson trust has been prevented from uh taking a look at the interior of a historic building or two historic buildings that were subject to a uh a demolition request um we proposed that it be a third party instead of the applicant who makes those assessments um paragraph II uh suggests that the applicant seeking demolition assert the building has been so altered that it cannot convey its historical Association or its architectural significance I thought that it was the responsibility of the landmarks commission not the plan commission to assess a building's historic value Kur you're about a minut you have a little under a minute left if you okay yep thanks um then I'll note that uh paragraph IV um suggests the applicant propose any sort of mitigation plan the proposed language identifies various forms of potential mitigation and evidently all of them are sufficient to overcome any building's historic value and to justify demolition uh the last one of the five laid out is other creative mitigation measures without qualification those suggest that any form of mitigation Trump's historic value um thank you for listening and um appreciate your efforts thanks Kurt okay uh the next speaker is Wendy fernside and to be followed by Bill Connors thanks Wendy you're unmuted go ahead okay thank you and please bear with me I am recovering from a nasty flu and I may start to cough in the middle of this um one of the major changes that the proposed ordinance makes is to require a finding that the public interest in the Demolition and reuse outweighs that of preserving a historic resource that is something that is hard to measure the value of a historic resource is largely quantitate qualitative and subjective the replacement value can typically be Quantified as in the number of housing units how do you compare apples and oranges version two does not address this issue I think it should my solution is to focus the standards for approval on the process for making the decision so I suggest first requiring that identification and evaluation of the impacts both positive and negative of the Demolition and proposed reuse identify what would be lost if the building were demolished and what would be gained and how these would impact the city consider a range of factors not just some factors second based on this analysis find that the public benefits of the ReUse outweigh the public benefits of the historic building and its condition and its contribution to the historic or cultural character of its surroundings and or to the city as a whole this is the same as the proposed version with the addition that the finding be based on a thorough analysis and finally identify and document the reasons for the decision and allow the item to be referred to a future meeting if more information is needed I urge you not to approve the ordinance as proposed to refer the item to a future meeting consistent with a landmark commission's request for re-referral and to take time to digest and consider this and the many good comments you have received thank you thanks Wendy okay Bill Connors to be followed by Robert kleba I'm Bill Connor's executive director of smart growth grer Madison I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you this evening I hope you had a chance to read the email I submitted on Sunday about this proposed ordinance smart growth supports the proposed demolition ordinance but it could be improved first replacing old low density development with new development that contains many more housing units is what stimulates business in Industry enabling more residents to live within walking distance of local businesses is what stimulates local businesses not preserving old buildings smart growth urges you to remove the assertion that preservation of old building buildings somehow stimulates business and industry from the statement of purpose section in version two second if propos section 6 C1 regarding standards of approval is applied literally the only time demolishing a building will be consistent with or Aid in the implementation of adopted plans is if the plans show the site as a future public park or green space in most cases it will be the Redevelopment project that is facilitated by demolishing the building that will Aid in the implementation of adopted plans not the demolition itself smart growth recommends amending section 61 to save that explicitly furthermore smart growth recommends adding an explicit reference to the standards of approval section 61 to allow demolition of a building where it will facilitate a proposed Redevelopment that is a permitted use under the current zoning of the site the Madison City attorney's office has explicitly warned that if a denial of a demolition permit thwarts a proposed a proposed permitted use under the current zoning it is likely that the denial would be struck down if challenged in court minute left to all right thank you in the email I I sent yesterday I provided proposed additional text to address these issues finally smart growth urges you to delete all reference to category B demolitions from the ordinance continuing to have a category B of demolitions like de demolitions like category B is a luxury the city cannot afford given its chronic housing shortage we need to eliminate sources of La lack of predictability in the review and approval process such as having the plan commission engage in balancing to decide whether to approve or reject an application for a demolition permit in situations where the developer is informed after spending tens of thousands of dollars or maybe even hundreds of thousands of dollars on engineers and Architects that the landmarks commission has decided the old building on the site falls into category B lack of predictability in the review and approval process is the enemy of increasing housing Supply it's not just the few buildings that get the de demolition permit denied that has a ripple effect on of creating uncertainty which causes developers to be leery of starting the process in the first place that's that's going to be time okay our next speaker is Robert kba followed by Linda Leonard yeah thank you chair Commissioners and staff uh hopefully I can give a perspective different from uh that of the developers of luxury housing my largest concern with the changes being proposed is the inherent threat to naturally occurring affordable housing or Noah this is typically older housing contributing or not to the historic vernacular context of a neighborhood a great example of Noah can be found in the James pison Park neighborhood there are a few buildings of historic significance here and it is now zoned 10 stories along East Washington to four stories on Lake Mota double to five times the height of existing buildings a development in James Madison Park a couple years ago replaced 26 units of Noah ranging from $800 to $1,000 per month per bedroom it was replaced by upscale housing with 540 ft Studios starting at $2,000 per month and larger apartments at $5,000 per month none of the housing we lost had historic significance but it helped to find the neighborhood and Downtown Madison at least the public were able to weigh in on the value of these buildings at landmarks and plan commissions when their demolition permits were reviewed another example can be found on the 700 block of East Johnson Street there were 20 units of Noah in 11 buildings with an average age of greater than 100 years they helped Define the character and diversity of the tending lab of neighborhood these units rented for $800 to $1,000 per month per bedroom they were replaced by 500t Studios starting at $1,700 a month and larger apartments at $ 3,800 again doubling the cost of rent on this block I believe that the changes to demolution you are considering tonight will also affect the affordability in of neighborhoods very dense with naturally occurring affordable housing in Brams Edition Darbo Worthington and Northport Drive Bob you're little I live downtown because I love the diversity of buildings and of the people and the people who live here if we facilitate the demolition of Noah in this area we will lose the fun and create ity that we value in our city to finish I will quote Jane Jacobs the famous urban planner Who challenged urban renewal in the 1960s she said old ideas can sometimes use new buildings new ideas must use old buildings how much her words still ring true thank you thanks bug okay next is Linda Leonards followed by Eileen Thompson blinda are you able to unmute there we go okay there we go thank you um just as a side note I'd like to agree with the pr speaker about Noah um but in terms of what is being looked at in front of you tonight um this goal of preserving historic buildings has been in the city's demolition ordinance's purpose statement since at least 1973 or for over 50 years The Substitute removes that language and instead speaks to a general interest in preserving buildings with historic interest in 2023 and 2024 only two projects involving five buildings were denied demolition so it seems kind of unnecessary to downgrade historic resources to a general interest um the second standard of approval states there are factors that are found to outweigh the public interest in preserving historic resources and then it's there's four factors not limited to those four but four factors are specifically cited the first one condition of the building at least requires a finding from plan commission it would be better if there was more definition of condition and who needs to certify that condition but contrast that factor where plan commission has to make a finding to the fourth factor which does not require a plan commission finding that one is the applicant will Implement a plan to mitigate the loss of the building with historic value that's it I mean any mitigation plan would require plan commission approval of the demolition there's a laundry list of mitigation measures relocation Salvage of historic materials um reap of use interpretive installations or other creative mitigation me measures but just because somebody wants to put up a plaque does not mean that mitigates the loss of that particular historic in building it depends upon the quality of that building and you know what it is and as the preservation planner said at your special meeting last year it's a question of values and this does not allow the fourth Factor does not allow the plan commission to make a finding and consider the question of value the second standard the second Factor um about loss of historic value should be limited to the exterior of the building about 30 seconds left just to let you know okay um in the City Historic districts it's only the exterior that is seen from the public right away that is preserved there should some applicants have argue that the inside has been so altered that the interior is no longer historic so I think this clarification is important I also think this is something that is in the Judgment of landmarks because they have been deemed the experts in this than and smart growth W up yep thank you thank you all right our last speaker wishing to speak is Eileen Thompson all right welcome thank you hi hi um I do want to speak out and say that the plan commission needs to seriously reconsider the suggested changes that have been proposed the revisions um to the demolition package um they will fundamentally undermine any goal of the historic preservation and I think everybody's detailed specifics um you know the statement of Purpose with the proposed wording indicates a a very big tradeoff rather than supporting historic preservation of homes and buildings in the proposed change the city of Madison is now wanting to balance public interest in preserving bill buildings with historic value with its interest in accommodating the growth of population hence this indicates the city will simply choose new development and maybe and not necessarily preservation um the preservation of historic buildings is definitely oriented towards a long-term objective of protecting the city's architectural history and the defining characteristics and Ambiance of all our local neighborhoods rather than the short-term interest related to economic expediency shifting tastes and development pressures in fact the city of Madison has documented catastrophic loss of many architectural history uh of its architectural history in a uh document um entitled lost Madison glimpses into our disappearing past I believe the document details a tragic Legacy of Irreplaceable buildings being demolished to make room for parking lots Etc um and that it was not recognized at the time of those decisions was that decades later later historic buildings would have significant economic value that far exceeds that of their Replacements I'm sure in all cases decision makers who approved demolition of historic buildings will um to make way for whatever they want to build believe that they were acting in the city's growth interest but in hindsight it probably did the exact opposite so I'd like you to recommend that the proposed changes to this ordinance 28.1 185 um make it far more likely that short-term economic interests will once again take priority over long-term interest I think it need you need to revisit how everything is worded that the language needs to be improved to indicate what the planning department originally discussed if it was not discussed with the public and it should you about 20 seconds to wrap up if you could thanks sure I appreciate your attention to this and I hope that you um do not approve it as as it is currently written language changes are important and everybody has stated the specific details that undermine historic preservation thank you thanks hen we will um before I ask about um questions for the registrant I wanted to note that the um in-person meeting that the commission had I wasn't there either but the in-person meeting that the commission had last spring was not a closed meeting as was suggested but it was a noticed and open meeting consistent with open meetings laws and the city's practice and so there's not no one's behind closed doors um having conversations those are are those are public meetings uh as well so I will ask um we do still have our hearing open are there any questions from Commissioners to any of the registrants all right seeing no raised hands we'll close the public hearing portion of our uh discussion and I'll ask the same question do do Commissioners have questions for staff um on any any of the issues that have come up or the presentation um what's on your mind commissioner heck thank you um I'm not sure exactly uh which staff person should answer this so Megan and maybe assistant City attorney Kate Smith and others can fight it out uh um one of the things I'm interested in is is uh was mentioned in public comment uh a slight modification to the the fourth item uh under standard two regarding Mitigation Of loss and and one suggestion was simply to add the word uh sufficiently before mitigate so it would read the applicant will Implement a plan to sufficiently mitigate and I think that uh uh you know in in an attempt to make sure it's clear that we can weigh these things does do you have an opinion about that heate do you want to weigh in on that or do you want me to take a stab at it I I don't think um that from a legal perspective it really matters if you have sufficiently or not so I don't um there's not uh um I don't think that that would provide kind of like the magic missing um word in that in that sentence I mean certainly you could um provide feedback to councel that you thinks that that would be a more um uh a standard that would be um a a better tool for you all to work through and making your decision but there's not it's not a legal yes or no so you're you're kind of implying that the the verb to mitigate uh has uh room for us to to balance that and and and uh potentially reject or accept a demolition uh based on uh whether our interpretation of whether it mitigates or not yeah I would agree with you on that um you know I I can see there being um uh push back either way about if s if you have sufficient um you know if there's sufficient evidence or if there's not sufficient evidence in the record and like what sufficient means but I don't think there's a requirement I'm really sorry that this overhead light is like really obnoxious for you all to look at um but no there's not it's not um really a word smithing from a legal perspective I don't think is going to get you a yes or no answer okay thanks just to to add a little bit you know I think when you look at two right all the factors under including but not limited these are some examples of factors you could use but what you have to determine is does it outweigh the public interest in preserving a historic resource so certainly there'd be times that whatever mitigation is proposed would not be sufficient to outweigh that public interest and you don't that word outweigh kind of gives that balancing of judging if it's enough okay thanks that that was helpful um I'll ask one more question then and then I'll let Nicole have a chance um there was a question um I I think it's something we need to think about uh about whether or not uh implementing plans and such is the same as considering future use which we're not really supposed to can you can you kind of interpret it interpret for us how we can uh discuss whether uh demolition supports a plan for instance uh or the goals of the city uh without thinking about future use sure so it's certainly correct that you've gotten guidance from our office which is still the would still be my opinion that considering proposed future permitted uses off the table and the reason for that is permitted uses you might be familiar with the term um by right but there's things that people are allowed to do without um a discretionary decision made by the city and so our the concern from our office a couple years ago was that um using demo as a run around to stop a permitted use would be um would be have a potential for being challenged right the same consideration isn't really the case for um conditional uses because they do have um a discretionary component to them through the conditional use process when we were trying to come up with the standards here we um and I and and only you know in the last year or so we had gotten feedback from the plan commission that when you are discussing and weighing whether or not um a demolition of a building that has historic value should happen or not happen one of the things that you considered was and wanted to discuss um was how it may implement or detract from um the growth goals of the city through kind of the plans and so when we wanted to make the when we were discussing how the standard is we wanted to continue with that because um it was discussions that were already happening with plan commission and that um it was our understanding that plan commission wanted to continue to happen now we don't require that um an applicant provide information about a future use they may not in which case you'll have to evaluate it in other ways but if they do if they do kind of volunteer information about proposed future conditional uses or how their project falls into um the implementation of adopted City plans um we think it's appropriate that you consider it um to to my knowledge there's not any other cities in Wisconsin that kind of do this so we are um we weren't really able to find other examples to to draw from but um you know we we like to copy other cities sometimes people have good ideas um but so that's kind of what that standard gets at is is it is conversations you folks are already having and when we are trying to make standards that are understandable and and transparent to people to applicants or to to um to members of the public who want to know what they can expect out of a discussion um we thought that that would be um a good a good language to have in there and I might um just add to what Kate was sharing from a plan perspective um you know you certainly have considered the recommendations of plans as part of some of the past demolitions that you have viewed even very recently where you did not have a proposed Redevelopment project in front of you for example um in those cases you were able to consider the general plan goals um including things like what does the future land use plan say about this area is the building that exists here consistent with the sort of scale or intensity or types of uses that the plan might Envision in this location even if you didn't have a specific recommendation in front of you and while there has been a lot of discussion about growth um I will note that sometimes those plans also talk about other things um you've seen demolitions recently that had to do with implementing our plan goals to expand Park spaces for example and as the city was able to acquire individual homes within an area that was planned for a Park expansion you saw an approved demolitions for uh removing those buildings to increase open space so there could be other reasons while we reference um the general balance of you know how our city is intended to grow and evolve um sometimes the support for that growth and evolution could also be things that are not physical buildings um so certainly the ability for you to consider those types of land use recommendations um and general characteristics are part of that process and one of the final things that I forgot to say to is that the G the L plan might also include a recommendation to preserve historic resources right that's another thing that um I know we're talking a lot about development that may um uh way in favor of demolishing the historic resource but that's not always going to be the case and so when you're calculating or making a judgment call um the the there may be information in the plans that supports the preservation of historic resources or historic neighborhood in certain ways okay thank you uh th those answers were helpful one more quick question uh and this this may be for Heather or Kevin I'm not sure uh can you tell me who receives uh the email notifications when a demolition uh permit application is made and Does it include all Alders um Kevin I'm wondering if maybe you should handle part of but my short answer was going to be uh that it's anybody who has signed up to get those um so you can sign up to be a party of interest for the demolition list serve and then when somebody files a demolition that those emails go out I believe all Alders is registered for that but I will okay um Alder Duncan is saying yes so yes um but at at the moment for if you were doing applying for a demolition when you submit to the demolition list serve it goes out to a mailing list and one of the parties that gets that email is the landmarks commission and that is uh what kicks off it then being put on the next available landmarks commission agenda for its historic value review so this uh new process would still use that uh mechanism um in addition to we were talking about doing an application process so you would do an application and also do the demol list serve so we're we're assuming all Alders get all demolition notifications or is it just the Alder of the district any idea um president figurer Cole has her hand raised I'm assuming that maybe she has an answer to that yes yeah someone else can um from stash should confirm but for me personally my experience has been the demolitions come to me directly from my district from whoever is um placing that request and I'm also signed up to the surf thing that Heather was talking about so I get all demolitions but I purposely at some point without know what I was doing register to that so I get them all okay also get notified directly when the applicant appli so I don't know if that's part of the process of the application that requires for The Elder of the district to be notified not sure about that part okay uh thank you I'll give somebody else a shot Kevin did you have anything to add to that or no no not thanks all right thanks um commissioner solheim go ahead thank you um I have two questions to start um one of them there one of the um questions raised in in comments I think there seems to be a concern that moving the landmarks commission report and preservation planner report from a standard of approval to the sub new submitted material section kind of diminishes that um report but I'm seeing the language in that new section stating that the landmarks commission report shall be received and considered by the plan commission so that's something that we are still reviewing for these correct that's correct yes thank you um and then one other question on the um standard 2i that relates to deteriorated condition I'm wondering if there is any consideration of language um stating that you know some reports may be provided to meet this condition I honestly I kind of see pros and cons of of both but it's come up before um when we ask for uh condition reports you know some folks saying well you don't say that you need that so that's not fair um on you know of course it is on the burden of the applicant um to provide the information to show that they are meeting the standard um so I you know I can kind of see it both ways and that some it's nice to have some flexibility because some circumstances I think require a higher level of information um I just wanted to know if that was anything that was considered in this Factor um I'm I would welcome if um Katie or Heather had any initial comments on that um I I'm going I'm going to say I'm adjacent to a lot of this with the um let me deal with the first part I don't think that the way this has been Rewritten um places less value in the landmarks commission's role or um in the report from the preservation planner we are creating a new section in the historic preservation ordinance for landmarks commission's task on this as opposed to um a very cursory uh explanation in the present ordinance and then otherwise our process is in the lammars commission policy manual we we're making it a part of ordinance I think that makes it more serious um but also in terms of having the applicant provide information that's all the that's how it is right now with any of our applications anything that comes to you anything that comes Lamar's commission it's from the applicant um for something with the uh things that I do outside of things that show up at landmarks commission I have a standing weekly meeting with uh some minimum housing inspectors that are tasked with dealing with minimum housing complaints for properties that also are a local historic district or a designated Landmark property and when they see something that they think might have a structural concern they require the property owner to get a structural engineer or an architect to look at it and provide a report um we don't have an entire staff of structural engineers in building inspection that are going out and doing these analyses for the properties um I don't see why this would be any different in this instance if somebody is making a case for our building bu is structurally unsound then the city is going to want evidence of that and so then we would require them to provide a report from an architect or a structural engineer and that's the way we've been doing it before this I don't see how this is any different here um so I don't know every week I get reports from minimum housing inspectors for well and we ask them to uh provide a report for um is this structurally sound um so that we don't have situations like the Mifflin Street block party where you know a portch comes off um this is work that the city's doing already and we require the property owner to provide a report from a stamped report from a structural engineer or an architect who has done that analysis so that is my contribution to this looks like Megan would like to say something sure and just you know one addition in terms of I think maybe part of what I was hearing in your question um commissioner solheim is whether we would include a requirement to submit a report as part of the application materials perhaps um the start of this section regarding application materials applies to all demolitions that would be required so we did not include that upfront just because again a lot of these will not um necessarily be um ones that we would have a a finding of historic value um I think in terms of looking at condition if that's something that the commission is interested in certainly can request more information um particularly if you feel that you don't have the information in front of you in order to make a decision about uh something that is being shared with you on condition um but I think I mean certainly I'd be open to figuring out a way that we could say something about um the applicant at least providing um information about conditions for ones that do come your way we'd have to think about how to Nuance that in here if that was something were interested in yeah I'm more just trying to make it clear that you know it's not straight black and white for every project that having this one thing means that you're covered we have to have some discretion to say that you know we need some additional information a condition report this to be able to make this determination and so it's not going to be necessarily evenly applied to every single applicant because every situation is unique in terms of the information we need exactly and I think when staff is having those conversations with an applicant who's really leaning on this is why and we think it's you know going to have historic value and maybe a concern like we're going to say we're going to really need some good information there from someone like a structural engineer and architect you know putting together a report that can explain that that's the case great thank you that's all I have thank you other questions from the commission um commissioner Sanders thank you chair um I think this is probably a question for Kate um but I just want to make sure that I understand the language that's in um section c with the standards of approval so am I correct in understanding that with the words here the plan commission shall not approve an application for demolition unless it finds both standards are met that the presumption is that we would not approve a demolition and the burden is on the plan commission to express how we find uh subsections one and two to be met to make that approval um yes I think you're right I mean these could be written in I mean an ordinance can be written in like the affirmative or the negative and this is just how we wrote it this way is that but you would Prov we would want you to have findings on the record like um you all do for many other land use applications that both one and two are met and the specifics of how they are thank you that's helpful um Alder r hi every everyone um I wanted to say some comments before you got to making motions Etc and um I sent you a letter but of course it was last minute so I I understand you might not have read it but I wanted to share with you some of the things that I I've been thinking about with this ordinance um and first of all I really do appreciate the changes in the substitute I think it address many of the comments that um the staff and the sponsors heard at landmarks Commission last week um and I also want to just State for the record I do support um administrative approval of demolition of category C buildings after landmarks has made a finding that the building has no known historic value I mean I think there's still what we don't know is what we don't know about those buildings such as perhaps underrepresented communities might have some history there that we're unaware of but you know at some point the the burden will be on the public to bring that to landmarks and make sure if there is knowledge that we don't overlook a building because once it passes through landmarks it goes just to staff and then there's no extra step um so I just wanted to go through some of the outstanding questions I have about this ordinance um the first one is the statement of purpose you know takes out the ensure preservation and now has language that kind of has an equivalent between the general interest in public um in preservation and the general interest in growth and development um you know I sort of regret the loss of the word insure preservation because as one of the speakers said it's been in our ordinance for over 50 years but I if we're going to add in the new language that the substitute has and you know I heard the comments from Mr Connor about like you know some of it may be extraneous but I would like to add a sense of place to something that's the value not just an economic benefit but a a sense of place about who Madison is in our history um and so I would ask you to consider adding something to that statement of purpose that reflects um you know this kind of part of what's the value of historic resources and the other thing about the statement of purpose ordinance I would ask you to seriously talk about is why is there a balancing test in the statement of purpose I looked I did a general search I am not an expert at legistar to look for balancing in chapter 28 and I described to you I found three instances of the use of a balancing test in the statements of purpose two of them were that the city has a balance an interest in balancing the concerns of the state to locate radio towers and mobile cell towers so we have a public interest in public health and safety and then the third one is maybe the most relevant one is that under the campus institutional um section of the ordinance um they there is a balancing task between the ability of a major institution to change and the public benefits of their proposed change with the need to protect the livability and vitality of adjacent neighborhoods and so in some level the the campus institutional is outside of this ordinance review um it's already excluded so you know maybe it makes sense that there's a balancing test there but what I think is common about all three of these examples is that we added a balancing test because we're balancing our City's responsibility and Powers over public health and safety and our police Powers with the state's power to preempt or do all the you know not zoning all the things the state can do when faced with a municipal action and so is this the same equivalent kind of situation honestly I don't think so I think if you look at the existing language the balancing test is in the standards of approval you added it last year it's brand new it's 4A under number nine on the existing ordinance so it says of course I don't have everything in front of me that I guess I could look at my own notes um that I'm sorry I get a little excited about this but basically the balancing test could be added back to the standards of approval and there's language in the existing ordinance that you could tweak to add it back because now you're only looking at the A and B thing not anything that's a c category so you could talk about how you know the AIDS in the implementation of plans and how you know demolition AIDS versus preservation AIDS in the um development of plans and this actually talks about Redevelopment and that's a phas as attorney Smith mentioned so this is a test this is probably the only example I know of in chapter 28 where a future use is a low we can look you all can look at the future use and com and evaluate whether historic preservation or the future proposed use which one whereas you know in 2021 you took out the future use from the ordinance period is under standards of approval but this is one way that the the plan commission weighs the future use and so I think it should stay in the standards of approval and not be in the statement of purpose and honestly when I think about all this I kind of wonder what are we trying to solve here if 96% of demolitions are approved and you know 90% of those are buildings that are in the B and the C category it seems like we don't need to elevate um the balancing test to the statement of purpose we're doing a job now where I think overall um most things get demolished and we build new buildings um and then the rest of my comments from my letter um talk about the standards of approval um and these I think are the most substantial changes to the ordinance and and I I I I agree with some of the comments you heard from the public and in the letters that the new factors only one appears to be required and of course that factor IV does seem rather like you know like you could just put a sign up and that's enough I mean that's the question you know it comes to me and maybe that's as you know as commissioner hex says no it's more subjective but you know that's how it reads to me that you could just put up an interpretive installation or a piece of terracotta and that's all you really need to do and so you know I I just I just hope that you don't I think the the members of the trust who said yeah if you decide that there's some elements that should be saved that are material elements make that a condition of approval you'll save the teroc cotta you'll put up a sign you'll you know do that kind of thing but that it could shouldn't be a standard of approval um and for me I guess one of the the major things is besides the the balancing test that's a standard is removing the consideration of the report of the preservation planner and any any other additional comments from lamb marks from the standards of approval now um someone just asked well wouldn't that um commissioner solam asked well the new submitted materials section has a phras shell consider and yes it does but it doesn't say you'll have to make a finding whereas clearly now in the standards of approval you have to make a finding and and okay as a c council member who's dealt with several recent um appeals of demolition the findings of the president conservation planner were really crucial and helpful in our decision and you know maybe they're still there but you know the plan commission made a finding that because it's a building a and it's Etc what whatever the story is that was something that you know we're not going to you know it'sit adopted plans for State Street or whatever the rationale is that you know to me this really an important value of this ordinance and one that I would I would really regret the loss of um so if it were up to me I would take out that submitted material section it's brand new it's only as a way to add in the report of the preservation planner and make the finding of the preservation planner and landmarks part of the the standards of approval and so you know I I get also how people talked about the condition report I agree if you're going to keep if you want to keep language about condition or even economic feasibility you have to add some expectation for what that is required to fulfill that standard because then it just seems totally subjective some blurry picture of a basement that's wet is that I mean I can I can get half my district to show you a picture of a wet messy basement I mean that's not enough you need to have some kind of documentation from somebody who actually understands buildings I mean so much can be repaired and the question is what does it cost to repair and then are standards in state law that say 50% of equal assessed value is what it should be and I I'm sure you don't want to put that detail in the ordinance but I mean at some point there needs to be more um more detail about what the um proof is for a deteriorated condition so finally I sent you a list of the some of this standards of approval I would if I you know hopefully could get you to consider um they would be including um information about relocation that you would consider um the condition of the building then I kind of make sort of some standards like what what that would require and just as an aside I having served on the city for so long I know that there's no way we're going to approve building inspection doing these reports that's just beyond the scope of our abilities so let's make the applicant depending on the scale of the as as commissioner solheim said you know not everything is going to rise to the scale of you know show us some expensive report but some things will rise to that and I think that you need language in here that says when that's required like a a a category a building or something like that um and so again I added back into the standards what I think is your balancing test where you can look at how Demolition and Redevelopment of the property relate to the implementation of the city's adopted plans and then you know I just and also the final thing in my list is the the report of the preservation planner so I just hope you will consider all that and if you don't if you're just going to move forward without like considering all that I mean I think people are really I mean you heard from maybe not you know a broad array of people but enough people are like wow this is this is moving fast and you know landmarks did refer it because they weren't quite able to absorb all the public testimony so I don't know I mean I hope that you will take a time to consider all this and and and you know hopefully that I don't know that I'm asking you to refer or you know obviously I would love if you consider some of the recommendations I made but I I'm asking you to like to just consider more about this ordinance change thank you thanks holder r Megan yeah thanks chair um I appreciate there were a lot of comments and in some cases some questions in Alder R rl's comments so um if the commission would be interested can offer a couple of Staff perspectives on some of the things that were raised and happy to answer any other questions too yeah I think I think that would be really helpful so thank you okay um and again we'll invite other folks from the city to jump in here particularly those that have a longer history with this demolition ordinance and process so um you know I just I want to start by mentioning something that we said um at the landmarks commission meeting that I think is important when we talk about what's in front of you and that is that you know we have a demolition process as a city in order for us to evaluate um the impact of demolitions on our historic resources that's why this process exists and I think if this weren't an important value in Madison uh we probably wouldn't have the same sort of demolition process um and structure in our code um so I think that's just really important to recognize that this is about making sure we are are paying attention to the value of those resources um when we think then about kind of what's in the ordinance itself um a lot of folks have mentioned concerns about the changes to the purpose statement and just want to share a little bit of perspective about how purpose statements are used in other parts of the ordinance um for example in our conditional use standards um the purpose statement talks about some of the things that we view as being particularly important when we're looking at development in the city and the purpose statement recognizes that in some cases we might need to consider you know site specific or use specific factors um I think that's a really important statement it it helps guide us as to why we're looking at conditional uses but the standards of approval get into a greater level of specificity about what it is that we care about when we look at those things um I think through this process we're trying to be very clear about what or through the proposed changes here we're trying to be very clear about what it is that the plan commission is really looking at when they look at these questions of demolition particularly for ones that have historic value um instead of just pointing at our purpose statement we want to make sure that there's something that's contained within the standards that help give you and the community at large uh more transparency and guidance about what are the key questions that you're asking um and that is where those those standards come into play um those standards do speak to the balance of the issues that uh folks have been talking about the first is about aiding in the implementation of plans and that can mean many things um in some cases aiding those plans could be general policies that we have about either growth or preservation or any host of other things or it could be very specific recommendations about a location or a type of use or a specific um know way that the city might evolve and it also says that we know that historic preservation matters that's why we have this ordinance it's why you get the recommendation from the landmarks commission and then you need to decide you need to find whether there are factors about this demolition that outweigh preservation that says very clearly that that's important um otherwise you could just approve the demolitions without thinking about the impact on preservation so those those pieces are here they are definitely in different um they're organized differently in this proposed ordinance but has been done in a way that we hope can help point you at kind of that Clarity and and specificity of what the questions are that you're looking at um in terms of the concern about the way the um landmarks commission's recommendation is embedded in this ordinance um the structure of this is proposed to be similar to how other parts of our ordinance take into consideration the recommendations of other boards and commissions um for example there are lots of ways that um the Urban Design commission for example is advisory to the plan commission um we uh similarly include information in whatever is referred to the plan commission there's references about the fact that the plan commission may consider a certain situation a conditional use or request for additional height whatever that might be after the plan uh after the Urban Design commission has reviewed it um it doesn't specifically say you have to consider all their recommendations but that's the implication as part of this process that you actually bring that information in and you use it as part of your decision-making process that's again that's why we have these processes set up is so that you can get that advice from those um boards and commissions um and then the last thing I think just for folks who maybe weren't um following the landmarks commission meeting closely want to uh make sure that uh we let the plan commission know what their uh recommendation was um their motion uh was ultimately to recommend that the council um approve the section of this ordinance that has to do with creating um the new section in the historic preservation ordinance related to those categories for value um but specifically requested the piece of this that is about the plan commissions process so the the zoning code piece of this back um for more discussion so just wanted to make sure that was clear thanks Maran um what other questions do Commissioners have um if we're thinking about a motion I think we're we're being asked for a recommendation so similar to the um tid uh items we would I think the motion would be to recommend to the council whatever our action is approval approval with specific changes or um disapproval I don't know if that means deny it or reject it I don't know what verb we'll use there but whatever the opposite of approval is commissioner solheim sorry I remember that my microphone doesn't work on that oh yeah I can we can hear you now okay thank you um I will uh move that the plan commission recommend approval to the common Council of the proposed substitute um to create uh section 41.2 of the mass and general ordinances related to the demolition of buildings and update the approval process um Alder you oh you're still muted it was a second there we go all right sorry I wanted to have you say it just to make sure thanks yeah all right um discussion on the motion um as seconded um Megan I'm GNA call in commissioner Sanders first if that's okay right thank you chair um I just want to also thank the public for weighing in um I want the public to know that we do hear you and I look forward to hearing you in all of our future discussions as we look at demolition in the future your input is really valuable and I recognize that you get the opportunity to speak at Landmark marks and with us and that's not going away and I think that even with these proposed changes we're still going to have those really good discussions but I'm also grateful for the opportunity to streamline the demolition process for things that are found to not have historic value um just this evening we approved multiple demolitions I don't think those were found to have historic value we did that on the consent agenda so I think that is going to save us a lot of time and resources going forward thanks commissioner commissioner Sim thank you um I agree with commissioner Sanders thanks for those comments um I also just wanted to say I appreciate all the work from staff and the members of the public um and the changes made with the substitute um which really came from all of that input from the public so thank you for that time that you took to review that and provide your comments I think those were good adjustments I've you know reviewed these materials in depth I watched the landmarks commission meeting we've had a lot of discussions about our demolition ordinance over the last few years and um I am grateful to see something that I think makes our standards of approvals and the process much more clear both for us as Commissioners for the public for applicants um it's easier under this I think to relay a finding of either approval or denial um and I really appreciate the additions to the historic ordinance um the you know ABC versus is kind of red light yellow light green light which was always kind of confusing for everyone um and I just want to note that you know I don't think that there you know there were some comments about 96% of demos are approved why do we need to make these changes um still you know because we approved those doesn't mean that our our process was perfect or clear I think that our standards really had to be more clear and those approvals were made but you know that didn't mean they couldn't be improved and and I think that this goes a long way and improving that transparency thanks Megan I'll let you get I'll let you get in get in here sorry I just have a procedural question about the motion uh that commissioner solheim made um I Heard moving the substitute uh but specifically only a reference to the section of the ordinance that deals with um m41 uh creating that new section on historic value so just wanted to clarify that also includes repealing and recreating the standards under uh 28885 as well sorry yes I skipped right over that I meant section 28 185 and section 4128 thank you for clarifying likewise on the likewise on the second thank you thanks for that clarification Megan uh commissioner heck thanks I just wanted to uh say that I agreed with commissioner Souls heims statements about uh making this easier for us to to justify uh our decisions and motions compared to what the the ordinance currently States um as somebody who has made several uh motions to deny demolition uh permits I I'll say that the current ordinance May made that very difficult uh and I think that this uh you know I I understand why some folks have qualms about this or that aspect of this but I think it's actually going to help us uh with uh explaining our rationale whether we agree or not with with a permit I think on both sides it's going to make it uh the decisions clear and I I thank staff and everybody who worked on this for for that effort thanks thank you um commissioner wasi um again like others I thank the the public for their their comments um gave me a lot to think about thank staff for all their hard work and putting this together uh just in in reviewing this I know some comments are made of um again going back to well if we approve them why do we need to change the process and and I think about you know we're we're trying to grow a class of citizens developer in the city to to do some neighborhood sensitive context development and this will go a long way to helping them with that process um they don't have the the uh the attorneys that can go out and and fight for this and so time is money for them as they're holding on to this stuff and if if these are could be approved administratively um those that aren't of historic value then then it makes a lot of sense for that so um support this and thank everybody for all their work on it thank you all right Alder you again just also want to amplify what commissioner solheim and and commissioner hex said that uh as I think back of the decisions that I've participated in on the plan commission over this past year and a month that uh I don't think the change the changes in the substitute would have changed my vote on anything but it certainly would have required fewer mental gymnastics to get to the decision it's greater Clarity and again thanks to all of those who commented today and uh the landmark comments that led to the current inversion I I think uh as I really take a look at the details of the current wording uh it really doesn't in my mind preclude the plan commission from considering any of the concerns that were raised by the speakers tonight it may not force us one way or another into uh doing something but it gives us the kind of discretion we need to consider all of that and uh I think certainly history at least as I've watched it the plan commission operate for the last several years um we try to consider all of those things and now we have a clear road map to be sure that we will consider all of those things that uh could prevent the demolition of something that really has value or allow us to properly consider uh the other Alternatives that are of value to the city thank you thanks Al G other discussion on the motion right any um any opposition to to unanimous approval for this item as moved in seconded um right we record it as unanimously approved I really appreciate the um everyone taking the chance to sort of articulate how they're thinking about it and and also I appreciate the really respectful discussion that we've had with um all the registrants and staff and all the hard work that's gone into getting us to this point so we have one more item on our agenda for tonight um which is um also not an easy one and that is number 13 which is legistar 8665 um amending sections in chapter 28 of the Madison General ordinances related to single family homes accessory dwelling units and small residential infill projects and I think we will start with a staff pres uh presentation I think Katie is are you on this for this one yes all right thank you chair okay here make sure I'm sharing the right the right thing okay hopefully you're seeing uh the slide at this point and not the notes yep uh looks great thank you for the confirmation always appreciate that okay um so um thanks for hear me out tonight about some additional zoning code changes uh that are proposed before you tonight for a recommendation to council um so first I'll start with um the policy maker ask um so really we were asked to look at um how can we make single family houses easier to build and to improve what reasonable improvements to people's homes does the zoning code prohibit today or make more difficult and then what obstacles to missing middle homes remain so these are the buildings between some of the larger hundreds of unit projects we're seeing and single family two family homes these missing middle um so really what you're seeing before you tonight is driven a lot by what zoning staff sees in our day-to-day work administering the zoning code so the things people call about they want to do to their properties or their homes or come to our counter with some questions um and we're having to say no um to things uh that we think could be we could reasonably say yes to so there's really kind of two main components in zoning so how property can be used used um the different land uses and then um how property can be developed what we sometimes call development standards so examples of a land use are things like a single family home Auto Body Shop Warehouse while examples of development standards are things like setbacks the minimum or maximum distance um that a property can be uh from a property a property Improvement I should say can be from um a property line uh building design requirements like requiring an entrance that's oriented towards the street Building height minimums or maximums and uh the zoning code changes here are really focused on that second bucket the development standards um how a property can be developed in places where these uses are already allowed um so there's six changes before you tonight and I'm going to kind of go through each one what do what do we have today in place um what are some reasons to consider a change here to this part of the code um and then what's actually propos osed um so today the zoning code has an attached garage design requirement for new residential buildings constructed after 2013 and the purpose is right in the code at the top there in italics you can see um that it's in order to avoid the monotonous and pedestrian unfriendly appearance of facades dominated by garage doors so the current code requires that attached garage doors be recess 2 feet behind the facade um and it says the remainder of the facade which has been interpreted be a finish space like a room not a wing wall or part of the garage but also not the entire width of the street facing facade um it's important to note that there's an existing design requirement as well and that is that no more than 50% of the width of a facade facing a street can be garage doors so why change it well we've run into a number of situations where people didn't know about this design requirement they've already um put together their very expensive plans and had to redo them and there otherwise quite attractive house designs which we think arguably comply with the purpose and intent of having this in the regulations I'm nonetheless didn't meet the the letter of it the prescriptive requirement and the code so this code change would provide some additional uh flexibility um it does a couple things today having this design require really limits homeowner options in selecting a developer um and selecting plans um so off the plan shelves uh off-the-shelf plans um it also limits modular options that would be available um because very few of them meet this two foot behind recession requirement um today's design requirement also um results in a little bit less efficiency of design because it's pushing more of the garage under that building roof it chooses away at the living space under um the building roof that would otherwise be allowed so a change here could add a little more flexibility um for living space programming under the roof of the garage um allowing it to sneak out a little bit um if we add some flexibility here and then you know here are a couple examples um of just houses that exist uh in Madison today and there's there's a number of them um that don't meet the strict letter of the ordinance requirement today but really seem to meet the intent of the code and that we don't have a facade dominated by garage we don't have a snout house where the where the the garage is really sticking out so far that that's all you see when you look down the street so these were built prior to this uh code requirement in 2013 um so what's proposed before you today um is to change it from this recession requirement of 2 feet behind the remainder of the facade to allowing that it can go up to 4 feet forward of the um facade so just providing a little bit more flexibility again there are a lot of homes that already exist in Madison that seem to meet this requirement um and we it would allow more people to potentially even have homes um infill in those neighborhoods that fit in a little bit better than the ones that would meet that 4 foot requirement um and and then also that language I mentioned before about that 50% of width that's proposed to remain and we think it's really important that it remains um because it does help lot in that we're not having these facades dominated by garage doors um it really um provides a balance in garage doors facing the street um with the rest of a house so um the second code change is about open porches and sidey setbacks so our zoning code allows a number of elements to go closer to a property line and within a setback than what otherwise be allowed what we call an allowed encroachment so open porches these are roofed um but unenclosed unconditioned spaces um so you could have um though it's not uh a room addition it's truly what we think of as an open porch a traditional open porch and the zoning code currently allows open porches to encroach into the required front yard setback and the rear yard setback um however today we don't have any allowance for an encroachment to a side yard setback so where we see these requests it's typically um in a couple different circumstance ances and I'm kind of gotten a couple photo examples here to show this so one is um starting on the the left hand side here one is when we have a building um which has a side entrance on a street um and someone wants an open porch over a door on the side of the house again we don't necessarily have a way to allow that if they're already at the side setback um the example in the middle here is um where we have a house that's already located within a side set back and they want to put a nice open porch across the entire width of the the house the front set back might allow that cuz we have that allowed encroachment um but we don't have a way to allow that within the side setback and the example on the right here is where we have a second unit or I'm sorry a two-unit building where we have a second unit that's maybe more oriented towards the rear of the house or the side typically when you put a porch for that unit you want it to be next to that unit so on the side rather than front um attached to the other unit in the house um so what's proposed here is going from um having no allowed encroachment to 3 ft from the property line we think this allow some flexibility that you'd have a functional size open porch um while still allowing sufficient um setback here the next proposed change before you is um about side stepping backs and the number of stories um so this is the minimum distance a house or building would need to be from a side property line um to the the structure and today we kind of have this um this difference of if you're proposing these are just two examples um this is throughout the code in various districts and they're all listed in in the proposals more specifically but I just put two examples here so src2 is kind of a lower density zoning district and so it's really single family attached houses detached houses that are allowed and some very limited non-residential uses like a place of worship um a community center there's a few things like that that are allowed in these districts often as conditional uses well today we require a different side setback depending on whether you're one story building or more than one story um and so you can see that too in tier C4 um single family detached one story house has a 5 foot side setback a two-story house has a six foot so there's kind of this difference in one foot depending on whether you're one story or more than one story throughout the code um what we've seen is this is really can be an obstacle to improving an existing house um just kind of the expansions we see especially as households maybe want to remain in their home as they grow um you could uh have a one-story house here that you want to add um a second story addition on add some additional bedrooms potentially well you're 1ot short because you were built according to the setback for a one-story house we we also have where people want to put a one-story Edition on of the house but the house is two stories and so they're they're one foot short there as well so a change here is just really um add some consistency makes it a lot easier to design um not having to have this difference um between one story and twostory buildings for the required side setback so this is that src2 District um more lower density single family and tier C4 which has a single family as well as some missing middle um uses here again having a consistent side setback requirement um across the board regardless of number of stories again we're still going to have the limits on number of stories that the district already has um this doesn't also change any required step backs that would be required in situations um that they are required um next accessory dwelling units um or adus um we haven't had that many builds um but we have seen an obstacle um that goes beyond the cost to adding adus which is the biggest obstacle today for more adus we've only had about 41 adus um that we've had building permits issued for since 2011 um that includes 11 in 20 23 and 8 in 2024 um the code obstacle here is really primarily about detached adus and kind of get to the next slide to talk about it a little bit um so a lot of it is about the kind of detailed review that's required today with that back a slide we have a maximum square footage um for that accessory dwelling unit of 900 square feet and there's a maximum of two bedrooms and so to determine whether someone has hit that maximum or not there's a lot of back and forth discussion that needs to happen be between the applicant and the zoning staff today so we're looking at things like okay that utility clock it is that for the accessory dwelling unit or is that for the garage that's also part of the same building um is this uh storage space connected with the Adu or is it a separate storage space which has its own entrance and it's not internally connected to the Adu and so we don't have to count it against that maximum um it's just added a lot of complexity to how this is administered um as far as the um the bedroom count too there's things like okay this area you say it's going to be a home office it has a closet in well looks like we have to count that as a bedroom now and so just really digging into a lot of the details on the floor space so today um this is how measure the um Adu maximum size measurement so we're looking all the details of that interior space do we have to count all of the access detached accessory dwelling unit or only parts of it um and then we have a maximum for permitted use uh detached accessory structure separate from Adu which just measures the footprint so we're just looking around the ground floor and if it's under or 1,000 square ft or under then it's a permitted use so there's really kind of this mismatch today between how we're measuring maximum accessory dwelling unit size versus this maximum permitted use accessory structure size so what's proposed is really to kind of align these things together so we'd have a maximum 1,000 ft footprint for detached adus and also a maximum 1,000 foot for attached so that's going to be a living space one and then removing that limit on the number of bedrooms we've just seen yes home offices um I think we also know that we need a lot more housing units that have um three bedrooms and those are more desirable to families with children so it seems like if someone can fit a third bedroom in um why would we make the zoning code prevent that from happening um so you can see how on the right we would measure um accessory dwelling unit and accessory uh structure maximums the same way under this proposal um So currently two and three unit uh building design there's two allowable configurations under the zoning codes you can either do a side by side or you can do stacked one on top of another oh way back sorry um so we have found that this can be really limiting particularly when someone's trying to add one additional unit on an existing house there may be reasons that's just doesn't really work well with the floor plan today and uh why it's preferable to have a different configuration so what's proposed is to allow kind of two additional configurations a backtack configuration as well as one where you might have um partial kind of on top and partially on bottom partial side by side or back toback in some ways combined and the last housing um code specific code change um is about removing usable open space and I think this one is probably the most confusing one and difficult one to explain so please feel free to ask me questions after um if I don't hit all this um but first I I think it's really important to note like usable open space is not um a lot coverage setback storm water or Landscaping related requirement um we have all these requirements um and we would continue to have them under the proposed um I think usable open space really was a nice idea when it was put in place um the idea that everyone would have access to a private outdoor space in their backyard um which would be you know flat enough large enough to have a picnic or um you know play a bags game in the backyard um but what it actually is is it's a really prescriptive standard um that requires a per unit minimum amount of private backyard space so I'm just going to kind of read through these just so you get an idea um of kind of how prescriptive it can be and how it makes it difficult to um design some projects or adapt existing properties so there's a minimum size of 200 square ft for any area that can count towards the minimum total required usable open space um requirement on a property and no Dimension um can be less than 8 ft um so often you can't use a sidey yard towards usable open space because they're often less than this 8 feet they're also can't be more than a 10% slope for an area to be counted as usable open space it can't be in a front yard or a street side yard so um on a corner lot it can't be on either um side facing a street it also can't include driveways Drive aisles you know off street parking Paving and sidewalks except there's an exception for a pave path um no wider than 5 ft that could be within a usable open space um permeable space can be used as usable open space so permeable space is um um areas that rainwater can flow through so you could have permeable pavement um if that's an area reserved only for recreational space so it couldn't be used as uh permeable pavement for parking and as usable open space in some districts roof decks porches and balconies can be used to meet up to 75% of the total requirement um and then some other districts up to 100% can be uh this structured usable open space usable open space is not required in the downtown core zoning District or into the transit oriented development overl district oh um I changed it um really what we found is that it's regularly an obstacle to creating more housing and particularly missing middle housing it's one of those things where it's like yes we know the the zoning District says missing middle housing is allowed here but kind of when you stack up the layers of Regulation it leads to in the end usable open space is the thing that makes it say yeah you can't actually do that here you don't have enough space so you know starting at the bottom I kind of like thinking about layers a cake um you're looking at minimum lot area so minimum lot area in the district um for that use minimum lot area per dwelling unit depending on the district then there's the minimum setbacks in every direction how far does the structure need to be from every property line and then we have a maximum lot coverage so this is the maximum amount of the lot that can be covered with um impervious things like structures and pavement and then on top of all that you have to meet this minimum recreational area per housing unit on the lot that's has to be certain dimensions and only allowed in certain areas um so we've seen it's especially difficult for infill projects um projects with an existing building may be looking to add one additional unit um we often see with these existing developments even their existing number of units um they don't meet the minimum of usable open space that would be allowed so another units definitely not allowed then um and just to provide a couple more examples this was a plan to provide to build two duplexes um side by side on Lots next to each other and they both had rear loading attached garages so you know as I mentioned earlier we have that requirement that no more than 50% of the width can be garage doors so it can be a little bit difficult when you're looking at a duplex of how do you add an attach garage if that's a desirable amenity um for the homeowners you're looking um or renters you're looking to attract um but also meeting usable open space um and really here it wasn't possible because they have to have this backyard area reserved for usable open space um so Corner Lots can be especially tricky since you can't have usable open space in your front yard or your street side yard and usually your side yards are too narrow uh this was an example we had um that came to us they wanted to um convert some of the office space in the building to an apartment um and it wasn't doable because they don't have this space on the lot um and never have um to have this kind of recreational space in the back uh this is actually now in the transit oriented development overlay District so they could do it now today um we've also had inquiries where we have downtown apartment buildings they want to add one additional unit that didn't work um we've had where a developer decision about what zoning District to request is really based on can I do structured usable open space here because land values are so high that um it wasn't a good use of land um to be um having to put ground level recreational space um and they really wanted different amenities for their tenants um they knew that that was not what they were uh looking for we've also seen two years into the to Overlay um that removing the use open space requirement has enabled some housing that wouldn't have been allowed otherwise and we think that the resulting housing is still really resulted in nice places to live um a lot of these larger projects are providing other amenities that the market finds more desirable like indoor spaces for hosting a book club or um a birthday party or playing ping pong and those kinds of things um and we're seeing for missing middle we can allow an additional unit or two in desirable areas without um having a NE negative impact on quality of life for residents so um what's proposed is to REM remove usable open space requirements that remain within the zoning code um while retaining those other kind of limits um that uh limit impervious surfaces um protect trees and things like that so we're still going to have maximum lot coverage requirements minimum setbacks and minimum lot area um any Landscaping requirements as well um while kind of removing this prescriptive requirement that's been preventing um more housing from being able to happen um and I think something we've seen too is just like often these projects are located near um parks and a lot of times those are a lot more desirable uh usable Open Spaces recreational spaces than our usable open space in our zoning code so that uh is the last um change to share with you tonight and happy to answer any questions about all or or few of those thank you thanks Katie um I know we have registrant um so we'll open the public hearing on this on item 13 um and Megan would you manage the regist list yes we um we have two speakers that want to speak to you tonight uh we'll first hear from Grant Foster and then Linda Leonards great thank you good evening can you hear me we can thanks great uh thank you Commissioners I sent an email uh earlier this week uh very much in support of the proposed changes um and did want to speak on um a proposal for you to consider two additional changes related to the Adu regulations um as I mentioned in my email uh these these two items um I really uh came to understand better through my own experience working to uh construct an Adu on a a property I own on the east side of my home and uh but the reason I'm advocating for them in this email and the reason I came um to talk with you tonight is really not about uh any project for me at this point um I I determined that it really wasn't feasible financially um to do it and um on ly my primary motivation for doing it was my sincere and strong belief in INF Phil development um I was a strong supporter of that uh during my time on the council I feel like it's critical um for sustainable Transportation options and I really wanted to put that into practice by uh adding a unit in my neighborhood that I really love um the two um pieces is one to consider raising the maximum height of an accessory building uh so right now it's at 25 feet uh it really does put some significant constraints when you're trying to do a two-story building you know garage with a Adu above um and it's is possible to um to meet that height but it does put a lot of constraints on on the form we have a steep pitch through for example and uh you know you just have to start doing things that don't really make a lot of sense and I don't think that the that um extra roof height would have a big impact on adjacent neighbors uh the second piece is a recommendation to consider owing a second Adu um within the existing permitted form U that one might seem like a more significant uh change um but I I really appreciated the way that it was framed in the staff report um that we really want to focus more on the the form um and uh allow more flexibility with the use I think given the constraints on the form um you know it's unlikely that a second Adu would create any um significant intensity of use that would be a um a problem for adjacent Property Owners U but it really could um flip the economics and make infill development of detached adus something that actually could be practical I don't believe that it is practical today uh and I don't think that um we're really going to get to a point where construction costs or the cost that you could get from renting are going to surpass the construction cost so I think it it's really important to consider um a way for us to capitalize on this infill development opportunity um and I think the only way we're going to get at it um is by allowing for a a second Adu um for such a development and I'd be happy to answer any questions later thank you um sorry chair I forgot to watch the time but you were you wrapped up in perfect timing um our last speaker for the evening will be Linda Leonards there you go hello um have a few things I would like to talk about one usable open space is a space that is quote available to all occupants for outdoor use it's not you know sort of like everybody has their private little space unless they have balconies but I think it's particularly important in terms of families that there's some place the kids can go outside to play as opposed to mom or dad taking them down two three blocks at the least two get to a park and it's kind of in my view we're proposing to Warehouse people that they're stuck in this building that has no place to go outside not even a little balcony and that's okay it's more housing we can Warehouse them I'm also concerned that by taking that away that there's going to be less missing middle housing that's sort of the four to 8 to 12 unit type of things well if you don't have to have usable open space you can build 24 units or 50 units or whatever and I think that is a consideration too and third there's a whole heck of a lot of places where um none of this is going to take effect um for example a couple years ago in 2021 I looked at older District 9 26% um of those lots were zoned PD this stuff doesn't affect PD and 61% were covered by a declaration and most of these declarations these covenants are clear that one single family residence can be constructed on a lot and they're Big Lots and I hope that the plan commission considers these covenants in the future if not for this one and how that is restricting development outside of parts of the basically the old City or the parts of the city that weren't as wealthy as the west side and that you're really taking and creating density in a very segmented way in the city and I frankly don't think that's fair so thank you um Cher you're on mute but um all right thanks I was going to ask if there were questions from the commission for either of the registrants and if not we'll close the public hearing and I'll ask if there are questions for staff from the commission um commissioner heck thank you um I'm not sure it might be uh Katie that will answer this question um about the ideas that uh Grant Foster proposed to us um I'm assuming that the one about uh height being 35 feet instead of 30 feet which in his communication indicated it was still 5 feet lower than the uh primary structure maximum height uh do you have uh any thoughts about that being a a a problem or yeah uh single family typically the maximum height is 35 so it would be kind of creating this the same standard which you know I think something to weigh um accessory dwelling units you know um within the main house would be able to be that it's just when they're an accessory structure like a detached garage with an Adu or an Adu just separately in the backyard um so I mean it it would have a different impact so some something to way something we didn't really consider with this um it hasn't really come up I would say um in conversations with people who are proposing these that the height is a real um obstacle okay yeah I I guess I was wrong I was five feet over on my my my numbers there I think he was suggesting 30 feet instead of 25 with the maximum being 35 so uh you know if if if we were to consider doing that I uh I I I guess it would be uh policy makers maybe would need to have a discussion about that uh and maybe propose it I mean we could do it on the Fly I suppose but and then the second one about uh more than one Adu allowed uh I I was thinking that sounded reasonable because you could have one Adu on top of another one rather than having a garage beneath for instance or having an Adu internal to the principal structure uh but I I guess I wasn't clear if you could H uh have 2,000 foot adus in your giant backyard if if it would otherwise meet setbacks um if if that was part of the proposal did you want did you want did you take a look at that Katie yeah I did think about it just a little bit here um the tood overlay um in our single family districts does allow like a duplex with an Adu in the backyard so in some ways it would be a little bit similar um to that but it does kind of go beyond the scope of what you know staff was asked to think about like where we already allow these things but have some kind of obstacle kind of in the code that's preventing it from happening right this would be expanding the number of adus um you could put on a property are there uh you I don't know if you'll be willing to answer this but are there other tweaks to the Adu related portions of the ordinance that that's that maybe Alders have been considering that you've discussed nothing beyond what we've got before us today okay thank you other questions um again I think that with the same the request to um make a recommendation to the common Council um and we can recommend changes or additions to what's been proposed um or we could also recommend non-approval placing on file whatever however you guys want to do it aler you gear I move that we recommend approval of this uh collection of adjustments as presented without modification Alder Duncan that second thank you um is there a discussion on the motion um commissioner ski I would like to add an amendment um to consider the the 30 foot um height limit of the the Adu as proposed so I so I think I have my Roberts rules correct that you would um make a motion to amend the pending motion and that would need a second is there a second to that Amendment thanks commissioner heck um so I think I would ask for a vote on the amendment to the pending motion um is there any any discussion on this proposal to amend and if not is there any objection to uh unanimous approval for um commissioner wn's Amendment to the motion right so now we have an altered motion before us which is to approve the the package that Katie presented um with the additional item that would allow the the that would suggest the height change and that would be our recommendation to council um any further discussion on the pending motion um commissioner waski yeah I just wanted to just explain why I had um sure recommend the amendment just in exploring uh an Adu on my own and and trying to get it over garage uh the the five feet was really a limiting factor in in what I could do in in developing a roof line on that um so it seems it would still be subservient to to the residential structures around me but uh it would allow some flexibility and housing Choice uh with that thank you Al are you g uh yeah I I think I I would agree with that I've played around with the configuration myself and particularly since we're looking to accommodate potential modular uses within the city and having built a lot of them and done some over garages um it it gives you some more flexibility it's not that we couldn't do it within 25 ft it's just some of them might look a little strange uh to try to work within that at least comparing the Adu roof line with the house roof line and it look incompatible so it gives us more flexibility it doesn't require people to go to that height but uh it'll just uh eliminate a couple of cases where it would be impossible to have something look good thank you B your head thanks I'm I'm going to be supporting this amended motion and I was just going to mention that uh I think the the second idea uh that that Grant Foster brought forward isn't necessarily without Merit but I think it's something we might need to dig into just a little bit uh and and have some Buy in from some folks in order to attempt that um also uh I'm very comfortable with the usable open space uh portion of this change and uh I I do think though that you know in public comment uh Linda Leonard's brought up you know some interesting statistics that we've seen before about covenants and such and I do hope uh you know I think for several years we've talked about trying to uh understand uh what the city's uh possibilities are with either altering or overriding uh some of that in in some regards so I think it' be good for us to talk about that sometime thanks thank you um commissioner wuki uh since uh commissioner heck brought up the the second proposal for the the second Adu um that is something I would I would really appreciate if staff could explore that I think that it would be too big of a change just to introduce now um I've I've studied other cities that allow that uh and they would um they have a limit um for instance fville Arkansas has a 1,200 foot limit you can get two of them in that 1200 foot or one of them at 12200 feet but you can't go over the 12200 feet and it just allows some options there so um definitely encourage if uh to staff to explore that and uh we can revisit at a later time thank you this is a really helpful discussion thank you for yeah doing that um any other discussion on our amended motion um all right I'll put it oh um Alder iers ever I'm sorry I know I you've told me that before and I get it that's all right um thank you chair um I just want to caution plan commission members that um I'm not I'm not aware that the 25 ft limit really precludes folks from doing adus at this president time to any significant degree I do think it's a change that um will create more push back on the part of residents from the changes that we're trying to make and I don't think it's a substantially helpful change in terms of uh seeing us build more adus I I think it creates more more of a conflict than necessary and I just caution this body for moving in a direction that doesn't add uh more of the general density that we're talking about but creates more of a sense of of just frustration on the part of residents who feel that perhaps you know we're not taking into consideration the you know the the Towering aspects of a Adu U next to their proper you know that in the past this is still somewhat of a new thing for folks it's not helpful in my mind as an older trying to deal with bringing people along to the concept of General density and adding more units into our neighborhoods to uh now say that the change we're we're introducing uh some changes that will facilitate and make it easier to streamline the addition of adus and now we're not only doing that but we're allowing them to be even taller in your neighborhood I just I I'm not clear that this is a wise decision by this body at this time thank you other discussion great I uh I think we can put them motion to a vote is there any objection to unanimous approval for the pending motion right seeing none we'll record that as unanimously passed and we will move to the um next uh sections of our agenda um is there business by members that um hasn't been addressed yet tonight and seeing none um we'll have the secretary's report Megan I'll give you the floor all right um I'll be really brief just another reminder that at your next meeting we will be looking at proposed amendments to the report on the lamp house plan um there's a number of other development related items that will be coming up on that agenda um may also want to call your attention to um the Leo the plat related to Leo living at 6303 Portage Road and 4821 heer Road um would anticipate this to be another big item um for you when it is brought forward we have a couple more text changes that are coming up on that agenda um I'm actually going to ask Kate Smith if she could just very briefly say what they are these will be large bodies of text um but she can just give you a heads up on what the purpose of them is or will be o um hi everyone sorry to take up some of your time at the end of the meeting meeting but I do need to give you a heads up about a significant um ordinance change that's coming up to your um agenda next week so or I'm sorry next agenda so in October the DNR informed us that the Madison's flood plane was no longer in compliance with the FEMA regulations for the minimum standards for the flood plane and in addition to adopting new flood plane Maps we had to overhaul our entire flood plane ordinance to get into compliance with FEMA and DNR um minimum standards DNR serves as the conduit between the city and FEMA so if the DNR says that we aren't in compliance FEMA will not certify that we can be a member of the national flood insurance program um the national flood insurance program um currently has over 77 million dollar of property value within the city for 246 individual insurance policies so as you can understand it's really important that the DNR tell FEMA that we are in compliance with the minimum regulations um when they informed us in October we essentially have under Federal FEMA code a six-month Countdown by which we need to adopt our new flood plane maps and get our current ordinance in compliance with the minimum requirements this was a substantial amount of work that we did that um staff and I did with the DNR to have them approve a proposed ordinance change um so the one in front of you is approved by the DNR um which means if passed they will certify to FEMA that we are in compliance with federal and state minimum flood plane requirements in order to have long story short the way that we are doing that is by pulling out all of the flood plane references currently in chapter 28 putting creating a new zoning chapter chapter 21 that will contain um will be a um will fully contain all of the flood plane regulations within that chapter there's not really that much difference to how you'll interact with flood plane to be honest with you it's a lot of really technical language and a lot of it is been what you've been using but I just want to impart to you that um we really don't have any wiggle room with this we have to do what DNR tells us we have to do they've approved this language and we do need to um in order to not jeopardize the city's participation in the National flood insurance program it does need to be passed in totality as approved by DNR and on this schedule we set forth so if it's referred or or um modified we might run the risk of being kicked from the flood insurance program that also doesn't have any sort of discretionary timetable the federal code says that you have six months um and then it's a straight um kickout you can then come back into it um once you are approved by essentially DNR which will tell FEMA but um we're concerned that if there ends up being a delay there will be a period of time where if we're not enrolled in the program that can affect anything from um public facilities to home sales and flood areas so um that's kind of why I've asked I asked Megan that I can like step into your secretary support to give everybody a heads up for what's on for next for next meeting thanks Kate that's all I have chair okay thank you all right uh any announcements and seeing none we'll move to I'll request a motion to adjourn in a second um thanks commissioner solheim and commissioner heck you got you add in just under the wire um any objection to approval for a motion to adjourn all right thank thanks everybody for the good meeting um we got a lot done take care thank you have a good night for