Response to Questions about the "Escalator Clause" in the Comprehensive Plan

I have been getting a lot of questions about items #4 (Legistar #80281) and #39 (Legistar #80367”) on tonight’s Common Council agenda, specifically pertaining to the “escalator clause” term. I wanted to make sure there is clarity on what is being proposed, so I asked the Planning staff to verify the current zoning of Old Sauk Road east of Gammon Road. It is currently designated on the Generalized Future Land Use Map (GFLU) as “LMR” (low-medium residential). There is an existing “escalator clause” in the 2018-approved Comprehensive Plan that is ill-defined. The main change being considered on the update to the Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the escalator clause is described by staff below (bold text included by staff):

“Alder Slack –

The main thing included in the Comprehensive Plan amendment that would impact Old Sauk Road is proposed language to provide the Plan Commission and City more guidance when considering projects in Low-Medium Residential (LMR) areas along arterials.  The current Comprehensive Plan language regarding LMR is that:

Small multifamily buildings, large multifamily buildings, and courtyard multifamily buildings are permitted in select conditions at up to 70 DU/ac and four stories, generally along arterial streets. 

The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment language is that:

Small multifamily buildings, large multifamily buildings, and courtyard multifamily buildings are appropriate in select conditions at up to 70 DU/ac and four stories. Factors to be considered include relationships between proposed buildings and their surroundings, natural features, lot and block characteristics, and access to urban services, transit, arterial streets, parks, and amenities.

Staff had proposed to Plan Commission that the LMR “escalator” no longer apply to areas with an adopted area plan, but the Commission removed that language in their recommendation to Council.  Overall, though, the language recommended by the Plan Commission still provides more direction in the Comprehensive Plan update with regard to the elements that need to be considered in development of LMR areas along arterial streets. 

There are no future land use map changes proposed in the Comprehensive Plan Interim Update along Old Sauk Road east of the Beltline.  Some parcels to the west of the chancellor’s [sic] house are shown as a possible change to the LMR land use in the draft West Area Plan, but that plan will have further engagement around a draft, likely in January.  That will be followed by a full approval process through various boards, committees, and commissions, and ultimately the Council.  Note that LMR is a planned future land use, not a zoning district.  Multifamily redevelopment within LMR areas along Old Sauk Road east of Gammon would need to go through a rezoning process because property in that area is zoned SR-C1 (single family) or SR-C3 (single family/duplex).”

I asked a follow-up question to ensure that the changes being proposed were in fact related to the “escalator clause”. Here is the follow-up answer from Planning staff, and the map screenshot they sent back to me:

“Regarding Old Sauk Road corridor land uses question from your other email: there is a portion of the Old Sauk Road corridor that is currently shown as LMR – see attached map excerpt.  Comprehensive Plan Interim Update land use changes are outlined in bold black on the map – as you can see the only changes in the excerpt are to change some ‘LR’ areas that are existing greenspaces to ‘P.’ 

FYI, the citywide interactive map is available here.  It has not been updated since last week’s PC [Planning Commission] meeting, but the only change is to property #8 under the “Further Review by Plan Commission” designation on the far West Side, which is changing from E to MR.”

Here is my question to those who have an interest in this issue:

Voting “no” on these changes leaves the more ambiguous definition of the escalator clause in place. Voting yes would add language that provides more parameters to that clause. 

How would you vote? (please feel free to respond to this blog post with an answer).

I will also say that I have a broader issue with the Comprehensive Plan updates (and the Comprehensive Plan, in general) that is related to stormwater management and the future capacity of Madison to handle what I believe, after much discussion with a wide array of experts, will be happening with more frequency and intensity related to climate change in the years and decades to come. We should be prioritizing stormwater management (to include extensive nature-based stormwater solutions, protecting and expanding our tree canopy, etc.) to a MUCH greater degree than we do now. 

I proposed only one small amendment to the operating budget for 2024 because I did not want to compound the debt service that we continue to add to. That proposed amendment was to expand the City’s rain garden program (currently only available to adjacent property owners when roads are reconstructed) to be offered City-wide for one year, as a pilot. It received one vote on the Finance Committee, from Alder Rummel (District 6), so it failed. This is a sign to me that the issue is simply not a priority to the most of our current City leadership, which I am truly concerned about. This is the main reason that I hesitate to vote yes on any Comprehensive Plan changes until I am convinced that these issues will truly be elevated as a top priority, for the sake of the future residents, my and others’ kids, and the health of our lakes and natural resources.