City of Milwaukee - File #: 240402

• File #: 240402
• Version: 1
• Type: Ordinance
• Status: In Committee
• File created: 7/2/2024
• In control: ZONING, NEIGHBORHOODS & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
• Title: A substitute ordinance adopting the Growing MKE Plan as the Housing and Neighborhoods Element of the Citywide Policy Plan as part of Milwaukee’s Overall Comprehensive Plan, and directing implementation.
• Sponsors: ALD. BROSTOFF, ALD. CHAMBERS JR., ALD. ZAMARRIPA

Date	Ver.	Action By	Action	Result	Tally
7/29/2024	1	CITY PLAN COMMISSION	HELD IN COMMITTEE; Minutes note: Appearing: Lafayette Crump, DCD Commissioner Amy Oeth, DCD Planning Khari Bell, Community Engagement Specialist Commissioner Crump made initial remarks. Mr. Leichtling, Ms. Oeth, and Mr. Bell gave a presentation relative to Growing MKE, comprehensive planning in Milwaukee, advancing plan recommendations and City goals, zoning codes and maps, Milwaukee's zoning over time, zoning for housing in Milwaukee, reasons for taking on the policy now, market trends, housing in the next 20 years, new development - two decades of zoning development, RS zoning districts, accessory dwelling units, limits on the number of new homes, missing middle housing, heavy reliance on planned developments, advancing equity in zoning, best practices - equity in zoning, growth and equity, density and growth as economic decisions, increasing and preserving Black and Latino homeownership, creating and preserving affordable rental housing, planning process, collaborative process, overview of the planning process, engagement across multiple platforms, engagement, themes from the public comments throughout process and draft plan, Growing MKE goals, plan amendment policies, zoning recommendations, recommendations 1-4, user-friendly process, changes to the plan based on feedback, and removal of small multi-family buildings recommendation. Further details of the presentation can be found within the file, Common Council File Number 240402. Public testimony in opposition and/or with concerns: Ald. Scott Spiker, 13th Ald. Dist. Ald. Russell Stamper, II, 15th Ald. Dist. Rep. Supreme Moore Omokunde, Wisconsin State Assembly District 17 Megan Shepard-Smith, Midtwon neighborhood resident Topacio Lucero, north side resident Joseph Ellwanger, resident and Evangelical Lutheran Church retired pastor Lueverne Laviolette, Metcalfe Park resident Sheila Kitchens, north side resident Rodney Johnson, Midtown neighborhood resident Marion Autman, Metcalfe Park resident Danelle Cross, Metcalfe Park Community Bridges Brittney Taylor, Metcalfe Park resident Brendetta Taylor, Amani resident Mr. Winston Dynasty Ceasar, The Redress Movement Melody McCurtis, 15 Ald. Dist. resident Fatima Laster, 5 Points Neighborhood Association Patrice Gransberry, north side resident Ramona Curry, Lindsey Heights resident Cheryl Hayes, Walnut Way resident Maria Carmen Beltran, Lindsey Heights resident and NID 12 Chair Gail Lightfoot, Midtown neighborhood resident Patrice Johnson, Midtown neighborhood resident Barbara Cooley (virtual participant) Sy Smith (virtual participant) Dr. Nicole Robinson (virtual participant) Public testimony in support: David Bowen, AARP Wisconsin Cade Gerlach, east side resident, Carl Glasemeyer, north side resident Corbeau Caldwell, north side resident Marybeth McGinnis, north side resident Teig Whaley-Smith, Community Development Alliance Aaron Moriak, east side resident Owen Driscoll, Rufus King high school student and Milwaukee Youth Council John Johnson, Marquette Universtiy researcher Jacob Major (virtual participant) Montavius Jones, Sherman Park resident (virtual participant Others testifying: Ald. Sharlen Moore, 10th Ald. Dist. Antonio Butts, Walnut Way Conservation Corps (virtual participant) Ald. Moore indicated she wanted to mainly listen to testimony. Those in opposition testified in objection to adding density and large multi-housing rental developments into their communities. They had significant concerns that the plan lacked adequate inclusiveness and engagement from Black and Brown communities within the City; was flawed in its current form; had a singular focus to only add density in neighborhoods; was not addressing systematic community issues, zoning issues, and/or needs; served to benefit only nonresident tenants, investors, and developers instead of City residents; would cause negative unintended consequences; would exacerbate many public health and safety issues prevalent in Black and Brown communities; was not racially equitable; would impact their communities the most due to their communities having the most available vacant lots and homes that would be of target to add density to; and was being rushed rather than being carefully vetted. Those in opposition testified that they did not want their voices to be suppressed or marginalized; that there was a lack of adequate time for them to review the plan; that community issues and considerations needed to be addressed prior to a plan or be addressed within the plan; that the plan be broken down to cater to each community uniquely rather than being applied citywide; that there be a significant delay in the plan’s approval process; that there be better, thorough, and inclusive vetting, engagement; and that all communities and stakeholders should be engaged together as one to develop the plan. Community issues and/or considerations that many wanted to be addressed prior to a plan or integrated as part of a plan would include (but not be limited to) the aspects of poverty, landlord absenteeism and accountability, gentrification and displacement (especially for the elderly, disabled, and young adults), revitalization of current housing stock, affordable housing, improving multi-housing maintenance and living conditions, homeownership instead of rentals, access to healthy food and medical services and options, public health and safety, crime, human resource requirements and hiring of residents on new multi-housing developments, real estate prejudice, equity, homelessness, legacy of Black and Brown communities, inflated tax assessments, concentration of low-income tax credit housing, environmental sustainability and greenspace, updating the Anti-displacement Plan, housing reparations and/or subsidies, reckless driving and street infrastructure, adequate modal and bus transit routes, lead laterals, erosion controls, co-ops, generational wealth creation, and tenancy requirement reform. Some in opposition testified in support of the plan relating to town homes, multiple homes, and cottages; however, they advocated for homeownership over rentals. Those testifying in support were in favor of middle housing, increasing affordable housing, increasing the property tax base, increasing density, zoning reform, having multiple housing in the interior of neighborhoods, town homes, cottages, and there being no major delay in the plan among other aspects. Many in support concurred that the plan may need further community engagement and to attempt to build consensus from impacted communities of color and attempt to address some of the concerns raised by those testifying in opposition at the hearing. A number of speakers indicated support for reconsidering the recommendation that had been removed from the draft plan to permit small multi-family buildings within neighborhoods so multi-family housing is not only encouraged on commercial corridors and other busy streets. Mr. Butts testified that his firm was hired to help with the plan, they had positive intentions as the engagement team, and they will have more robust and inclusive engagement going forward. Commissioner Crump said their office recommended to hold the matter and for the commission to not take action. His office was acknowledging the request from many community members in wanting more time for outreach and engagement. DCD staff said further community engagement would occur. Commissioners commented. As plan development and engagement continue, staff should review frameworks that other cities have utilized for similar work such as the Minneapolis 2040 Plan. Staff should also explore how to use this opportunity to demonstrate that complementary efforts are underway to “repair” in addition to growing through new housing development and take a broad based comprehensive approach to addressing some of the concerns that were raised during the hearing today even if they may be beyond the specifics of zoning, housing, and land use policy. A glossary should be prominent in the plan to explain key terms. Ongoing engagement strategies should be tailored to specific needs of targeted communities. Staff should continue to explore what tools can be used that are permitted by WI law to address some of these goals of tenants’ rights and affordability. Staff committed to provide additional data and information on impacts on homeownership and anti-displacement when the plan is presented in the future and to consider additional adjustments related to those policy goals, as appropriate. Member Smith moved to hold to the call of the chair, seconded by member Crane. (Prevailed 6-0) Excused - Washington	Pass	6:0
7/15/2024	1	CITY CLERK	DRAFT SUBMITTED
7/9/2024	0	ZONING, NEIGHBORHOODS & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE	REFERRED TO
7/2/2024	0	COMMON COUNCIL	ASSIGNED TO

Number
240402
Version
SUBSTITUTE 1
Reference
220403, 230231, 230958, 221580, 230954
Sponsor
ALD. BROSTOFF, ALD. CHAMBERS, ALD. ZAMARRIPA
Title
A substitute ordinance adopting the Growing MKE Plan as the Housing and Neighborhoods Element of the Citywide Policy Plan as part of Milwaukee’s Overall Comprehensive Plan, and directing implementation.
Analysis
This ordinance adopts the Growing MKE Plan as the Housing and Neighborhoods Element of the Citywide Policy Plan as part of the City’s Overall Comprehensive Plan, and directs relevant City departments and agencies to consider this Plan in matters related to land use and development and work toward implementation of the Plan.
Body
Whereas, On March 2, 2010, the Common Council of the City of Milwaukee (“Common Council”) adopted Common Council File No. 090882, approving the Citywide Policy Plan as an element of the City of Milwaukee’s Overall Comprehensive Plan pursuant to s. 66.1001, Wisconsin Statutes., which requires that local municipalities adopt and periodically update a comprehensive plan containing an element that includes objectives, policies, and goals for housing and neighborhoods; and

Whereas, The Citywide Policy Plan includes a “Housing and Neighborhoods” chapter, which serves as the Housing Element of the City of Milwaukee’s Citywide Policy Plan, and, that, along with the recommendations contained within the 14 Area Plans that make up the City of Milwaukee Comprehensive Plan, makes recommendations related to housing development and land use throughout the city; and

Whereas, On July 28, 2022, the Common Council adopted Common Council File No. 220403, directing the Department of City Development (“DCD”) to develop an update to the housing element of the Citywide Policy Plan to include proposed updates to portions of the City of Milwaukee’s Zoning Code that govern residential development; and

Whereas, The City of Milwaukee’s (“City”) procedures for comprehensive planning call for the creation ...