Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Can everybody hear me? All right. All right. Well, it's 5:30 and we have a quorum. So, I will call to order this meeting of the Madison Plan Commission for Monday, March 2nd, 2026. Um, and we will start with the roll call. Uh, director Tuttle. All right. Good evening, chair and commission. We'll start with Alder Field here. Alder Glenn here. Alder Ugare here. Commissioner Bazine. I see Commissioner Bazine. I'm sorry. Didn't uh Commissioner Hec

here. Commissioner Mcahill here. Do you hear me? Can you hear me? Now we can hear you. Uh, Commissioner Sanders here. Commissioner Soulheim here. Alternate Wasnki.

Uh, just a heads up. Uh Darren, we I didn't hear you, but I just want to make sure you're not having any trouble with your audio. Oh, how about now? I can hear on my end fine. Okay, great. That works. Yep. Uh school district rep here. And commission uh chair Gnam here. Thanks, Megan. All right. All right. We will start with technical with technical information from our technical facilitator, uh Jesse P.

All right. Welcome to our virtual plan commission meeting. 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. 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. Panelists, use the raise hand feature when you'd like to be recognized to speak, ask questions, or request a roll call vote. 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 tell you when your time is up. After speaking, a member of the body may ask you a question. If you need to share documentation with the committee, please send it in the email listed on today's agenda. Chair, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Um we'll start with agenda item one which is time for public comment regarding items not on the formal plan commission agenda. Um director total do we have registrance for public comment tonight? Uh there are no registrants for this item.

Um we will then go to disclosures and recusals. Um the plan commission should make any required disclosures or recusals under the city's ethics ethics code. Do any commissioners have disclosures or recusals related to no raised hands? Um, great. Uh, we will now go to minutes of our last meeting on February. Um, did anyone have additions or corrections to the minutes? I would be looking for a motion and a second to approve the February 16th minutes. Thank you, Alder Gar. Thanks, Commissioner Soulheim. Um, any discussion of the motion? Um, seeing none, is there any objection to unanimous approval for the last meeting's minutes as as shared in the draft form? Great. We will pass that motion unanimously. Um, and now we'll get to our schedule of meetings. Um, our we have regular meetings coming up Monday, March 16th, April 13th, and 27th of uh 2026, all at 5:30 p.m. virtually. And then we have a special in-person meeting on Tuesday, March 31st at 5:00 PM and that will be in room 206 of the Madison Municipal Building. Um, as is our usual practice. We will now move to move into our agenda. We'll start with the consent agenda. It's been the custom of the plan commission to handle on a consent agenda those items on which staff members believe an application has been sufficiently reviewed to find the relevant standards met to support approval with all the listed conditions placed upon it by the various departments city departments and where

the applicant accepts all those conditions and there are no individuals who have registered to speak in opposition to the item. Um, separately, we use a separate consent agenda for items requested by an applicant or staff to be referred to a future meeting. Referral does not require a public hearing, but instead the public hearing will be held at the future meeting date. So, as we look at um tonight's agenda, we have both approval and referral um items proposed. The um so, Megan, we lost the shared screen. There we go. Thank you. Um so for tonight's consent agenda um for approval we have items uh 2, 4, and six on our agenda. And then we have um a number of referral items um first to be referred to our next meeting on March 16th. We have items 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. And then items to be referred to uh the April 13th meeting would be item eight and uh item 18 on tonight's agenda. So seeing um the proposed consent items, are there any requests for separation uh from the commission? All right. All right. If not, we will start with the uh consent agenda items for approval. Starting with item two. This is legisar 920008 authorizing the city's execution of a maintenance agreement with 121 to 123 East Main Street Limited Partnership for patio improvements located in the East Main Street right ofway adjacent to the property located at 121 to 123 East Main

Street and the city's acceptance of ownership of the improvements in exchange for the ongoing maintenance of the improvements by the adjacent property owner or designate. And this is in alder district 4. Um agenda item four is legisar 91645 approving the final plat of second edition to Hill Valley on land generally addressed as 1050 South High Point Road and 1051 South Pleasant View Road in Alder District 1. And then item six is legis 91804 creating section 28.022-0046 022-0000746 of the Madison General ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 2400 Darwin Road from IIL Industrial Limited District to AP Airport District and this is an alder district 18. Um so I will open the public hearing and close the public hearing for these uh consent approval consent items and we'll move to a vote. Um, could I request a motion and a second for the consent agenda? Alder Field. Thank you. And Alder Yugare, thank you for the second. Um, is there any objection to unanimous approval for the this consent agenda um for tonight? Seeing none, um the consent agenda is the approval consent agenda is passed. We'll now um move to the consent items for referral and we will start with um I think I'm going to I will start with item 8 understanding that that's to be referred to uh a to our April 13, 2026 meeting. Item 8 is legisar 91511 relating to 2010 through 2030

Pennsylvania Avenue and 1902 East Johnson Street. um urban design district 4 and alder district 12. This is consideration of a conditional use in the regional mixeduse RMX district and transit oriented development overlay district for outdoor recreation um to serve a sevenstory 493 unit multif family dwelling and that uh recreation is a swimming pool in the building. Um, agenda item nine is legisar 91459 relating to 5534 medical circle consideration of a demolition permit to demolish a commercial building in alder district 19 agenda. Um, and that's to be referred to March 16th. Um, also for March 16th is agenda item 10, uh, legisar 91512 relating to 5 555 Odana road and 5534 medical circle in urban design district 3 and alder district 19. This is consideration of a conditional use in the commercial corridor transitional CCT district for dwelling units in a mixeduse building with greater than 60 units in consideration of a conditional use in the CCT district for a building taller than five stories and 78 ft. All to allow construction of a six-story mixeduse building containing approximately 1,300 square feet of commercial space and 154 dwelling units adjacent to Odana Road and a 5-story mixeduse building with 6,450 ft of commercial space and 73 dwelling units adjacent to Medical Circle. Also to be referred to March 16th is uh agenda item 11, legisar 91514 approving a certified survey map of property owned by BHP LLC located at 5555 Odana Road and 5534

Medical Circle in Alder District 19. Um items 12,3 and 14 are all also to be referred to March 16th. Um, item 12 is legisar 90916 creating section 28.022- 00742 of the Madison general ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 411 West Gilman Street from DC downtown core district tox urban mixeduse district in Alder district 2. Item 13 is legisar 90614 uh relating also relating to 411 to 413 uh West Gilman Street in Alder District 2. Consideration of a conditional use in the proposed urban mixeduse district for a new building with greater than six stories and consideration of a conditional use in the urban mixeduse district for outdoor recreation to allow construction of a 15story mixeduse building with 2550 ft of commercial space and 260 multif family units. Um item 14 is legisar 91233 at 411 West Gilman Street consideration of a demolition permit to demolish a commercial building in Alder district 2. Item 15 is legisar 91234 relating to 415 West Gilman Street consideration of a demolition permit to demolish a commercial building and aler district 2. And item 16 similar alleged star 91236 relates to 433 West Gilman Street consideration of a demolition permit to demolish a commercial building in Alder District 2. Finally, item 17 is legisar 90618 approving a certified survey map of property owned by LCD Acquisitions LLC located at 411 through 433 West Gilman

Street in Alder District 2. And then finally is uh item 18 legisar 91647 relating to 1010 an street and alder district 14 consideration of a conditional use in the commercial center CC district or a private parking facility in the transit oriented development zoning overlay. And that item 9647 is to be referred to April 13th if I didn't say that already. All right. Um, there's no public hearing for referral items, so I would ask for a motion and a second um to refer the items as as indicated. Alder Glenn, thank you. Commissioner Soulheim, thank you. Is there any objection to unanimous approval um for the referral items? All right, seeing none, those items are referred. And that will bring us back to our uh remaining agenda items. The first of which is item three on our agenda and this is legisar 91510 relating to 2927 East Washington Avenue and alder district 15. This is consideration of a conditional use in the commercial corridor transitional district CCT for amplified sound in an outdoor eating area for a tasting. So we will start with um a staff presentation and we have Piner Parks with us tonight. Uh welcome.

Thank you chair and members of the plan commission. Uh item three pertains to a request by Manakqua Brewing Company uh to add uh amplified sound in their existing outdoor eating area uh in the middle suite uh of a multi-tenant commercial building at 2927 East Washington Avenue. Uh the tap room occupies the middle unit uh with the other spaces in that multi-tenant building occupied by a liquor store and payday loan business. Uh the tap room has an existing outdoor eating area approximately, 1100 square ft in area uh that occupies uh adjacent to the southwest corner of the building which was approved administratively in August 2024 uh per the supplemental regulations for outdoor eating areas associated with food and beverages which are permitted if the hours of operation end by 9:00 p.m. and they have no amplified sound. with this application. Um, an Aqua Brewing is asking for approval to have amplified sound in their outdoor eating area, uh, but is not proposing to increase their hours of operation for the outdoor area past 9:00 p.m. Uh, the applicant has stated in their submittal materials that they're seeking amplified sound approval, specifically around Badger football games. in followup with communication with staff. However, they confirmed that they are uh seeking a scope that would have amplified music on Saturdays between 3 to 6 p.m. uh from May to October and then be able to play Badger football game out Badger football games outside with amplified sound uh whenever they're playing until it gets too cold to sit outside. uh and I'm paraphrasing a quote that is in the staff report uh on page three. Uh they have also

stated that the beer garden will continue to close no later than 900 p.m. uh for the uh outdoor music that they're the applicant indicates uh that they plan uh small concerts and performances in the space. It's anticipated that the performances will take place in the southwest corner of the space just north of the garage. Uh the applicant has communicated to planning staff that it will typically be coral, classical, Celtic, and bluegrass. Uh and anticipates that the size of the groups will likely be no more than five to six people per group. Uh as for the need for amplification, the applicant states uh that uh and again paraphrasing certain uh instruments need to be amplified uh and that um certain uh performances or performers all amplified as well. Um staff understands the applicant has been holding outdoor music events without amplification over the past year which is allowed. Uh and uh so again the request before the plan commission tonight uh is to have amplified uh sound in the outdoor area. Uh staff will note uh in reviewing the conditional use that uh it feels that uh conditional use standards one through six are applicable to this particular conditional use uh and that we feel that with the exception of standard three that the plan commission can find the standards met. However, related to uh standard 3, which talks about the impacts on uh the uses, values, and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood for purposes already established, will not be substantially impaired or diminished in any

foreseeable manner. Uh staff feels that this standard is not met uh or may not be met uh and is recommending to the plan commission uh that the conditional use request be placed on file without prejudice. Uh the patio area as noted in the staff report a butts of property planned and zoned for residential development. Uh and the outdoor area will be within 40 ft of an existing residence. Uh, outdoor eating areas are permitted in the zoning code provided they close uh by 9:00 p.m. and have no amplified sound. The inclusion of outdoor amplified sound can only be allowed with conditional use approval granted by the plan commission due to the proximity of the outdoor area to residential uses. Staff continue to have concerns related to the ability to meet standard 3. Staff believes that limiting the frequency of events is an important step towards addressing it. However, frequency aside, the area directly abuts a residential use, which provides challenges in staff's opinion in mitigating sound impacts. The amplified sound impacts will vary based on factors such as volume levels, location and setup of stage and speakers, size of the uh performing ensembles or groups, the type of amplification, and the effectiveness of on-site management and mitigation efforts. Uh, at tonight's hearing. Uh due to proximity issues, staff cannot definitively conclude that standard three is met pertaining to the uses, values, and enjoyment of surrounding neighborhood. Uh however, should the plan commission find that the standards are met, staff is recommending several conditions, uh in addition to the applicant's recommended mitigation efforts, uh which we would recommend the plan commission include with any

approval that they would uh give for the conditional outdoor amplified sound. Uh staff will note if approved, plan commission retains continuing jurisdiction over this and all conditional use approvals. uh and if a complaint should be filed that the plan commission would have the opportunity uh under uh section 28 uh to take further action on the conditional use regarding uh the recommended conditions uh that upon final sign off and meeting of conditions amplified sound in the outdoor area would only be approved until October 31st of this year uh which would require that after October Otober 31st. Any future amplified sound in the outdoor area would require plan commission approval following reviewing. Uh also no sooner than May 1st uh through August 31st of 2026. Uh, amplified sound would only be allowed one Saturday per month between the hours of 2:30 and 6 pm. Uh, during the months of September and October, the applicant may choose to have outdoor amplified sound between 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. instead of 2:30 to 6, one Saturday per month in September in October. Uh we're also requesting a noise attenuation and management plan uh prepared by the applicant uh to be submitted to building inspection and planning for approval prior to signoff. Uh and also that uh the applicant would install a sound mitigating curtain system on the fence surrounding the outdoor area uh as proposed by the applicant and described elsewhere in the written staff report. uh an alternative system would be considered if it's determined to be functionally the same or provide a high higher level of sound mitigation uh details to be approved by planning and

building inspection staff. So in closing um staff uh is concerned that conditional use standard 3 is not met. Uh however, should the plant commission decide that the conditional standards are met, we are to the conditions outlined in the staff report and I'll be happy to answer questions after the public hearing. Thank you.

Thanks Tim. Um we do have registrance for this item. So I will open the public hearing. Um, as a reminder, just registrant will have 3 minutes to speak and I will interrupt briefly um when you get to uh a minute or a half a minute um just to help you manage your time. Um so, Director Tuttle, if you lead us through the reg registrant list, that would be great.

Okay. Um our first registrant tonight is Kirk Bangstead representing the applicant team. Kirk is the owner of Monaco Brewing Company. Yep. Welcome, Kurt.

Thanks. Thanks for having me. Okay. Um, so quickly, I just wanted to uh introduce myself. Manua Brewing Company. We're a statewide brewery. We're very politically active. We've in our Madison tap room, we've held uh uh education uh talks on how to protect immigrants from ICE, how to uh how to get stay get out of jail if you're protesting and uh and how to how to be legal observers. We're quite active in our little area of Madison. Our neighbors, we do have a neighbor behind us, but what I think of our neighbors is a liquor store. We have a payday lender to our left, a liquor store to our right. Uh, we have a Little Caesars, a McDonald's, and a Taco Bell who are all corporately owned and who all pay their workers probably $3 to7 an hour. I pay my workers $15 to $25 an hour. Um, and I care about the city of Madison. I'm a small business owner. I care about the state of Wisconsin dearly. Uh we have a problem in this neighborhood and it's that's that we have an F35s that go over our neighborhood almost every hour on the hour in the summertime at a 120 decel uh noise which is an absolute roar uh and and it's it makes life kind of miserable for the folks obviously uh in this area not a lot a lot of folks are uh are struggling and it makes it really tough to live in this area. So, when I thought we should be able to do music uh in our backyard, I thought this would be a no-brainer because the noise pollution in this area is ridiculous. So, I was like, let's just get some good music to make to have soothing sounds in our backyard as opposed to F-35s. Apparently, that was met with some disdain from our neighbors. So, I get that, but I also want to ask the council like if I were the neighbor behind our neighbor, I could play my radio up to 80

dB. uh uh up to 80 dB and I could uh you and so it just doesn't make sense. You know, I could listen to the Badger game if I wanted to and you'd hear it outside the window. So, I'm a small business and I have to take an a year uh you know, two years now I'm trying to get I try to get amplified music, but it seems like if I were just a resident, I'd be able to have this, you know, and with no problem. So, I'm hoping you guys can kind of get over the two years that I've been trying to do this and just accept this. It's only 3 hours for on Saturdays and it's Badger games which so many bars in W in Madison played Badger games. I I feel like this is a pretty non-invasive uh you know request that we have and and I care about music. I I'm a professional opera singer so of course we would do it tastefully and we would put all the sound mitigation stuff that uh the city

30 seconds 30 seconds left if you could wrap up. That's that's about that's about it. But I I I think that, you know, it's it's I'm glad that we are democracy. I'm glad that everybody has a chance to weigh in on this. But I think it's time to understand that small business owners are we we we we have it tough, too. We're not corporations. And and the individual and the small business owner are one and the same. And I think our voices should be heard as well. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Our next speaker is Alex Sherwood of District 15, registered in opposition and wishing to speak. Yeah. Hello. Welcome.

Thank you. Um, hello again. I am the one looking out of my window right now at the said beer garden in question. Uh, I I think our written comments and those from the neighborhood, the alder, the sassy neighborhood association, and uh, even a former manager from the tap room lay out the sentiment pretty clearly here. So, I'm not going to repeat any of that. Uh, I did just want to address a couple of things in the staff's report. I saw a note that uh no complaints have been filed since the last denial. And in our letter, we did provide several pictures of different musicians performing with amplifiers and PA systems at the site. We chose to not call the police out of respect for the artists. And now I I hate to say I I regret to admit that that approach was probably a mistake. uh because the absence of complaints in the report is now being read as the absence of a problem, which I disagree with. And so I just wanted to put this on the record using my my voice at least for what that's worth. Uh the other thing I noticed in the staff report is a clear mismatch between what's in the applicant's letter of intent about football broadcast and the intentions that they actually communicated to staff in follow-up conversations. Uh given the history, it's hard to not be cynical about transparency and truthfulness from this business. And it's a pattern I've raised every single time I've spoken at these meetings. And so I I understand the commission must evaluate substantial evidence when considering disposition. And I just want to point out that the neighborhood response today is nearly identical to what it was 10 months ago, if not stronger, with the same opposition from residents, the alder, the neighborhood association, and now even a former manager from the tap room all in opposition. Uh, at what point is a resounding voice from the community considered substantial evidence alongside proximity and everything else? And to be clear, I'm asking you to

consider denying this application. I look at the energy imbalance here. Kirk submits one form and an incomplete letter of intent and that sets in motion another detailed multi-page staff report. The neighborhood wrote nearly a dozen letters in opposition and my my blood pressure is higher than it needs to be this evening. Uh every time this comes back, we stress about it for months. I have to take time off of work to prepare this testimony and rehash the same unwavering sentiment from the neighborhood. And so filing without prejudice tells this particular applicant that we're just playing a game of attrition and he will continue draining energy from this community till he gets what he wants. I'd ask that the commission 30 seconds left.

Thank you. Okay. I'd ask that the commission just consider that tonight uh so we're not back here a third time and can instead spend the next year directing our precious time toward other matters in the community. Uh thank you for your time.

Thanks. Okay, I'll note uh we do have Jeremiah Snortmom of District 15, registered in opposition and available to answer questions. And then Doug Johnson of District 6, registered in opposition, not wishing to speak, but representing the Sazzy Neighborhood Association. I believe they submitted written comments. Mark McCormack, um, district unknown but registered in opposition, not wishing to speak. and Linda McCormack also district unknown registered in opposition and not wishing to speak and let me just refresh here really quick to make sure that looks like that's all chair

thanks Megan um are there questions from the commissioners for any of the registrants tonight uh Alderfield thank you chair I have a question for the applicant Mr. Bangs dead.

Mr. Banks, can you hear me? Chair, I don't see that person in attendance anymore. Alder, I think he may have signed off. Thank you.

Yep. Thanks. It might be something that uh we can ask staff when we get to that part. Any other questions for registrants? All right. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing on this item and um open up for questions for staff. Uh Commissioner Heck. Thanks.

Thank you. Um I'll ask uh Tim, I guess. Uh Tim, do you know uh what the thinking was behind staff's recommendation that the item be placed on file without prejudice rather than placed on file perhaps?

Well, I think in general I can't recall an instance where we would have recommended that something be placed on file. uh just straight up with prejudice or implied with prejudice versus without prejudice because uh in general uh we're inclined to give the applicant the opportunity to to come back uh for whatever reason the item was placed on file uh that they would have an opportunity to potentially cure their request. uh if it's placed on file with prejudice or if it's denied, that has the effect of chilling the ability to file the same request for one year. Uh that's not to say that if it is placed on file or denied tonight, uh and more on that in a moment, seeing as we seem to have lost the applicant, uh that uh they could on March 3rd of 2027 file a new application and we would notice that public hearing. So, it only goes away for a year. It does not go away forever.

Okay. Thanks. And I I just was looking through the staff report and see that the the previous uh denial was also uh without prejudice. Uh so that was that's why it it's only been 10 months or something and that's all legit because it was without prejudice. Yeah. It it cannot be the same request for one year. But if it's uh modified in a manner that the plan commission feels is adequate enough to be considered a different or new question, it could come back sooner. But if all things remain equal and it was denied or placed on file with prejudice, it would have to be on the shelf for one year. Okay. Thank you very much.

Other questions? All right. Is any anybody ready to make a motion on this item? Uh,

Commissioner Soulheim. Thank you. I'll move that the plan commission find that the conditional use standards are not met, particularly standard three due to the proximity um to residential uses which has not changed since we reviewed this last time and place the request on file without prejudice. Thanks, Alder Field. Second. Thank you. Um Commissioner Soheim, do you want to speak to the motion any more? Are there other comments or discussion? Great. Um, seeing none, we'll move to a vote and start. Are there any objections to unanimous approval for the motion on the table? All right, seeing none, uh, the motion is passed unanimously. So, thank you. That well, thanks, Tim. Um, that's helpful. That will bring us to item uh five on our agenda and that item five is legisar 750 university I'm sorry it's legisar 91 Tim do you want to speak sorry

yeah sorry I had an audio issue there did we speak to the placing on file uh and why we didn't find that that stand the standards were met I kind of it went fitsy on me there. Yeah, standard three not met due to proximity to residential is consistent with last year. Thanks. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks Tim. That's thanks Nicole. Um all right, we are we ready for five which if I can figure out which numbers to read first. So um that will be legisar 91646 relating to 750 University row and alder district 19. This is consideration of an alteration to an approved plan development district specific implementation plan PDSIP to approve revised plans for a parking structure to serve an expanded medical clinic. And we will um I think uh Tim, are you still with us? All right, we'll hear from Planner Parks um to start our discussion. Thank you.

Thank you. me again, Tim Parks, for the plan commission uh regarding 750 uh University Row uh which is the digestive health clinic uh for UW Health. Uh the question was before you in October 2024 to amend the University Crossing general development plan and approve a specific implementation plan to allow construction of a four-story 189,000 ft² addition to the existing 3story roughly 67,000 ft medical facility um dating back about uh which is not quite 15 years old. Uh and with the four-story uh addition that was approved in October 2024, uh W Health also received approval for a four-level 792 stall parking garage. Uh in order to approve the project that was before the plan commission and the common council in the fall of 2024, uh W Health uh sought relief from three requirements in the transit oriented development zoning overlay. uh related to the clinic addition and parking structure. Uh and those included uh that 30% of the primary street facing building facads be set back no more than 20 ft uh from the primary street, that being University row, and that buildings occupy at least 30% of the primary street frontage. They also sought relief to allow uh automobile infrastructure in this case uh a drive uh drop off drive uh in front of the addition between the additions Easterly facade and university row and then also uh received relief uh through the uh from the to requirements as part of their uh plan development

zoning approval uh that the parking structure have at least 50% % uh of the first floor facade provide active uses. Um and so uh as part of the approval of the project in the fall of 2024 uh the uh applicants proposed a roughly 1 million kilowatt hour uh solar collector field uh to serve as a a roof or a canopy above the top level of the parking facility which is noted in the staff report is a standalone uh structure. It is uh not connected to the addition but for a modular uh canopy type structure uh that sits uh across the walkway that links the southeastern corner of the clinic edition uh with the northeasterly corner of the parking garage. Uh the reason why uh the two buildings are detached and the uh canopy that covers the walkway between the two buildings is modular is because it crosses a storm water drainage easement uh that uh drains from University Road towards uh the western property line of the University Crossing development. So u a effectively standalone structure. Uh the reason that the applicants are before the plan commission tonight uh is because they have found uh the cost to implement the uh rooftop solar collection system for the parking structure to be cost prohibitive uh and are now seeking uh to eliminate that component of the project design uh from the plans as the clinic and parking project uh move forward. uh construction has started uh but this affects the top of the parking structure. Uh the project

team originally inquired about this change being a staff level approval as a minor alteration. Uh however uh given the inclusion of the solar collectors as part of the design of the parking facility and that uh those were cited as a mitigating factor in the October 2024 approval for the parking facility. We felt that it was appropriate for the alteration to be reviewed by the plan commission uh in order for the plan commission to find that the alteration is consistent with the concept approved by the common council and the plan development standards for approval. Uh those were the the criteria that were used in the first place. Uh staff has concluded that removing the solar collectors is regrettable. However, uh we can't find uh that the uh inclusion of the solar panels uh is a requirement in order to meet the plan development standards for approval. Uh and that uh we can't conclude that the parking structure would not have been approved without the rooftop solar uh when it was originally before the plan commission. Um, we are recommending approval of the alteration following comments at the public hearing and I'm happy to answer questions uh as we proceed. Thank you.

Thanks, Tim. Um, we will we do have a couple registrants for this item, so we'll open the public hearing. Um again we'll stick to our three minute time limit and um uh director Tuttle if you'd lead us through the through the list. Okay, we'll start with Matt Fair representing UW Health uh registered in support and wishing to speak.

Matt, welcome. You're unmuted. Yep. Yep. Thank you. Can you hear me? We can. Yes.

Okay, great. Hi everyone and thank you chair. Um, my name is Matt Fair and I'm here representing the development team in W Health where I work as a local government relations director. Um, Tim said a lot of uh what I'm going to say here, but we're here again uh tonight to ask for your approval of the alteration on the plan development at 750 University Row and as Tim said, a project that you approved or this body approved back in October of 2024. The project's an expansion of the digestive health center. Um so just to kind of refresh you on what we will have in that uh new clinic when it opens in probably late 2027 early 2028 um there will be primary adult and pediatric care urgent care um imaging and lab services rehabilitation services among a lot of other um services for the community. Um and this will take pressure off of the exist some of our existing older um and crowded facilities as we try to create greater access for the community when it comes to providing quality regional healthcare. And as you know part of the project um that you approved consisted of that solar array located at top of the of the parking structure. And so the alteration that we're asking for is to remove that solar array from the project. Um we we evaluated the financial feasibility of the solar array of course during the uh process of the city entitlement you know when we went through the city entitlement process back in 2024 and time with good in good faith we brought it forward um based on the information that we had then the environment in 2026 is is much different than it is in 20 or yes is much different than it was in 2024 economically politically and and specifically in the healthcare industry. Um costs increase are are volatile and unpredictable in this tariff on again on uh onag again reality we live in. Um federal energy efficiency subsidies have

been pulled back and quite frankly the future state of healthcare is in real flux these days. So you're about a minute left.

Thank you for all those reasons. Um we don't believe the solar array edition would be a wise one considering the external factors in that I that I mentioned and the lack of return on that investment. However, we are uh and will continue to work on other energy saving initiatives that we have been doing and will continue to do across our system that have a greater return on that in on our investment. Most important here though is the overall feasibility of this project. While we are definitely disappointed to be here tonight honestly um at the end of the day we proposed and you approved a project that allows W Health to provide remarkable health care to more patients in our community who need it. We don't just talk about providing efficient access to healthcare. We work at that every day and we believe this request is in line with that mission. So, um, thank you for your time and attention to this item and we ask that you approve this alteration to the PD SIP. Thank you.

Thank you, Matt. Okay. Our next registrant is Jenny Eshner, also representing W Health University Row Clinic. Hi, can you hear me? This is Jenny. We can welcome. Yep. Thanks. I emailed Tim some slides that I'm hoping can be shared. Thank you. Something up. Yep.

Okay. I am Jenny Eshner, an architect with EUA, and I'm also speaking today on behalf of the development team. Next slide. We want to give you a quick overview of the project and how it relates to the surrounding area. The specific implementation plan portion of the plan development is shown highlighted in orange on university row. The overall uh PD is outlined in a dash red line. Next slide. Once it became apparent that we needed to re-evaluate the solar array inclusion, the development team met with planning division urban design commission staff as well as Alder Yugare to discuss potential changes to the project. In this image, University Avenue is on the left side and the parking structure is to the top right of the screen behind the clinic edition. Next slide. This image shows a view looking north, looking directly at the parking structure with the solar panels removed. Next, and finally, the last two slides we're sharing show sections through the development. This one is standing on University Row looking west. You can see the existing digestive health center on the right hand side and the parking structure is on the left. Next slide. And this section is taken looking north with the nearby residential neighborhood on the left hand side. The parking structures in the center and university row and housing is on the right. This shows a nice transition from lower to higher density use. And to wrap it up, uh I guess the development team has not taken this proposed change lightly. We really believe this alteration would allow us to deliver a greater overall value for the patient care mission of our client and therefore we request approval to move the solar panels remove the solar solar panels from the design.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh we do have some additional registrants for this item. Steven mom uh also register I'm sorry representing University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics. Detmar Buzz Bassar uh representing University Row Clinic and Dan Day representing University Row Clinic. All of those folks are registered in support and available to answer questions. And finally, Nicholas Davies of District 15 is registered in opposition and not wishing to speak.

Thanks, Megan. Um, are there questions from any of the commissioners for any of our registrants tonight? Um, Alder Yair. Thank you, Chair. Um could Matt or one of the other uh applicant registrants just uh remind us of some of the other sustainability features that are included in this project.

Uh this is Jenny Ashner with EUA. I can answer that. We have uh we are going for lead certification for the the building as a whole, the project as a whole. We have green roofs um in various areas around the project. The majority of the materials being used in the project um because we are going for lead certification are recycled or reused materials. Um there is uh EV bicycle parking I'm sorry EV car charging stations and also uh an ample ample amount of bike parking as well as showers within the building for biker use. Thank you, Jenny. Thank you, chair.

Thanks, Alder here. Other questions? Uh, Commissioner Heck.

Thank you. Um, I guess I'm I'm you know, we we we see I'm I'm speaking to the applicants in general here. We we we see often that applicants uh make changes based on financial decisions and we're not privy to your your finances, but I I I would appreciate it if you could give us just a little bit more information as to what's changed since you last received approval. And I I I ask partially because I live in a condominium building that recently activated a large solar array. And in our discussions with with solar installers, they say things are going like gang busters for them still despite the political uncertainties and other factors that you mentioned. So maybe just a little more information as to why you took this step.

I'm muted. So can you hear me? We can. Thanks.

Okay. Um, thanks for that question, Al, uh, former Alder Hec. Um, yeah, I mean, for a solar array of this size, um, we were quite frankly relying on subsidies from the federal government through an efficiency program in the last administration. And, uh, I think when that program went away, it was sort of the straw that broke the camel's back. Um, this project would have something like a 25 to 30 year return on investment. And so um that coupled with um a lot of other um access issues that relate that then lead to um our system looking for efficiencies in all places led our leadership to make the decision basically that this was something that we we couldn't afford for this project to go forward. Um so uh that that is the answer I have for you.

Okay. So, so would UW Health have been able to take advantage of tax credits that are no longer available? Is that some correct? Okay, that's all right. That's that's good information. My the project I was referring to was installed before the end of of 2025. So, we got the tax credits. So, that's helpful in understanding the finances. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for asking. Thank you.

If if I could just ask a followup, is the um design of the parking structure such that if the economies of solar were to change in the in the future, would that be something that could and I'm not ask I'm not asking for commitment. I'm just asking a feasibility question. Is it feasible to install them after the project is complete? if if the money were to work out that way. I believe so, but I'm going to pass that to Demar if he's on or Jenny if you could answer that question.

I'm happy to answer. Um, yeah, the the parking structure is structured the the concrete is structured to support a feature system. If that were to be the case, we did that knowing that this might not be um well, we we thought that we wanted to do this. So we that was our design intent.

Thank you. Um other questions for registrants. Um seeing no additional questions, I'll close the public hearing on this item and ask if uh commissioners have questions for staff. Alder Year.

Uh yes. Uh when we had uh discussed this alteration uh some months ago, one of our uh reasons for looking at this as something that needed to come back to the plan commission rather than treating it as a minor alteration was some concern that uh the removal of the solar array might affect the storm water plan. Um and uh it appears from the staff notes that the finding was that no it it it will not. Um and further modifications as I understand it to the storm water plan were not necessary. If you could just elaborate on that a little bit if I got that correct with regard to the findings regarding storm water. That's my understanding uh that the uh in their letter of intent the applicants uh did not indicate other changes to the project including storm water management. Uh and the city engineering division commented on the alteration uh indicating that they were understanding that there were no changes to the storm water plan that they approved with the project originally. However, if there were, that they would uh have to be approved by the city engineer uh consistent with MGO. Uh but that would certainly be a a question that could also be posed to the project team to confirm on the record.

Thank you, Tim. Thank you, chair. Thanks. Other questions? Are we ready to uh move the motion? Gary.

Uh thank you, chair. Uh I I feel uh that I need to be the one to make the motion uh because I objected so strongly to the applicant uh when this change came forward and in my discussions and uh I will just say before making the motion that uh uh in part this was a sense of personal im embarrassment. There are a number of very active uh climate change adverse groups and uh that watch very closely what the University of Wisconsin and its affiliates uh look to accomplish and they had this project in uh in their sites and uh I was able to make a convincing argument to them that they did not need to make a statement of strong opposition considering all of the sustainability features involved in this project and particularly the solar away. So it was a a matter of personal shrin when I saw that. But uh I recognize that uh uh the situation has changed. So, I um I move that uh the plan commission finds that the proposed alteration uh to approved uh revised plans for the parking structure to serve uh an expanded medical clinic at 750 University Row is consistent with the specific implementation plan approved by the common council and the plan development standards. uh and uh that we approve the requests subject to uh the conditions that are cited here which I note uh also amend the conditions in the original approval.

Thanks Alder. Is there a second for the motion? Alder Glenn, thanks. I think you got it under the wire. Thank you. Um Alder, would you like to speak to your motion any further? Well, I I probably made comments in making the motion that Yes. cover most of my thoughts and uh I would just say that I certainly hope and appreciate that structurally that uh uh the garage could uh support a solar array at some future time if we find a more accommodating political environment. Thank you, chair. Thank you. Any additional discussion? Honor field. Thank you.

Thank you, chair. I appreciate Alder Year's analysis and also the information that we learned with Commissioner Hex's line of questioning about the changes in the environment, not in the applicant's fault. Um, so I I find this to be a pretty disappointing change and I suspect many of us share that, but I agree with the staff reports analysis that these this solar array would not have been something that the original approval would have hinged on. And so I think it is only fair that I vote for the motion. Thank you. Thanks, Holderfield. Um, Commissioner Mahill. Thanks.

Thanks. Um, I appreciate the complexity of this. Um, I think I may be the only one, but I will probably be voting against this. Um, I know I I I I'm pretty sure I voted for the original approval, but um I was really concerned about not only building a large parking garage in a transit served area, but um allowing so many exceptions exceptions from the to um I really didn't see a lot of reason that we had to steer away from so many of the requirements um of a structure like this in a transit served area. Um, so I know uh Tim Park said the the the garage didn't necessarily hinge on this solar structure, but um I mean I think when we are seeing a project, it is probably a bad precedent that we approve a large parking structure that has a bunch of uh you know uh uh mitigation attached to it and then learn part way that you know, oh, we're just not going to get that piece and we'll throw some other stuff in. Um, transportation is the largest source of emissions. Um, and so, uh, offsetting those emissions takes a lot of a lot of work, including installing solar. So, I just would would not want to set this precedent. And we'll vote no.

Thanks, Commissioner McCale. Any further discussion? Um, if not, I will I'll call the vote. And um I think uh I well I think I'll start and say is there objection to unanimous approval and I expect one if there's more than one then maybe we'll do a roll call vote. So Commissioner Mcahill. Thank you. Um Megan do we we should just do the roll call vote, right? Yeah. I mean I think that would be useful. Chair. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Alderfield. Hi. Alder Glenn. Hi Alder Ugare.

Hi Commissioner Bazine. Hi Commissioner Hec. Hi Commissioner McCel. No Commissioner Sanders. Hi. Commissioner Soulheim. Hi. Okay. The eyes have it. Chair.

Thanks. Thanks, Megan. All right. That item is passed. And we have one more item. This is um item seven on our agenda. Uh legisar 91513. Um it's a substitute approving a certified survey map of property owned by CA. Johnson LLC and Hooper Corporation located at 2010 through 2030 Pennsylvania Avenue and 1902 East Johnson Street in Alder District 12. Um and I would note that uh item seven is related to item 8 which is a conditional use application for the same property and item 8 has been referred to a future meeting given um activity related to the project um at the urban design commission which hasn't um yet been completed. So we are just looking at the certified survey map tonight and we'll start with um planer parks. Thank you. Thank you, chair, members of the commission. One more time, uh, regarding item number seven, as the chair noted, uh, the question before the plan commission is, uh, taking a 7.9 acre area comprised of three parcels and many many uh, platted underlying lots and combining it into one lot in anticipation of development of a multifamily dwelling. uh the multif family dwelling. Uh the site is zoned RMX. Uh a portion of the site is located in the transit oriented development overlay. Uh the proposed development uh following the certified survey map is a permitted use in the RMX zoning district and to overlay. Uh the question that comes before you later now on April 13th

is whether the proposed multifamily dwelling uh can have an outdoor recreation component in this case a pool. Uh so the design of the project is the purview of the urban design commission. Uh the approval of the pool for the multifamily dwelling uh is a conditional use that will come back to the plan commission later. Uh the certified survey map is uh required in order for the building to be built across the many platted lot lines that comprise the uh existing parcels. Uh and uh the certified survey map is attached to the legislative item and I believe we will have a presentation from the project team basically identifying the current parcel boundaries and showing the proposed lot line. Uh staff is recommending approval of the one lot certified survey map to combine the parcels for the future multifamily development subject to the comments and conditions in the staff report. Uh and I will be happy to answer questions after the public hearing. Thank you.

Thanks Tim. Um I will uh open the public hearing on this item and um Megan if you want to introduce our registrs or Yeah. All right. We'll hear tonight from Joey Wisnooki representing New Land Enterprises. Believe Joey has a presentation that he will briefly walk us through.

Yes. Hello. I think Tim Tim has that dialed up. Um, thank you uh, plan commissioners and olders. Uh, my name is Joey Wisneski. I'm the senior development coordinator for New Land Enterprises uh, headquartered in Milwaukee. Um we are a mixeduse multifamily developer um that really is community focused. Uh we have over 2200 units um in our portfolio that we not only have developed but manage. Um so we are the property managers. We are the folks on site. Um and uh we also includes uh about 200,000 square ft of commercial space. So when we develop, you know, we look at uh we look at the community as a whole within within our building and how the how that building reacts um to the with the rest of the community. Um we can go to the next slide but what we're I guess that with the matter before you today is the uh certified survey map for the uh existing uh parcels uh from 1902 East Johnson to 2010 and 2030 Pennsylvania. Uh next slide. So as Tim mentioned uh it's currently zoned uh RMX. So, um you know, future development plans um would uh can would be uh fit into that zoning. Um but right now, I think we're we're we're just looking at the at the CSM. Next slide. So, here here's the whole existing site um that we are currently under contract with the Hooper Corporation to uh to to propose our redevelopment. Um in the on the southern side here would be kind of towards the left kitty corner from the public market with uh the um some industrial buildings uh in the middle and on the north side. Next slide.

So here are the existing uh parcel lines. Um and then the uh next slide has the proposed lot lines. So, uh, just anything pertaining to the development, the CSM, anything about New Line, we'll be happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Jill. Okay, those are all of our registrants for this item, chair.

Great. Thanks. Any questions for our registrants on this item? Right. Um, seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and ask if any commissioners have questions for staff,

Alder Glenn. Thanks.

Hi. Um, I did I do have questions. um quite a few of them um kind of got emailed and I'm hoping that maybe I don't know how to handle that if I should ask or ask that the answers and questions just be entered in at some point but um he and I had met with staff earlier today and just had some questions just mostly from a community kind of outward facing questions that we often get around processes. And so Tim, would do you want me to answer them again or does the team did how do you all want me to handle that?

Thanks, Megan. Yeah, I would I'll just I'll just Well, maybe Megan's going to say the same thing, but I was just going to say that um uh Planner FCO did send the some of the questions in a summary to uh the commission. I don't know, a little before our meeting. A little right before our meeting. I just seen them. So that's why I was wondering how to handle. Yeah. Right. So I think we could put that in the record, but Megan, I'll defer to you as the secretary.

Yeah, Alder, we can definitely attach those written responses to your questions to the record for the meeting if you'd like. Um, I did want to note that um, for everyone on on this meeting right now, for the record, um, the alder sent about a dozen questions, including a few that were for the applicant. And so I did want to just note that if you would like the applicant to respond to any of those questions, um, we would want to reopen the hearing and ask them tonight because the written responses did not include Actually, did they include responses from the applicant? I'm sorry. Okay, so you got those. Okay,

great. Um, then in that case, I think it's up to you to decide if you feel like attaching those written responses to the record is sufficient. Um, I could summarize a few if you that would be helpful. Okay. Yes, summarize a few and then yes, attach them. And then I also just want to kind of say appreciate the answers from the applicant. I was going to ask, but I appreciate the transparency in just the process and understand that the rules of what he had to answer, but that transparency and answers was wonderful.

Great. I'm glad that was helpful and yes, thank you to the applicant for uh quickly responding and thank you to Kevin who's not here tonight for his help to coordinate with many city agencies to put these responses together. Um, I think one of the things I do want to note, just because it is somewhat uncommon for the commission to see a project of this scale, um, and to see just one piece of a project of this scale, is that this is an example of a project that, um, ultimately will be a fairly large mixeduse development that is considered a permitted use under our zoning code. Um that is the result of several intentional planning and policy efforts that this council or this commission, the council and previous elected officials have made over time to help direct and facilitate growth into areas where we've planned for it and have ensured that the facilities and infrastructure are in place to help us manage that type of transition. So the project on the whole will be a permitted use which means that um after approval of a CSM and the small portion of the project that will be a conditional use. The project will be reviewed through a robust technical review process that we call site plan review involving many agencies to ensure that it can be approved and that we have the right u mitigations in place for its approval. Um, it will still be reviewed by the Urban Design Commission though as a new construction project within an urban design district. Um, so you heard reference to that tonight. That will be going to the Urban Design Commission later this week for review. Um, so tonight you are looking at just the approval of the land combination that Joey articulated at the beginning of the meeting. We don't know all of the details about the next phase of this project yet. We know that the applicant has pursued the first phase of this project. We

understand that the second phase of this project will likely include uh a number of commercial uses, but that is not before the city right now. And so it's possible that as we know more of the details about what that next phase looks like that there could be other components of it that could come before the plan commission for approvals. We just don't know all of those details today. Um there are a couple of detailed questions about some of the dedications and easements that are on the CSM. I'm happy to speak to them if anybody has questions about them, but I do know that a bulk of the questions that Alder Glenn sent were actually responded to by um the city's engineering team related to some of the environmental contamination issues. Um ultimately, this is a site that has continuing jurisdiction by the Wisconsin DNR and so that means that there will be certain requirements for how excavation and construction happen on this site. Um my understanding is that probably many of those details are not fleshed out yet as this project is still in its early phases. Um but the team will be required to comply with the rules and regulations of DNR as part of that process. There's a small portion of the city's interests in this um CSM that relate to some of those environmental concerns. Um this is something the alder asked about specifically um for the city to accept dedication of land. We do require um an environmental site assessment to be provided to the city so that we understand and have documentation of any contamination or any environmental concerns uh that may need to be remediated as a part of that dedication. So there is a condition um on the plan related to that um I'm sorry on the CSM related to that as well as some conditions related to making sure they have the right approvals in place from

DNR before the city can execute some parts of its approval process. Um I think I'll pause there and if there's any other kind of specifics that you'd like me to touch on we can get into into that. Otherwise we're happy to post these answers online. I appreciate. Thank you very much and thank you to everyone who got the questions answered, including city staff. And I just want to kind of say for the record that the reason that the questions were asked were definitely the ones you just kind of dug into. Being a longtime northider, we know all the plants we had and all that on the north side. And we knew we wanted to build and I believe in building and providing housing. And I know there's often questions with the environmental groups and just general public with things that are in our control, out of our control, whose control and just so that transparency. So I wanted to ask the questions so they were on the record. So as questions comes up and we build um and understanding what we are voting on tonight that there was this learning kind of lesson. You know, planning is big and as an alder who's on it and learning, it's still a crash course in what we do and how we do it. and I just thought it was a really great opportunity to do a transparent learning thing for those people that can look on. So thank you for everyone for obliging

and Tim just let me know that the Q&A has actually been posted on legisar so it should be visible momentarily I'll do you again

uh thank you chair uh just one of the answers I want to be sure I understand one of the answers actually the first one so by by approving the CSM, we extend the application of the TOD overlay from one parcel to all of the parcels. Is that correct? So that uh if we weren't doing that, a building that be could be on one of the other parcels but uh be developed later um those requirements of the overlay might not apply. But by doing this uh if I've got this right, then everything that's on this parcel will ultimately have to follow the TOD overlay requirements. Have I got that right? Yes, everything that's on this parcel, should it be approved, we'll have to follow the TOD overlay requirements. And I'll say part of the question was about whether or not we needed to have a separate action to approve the change to the TOD boundary. Um, our ordinance already states that the TOD applies to all parcels that are within or even partially within the tod. And so technically by approving the CSM, you are creating one parcel. So it would apply to the whole parcel because the whole parcel would be partially within the to in a case of a building like this we actually would not permit the building to be built across property lines and so in this case it we have to combine the parcels in order for the project to be built as it's being proposed and therefore the to applies to the whole property.

Thank you. Thank you Megan. Thank you, chair.

Other questions for staff on this project? We have before us the um recommendation to approve the the certified survey map. Um is anyone ready to make a motion on that? Alder Gar.

Thank you, Chair. Um, I move that the plan commission finds the approval standards for certified survey maps are met and that we forward the certified survey map for 2010 and 2030 Pennsylvania Avenue and 1902 East Johnson Street to the common council with a recommendation of approval. Thanks, Alder. Alder Glenn, thank you. Um, will any uh further discussion or commentary on the motion? Cosure. Thanks.

Thanks. Just a brief thank you to Alder Glenn uh for asking all those questions because we're we're kind of in new territory here where some of the processes that some some of us old-timers are accustomed to have shifted. And so I think it was uh instructional and something we'll need to be aware of in the future when when a development this large is not going to have a typical process related to conditional uses there there will be a small one but uh I just wanted to thank her.

Thanks agreed. Um uh unless there's any further discussion, I'll call the motion to a vote. Is there any objection to unanimous approval uh for the motion on this item? Right. Seeing none, the item is approved. So I think that is all of our agenda items tonight. Um and we can move to member announcements, communications, or business items. um if anyone has any of those to share and looking forward to getting together in person at the end of this month. So, it's coming coming up already and um so that will be uh good and we'll I don't know if we're going to preview our agenda. Maybe Megan can share that. Maybe at our next meeting we'll kind of give you a sneak peek of uh but or maybe we already have. I can't remember if uh everybody has seen it. So, um thanks. Um otherwise, we'll move to the secretar's report. Megan, you can have the floor. All right. Thank you, chair. Um, on your agenda, there's a a relatively short list of upcoming matters, but I'll note that as part of your consent agenda tonight, you referred a number of projects to your March 16th and April 13th meetings. Um, so just be on the lookout for those projects that we continue to anticipate. Um, I will go ahead and give you a preview of the March 31st agenda. Um, our special meeting that will be in person. Um, we anticipate giving you an update on our division's annual report and our some of the highlights for our 2026 work plan. We will be sharing a um the housing snapshot report. You may have seen the city recently released its bannual housing snapshot report that takes a deep dive into some of the housing characteristics and needs uh across the city. So, we have some folks that worked on that report that will be

giving a presentation of that report to you at your meeting. And then we also will do a little bit of a summary of housing forward in terms of what was uh accomplished last year, what we anticipate coming up this year. And uh the chair asked if we could have some folks there that could talk a little bit about some city-led development because that's also part of our housing forward objectives but is not something that is always directly in front of you. Um so we're working on trying to fold in some updates on the other areas outside of the zoning policy discussions that you're typically a part of. Um, specifically, there is one zoning change that we will highlight as part of that discussion, which has to do with the resoning uh process for um former plan developments that largely apply to single family zoned neighborhoods. Um, so we'll hear a little bit from zoning on uh the work plan for that item as part of housing forward. So that's what we anticipate for that meeting.

Thanks, Megan. Any questions? Elder Field. Thank you, Chair. Just one um about the area plans. I'm wondering if timelines are firming up on that front yet and if there's any idea about when the legislative process will start for the two area plans that are going to be wrapping up soon. Yeah, great question, Alder. Um we will provide you with some more specific dates. They are starting to firm up. Um, we are currently anticipating that the draft plans will likely be introduced in April. Um, and that we will have the referral schedule um, based on that introduction. Sure. Thank you.

You're welcome. Cool. Alder. All right. Any other questions on for um the secretary? All right. Seeing none, um I'm looking for a motion to adjurnn in a second. Uh Alder Glenn, thank you. Commissioner Soulheim, thank you. Um any objections to unanimous approval for our motion to adjourn? Seeing none, we'll stand adjourned. Thanks. Thanks everybody. Great discussions tonight. Thank you all. Good night.