Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

report. And then finally, uh staff believe that the plane plane commission believes that the land division standards for the certified survey map can be found met. With that, I will um will be happy to answer questions after the public hearing.

Thanks, Chris. All right, we have registrance for this public hearing. So, I will open the public hearing. Um, a few of our speakers have pulled time. So, um, we'll have groups that will have a poolled 9 minutes to share their comments. Um, other registrants will have up to 3 minutes for our standard rule. And I will interrupt brief briefly when there's a minute to a half a minute left just to help you plan your time. Um, but we'll have Megan walk us through the list. And Megan, maybe if you could say who whose turn it is and then who will be after them so they can be prepared, that would be great. Thanks. That sounds great.

Um, and I'll just note for the commission and for all of our registrants, we have an unusually long uh registrant list tonight and so just appreciate your patience as we make sure that everyone is covered in this list. So, first we'll hear from the applicant team, uh, represented by John Messki and Josh Dawson of Metski Architects, representing Landmark Properties, and Jim Buchanan of LCD Acquisitions. This group is going to pull their time for a total of 9 minutes. Um, and we'll be followed by uh the team representing Madison Trust. So, please be prepared for that group uh to speak next. We have Jesse here.

Yeah. Jesse, did you have the names for the speakers, Jesse, or do we need Should we say them again? Can you repeat the names again? Sorry. Yes. Uh, we have John Mayski, Josh Dawson, and Jim Buchanan. Hi. Can you guys hear me? Yes, John, we can.

Okay, great. It just there was no hand raising or anything to show up. So, thank you very much. My name is John Mfski. I am with Mfski Architects, uh the architect for the project. And first of all, I just wanted to make sure to thank the staff for all the help and guidance they gave us on this project and especially in working through with UDC, which was instrumental in helping us to inform the architecture and the shape and style of the building. I also want to thank Landmarks for helping us understand why they didn't feel we should replicate the facade. We spent a lot of time talking about 433 Gilman and really respect the idea that we worked with the UDC to create new buildings that use both elements from 415 and 433 in our presentation and I'm going to walk you through that today. Next slide, please. This just runs through all of the different areas for the building. You can skip through that. I think we have the wrong slide deck, Chris. This one I'm just going to have to fly through really quick because it has a lot of elements in it, but I can do that. So, let's run through the next. Just go next, please. This just shows where the site is. I think everybody pretty much knows where that is by now. Here you can show the massing or the site before we had anything placed within it. Next, here you can see the general massing of the buildings as they pop up along Gilman. This is kind of looking from the State Street side. Next, here are just some extra photos showing you the context. More context. Other architectural surrounding buildings. Here's our first floor. Just getting you a little closer. The next image,

this is the lower level parking and bicycle storage. Next. Oops, we skipped one. This is the first floor and I think this is probably the most important. We spent a lot of time talking about this with UDC. We wanted to create one entrance for the parking to come in and out and also have the trash loading in and off of that area. Next to that, to the left of the upper plan is our easy access bike storage. And in front of that are two very large window displays which will house 415 and 433 architectural displays that'll be created by a professional uh display firm that we want to engage and we're going to work with landmarks and planning to create what goes in there. It's going to be everything that they asked for, but we also want to do 3D scans of the building so we can show 3D images. We want to include plans, elevations, and renderings, models so that we can represent master hall even better, and potentially salvage elements from the building. As you go across the building, the kind of orang-ish color is our lobby. To the right of that, at the corner on the upper right hand corner, is the retail. UDC stressed they wanted it on that side, as close to State Street as possible. Next, here you can just see as we're going up higher in the building. Next, keep moving up. We have three courtyards on the inside of the building and three recesses at the front. The building steps back at this location because of the sloping site and steps back yet even further. As we keep going up, the corner clips due to zoning. One more step, another one. Then you get to where the roof do deck is, the pool is on that upper level, and then that upper shaft of that tower pops up. Next. And that goes all the way up. Next, then we really wanted to show you that the building had kind of a a

concept of trying to have a base, a shaft, and a top. And that's what these really represent. Next, just picking up on some architectural elements that were important to us, including Master Hall and 433 Gilman. Next, you can skip through that one. This shows you a rendering of the building now and you're seeing how we worked and it'll pop up a little bit closer when we get closer, but we tried to separate the building into the fourstory masses at the base and then the shaft and the tower up above. Next, this is looking from State Street. Next, this is looking from the backside. Next, these are close-ups of the retail. It was really important at the UDC that we show the concept of how it functions maybe without planters in front, what it would work with planters in front, how it would work on sidewalk sale days, and how it could work as a cafe if we open it up in front. Next, this really shows you our main entrance and the entrance into the parking garage. And then on the far right are the two displays to represent the former buildings. Next. Here you're seeing the overall elevations and massing. Next. Looking at the other side. Next. Next, please. You can skip through that one. These just run through a lot of technical details. And this was the one that Chris went through. So, if there's any questions that came came up from that before, we can run through that when we get to your question and answer session. I do want to make sure that everybody's aware that 10% of the beds in this project will be affordable. Next, and here you can see the pallet for the materials. And it was important at the

base that at those four larger brick elements, we incorporated elements from 433, which is where the overall brick tone came from and where the windows and the triple setups of having three sash windows next to each other. the central brick element and stone element comes from that building and then around floors two and three we have a stone frame which picks up on the frames that are on master hall. So we worked hard to find a way to incorporate those elements into the architecture without replicating it but actually just letting it be a part of it and then spent a lot of time and thinking how we could honor those previously built buildings at 415 and 433. decks. This was just important to the UDC that there's really some depth to the upper facade. So, we were able to achieve 5 in, which is something that they were happy about. Next, these are just some detailed gardens within the courtyards. They're actually going to function really quite wonderfully. Sorry. Next, this just giving you setbacks and showing how the massing works along the street in section. These are shadow studies. Next, you can click right through those. And then these are just it's important to see how this looks at night. I don't think it'll ever all be lit up like this. We do use dark sky fixtures, so all of our lighting is shining down. Um, and this just gives you that one same view that I previously talked about. If you go to the next one, I think it'll show you the next corner. And I think I just want to make sure to leave enough time to let Jim just add in a few more comments and I think I'm coming up on a minute, minute and a half. So with that, Jim, do you mind taking it away? Yeah, thank you so much. I'm with the development team here. I'm a developer on the project. I know tonight there will be some consideration regarding the changes uh this development would bring and I want to

acknowledge three meaningful steps we've taken to mitigate these concerns. So the first is as part of that additional height ordinance, we're going to be including um 10% of all beds at an affordable discount to market rates, which is going to mitigate any displacement of existing beds significantly. Um we also worked extensively with city staff and the UDC to design a building that really reinterprets and honors the site's history and this resulted in a unanimous recommendation for approval from UDC. And the third thing is is we are going to be investing significantly in a really beautiful museum quality display that's going to be done by a third party that's going to document the history of the Stratford Apartments and Master Hall. And as part of that um in the future if we're approved here we are happy to meet with um some of the folks here to um get their feedback on that exhibit um at the time when we're putting it together with that group. Great. Um,

worked. Thank you, chairman. Yeah. Uh, uh, thanks. Is that um, that's the conclusion. I think you guys hit your time, so I appreciate that. Um, Megan, we can go to the next group.

Okay. As we move on to the next group, I'll just note from the applicant team, there are three other people here that are available to answer questions. That includes Angie Black uh representing LCD Acquisitions and Landmark Properties, Kyle Jones of Landmark Properties, and Sarah Church representing Beerbecker. Our next speaker will be uh representatives from the Madison Trust for Historic Preservation who are registered in opposition and wishing to speak with a poolled time. This includes um Rick Chandler, uh Lynn Bjorkman, Kurt Stegy, John Rowling, and Jean Parks. So, this group will also have nine minutes. Jean, I see your mic is unmuted. If you're I don't know if you're going first, but um um Kurt, yours is also unmuted, so you guys could have the the

Yes, I was not uh we I think we provided the sequence to Oh, the um planning director. Uh okay. What is which you'd like to speak? Then we'll start with Rick Chandler. Great. Actually I I think the sequence we had provided was John Rowling, then Lynn Bjorkman, then me, then Jean Parks, then Curt Stey. Is it possible to do it in that sequence? So the the floor is yours for the nine minutes. So you can speak in the order in which you planned.

Yeah, I think each of you has the ability to unmute yourself. So, um I think that's that seems fine.

We'll let John kick it off then. Thanks. Right. Yep. All right. Um, John's mic is showing on mute. John, are you able to un There we go. Are we on? Good. Yes.

Uh, I prepared the landmarks nomination for master hall on behalf of the trust. My research confirmed the landmarks commission's finding that this building is potentially eligible for landmark status. The full nomination is in your packet and I hope that you have been able to review it. But your role tonight is not to decide whether this building should be landmarked. That's the job of the landmarks commission and the common council. I expect that the landmarks commission will soon recommend that common council grant landmark status to master hall. Now instead your decision tonight needs to follow the standards of approval within the demo ordinance. The landmarks commission has already rated this building a rare A for architectural and historic significance. The standards which identify factors that may outweigh the public interest in preserving resource historic resources list. First, deteriorated deteriorated building condition. Second, structural or fire hazard. Or three, that the quote building has been so altered that it cannot convey its historical association or architectural significance unquote. Now, nothing in the demo submission mentions deteriorated condition. The building remains rented to 100 plus tenants, so is presumably livable. No one has claimed that the building's a fire hazard or is structurally compromised. As to alterations, the Landmarks Commission and its staff have already commented that the building is remarkably intact, and I can testify that the building's exterior appearance is the same today as when I first saw it in 1972, a few years after its construction. This intact characteristic is important. We landmark buildings not only to recognize them but to preserve them as living artifacts that in the words of the statement of principle of the demo ordinance itself quote tell the story of Madison. Master Hall does that storytelling. The developer has obtained an assessment of Master Hall by an outside architectural consultant. I see that the

consultant covered much of the same material as I did but then argues that Master Hall is not worthy of recognition. I suggest that you give more credence to the historical and architectural judgment of our Madison Landmarks Commission and its staff and to the volunteers of the Madison Trust for Historic Preservation than to the Shabboan consultant opinion commissioned by the Georgia developer. We urge you to deny the demolition permit for master hall. Thank you. And I'll turn it over to Rick. Rick, you're unmuted. We should be able to hear you.

Thank you. I'm Rick Chandler, president of the Madison Trust, and I just wanted to say a few words about our approach to things. Um, we want to preserve the best of the past and protect the places that make Madison special. This involves promoting development that's compatible with sustaining our unique sense of place. We're not anti-development. We simply want development that's compatible with maintaining the look and feel of the neighborhoods that people love. Our track record shows that we have a broad perspective. Our 24 historic architecture walking tours cover a wide range of neighborhoods. We've been active in filing landmark nominations. We've prepared 10 of the last 13 approved Madison landmark nominations. In the past, the city prepared most landmark nominations, but that has not been the case in the past several decades. We cover a broad range of properties when preparing nominations. Our most recent approved landmark nominations were from the city's underrepresented communities report. Preparing nominations is costly and we're a largely volunteer organization which relies on member dues and donations. Having said that, as we grow, we expect that we'll increase our pace of nominations. In some cases, such as Master Hall, we prepare landmark nominations after we know that a unique building is threatened. This is occasionally unavoidable due to the large number of properties that are eligible for landmark status and our available resources. We hope that in this case you'll deny the demolition permit for a unique building with affordable apartments that deserves landmark status which would still allow new development on the rest of the block. Thank you. I'll turn it to the next speaker.

Lyn, uh your mic is unmuted if you want to go next. Thank you. I'm Lynn Bjorkman. I've worked in historic preservation planning for both local government and the National Park Service. So, why save Master Hall, a 1966 modernist concrete building described as brutalist? Brutalism sounds like a derogatory label, but it comes from the French term for raw or exposed concrete. With its use of concrete, this postWorld War II building style emphasized functionality through bold geometric forms. The noted Milwaukee architect Jordan Miller, the designer of Master Hall, was widely recognized for his expressive use of structural concrete. Besides concrete, Miller's design displays other elements that closely relate the building to the brutalist style, including sculptural geometric shapes devoid of ornamentation, repeated modular elements, upper floors raised on concrete columns like stilts, and notably a dramatic emotionally impactful effect. On Gilman Street, the imposing building attracts attention and interest, enriching the pedestrian experience. Further, Master Hall is unique as a brutalist residential building that forms a close visual and associational link to other important brutalist buildings on the UW campus such as Jason Art Museum. So, what are the important benefits of preserving this building? One answer is in the 2012 downtown plan, which recommends that the city maintain the unique, vibrant, and special qualities of Madison's urban landscape. With the demolition of Master Hall, Madison will be missing a significant piece of its midcentury

modernist design legacy, one that enriches our urban environment with variety and vitality. The tangible, physical, concrete presence of Master Hall, the design qualities, visual impact, feeling, and historic significance it represents cannot be reproduced by an interpretive exhibit. I urge the commission to demi to deny the demolition request. Thank you.

Thanks. Yep, Jean, I can see you're unmuted. Hi. Following Madison City Ordinance 28185, in the interest of the prosperity and welfare of the people, this commission is tasked with the careful consideration of requests to demo two apartments deemed category A historic value. Though these demo applications came to your attention because the structures have architectural significance, I'm asking asking you to also recognize them by another of their key features and that's their relative affordability in this Madison market. I'd say these properties are great examples of naturally occurring affordable housing or Noah and in fact represent that missing middle part of our housing stock that we've all read about. To be fair, I wasn't able to pin down exact rents, but I'm comfortable saying these properties offer efficiencies and onebedrooms that range between $750 and $1,300 a month. If these buildings come down, Madison will have lost nearly 200 irreplaceable Noah units. To echo a fellow trust member, demolishing buildings that provide rents at $1,300 a month is unconscionable. Thanks for your dedication to the city and for keeping the value of these Noah properties in mind as you safeguard the welfare and the prosperity of Madison residents.

Thanks. Um Kurt, you have about uh 40 seconds left if you want to wrap up.

Okay. All right. Um few sentences. First, uh the trust is convinced that the historic value of master hall outweighs any other general interest to accommodate growth of Madison's population and build environment. One of the conditions in the um uh introductory statement of purpose. Uh we think it's obvious that that you must simply deny the demolition permit now. But if you have any doubts, we propose that you defer consideration of the permit application until the comm landmarks commission and its staff that designated ex exits.

Thank thanks Kurt. Um if you guys could hang around there may be questions for you after the other speakers. Thank you. Okay. Um, believe the rest of our registration list includes Nick Smith of District 12, registered in support and not wishing to speak, and Ethan Dickler, registered in opposition. I'm sorry. Ethan Dickler is registered in opposition and wishing to speak. Ethan, if you're here. Here we go. Hello. Can you hear me? We can. Thanks. Welcome.

Thank you. Uh, hello, commissioners. Thank you uh for this opportunity to speak today. My name is Ethan Dickler and I've been a resident of Madison for the past nine years. Of those nine years, I lived in Master Hall for two years on the third and fifth floor and in the Stratford atrium in the basement uh for one year as a student at WMadison. I now work for the state government downtown. In my nine years in Madison, I've lived in eight different apartment buildings and houses. Uh, this has been by choice as I enjoy haunting these different spaces around Madison. Um, places I've lived include cheap cinder block cubes on old university that should absolutely be torn down, uh, a tutor style brick mansion named Twin Gables on Kendall Avenue that I loved, a rundown house on West Dayton that I hated, a newly constructed apartment building called uh, now called the Eastern on East Washington. and I currently live in the historic Cardinal apartment building on East Wilson Street. I am not an expert in historic preservation. I cannot speak to the character of either structures um being discussed about being torn down. Um but I do know about the apartment situation on the ismas and both of these apartments mean so much to me. Uh I don't think anyone chooses to live in Master Hall personally. Uh it is a it is a place that is there for people who need it. Um my rent when I lived there was 750 when I lived on the third floor. My rent on the fifth floor was $850. I'm sure they're a little higher now because of you know rent increases. Uh but they both were there for me when I couldn't find roommates and I didn't know where else to live and I was a student. And you know, I it's it's funny. When I lived in the Stratford atrium, I was in

the basement and I remember being woken with five other guys during CO and I remember being woken up at night because someone was peeing on my window. Uh it looked out at the the dumpsters and it, you know, it it was one of those places where it was kind of dilapidated inside and obviously the management company didn't care that much, but there was something so gritty about it, something so bohemian. Uh living in both of those places, I felt like, you know, the way my dad described my dad's from New York City. He Ethan, you have about 30 seconds just to manage your time.

Thank you. He lived in Greenwich Village in the 60s and the way he described the culture and the vibe is exactly the spirit of West Gilman and I don't know tearing down both these buildings that they they are the spirit of Madison that I know and love and it would be a real shame but thank you for your time uh and I appreciate this. Thanks Ethan. Okay, confirming chair that that is in fact the end of the registration list.

Great. All right. We um hearing from the registrants. Do any commissioners have questions for any of our registrants on items four through nine? other fields.

Thank you, chair, for the applicant team. Um, I wanted to thank them for their presentation and ask a little more about some of the affordable units that they're proposing. Um, the 10% is the figure that I heard a couple of times in that presentation. John, do we yet know um how many beds that's going to turn out to be 10%. Yeah, it would be a minimum 99 beds. Okay. And then have you all entered into one of these land use restriction agreements with the city for affordable housing yet or will this be your first one?

I'll let Jim speak to that. Jim, if you don't mind. Thank you. Um and thank you for the question, Alder. Um John's correct. It should be about at minimum 99 U beds. Um we have not entered into an agreement yet. We plan to under this one utilizing the um ordinance the city passed related to the height amendment. Um and those beds should be um from our understanding about a 40% discount to market rates. So it'll be a very significant discount. Yeah, I'm interested to see how these go whenever they're a part of a project. Um, thank you. That's all for now.

Thanks, Alderfield. Other questions for registrance? Um, Commissioner Soulheim. Thanks.

Thank you. Um, in terms of the demolition, um, there was a lot of comments about the standards including standard 2, which refers to deteriorated condition. Um I did not see in all of the materials a any sort of report relating to condition of the buildings. There was an arch or a legacy architecture provides sort of a historical overview. But it is very common for us to get reports related to you know structural conditions of the property. A lot of photos. Did I miss something or do you did you do any of that?

I think there we we included some photos. So, there are limited photos of the interior. Um, and then there's quite a few photos of the exterior, but there's no report. We didn't go through and do a complete structural analysis of the interior or the exterior. Okay. There's another project tonight that even had like a a list of, you know, repairs that are outstanding or and conditions of the building. You don't have any of that information compiled.

We have not done a full detailed analysis of that. We know on 433 and going through it that it needs a a vast amount of work on the interior and that it's almost all been uh completely altered from the original building. But most of those alterations, as one of the speakers has mentioned, have just fallen into disrepair over time and that we know that several of the elements on the front facade when we were looking at saving it would need a tremendous amount of work. So, most of our focus was done on trying to save the front facade. And the conclusion really was that it needed to be taken down and then rebuilt up again uh to bring it back to the condition that it should be in if it was to be left.

Mhm. Yeah. I was actually more interested in 415 um given some of the materials. It seemed like that potentially retained integrity more than 433. But if that information is not available, it is what it is. That's all for right now. Thank you. Appears the chair may be not in the meeting. Looks frozen. I think her video is frozen. Uh, Commissioner Soulheim, would you like to cheer for a moment while we get her back?

Yes, I will attempt to step in here. I'm also on my phone because my internet at home is a little iffy, so bear with me here. Um, do we have any other questions for the applicants or for any of the speakers? Okay. I'm not seeing any. Oh, there. Uh, Commissioner Hec,

thanks. Um, I this this may be for somebody that was in the group that spoke for the the Madison Trust for Historic Preservation. I'm not sure who will want to answer it, but um I I I I read uh and and have heard about the uh the points about historical significance about Mast's Hall and and also the report from Legacy that uh that was that was done by the development team or at the behest of the de development team and I I I wondered if you could give any insights into why this building is uh perhaps more important than other brutalist buildings. I I know the majority are on campus. Um is is there something in particular about this building other than its history uh that that that makes it important to save?

Um uh this is Curt Stye. I'll start answering that and see what happens. Um, this this building uh is, as far as I'm concerned, one of a kind. Um, I I don't I have not seen anything like it in Wisconsin and I haven't seen any photograph of a brutalist building that is comparable around the world. Um, it is a unique building. Um it scale is vastly different from the brutalist buildings that are on campus. Those are behemoths. They they impose on people. Um you they live up to the title brutalist. This does not. This is a okay it fits the general category, but it is a very distinct building. And if if you walk down that street, West West Gilman, um your your attention is drawn to it. Um it's it's something that people talk about and people recognize. And uh as we know um the uh downtown plan uh says keep these buildings. It's consistent with the preservation provision in that plan and it's inconsistent with the provision for building large buildings which are not supposed to be built in this location which is within the state street district. It's in that district. It's uh residential. It's not commercial. If this was commercial, that's a different

story. But this is really a prime primarily um uh residential development. And uh it's not uh it the master hall only occupies a portion of the um real estate covered by this development and the 16story portion of the development which was massive and is hardly pedestrian friendly um is in the other uh is further away from State Street. um rather than almost on the doorstep. And if if anyone else on the trust has uh a comment in that regard, feel free to jump in.

Yes, this is John Rowling. I'd like to speak a little bit. Uh uh Kurt mentioned the other brutalist buildings in in Madison uh are pretty much on the UW campus. uh and our preservation planner and the landmarks commission in particular have already noted that the master hall is the only known residential structure of its kind in Madison. It is unique in that regard as Kurt mentioned. Well, you've never seen anything else in the world like that. I have uh Mos Saft's habitat uh at the Montreal 67 site, now a world heritage site. uh uses the same stacked cubes that Jordan Miller used here uh on Master Hall. Well, I like the association between something in Madison, Wisconsin, and something that it's a world heritage site. I think that's pretty unique and certainly something we should save.

Okay. Thank Thanks, John. Did you have something else to add? Well, I could also go on beyond uh into the the landmark commission also noted the social history aspect of Master Hall. It's an interesting story uh about the transition from the private dorms to private apartments. um at a moment of of transition uh in the characterization of of student life at UW uh from the silent generation and uh women dorm roles to uh the protest generation and women's lib uh and Master Hall experienced that over the course of the or the 1960s into the early 1970s and it's a particular exemplar are of uh that change in the mores uh that were underlying uh how housing patterns uh were arranged. I think it's a fascinating story and it's one that uh master hall illustrates beautifully. Thank you.

Thanks. Um I think that uh answers my questions for now. Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner. Oops. All right. Oh, Nicole. Nicole, I'm back. Oh, you're back. You're back. Great. Thank you. Um, at least you got your question in before I froze up. Um, I do see Alder Okowitz. Um, if I said that right, you can or wrong, you can correct me, please. Thank you. Yep. Um, yeah, my question is also for John.

Are you there, John? Uh, I'm here. Yes. I want to make sure. Um, would you describe there's a building on the corner of Henry and Gilman, 501 North Henry. Uh, would you describe that building as brutalist? It just plays a lot of the same features as Master Hall. It's modernist. I wouldn't describe it as brutalist. Uh, brutalism is one of the variants of modernism. Okay. Um, uh, and in that regard, I believe it is unique.

Okay. But you wouldn't describe it as brutalism. doesn't display like a formal legibility of plan, clear exhibition of structure. Um, you know, there's it explicitly states where the staircases are as part of the function of the building. Uh, the structure is clearly exposed. It uses raw concrete as the primary facing material. Um and additionally it displays some of the elements that you noted in your landmarks application such as the breeze sole where the porch displays uh the porch for each unit is also functionally a breeze sole for the unit below it. Uh explaining like uh or showing a uh form follows function sort of thing that I would say exemplifies brutalism. Well, I thank you. I thank you very much for for reading u my nomination and and uh and understanding it uh even better. U but I would say this that the the building you're talking about at Henry on Henry um is uh sort of a plain vanilla uh relative to a masterwork.

Okay. Thank you. Sound good. Uh, Alder Glenn.

Hi. Um, I have a question also for the historic team. Um, as someone who loves history and buildings and totally hears this, but also just kind of some identity questions um, with it being built when it was. And we often have to talk about history. We have to talk about all of history. Sometimes buildings and statues and things can be built before civil rights and so some of their historic things can look different to others. What do we know about any rentals or who was allowed to live or when this building was built in the historical time of prior to civil rights? Well,

looking up what I have found so far, it there's some huge chances that there was some restrictions with the building. So, I just am wondering

um Curt Stey here. Let me just say that um if you're thinking about the buildings that are currently local landmarks in MA in Madison, the the youngest of those buildings, there there are two of them built in the 1940s, both designed by Frank Wright. Um otherwise all the buildings are in I think the 20s or early 1920s or earlier and and the standard for becoming a uh a landmark is typically a 50-year standard. Master Hall just hit that 50-year period in 2015, 2060. Um, yes, there is history that's embedded in every um every building. Uh this is not a building associated with a historical figure and there are quite a few of those around the country. Um but you can't this is not in the category of Monaceel or Monachello James Madison's uh um plantation uh George Washington's plantation or all the all the plantations which do have a history that is um for me very instructive but um it casts it as some Paul on the building. Thank you.

Are there questions for registrance? If there are none, um I would uh now close our public hearing on items 4 through 9 and um ask uh the commission if you have questions for staff. We have uh Chris and Megan uh available again. Thanks.

Thank you, chair. Uh one more time. Um uh could you someone from staff please comment on uh the advisory status of uh the landmarks commission in relationship to the plan commission. Um and uh potentially the uh authority of the plan commission to find that uh a determination of the landmarks commission may be correct or incorrect.

Sure Alder I can start with that. So, since the demolition ordinance was updated in January of 2025, the process has been clarified that the landmarks commission is vested with the responsibility for reviewing all proposals for demolition um and for making a determination of their historic value. That historic value is based on three categories as we call them. um category C which is a finding of no known historic value, category B which is a finding of historic value and then category A which is the highest finding of historic value, the highest significance for historic value. After the landmarks commission's review for historic value, their determination about that value is recommended to you. So in this case, that recommendation of an A finding for two of these buildings and a B finding for one of them has been forwarded for your consideration as you review the request for demolition. In the case of the requests for the demolition themselves, um, as Chris noted in his staff report, um, you will compare the information that you have before you related to the historic value and any other information that the landmarks commission or the planning commission has received related to the buildings themselves. um you will consider that and you will make a determination as to whether you can find the standards met to approve the demolition. Um those standards are in uh 281856 section C for your standards of approval. So the commission is not making a determination about the significance the historic significance itself the landmarks I'm sorry let me start over and make sure I said that right. The plan commission is not making a

determination about the historic significance of these buildings. The landmarks commission has already done that for you. They've provided you with your their advisory opinion about the value of these structures that are proposed for demolition. So, it's your responsibility to consider the standards then for whether they can be approved for demolition. Um those include considering whether the demolition of the building will aid in the implementation of adopted plans and the purpose statement of the ordinance. Um you can consider how the demolition and redevelopment relates to those adopted plans in your consideration. The other standard of approval is that you can find that there are factors that outweigh the public interest in preserving historic resources. And that can include things like um it does not have to include but it may include things like uh the condition of the building. um if the building has historic value, if that that value has been so altered that it cannot convey its historical associations or if there is known information about structural fire hazards, unlawful use of the property, etc. Again, those are some examples of factors you may consider and not are not the only ones that you may consider. So really, it's your job to determine based on what you know and what's been recommended to you whether you can find those two things are met. Thank you, Director Tol. That answers my question.

Thanks, Alder Garrett. That may be the key question. Um, other questions for staff. Um, Commissioner Hec,

thank you. Uh, this is probably for Megan. Chris may have some input, too. Uh I I I look at the standards of approval that were just mentioned and and really I see only uh standard one as being uh important in this situation. At least that's the way I read it. And uh I really see it's about the plans. It's kind of uh the downtown plans verbiage which gives a lot of wiggle room uh versus maybe uh even other parts of the downtown plan uh that that have wiggle room in it. For instance, the fact that the hype map is so large in this area uh and and uh and also our our comprehensive plans, goals and and strategies uh and and I I I I'm it's really tough to to weigh those in this situation, but do you agree uh that that's really the the gist of this argument here that the other standard is not really applicable. It's about uh the the various goals and strategies of those plans. I

mean ultimately you do have to consider both as part of your consideration, but I think that probably the piece that um you've identified with standard one as um identifying the plan recommendations as is one of the bigger ones here for you. Um, we've talked about the fact that our plans and policies generally support overall growth and development in the city through redevelopment, infill development, um, in particular for the downtown and also acknowledges that in many cases the existing buildings that we have in our community help contribute to the sense of character and identity of our community and of downtown in particular. We do not have policies in those plans that specifically say for this site this is what you should do in terms of weighing those factors. It does provide higher level guidance like you've acknowledged with the height map or other places where we have policies that indicate um you know for example taller buildings should be set back a bit further from State Street. Um we've clearly identified that State Street is an important character uh an important corridor in that plan. um but we don't have specific policies that tell you how to navigate this conflict. So you have to weigh the broader picture of those goals which are both for growth and for preservation of some iconic buildings.

Thank you. Uh I'll think about that. Um, sorry I dropped Alfred. I think I I think the storm may be also making this connection difficult from uh the Gam House. So, I'm sorry about that. Commissioner Soheim, I see your hand. That's why I'm on my phone. I had the same internet issues um today.

I um have a follow-up question on standard two actually. Um I I do wish we had a more of a building condition report to help kind of review this standard. I know that that is not a requirement and that's a finding may include that but is not limited to that. So that is helpful. Um there's some language in the staff report about, you know, finding that there are factors that outweigh the public interest in preserving it. And there's a mention of, you know, the additional housing units, including affordable housing units. And, you know, I think we've uh been trained a lot about when we can and cannot take affordability into account um for things like land use approvals, conditional use. you know, the the presence or lack thereof of affordability is not a standard we could take into um into our decisions, but it seems like here because this is more related to demolition and public interest that there is an opportunity to weigh that. Am I understanding that correctly? Chris, were you gonna handle this one or do you want me to

I was just going to explain that the the lura is an example of where the applicant is voluntarily um entering into an agreement versus it being exacted like a quid proquo in a sense that it's it's a different um kind of a different structure. I I would just add to that. Yes, Commissioner Soulheim that

um the commission does not have the purview to make specific conditions on a project or to approve or deny um a condition a conditional use, for example, on whether or not a project includes affordable units because of its preemptions under state law. But that is a factor you may consider when you are weighing whether or not there are factors that outweigh the public interest in preservation here. Okay. Um I wonder if uh we're ready to try well ready to try a motion on this. I will um say that uh the way that the agenda is ordered is not quite logically correct. And so what I would like to do is start with um item six, which is the first uh demo. Um let me split my screen and get back to that. Um so we would we would um handle the demolition items first, items six, seven, and eight. then go back to four, five, and then nine. Um, as we move through this group of items on the agenda, um, turn back

chair. Um, as we're getting into this event, just to make sure your um, connection stays as strong as possible. I know we typically like to have videos on, but I may suggest turning off your video just to maintain your connection.

Yeah, I will try that. Sorry about that. Um, all right. So, um, could everybody hear the could you hear what I was talking about the order of Okay, thanks. Um so yes so I would uh like to start with a motion on six which is uh legisar 91233 the uh consideration of a demolition permit for 411 West Gilman Street. Um so I think that's um maybe the that's the one that got a B from the landmarks commission. So that might be the a an easier one to start with anyway. that uh if if uh anyone from the commission is thinking about making a motion.

Commissioner Hec, thank you.

Sure. I'll give this a try. Um I will move that uh plan commission approve the demolition permit to demolish the commercial building at 411 West Gilman and that the standards of approval are met. And I'll add subject to any conditions in the staff report and discussion in the staff report if there are any that are pertinent. Chair Gnam, are you available? I think we may have lost the chair again. Uh, Commissioner Soulheim, if you are able to step in.

All right. Oh, I did come back, but Nicole, if you Nicole, if you would What will you do this motion? And I'm just going to reboot my machine entirely and try to jump back in and see if that helps. So, I'll try in a couple minutes.

Absolutely. Put me in coach. All right. We have a motion and a second on the table. Thank you, Alder Field. Uh, any discussion? Further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, um are there any opposed to unanimous consent? Seeing no raise hands. The motion passes unanimously. All right. And then we'll move on to item seven, legisar 91234 415 West Gilman Street. Do we have a motion for that? Oh, uh, Commissioner Hec,

thanks. I'll uh take a stab at this. Um, I'm going to move that plan commission uh place on file uh the uh demolition permit for 415 West Gilman. and that due to the fact that the standards are not met that I think I can discuss if I get a second. Absolutely. Do we have a second to Commissioner Heck's motion? Commissioner Male, thank you for the second. Commissioner Heck, would you like to

just a bit? I mean I I think in our our questioning I I think uh the the reasoning is um not 100% clear but uh uh I I think that it's it's approval standard one in the demolition standards uh and I find the the uh verbiage particularly in the downtown plan to be applicable in this situation. Uh I I can't even remember in the all the materials that that we received about this, but I do think that uh this particular area is uh in the State Street District of downtown and the language does uh indicate that it's uh that that the 12story height map and and associated adjacent areas um is not a given. They're really meant to be um uh respectful of what's there and what's there in this situation is master hall. And I think that it's an important enough structure uh and and unique enough structure that I I'm not convinced that we should demolish it.

Thank you, Aler. Chair, I'm going to vote against this motion and I'll be prepared with an alternate motion if this one fails. Um, on standard one in particular, it's abundantly clear to me that this is exactly where our plans contemplate more people living. Um, even looking at the succession of the increasing height limit as you move away from State Street, it's evident that our plans envision bigger buildings here and that is consistent with the proposal that this applicant has applied for. And I suppose I am uh hoping this that the plan commission does take the limits in our ordinances as given and that we're willing to consider projects that propose to meet them. Um, this has the best bus service in the city. It is walkable already and within walking distance of many amenities that people want to live by. Um, students and young professionals who commute outside of the downtown. And if um if the developer wants to spend their money to put the housing here and are otherwise proposing to meet our height limits, I support that we let them do so. And I think the public has an overwhelming interest in allowing denser housing here. Um, it's very exciting that this project proposes perhaps around a 100 beds of affordable housing as they'll be required to do if they want to use the parameters in our the height based parameters in our ordinances. Um, but that's not the only factor that I'm considering in my support. I think that the density itself is what justifies this building. Thank you.

Thank you, Alder. Um, should I stay? Let's see. Scroll. Okay. Uh, Commissioner McCill, I think Alderovich was had uh saying that first. It's generally our policy to commissioners first. Nothing against you, Alder. Just trying to follow.

I am somewhat more inclined to support this motion, but not for the reasons that Commissioner Hec um outlined. I'm not really having trouble with substandard one. Um, so I am curious to hear um how anyone else feels substandard 2 is met. It seems to me like the development team put a lot of thought into the the property at 433 um and maybe didn't anticipate the historical value of of 415. So that's where my thinking is right now. Thank you, Commissioner. Um, Alder Okowitz,

chair, uh, chair pro tempor. Um, yeah, for those of you who don't know, this this development is in my district, which is why I'm here to speak tonight. Um, I I met with John last week and talked with him about his landmarks application. Uh, specifically, I'm focused on 415, um, not 433 because of the landmarks application. Um, I am here to speak in support of the project generally and the demolition. Um, I I think Alderfield said it much better than I could that this is a place where people want to live. Um, the impact of the building on this site with regards to State Street is reflected in how our height maps and our zoning requirements require step downs towards State Street. Um, I'm I'm generally not concerned about that. Um, I think the controversial issue here is the historical um the historic value of master hall and specifically with regards to substandard two of the demolition ordinances. Um, I think that the one you should read John's application if you haven't already. It's interesting. Um but two things stick out to me. It's nominated or he's nominating it because of two things. One is the historic um significance with regards to the culture of Madison for its use as a dormatory and the second is its architectural significance as a brutalist building. Um I like brutalist buildings. I have an atlas of brutalist architecture which I have been reading from um through this. I'm going to Montreal soon. I'm going to be visiting Habitat 67, which John mentioned in his comments. Um, and I

actually do kind of like this building. I don't think architecturally it's a showstopper. Um, I think it is similar in a lot of features to the building that I pointed out at 501 Henry Street on Gilman. Um, and I don't think that it is truly a landmark building. Um for the second part of the landmark application, it is somewhat significant in the role that it played in with regards to the transition from um the campus requiring students to live on campus uh or in private dormitories to expanding that and changing them to the rules that we have now where students can live anywhere in the in the city. I think a lot of that could be captured in storytelling, including in this uh developer display. Um, and I'm not convinced that saving this building would help tell that story better. Um, we have other buildings that also tell it, but also it's frankly a story that doesn't quite need a building. Um, my last point that I want to make and specifically why I brought up 501 North Henry Street is it's in the Mansion Hill Local Historic District, but it is not a contributing building. Um, it was built in I don't know the exact date, but the ' 60s or ' 70s. And it is in part because of brutalist modernist buildings like that that we created the local historic districts. and in fact the entire landmarking process locally. Um there were a lot of national things going on as well. But my point is more that I'm interested less in I'm interested in historic buildings but also I'm interested in the processes which brought about historic buildings.

And 501 North Henry Street is a building that would not have existed today um if we had the landmarking process. But today I think is actually a very unique and architecturally impressive structure. You know, we could go back and forth. I'm not an architecture critic. I would call it brutalism. Um but it's not a building that would exist today. All of the things that we're doing right now with regards to historic preservation and um preserving buildings, they are a result of us, our values, our opinions, um the conditions of today, and they don't we're trying to build a Madison for tomorrow. So, I'm just concerned about preserving Master Hall as an emblem when this is a part of the city that is rapidly changing and in fact I think is pretty exemplary of the time period that we're in now. So, sorry to get on my soap box, but thank you.

Thank you. Quick housekeeping question. Should I continue chairing here or pass it over given that we are mid motion discussion? I'm fine either way, but just wanted to check. My thought um Megan can Megan's the secretary. My thought is that it would be better for you to carry the motion from start to finish though. Yeah, I would agree. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Bazine,

I have a question that I think is related to some of what Chris mentioned and other folks have mentioned, but it's actually a question for staff. I think that might help me understand some of the um the conversation. Is it appropriate to ask that right now or do I need to wait on that? That's fine by me. If someone wants to raise their hand to object to that, please do so now. um proceed with your question.

Thank you. I know um earlier Commissioner Soulheim had asked the planning team if they had any report on the condition of 4:15. Um at the time they said they did not. I'm wondering if there's a process or a way uh in which we could allow them the time or space to be able to provide a report on the condition of that building. If the commission felt that a report on the condition of the building were essential to its decisionmaking on the standards and the ordinance, you could uh make a motion to refer with a specific request for what information you're seeking. Does that answer your question, Commissioner?

Yes. Okay. Are there any other I guess I can ask if there's any other questions since we're in uh allowing that or any other comments, discussion on the motion? other you care. Uh thank you uh deputy chair whatever the proper term is um I think we'll find that there is no uh serious uh structural impediment for a longer life for uh the building we're talking about right now. Um, I do think that older Fields comments on the applicability of the plans and standard number one is the overwhelming issue here. Uh, and persuasive at least as far as I'm concerned and I'll be voting against the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Alder. Any further discussion? Commissioner Sanders.

Thank you. I just feel um I'll get a hand on the ball here since I think everyone's kind of spoken up, but um I am similarly struggling with standard 2. Um I appreciate the thorough reporting uh that everyone's provided to support the historical significance of this building. and uh to kind of continue commissioner Soulheim's questioning from earlier. Um it's I'm just struggling to see that it does meet the criteria in standard 2 about it being um deteriorated or anything like that. So I suppose I would be interested if the development team can provide a report on the current status of 415 that might help us to better understand. Um, I recognize that's not the current motion in question, but I would be willing to raise that as an alternative if this one does not go through. Thank you, Commissioner. Any further discussion? If not, we'll go to a roll call vote. Okay. Um, as a matter of procedure here, um, I'm just going to note that because Commissioner Soulheim is chairing the meeting right now, you are considered the chair of the meeting. Um, our chair Gennam, who is not chairing the meeting, is considered a commissioner. Um, so for the purposes of voting, uh, the roles are reversed a little bit here. Um, so as I read the role, just keep that in mind. Megan, just because I was not I wasn't connected when Alder Hec made his motion. Could you

um Alder sorry? Yeah. Could you just repeat the motion? Uh Nicole, would you like to do that or do you want me to do that? Um if you would like to repeat it, that would be helpful. Thank you, Megan. Okay. So the motion on the floor is a motion by Commissioner Hec and seconded by Commissioner Mahel to place the demolition of 415 West Gilman on file due to not finding the standards met. So a vote in favor would be to place it on file and a vote opposed would not be for that. Thanks. Uh so beginning with Alderfield. No

Alder Glenn. No Alder Yugare. No Commissioner Bazine. No. Commissioner Hec. Yes. Commissioner McCay Hill. Yes. Commissioner Sanders. No. Commissioner Soulheim. I'm sorry. We're gonna skip over that. Uh uh. Chair Gnam. No. Okay, the uh five votes are needed to pass a motion. So, the motion fails. Thank you, Megan. Alder Field.

Thank you, Chair. I move that the plan commission find the standards met for a demolition permit at 415 West Gilman Street and approve item seven on the agenda. We have a second from Alder Glenn. Looks like Alder Field. Would you like to expand on that at all?

Yes, briefly. So, in addition to the comments that I shared before on the previous motion, I wanted to come back to the question of standard 2, which I didn't address. There are factors that are found to outweigh the public interest in preserving historic resources. And then there's a list of may include but is not limited to. Um I believe this is where the public interest can cons is where we can consider the possibility of an applicant voluntarily participating in our policy that allows for a land use restriction um to ensure affordable housing at some level in exchange for exceeding our height limits. And so I think I just wanted to highlight that it's a pretty unique opportunity to guarantee permanent affordable housing for students in the downtown. that that's a really big deal. And um we don't see traditional tax credit properties to guarantee submarket rate housing for students because the tax credit system, the program doesn't is not built to suit students as the tenants. Um this is kind of our strategy now for finding affordable housing in new housing stock in the rapidly changing downtown. And so I am excited to see these opportunities where we can find them. And for me that helps to meet standard 2 in addition to my previous comments about the other standards. Um in summary I find the standards met. Thank

thank you Alder. Okay we have a motion and a second. I'm thinking it probably makes sense to do a roll call vote here as well. Presuming I'm sorry. Go ahead if you're I'm happy to call the role if you're ready. Sorry for interrupting. Yes. No. Go ahead. Thank you. Okay. Uh so this is for a motion to approve the demolition and find the standards met. Alderfield. Hi. Alder Glenn. Hi. Alder Ugar. Hi. Commissioner Bosine.

No. Commissioner Hec. No. Commissioner McCill, no. Commissioner Sanders, no. All right. And Chair Gnome. Um, yes. Yes. But I think that may not be five.

That is not five. So that motion fails by not achieving five votes in favor. Okay, we have two failed motions. Um, I think there's likely Commissioner Sanders. Go ahead.

Thank you. Um, I would like to move to refer the consideration of the demolition permit to demolish 415 West Gilman Street to a future plan commission meeting. Um, I'm not informed enough to have a good sense of how long it might take for the applicant team to do a uh study and report on the conditions of the building, but if staff have advice on uh a good timeline to refer that, I would appreciate it.

Thank you, Commissioner Sanders. Do we have a second to that motion? Commissioner Mcahill with the second. Um, Commissioner Sanders, any further comments on that? I think you covered it pretty well, but want to give you an opportunity for discussion. Thank you. Uh, I'm still clearly wrestling with this because I think Alderfield made some very good persuasive comments about weighing the public interest as well. Um, but it really felt to me this evening that um, I just want to make sure that the applicant team has a chance to do their due diligence and address this too and get their perspective. Um, I appreciate that we've gotten a lot of public comment and information about it, but um, I just feel it would be, uh, in the good faith of developer 2 to just give them that opportunity seeing that they've tried really hard to incorporate a lot of the architectural themes of, uh, 433 into this. So, um, just hoping to get a little bit more context.

Thank you, Commissioner Sanders. Um, I'm going to go quickly to Megan. I see your hand raised. Mr. Soulheim, I apologize. I'm actually raising a point of order and a procedural um issue here that this is my fault uh when we were conducting the um vote on the last item. As chair, since there was a tie vote, you were eligible to vote um in order to break that tie. Um, so I believe it would probably procedurally be most appropriate if you would like to um reopen that item and finish the voting on that item before we take a vote on this motion.

Yes, good catch. Thank you. Um, we will reopen the last motion. Um, does that mean you just need me to vote or decide not to vote if I recall correctly? Yes, you need to either vote I or nay or abstain from voting. Thank you. I will vote um nay actually. Okay. So then the motion fails. We're five votes in opposition. Okay. Sorry about that. And thank you.

No. Good catch. All right. We are back to Commissioner Sanders motion seconded by Commissioner McCay Hill to move it may be appropriate I suppose Megan to maybe just select the next meeting date and the applicant to can decide to refer if they need more time. I I feel like we usually like to select a date before the motion is finalized. Yes, I would recommend that so that we can keep this moving. So your next regularly scheduled meeting is April 13th. Okay, I support commission referring it to April 13th.

Thank you, Commissioner Sanders. Okay, I think we are back to a roll call vote then. This might be a record for us in one meeting of roll call votes. Okay. Um so again the motion here is to refer to April 13th with the specific request for the conditions report. Um, Alderfield. Hi. Alder Glenn. Hi. Alder Ugare. Hi. Commissioner Bazine. I.

Commissioner Hec. Hi. Commissioner McCill. Yes. Commissioner Sanders. Hi. Chair Gnat. I think I saw an I. Didn't hear it, but I saw. Yes. Okay. Uh, the motion passes. Okay. Um, would it make sense to refer the remaining items then?

So, I think the commission can decide. Um, you have another demolition that can be decided on independent of the rest of the project. Um but I believe in the staff report we did recommend um that you would consider referring the other items um based on your discussion. I think it would be helpful to take the remaining demolition just in case there are comments additional information requested that arises out of discussing that motion that the development team could also work on. Um, I think I should pass this over to Chair Gnam and she can figure out these hard questions.

Thanks.

I do think that rebooting my computer was helpful. So, I'm sorry that you got the most complicated motion that we've had in like 6 months. So, thank you for taking that. Um, yeah. So, I I actually agree for item eight. Um I I'm curious whether uh the commission is interested in having information about that or interested in approving or placing it on file. So I would open item 8 for um perhaps a motion um including a motion to if we're going to refer item 7 to April 13th. We could also just refer um four, five, eight, and nine to April 13th as well. But let's but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's start with item eight. Was there a motion on item 8, which is the the demo for 433 West Gilman Commissioner? Thanks. Thank you. Um, since we are moving to the next meeting, um, I would offer a motion to refer item 8 to the April 13th meeting and request um, a report or photos um, particularly touching on the integrity of the building. There was some reference in the historical report um referencing interior integrity and you know some things that have been moved over time in terms of you know units combined and interior renovations and loss of integrity and that would be helpful to see in photographic evidence.

Um Commissioner Sanders second. Thank you. Um any further I feel like you I think that explanation is sufficient. Is there any discussion on the motion to refer with the request for a condition report for 433 West Gilman? All right. Um seeing none, we'll call a vote on this item and I'll start with is there objection to unanimous approval? I think we may have gotten unan unanimous on the last vote. So is there objection to unanimous approval for the referral with request for condition report? All right, seeing none, um that uh will approve the referral of item eight to the next meeting and then we will uh now need to go back to um item four which um Megan, can you remind us on item four because I did I closed that window. Sorry.

Item four is uh consideration of reszoning the property from downtown core to urban mixed juice. Yeah, I think the Alderfield. Thank you. I move that the plan commission find that standards for reasonzoning are met and advance legisar 90916 to the common council with a recommendation for approval. Thanks Alder. Second. Thank you. Um Alderfield, any further commentary? Uh nothing to add. Thank you.

Okay. Um any discussion from the commission? Um any objection to unanimous approval uh for the motion to advance on the resoning of 411 West Gilman Street. All right. Seeing none, um item four is approved. Um let's now move to item five, which is the conditional use. Um and that the staff recommendation there uh given the actions on the demolition items would be to refer Megan. Would we want to refer that also to April 13th? Yeah. So I'd be looking for a motion to refer that item. Um Alderfield, thank you. And Alder, thank you. Um any objection to unanimous approval for referral of the conditional use um application? All right, seeing none, um that item is referred. And then we have item nine, which is um approval of the certified survey map um of the property at 411 to 433 West Gilman Street. And this one um Megan I

this one can be acted upon. Um okay an item that the commission is recommending to the council. Thank you. Yep. Um Alderfield. Thanks chair. I'll move that the plan commission um recommend approve forward legisar 90618 to the common council with a recommendation of approval.

Thanks Alerfield. Alder second. Thank you. Um any discussion? All right. Seeing none, any objection to unanimous approval for um referring moving the the certified survey map recommendation forward. Great. We will that one will be approved. All right. Thanks. Um thanks everybody for hanging in. That was a um deep discussion. And I think we have one one more coming up. So we will move to um items 10, 11, and 12 um which will be taken together as one public hearing. Um and Megan, do you would you mind reading the leg legisar items for those?

Okay. Legism 10 is I'm sorry. Agenda item 10 is legar 91459 5534 medical circle consideration of a demolition permit to demolish a commercial building in district 19. Item 11 is legar 91512 555 Odana Road and 5534 Medical Circle urban design district 3 and district 19. Consideration of a conditional use in the commercial corridor transitional CCT district for dwelling units in a mixeduse building with greater than 60 units and consideration of a conditional use in the CCT district for a building taller than 5 stories and 78 ft. All to allow construction of a six-story mixeduse building containing approximately 1,300 square ft of commercial and 154 dwelling units adjacent to Odana Road and a five-story mixed juice building with 6450 ft of commercial space and 73 dwelling units adjacent to Medical Circle. And finally, item 12, leg 91514, approving a certified survey map of property owned by BHP LLC located at 5555 Odana Road and 5534 Medical Circle, also in District 19.

Thanks, Megan. Um, we will start with a staff presentation on this project.

Thank you, chair, and members of the planning commission. Uh the so I'll skip that. Um, the applicant is be is seeking approval to construct a six-story mixeduse building on the north end of the site with 154 units and 1,300 ft² of commercial space, which I understand is kind of retail or service and a five-story mixeduse building with 73 units and roughly 6,500 ft of commercial space, which I understand is going to be a kind of a medical uh office space on the uh south side of the site oriented towards medical circle. Uh overall staff believe that the proposal can be found to gener to be generally consistent with the comprehensive plan and the west area plan. Um both of which recommend a six-story um uh community mixeduse development, the northern half of the site along road and then up to a fivetory unemployment use fivetory building of employment uses on the southern half of the site. um along the medical circle. Uh regarding the CSM, do you combine the lots staff believe that the standards of approval for land divisions can be found met and the CSM can be forwarded with the recognition of approval. Regarding the demolitions, uh there are two proposed. So, similar to the previous example, uh the previous item, the uh there are two buildings on the site for 555 Odana Road. The landmarks commission found that that building had no historic value uh and assigned it as a category C finding. However, for the office building at 5534 Medical Circle, they made a category A finding uh again the most significant finding quote for the historic value of historic value as a work/prouct of an architect of note Marshall Erdman and

because the medical building would be contributing to a potential historic district for medical circle. The loss of one building, the loss of one of the buildings that currently comprise a potential district would negatively impact the likelihood of creating that historic district in the future." Considering the recommendation of the lands commission, the planning division again cannot definitively conclude that those standards are met. Um to approve the plan commission we need to find the standards for demolition and permits for the building uh for the medical circle building are met and we need to identify specific factors that are that have contributed to that finding. Similarly with the other item uh staff are recommending that um you consider the report of the historic preservation plan or the actions of the landmarks commission and the city's adopted plans that you have previously done u with the previous item. Um the the applicant is requesting two conditional uses in the CCT district. One for um more than 60 dwelling units in a mixeduse building and for a building exceeding five stories in height. Just one note with that second one about the height that it only pertains to the building to the north. uh as it it's six stories and it due to the changes in grade it's um there's portion the southern southern bit of that northern building that is I think seven seven stories um uh while um staff believe that conditioning standards 1 through six and 8 and 11 are applicable uh staff believes that plan commission defined standards one two and six are met and then the staff report goes into detail about um standards 3, five, and 8. I'll try to kind of breeze through the

recommendations in the report. Um standard conditional use standard 4 um related to the normal and orderly development. Um the staff noted the applicants made several design changes over the kind of the evolution of the project. um including adding in nearly as much office and commercial space as is proposed to be demolished at on medical circle establishing greater consistency with the attended development of the area. Um staff note that it that there shared access and parking for adjacent usage within the block that enable the contin continued use and future redevelopment of those sites um in a more substantial and flexible manner than would be possible without the shared vehicular access. Um that's I know that was a a large element to to the um building moving through discussions with with staff that it would allow a shared parking I believe with the um the pool um to the to the east. Uh further we're related um so with that staff believe that standard four can be found met uh related to standard five which deals with the adequate um the provision of utilities such as burial roads, drainage, material and circulation. Again talking about the um increased uh the shared access um and um the traffic flow kind of helping to break up the block. uh traffic engineering who I believe Sean Louie uh is available or potentially uh attending currently on the meeting. Anyways, uh traffic engineering completed a uh trip generation comparison like a kind of a TIA study, traffic impact analysis. Um and they found that uh the new development would generate at most 150

additional vehicle trips per day, an increase of 10 to 15% over the current condition or about 1% of the traffic volume segment on Odana Road. Um staff note that this increase is for the entire site which if developed would allow vehicular access both from the north and the south while the current um condition of the site only you know you can only go north from the northern portion and south from the southern portion. Uh with that staff believes that standard five can be found met related to standard 11 which is um uh deals with uh height additional height than what is allowed in the district. Uh the commissioner talks about you know the planning commission shall consider recognitions and adopted plans impact of surrounded properties including height and mass orientation shadows in view architectural quality and amenities relationship of the proposed building to adjoining streets etc. Um staff note that the the you know again there's the issue of the height. Um there's five or six stories. So it it's um the again the building to the south does not require conditional use. Um I mentioned the the plans recommending six stories for the northern portion. Uh staff acknowledge the kind of inconsistency with uh the southern portion of the northern building uh falls into the area that is recommended for five stories. Um and as I mentioned with with the grade dropping off there is the uh um it is seven stories at that point. Um so careful consideration should be given to the surrounding context um and the resulting impacts um as noted u kind of in the staff report. Um there are some other developments that um have fallen into kind of a

similar situation uh that have been approved. Staff u while staff remains concerned about the the precedent of approved height above what is recommended in adopted plans. Staff believes that it may be possible for the planning commission to find standard 11 met based on contextual considerations and the fact that that the majority of the building lies within the community mixed use the the sixtory recommend re height recommendation where it is consistent with the plan recommendations. Um see um there are sorry lastly um approval standard 8 which rec um deals with the um the aesthetics um and the building's design staff note that the um sorry one second the note that over the kind of the evolution of discussions with the design team they have responded ed to staff's um recommendations for changes to the landscaping, general design, building and layout, artificial details, building materials. Uh and staff believes that the proposed um better creates a quote environmental environment of sustained aesthetic desire desiraability as required by the approval standard. Um and the urban design commission has recommended a number of conditions which are listed in the report. Um and the uh plans h have been updated um to um based largely on on the feedback that was given about the dog uh the dog run area shifting away and increasing the landscaping along the southern kind of the southern property. but adjacent to the um monatory school that is to the souththeast

um and a number of other changes of which are outlined in the um the staff report. Um so that said um staff believe that if the planning commission is able to find all applicable standards of of of approval met should approve the requested conditional uses. However, um again, as with the previous staff report, if if it cannot find the standards for demolition for the building at 5534, um staff does not believe that the commission can then also find the conditional use standards met. Um and should either place the request on file without prejudice or refer the request to a future building to allow the applicant to redesign the site to retain the medical circle building. Uh lastly, staff have received a large number of written public comments regarding this application that have been attached to the legislative file files for this request. Uh staff note that the applicant submitted a revised letter of intent earlier today uh in which they have responded to many of the concerns and speaking to the conditioning to the to the various standards for approval. um but largely in response to the concerns that have been um voiced in the public comments. With that, I will uh be happy to answer questions after the public hearing.

Thanks. Thanks, Chris. We do have registrance for this item, so we'll open the public hearing. Um we do again, I think we have a um pool time presentation. Um and then uh other than the group that has pulled their time, we'll stick to our three minute limit for public comments and we'll give a reminder before um between a minute and a half a minute before the time is up. So, thank you.

Okay. Um as I read these names, I will try to read ahead a little bit and let folks know who's coming um up in the queue. We do have a long list of speakers for this item. Um, I'll also note that we have a large number of attendees that are here listed under a phone number only. We do need you to try to update that so that we can see your name in order to help facilitate our technical uh support to get you um into the speaking queue. So, we'll first hear from the applicant team who have requested to pull their time. This includes uh Nick Orman representing Odana Apartments LLC and Bear Development, Adam Templer representing Bear Development, and Patrick Terry representing JL JLA Architects. We will have nine total minutes.

Just one second on the on the slides. I'm just having clear issues as the Are you ready? Okay.

Thank you. All right. Um, Nick, I see you're unmuted. When you're ready to start, uh, you have the floor. All right. Can you guys hear me? Okay, we can. Thanks.

All right. Thank you. Well, good evening, commissioners. I'm Nick Worthman, uh, director of development with air development, developer for the proposed project here on Odana Road and Medical Circle. As mentioned, we've got Adam Templer, our VP of development on the call, as well as design team members from JLA and JSD. So, at a high level, what we're looking to do here is 227 units of affordable housing and 7,000 square ft of commercial space. Uh, next slide, please. So, this is the project site. It has frontage along both Odana Road and Medical Circle. We're just west of Whitney Way. Uh, currently two tax parcels, which we're proposing to combine via a CSM. And as shown on the aerial, uh, we have several neighbors. Uh, we've been in contact with each of them. Uh we've had many different designs and updates as we work with staff, neighbors, EDC, and we think we've landed on a design which is consistent with the land use plan and zoning requirements. It really doesn't negatively impact any of the surrounding land uses. Next slide, please. So, this is our site plan. It shows building placement, the drive aisle, and parking layout. Uh two key pieces of early feedback from staff was the importance of maintaining a continuous drive that connects Odana to medical circle and also providing enhanced pedestrian circulation. You can see how that shaped the configuration of both buildings uh in blue and then the pedestrian paths in red. Uh at the bottom of this slide, which is the east side of building A, is a shared access drive aisle and parking area, which benefits our site, the Westside Swim Club, and Heritage Square Shopping Center. These agreements will be continued and actually enhanced as part of our development. Uh building A on Odana Road is six stories. Building B on Medical Circle is five stories. As mentioned in the staff report, uh both building heights are consistent with the West area plan. Uh the

building along Odana is six stories and there's a partially exposed basement on the southern end. It's not seven stories. It's just a a condition where the gray drops off of it as we move south. Um you know, additionally, some early feedback from staff was also doing what we can to preserve the 18-inch honeyloust tree on medical circle. So, didn't make its way quite into the drawings, but you can see the snip in the upper right hand side of the screen where we've rec reconfigured the access drive uh to be able to protect that tree long term. Next slide, please. This is our building design. Uh it shows the elevations and pallets just so you guys can get a feel for what we're what we're proposing. Uh as noted, we did receive additional approval from the urban design commission. Uh the conditions focused you know mostly on landscaping as well as some ancillary updates to the east facade. Uh no updates to building footprint or height. Next slide please. So as part of the project we're seeking a demolition permit for the building on medical circle which was driven by the landmark commission designation. you know, the landmark commission meeting, they did confirm that the building itself is not historically significant or architecturally significant, but it could potentially be part of a future historic district along Medical Circle with the adjacent buildings. So, we looked at the two conditions for demolition approval and feel that we meet both of them. Uh, the first of which is that our proposal for the site is consistent with the adopted west area plan, which specifically designates these parcels as part of a development corridor. you know, really as we see it, there's no way to implement the West area plan without demolishing older obsolete buildings. So, demolition is really the primary mechanism uh to achieve the plan's agreed upon goals. Also of note, uh the West area plan does not mention this building or medical circle on its list of historic resources

or potential historic districts on page 41. Next slide, please. Uh second condition is that the benefits of our proposal outweigh the benefit in preserving the building. Uh the first thing to point out here is that keeping the building is not economically feasible. The long-term occupant and former owner Madison Psychiatric is relocating. Uh they chose to do so before knowing about our proposed redevelopment. And really that was driven by the need for you know new modern space but also the significant amount of deferred maintenance in the building. Uh the current owner had a property condition report done shows significant work that needs to be done just to attempt to extend the building's useful life which doesn't account for any interior buildout or site work that would need to happen to attract a new tenant. Uh it's it's simply not economically feasible to do anything with the the current building. Next slide please. So, you know, importantly, as part of the the demolition, you know, even though we're proposing to remove the existing building, uh, our project does replace the commercial square footage that is lost with new modern space that we think will attract a new user and is consistent with the employment goals for the site. By including the buildout of the new space and the comprehensive redevelopment of the site, it does become economically feasible. Next slide, please. Uh lastly, with respect to the landmark commission's designation, we are willing to do a variety of things to document this building in the context of Marshall Erdman and medical circle. This includes asbuilt floor plans, taking high quality interior and exterior photos, and then also looking at doing an installation or exhibit in the lobby that pays homage to Marshall Erdman Erdman Design Medical Circle. We've discussed this directly with Marshall Urgent's son Tim who documented this in his public comment. Uh Tim also shared in his public comment that in his opinion this building and

the rest of medical circle is not historically relevant. Next slide. So switching gears a bit to the conditional use side of the approval. We started this project by looking towards the city's planning framework. You know most relevantly being the west area plan adopted in 2024. You know, the plan calls for complete neighborhoods, affordable housing near schools, and transitioning this area through redevelopment. The height map on screen here also recommends six stories on Madana, five stories on Medical Circle as discussed in the staff report. So, from an overall standpoint, we're just trying to implement the plan that the city agreed upon and adopted for this area. Next slide. Uh CCT zoning uh is the underlying zoning designation for the these sites. Uh we're we're consistent here. Uh and the the zoning district really just encourages mixed use and transformation. Next slide. So from an ordinance standpoint, you know, there's eight relevant standards that we need to meet for the conditional use. Uh we think we meet them all. The staff report covered most of this in detail, but given the public comment and uh overall dialogue around the project, we felt it was worth further discussing how we meet standards 3 and 11. Three relates to the impact on neighboring properties and 11 is for excess height. You know, first we'd like to emphasize that our project respects and maintains the existing access and parking agreements that were mentioned earlier with the Westside Swim Club and Heritage Square Shopping Center, which has been discussed uh with both of the property owners in detail. Next slide, please. Second, we've had several discussions with the Monastery School and have made plan updates as a result. You know overall with respect to the school we think that housing next to schools are very compatible uses and actually positive uh the west area plan specifically calls for this and the staff report has cited several examples in Madison where multifamily housing and

schools exist successfully adjacent to each other. So, as shown here, we we addressed two major concerns of the school by moving a resident dog run off of the property line into an area that's isolated between our buildings and replaced it with significant landscaping buffer and privacy fence. Uh, this provides better safety and privacy for the school. Additionally, uh, our UDC conditions uh, both review of the privacy fence in detail and additional landscaping along the south property line. So, this will be enhanced and reviewed further. Uh, next slide please. This is just the progression that shows the before and after before we move to dog park. Next slide please. This is the south elevation of the uh building A which uh is as mentioned before six stories and we reviewed the impact of this you know in detail.

You have about 30 seconds left just to plan your time. Okay. We thought this was good context for the discussion. uh the sixth floor, you know, aligns with the west area plan and it creates an additional 29 units of affordable housing. Uh we don't think that the the move from five floors to six floors materially impacts how the the site is experienced. And you know, building A doesn't have any shadow impact on the school regardless of how tall it is because it's situated north of the school. Next slide, please. I'm going to give you a good wrap up. There may be time for questions for your team um later, but yeah.

Okay. Certainly. Yeah. Just really quickly, these are the shadow studies that show, you know, limited to no impacts on the neighbors. And specifically, you know, the the marginal difference between five stories and six stories is essentially non-existent. So, uh, we think that the sixth floor is is totally compatible in this location. Um, so I'll wrap it up. I mean, in summary, you know, we think we're just trying to implement the city's agreed upon planning goals for the site and we we meet the vision of the plan and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Okay. Um, next we're going to hear from Stacy Brunner, who is also with the applicant team. Um, BHP LLC registered in support and wishing to speak. After Stacy, we're going to hear from Diana Wang and then from Todd Dale, if you can be prepared. Awesome. Yeah, we can. Thanks.

Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. I uh I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you tonight. My name is Stacy Bruner. I'm a principal member of BPH LLC, the current ownership group uh for 5534 Medical Circle. Uh speaking tonight in support of the approval of a demolition permit at the subject property with my time, I'd like to just briefly highlight a few points regarding the potential historic designation of of said property. First and foremost, the building has already become functionally obsolete. The long-term owner and current tenant, Madison Psychiatric Associates, is definitely leaving. Their their decision to vacate was made long before any development plans were in discussion. Uh MPA originally owned and has occupied the building for decades. They they actually made the decision to sell the property to our group November of 2024 because the building no longer worked for their operational needs. The layout, the infrastructure, the overall functionality simply just they just don't meet the modern standards. uh for what MPA needed to to function properly. The vacancy that's coming is not speculative. They're for sure leaving and is has not been created by talks of development. It's happening because the building itself no longer meets the needs of the tenant who called it home for over 40 years. In addition, the building is is frankly deteriorating and it would be extremely costly to rehabilitate. To better understand the condition of the exterior, we hired an established contractor to complete an objective review of the roof, siding, and exterior envelope. That report, which is included with our public comments along with photos, estimates that it would cost over a quarter of a million dollars just to repair the exterior of the building while maintaining it in its current form. That number doesn't include the failing parking lot, the large landscaping and tree removal cost, or the numerous interior issues identified internally by uh Madison Psychiatric Associates uh

which they uh as Nick had mentioned, they submitted via public comment. When you combine all of these costs, it becomes extremely difficult to see a path where this building could realistically be rehabbed and leased in a way that makes economic sense. Lastly, we've already seen what can happen with similar properties on Medical Circle. Another Erdman building at 5520 which is similar very similar in age and architecture has remained largely vacant for well over a decade. It reflects the reality that these types of buildings are difficult to repurpose under modern codes or operational needs. My concern is that a historic designation at 5534 could lead to a similar outcome that would be long-term vacancy and actually underutilization rather than meaningful preservation. I respectfully ask that the commission not designate 5534 Medical Circle as historic and that the demolition permit be approved. I thank you all for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Okay. Next speaker is Diana Wang registered in opposition and wishing to speak. After that is Todd Dale and then Aaron Catz. Hello. Can you hear me? We can. Welcome. Thanks.

Thank you. Good evening commissioners. My name is Diana Wong. I am a board member and parent of at Montasuri Children's House. For 60 years, MCH has been a cornerstone of the Madison community, a year-round in anchor serving children from age 18 months through 11, including a summer program that brings our alumni back year after year. This fall is personal is a personal milestone for me. My eldest daughter will graduate and my youngest will finally start his first year. He has been visiting this school since the week he was born. However, if this project is approved as proposed, the 24-month construction window will cover the entirety of my son's preschool career. For him and every child in his cohort, school will be defined by jackhammers, dust, and diesel exhaust. MCH is uniquely vulnerable because the belt line sits immediately to our south. Placing a six-story U-shaped massing to our north and west creates a pollution pocket. We are concerned this will act as an acoustic mirror reflecting highway noise back onto the playground and a wind block that traps PM2.5 particulate matter. Staff comparisons to other schools are a false equivalency. Those schools sit on open grids not pinned against a major highway. We require a CFD airflow model and acoustic impact report. We cannot risk trapping toxic air where children, some as young as 18 months, spend their entire day. We specifically asked the commission to decouple the parcels. The development at 5534 Medical Circle should remain a separate parcel that matches the human scale professional buildings of the street. Crucially, decoupling eliminates the need for a through road around the playground. This road would invite shortcut traffic onto our narrow street, endangering children during drop off. By keeping these parcels separate, we maintain the safe traffic patterns that have protected our students for decades. Furthermore, we asked that the footprint of 555 Odana be modified to match the existing footprint of the neighboring 5577 Adana building. This combined with a mandatory 15- ft stepback at the third story is essential to preserve the sky

and prevent a sheer vertical wall from looming over our playground. If we are building for the future, let's build for families. We request that 5534 Medical Circle prioritize two and threebedroom units. Finally, we require a formal construction parking plan and a developer funded mitigation fund to cover environmental improvements or temporary relocation. A child's entire preschool experience should not be treated as collateral damage for a development project. Madison's comprehensive plan prioritizes access to quality child care. After 60 years of serving the city, MCH deserves a neighbor that respects its existence. Please refer this item until the developer proves this won't destroy the safety of our children's environment. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, next we will hear from Todd Dale um district unknown from Verona, Wisconsin, registered in opposition and wishing to speak. Hi, can you hear me? We can. Thanks. Welcome.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Todd Bale. I'm a parent at Montasuri Children's House. One of the most important decisions we make as parents is where our children go to school, especially in those first years. A child's brain reaches 90% of its adults size by age five. These are the foundational years for the emotional regulation and life skills that will carry them through the rest of their lives. When we chose MCH, we did so after touring five different schools. It was a decision we knew with absolute certainty was right for our family, and very few of those are known as parents. Seeing my daughter grow over the last 3 years, seeing the person she's becoming, has been incredible. It fills me with sadness to know that if this construction goes through, her little brother won't get that same experience. He starts this fall. Because he would be attending for 3 years, this construction would cover the majority of his time there. I hate the fact that his formative years may be defined by school relocation, surprise closures, or unsafe conditions instead of a peaceful place to learn. I understand we aren't literally tearing a school down today, but we are deciding its viability. A nonprofit school cannot absorb a loss in enrollment because parents feel a playground is no longer private, sunny, or safe. MCH has been a core partner in raising Madison's children for 60 years. We shouldn't let this project be its death now. I'm also deeply concerned about this project using suburban mixeduse designation as a loophole to shoehorn a highdensity residential building into a commercial zone where it simply does not fit. By bypassing the standard resoning process, the developer is avoiding the scrutiny of good neighbor requirements that a project of this scale should trigger. This isn't integrated neighborhood planning. It is an opportunistic use of a code that places a massive residential wall directly against a one-story preschool playground. My heart says, "Please don't do this. There's no way this happens without disrupting these children. But if this construction must move forward, I am pleading with you to take every effort

to minimize the impact. We need a plan that ensures the school's long-term survival. If the design cannot be changed to protect the children's privacy and air quality, and if safe day-to-day operations cannot be guaranteed, then a supported relocation must be part of the plan. We cannot leave these families stranded. I know more housing is generally a good thing for our city. Let's make sure we consider the collateral damage. I just want my son to get the same wonderful, valuable experience his big sister had and all the kids of the MCH community. Thank you. Thanks, Dad.

Okay. Um, our next speaker is Aaron Katz of District 11, registered in opposition and wishing to speak. After Aaron, we'll have Margaret Corkco and then Mitch Olsen. Hello. Oh, is my microphone working? It is. Welcome.

Hello. Uh, thank you, chair, director, commissioners, and alders. I'd like to bring to your attention the pattern of dismissal of safety concerns that are being raised by the community here regarding this development. We're being sold that the impact of introducing commercial space right next to the preschool is minimal. that the impact of 227 new apartments jammed in on an already suffocating congested set of roads in that Odana Whitney Beltline area. Anyone who works there knows will be minimal. Traffic engineering said 10% increase. I would like to see uh the report on that that um yeah impact of a six-story tall building overshadowing the kids playground minimal impact of construction minimal air quality concerns minimal concern noise pollution minimal concerns. impact of the balconies that would be like looking over the playground, facing the playground where children are playing, that could be potentially occupied by registered sex offenders. Don't worry, they'll put up a cheap 6-ft vinyl fence. This does not fit into the space. It doesn't fit into the neighborhood. It violates standard three. I thought Todd's comments just now uh uh did a really good job highlighting that it neither addresses the affordable uh housing situation that we have here in Madison. I will have you look at the applicants own uh slides showcasing brand new German cars in all of the parking lots um spaces. So, you know, $100,000, $200,000 cars for a so-called

affordable uh uh housing area. Um, it doesn't play nice with the uh incredibly important child care facility whose sole request is don't harm the kids. So, why would anyone be in support of this? Well, financial gain awaits some of the people who are in support of this project. The money funding this is public. Our tax dollars go funding this, but the profit is private. We know that one or more members of the Urban Design Commission will benefit financially if this project moves forward. Members of this commission, the most vulnerable in our community need you to step up here.

About 30 seconds left. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Just as an afterthought uh uh for my remaining time, we have dozens of eyesore lots within a stones throw of the same spot. We got the abandoned westside transfer point. We got the abandoned Cub Foods. Um is this really the spot for this? I yield the rest of my time. Thank you. Your next speaker is Margaret Por Margaret Porco of District 11, registered in opposition and representing the Madness Children's House. Hi, thank you. Can you hear me? We can. Welcome. Thanks.

All right. My name is Margaret Porco. I'm the board president of Montasuri Children's House. I'm also a former student. The teachers who shaped my earliest years are some of the same teachers my own children have learned from. That continuity across generations is exceedingly rare and part of what it is at stake tonight. MCH has served Madison's children for over 60 years. We're not opposed to development and we support affordable housing. But the commission cannot approve this project simply because it meets minimum dimensional standards. It must affirmatively find that all approval standards are satisfied. I believe they are not. This will impair our uses and negatively impact our property and operations. This project requires excavating a two-level belowrade parking garage as part of building A. This occurs within 75 ft of an active playground used daily by children as young as 18 months. The vibration, ground movements, noise, dust, and air quality impacts of that scale of excavation immediately next to a preschool will prevent required outdoor time, compromise nap environments, and expose children to conditions research shows impair cognitive development as well as just general health issues. We have made our concerns clear to the developer and the only commitment made has been the relocation of a dog run that poses a liability to them as well. Building A is not just taller than anything currently adjacent. It is far larger, far closer to our shared lot line and will create residential units with windows and balconies in direct elevated sight lines over our playground. This conflicts with our licensing, security protocols, and famil family's reasonable expectations. I would suggest everybody take a look at one of the comments from March 13th that

has a 3D rendering including the school and topography for better context than has been provided. Given construction impacts over two years and the imposition of the mass and scale of building A after the fact, enrollment will decline. Our financial viability as a nonprofit will be impaired. These are not speculative harms. They are the foreseeable consequence of placing a building of this size and mass this close to a school. A greater setback is not an extraordinary ask. It is a reasonable accommodation that begins to address what this scale of development imposes on our school. We have about 40 seconds left. Margaret.

Okay. Thank you. Madison has built its character on something rare. The west side represents this in that it still has locallyowned small businesses, historic architecture, and neighborhood institutions with soul. Every time we approve a development that ignores scale, ignores context, and ignores the people already invested, we chip away at the character. These businesses and buildings cannot be rebuilt once they're gone. I also want to make the commission aware that I've been notified that a number of comments that were sent in much earlier in the week have not been included in the file. Thank you. Thank you, Margaret.

Okay, our next speaker is Mitch Olsen of District 4, registered in opposition and also representing the Monasury Children's House. After that, we'll hear from Rihanna Drinkwater and Laura Baldium. All right, this is Mitch Olsson. Can you hear me? and weekend. Welcome. Thanks.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, my name is attorney Mitch Olsen with the Axley firm in Madison. I practice land use and zoning across the state of Wisconsin. Um, I'm retained by the Montasauri Children's House at 5530 Medical Circle um to represent their interest in this matter. I was able to submit a letter to the plan commission earlier today um and want to highlight a few things from that. Um, we are opposed to this proposal and we base it on I want to highlight the code that the committee has to make their decisions upon. Um, the chapter 28.183 you're required to consider the impact on neighboring land and the public need and you've already heard substantial testimony about those topics. Um the 28.183 sub6 standards 1 and three I believe are relevant and have not been met here. Number one says that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, general welfare. And standard three says 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. Now that first standard when it talks about establishment that means basically creating or constructing the facilities that would be permitted here. Um it's not a situation where these largecale buildings can just appear overnight. It's a long-term process of demolition, excavation, and construction. Um and a building of that height adds extra complications.

Um this is all taking place, the boundary is roughly 100 ft from the wall of that building a to the rear side of the school's playground. And there's going to be construction work in between those two, narrowing the distance even further. That's I think anyone would agree unacceptable to have that amount of dust, noise, and the safety risks associated with a large scale construction project immediately adjacent to the playground for young children that have to be out there 3 hours a day for their own well-being and to meet the expectations of the parents and the code. which we have about 30 seconds left.

In terms of standard number three, the child care center um is an established use. It has to be considered as that. Um the construction impacts and the safety concerns that have been presented here, you know, perching these residences 6 7 ft up and and within 100 ft of the playground again is a serious concern. Um I don't believe the application meets the standards under the act 67. There hasn't shown that there is um significant substantial evidence to support in meeting all the standards and we request that this be deferred or denied. Thank you. Thank you Mitchell.

Our next speaker is Rihanna Drinkwater of District Unknown Wisconsin registered in opposition. Are you able are you able to hear me now? Yes. Welcome.

Okay. Thank you. Um I want to take a minute and talk about safety. It's something that a lot of people have touched on and they've spoken very eloquently about sunlight and pollution and sound pollution. And what they haven't spoken about is something that has unfortunately affected me and that is the violence that is possible and is touching our community. In September of 2018, I was a victim of a workplace shooting in Middleton, Wisconsin. I still carry scars to this day from that incident. I am not untouched by violence and nor is our community. In the summer of 2024, we saw the abundant life shooting that also occurred in Madison. We're seeing this continue to happen within our community, within places we dwell. When I looked at Monasuri, I looked for safety. I looked for a place where my daughter blessed. Rihanna just wanted to note that we've lost your audio time. I sit with my back to the wall. These are things I don't want my child to experience. These are things I don't want any child to experience. Well, we can't do any impact. We don't have any impact on gun control laws within this commission. We do absolutely have impacts to the safety of our children. By putting a six-story building as close to this to the playground as we're proposing,

we directly create opportunities for easy violence. I was 20t away when the man started shooting. My friends who were closer to 100t away were affected as well. Proximity matters. Please consider this. I relinquish my time. Thank you, Rihanna.

Our next speaker is and I apologize, Laura. Uh Laura Valheim. I'm going to try that again. Of district 10 registered in opposition, um also representing Monasuri Children's House. After Laura will be Jim Lbridgeidge and then uh Michael Sin isali. I apologize for all the names tonight. Can you hear me? Okay, we can. Welcome, Laura.

All right. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Laura Kallheim. My husband Jim Lidge and I are the directors of Montasauri Children's House. We finally call MCH at 5530 Medical Circle. I've been with MCH nearly 36 years and in leadership for 20. MCH is a nonprofit 501c3 organization with a parent board of directors and we serve families with children ages 18 months through 10 years of age with the help of our excellent longtime staff with more than 160 years of service at MCH. A remarkable rarity in a field that's plagued with high turnover as probably all of you know. We are statelicicensed, youngstar rated five out of five, city of Madison accredited. We are one of the first preschools accredited when the program was started in the 1970s and the only verified American Monastery Society school in the area. We've been in business for 60 years and we've been located on Medical Circle since 1991. The school owns the building and we've considered our current location our forever home. Our building is surrounded by the proposed development at 5534 Medical Circle and 555 Odana Road. They're directly to the west and to the north of us. We use our playground up to 3 hours per day year round unless it's too cold or rainy. Most people know that outdoor play is an important part of early childhood education. But what you may not know is that statelicicensed child care centers are required to have outdoor play daily as long as it's not too cold or rainy. In other words, our playground isn't optional. We need to have a safe and secure access to it daily. Right now, we are hearing concerns from current families about safety, security, and privacy issues with this proposed development. And these families know us and trust us to work in the best interests of the

children. However, for future enrollments, that will be different. When parents choose a preschool for their child, many factors go into their decision-making process. Curriculum, staff longevity, ratings, accreditations, length of time in business, and so on. But the bottom line is how did they feel when they toured? Did the school feel safe, secure, private? What was their perception or their gut check? Every family takes a tour of our building and playground before enrolling. And when they stand on our playground and look up at balconies looking down over the playground, how will they feel? Probably not good. The development as proposed will take away from the feeling of safety and security and privacy we currently enjoy. It will be harder for us to retain current families and enroll new ones.

We're about 30 seconds on your time.

Okay. Thank you. A number of our current families have said to us, "This feels like force out." Beyond the monastery philosophy, the beautiful materials, the respectful interactions, beyond the kind and collaborative community, we often ask the children, "What's our number one job?" And they say, "To keep us safe. How can we do that?" There are guiding principles printed on the top of every city meeting agenda. Who benefits? Who is burdened? Who does not have a voice at the table? How can policymakers mitigate unintended consequences? We urge you to consider those questions. Thank you. Jim Lidge will complete the remainder of our comments.

Okay. Our next speaker is Jim Lridge of District 10, registered in opposition and representing the Monastery House. Hello. Can you hear me?

We can. Welcome. Okay, thank you. Hi, my name is Jim Lridge and you heard from my wife. U we run the day-to-day operations at Monasuri Children's House, which is directly south and to the east of this massive project. I would like to go over the timeline from our perspective and as I recall it. First, we had a meeting with the owner of the properties. He set up the meeting with us to discuss potential exciting opportunity to rent. We were not interested as we already own our building. He verbally agreed to keep us in the loop regarding the process. But he never contacted us again. So after some time passed, I asked our board president to look into it. She found that it had been presented to UDC in September of 2025 as anformational presentation. So we reached out to our alder about it. The alder prompted Bearer to contact us and set up a meeting. Bear told us we should assemble our team. I thought, "Team, is this a game?" We watched theformational presentation and noticed that we were omitted from the drawings. The photos took of surrounding businesses did not include us. The photo that they showed of the property east of 5534 Medical Circle did not show us, but instead it showed the west side of their building. We were not represented in their drawings and they referred to us as commercial users. We wondered if UDC knew we existed from the start, would they have changed their guidance? So, we engaged our community. Current families to families with grown-up children have submitted letters to UDC. We attended the UDC meeting and highlighted our concerns. Some of our parents did the same. When the public comment was over, the commission did not address our community's concerns and they started talking about decorative

grasses. They gave Bear initial approval. So, what are we getting out of this process? Oh, the doggy run got moved away from the playground so the children won't get bit. We're getting some trees. Mostly, we're getting massive stress in an already busy time. Nobody in our orbit thinks this project is a good idea. And I'm having a hard time thinking about this process as anything but hopeless. We're told that no other preschools have been against similar projects next to them. And I think I know why. People in this field, just about 30 seconds left, just so you know.

Thank you. People in this field are stretched way too thin and they feel like their voices don't matter. By the time they get the postcard, it's too late. As one of our neighbors said, "Why fight? It's going to happen anyway." And if I'm wrong to think that this process is cynical, then why are we in such a hurry to approve this without adequately addressing our community's concerns? Instead of citing other preschools that got rolled over by this process as examples of how this can work, I urge you to send this back to the architects for a redo that addresses our community's concerns. By far, we are the community most affected by this development. Please listen to our words. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Jim.

Okay, our next speaker is Michael Sinishali. I'm going to try that again. Um, District Unknown representing JSD Professional Services Registered and support. After uh Michael, we will have Jacob Webb and then Taran Kasharic. I'm the landscape designer and member of the project development team and available to answer questions. Thank you. Thanks, Michael. Okay. Uh, Jacob Webb, also District Unknown, registered in support and representing JSD Professional Services.

Hi, I'm Jacob Webb with JSD Professional Services. Uh, the civil engineer on this project. I'm working with the developer. Uh we find that we have situated this building not only to meet the current ordinance for setbacks as well as we have provided additional landscape buffers taking into account um our initial UDC meeting to where we got to the initial approval from UDC to provide additional landscape buffers as well as relocate the dog run as prevented presented by the developer. Um we also will be going back to UDC to provide additional landscaping for this project to get UDC approval. Um, we've also coordinated with private utilities for the site that will have requirements to meet those requirements as well. Um, as mentioned, I'm civil engineering available to answer questions.

Thanks, Jacob. Okay. And Taran Kosharic, uh, also district unknown, registered in support and representing JSD professional services. Uh, chair, I'm not finding a person by that name in attendance. Okay.

Um, our next speaker then is Abigail Lindamman of District Unknown, registered in opposition and wishing to speak. Again, I don't see a person by that name in attendance. Okay. Our next speaker uh is Ble Kennedy of District 11, registered in opposition wishing to speak. After Ble is Victoria Williams and after Victoria is uh Jonardo, represented by David Ortiz Woodingham. I see your microphone is unmuted. So you have the floor.

Are you able to speak? We as I see your microphone is unmuted. Can you hear me? We can.

Okay. Sorry about that. Um, hi, my name is Ble Kennedy. I am a mom of a child that is currently attending MCH. Um, I think we can all agree that we have an affordable housing crisis in Madison. Um, we also have an affordable child care housing uh affordable child care crisis and uh MCH is one of the few facilities that were available to our family and honestly if we are disrupted in her attendance due to construction of this project, I really don't know what we're going to uh do. So, I just want to uh echo what Laura said earlier um that when looking at the agenda for um the plan commissions, you say who does not have a voice at the table? My daughter, all the other kids at MCH, they don't have a voice at the table. They don't get to say that this is going to disrupt their lives, their um childhood, their education. And if this was a school playground, like a K through 12, I feel like we would be taking this a lot more seriously. The fact that it's a daycare, I don't know why, but that just seems to be not as important um than if this were a school playground and we knew that there were going to be apartment complexes looking directly into uh where children are playing. I also think as a residential uh or commercial property owner, I wouldn't want to be that close to a playground and trying to conduct business and trying to live uh while kids are screaming and playing. I don't know if you can hear my daughter right now, but she's pretty disruptive. So, uh thank you for your time and uh I just want to echo what everyone else has been saying that um this is not a really simple, easy to mitigate um construction project. I think it's going to take a lot of time and sincere uh conversations about what we can do to make sure that it is not disruptive and that um the

requests which I think have been really reasonable about doing setbacks and reducing the number of balconies that are facing the playground should be considered and not just brushed off. Uh thank you for your time. Thank you. Okay, our next speaker is Victoria Williams of District 11, registered in opposition and wishing to speak. Uh,

good evening. Can you hear me? We can. Welcome. Perfect. Uh, so my name is Tori Williams. I'm a parent of two children who attend Monasury Children's House as well as a homeowner in nearby Midvil Heights. I'm here tonight to ask you to reconsider the proposed developments that would surround and overshadow our neighborhood monastery preschool which as you've heard is an institution that has quietly but really profoundly enriched this community for over 60 years. We all recogn recognize the need for thoughtful well planned density but good planning isn't only about the number of units we can fit onto a partial. It's about how our decisions shape the lived experiences of the people who are already here especially our youngest residents who have no voice in this room. So a monoy environment is not just a building with children inside it. It is intentionally designed around light, openness, and a deep connection to the natural world. Sunlight is not a luxury in that model. It's a core educational tool. Children learn by observing shadows, sending plans, and working in bright, calm spaces that support focus and emotional regulation. Surrounding a preschool on multiple sides with six-story buildings creates a canyon effect, blocking light, increasing noise, and limiting air flow. In particular, the proposed building's configuration poses a serious health concern given the preschool's proximity to the highway. Boxing in the school with tall continuous structure stands to limit air flow and trap high concentrations of vehicle emission. And we know young children are especially vulnerable to traffic pollution because their lungs are still developing. As a researcher at WMadison, I've published on how air pollution exposure negatively impacts health outcomes in children. This includes higher rates of asthma, respiratory infections, and lifelong chronic disease. While the existing site promotes air flow to disperse these pollutants, enclosing the site with sixtory walls would funnel and accumulate harmful exhaust directly where our children learn and play. From a public health and planning perspective, we should not be designing conditions that intensify pollution exposure at an early childhood site. And the proposed apartments also failed to reflect that architectural character

that makes this neighborhood unique and a point of civic pride. As embodied in the Marshall Erman building set for demolition, this area is widely recognized for its cohesive mid-century design, low profiles, human scale, generous setbacks, and a very intentional relationship between buildings, trees, and sky. By contrast, the current proposal introduces mass-produced looming structures with no visual connection to the surroundings. Replacing it distinctive architectural legacy with generic bulk diminishes the defining character of this neighborhood and subsequently its long-term value. I encourage the commission to consider whether the scale and design of this proposal truly fits the character and functionality of this site. As proposed, the current development sacrifices both architectural heritage and child- centered urban design for bulk and density alone. We're not asking you to reject development. We're asking for a solution that offers a more contextualized, scaled, and protective design. Increasing the setback to match the neighboring property could still allow for new housing while preserving sunlight and air flow for our children. A city that values families, education, and human- centered design does not wall in its preschools. development should enhance our community, not cast a shadow over its future.

You're at you're at time if you could wrap up, please. Thank you. Yep. I I'm just saying thank you now. I really appreciate the opportunity. Thank you so much. Yeah. Okay. Our next speaker is Jonardo, who is going to be represented tonight by David Ortiz Whittingham of the Worker Justice Wisconsin. Uh Jonardo is represented is registered neither in support nor opposition but wishing to speak. David is going to help facilitate making sure that we can hear the speaker and is also going to provide interpretation services after he speaks and has asked the chair for a total of six minutes for the comment.

David, you're unmuted so we should be able to hear you. Sounds good. Thank you. Um just a quick question um before I start. I both Hinato and I signed up for public comment. Is it okay if I give my public comment first and then and then have have him come on? Mine's less than 3 minutes, so the whole thing should take no more than nine between the interpretation and the

um good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this matter. Um bit of a change of gears from the previous topics, but um my name is David Ortiz Whittingham. I work at uh worker justice Wisconsin Madison's workers rights center and in my job as the construction organizer I work with construction workers across the city educating them on their rights and empowering them to defend those rights. I'm here today to comment briefly on matters involving a previous site by this developer that I feel warranted the attention of the commission as it considers this new development. Uh, in early 2020 of 25, I was contacted by a group of more than a dozen workers on the site of the Intersect Apartments, a complex constructed by construction management associates and developed by Bear Development with public financing from the city on on the east side. Uh, the workers were recruited in another state to complete the building's wood framing on behalf of the lower tier subcontractor on the site. The workers reported to us that the man who recruited them owed them more than $75,000 in missing wages and that one of the workers suffered a serious eye injury on the site. Through a partner organization, we were able to connect these workers with legal representation. The cases are ongoing, but I can share that an agreement was recently reached under which all the workers who reported missing wages will be paid in full. Thankfully, many of you aware at this point that we had a demonstration and a press conference in front of city hall to raise public awareness of the situation and more broadly of the experiences of non-union Latino workers in construction. The impetus for our action and focus on bear development was simple. Bear received public financing to construct a site in Madison. Events transpired on that site that frankly shock the conscience and the public has a right to know what takes place with the use of their tax dollars. As such, we held our public action to make that information available to the public and to the people who govern our city, calling on olders to meet with us and the workers we partner with to craft good policies to ensure that to ensure accountability all the way down the chain. Madison is in dire need of housing and must build. But it should not be controversial that we must build ethically in this city. At worker Justice, we believe all stakeholders, elected officials, developers,

contractors, community members, and workers have a moral responsibility to ensure that workers are paid fairly and on time and that they can access workers comp. What we suggest to the commission is quite simply that in light of the unacceptable events that we have documented on a publicly financed site in Madison, all future developers who seek public financing should be expected to enumerate to the city government the specific steps they're taking to ensure that the events of the intersect apartments are never repeated and demonstrate follow-through on such commitments. Um, thank you. I will now um facilitate Ninto's um testimony is following me up. I don't know. Um speaker um is going to read his testimony and then I will interpret um following that. projects. Alfredo Expresschech.

Foreign speech. Foreign speech. Foreign speech. Foreign speech. Foreign speech. Foreign speech. Mr. Familia Good. famous.

Um, well, sorry. Um, now I'll interpret. Um, hello, my name is Hinado. In 202024, a man named Alfredo invited me to work at the Intersect Apartments project. My co-workers and I started off well in January of 2020 25. We worked hard and Alfredo said he was going to pay us every 2 weeks. But a month later, our full pay still hadn't arrived. Alfredo would give us a bit of a bit for food and say that he would pay us in a few weeks. We trusted him because we had worked for him in the past and he hadn't let us down. But things continued the same without our full pay. We finished the work very well, but we were feeling desperate since he said he was going to pay us full when in full when the work had finished, but that payment never arrived. Alfredo said that he hadn't received his own payment for the job, but I don't know if that's true. All of this has affected us a lot since to be honest we did a good job and so it makes us sad that we work hard on a site and in the end the companies don't want to pay us and we have families and children who eat and eat food. Our families are left hopeless too since we were going to send them money but because of the lack of pay they're left with nothing to pay for food and other costs. To me it's an injustice that we were not paid as originally promised causing hardship. The same thing has happened to me and my co-workers at other locations five or six times. We are grateful that the that the builder paid us. Um but we need to make sure that everyone gets their wages and no one experiences the hardship we did. If it does happen again, it'll be quite shameful. My message for the city councilors is similar. Simply that they should support the workers, that they should also lend a hand to make sure that things turn out well and and what happened to us doesn't happen again. We work because we need to, not just for fun, because we all have sons and daughters and families to take care of. Thank you.

Thank you, David. didn't think it would get our role. Okay. Our next speaker um is Stuart Keel, District Unknown, registered in opposition, wishing to speak. Stuart will be followed by John Porco and M. Anderson. Hello. Can you hear me? We can. Welcome.

Uh hello. My name is Stuart Keel. My brothers and I own the property at uh actually two properties, one at 5600 Medical Circle and one at 5610 Medical Circle. Um both properties are adjoining this project. Uh we've owned those properties for 10 to 20 years depending on which property you look at. Um we uh don't necessarily oppose building or development or apartments but on this particular project we do oppose the uh size and height of building B that is in approximate you know approximately next to our 5600 property. Uh from what I can see uh that building the face of the building will be roughly 225 ft long by roughly 60 ft tall. Um and having that be roughly about 10 12 feet off our property line. We're really concerned about a massive looming effect uh over our small one-story building. Uh and that doesn't even account for what it will do to morning sun andor shadows. Um we do know that apartments across the belt line along with commercial buildings are four stories. Um the apartments by HY are four stories and uh we're not really sure why this uh property needs to be five, but um I do know the Urbana apartments are five stories which we had an issue with when that was built. Um so in in our concerns we're just basically

um thinking that the height is a bit much or or that there's no step back in that fivetory height um which will certainly uh you know have an effect on our building and our renters or tenants at that building. Um that's the basically the only issue that we have with this current project the way it's set. But we do have some issues that we had when the Urbana building was built or apartments were built and I think that's relative to this project because it's adjoining our our properties again. And I'd like to mention that because we don't want to have this continue again, especially since we have three times the amount of apartments that would be going onto the block. Um, just to mention, we did have um while it was being built, subcontractors using our parking lot, um, materials being delivered through our parking lot, heavy equipment coming through our parking lot, all without our approval. Um, so, you know, maybe having uh no construction parking signs provided to building neighbors would be nice. Um after the property was built um and they're renting uh the Urbanas uh renters tend to park in the back of our property occasionally. Um

Stuart, you're almost at time. If you could wrap up have their dogs um sometimes do their business on our property without picking up and we have trash also on our our uh u property. So thank thank you Stuart. Thanks for coming out. Okay. Okay. Our next speaker is John Porco, uh, district unknown from Verona, registered in opposition, wishing to speak. Hi, can you guys hear me? All right, we can. Welcome.

Okay, I will try to be briefer than my three minutes. Um, you know, I've been watching this whole meeting and, you know, there's some things that are just kind of frankly shocking to me and I can sort of understand why the city I grew up in is losing its character one cube at a time. Um, that these decisions are made in such compartmentalized fashion that there's no room for you to apparently consider any of the human impact. There's no humanity in this decision at all. It took quite some chutza for the developer to say in their opening remarks that there's no neighbor impacts when you've heard from neighbors on all sides that that they haven't been considered that these impacts are going to be that the impacts exist because you know it's one thing for the city to say oh we want fivetory buildings here in spite of the fact that that's not the character of medical circle at least but then it's another thing for a developer to come in and ask for more. Not only are we going to meet the like biggest requirements for 85% of the land and and five stories, but then we're going to push for conditional use to get even more in there. We're going to cram it full of onebedrooms at at 50 to 70% of median income, which doesn't fill the need that Madison has for people in section 8 or coming off of section 8 where you frankly have to get down to 30% of median income to make a difference in that housing crisis. and you have to build for families, not single bedrooms. Um, it it it took I'm really curious because some other things that the developer said were that the staff came out and wanted to preserve a tree. If your system for approving properties is such that the staff can come out and look at approving a tree, but if there's no mechanism for concern about the kids and the human impact that are next door outside of shadow surveys when the concern is clearly glare and pollution, then the process is a mess.

An absolute mess. If your staff, like the developer said, wanted a cutth through on medical circle that zigzags around a child's playground without considering any like real safety measures, like I'm just shocked that that's the process. I'm shocked that the staff would consider that or as we just heard from the worker, maybe the developer is full of it. I don't know. But this has been a really eye opening experience for me. So, I don't need to repeat all the litany of concerns that have not been addressed because the developer doesn't seem like he's um genuine at all about working with neighbors here. And and I have serious questions about how the process or how buildings get approved when it's so compartmentalized that you can only think about this one thing when you're making the decision. Where does the humanity come into this decision? Where do we actually care about the lives of the people that are supposed to fill these buildings? about the kids that are supposed to live next door. This is what

John, if you could if you could wrap up, you have about 10 seconds. I'm good. Thank you. All right. Thanks, John. Okay. Next, we will hear from M. Anderson, District Unknown, registered in opposition and wishing to speak.

Um, I can see you're unmuted. Welcome. Hi. Hey, can you hear me? Yes.

Okay, great. Madison's planning standards require that projects adjacent to sensitive uses, including schools, preschools, and child care facilities, must protect those uses from negative impacts. Monatory Children's House is exactly that, a preschool serving children ages 2 to six. Approving demolition and multi-year construction just 50 feet from its playground would put a protected land use at risk before any mitigation is even planned. Madison needs housing, especially affordable housing. That is clear. But good planning must never come at the expense of our most vulnerable, our children. Monasury Children's House has served Madison families for over 60 years and for more than 30 years at its current location on medical circle in a Marshall Erdman Landmark A designated building. It is the only American monastery society verified school in the Madison area and one of only three in Wisconsin. This is a sensitive adjacent use. A school serving children who cannot advocate for themselves or leave an unsafe environment. The responsibility to protect them falls to this commission. The school has invested decades in creating a carefully prepared learning environment. Every classroom, every playground space, every outdoor activity is intentional. Beautiful natural light fills the classroom. Outdoor time is a core part of the program. To experience it is to really know. The current proposal places demolition and multi-year construction 50 ft from the preschool program eventually surrounding the school on two sides with a six-story 200 unit residential building. Under Madison's approval standards, the commission must determine that a project will not negatively affect the use, enjoyment, or value of surrounding properties and is compatible with adjacent uses. With a preschool immediately next door, there are seriously questions about compatibility. Without this information, it's

difficult, I believe, for the commission to confidently make the required findings. Approving the project with unresolved questions about health, safety, and compatibility would be inconsistent with planning standards. The responsible action is to pause and vote no. No. The responsible action is to withdraw the application. At minimum, the project should be referred back to staff and the developer to address key issues. Revisit the timeline. July 2026 is four months away. Decouple building A on Medical Circle from building B on Odano Road. Maintain the original footprint of building B on Odana Road. Reduce height and increase setback starting on any third floor.

There are about 20 seconds left. Please revitalize the Marshall Urban Building A on Medical Circle and preserve the mid-century character of Medical Circle. If deemed necessary that children cannot be safe there, provide financial resources and time for a safe temporary location if construction proceeds. Madison can build housing, but it cannot do so by putting young children in the long-standing community at risk. If the commission cannot confidently make the required findings tonight, the responsible decision is to vote no. Please help. Thank you.

Okay, I have a number of speakers that have registered available to answer questions that I'm going to read now. And bear with me because they're in a couple sections here. Um Patrick O'Connell of District 14 is registered in opposition. Uh Jenner Jenna Casper Gore, District Unknown of Manona, registered in opposition. Uh Leadonna Steinert of Middleton registered in opposition. Uh, let's see here. Stephanie Odals of District 5 registered in opposition. Emily Foster Hill of District Unknown in Middleton registered in opposition. Um, Arifano uh looks like is also with JLA Architects is registered in support and available to answer questions. Um, let's see here. Abigail Lindamman shows up here again. Um, available to answer questions. Aaron M. Riley of District 14 is registered in opposition, also representing the Monosuri Children's House. That may be it. Um, and I'll note that after the meeting, we will make sure that a full updated list of all of the other registrants who have indicated their either support or opposition but that are not wishing to speak will also be posted in full with the meeting materials. Um I will note for the commission's in uh purposes that we have about 10 additional speakers who are not interested in speaking who registered in support and dozens of folks who have registered in opposition.

Thank you Megan. Um so um are there questions from the commission for any of the registrants um for this project? Um and again we'll the the three items for us to consider are excuse me. Yeah. So the three items for us to consider um are the uh demolition permit, conditional use permit, and the um certified survey map. Got to get back to my agenda. Sorry about that. Um, Alder Yugare, thank you.

Thank you, chair. Uh, I'm going to start with a couple of questions for the development team. Uh, probably Mr. Orman. Um, and then later I'll have some questions for one or more of the, uh, registrants in opposition. Nick, you're available, I see. Yep, I'm here.

Could you just uh comment briefly just in general terms? Uh you used the term affordability. Uh one of the opposing registrants talked about uh what that might look at, but you could just uh let us know um generally what kind of affordability and for what term that involves and what kind of uh city or federal support that might involve. Yeah, certainly. So, the primary financing mechanism for the project is tax credits through WEDA. We'd be using their 4% program and the income restrictions and rent restrictions that uh will be applicable to the building are for households that range from 50% AMI to 70% AMI. So, from a rent standpoint, that puts a 50% onebedroom at about $1,200 a month and then all the way up to a 70% two-bedroom is at about $1,950 a month. Uh, that's the range that we're working within. And then the the 60s and 70% units kind of fall within that range. From an income standpoint, that's about, you know, depending on the household size, roughly 50 per uh $50,000 a year to about $85,000 a year. The kind of baseline affordability period that comes with the WEDA tax credits is 30 years and we are pursuing city tiff financing for this project that would then extend that to 40 years through a luro with the city.

Thanks, Nick. Uh my next question, could you generally characterize the uh kind of tenants you would expect in the uh commercial the large commercial area in the south building?

Yeah, I think to some extent it's a little bit TBD. You know, I think that location on medical circle is probably not uh retail per se. So I think it's probably a commercial user, you know, service-based or professional office. uh I think lawyer, dentist, accountant, uh etc. We think it's something that uh would kind of fall within within that category. Thank you. Uh you mentioned that you had had some conversation uh with uh one of the Erdman children I believe it is and uh could you again go over uh what that discussion was and what they said about the importance of the building that's proposed for demolition.

Yeah. So we were you know fortunate enough to be able to connect with Tim Erdman who is actually Marshall Erdman's son. So, a direct uh direct descendant. And Tim also owns the building uh two doors down on the other side of the monastery school at 5520 Medical. And you know, his feedback was that uh he in no way really thought that this this building or this collection of buildings was historic. It really was not the best representation of his father's work. And um that was essentially it. you know, he confirmed also that, you know, his building at 5520 is, you know, older, dilapidated, would probably take a lot of work to to update and attract a new user. Uh, so very similar to our building at 5534.

Okay. Thank you. So, no no indication that the family would be in support of creating a historic district to honor his father.

Yeah, that's correct. And that I mean that that's in his public comment as well. So, that's um you know, he he he sent that in and that's in the letter that he sent. You know, we did talk with him about what we can do at our building to you know, uh pay homage to Marshall Erdman and his contributions to Madison. uh you know you know memorialize the context of Medical Circle and and you know really um you know do some stuff in the lobby that that uh memorializes that you know through exhibits and artifacts or or murals uh etc. You know what that exactly looks like is still to be determined but certainly something that we're interested in doing and you know would commit to do for sure.

Thank you. Uh last question. Uh one of the registrants in opposition expressed the concern for the kids of the kind of tenants that might occupy these buildings. Uh could you talk a little bit about the tenant approval process that will be used given that this is a WEDA project?

Yeah, certainly. So, um, you know, what we do at Air is we we generally self-manage all of our projects. So, our property management company, which is is Bare Property Management. They're an affiliated entity, will do, you know, tenant screening before anybody's, you know, approved to live in the building. That includes, uh, background checks, you know, credit checks. Um, and then, you know, the the really the majority of the requirements come through the cities. um tenant selection plan that would be applicable to this uh location if if tiff phones are approved. So there is um you know a variety of different measures and factors in place that determine who uh who can live here but there's definitely a screening process. Uh it's definitely thorough and well thought out and we do it at all of our developments.

Thank you. Okay, that's all my questions for the developer. I'll stop here because there may be other questions for the development team while they're sort of on tap and then I may have some questions later for other registrants. Commissioner Heck, thank you. Thank you.

Thanks. Yeah, this probably is for Nick. Uh Nick, you uh um you know, I think earlier on another project answered the concerns about labor not being paid. So, I'd like you to touch on that again if you could. And also, uh, speaking of labor and construction, could you also talk about ways that, uh, your, uh, construction process can minimize the impacts on the neighbors?

Yeah, for sure. And we've got um, you know, Adam from our team is on, and he's been really kind of in the mix on some of the labor stuff that you heard about earlier. So, I don't I don't know if there's a way to unmute Adam or if he's already unmuted, but he's probably best suited to answer that question. Yep. Adam, you are unmuted now. Can you hear me? Okay. Yep.

Great. Yeah. So, I I think your questions in reference to the comments related to um a worker of claiming unpaid wages on the Intersect project and there were comments that were submitted to the city. There was a letter submitted to the city. um we had provided a written response to that detailing um our our reaction and and feel that the the claims are just false and we provided background documentation on why those are false. Um there was an instance at the Intersect site where um we were made aware of workers that were unpaid wages. When we were made aware of that um this was a a lower tier subcontractor. Those wages were immediately restored. There was another claim then just recently um with some additional commentary. Again, when we were made aware of of this claim, the the wages were immediately paid. Um these were not contracts that we were a party to. Um they're not they were um a subcontractor to a subcontractor. So, you know, we when made aware of of any any issues, we we addressed those issues immediately. Um we were we were the solution and we drove the solution to those. Um, you know, just like the gentleman talked before, you know, we we won't stand for people not getting paid and and we'll do whatever we can to ensure that those those people working our sites are paid the full wages they are owed.

Uh, thanks, Adam. And and and I mean, the buck has to sort of stop somewhere. So, is the subcontractor above this sum subcontractor someone you're still working with, or how do you prevent this from happening in the future? Yeah, this this specific situation was it was a subcontractor that that our construction team had hired and they um hired a subsequent subcontractor to perform some of the work. So, we were not a party to that contract uh with the contractor in question. Um certainly, as you said, if if we come across these situations, they're there groups that will be on the not to engage list any further. um you know we we do as as much due diligence as we can to prevent this from happening um and our are our lives really successful in preventing it from happening and then if if we are made aware of a situation just like we did here we quickly quickly resolve the issue.

Okay. Thanks. Uh I' I'd like uh maybe it's Nick who will answer my other question but I'm wondering if Alder Alder Figuro Cole might have a question on the same subject. chair if it's okay to let her interrupt. Sounds fine. Um, Alder Fero Cole, welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, Patrick, for reading my mind. Um, I I just want to clarify that there's there has been a little bit of confusion about the group that called today and the group that um there's there's at least two groups that are making claims. So, I want there's a little separation there. But, but the question for Adam is I mean I we haven't spoke, but I'm more than happy to have a conversation with you at some point. And my question to you is, are you willing to to work with at least the workers justice team to ensure that you have policies in place to um to avoid this from happening in the future? Because just as as um as Commissioner Hec mentioned, you know, the bug to stop somewhere and we you know, it's a matter of reputation and a matter of safety for these workers. So, are you willing to to um engage with with this group specifically to have conversations on how to create policy that prevents this from from continuing to happening to happen in the future?

And and we we have policies in place that we follow and and like I said, it prevents the lion share of items and we're always open to further ideas. We did reach out to these groups that had submitted the claims. Um we have not received a response from them. Uh and you know we had not received a response from any of the groups prior to letters going to or we had not received an inquiry from any of the groups prior to letters going to council. We were made aware of these issues by a letter going to council. So you know okay we address them and are are happy to meet further and discuss options for further mitigation in place.

Okay. So then again just opening the door for you um to reach out to me or I can reach out to you and try to make those connections and get this this moving. I think the city has limited options but we have options that we can implement as a policy and I would definitely would love for that policy to come as you know to for you guys to be part of that decision- making process. Thank you the offer. I'll I'll follow up with you tomorrow. Thanks. Okay. Construction question. Is that for Nick or or or for Adam? Construction impacts.

Yeah, we'll tag I was going to say shoot the question and we'll we'll tag team.

Yeah. I mostly just want to know what you can do to mitigate the effects of construction because some of your neighbors uh apparently were uh highly impacted by an earlier project that was constructed and and what can you do to minimize uh cut through traffic? Uh can you uh one property owner suggested you are supplying signs? Uh how can you minimize that? Sure. I would say in general we will have to have a construction traffic plans approved by the city. We'll have a a safety plan in place that follows city, state, federal requirements. Um we are we met with the Montasuri school about several um items. Something you know it is a construction zone so it's going to be noisy. There's only so much that you can do to um mitigate noise. Um,

Adam, I don't know if you could be closer to your microphone, but you are kind of hard to hear. She says with her bad voice.

Uh, Adam, I guess my I I live uh right right by East Washington and have uh witnessed a lot of construction down here. Um, despite good intentions, often times, well, I guess we're getting into contractors and subcontractors again. uh the the the policies of of bear development may not be followed and it's always helpful to have people on site and uh phone numbers and contact information given to neighbors so they can talk to you and say hey this is happening what can we do is that that's something you typically do or can commit to

that is something that we do yeah it's something we do it's something we can commit to uh we always have at least one on-site representative that is um either it's it's a representative an employee of construction management associates which is our general contracting arm. Um uh there are one to two people on site at all times at each of our sites. I know that there with the intersect development too there was some reach out from neighbors and there was connection with people on site to the extent our folks on site can't handle it. there are additional project managers and others that that do and and will get involved to address any concerns. Um I think we generally have the contact information uh is available on websites. It's available on site. So we we do make that a priority to make sure that u you know something that we we are proud of at bear is from the beginning to the end you're you're dealing with somebody at bear through the development process, the construction process and ultimately the property management. So, you know, through the whole process, we are taking accountability and and standing behind the projects.

Great. Yeah, getting that contact info out there to neighbors is key. Thanks. Those were my questions. Thanks, Commissioner. Other questions for registrants?

Alder Gear.

Uh, thank you, Chair. Uh have a question for Margaret Por Porco if she's available. There you are, Margaret. Um Margaret, I had a chance that maybe you didn't quite finish all of your remarks when you were talking. Uh since uh considering your position on the on the board, uh I am assuming that my colleagues on the commission will not object if you need another minute to finish any of your thoughts.

Um I appreciate that very much. Uh I I did finish most of my thoughts. The only things that um I did not get to specifically state were just the things that we are asking for in terms of u moving building A back um and looking at or whether we can have the redesign to reorient um some of the sight lines so that they're not um so directly elevated over that playground. And yeah, I would just encourage everybody to look at that uh exhibit that one commenter did to see because the elevation, the change in topography really does increase the scale and size of the building. So from the vantage point of the school, it's much more than six stories tall. Um because of that drop off, it's almost an additional two stories that um is 75 ft from the playground. So that's what I would add there. I tried to talk as fast as I could, Alder.

No, that's that's fine. You did a fine job. Uh and if you're comfortable uh talking about this, you've had some conversations um proposing potential uh assistance and things that the school thinks it might need to do to mitigate future impacts. Aside from the construction period, uh would you be comfortable talking about some of the things that you thought might be helpful? Um sure. I could also defer that to the directors of the school who have a good sense of of exactly what that

that is f I would defer to them on that to make those comments. That would be fine. Yep. If they if they are available, I would I would defer that question to them. Okay. So I think um I think that's um that's Mr. Lridge. Yeah. Thanks. Oh, you can Yeah. So Jim Jim uh Oh, you got it. Okay. And uh Laura Wallheim.

Hi. Yeah, we're actually here together right now. Okay. Hi, Jim. Um, first of all, let me say thank you for the tour of the facility I had and and sharing, you know, right on right on site the kind of concerns you have and why you have them. But uh if you're comfortable um talking about some of the things that you've uh suggested uh I guess asks to the developer uh not specifically about the construction period but particularly things you think would be helpful in the long run um for the school that would help mitigate some of those concerns.

Yeah. Okay. So, not pertaining to the construction, which would make us not be able to use the the playground realistically, um, which we're legally required to do, but not withstanding that, um, we had talked about a having them replace a security fence, um, putting up a new fence to because there are going to be way more people walking around in the area. So, having a security fence that's locked, one that's better than what we have. um and having uh shade sails installed to keep the privacy uh better. And I I don't have all the prices on that. Um but that's okay.

Oh, okay. Yeah. So, I mean, some of the concerns were sight lines from from balconies and uh frankly, it it just seems like an architect could fix fix that pretty quickly. Um but that's not what you're asking me. Um, so mainly the fence and uh maybe some trees that would block the view. Anything that would help block a sight line um from from the uh apartments to make honestly just to make parents feel like they're dropping their kids off at a safe private place. You can imagine what that would be.

We literally we had somebody come out to our building a couple weeks ago. But we took him out the back door, which we did for you, Alder, and he looked up and we described the apartment building. And here's the word he used. Creepy. You know, the the age we live in, the age we live in of gun violence, cell phone cameras, AI misuse, the age we live in. 25 years ago, 30 years ago, nobody would have thought anything about it probably. But it is different times. It's different times right now. And

it just seems to me like, forgive me, I this is not answering your specific question, but it just seems to me like we have architects to solve problems. We have a problem with this design. And so really the best person to fix this problem is an architect. So really, you know, yes, trees, fence, shade sails, screening, all of that stuff would be excellent, but would really what would really be the most helpful

is building A built on the current footprint of Supreme and the back of the building, the south side of the building redesigned with stairwells and corridors, not balconies and windows. That's really what we would like. and 5534 if it must be demolished build something to suit the size and scale of medical circle.

Well, thank you. Thank you. And uh I think one thing we uh all heard tonight is that uh the the parents of your students love what you have created there and are definitely emotionally attached to the experience and I hope you're you're proud of what you've accomplished. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for registrants?

Seeing none, I will close the public hearing on items 8 through 10 and ask if commissioners have questions for uh staff. I'll do you G. Um, is that you have a new question or is that your is that a residual? This is a question for staff. Great.

Okay. Thank you, chair. Um, the staff report uh did make uh reference the other situations. I think there were four other situations where a school or um playground or daycare center the service to children was adjacent to the construction of a approved large building. Um, do we know do we know if the uh programming uh the daily activities of those uh facil those uh school facilities had to be curtailed um during the construction period or were there any uh special features of the uh construction period plan that was part of the permitting process that needed to be involved there. I'm kind of building on some of those questions that uh that old Commissioner Hec had before on uh construction period impacts. your colleague my colleague Col Colin Punt did the staff report but I know the Valor um the one the fourth one that's referenced I think that's the most applicable because it was a existing the Kenny preschool and childcare um the staff report mentions a number of things about directing the HVAC systems um changing up some of the parking exhaust away from it um I can't he the research. Unfortunately, I don't know any of the further details of examples, but that's one at least in the staff report where they address the building. I I I cannot speak to the specific programming of the the child care.

Okay. Thank you. Um could maybe put our school district rep on the spot. Um, one of the projects rep uh that was referenced in the staff report is the Rise development that is adjacent to Hawthorne Elementary School. And I don't know if um Rep would know if there were any changes in operations for the school during that time. No, we we did not alter any things going on. We did monitor any construction vehicles in and around the facility to make sure our students were safe, especially crossing on FO Avenue. Um but there was no change to anything that was happening on our sites at the time.

Uh do I see that? Oh uh we have uh Sean Mallaloy here from traffic engineering if I note correctly. Um Sean uh there have been some comments about concerns about air quality uh because of the justosition of these buildings and uh the belt line. Do we have any insight into what impacts on air quality might be?

Um I do not know uh um about air quality. That is a little little out of our our purview there unfortunately.

Okay. thought maybe in uh all that we do on traffic that there might be some information on that. Um okay. Uh h have we had has any staff uh interaction occurred with uh the Erdman estate or Erdman family members about their their feelings? We've heard about the contact from uh with the developer. I was just wondering if there was any staff contact or if you knew anything beyond the uh uh what the developer uh provided in comments.

Uh I see Chris is unmuted. Um I don't believe so, but if you have any additional information, please advise. No. So I I I believe the communications that we have received are the same ones that are in the public record that the plan commission has available. Okay. Thank you. No further questions. Thanks again. Um other questions,

Commissioner. Thank you.

Thank you. Just a quick point of clarification. Um, if the building building A um the majority of it is I'm comparing like the the land use map and the west area plan and the plan look at it looks like the majority of the building A area is in that sixstory height. The last chunk of it is five stories the part of it. Um, but if theoretically if it, you know, that line was moved a little bit, so the whole building was in the sixstory area, it would not require a conditional use for height, which is why building B does not require a conditional use for height cuz it's fully in the fivetory area. Correct. It's kind of just like where that line is falling currently. I probably didn't articulate that very well cuz it's after 9:00 in my brain as much. But

you articulated it well. I'm just trying to understand the difference in conditional use for height between those two. Yeah, your question is very clear. Um Chris, do you want to take a swing at this one?

Just checking just the height requirements in CCT. Just one second. So the the reason that you have the conditional use request in front of you for building A is because the zoning district CCT has a maximum height limit of five stories and 78 ft. So that would be applicable to both building A and building B. However, the ordinance does allow for the plan commission to consider additional height above five stories. And when you do that as a conditional use, you look at consistency with the plan recommendations. So, as you noted, Commissioner, um, building A, the majority of building A is within the mixeduse future land use recommendation that recommends a six-story height limit. Um, the portion of the very southern corner of the building and building B are within an area that's recommended for five stories.

Okay. Thank you. So, if we're um ready to start thinking about a motion, we would want to start with um the with item 10, which is the demolition permit for 5534 Medical Circle.

Um Alder Gare.

Thank you, chair. Um, I'm going to move that the plan commission finds that the standards for demolition are met. Uh, in particular, uh, that it serves the goals for development for the areas set forth in the, uh, previous plans for the area, the West area plan and the preceding, uh, Odana area plan. Um and that it also meets uh standard number two given the information that was provided by uh the developers with regard to the condition of the building and the comments from the current owner and that therefore uh we should approve the demolition. uh but with the uh staff recommended uh condition on preserving historical information, measurements and so forth.

Thank you, Alder Field. Second. Thank you. Um any discussion on the motion?

Elder Gear. I just make some comments. I'd like to make some comments on my motion. Yes, I think that's appropriate. So, go ahead.

Okay. Um, first of all, let me disclose that it's it's somewhat awkward to talk about a building having historical value that was built while I was a junior and senior at the University of Wisconsin Madison. Um, it probably says something about my condition, but we won't we won't go there. Um, I I've known about Marshall Erdman for many years and what he's accomplished probably in in part because I have a sister-in-law that worked for the Erdman organization for a while. And uh, I hardily recommend to people to read a recent article on the Erdman reg legacy that appeared in the most recent issue of Madison magazine. He's quite a guy. uh not the least uh uh reason being that he survived being a general contractor for uh for Franklidd Wright, which not every general contractor that worked for him did. But we've heard the testimony that the family is not particularly interested in this. There's questions as to the future of the other buildings in the row. uh a a the possibility of a future application for a district status, historical district status for this row is highly questionable and um I think that all speaks to why it's perfectly permissible for us to approve demolition. Thank you.

Any other discussion? Um we'll call a vote. We'll start. Is there any objection to unanimous approval um for the motion on the table? All right. Seeing none, the the motion is passed. Um, and now I'd look for um a motion on item 11, legisar 91512, which is the uh conditional use um for dwelling units um the number of units and the uh stories and height. Um, I'll do again.

Let me just say that in many ways this is a a difficult motion for me to make. um on the one side have gotten to know the some of the folks associated with the school and we've heard how passionate they are about what they do here tonight. Um, I'm also mentioning, as some of you know, that I did a uh public information meeting last year, last October, on uh the progress we've made in in really reworking uh the future of this whole area between Westtown and what was Westgate and between Mineral Point and Shrader Road and uh how this might fall into that same area. So, I'm going to move that uh the plan commission finds that uh all conditions are met. Uh that includes uh comments as laid out in the staff report for standards 3, four, five, and 11. And that we approve the conditional use permit for 555 Odana Road and 55 uh 34 uh uh medical circle uh subject to the conditions in the staff report. Glenn second the motion. Um any additional discussion on the motion? I um I sympathetic with your comments out of your gear because obviously there's um a lot of strong feelings on on all sides and we do hope that the um if the project is approved that the that the process will um maybe allay some of the worst fears that we've heard expressed tonight. But uh go ahead. I won't speak for you.

Yes. Let me first speak to my motion. Um again, I want to thank all of the folks that have turned out to express their support for the Montasauri school and so forth. And I hope that uh as we move forward uh some of their concerns can be allayed. uh all of us who are parents and grandparents recognize the intense emotional uh need to insulate our our kids and grandkids from uh any conceivable uh source of harm uh make sure that their education uh can't be diminished in some way because of the location where they're being educated. So it's easily I think for us humans to assign a greater probability to possible horrors than actually exists. Yeah. And I refer in that regard to what we've learned from the uh other schools that have that exist adjacent to um uh two large buildings. Um I'm in in thinking about this situation and and I'm certainly hopeful that the construction period plan will uh result in a series of of policies and standards that will be in effect during a construction period that will minimize the impact in this area. uh but uh I've been thinking about the degree to which the Montasauri tradition uh can or or would not flourish in an urban setting because what we're really looking at here is the transformation from uh a really a kind of suburban feel to this whole area uh where this project and others uh are are

being developed. that very much was a suburban style thing, some something we'd see in a suburb of Milwaukee or Chicago or or Philadelphia or Boston that you know, but here we were able to develop this kind of thing and now uh here we are as a plan commission as a city with our housing forward initiatives that are really transforming this whole area from a suburban field to an urban field. And that that can be certainly stressful and and it brings at least in my mind it brought up a question as to whether the Montasauri tradition can um exist in that kind of urban environment. So uh while it may not be totally relevant, I'll just mention here that this last week uh I just wanted to find out I used several search engines and the simple question I asked was are there Montasauri schools that exist in places like downtown New York, Boston, Chicago, Toronto, Atlanta. Uh turns out and that uh there weren't in Atlanta, but all of those other cities had multiple Montasauri schools that existed right downtown. And I used uh uh Google Google Earth to take a look at those areas and so forth. And indeed, we whether part of a high-rise or just a a low-rise building, uh they were sitting next to much taller buildings than we're talking about here, but seemed to be thriving. Uh I noticed in particular a downtown Monty School in Toronto that's been in business for 45 years and had a very long uh waiting period for people interested to uh get their kids in there. So my hope would certainly be that uh this Montasauri school with all it's accomplished could continue exist in that exact location

and thrive uh maybe not in spite of but perhaps because of all of the additional population that's going to come into that area some people with kids. Thank you. Thank you chair Alder Glenn.

Thank you chair. Um, you know, when I became an alder and I ran, I ran because of lived experience and identities and believing in processes and knowing that you're going to run into nights or times that all of your identities and all of your lived experiences are going to come crashing in sometimes disguised as different words. Um, tonight was my first one and sometimes these are I'm going to have to learn to get a little thicker skinned. I always consider myself a rough and tumbler and then you have nights that are just hard. as a public health official and someone who worked there for many years um and was at the Abundant Life Christian Day School on the ground the day of the incident. That identity came rush rushing in as a black woman, as someone who grew up in low-income housing and now does human services work and around peer support. and a peer support specialist, someone with lived experience with mental health and/or substance use and now an elected official sitting on a planned commission. I um I do this work because I don't want things and rules and ordinances to be in place that historically kept me from places like this. This commission is required to ask in every meeting who benefits, who is burdened, who does not have a voice at the table.

Tonight, those questions for me have clear answers. Their development is bringing 227 incomerestricted affordable apartments to transit accessible west corridor. Every unit went restricted. Went rent restricted. Every household at or above at or below 60% of the median income, the financing is assembled. The design has been reviewed. And this is precisely what precisely what our comprehensive plan for housing goals and our budget commitments say we need. I want to also just directly address opposition we heard tonight that has my me having a hard time being able to speak. Construction impacts on neighboring child care centers are real. I'm a mother. Um, and those can be managed and we talk about those. I would support require, you know, asking bear and requiring bear to some kind of plan that could be helpful to child drop off. But what's that's a legitimate condition. What is not legitimate is using child care center as a shield against housing for low-income families. That pattern has a name. Across this country, affordable housing has been blocked by opposition that invokes schools, parks, and child care proxies for arguments that cannot be made openly, although I think I might have heard a couple of those. Madison redblined its neighborhoods. We steered black and low-income residents away from

opportunities for decades. We do not get to call ourselves a city committed to equity and then deny housing the moment neighbors object to who their neighbors might be. The 227 families who will live in this building are not a threat to this neighborhood. They are this neighborhood. I encourage my colleagues to vote yes and be willing to say clearly for the record that fear of low-income neighbors is not a planning based on den based for denial. Thank you. Thanks Glenn Cole. I see your hand is raised.

Thank you. Um, you know, I I sit here listening to public comment and trying to to get some of the work done, but I'm I'm really listening. And there were some comments in there that just gave me pause. So, um, I I didn't want to speak up, but if I don't, you know, when is a good time to to really have these tough conversations? I I don't know. I feel like I'm having them already all the time, but I don't I feel at this moment I don't want to pass the opportunity because some of these commentary was a little hard to swallow. So, I am very very familiar with the Montesauri um school system and their philosophy. My son is an alumni um from the school. There used to be a school right here in Breida Brea Breida Parkway, Breida Drive um near my place uh many years ago before they put even the asylum wall. So, it was right there on the bed line in a um surrounded by a low-inccome neighborhood um with a small area for the kids to play and a tall fence. Um, and I I I that that experience of of someone like me who very with very limited resources at the time to be able to apply for a grant and be given the opportunity to have my son there to begin his um academic um life is something that I have always cherished because the lessons that he learned there are they are things that shaped the person that he is today. and I'm always grateful to that. So to hear some of the things today was extremely distressing to hear people speak of affordable housing as if people coming into this building are less than. One caller even brought up concerns about

sex offenders moving in. So it is very easy to let fear and emotions dictate the things that we um say about people that we don't even know. So, um, but I mean, as easy as that is, it really it's just not not okay. It really is not okay. Um I remember from from my um you know the teaches of the Montesa story today is just like they were so present on me because I know that they're not about judging others people's cultures or where they're coming from or what um financial status do they do they currently have. So my experience there was one the one that I remember was one that welcome all sorts of people people like me that could cannot even afford to be in that school. So I um you know I don't I'm pretty sure I have total faith that the plan commission will follow the state statutes when it comes to this particular issue and will support this project. So I'm not even speaking to the plan commission's vote. I'm really speaking to the public on this one. Again, every time that we try to put affordable housing, no matter where that is, either in a in a single family home neighborhood or in a commercial site like this, there's always people coming through with this messaging um with this negative messaging of people that you don't even know. So, I please ask you to please stop doing that because the more you do that, you know, honestly, from this moment on that, every time I hear that, I'm just going to take my time and call it out. So, um that's that's all I have to say. I thank

you um for the commission for giving me the time to speak, but I need to needed to get that over my chest so I could be able to sleep tonight. Thank you. It's alder um Commissioner Sanders.

Thank you, Chair. I'm planning on voting in support of this and I just wanted to thank uh Alder Glenn and Alder Figuro Cole for sharing their personal experiences. Um this is also something that I feel pretty personally about as well um for many of the same reasons. Um, but thinking also about, you know, who is represented and who is a seat at the table, I think that we would be remiss to not mention the fact that a lot of our lowincome neighbors don't often have the resources to attend these meetings and advocate for themselves. And so, I'm looking forward to continuing these new area plan processes to get more of that input from our broader community so that everyone is able to be represented well and have a seat at the table and have their voice be heard. Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner Sanders. Any other comments or discussion on the motion on the table? All right. Um, seeing none, I will call it call us to a vote. Um, is there um, Alder Figuro Cole, I'm assuming your hand is just hanging out on. So, um, thanks. Um so uh is there any objection to unanimous approval for uh the motion to approve the conditional use? All right, seeing none um that motion is passed. Um and we should now move to item 12 which is legisar 91514 and that is the recommendation to approve a certified survey map. Um so I'd look for a motion and a second on that item. Alterfield.

Thank you, chair. Um, just sorry to confirm this is item 12. 12th. Yes. Yep. Okay. So, I move that the plan commission forwards uh legisar 91514 to the certified survey map of property at 5555 Odana Road and 5534 Medical Circle to the common council with a recommendation for approval. Thank you, Aud. Thanks for the second. Um, any additional um uh Dr. Tuttle? Yes. Could I just ask the older to confirm if that includes a recommendation that the standards for CSMS are met? It does. Thank you, Megan.

Thank you. Thank you. Um, any additional discussion or um explication on the motion? Um, so, um, we'll call that one to a vote. And is there, uh, uh, Chris, I'm sorry. Is there a second? Um, Alder Glenn seconded. She did it really quick. And, um, I tried to call it out, but you probably didn't hear that, so that's fine. Um, any objection to unanimous approval?

All right, seeing none, um, we'll mark that item as approved. Um and we will go to member announcements, communications or business items. Um I'm yeah any anything anyone wants to share? We'll um looking forward to our time together in a couple weeks and uh we can uh have a good discussion then. Um and we'll move then to the secretar's report. Megan,

thank you chair. Um first of all, I just want to thank everyone who participated in this meeting tonight. Thank you, Chair Gnam, for being here tonight despite um both your help and your internet challenges. And thank you, Commissioner Soulheim for stepping in to chair for us on the spot. Um appreciate everyone's participation this evening in a meaningful way. Um I only wanted to echo what the chair mentioned that the next time we will see each other, we'll be in the municipal building downtown uh for our special meeting on Tuesday the 31st. Um, I mentioned at our last meeting some of the topics we're expecting, but we expect to have the agenda out next week. And then one item that is not on your agenda under recent common council actions that I wanted to note. Um at the council meeting on uh the 10th, the council passed a resolution related to um an issue of the April Hills neighborhood um in the southeast area of the city uh intending to file a petition to annex to McFarland. Um, this is an area of the city that the city of Madison and the village of McFarland have been negotiating uh plans for an intergovernmental agreement to set a future boundary between the communities and is a neighborhood that is currently in Blooming Grove, but will be attaching to Madison at the end of 2027. Um, ultimately, as the conversations have been underway related to all of that planning work with McFarland around the future boundaries, uh, residents of the April Hills neighborhood, uh, filed an intent to file an annexation petition. Um, and so the council passed a resolution related to, um, expressing its belief that it can better serve the April Hills neighborhood as part of that statutory review process. I'm flagging

this just because this is something that would normally come to the commission like the Westport cooperative plan item did tonight um as it relates to long-term growth of the city. Um unfortunately given the statutory timelines and the notice process, we did not have time to bring that to the commission. So, I just want to make sure you're aware that that resolution happened um and that future agreements uh if any related to boundaries with McFarland will come to you before they go to the council in the future. Happy to answer any more questions offline if you have them.

Thanks, Megan. Any other any questions from the commission for Megan? Um all right. If not, I would look for a motion to adjurnn and a second. Alder Glenn, thank you. Alder Field, thank you. Um, any objection to unanimous approval for the motion to adjourn? Seeing none, we'll stand to journ. Thanks everybody. Good night. Thank you all.